Slashdot Mirror
New York Jumps Into Open Formats Fray
cyrusmack writes "Hot on the heels of the bad news regarding the defeat of all open formats bills, New York has become the latest in an area that has seen a flurry of activity already this year. In the article on InfoWorld, it's pretty clear that this bill is significantly watered down from what other states have attempted to do this year. You can bet Microsoft will be there in force, just as it has been elsewhere."
they can't compete based on the quality of their products, that's for sure
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
The thing is that Free software is not a business. It doesn't matter if Free software is ignored. It doesn't cost more if it is not used. The people who develop it also don't care whether it is used or not.
However, in the long run, Free software will win out since eventually more people will understand that software itself has no intrinsic value. The value lies in service and support and Free software tends to have lower support costs, since it is usually designed better.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
so you have a situation where Microsoft being public relations geniuses are believed by the politicians who in all likeliness dont have much experience outside MS's products. the old it's good enough for us because we're familiar with it still applies as disturbing as that is
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
From Computer World: Wyne said, "this really is a battle among large commercial interests" -- a comment that was echoed by other people engaged in the political fighting. The other problem, Mathers said, was the jargon-laden disinformation that committee members felt they were being fed by lobbyists for both IBM and Microsoft. Although lobbyists would tell the committee one thing in private, they got cold feet when asked to verify the information publicly under oath.
That undermined the credibility of each side, but it particularly damaged the position of ODF proponents. Perhaps this time round IBM will keep its mouth shut and the government will be able to see this isn't a battle for commercial gain, but a battle for information freedom and the rights of the people to view what its government has to say.
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
From the InfoWorld article:
They left out KDE, Gnome, Correl .... and the rest of the world. How can anyone see this as anything but M$ pushing it's next format despite unified opposition from everyone else in the industry. Everyone but M$ and fanboys are sick of M$ only formats being used for public business.
No, the confusingly named M$ Office format, OOXML, is not Open or even a complete or standard. There are no full GNU/Linux or Mac implementations and that's not because the world outside of M$ lacks programming skill, it's because M$ is as uncooperative as they always are.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Microsoft probably realizes, which is why they fight so hard, that open formats have to win only one battle to win the war. Once open formats get a foot in the door it will only be a matter of time for open formats spread. Having a populous state like New York, California, or Texas will only make the switch happen more quickly in federal and neighboring state governments.
The advantage of using Microsoft is in economies of scale, and network effects. The same advantage will make open formats spread very quickly once established in one state to other states.
Microsoft is very afraid. They should be. Office is one of their few products that has the distinction of actually turning a profit. A move to open formats would force them to compete on price, support, and features, something that they haven't had to do for a very long time.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Perhaps this time round IBM will keep its mouth shut and the government will be able to see this isn't a battle for commercial gain ...
What exactly did the IBM representative not follow though on? Unless you know, you should not repeat the smear. M$ is well known for lying with and without oath, but most of us expect more from IBM.
In any case, IBM and everyone besides M$ should come to the aid of ODF. Legislators want to see professionals who can talk about money more than they want to see idealists who might cost them. Given moral and financial arguments, it's hard to see how these bills can be defeated.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Cool Stuff that people want.
The rest is all bullshit. Vendor manipulation, marketing, bogus laws are only needed by a company that lacks product. The harder they try, the weaker they look.
The tipping point is here. If Dell makes money selling GNU/Linux desktops, it's all over for M$. If they don't, someone else will. Firefox has proved free software to all the "decision makers" M$ usually courts, and it's only a matter of time before they realize Firefox and much more works better outside the M$ cage.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Seems to be a popular political stance these days...
Step One... Propose discussion on these so called "open format documents".
Step Two... ??? Wait for Men-in-Black to show up with briefcases of money for you.
Step Three... Profit! Cancel discussion by declaring status-quo sufficient!
This is not a problem, this is a hope.
As software openness becomes a mainstream issue, the political types _will have_ to form an opinion about, and that is good, because at least some of them will start paying attention and hopefully reading online.
The discussions mean more interest and wider coverage of the topic, and more awareness -- in the politico circles as well as the general public.
What is hitting the general public now is the first level of awareness -- they start to realize that there is this issue of open formats, free software, "IP" abuse etc. In a few short years the awareness will progress, and some people may even figure out what this issue is about.
