Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Opposing California Open Doc Bill

ZJMX writes "Microsoft is going through its email and phone lists asking people to support their opposition to California A.B. 1668 — 'Open Document Format, Open Source' — by writing to the California Assemblymen involved in this bill (contact info in the link). Apparently they fear that California will join Massachusetts in wanting documents based on open standards in their government. Let's see if this community can raise as much support for the California ODF bill as Microsoft can raise opposition."

191 comments

  1. Allow Me to Summarize by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is what I read:

    "Blah blah blah politics. Bitch bitch bitch IBM did this so now we do it."

    I read this hoping for some key points in distinguishing the functionality or benefits versus costs in using either format.

    Nope.

    The closest they get to that is "ODF is tightly tied to OOo." Oh, no! Not that! You know, that argument is null and void, right? Because these document formats are supposed to be open, like the names of both of them imply. Who cares if it's not yet integrated into your product, either format should allow that. It is, in fact, confusing to me why they don't let both formats exist and allow the government bodies to pick whatever the hell the want to store their data in. That's all this is, a political issue which is why it's filed in the politics section I guess.

    If Microsoft truly believed their product to be superior to the alternative, they would sit back and let California make the mistake. Then, when everything falls apart, they could step in and save the day, while at the same time setting a precident for one format being better than the other. But, we all know that's not going to happen because I haven't heard Massachussetts hurting due to their choice. So, I guess Mr. Ballmer is going to have to set his fears aside & simply come to the harsh realization that another community developed format is just as good or better than their format. Heads up, ODF community, he just may fucking kill you.

    And I certainly don't appreciate them demonizing IBM. "Big bad evil corporation launches national campaign to force their consumers into using something!" Pot calling the kettle black, in my opinion. If you could track the amount of money I have paid to a company--directly or indirectly--I would wager that I've paid IBM far less than Microsoft and I feel that IBM has done far more for me than Microsoft.

    Shut up and let the consumer decide, Microsoft. Nothing's wrong with unbiased comparisons in helping them decide but you've got a conflict of interest here so I highly doubt anyone will swallow your tripe.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by swab79 · · Score: 5, Informative

      As I understand it, the Microsoft format is not open but just an XML wrapper around their old .doc format. They still don't open up on how to implement their format.

    2. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by dpilot · · Score: 5, Funny

      I once heard this in a different (The "Open" Group) context, but an adaptation seems appropriate here:

      The only thing "Open" about Microsoft is your wallet.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    3. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You understand it wrong. The OpenXML format is completely open for every feature implemented in Office 2007 and contains a very verbose standard which discusses how it works. There are a few tags which are not explicit in their implementation which exist for legacy purposes only, such as supporting defunct features found in Word 95.

      These formats have absolutely nothing to do with the .DOC format. .DOC was literally a memory dump of the data structures. The XML files are well structured. Style and content are highly separated. They are quite easy to read and understand.

    4. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Hymer · · Score: 1

      That would be an oversimplification of the issue... new (ie. real Office 2007) documents are "pure" XML. There are however definitions like "do it as Word v.N did". ...and yes it can be used just as a wrapper around any file format but that is a feature of XML in general and not specific to OOXML aka. EOXML.

    5. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are a few tags which are not explicit in their implementation which exist for legacy purposes only, such as supporting defunct features found in Word 95.
      And because the standard contains these tags but does not contain the information required to implement them, nobody but Microsoft can implement them. A standard that is designed in such a way that only one company can implement it fully is not an "open" standard in any conventional sense of the word.

      Yes, an implementation that doesn't include these tags will not be disadvantaged in practical terms, but that doesn't mean it's not a big deal. Because what this means is that Microsoft will be able to say, quite truthfully, that only Microsoft can offer a 100%-compliant implementation of the standard. This is not how open standards should be - the whole purpose of open standards is to level the playing field and let products compete on their true merits. Being able to wrap Asian text in exactly the same way as Word 6.0 for Macintosh is not a big advantage for the average American consumer, but what average American consumer is going to understand that when Microsoft says "OpenOffice.org is not 100% compliant!", they're talking about crap like that? The sole purpose of these tags is to enable Microsoft to use misleading advertising. This is not what standards are for.
    6. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean goatse wasn't just a representative corporate client?

    7. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by bigpicture · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you are missing the real issue here which is, why is a corporation interfering in the business of a duly elected Government, and telling it how to spend the Tax Payers money? (spend it on me?) What has happened to the sham democracy? How does this represent the interests of the people any better than a dictatorship in a third world country?

      Ergo the good old US is not a democratic country. And does not honor the rule of law "for the people by the people" but the rule of money and the rule of force.

    8. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by M$advocate · · Score: 0

      I agree. Let the consumer decide. However, when we have courts and government bodies telling companies (Microsoft the current target) that they have to share with oters or cease and desist doing something for the sake of fairness, blah blah blah; then that is what we get. Now, I am going to go on my topic of defending M$. Not because they are necessarily great, but because they are getting beat up and still keep on trucking. We blast the monopoly of MS and who is watching GOOGLE? What about Apple? Come on let us ALL play fair and be unbiased. Each product has its good and bad. I personally run MS on my comps due to the ease. I also have several Linux distros and MACBook. We see complaints about Vista about the cost of MS products.... And in 3 years time" we see Visual Studio 2005, Vista, Office 2007 and the new Expressions Suite. Who else can present all of that. And check the prices. Except for some of the dumb things with VISTA-not too awefully bad. Compatability issues? MS problem or vendor problems? Sorry someone needs to defend them on basis of fair play and what is right or wrong not from hate or anything else

    9. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the over-under on how long it takes these "legacy" tags, that only Microsoft can implement, to become key features of future MS innovations if the standard is adopted? I'll bet 2 weeks...

    10. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by init100 · · Score: 4, Informative

      These formats have absolutely nothing to do with the .DOC format. .DOC was literally a memory dump of the data structures. The XML files are well structured. Style and content are highly separated. They are quite easy to read and understand.

      Quite easy to read and understand?

      Open XML:

      <w:p>
      <w:r><w:t>This is a </w:t></w:r>
      <w:r><w:rPr><w:b /></w:rPr><w:t>very basic</w:t></w:r>
      <w:r><w:t> document </w:t></w:r>
      <w:r><w:rPr><w:i /></w:rPr><w:t>with some</w:t></w:r>
      <w:r><w:t> formatting, and a </w:t></w:r><w:hyperlink w:rel="rId4" w:history="1">
      <w:r><w:rPr><w:rStyle w:val="Hyperlink" /></w:rPr><w:t>hyperlink</w:t></w:r>
      </w:hyperlink>
      </w:p>

      I wouldn't call that easy to read and understand.

    11. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      Google is not a monopoly because you can decide to use MSN Search or Yahoo or Altavista, or whatever search engine you want. You can also decide to go with one of Google's competitors in the advertising market.

      Microsoft was a monopoly because you couldn't get a computer without Windows on it, and in fact they used their enormous market share to dictate to vendors that there would be no alternatives.

      Attacking someone from hate is one of the most powerful methods of argument, so long as you present factual reasons why you hate them. We don't hate Google because they have a history of respecting us as customers. Microsoft doesn't seem to respect their customers except as blind wallets with hands attached. WGA criminalizes their customers and Vista is a huge upgrade but doesn't offer any monumental leaps in functionality, yet we're still expected to buy it.

      The only division of Microsoft that's even remotely in-touch with their target audience is the games division.

      --
      SRSLY.
    12. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      Where is the vendor lock-in for Google and Apple? Which of them are convicted monopolists? What major court rulings are they flagrantly disregarding?

      If Apple and Google are evil, they are evil in private, not in public. That's the difference.

    13. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by LO0G · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean like these legacy tags that only OpenOffice can implement? (yeah, I know it's a Microsoft site, but the only other reference I was able to find was this /. post).

      According to Microsoft, the only way those legacy tags will ever be found is if they came from a document that was created by an old version of Office. So it should be really easy to verify if current versions of office ever produce those "legacy" tags.

    14. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by imroy · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are a few tags which are not explicit in their implementation which exist for legacy purposes only, such as supporting defunct features found in Word 95. These formats have absolutely nothing to do with the .DOC format. .DOC was literally a memory dump of the data structures. The XML files are well structured. Style and content are highly separated. They are quite easy to read and understand.

      Sorry mate, but bullshit. Yes, the DOC format was an object serialization of the in-memory format. But OOXML is no saint by any measure. Not only does it include references to Word 95, but also Word 6.0, Word 5.0, Word 97, Word 2002, and Wordperfect 6.x. It also references several Word/Office versions on the Macintosh, because heavens forbid MS make a cross-platform application that works the same on both Windows and Mac. It even references east Asian font rendering in a specific version of Word. And note I say "references", because that's all the standard does. Finding out what all those different versions of MS Office did on both Windows and Macintosh, and possibly also for different languages or regions of the world is left up to anyone trying to implement Microsoft's "Open" Office XML format. Even though the documentation for OOXML is huge compared to ODF, these details are still not included.

      So please tell me, what do these few tags/attributes do?

      • lineWrapLikeWord6
      • mwSmallCaps
      • shapeLayoutLikeWW8
      • truncateFontHeightsLikeWP6
      • useWord2002TableStyleRules
      • useWord97LineBreakRules
      • wpJustification
      • shapeLayoutLikeWW8

      Anyone claiming OOXML is in any way comparable to ODF is either misinformed and/or a shill. As we can see with this story, MS has a lot of money and influence to throw around for the purpose of muddying the waters and making OOXML look like a viable "standard".

    15. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by shaitand · · Score: 2, Informative

      shhh don't tell anyone but OpenOffice is open source. Anyone can look at the code and see how to implement anything in it. Including any tags.

    16. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by M$advocate · · Score: 0

      No they are not in private better look at the gobbling up of entities and also the record og Google in China in terms of rolling over on bloggers and IM users to the government of China. I wil;l not get into the proverbialp contest beacause it will happen. It is with Apple and the Ipod/DRM in Europe now

    17. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And because the standard contains these tags

      You're talking about element types and attributes, not tags.

      Microsoft will be able to say, quite truthfully, that only Microsoft can offer a 100%-compliant implementation of the standard.

      No they can't. They might say that only Microsoft can offer a 100%-compatible implementation of the standard, but as the meaning of the Word 95 stuff is not defined in the standard, implementations can do what they like and conform to the standard.

    18. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "You understand it wrong. The OpenXML format is completely open for every feature implemented in Office 2007 [...]"

      The problem with this statement is that Office 2007 still contains most of the code base for Office 95, and it contains the code of every Office version thereafter. So unless you know something I don't know -- there is no way to be sure that "the OpenXML format is completely open for every feature" of Office 2007.

      The second problem is that during its anti-trust case, Bill Gates was on the record saying that his Office Suite wasn't tied to his Operating System, and that some kind of wall was erected between those two divisions so they couldn't talk to each other and share undocumented features, when in fact current analysis of their leaked code -- shows the exact opposite -- that their Office suite was indeed and (still is) closely intermingled with their OS at the undocumented system's calls level.

      So for you to be so sure of the openness of OpenXML, you must not only know something I don't, but you must also be far more knowledgeable than Bill Gates was on this subject, since he either lied under oath about this particular topic, or was just too ignorant to know what was happening at the source code implementation level.

      In either case, I'm not even sure why we're even discussing this. If you have to argue, and if I have to take your word for it, that a particular piece of closed source code, inside an "open" data format, does nothing that's needed by Office 2007, then this "open" format is not really open -- is it?

    19. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't call that easy to read and understand.

      That's because you don't understand the context. XML isn't for making documents easy for *people* to read and understand, it's for making documents easy for *programs* to read and understand.

      It's far easier to make a computer program read and understand the XML excerpt you quoted than it is to make a computer program read and understand a document that, when encoded, looks like binary gibberish.

      That said, even though I'm no XML expert, the XML you displayed looked pretty easy to understand to me.

    20. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Try the OpenDoc equivalent:

      <text:p text:style-name="Standard">This is a
      <text:span text:style-name="T1">very basic </text:span>
      <text:span text:style-name="T2">document </text:span>
      <text:span text:style-name="T3">with some </text:span>
      <text:span text:style-name="T4">formatting, and a </text:span>
      <text:a xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://slashdot.org/">hyperlink</text: a>
      </text:p>

      Of course, I omitted the declarations of text styles T1 through T4, but they're also pretty clear.