And, since the issue is mainstream, this will also lend more credibility to the openness proponents easier, as they won't be seen as tinfoil hat nerdy types anymore.
It is not unthinkable to expect getting the point where government will accept the necessity of open standards and open software for their services -- in another hundred years or so.
State: Hi I like open formats because they're an open standard, owned by the world community. They're less risky, more durable, and extensible. And open.
Lobbyist: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa... whoa... whoa there buddy. You don't know what you're talking about. Microsoft Office format documents are used by 90% of the corporate world. Plus, Microsoft is huge. And has lots of money.
State: Who are you?
Lobbyist: Hi I'm Microsoft.
State: Oh, hi. Can I have some money?
Lobbyist: Sure
State: I like Microsoft Office.
Increasingly, [open formats] means
"Open formats" is a well-defined term. It means what it has always meant: a format that is unencumbered by copyrights or patents, and is sufficiently well documented to permit interoperable, independent implementations.
Of course, Microsoft has been trying to muddy the waters by calling their closed, proprietary format "open".
using this term is one of the best ways we can bring down Microsuck
Well, yes, in the sense that Microsoft's business model is monopolistic and involves closed formats. If Microsoft adopted open formats themselves, then things would be fine.
Ultimately, this may mean more leverage for one or a group of interests--something that is never good for a dye-in-the-wool open source believer.
Adoption of open formats, in the usual meaning of the word, is not just good for open source, it's good for the industry as a whole (except, of course, for Microsoft).
What is bad for everybody other than Microsoft is Microsoft's attempts to confuse people about what an open format is. ODF is an open format, OOXML is a closed, proprietary format.
Open source/format is such a misunderstood term
Well, yes. Quantum mechanics is also such a misunderstood term. Nevertheless, both "open format" and "quantum mechanics" have important, well defined meanings, and the responsibility is on you to understand and use them correctly.
What, do you think Office is incapable of supporting ODF or something? That can be changed quite fast. I work on the Live Meeting team, and we are constantly working on communication/productivity tools...
Great, we all know that M$ could use ODF. The standard is complete and easy enough to implement that everyone else has already done it.
The problem is that your company would rather waste money on their own special format and propaganda so they can keep their little format franchise. Where was your bragging in Mass. when M$ was complaining that ODF would hurt blind people? If ODF is so easy to implement, was it really worth smearing Peter Quinn's out of job and reputation? It's this kind of arrogance that will cost M$ everything. People remember what you do.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Doesn't matter.
What's really going on is that they've spotted that simply mentioning "open source" makes Steve Ballmer fly in from wherever he happens to be at the time and offer them a "more competitive pricing structure".
Office is 90% profit so there's quite a bit of wiggle room.
No sig today...
The differences between Microsoft's proposed open standard OpenXML and IBM/Sun's ODF standard in terms of functionality they're virtually interchangable.
No, the difference between Microsoft's OOXML and ODF is that ODF can be implemented fully and interoperably by third parties, while OOXML cannot. That's not a legal question or a licensing question, it's a question of bad specification of OOXML. That's why ODF is an open format, while OOXML is a closed, proprietary format.
In addition, Microsoft has applied for a patent on OOXML, while there is no patent pending on ODF. That means that there is good reason to believe that OOXML is, in fact, a restricted format.
Actually, this is not true. A striking example is the fact that Microsoft Word 2007 uses an equation editor that generates Microsoft's own new equation description language which is not compatible with MathML and cannot be translated into ODF or even into other Microsoft formats except as graphics. As a result, Science magazine is refusing to accept manuscripts containing math generated by Microsoft's new equation editor. Here are Science's instructions to authors.
All your format are belong to us!
Good, inexpensive web hosting
That the roll out is going well is not a lie. Despite heavy interference from M$, it was right on schedule six months ago and the roll out was supposed to start only five months ago. Given the resignation of the CIO due to a smear and M$'s attempt to restructure their entire IT system, it's a miracle they are able to keep to their plans at all. It's the planning that takes time - roll outs happen in a week, even in the deadly inefficient world of Windoze.