      It looks like Microsoft has tried to make their tags very compact for some reason, perhaps in a mistaken effort to reduce file size. That's foolish since any XML-based format is going to result in large file sizes unless compressed, and if you're compressing anyway, more verbose and hence more self-explanatory tag names don't cost anything[*]. Personally, I find the OpenDoc version to be much clearer. I also think it's much better to apply style attributes to text spans, rather than to define tags that implement specific stylistic effects (bold, italic, etc.).

      IMO, OpenDoc is not only more open, it's clearer and better-designed as well.

      [*] Given a perfect compression algorithm, the cost of using more verbose tags is precisely zero, because the longer tags don't increase the entropy of the file. The reality, of course, is that compression algorithms aren't perfect, and there may be a small cost, but in practice the algorithms are good enough that the cost is negligible, particularly for large documents where it really matters.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    21. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by jayp00001 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You do realize that you've given the number 1 reason that the openoffice format should not be used. If you have to go to back to the application to read the file properly, the "open" format is worthless. I am not saying that the microsoft format is better but at least Word is arguably the number one word processing application and isn't going anywhere soon.

    22. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by camperslo · · Score: 1

      The OpenXML format is completely open for every feature implemented in Office 2007 and contains a very verbose standard...

      That's part of the problem. Its way toooo verbose. There's no reason why public documents should give MS a huge headstart on everyone else as far as supporting a format goes, and there's no reason why everyone else should be stuck supporting MS feature-bloat either.

      Excessive complexity should be avoided. It gives us things like laws only lawyers can understand.

    23. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by TERdON · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uhm, you're totally wrong. The idea with XML was to make it (reasonably well) readable by humans. The extract shown before hardly is.

      What would be most easy to read for a computerprogram would probably some "binary gibberish" as this could be more or less a dump of the RAM portion that deals with the document (not unlike the old .doc). No processing necessary at all at file read. That's very different from XML which needs quite extensive processing (however not so much that you don't mind the overhead).

      If nothing else, you could explain to me why hardly any file format before the 90's was based on formats similar to XML...

      --
      I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
    24. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by itwerx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      contains a very verbose standard

      Let's see here, "A lot of hype - and smoke and mirrors obfuscation - surrounds interoperability these days," Microsoft wrote in an open letter published on its Web site.
      Mmm-hmm, like about 6000 pages worth...

      They are quite easy to read and understand.
      Either you're lying through your teeth, (er, keyboard), or you've never actually tried to read the whole thing!

      I'm sorry, but when the BlueTooth spec is only 1500 pages and it's been how many years before companies could agree on what it all meant, there's no damn way that 6000 page document is worth even considering even if Microsoft did suddenly do a 180-degree turnabout in their business practices, (don't hold your breath).
            The 500 page ODF at least has a snowball's chance of working well for everybody over the course of a few years.
            All Microsoft will do with theirs is misinterpret and misimplement everything they can, point their fingers at everybody else when nothing works compatibly, and hey presto, nothing's changed! "Gee, so sorry, we tried so hard..."

      (Note to mods: the parent post is nowhere near the Insightful it's been given so far, it's somewhere between Troll and Overrated)

    25. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You mean those non-standard extensions to the ODF specification? The ones that are, by definition, not part of the standard?

      You may as well claim that C is not a standardised programming languages and should not be used because some compilers implement non-standard language extensions.

    26. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by JavaBear · · Score: 1

      So far I haven't seen anyone mention the bloated clipart references in the MS OfficeXML spec. Last I recall some 200 or more clip-art images that are specific to MS Office are referenced, but the graphics never included in the xml, meaning that anyone wanting to faithfully reproduce MS office interpretation of OfficeXML must either copy or otherwise reproduce these images. Is even clear if MS is releasing the licensing for that clip-art set as well ?

    27. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by omicronish · · Score: 1

      It looks like Microsoft has tried to make their tags very compact for some reason, perhaps in a mistaken effort to reduce file size. That's foolish since any XML-based format is going to result in large file sizes unless compressed, and if you're compressing anyway, more verbose and hence more self-explanatory tag names don't cost anything[*]. Personally, I find the OpenDoc version to be much clearer. I also think it's much better to apply style attributes to text spans, rather than to define tags that implement specific stylistic effects (bold, italic, etc.).

      Brian Jones, a program manager on Office, has a post on this: Does tag size matter?. He echoes your statement in that it doesn't make much of a difference in document size due to compression, but claims that there's a large difference in parsing and compression/decompression time:

      With the latest SpreadsheetML design, we've seen that the XML parsing alone (not including our parsing numbers, refs, formulas) can often range from 10-40% of the entire file load. That's just the time it takes to read each tag and each attribute.

      Given that, I think it's sensible to reduce element and attribute names in order to produce better load/save performance.

    28. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by swillden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given that, I think it's sensible to reduce element and attribute names in order to produce better load/save performance.

      I don't, though I'll grant the point a little more validity in the case of spreadsheet data, in which there's basically no way to prevent the tags from utterly dominating the data content. Even in that case, though, performance issues are temporary, especially since the question is CPU-bound, not I/O or even memory-bound, whereas data interoperability and comprehensibility are forever. In fact, I think the Office team has made a number of short-sighted decisions in the interest of performance, including using multiple different tabular data representations for different contexts (spreadsheet, vs table in text document, vs table in presentation, etc.). They ostensibly made these decisions to improve performance, but I have to wonder if they didn't also like -- or at least not care about -- the negative effects on interoperability and comprehensibility to people who aren't steeped in Microsoft's technology.

      Note that I'm not generally one to ignore performance. Much of my career has been spent writing C and even assembler on bare metal, using very small microprocessors where every cycle counts. But modern PCs are blisteringly fast, and getting faster (via more cores, but that's okay because XML processing is moderately parallelizable), and interoperability and future-proofing are more important than a few seconds loading or saving a file. Load time is more important than save time, too, so if it's really an issue you could trade one off against the other, including a fast-loading memory representation alongside the authoritative XML representation.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    29. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Kjella · · Score: 1

      [*] Given a perfect compression algorithm, the cost of using more verbose tags is precisely zero, because the longer tags don't increase the entropy of the file.

      Sorry, that's wrong because it's not precisely zero, the entropy of the tag has increased. Take the following two files:

      File 1:
      <tag>[data]</tag> (repeated 1000 times)
      File 2:
      <verylongtag>[data]</verylongtag> (repeated 1000 times)

      Any form of dictionary-based compression will probably compress this to:
      File 1:
      $1 = <tag>
      $2 = </tag>
      $1[data]$2 (repeated 1000 times)

      File 2:
      $1 = <verylongtag>
      $2 = </verylongtag>
      $1[data]$2 (repeated 1000 times)

      There's no way you could encode the dictionary ($1 and $2) of the verbose file as compact as the terse one. Of course that entropy is probably trivial compared to the file as a whole, but it is not zero...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    30. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Helldesk+Hound · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > So for you to be so sure of the openness of OpenXML, you
      > must not only know something I don't, but you must also
      > be far more knowledgeable than Bill Gates was on this
      > subject, since he either lied under oath about this
      > particular topic, or was just too ignorant to know what
      > was happening at the source code implementation level.

      It is on record that M$ has even lied to its own staff about development/release timeframes.

      The bottom line is that M$ is not a corporation that can be trusted.

    31. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      okay shootout time get a office 2003 document that is reasonably sized and complicated (say a ten page nontrivial document)
      now pull it up in both Open office and then in MS office 2007 and convert to native format (ie both xml formats)
      grade each file on

      1 how well the convert went (fonts margins/style yadda)
      2 rip each file down to the xml payload and then try to understand the file (get a geek to try to do the render in his head)
      3 file size (smaller is better)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    32. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by swillden · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's wrong because it's not precisely zero, the entropy of the tag has increased.

      You're right, of course, in the general case. But the additional entropy is fixed and can be moved into the compressor, and out of the compressed file, in which case the entropy of the long tag is the same as the entropy of the short tag. But I shouldn't assume that's what's done, both because it's considered cheating in a theoretical analysis and because in reality specialized compressors are not being used.

      In any case, however, the practical difference between compressed large-tag files and compressed small-tag files, assuming a small number of unique tags, is negligible.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    33. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by LO0G · · Score: 1

      Read the Brian Jones article. Microsoft chose to describe (but not define) ALL of the elements produced by Office 12. OpenOffice chose to neither describe or define many of the elements produced by OpenOffice, describing them as "extensions".

      Which is better: A fully described (but not fully defined) specification or a partially described but fully defined specification (assuming, of course that ODF is fully defined (it's not totally clear that it is (see the office:binary-data element in the ODF specification))?

    34. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by LO0G · · Score: 1

      In addition, many developers are not permitted to read OpenOffice's code (because of the GPL).

      For instance, many developers working closed source projects are prohibited from looking at open source code because it's possible that they might accidentally introduce GPL'ed code into the close source, which might force the closed source code to be open sourced.

      The GPL is the kind of thing that gives corporate lawyers nightmares.

    35. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is correct. The problem lies in certain XML tags generated by Microsoft Office with names such as SpaceLikeOffice95 which mean something to the proprietary file format stream readers / writers embeded in Microsoft Office, but are inscrutable to anyone else trying to implement a compatible WYSIWYG editor. It is impossible to be certain how the document should be displayed or printed becuase Microsoft has never defined precisely what certain tags, SpaceLikeOffice95 for example, mean in a context insensitive way. These tags refer to formatting rules which were and still are proprietary. The net effect of these tags is to cause display errors where the user says, "That is not how the chart embeded in our important business doc is supposed to look! That's it, we are ditching this 'open document' crap and going back to Microsoft office...oh and fire the analyst who recommended that we switch in the first place." Business users do not understand or care about the technical reasons why the document doesn't look like they remember it...they only care that it looks wrong and they will point the finger at OSS and say, "It looks fine in Microsoft Office so it must be a problem with your OSS". Microsoft knows this well and and they are attempting to exploit the situation to limit competition while claming that their doucment format is an 'Open Standard' in the classic embrace, extend, and extinguish gambit.

    36. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by thephotoman · · Score: 2, Informative

      OpenOffice is not under the GPL. It's under the LGPL, which allows for most of it to be in the proprietary StarOffice, which is still around.

      --
      Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
    37. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by AJWM · · Score: 1

      So tell me, why the hell does a document format that is not a memory dump of .DOC data structures need to support defunct legacy formatting like W95??

      For that matter, why the hell does that format specify that 1900 was a leap year? Oh yeah, because that bug is built in to Excel.

      --
      -- Alastair
    38. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by AJWM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't be a twit.

      You don't "have" to go back to the application to read the file. If you do not understand the difference between "you can" and "you have to", then I pity your existence.

      On the other hand, with closed formats -- and for all practical purposes this includes MS OOXML -- you can't go back to the source, so you do have to use the original app.

      --
      -- Alastair
    39. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Wordplay · · Score: 1

      Well, Microsoft's is an unfinished project, and ODF is a specification. So, I'd say ODF wins the specification contest by default, though I'd be looking forward to an expanded ODF with more elements. Sounds like the Microsoft has a shot if they ever finish their project and release a specification.

      Of course, they could just lop off the part they've failed to specify and call it a day. That might make a lot of sense.

      Whatever the case, you can't release a specification with unspecified parts and claim it's complete. Think about it.

    40. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by init100 · · Score: 1

      Load time is more important than save time, too

      I would agree if saving is properly implemented, which in OpenOffice.org (2.0.x) it isn't. While working on a document, you save many more times than you load, and having the document lock up completely (which it does in said version of OO.o) while you are saving is a bigger issue than the load time. The proper way to do this would be to copy the data when you give the save command, and then do the saving in a separate thread, so that you could continue working while the document is being saved.

    41. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by elgaard · · Score: 1

      GPL does not magically make closed source into open source. If you copy code (open or closed) into your own code without having the right to do it you will have to remove it again and possibly face consequences such as not selling you product for a while.

      If you for some reason prohibit yourself from reading source code that you did not write yourself, you will just have to count on others to study the implentations of ODF software implementations. Or pay them to do it.

    42. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by swillden · · Score: 1

      The proper way to do this would be to copy the data when you give the save command, and then do the saving in a separate thread, so that you could continue working while the document is being saved.

      Agreed. Even better is to use a data structure that supports fine-grained copy-on-write semantics, so that you can avoid the big in-memory copy.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    43. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The idea with XML was to make it (reasonably well) readable by humans.

      That's certainly an advantage, but the biggest benefit is the existence of standardized XML parsing libraries. Other formats, like \nattribute:value\n, are just as human readable.

      The extract shown before hardly is.

      No, it's quite clear. The < > indicate a tag; the w: indicates the namespace of the tag; some tags have attributes. Closing tags have a / before the >. The semantics of tag names and attributes are defined by the "w" namespace. Different text is encoded by different tags, which seem to indicate formatting information. The tags indicate that, for example, the text "This is a " is modified by the p, r and t tags. XML is really a meta-language; the "w" namespace indicates the "language" of each tag.

      What would be most easy to read for a computerprogram would probably some "binary gibberish" as this could be more or less a dump of the RAM portion that deals with the document (not unlike the old .doc). No processing necessary at all at file read.

      It's not the processing that makes it easy or hard for a program to read, it's the encoding. If there were a standard way to describe binary tags, then that would be almost as good as the standard way to describe text tags used by XML.

      A programmer looking at the XML encoded stuff knows what the tags are; they're the parts surrounded by %gt; %lt; etc. that I described above. He doesn't have to, though, because he can use his standard XML library. A programmer looking at a binary encoding doesn't have any such indicators, so it's harder to make a computer program that parses a binary format. He has to know what the format is ahead of time and make his own read() calls or whatever.

      If nothing else, you could explain to me why hardly any file format before the 90's was based on formats similar to XML...

      The computers of that time were so slow that the overhead imposed by text-based protocols was significant. Even today, for some applications it is significant and for some it is not. Some XML parsers make a function call, or allocate memory, for each tag.

    44. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Nevyn · · Score: 1

      Which is better: A fully described (but not fully defined) specification or a partially described but fully defined specification

      The former. Because then "complies with the specification" actually means something, or to put it another way you try explaining to someone why something doesn't work even though it's "defined by the std." and this other thing over here works with it.

      If MS truley meant those tags as extensions they could have defined them in a seperate document under a big heading saying "if you're document contains these it isn't std. OOXML", with similar fixes to the MS Office UI. Then people would actualy know when they have a portable document or a useles one with proprietary MS extensions ... of course they can know this now, they just have to use OpenOffice.

      --
      ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
    45. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      That's because their games division is actually having to compete.
      You can rest assured it would behave actually like the rest of the company if they had sufficient grip over the console market.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    46. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If a country (China) makes it the law to "roll over" on bloggers and IM users, then google have no choice but to comply with the law or cease doing business in China.
      The government of China is not a pushover like the EU or US, where large companies can string things along, negotiate their own (non)punishment and get away with paying trivial fines several years late when inflation has made them all but worthless. If you don't do what the Chinese government want, they will come down on your hard.
      So google have a choice:

      Not do business in china at all (and thus lose potential revenue which wont please their shareholders, and bring no information to the people in china)
      Or
      Do business under the law (and generate some revenue, and bring some benefits to the people of china).
      Or
      Do business outside of the law, and get the chinese operations closed down by the government, all assets siezed and staff thrown in jail, and all non chinese services firewalled in china anyway.

      The Chinese people haven't lost out by google rolling over, the alternatives for the Chinese people are smaller chinese companies who are just as willing to roll over for the government, or nothing at all.

      You may not like the chinese government, but if you want to do business in their country you have to play by their rules.

      Also, before you go ranting on about how bad china is, look around your house and see just how many products you use day in day out which were made in china... The companies making those products had to comply with chinese laws too. If your going to complain about google for this, you really should stop using _ANY_ product made in china.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    47. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by M$advocate · · Score: 0

      Actually, I have no complaints with China. My real complaint is with so many people dogging M$ for really nothing. They are not the best, but at least for me, they have not sent me 'free' trials with 7 month expired code keys and tag on the package stating so and that I could download 4.27 GB of programming free as IBM did nor have they (M$) ever only give me 30 or 60 days of trials as Adobe has. There is personal choice, and mine is primarily M$ with some Adobe and Corel, etc. I also run Linux distros. Those who prefer Apple or Linux-=fine use them. But please do not curse about M$ Freedom of choice. Now back to Chiuna-only illustration that M$ is not the only 'biggie' doing "stuff". Nothing else.Sorry for the misunderstanding of my woeds.

    48. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      That may be your personal choice, but many other people would choose to have absolutely nothing to do with MS...
      Unfortunately, due to proprietary formats and protocols etc, it's often hard or impossible to exercise that choice. This is how they restrict people's freedom of choice, by locking people in to proprietary formats rather than using open standards and allowing people to choose.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    49. Re:Allow Me to Summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do this like Word 95" is fully describing the element now?

      Wow, hey, watch me. New standard:

      "Anonymous Office Document

      Do like OpenOffice.org version 2.1."

      I wonder if I can submit it to ISO and get it to be standardized?

  2. FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUD as usual...

  3. Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The benefits of avoiding vendor lock, true interoperability fostering competition among the software vendors etc will ulitmately benefit the consumers. No doubt about it. Among the consumers the biggest block is the corporate America and these big companies that spend billions of dollars. But they dont seem to care much for OpenDoc and are, persumably willingly, paying whatever MSFT is billing them. What is going on? Bigname PC vendors all compete on price and not single one of them is trying to differentiate themselves from rest of the pack by pre loading the windows boxes with OpenOffice or FireFox or Gimp. Corporate America is not demanding true interoperability and a level playing field for their vendors. Either there is some serious wrong doing by MSFT like bribing IT managers and giving kick backs to PC vendors. Or these people are really dumb. Still I think the time to celebrate is when corporate America decides not lock up their data in a format owned by someone else. Politicians are fickle. A few thousand in campaign contributions they will sing MSFT anthem and betray their voters.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  4. So... by JamesTRexx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They can't get their foot in the door of the government, so now they resort to spamming?

    --
    home
  5. Californians, Write your congress representative! by ThEATrE · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We must show our support for Microsoft!

  6. Choice by tsa · · Score: 1

    In the letter Microsoft talks about the importance of their customers having a choice. But apparently they don't want their consumers to have the choice between using Open XML or ODF in their product. Besides, using standards always implies lack of choice, and in the case of standards that is in principle a good thing. I don't really care wther Open XML or ODF prevails als THE open standard, but please let ir be really open so I can use whatever Office suite I want!

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Choice by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      The thing is, Microsoft is not saying they don't want them to have a choice (but hey, this is slashdot and you always see things differently here, especially when Microsoft is involved) - California is trying to push the single standard (ODF) as THE standard here, meaning there is no choice for Open XML to exist in the government body there. This is what Microsoft does not like.

    2. Re:Choice by tsa · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that MS doesn't want their customers to have a choice. But isn't it logicl that the gouvernment would want ONE standard, and not two? And the fact that this standard is not MS's Open XML should not matter to MS. They just incorporate ODF and continue business as usual. If Open XML was a truly open standard MS shouldn't whine about this legislation. The fact that they do is at least suspicious.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    3. Re:Choice by AJWM · · Score: 1

      California is trying to push the single standard (ODF) as THE standard here,

      What's wrong with that? ODF is an ISO standard (ISO 26300). Should California allow non-standard character sets? Or non-standard paper sizes in its documents? (Right, try filing that A4 sheet in a standard US letter-size filing cabinet.)

      Microsoft is perfectly free to implement ISO-26300 (ODF) in its products, this isn't about shutting Microsoft out at all. Just their lock-in.

      --
      -- Alastair
  7. They're against freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's rather interesting to see that Microsoft publicly says: "We want to stop peoples freedom of choice". Cause that's what they're doing. With an open format you have the freedom to choose application, but with being locked down to closed formats, you don't have a choice.

    Of course, no one is surprised of Microsoft's behavior, but it's actually very grotesque and anti-democratic, anti-freedom, anti-[everything good].

    It's like opposing peoples choice of telephone. If you have [phone-line company A], you need a phone A, and you can't call a friend with phone B... Disgusting.
    And perhaps SOS got phone C... Poor bastard.

    1. Re:They're against freedom by moogs · · Score: 2, Funny

      anti-[everything good]. Anti Indian Mutton Curry from Malaysia? I doubt it.
      --
      I have bad karma. What do I care what you think?
    2. Re:They're against freedom by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      It's rather interesting to see that Microsoft publicly says: "We want to stop peoples freedom of choice". Cause that's what they're doing. With an open format you have the freedom to choose application, but with being locked down to closed formats, you don't have a choice.
      I guess so. I also guess we're anti-America, 'cause we support FOSS and open documents, rather than paying for the software/document format designed by corporations, right?
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    3. Re:They're against freedom by msftnotsobad · · Score: 1

      So the fact that MSFT invests millions into interoperability initiatives and open source support is their evil plan to take away your right to chose? They switched to XML for all Office doc formats to allow open standard so you have freedom of choice and can use any app you want to edit and open documents. They spend time and money creating software that works better and faster and more reliably then anything out there available for free and that is why people buy it. There are no closed formats anymore and you do have a choice specifically because of msft.

    4. Re:They're against freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess so. I also guess we're anti-America, 'cause we support FOSS and open documents, rather than paying for the software/document format designed by corporations, right?


      I always love that argument, because it pre-supposes that Microsoft have the right to make profit without having to compete....
    5. Re:They're against freedom by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      No, they spent all that money so that dupes like you would continue to be their willing shills. In the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is whether or not Microsoft owns the "standard" in question. Otherwise their intent is questionable to anyone with half a brain and any genuine indendence.

      The only acceptable situation is one where the application vendors (all of them) are instructed what they have to support. Otherwise you just end up with 1 or more flavors of vendorlock.

      It might get a new paint job but it's essentially the same thing underneath.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:They're against freedom by msftnotsobad · · Score: 0, Troll

      Same thing underneath? Really? Complete redesign of Office to be based on XML standard is the same thing as vendor lock? Their intent is not questionable. They are a public company with responsibility to share holders. Their intent is to make money. And that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain and over the age of 6. Its great that you want government to tell the companies what standard to use. Government have been doing such a great job regulating everything else, please lets have them do this as well. Open source community loves to have government regulate Microsoft, but would scream bloody murder if someone tries to regulate open source development.

    7. Re:They're against freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half right. Supporting F/OSS and Open Standards is supporting free market and choice (democracy). Supporting proprietary code and, worse, proprietary specifications is a sharp move against the free market and democracy.

      Shit, MS doesn't even pay taxes in the US -- unless you count lobbying congress as tax. It just bleeds the country, Dr. Edgar Villanueva from Peru explains it quite well and it applies to the US as well. Look him up.

      Even the quality and ethics of the company are shameful and anti-American, making M$ come across more as a sect than a business.

  8. Do they even make software anymore? by Marcion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft seem to have become a very large and well funded political lobbying group.

    Sure they buy in lots of software and rebrand it, they also copy a load of stuff and then try to bundle into their existing products. However, have they actually developed anything in the last year or two that did not suck and then disappear?

    1. Re:Do they even make software anymore? by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Welcome to distributor world! Only middle man can lack so much common sense, be so greedy beyond any understanding of simple economics, etc.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    2. Re:Do they even make software anymore? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      However, have they actually developed anything in the last year or two that did not suck and then disappear?
      Well, I can't name anything that didn't suck, but I believe Vista hasn't disappeared just yet...
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    3. Re:Do they even make software anymore? by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      Yes. Plenty of things.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    4. Re:Do they even make software anymore? by aquabat · · Score: 1

      However, have they actually developed anything in the last year or two that did not suck and then disappear? Didn't they market some kind of vacuum cleaner a couple of years ago? There used to be some links out there, but they're all gone now.
      --
      A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
    5. Re:Do they even make software anymore? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      You mean the first microsoft product that didn't suck?
      I'm sure that was a joke...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  9. Well, of course they are... by lord_mike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...Microsoft knows that the one and only thing that is preserving their monopoly is Microsoft Office as a standard. If that ever goes away, so does their monopoly. Anyone can run a Mac or Linux and have 75% of their needs happily met via these (or any other) operating system. The one piece missing is fully compatible office software. So, Microsoft needs to hold everyone hostage with proprietary Office formats.

    Thanks,

    Mike

    1. Re:Well, of course they are... by houghi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The other 25% is most likely Outlook.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Well, of course they are... by daeg · · Score: 1

      Yet everyone can see just how bad of a "standard" it really is. It seems like every new version costs more and comes with a brand new format. What standardized format changes every 2 years? Or better yet, what true standard doesn't allow extensible additions to it for future expansion?