Oh yeah, let's not forget the blind people FUD, which has limited deployment due to the state's "chosen accessibility technology". That's particularly irksome, considering the better stuff available in the free software world (Klaus Knopper's wife is legally blind), and bragging from M$ that ODF support would not be hard for them, but only if forced.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
That's total FUD.
l openxml_1.html
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/12/04/HNnovel
http://www.dataviz.com/
OpenXML has/is being implemented by 3rd parties.
So you're saying you know for a fact that there are no patents covering anything in the ODF standard? If so why did Sun produce a convenant not to sue ODF developers?
I'm getting confused too given the discussion on licensing around ODF.
At the end of the day I'd like to see a document format that is:
- Neutral i.e unencumbered by patents and licensing that try to give advantage to one or a small number of business parties.
- Able to deal with a reasonable subset of the features available today across the variety of word processors available.
- Able to be extended after a review and submission process allowing all interested parties to contribute.
- Ensures backward compatibility with older versions of the standard to ensure readability now and in the future.
The bottom one being the most important to me.
If your countries' constitution is distributed in this format it should remain readable by future generations unencumbered by licensing, patents, DRM or other obstacles designed to restrict usage to one vendor's software.
People here appear to say that ODF does not fulfill these objectives, anyone care to comment on which ones and why?
--- I've completed diagnosis of your problem and can classify it as a YOYO...You're On Your Own
The bill basically initiates a study into vendor neutrality and interoperability. It states that the study will be completed by January 15, 2008. It says nothing about actually doing anything with the study, so nothing may actually change.
Still, it's better than nothing. So all you registered voters in New York, consider writing your state assemblymen and senators.
NYS Assembly Members
NYS Senate Members
I bet MS already has ODF compatibility ready to put on their website for download if a bill like this were to pass.
A M$ rep has bragged as much in this very thread. If it's true, I wish they would shut up about ODF being harmful to blind people.
I don't see any reason it would not be true. ODF is a sane standard and everyone else has been able to use it.
ODF is a great idea. But it is only a tiny step away from propriatary formats.
The difference between published and non published "standards" is night and day. Just ask yourself why there's no OOXML implementation for Mac or GNU/Linux.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Here's the explanation...
/ 12/comparison-of-openxml-math-and-mathml.aspx
m athml-from-office-20007.html
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2006/10
You can get MathML out of Office docx documents quite easily using XSL transforms...
http://dpcarlisle.blogspot.com/2007/04/xhtml-and-
OpenXML has/is being implemented by 3rd parties.
Wrong. Third parties are implementing parts of OOXML and trying to do the best they can, but nobody other than Microsoft can ever create a complete implementation because the behavior of OOXML is defined in terms of Microsoft software. The situation isn't much different from current Microsoft Office formats: others try to support them as best they can, but nobody has been able to create a fully interoperable implementation.
So you're saying you know for a fact that there are no patents covering anything in the ODF standard?
I'm saying that I know for a fact that Microsoft has applied for a patent on OOXML, while nobody has applied for a patent on ODF.
If so why did Sun produce a convenant not to sue ODF developers?
Because that gives people additional assurance that Sun doesn't have any hidden agenda when it comes to ODF; you don't actually need Sun's covenant unless you're paranoid. With OOXML, Microsoft's agenda isn't even hidden, and without Microsoft's covenant, you'd definitely be screwed.
the first link you have mentions that the ooxml math is supposed to do almost (not exactly, but close) the same thing as mathml, so mentions that people are wondering why there even has to exist ooxml if mathml works fine.
the second's comments seem to imply that the mathml conversion doesn't work right... and i guess mathml isn't perfect either (perhaps it's my own ineptitude but i haven't succeeded in making properly heighted bra-ket's (like, when i have a bra and a ket together, the angle brackets on either side should be the same height as the middle line, adjusting to height of the elements inside, which can be done in latex with \middle for the middle pipe) ), and it's pretty verbose (though this could be simply a property of xml for math in general, myself being more used to latex.
the privacy of one's mind is important.
you do have something to hide.
One day in a quite New York senators office..