    3. Re:Well, of course they are... by GTMoogle · · Score: 1

      Another one is Games. So now thanks to MS's latest marketing push, stores have sections labeled 'Games for Windows'. So what about games that run on more than one OS? No one's going to make 6 inches of shelf space for games that the consumer may assume don't run on windows because they're not in the windows section... so those go under 'Games for Windows' too. Lock-in works in the minds of consumers as well.

    4. Re:Well, of course they are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking the business and government worlds here. Not the spoiled kid world.

    5. Re:Well, of course they are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...it is same shit: boys with small brains comparing their respective d*** lengths (or girls comparing cup sizes)... the "mine is bigger than yours" mentality... you'll find it in the government and in the business...

    6. Re:Well, of course they are... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Evolution is a little buggy but the features are there.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    7. Re:Well, of course they are... by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      While Evolution is great, at the moment it still relies upon OWA being installed. I guess this could change if they replace the MS-RPC over WebDAV with the OpenChange MAILOOK libmapi instead.

      However I still cannot see a way to open a shared mailbox/calander with Evolution. So all the features are not there yet. However if they add this feature and switch to MAILOOK then it is.

    8. Re:Well, of course they are... by sticky_charris · · Score: 1

      I guess the great thing about OSS is that it is constantly evolving and will undoubtedly end up with more than the required feature set. Just think how much the general offering has improved over the last 5 years. Microsoft know their market. If the letter is genuine, then they are acting like a company that can see its market share slipping in the future. In fact, only a fool wouldn't see it; Microsoft are just trying to slow the whole process down as much as possible by obscuring a fairly obvious choice (ODF). Creating competing specifications will only slow down fast adoption of one or the other. In respect to businesses 'not noticing' the savings to be had with OpenOffice (and other OSS apps) I think it represents a laziness that will be punished by other more aggressive companies. These companies need to wake up, rub their eyes and realise the benifits

    9. Re:Well, of course they are... by loyukfai · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, it occurs to me that it's a sad thing that Microsoft doesn't seem to able to see that the tide has changed. And it - The corporation, needs to change to adapt to the changed environment for long-term survival.

      Will it ever do so...?

  10. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1, Informative

    Corporate America is not demanding true interoperability and a level playing field for their vendors. Either there is some serious wrong doing by MSFT like bribing IT managers and giving kick backs to PC vendors. Or these people are really dumb.

    Excel is the only thing they know. Manager cred is based on the beauty of your spreadsheet programming. If they saved the chickenfeed which gets spent on windows and MS office then they would have to save the larger amount they spend on junkets and bonuses. And that is never going to happen.

  11. "which exist for legacy purposes only" by TERdON · · Score: 4, Insightful

    on the other hand, one might think there shouldn't be any need for the phrase "legacy purposes only" when discussing the first version of a new standard.

    Any conversion of such things should reasonably be done in the tool doing the file conversion, not in the file format itself.

    --
    I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
    1. Re:"which exist for legacy purposes only" by killjoe · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Any conversion of such things should reasonably be done in the tool doing the file conversion, not in the file format itself."

      Any by a strange coincidence only MS tools will be able to convert them.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:"which exist for legacy purposes only" by TERdON · · Score: 1

      Which still is a lot better than the current situation - as is only MS Office will be able to open and convert them, and after that MS Office ALSO will be the only app able to EDIT THE CONVERTED FILES.

      --
      I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
  12. Get as much support by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Sure we can, but can we pay off as many legislature people as Microsoft can? Nope.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Get as much support by Alt321 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I guess MS think they can push this through or they wouldn't try. These tactics are obvious to /.'ers, but you can imagine some dude "out there" thinking: "wow, MS contacted me. I am not worthy. What's this open XML? Cool!" Write to your overlords to ensure they understand what your other overlords are attempting here.

  13. Copy of a letter by lancejjj · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear Representative Smith:

    One of Microsoft's innovations is our ability to help millions of customers with our proprietary file formats. If large purchasers, such as your state government, wrongly conclude that an open standard is in their best interest, Microsoft's proprietary file format becomes substantially less valuable to all Americans, and indeed, the world.

    So let us describe to you what will happen if this proposal becomes reality:

    (1) Microsoft will need to compete with other products based on attributes other than file format. In turn, Microsoft products will rise in price by millions of dollars, leading to riots in your neighborhood.

    (2) This will forever make the USA a 3rd world country. China will be willing to step in and take over Microsoft's responsibility as the engine of the American economy.

    (3) An American innovator and icon will no longer be the richest man in the world. Americans will no longer be proud or patriotic; most, if not all, will end up voting against you. Microsoft will no longer be a name loved by millions of children - instead, it could be "Al Jezerra".

    Please make your decision carefully. We have included a check of $50,000 to put towards your next campaign. See you at the golf tournament next week!

  14. Face it, Microsoft is right about this one by bgfay · · Score: 1, Funny

    Consider that I have documents in WP5.1 format, a text-editor from Clarkson University, Yeah Write files, some IBM PC-Write docs, and both MS Word and, lest we forget, MS Works files.

    Now, if any of these were in Open Doc format, I would have full access to them.

    Finally, consider that in the past I have said some really stupid things, and I'm not even a politician. I certainly don't want anyone to be able to figure out what I have said. Thus, I am in favor of closed source formats that go way, way out of date just so I can be sure that what I say today will be rendered even more incomprehensible in the future.

    Thank you.
    --
    This post best read before July 18, 2015 when it will become unreadable.

    --
    Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
    1. Re:Face it, Microsoft is right about this one by bgfay · · Score: 1

      Troll?!

      I was trying to be funny. Oh well. Does this mean that I'm going to have to punctuate all my sentences with exclamation points and smiley faces? Sheesh

      --
      Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
  15. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Either there is some serious wrong doing by MSFT like bribing IT managers and giving kick backs to PC vendors.

    I think that the major PC vendors are in bed with MS for the following reason: it gives them a huge advantage against small VAR PC vendors and/or people who would build their own PC.

    My company used to build workstations for our customers; we didn't make a profit on them (it's all about the service) but could price them competitively. At this point, with the prices and availability (or lack thereof) we get from our distributors, we would lose money on each PC sold. It's bad enough that we could buy a PC from Dell, take the components out and put them in our own case and sell it for the same price, but Windows pushes us over the edge. Ingram Micro charges us about $132 for XP Pro or Vista, which is far above the price that they charge Dell.

    The same goes for home computer builders I imagine. Once one figures in the cost of a MS OS, there's probably no way that one could build a Windows machine for the same or less money. I'm sure that someone will post a response with links to prices for ten different retailers (probably with rebates), but that's just trading time for money.

  16. Keys: politeness ; personal contact ; information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    When contacting people, please remember what is crucial:

    Be polite - this will make them much more likely to listen. If you are feeling angry, take a walk outside, have a nice snack then come back when you are calmed down.

    Make personal contact - fax or phone where you can; reinforce emails by calling up to check that they got them. Write your own letter, based on somebody elses template if you need, but with your own information. If they promise to look into it, call back later to find out what they found out.

    State clearly your relationship to them - resident of the state / local business / supporter / floating voter etc. Always find a reason why they should take notice of you. Identify yourself clearly and let them call you back later (better to give a business phone or mobile so that they don't call you at home during election campaign time though)

    Give information - links to pages about problems - specific links to ODF sites or the Wikipedia article etc. to show alternatives. However, read through those pages yourself and pick out and explain specific points from them that you think are important.

    Be efficient. Make your point early; don't drown them in extra information; Say only things which you think are important.

    Be original. Give specific information about your position and how you will benefit from alternative solutions. Show that you care about it and why.

    Dear Mr Leno;

    I am the owner of a small web hosting company. I am writing to support "California A.B. 1668 : Open Document Format, Open Source.". We would like to be able to automatically send out pre-filled billing forms from our billing system and expect all our customers to be able to complete them easily. Unfortuantely, the current de-facto standard for documents is Microsofts .doc format and that is too complex for us to be able to add it to the billing system. A new alteranative exists in the ISO standard Open Document Format. If that was widely adopted our problem would be solved. Unfortuantely, Microsoft is trying to block this adoption by having a fake new standard based on .doc. This isn't really a standard because it doesn't fully specifiy how the format works (please see http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections section 10.2 "Cloning the behaviour of proprietary applications") and is far to big for us to deal with, let alone be a reasonably reviewed ISO standard ( see http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections secton 11 "Ecma 376 cannot be adequately evaluated within the 30-day evaluation period")

    We believe that if Microsofts standard is blocked and the Open Document Format is standardised for state use, in future we would be able to rely on it's availability everywhere and our buisiness would be able to work much better with its customers.

    As you know well, we are strongly committed to supporting the good of our state and my wife and I have often run coffee mornings for the state assembly which you have attended yourself. We think that this bill would clearly improve life in our state and look forward to hearing that you are committed to supporting it.

    Best Regards
    Jason R Kovacs Jr.
  17. Cant you sue? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Cant you guys sue MSFT + DELL + HPQ under antitrust laws? If you can band together and sue get upto discovery process and find the true price MSFT is charging the big name vendors. Still please do hang in there, a class action law suite will come eventually and you may be able recoup the losses you suffered by paying full reatail price for WinOS. Right now MSFT looks invincible and no one is willing to take a at it. But someday the logjam will break and the pendulum will swing so far that we might even pity MSFT! Just 10 or 12 years back, the tobacco companies looked invincible. No one thought they could be taken in court. Such a fate is looming MSFT too. (warning: IANAL)

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  18. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by Hymer · · Score: 1

    "The same goes for home computer builders I imagine." No it doesn't, unless you want to upgrade your OS of course. A homebuilder will just transfer hers/his license to the newbuilt computer and s/he can get a lot more bang for the bucks.
    Yes, I do know girls who build their own computers...
    --
    Ideal woman is redhaired, got green eyes, 6 feet tall, have at least a C-cup...
    ...and IQ above 145, and that makes her too smart to marry me...

  19. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by Pecisk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Surprise, _yes_, Microsoft lobbies IT managers and even managers from higher levels. And they have done it some much that managers already have used to it and assumes it as "natural" right to have "gifts" from Microsoft. Not to blame only Microsoft entirely, it is common "marketing style" of lot of companies who produces so-so products.

    It is corruption? yes. Corruption is still corruption, whatever government or shareholder's company is involved. However, you will have hard time to convince those managers not to accept these presents. Because overall atmosphere and dignity in such jobs are long gone. Only if you inform heavily shareholders you maybe will do something.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  20. Something very simple is going on by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Big business leaders don't know IT. For that matter, few people in IT really know IT, but that is another rant.

    Someone who can run a transport company successfully and knows that only a fool would allow your company to be totally dependent on one vehicle supllier will NOT realise that the same thing applies to the computers controlling the fleet of vehicles.

    Standard example, every truck fleet owner has a favorite brand, yet they always got a couple of trucks that are of a different brand. The reason, simple, it makes negotiations a bit easier. Sure out of the 500 trucks in company 490 will be say Mercedes BUT on the day the Mercedes rep comes to talk about a new order you can bet that the 10 daf trucks will be proudly parked right outside the office. Just a hint that the order does not have to go to Mercedes this time.

    That is because trucking company directors understand trucking. They do not understand IT. So when the MS salesrep arrives he will have confirmed via outlook, using documents created in office and be assured of seeing nothing but windows machines as he visits the office.

    Offcourse he still gives a nice discount. That is easy. Establish the true price, hike it by a couple of hundred percent, give a discount of 50% percent and you got MS record profits.

    And the really odd thing is that all those directors who wouldn't trust a truck maker who reported the same kind of profits as MS think it is a good sign that MS is making such huge profits.

    People do NOT understand fields that they are not experts in and this goes triple for IT.

    Couple this with the old maxim, nobody has ever been fired for buying Microsoft and you got the current situation.

    It is changing but you are going to have to fight a bloody struggle to get anywhere. Remember, if you introduce linux into a company and suddenly costs plummet and productivity soars you will have made an awfull lot of enemies, every single person who said that MS software was the way to go.

    I was in this situation once. A company had two websites belonging to different divesions. The one I was responsible for ran a webshop and services for customers and offcourse ran on linux cheapo hardware. The intraweb was purely windows and was run by the internal IT department but it also contained some sites available to our resellers and such. My divesion was brought back in under the umbrella of the mother coorperation, our website sold more products then all other sales efforts combined, so rather then being an experiment we turned into the biggest sales channel.

    Anyway, oneday a director asked the question of why the intraweb was down once again, and for some reason the question was asked NOT to the internal IT department but to the web department (probably the doofus didn't realize the difference).

    So what was I supposed to do? The reason the intraweb sucked was simple, it was run on windows, with IIS (or ISS, what ever acronym stands for steaming pile of garbage, was run by windows admins, and just wasn't designed by anyone who cared.

    Yet for some reason, the idea seemed to be that since the director new that we used linux and windows and that the intraweb sucked that linux was used for the intraweb. And since everyone knows I run Linux I was told to convert the site to windows to fix the troubles and get help from the internal IT department.

    Can you guess how many seconds it took me to reactivate my CV on monsterboard?

    It was not that the guy in question was an idiot, he knew his business. It just didn't happen to be IT. And what could I do? My department was supposed to merge with the internal IT department and since they wore suits it was pretty clear to me who would end up as whose boss.

    So I arranged some job interviews, and just told them that linux sadly wasn't up to the job and that switching the external site to windows was the best way to go, but sadly I did not have the qualifications to do that so the internal IT department should handle it, and handed in

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Something very simple is going on by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Standard example, every truck fleet owner has a favorite brand, yet they always got a couple of trucks that are of a different brand. The reason, simple, it makes negotiations a bit easier. Sure out of the 500 trucks in company 490 will be say Mercedes BUT on the day the Mercedes rep comes to talk about a new order you can bet that the 10 daf trucks will be proudly parked right outside the office. Just a hint that the order does not have to go to Mercedes this time.

      Bad analogy. DAF trucks use the same fuel and roads as Mercedes trucks and therefore are a replacement for them. Open Office does not work as well with the millions of documents, spreadsheets and macros that businesses use as Office does and therefore in a lot of cases is not a replacement for Office. The inertia isn't caused by lack of understanding of IT - I doubt the manager of a large haulage firm understands diesel engines either - it's caused by lock-in.

    2. Re:Something very simple is going on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did you honestly just waste that much of your life to write that?

    3. Re:Something very simple is going on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The truck example is poor because it does not matter what kind of delivery trucks I show up with at the client's warehouse. In terms of document formats, interoperability with clients is key and the network effect dominates.

      For example, on wall street, Bloomberg has the worst email system in existence, everyone knows it's the worst and everyone complains about it. Yet Bloomberg email is the most popular way for traders, sales people, interdealer brokers, and institutional investors communicate. It probably accounts for at least 75% of messaging even though real email and IM are both available to everyone as well. Why is this the case ? Because everyone has it, and that's what everyone uses. No one wants to be the "pioneer" to dump it for fear of being left out of the flow of information.

      The same holds true for documents. If I start sending documents to clients using .odf, it causes them a problem, an annoyance, because they aren't set up to use it. "Oh, but it is easy to tell them to start using Ooo or explain how they can still us excel." Wrong. This is a losing conversation because no one cares about .doc vs .odf. Clients will simply think you're difficult to deal with and an asshat.

      I would like to see odf prevail, but don't expect to see the push coming from corporations, not because they don't understand it, or because "some PHB does not understand IT", but because of the network effect.

    4. Re:Something very simple is going on by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      At least it's a bad truck analogy rather than the typical bar car analogy.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Something very simple is going on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The truck analogy was flawed but the rest made for an entertaining read. I too have walked rather than use Windows. I too refuse to compromise my technical competence for the benefit of politically ambitious incompetents wearing suits. One thing I disagree with (and there's obviously more to the story) is that you didn't take a stand. Something like this:

      All of our linux systems have uptimes in excess of 30 days. As far as we are aware, there have been zero interruptions to web service during this period. If there are additional internal company web resources that you think would benefit from the level of stability afforded by our hosting platform, I would be happy to further discuss the matter.


      A follow up might be:

      It disappoints me that you have decided my department should downgrade our technology platform. I believe this move would be detrimental to my department and to the company. Therefore, should this action be pursued, I intend to tender my resignation. Currently, I remain open to discussion on the issue.


      Be sure to point out at these meetings that the directors wouldn't trust upkeep of their cars to a man in a suit.
    6. Re:Something very simple is going on by kimvette · · Score: 1

      The story about asus website doesn't suprise me a bit. It ain't that Asus ain't spending any money on it and it ain't that it is impossible to run a website like that well. Just that anyone who can, won't do windows. Someone at the asus management level probably said they wanted an Windows Website and nobody qualified will touch that.


      For what it's worth I'd like to point out several things:

      1. It is damn near impossible to find good PHP developers. Hacks are easy to find but we don't want hacks working on customer sites. Sloppy code is difficult to maintain, and sometimes difficult to deploy because hacks hard-code a lot of things they shouldn't.
      2. Nearly every large E-Commerce site I see is running .aspx (asp.Net) on IIS.
      3. We encourage clients to go with PHP/MySQL or php/Postgres for licensing, performance, and various other reasons, however some people WANT to run on Windows.

      On the other hand, asp.Net may be more expensive to run (Licensing) but it's actually cheaper to find good asp.net developers, because practically everyone has used Visual Studio and are almost forced to use OOP principles and code cleanly from the get-go. Sure, there are plenty of hacks programming for Windows, but the availability of good Windows programmers is much greater than that of good PHP programmers.

      Now, on the IT side; I have yet to have any clients embrace Linux for their servers. These are the type of customer who doesn't do backups, doesn't want to even THINK about the server, and yet want to run Windows. I try explaining to them that on Linux I can FULLY automate all maintenance, including backups of email, databases, and everything else, but they trust Windows because it comes in a glossy, full-color package and with a big company backing it. They refuse to accept that Windows comes with only installation support, and NO warranty. How is buying Windows from Microsoft better than buying or downloading Linux from Novell, Canonical, or Redhat again?

      Either way you get pay-per-incident support and no warranty. On Linux you effectively get unlimited client access licenses, whereas Microsoft makes their licensing as difficult as possible to understand so that in the event that the client gets audited, they have to pay up big fines and buy more licenses at inflated prices because their reseller steered them wrong.

      One great thing about Windows though, is shadowing. The "previous version" feature is a GREAT thing, and I haven't seen that on any desktop operating systems before. It was a feature of VMS I truly liked. I wish Linux filesystems supported file versioning.

      To Hell with Microsoft.
      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    7. Re:Something very simple is going on by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      I suppose I should be thankful for that at least ;-)

    8. Re:Something very simple is going on by CSHARP123 · · Score: 1
      If all the suites acted like the one you have described there wouldn't be any Linux in corporates. Linux may not be used as a desktop OS. It is being used and is extending its market share on server side.

      I do agree there are some who are ignorant and are not willing to use Linux at all.

      With a client I am working with, we did a cost analysis for using Linux on desktop and for their business we found using Linux helps in reducing cost by 28% over 3 years compared to windows (Including Support from Novell, Application Migration, administrators training and all. Frankly some of the windows admins were very eager to learn linux and wanted to extend their knowledge too). We have moved the entire call center agents (about 1600 empolyees or about 12% of the workforce) desktops to Suse. All the applications they use is web based applications and work fine on FireFox. All the servers (on which call center apps run) we use now have been migrated to Linux (We had Windows 2003 on which we were running BEA Weblogic).

      We will be migrating one division at a time. Suites understand Money and when you show them the cost benefit they will switch. Use that. Bring out a business case and show them how they can save money. I am a contractor and so I will sell to get business and same should go for employees too. Just don't go selling because you do not like Ms

    9. Re:Something very simple is going on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you will have made an awfull lot of enemies

      Oh noes! Some pansy businessy types will be mads at me? As far as I am concerned, wearing a tie is a sign that says "Useless ass-sucker".

      They fuck with me, I call some buddies from the old neighborhood, and we pwn the MBA motherfucker in a dark parking lot one night.

      And *that's* how you take care of assholes. Sorry, pacificts, but violence is the ONLY solution that works in this world.

    10. Re:Something very simple is going on by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      The reason that it's hard to find good PHP hackers is because good hackers understand that it has a flawed security model.* Good hackers would far rather work with good tools instead of dealing with the headaches of fixing broken tools.

      *Yes, I know that the PHP devs have been working to clear up some of the problems, and it's better than it was. Still, there's a reason that good coders tend to steer clear of the language.

    11. Re:Something very simple is going on by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The analogy is bad, but the strategy might still be effective... make sure that the conference room that the MS sales rep is led into has an X desktop running on the projector when he walks in - maybe even give him a presentation using OpenOffice. If he asks questions, make it clear that you are weighing going to Linux-OpenOffice depending on his quote.

      Or maybe he'd just call your bluff :) But hey, it worked for some cities in Europe...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:Something very simple is going on by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      WIndows is very popular with small and medium sized businesses because Joe in the office can run a tape backup and it doesn't take an IT expert to do basic administration. They can call you if they need anything more technical. I assume your customers are fairly small or department sized based on your comment that they do not do backups?? Good lord! I would be hesistant to do business with such companies because if the volume on the raid ever becomes corrupt they will blame you for it and your reputation would get hurt. Even small mom and pop shops should have a tape backup and its not that hard as such POS systems come with shiny windows based tape backup software. Maybe this is why they like Windows?

      Php is not used for large scale sites and it is pretty much hackable though improving. Real sites use java and .NET for ecommerce. But again if its a small business who knows.

      But Unix and Linux are used by bigger businesses or those with special needs like ISP's.

    13. Re:Something very simple is going on by smellotron · · Score: 1

      Php is not used for large scale sites and it is pretty much hackable though improving. Real sites use java and .NET for ecommerce. But again if its a small business who knows.

      Yahoo switched to PHP in 2002, and I wouldn't call it a small website. PHP certainly can scale well, if you know what you're doing and use it the way it was intended (light and fast RAD, compiled extensions for heavy work).

      Yes, the PHP core developer community has a bad rap for security (and rightly earned, I believe), but an overwhelmingly large majority of "hackability" is poorly-written PHP applications. Secure PHP is something of a catch-22: security-minded people avoid because of the reputation, leading to a complete lack of security in new development and worsening the reputation. Put a competent developer into any of those languages and the relative differences between Java/.NET/PHP shrink dramatically.

    14. Re:Something very simple is going on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not cheaper to find ASP.NET programmers because "they're all good"; it's cheaper to find ASP.NET programmers because A FUCKING DRUNKEN MONKEY could build a website using ASP.NET. However, 95% of the aforementioned drunken monkeys will use VS's infamous drag-n-drop techniques to build your web security and trust Microsoft to do the right thing. And considering Microsoft's security record...

      Personally, I'd rather go find a PHP programmer. If you can find a good one, he/she'll understand more about server setup and design than an ASP.NET programmer.

  21. #INCLUDE ODFSUPPORT by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    If the tide turns, and some big customers demand ODF support, will Microsoft have its business depend on some weirdo hackers in a sourcefourge project? I think not. So 50$ sais ODF support in MSoffice is already built and tested, as a compile line option currently switched off by the marketing department. Apply some pressure and witness the fastest patch in history...
    By the way, if your neighbour or your PHB asks you the difference between ODF and the MS XML thingy, summarize like this: The ODF spec is 600 pages, the MS spec is 6000. Intelligent people will be able to figure out the rest.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:#INCLUDE ODFSUPPORT by kanweg · · Score: 1

      PHB: So, OpenXML is ten times better.

      Bert

  22. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by Dan_Bercell · · Score: 1, Funny

    Office is the best spreedsheet, email and word processing platform on the market... Thats why.

  23. Why Microsoft is wrong and looking like Sony by mattr · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I submit that:
    1. Use of ODF will keep more money in California and less flowing to Washington state.
    2. Governments are responsible for guaranteeing archives, minimizing expenses, and reducing barriers, therefore ODF is best choice for them.
    3. These days a monetary figure can be assigned what it costs Microsoft in negative PR, lobbying and advertising this anti-ODF campaign. They could make more money by instead becoming the main proponent of ODF and other open standards, and developing commercial SDKs to develop software for all platforms based on truly open standards.
    4. Microsoft also is harmed by the effects of its embrace and extend campaign. Not only in hatred by potential developers, but also because of the monetary cost of running the campaign, and the chaos and reduced size of the market it causes.
    5. Microsoft could support independent developers by allowing them to rent SDKs and code of other participating vendors, and allowing developers to pay in part by product royalties. By creating a new ecosystem in this way Microsoft can become the facilitator and also own part of the ecosystem's code base, increasing market size and opportunities. It may even by quick footwork, honesty, sincerity and trust building be able to draw in most of the industry for niche products (say an open standards based tax form creation and submission infrastructure).
    6. Microsoft is a dinosaur walking on treacherous ground. It has depended on a cynical and unethical strategy relying on bloatware, hatchetwork, lobbying, FUD, legal games, discounts, etc. By reversing 180 degrees its current orientation, away from FUD and Embrace/Extend, it will gain amazingly broad new horizons for profit, reducing risk and not incidentally creating new reasons for people to stick with Office.
    7. Microsoft also resembles Sony quite a lot, which is not good for Microsoft. Both companies are impossible to make a deal with, they either try to buy you or destroy you. Both companies are utterly cynical and untrusted. Both companies are a bucket of fragmented interests, their strengths wasted on their habits of looking inward at other divisions and not at their customers. Both dream of huge profits from Hollywood, which is silly (see next point).
    8. Both Microsoft and Sony have ignored George Lucas' comments that Hollywood does not make a profit in theaters, which is why he wants to go into TV. They also ignore that the movie industry is not as profitable as it would seem, due to the huge number of flops (since they are filled with cynical crap creators too), is an unsteady earner which also translates to risk, and is the driving force behind DRM which has set the electronics industry back 15 years and spurs development of alternate delivery systems that they cannot control as well (piracy has a tiny effect on actual profit now but has risen to equal the pornography industry in driving creative programmers to invent creative, new systems). Additionally both Microsoft and Sony have a bizarre interest in supporting only the biggest players despite contemporary media distribution systems' being so much more supportive of the medium to long tail, i.e. smaller bands/producers.
    9. Take the example of Sony which constantly releases expensive hardware that is lower in quality than the Sony name used to signify and that only works with Sony products. Sony gets its lunch eaten so often, it is its own worst enemy. Microsoft and Sony both share a very similar conceit, inflated self-importance, cynicism, misguided goals, and disparagement of both vendors and customers. Unfortunately they both have corporate cultures that are so strongly biased in this way that the cultures actually warp otherwise sound minds, witness what Mhyrvold has to show for his work there. Since even scientists are swayed by bizarre corporate cultures, the corporation consistently generates failures, seeks to recoup them with grandiose schemes, and in the end needs to draw in new blood from the outside in an attempt to solve the unsolvable.
    1. Re:Why Microsoft is wrong and looking like Sony by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1. Use of ODF will keep more money in California and less flowing to Washington state.

      Not necessarily true. While MS employs many people and brings in money to Washington, for tax purposes, they are taxed according to Utah's tax laws. Don't ask me how they do it; the bottom line is that they save a lot of money because Utah has very low taxes. This is another reason I don't like MS. At every turn, they are ethically challenged. They are HQ in WA, but have come up with a way not to pay WA.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Why Microsoft is wrong and looking like Sony by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1

      I'd guess that all companies, once they get big enough, start believing their own hype. Managers start thinking that they have some secret sauce that means they don't have to deal with the normal realities facing other companies. They start avoiding standard, easy solutions because they think their own homegrown idea, even if it's completely incompatible with everything else in the world, will magically be better. Then they get secretive, partly to conceal their own bad decisions. The reinvent the wheel constantly because they think that their companies' "needs" are unique, which they very rarely are.

    3. Re:Why Microsoft is wrong and looking like Sony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While i am sure they try to avoid taxes whenever and wherever they legally can, just like the rest of us, but they are still bringing in the bulk of the money to Washington State, which, if you are concerned primarily with taxation aspects of money flow, is being taxed in a variety creative ways (property taxes, income taxes on MS payroll and subcontractors and vendors, state fees on the company and all those employees).

      Which is a strange thing to be concerned about where the money is going, rather I am more concerned about where the money is coming from. I think as a taxpayer and a consumer I am sick and tired of paying extra because do nothing middle managers feel they can be more "productive" because they are comfortable with Excel. IT shouldn't be dictating which software people use, but Finance should be dictating what software the company or government won't pay for. OpenOffice can do everything of value that Excel can with the added bonus that you won't have to pay Microsoft again (or anyone else probably) to be able to open your spreadsheets 5 years from now.

    4. Re:Why Microsoft is wrong and looking like Sony by turing_m · · Score: 1

      You lost me at "paleolithic fish". Perhaps try a car analogy?

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    5. Re:Why Microsoft is wrong and looking like Sony by mattr · · Score: 1

      Er, yes. Apology for mixing metaphors of dinosaur and fish in an ecosystem. Anyway their strategy has worked for them until now, it just appears that strategy may not be survivable in the 21st century.

  24. dont preload to fortune 500 companies by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    My company is "only" 2000 people. Every PC gets wiped as soon as it comes in the door, and is then loaded with a standard setup. It doesn't matter what Dell puts on there, that is just important for smaller companies. What does matter is that we have tenthousands of documents in our internal knowledge base. Many of them are powerpoints where slide 3 contains an embedded Excel sheet, itself containing an embedded Word document. How they will ever get out of that mess is beyond my imagination.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:dont preload to fortune 500 companies by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      I have a few thoughts about that. Basically, I believe it will come down to a clever set of programs that are used as SAS on the company's intranet. That is to say when a document isn't loading correctly, open a browser and go to the conversion site, click the upload link and have the converted document emailed back to you, or some similar kind of thing. That means only one install of the converters, only one place to worry about it. Anyone can use them.

      This is how things should be done anyway, use the intranet that you have. Once that happens MS really is in trouble in this regard. If a company can do batch conversions it would be possible to scan your local drive and then convert every document and replace it with ODF compliant documents.

      At that point there is no longer a compatibility issue, just the conversion time as an issue.

  25. ODF is not HTML by gig · · Score: 1, Troll

    This ODF stuff is just another shitty typewriter document to go with Word documents. Ugh. You might as well call it SHITHTML it is another useless HTML replacement. Think of how useless XHTML has been and it at least attempted to be as similar to HTML as it could be. ODF is more shit that has to be converted into something else before it can even do something useful. It is like you are saving your word processor's cache file to disk and then expecting someone else to do the rest of the job to make something that is sharable, and you excuse that by saying that you'll publish the cache file spec. Ugh.

    What is the point of unleashing countless office workers to make countless documents that are not even sharable? The Web is 17 years old. The standardized Web is 7 years old. I can generate sharable documents just by going to Flickr, but with Word or ODF, no. It is painless to generate HTML 4.01 programmatically using DOM methods or manage word processing styles with CSS. There are two mature open source Web browser engines that can be used in a word processor product and countless other developer resources. It is not a programming problem.

    At the UI level a word processor should do all the little tricks that people want. At the data storage level, it should be generating ISO HTML with CSS and JavaScript that can be either natively displayed on the Web or reliably converted to PDF for printing. You can store that and you can always read it. In other words you are storing something finished, not just the arbitrary bullshit that some word processor uses for pseudo-synaptic function. As people work, instead of generating unmanageable "word processor documents", users generate manageable Web content.

    It's ridiculous to suggest that the typing of office workers should be stored as anything other than HTML. Microsoft Word is not the king of the making and sharing of documents, that is the Web. Base your new word processor standard on the Web and it will be successful. Ignore the Web and you are just being another Microsoft, stuck in time.

    Look how hard it is to get a programmer to use UTF-8 instead of Latin-1 and the same programmer expects the office worker to use ODF instead of HTML it is crazy.

    1. Re:ODF is not HTML by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      ODF (let's make it any office document format) and (X)HTML are designed differently. Office document formats have specific features meant for what they are designed for. XHTML is designed for sharing web pages, and not for office documents. XHTML isn't designed for holding tremendous amounts of information, office document formats are. There are a ton more reasons, but I am too lazy to write now.

    2. Re:ODF is not HTML by Wordplay · · Score: 1

      That's absurd. Elements (outlines, tables, charts, etc.) are saved in a format that's sufficiently intermediate that you can re-edit them in the context of the element. What you suggest would unwind them out to images and presentation code. It's basically like saying a software development system should be trying to save the source code as binary executables instead of text files.

  26. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by essence · · Score: 1

    A homebuilder will just transfer hers/his license to the newbuilt computer and s/he can get a lot more bang for the bucks. Yes, I do know girls who build their own computers...

    You can avoid gender specific language by replacing he/she/s/he with they/their: A homebuilder will just transfer their license to the newbuilt computer
    Unless of course you were countering the male domination of computing. If so, good one.

  27. Microsoft? by kripkenstein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did the email even originate from Microsoft? As far as I can tell, all we have is a single email received by a single person. Perhaps it's a delayed April Fool's joke or something of that sort? It would be incredibly stupid (even for Microsoft) to send out official emails like this.

    Even if several people receive such emails, that doesn't prove it is from Microsoft. Is there any official reaction by them, or proof that it came from an official Microsoft email account?

    Regardless of this matter, the push for ODF is a great idea.

    1. Re:Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how that, if it's about Microsoft, people say "you can't possibly be certain it was!" yet, when it's people ringing up a company bashing them for using Linux, it's all paranoia when someone suggests that it could be a funded grassroots action by the opposition, don't you think?

  28. Re:Californians, Write your congress representativ by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    We must show our support for Microsoft!

    You must be new here. :P

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  29. Personally... by crazzeto · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm against any law designed to force out any specific competitor from any market unless their product is dangerous to human life (as in someone could die). It really seems to me that any movement to specifically promote any technology (FOSS in this case) at the expense of other choices (whether they are perceived as better or worse) is just plain stupid.

    1. Re:Personally... by couchslug · · Score: 4, Informative

      This isn't about vendor preference, it's about freedom of public access to public documents.
      For the public to allow vendor lock and depend on a single vendor for future access because they accepted a vendor standard is "just plain stupid".

      No vendor whould be forced out, but the product the public entities buy would be standardized.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Personally... by DannyO152 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The State of California is a customer and, like you, has to right to choose what it buys based on measurements of price vs. performance. If California says it requires software for its bureaus that uses neutral file formats, then the expression of that requirement is no more legislating people out of business than a requirement that paint bought for state buildings meet minimum performance and environmntal standards. As California, the great state where I reside, is spending taxpayer money, there are occasional efforts towards ensuring that the money isn't being spent in stupid ways. (I shall not be reimbursing any one for keyboards lost while reading the prior sentence.)

      Something I'm really curious about: where are the Microsoft shareholders on these questions. Why do they think that when large customers start to evolve different requirements, the proper response is to spend money on publicity, lobbying, and advocacy advertising and to play chicken with the customers, rather than evolving with the market?

    3. Re:Personally... by A+Wise+Guy · · Score: 1

      This is about allowing choices to consumers.

    4. Re:Personally... by nephyo · · Score: 1

      While it's true that legislation shouldn't directly dictate purchasing decisions as that would provide an unfair disadvantage to certain businesses, it is nevertheless perfectly alright for a government to create legislation in order to protect the public trust. Legislation can't and shouldn't say only buy X from company Y, but it can surely say only buy products which have characteristics A, B, and C which prevent certain detrimental consequences. The bill actually states: "This bill would require all state agencies, beginning on or after January 1, 2008, to create, exchange, and preserve all documents, as specified, in an open extensible markup language-based, XML-based file format, and to start to become equipped to receive any document in an open, XML-based file format, as specified." And: "When deciding how to implement this section, the department in its evaluation of open, XML-based file formats shall consider all of the following features: (1) Interoperable among diverse internal and external platforms and applications. (2) Fully published and available royalty-free. (3) Implemented by multiple vendors. (4) Controlled by an open industry organization with a well-defined inclusive process for evolution of the standard. (b) Beginning on or after January 1, 2008, state agencies shall start to become equipped to accept all documents in an open, XML-based file format for office applications, and shall not adopt a file format used by only one entity. (c) The department shall develop guidelines for state agencies to follow in determining whether existing electronic documents need to be converted to an open, XML-based file format. The department shall consider all of the following: (1) The cost of converting electronic documents. (2) The need for the documents to be publicly accessible. (3) The expected storage life of the documents." The questions to ask are: Why does Microsoft's file format not meet these criteria? What, if anything, prevents Microsoft from using a format that does meet these conditions? Are these requirements important or relevant enough to the people for governments to mandate their use? It is important to note that Microsoft does not have to meet these conditions. They can simply sell to others who don't see that fact as a limitation. It's just that they won't be able to sell to the State of CA and any business that follows the state's lead. Still, I am a little wary of this kind of bill myself though I have little sympathy for Microsoft's position. Most of the conditions seem like reasonable things to ask for to me. But will XML really last forever? Or will there be something better and greater down the line that will require this bill to be rewritten?

      --
      I grant all that I write to the public domain.
    5. Re:Personally... by crazzeto · · Score: 1

      Sorry, personally I don't buy this... Even if they documents were published in Word format there are free readers available (even for Open XML) which may be used to view content. However these documents are not published in ODF or OXML, they're published in PDF which again, there are free readers for..

    6. Re:Personally... by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Errrr....maybe it is just because shareholders who holds majority share of company are several people who are known with their "I want to rule the world" attitude not with caring about customers want?

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    7. Re:Personally... by American+Infidel · · Score: 1

      I'm against any law designed to force out any specific competitor from any market ...

      The charitable assumption is that you posted in the wrong thread, then. The bill everybody else is talking about here doesn't say anything about whose software to use; it just requires support for a specific file format. ODF is an open standard, which means that everybody is allowed to use it, and they don't have to pay anything for the privilege. Nobody is being excluded, unless they exclude themselves.

    8. Re:Personally... by init100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A law that dictates that ODF is used for the state's documents does not exclude any vendor from the market. Microsoft is welcome to add ODF support to its office suite, but refuses to do so. In other words, they are excluding themselves from competing by not supporting ODF. Instead of adding support for ODF, they try to push states to standardize on their format instead.

    9. Re:Personally... by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      If California passes this, I imagine Microsoft will put people to work on a patch to office, so that you can "save as"(open format)... of course the .doc format will remain the default, making it a pain in the butt to use... but I think this is what will eventually happen. It's just a matter of time. It's possible it may even already be written and they are just waiting until a major development such as this happens.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    10. Re:Personally... by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      Whoever modded you flamebait for saying this is wrong (it's not flamebait), but so are you (you're just not correct).

      If a state passes a law requiring that any software it uses support ODF, that is not preferring one technology over another. It makes no comment on the technology to be used. It just says that whatever technology or technologies we use, they must be fully interoperable with each other by way of using an open document format. ODF itself is not FOSS. OSF is a standard used by some FOSS programs and which can be used by Microsoft Office as well. If California requires that all state documents be saved in ODF, the only requirement this places on Microsoft is that its products must support ODF to be eligible for state purchase.

      This law is not designed in any way to force anyone from the market or to favor or require any particular technology, such as OpenOffice.org or Microsoft Office. If Microsoft Office has full support for ODF, then California could make a business decision to use MS Office as its office suite. It could also make a business decision to use OO.o. Or both. Or leave it up to each individual department.

      Requiring ODF for all public documents does not favor any technology over any other. Rather, it provides a level playing field on which each technology may and must compete on its merits. If Office 2007 is as good as Microsoft says, it will still win on its merits on a level playing field. If its merits do not justify its price, then it may fail. Either way, requiring the use of an open standard does not favor any product over any other. Indeed, requiring, or even permitting, the use of a closed standard is what does this. Allowing or requiring MS Office format as the format for public documents gives an unfair advantage to MS Office b/c its closed nature makes Microsoft better able than anyone else to support that file format. You've got it all backwards.

    11. Re:Personally... by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

      ... of course the .doc format will remain the default, making it a pain in the butt to use...

      Except that ".doc" is neither a single format nor are any of them documented. The extension, of course is the same all these years, but changes both big and small make each new version of MS Word format incompatible with older versions of MS Office, thus forcing another round of purchases.

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  30. Gates' Long Lost Cousin? by duh+P3rf3ss3r · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who is 'Open Doc Bill' and why does Microsoft oppose his going to California?

    No time to RTFA but lots of time to post and read replies! ;-)

    --
    Give a man a match: warm him for an instant. Douse him in petrol and set him aflame: warm him for the rest of his life.
  31. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could... if you wanted to pretend 'they' and 'their' aren't plurals.

  32. Not only in Cali by npace · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apparently, it happened in Florida also. State Representative Ed Homan added the use of open standards to a bill in state senate. A day later, he was visited by three people from Microsoft. The bill about the open standards was rejected. http://uf.freeculture.org/2007/04/01/legislature-2 007-state-of-florida-it/

    1. Re:Not only in Cali by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Souds like Sopranos.

    2. Re:Not only in Cali by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascinating. Rumors are that Tuesday Microsoft has a meeting scheduled with the Assemblymen behind this bill. Hope he survives the week.

  33. Re:Californians, Write your congress representativ by Xymor · · Score: 1

    And you must fix your sarcasm-o-meter.

  34. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by pcardno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Erm, I know we shouldn't feed trolls, but you clearly don't understand a couple of key points here.

    Firstly - "chickenfeed" on Windows and MS Office? Are you insane? Have you ever been involved in procurement for the Microsoft tools? I'm guessing not, as then you'd realise just how expensive it is to provide Windows, Office and a few other bits and bobs for a 10,000+ strong userbase. Either that or you're Bill Gates and several million dollars is chickenfeed to you.

    Secondly - yes, Excel is a popular platform, but not just amongst managers. It's one of the few tools that most office based employees use on a regular basis, far more so than Word, Access and in quite a lot of cases even more so than the web. I know plenty of users who don't have a clue how to use websites and find them intimidating but are still comfortable with Excel, as they have to do their reporting through it and use it for home accounts etc. As such, while it's not an ideal platform for developers, interoperability and much more, it is pretty damned useful for putting out straightforward productivity tools that don't scare the general public.

    --
    --- Band: Joey Ultra
  35. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by maxume · · Score: 1

    Compare it to payroll, which is going to be about 30x more expensive, to start.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  36. Re: In Massachusetts by Tokerat · · Score: 2, Funny

    But, we all know that's not going to happen because I haven't heard Massachussetts hurting due to their choice.
    In Massachusetts, we hurt due to all of our choices, even when they're right ones. Have you seen the Big Dig or Deval Patrick lately? ;-)
    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  37. Re:Keys: politeness ; personal contact ; informati by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
    Unfortuantely

    And, of course, run your missive through a spelling checker before you send it.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  38. Oregon ODF plea, on video at YouTube by cheros · · Score: 1



    No comments needed - you all know the score..

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  39. XML does not equal HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HTML is about presentation.
    XML is about data.

    You need to understand the difference.

  40. open formats are nice for all by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

    If the people Microsoft is calling out to had half a brain, they'd realize that open formats are a great thing, even if they want to use Microsoft products. You know, so you, as a sysadmin, can easily dump your data into microsoft word/excel/powerpoint for the boss's monthly numbers or whatever. Yeah, there's better ways to do it, but then it'd be more easily possible for those who must use those products for whatever reason.

  41. Here's a simple principle.. by cheros · · Score: 1

    If MS can guarantee and be bonded that documents that are archived now can be accessed in 50 years time, and can be accessed and processed from today until then with software they provide for free (and I mean zero cost), well, then I agree - there's no issue.

    For a democratic process to function, there should not be a price tag on public information. If the data is stored in a format for which you have to pay to access it you are in principle harming democratic process. I do realise that the opposite is harming commercial interests and I thus believe (cynic that I am) that it will take a bit more time before sponsorship of any kind (campaign contributions, golf trips, conferences in exotic places,"targeted charity") will no longer influence that vote.

    In that context I find the ever increasing "yes" votes to ODF interesting - it appears that Massachusetts set in progress something of an avalanche. Give that man this years' Open Source Champion award..

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  42. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by dhasenan · · Score: 1

    In the 1600s, 'they' and 'their' were used both for plurals and gender-neutral pronouns. Then prescriptivists got hold of the language and told us that it was wrong. We still use them in that 'bad' way, and it's in our mental grammars, but people try to make us feel guilty about it.

  43. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

    Or you could use Timothy Leary's SHe and Hir, if so inclined.

  44. Both standards can only be understood by big corps by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Why should I care about ODF vs OOXML? Both are so complex that they can only be implemented by big corporations (and Ok, big Open Source groups). Give me something for which a moderately computer-educated citizen can write a parser to, for example, find inconsistencies or unusual items in a state budget spreadsheet. Plain HTML will do nicely and there is no reason government documents should have formatting needs that exceed that.

  45. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by vertinox · · Score: 1

    Either there is some serious wrong doing by MSFT like bribing IT managers and giving kick backs to PC vendors. Or these people are really dumb.

    I think people buy Microsoft products so if something does go wrong they can blame Microsoft.

    And by the time the company realizes they can't open 10 year old important documents the person who had made the decision has left the company.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  46. Dear Corporate Lobbyist and Dogmatist, history 101 by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    A long time ago, in a past decade

    (~1982~1992), in the early days of home HS/ADP technology, When microsoft was but a baby corps, there were many many operating systems (OS) and file formats for each and every OS/application. Then microsoft said

    (~1989~1994) lets provide file format conversion for all our big competitors file formats to microsoft file formates. As microsoft fed on conversion converts and got to be the biggest, fattest, and dumbest OSD (original software developer) they chose the path of other failures ... GM, BigBlue... and said fyck the customer |

    (~1995~2000) requirements we will force them to accept what we deem best for our captive paying market and even provided templates and formats that would always change with every update to compel their hostage customers to by another fix for their addiction more microsoft product upgrades.

    (~2001~2005) slowly businesses and institutions were forced to convert to microsfoft dogma and sustenance, or die.

    (~1985GNU~1991Linux~1994W3C) However, a small rebel FREEDOM alliance [AKA: F/LOSS, GNU-Linux, "Open"...] began a subversive offensive in the interest of the oppressed high-TEK public and exploited low-TEK countries globally across the W3/Internet. In services to everyone, the rebels would openly and blatantly, like Don Quixote tilting a windmill evil giants, fight honorable and heroically as "Knights of the WoeFolk Continent" until victory for all.

    Anyway y'all get the point ... my wife's calling ... Microsoft could have developed an ODF long ago, but was greedy. ODF is required for business, law, research, government, military ..., and we can no longer afford proprietary bullshit products that fyck US every other year and create a black-hole of data files for future generations and everything.

    MS FYCKED U, US, and themselves.

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  47. Re:Choice ( it's MS Office OpenXML ) by Locutus · · Score: 1

    Don't you mean Microsoft Office OpenXML( MS OOXML )?

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  48. Nobody is forcing anyone from the market. by argent · · Score: 1

    I'm against any law designed to force out any specific competitor from any market...

    I guess you don't realise that not only is there no reason Microsoft couldn't produce ODF documents, but the open source community is already stepping up to the plate with free ODF plugins for Microsoft products?

  49. Don't look on /. for techincal discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Miguel for EOXML:
    http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jan-30.html/

    Rob Weir against:
    http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/01/more-matter-wi th-less-art.html/

    The comments on Rob's blog are better then /.

    Slahdot is now peopled with Morons. Yes even smart people become drooling morons when you mention MS.
    Go find your roots!

  50. HTML is not a good document format by argent · · Score: 1

    It's ridiculous to suggest that the typing of office workers should be stored as anything other than HTML.

    If by HTML you mean something like:

    <DIV id="section" name="environment">
    <DIV id="section-title">Environmental considerations</DIV>
    <DIV id="section-head">...</DIV>
    <DIV id="paragraph">...</DIV>
    [...]
    </DIV>

    With appropriate CSS... OK. That can move the meta-information required to produce typeset quality documents into the CSS defined for that purpose, as well as good online documentation with a suitable CSS file...

    If you mean something like:

    <DIV style="..." onClick="..." onBlur="..."><IMG SRC="inline:6sta52" ALT="Environmental Considerations"></DIV>
    <script type=javascript>//<!--
    [...] //--></script><table><tr><td><P>&nbsp;&nbsp;...
    </td></tr></table><p>...<p>...

    Then, no...

  51. Re:Both standards can only be understood by big co by lancejjj · · Score: 1

    Why should I care about ODF vs [MS's] OOXML? Both are so complex that they can only be implemented by big corporations (and Ok, big Open Source groups). Incorrect. The difference is that MS's OOXML can only be fully and completely implemented by those who agree to Microsoft's terms, as the OOXML specification depends on and references secret, Microsoft-proprietary intellectual property. In contrast, ODF can be fully implemented by anyone regardless of an agreement with Microsoft.

    The embrace of a fully open standard will lead to innovation within a stagnant industry. This will lead to an improvement in Office-related products, as there will be more than one vendor that will be able to create complete, accurate, and fully compatible standards-based documents without the burdens of agreeing to Microsoft's licensing terms.

    The acceptance of a file format, such as OOXML, that can only be fully and correctly implemented by agreeing to terms with Microsoft will lead to same situation we have now - you can either go with Microsoft, or you can go without sharing compatible office documents with your colleagues.
  52. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    The other big example of that kind of influence would be the pharmaceutical outfits. They've been using such tactics on doctors and hospitals for decades.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  53. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1

    Point taken but where I come from, one would get their grammatical knuckles rapped for that sort of thing. My Hacker Guide (Diana Hacket, not computer hacker) indicates no such use for their in that context.

    In any event, I think that English needs a huge makeover anyway, especially as it pertains to pronouns. Along with gender-neutral pronouns, we need an obvious third-person plural, such as y'all. This is a glaring flaw that causes many misunderstandings.

    One of the things that I found recently is a total misunderstanding of an important Bible passage, Luke 22:31. In this passage, Jesus says to Petter, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat..." Almost everyone I talked to thought that the third person pronoun "you," was singular--it is not. Since I read and write in Spanish, I noticed that it isactually plural ("ustedes").

  54. Re:Dear Corporate Lobbyist and Dogmatist, history by belmolis · · Score: 1

    Microsoft could have developed an ODF long ago, but was greedy.

    Indeed, Microsoft is a member of OASIS and was invited to participate in the development of ODF. They had their chance and they refused.

  55. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Because if bob smiley in IT made the decision to standardize on Microsoft products to get his raise is underminded then its all out political war.

    Business is very conservative and do not like change and view change as a way to increase TCO. ALso like I said earlier its politics. If you rock the boat you make enemies in the corporate world

  56. In other news... by jonadab · · Score: 1

    RMS opposes proprietary software, the GOP opposes the election of Hillary Clinton to the US presidency, and the PLO opposes Israel's bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. security council.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  57. how to take effective action by ffflala · · Score: 1

    Quick recap: on Feb 23, Assemblyman Leno (Sacramento) introduced this bill, aka AB 1668. It's a short bill so far, but at this point it has not yet been amended.
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_16 51-1700/ab_1668_bill_20070223_introduced.html/

    The bill has been referred to the California Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development and the Economy. The first committee hearing is scheduled for April 17. Any recommendations from the committee, including modifications to the bill text, have a good chance to be approved by the Assembly at large.

    There are six members of this committee. Their names, contact information, and more can be found below.

    http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp? committee=131

    Take a minute to read up on each member's district, personalize your message, and keep it short and to the point. It would help if you're a constituent, or at least a California resident.

    It may be helpful to point out that this committee's own publications page (linked on above page) is available only in .doc format (the angle here is 'so-called public documents I can't access without paying Msft!')

    One convincing argument may be that anything less than an open format will create vendor lock-in, which will remove the possibility for healthy, job-stimulating contract competition for State of California IT contracts. This will have a negative impact on the state budget.

    While open formats can be supported by all current proprietary customers (ie, Microsoft), closed formats eliminate competition.

    And remember: as tempting as it may be, no swearing, l33t 5p34k, or sending tubgirl links to the Republicans.

  58. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't his job to make the IT department work more efficiently. As he also (correctly) pointed out, if it works better, then he's just shat on the current IT director who didn't think it possible (good promotion prospects?) and also showed up as doofuses the current Windows system maintainers (who may lose jobs if your Linux thingy pans out: likely to get buy-in?). If it doesn't work, in ANY small way (as in it falls over for a day because of a Linux bug) it will be his personal fault. Pointing out that over the same period, the Windows solution had 5x as long an outage isn't going to be listened to.

    So it looks like all trouble and no benefit (he won't get a cut of the savings, will he). So why do it.

    Just get the fuck out and leave that sorry job.

    He owes them nothing and his job isn't to run the company.

  59. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by wtansill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Either there is some serious wrong doing by MSFT like bribing IT managers and giving kick backs to PC vendors. Or these people are really dumb. Still I think the time to celebrate is when corporate America decides not lock up their data in a format owned by someone else. Politicians are fickle. A few thousand in campaign contributions they will sing MSFT anthem and betray their voters.
    Sorry, but you have it exactly backwards. I spent 12 years working for various government contractors. Contractors need to be able to read bidding specifications, supply documents for bids, pose questions regarding bidding specs, provide cost analysis data, etc. to the Government. If the Government uses Word and Excel, for example, so does the contractor. If you have a prime/subcontractor relationship, then all of the subs will use Word and Excel as well, as that is what the prime uses to communicate with the Government. OTOH, if the Government breaks the mold and begins to use ODF, then the Government's supply chain will as well. The Government is big enough to pull this off, but no single company can do the same.
    --
    The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
  60. I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What.

  61. shocking by treak007 · · Score: 1

    Wait. .M$ isn't open source friendly??? I would never have figured.

    --
    Klingon Software is not released, it escapes, inflicting terrible damage onto the enemy as it does
  62. Care Factor? by labnet · · Score: 1

    For most business, the cost of office is a non event compared to.
    1- The need to have outlook anyway (in most cases).
    2- Historically OO would not 100% convert ms word files correctly. (not sure if that is still the case)
    3- Running their business
    The last one is very important, because running business is hard work. Running MS office barely appears on the radar compared to a zillion things like
      how many sales I have I made
      why is that product late
      have I ticked my corporate governance boxes today
      have I insured this and that

    Office in the mind of business people is a commodity like a car, an office desk, or a computer.
    They really don't care that much.

    --
    46137
  63. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    You know how Coke can dictate what a supermarket can put into its refrigerators, or next to their products on the selves? Microsoft probably does the same to the vendors in regards to installed alternatives.

    --
    What?
  64. MS Awful Products. by crhylove · · Score: 1

    I have a webcam that is very nice. $35, and well worth the price. Now, their software is an entirely different matter..... But their great little webcam is certainly not disappearing from MY desk, where it does a great job showing pictures in Ubuntu!

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  65. Re: In Massachusetts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Massachusetts, we hurt due to all of our choices, even when they're right ones. Have you seen the Big Dig or Deval Patrick lately?

    Plus, Massachusets has the highest taxes in the country! They have high income tax, property tax, death tax, and a sales tax that's something like 15% when you consider county taxes. No wonder they can afford this "open document" conversion nonsense. Taxachusets is what they call it.

  66. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1

    Yes, of course I am.

  67. Allow Me to Summarize, History 101 by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    Dear Corporate Lobbyist and Dogmatist with spin-magic and revisionist-bullshit;

    (~1982~1992), in the early days of home HS/ADP technology, When microsoft was but a baby corps, there were many many operating systems (OS) and file formats for each and every OS/application. Then microsoft said

    (~1989~1994) lets provide file format conversion for all our big competitors file formats to microsoft file formates. As microsoft fed on conversion converts and got to be the biggest, fattest, and dumbest OSD (original software developer) they chose the path of other failures ... GM, BigBlue... and said fyck the customer |

    (~1995~2000) requirements we will force them to accept what we deem best for our captive paying market and even provided templates and formats that would always change with every update to compel their hostage customers to by another fix for their addiction more microsoft product upgrades.

    (~2001~2005) slowly businesses and institutions were forced to convert to microsfoft dogma and sustenance, or die.

    (~1985GNU~1991Linux~1994W3C) However, a small rebel FREEDOM alliance [AKA: F/LOSS, GNU-Linux, "Open"...] began a subversive offensive in the interest of the oppressed high-TEK public and exploited low-TEK countries globally across the W3/Internet. In services to everyone, the rebels would openly and blatantly, like Don Quixote tilting a windmill evil giants, fight honorable and heroically as "Knights of the WoeFolk Continent" until victory for all.

    Anyway y'all get the point ... my wife's calling ... Microsoft could have developed an ODF long ago, but was greedy. ODF is required for business, law, research, government, military ..., and we can no longer afford proprietary bullshit products that fyck US every other year and create a black-hole of data files for future generations and everything. Civilization requires communication archives/recordsfor everything; therefore, anyone proposing a proprietary solution, to our historical/archival global civilization requirements for knowledge, legal record, general information... must be a self-serving, corporatist-communist, politician or dogmatist fool/

    MS FYCKED U, US, and themselves, let's not allow MS continued servicing of US, EU, and others to continue for another decade.

    MS and many corporations and governments (US, EU ... China, Russia...) are Luddite institutions, happy promoting corporate-welfare laws to prevent free/open-economic and human development.

    Personally, I thank CA, MA, and many countries (not the USA/EU) for getting beyond Luddite-dogma control. It helps us all to move further into our future.

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  68. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by pcardno · · Score: 1

    Actually, far more than 30* the licensing cost. We generally take a figure of $80k per head p/a when we look at internal costs.

    But get it in perspective - we're talking about a contract worth several (toward tens of) millions of dollars per year. This is not a cost that is just accepted and it is not insignificant. Saving a million dollars on that contract can easily provide for either significant savings on the bottom line or the provision of an extra 10-15 sales people, who would each be expected to bring in $250k+ per year in sales.

    I get the feeling that a lot of people don't realise that big companies pay for the Microsoft tools and think that they just use them because they feel they're "supposed" to. They cost a hell of a lot of money and when used properly, they do a rather nice job.

    Personally, I've just requisitioned a PC so that I can put some distro of Linux on there (not sure what yet) and evaluate the Open Source offerings. I already use Apache, MySQL and PHP as my standard prototyping and personal development tools, so I'm interested in seeing what's on offer on Linux for "normal" PC users, as I haven't used it since 1999 when I was at university (Red Hat and IRIX on SGIs, at the time).

    --
    --- Band: Joey Ultra
  69. Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies by mgblst · · Score: 1

    You seem to be under some misapprehension that Corporate America isn't run by a bunch of morons.

  70. Re: In Massachusetts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Taxachussetts...figgered I'd chime in.

    Taxes being what they are, I guess people really enjoy the fact that when companies go off-shore, there is a SOLID fund of unemployment cash to draw on.

    And they don't have to just die of cancer because they can't afford health care.

    Don't get me wrong...the big dig is a debacle of epic proportions, and I'm not partisan...but from a reality of "how is it to live here" in Massachuetts...the answer is "effing awesome".

    Our sales tax is 5%

  71. Nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good point, but in misspelling OpenDocument, you make it harder for your excellent argument to be found again later using either Slashdot's own search function or else a search engine.

    Just to set it straight, for those just emerging from a cave: OpenDoc was framework from the early 1990's for compound documents. It was similar to, but much better than, OLE, which is why MS got it killed off. OpenDocument, on the other hand, is an XML-based ISO standard for a universal office format.

    1. Re:Nitpick by swillden · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. I knew the full name of the OpenDocument standard, but I didn't realize the short form collided with something else.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  72. Not going to argue with you by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    First off because I do NOT disagree with you that there are capable windows programmers. The particular company of my past did have one, he left.

    On the other hand, I have had to rescue sites from windows to often to have any real confidence in .asp or whatever programmers. Offcourse this NOT fair, after all if the site was running perfectly, I would not be called upon to salvage it right?

    There are windows shops, and trying to sell linux (or anything non-MS) is liking pulling teeth, your own. No thanks. I just work for companies/bosses, that get it. Sadly sometimes this changes (in the above case because departments got merged) and then it is time to leave rather then get bogged down in a long battle that you can't win unless you have the support of upper management.

    Time is too short.

    By all means, use whatever works for you.

    But I still like to commment on your points.

    1. Offcourse it is hard to find good developers, PHP or otherwise. Especially "linux" developers KNOW how hard it is to work in a windows enviroment, so they stay put were they are. Even if I qualified for your company, you could not hire me. Because I know that rather then being a developer I would constantly have to sell/defend linux in your mostly windows shop. No thanks.
    2. Depends on what you are looking at I suppose. It is the old netcraft battle and every side can claim victory by specifying what can be claimed as a qualifying site for their software.
    3. So true,and since your shop sells windows, you will sell more windows because "linux" developers will stay the fuck away because they do not constantly want to compete with the MS team. On the other hand the same is true for "linux" shops. So the customer ends up being advised by a windows or linux shop purely on the chance of wich shop he talks too. Oh well, objective advice is overrated anyway.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.