..... the wind"
[Man in black suite enters]
MIB "have you heard of odf"
Senator " ooh yes I have something about it here" [picks up some paper and waves it in front of himself]
MIB "yeah well here is this months eeer present" [mib reaches over and drops a paper bag on the desk then pics up papers in front of the senator and shoves them into his pocket] "you didn't see anything right" [mib reaches over and tweaks senators cheeks"
[MIB walks out the front door]
[secretary enters]
Secretary "did I just see someone enter" [points toward door]
Senator "No that was just
Secretary "have you got those documents regarding the open documentation legislation"
Senator "eer open docu..ment ? whats that Ive never heard of it, sounds like a waste of time lets move on shall we"
Hm, taking a step back, does it strike anyone else as odd, from a social and cultural perspective, that the entity whose profits depend on the result, i.e. the entity which could not be more biased, has a say and an ear in matters like this at all?
Shouldn't there be an instant "sorry, we're not listening to you, you are too much involved to be a reliable source" rejection? Yes, I know lobbying doesn't work that way. I'm wondering what this says about our society. Something like truth being less important than good argument, perhaps.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The whole problem with Microsoft's chosen 'open' format, is they are asserting IP claims over it. So it's open only in the sense you can license it from Microsoft on disadvantageous terms if it's to Microsoft's advantage to let you.
If Microsoft is truely interested in open standards, they should GPL3 their format as proof that it's an open standard. Instead of this part disclosure, lots of behind the scenes lobbying and money.
IF THEY CAN'T GPL IT, THEN IT'S NOT AN OPEN FORMAT.
microsoft can not win and will eventually lose this whack a mole game whenever any state writes a bill about implementing ODF, more states should write these types of bills often enough to overwhelm microsoft's goon squad...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I for one do not understand Microsoft's motive in crushing open formats. Can't other office programs export .doc now - so then why aren't they taking over in government usage? I don't even really see who the threats are - the sole OpenOffice? What a horrible clunk of a program. No one wants to use that yet, even if it is free.
Now it is almost clear to all the politicians. You got a never ending source of campaign money in Microsoft. I expect it will become almost a ritual. Every year, every state a band of legislators will send up balloons about ODF, and dutifully Microsoft will send its minions and tons of money. At some point MSFT will balk and that is the day real ODF legislation will emerge.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Open Standards, just mean that, Open Standards. Both proprietary software and open software can implement the API and formats. We can not skew the Standards to favour either one of them. Infact to counter the deep pockets of Microsoft, we need another one with deep pockets. And such a player would definitely want to make money for all the pain and effort. So we need to support anyone who supports open standards, even if such a player wants to sell proprietary closed source solutions.
All I want is a level playing field. Let all software, open source and close source, free software and comercial software, and shareware too, fight for their marketshare in a field of guaranteed interoperability. Let the marketplace decide which is best at that time.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
While we're on the subject of open formats, the UK government released a statement yesterday on their use over here. Not definitive, but it sounds like they are putting the final decision in the hands of people who have a vested interest in open formats.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
is there a site where you can see who Micro$oft is lobbying?
it would be nice to see who isn't on the take next time i vote.
"You should also consider that ODF's license is written by SUN"
Actually OpenDocument was developed by OASIS and published as an ISO standard. As such Sun, or any other single company don't own it. Microsofts covenant only promises not to sue for certain parts of the covered specification that are convienently not defined in the license. Why it's split up into chunks like this is curious.
"So basically it seems that the licensing issues surrounding ODF and OpenXML are pretty much equivalent"
Essencially what it means is that if you create a completely independent working specification, the do_not_sue covenant don't apply. On the other hand anyone can create their own implementation of ODF from the published specs and the do_not_sue covenant from SUN still applys.
Both yours an Microsofts definition of open standard seems to be different that everyone elses. According to Bruce Perens MS open standards would fail the test.
Fair Enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
davecb5620@gmail.com
It's a shame that Microsoft can no longer compete in the marketplace, but has to turn to backroom lobbying in order to stifle the wants of the consumers and sell its products.
It seems to me that this bill is about establishing the principles used to decide what formats to use. It does not try to mandate some specific format so there is no "that one is no good" argument that Microsoft (or anyone else) can use. "We are being unfairly excluded" does not fly either - the state is just working out what it needs from a document format.
The question of whether or not Microsoft products meet the needs is for later.
"You should not be thinking about your real needs, you should just buy our stuff" is the kind of argument that even the least technical politician should be able to understand. Whether they will smell a rat or smell money is an interesting question.
This could just be an honest and unbiased attempt at requirements gathering or it could be a subtle device to position the state so that when product selection time comes the state officials will look like serious and well informed folk but Microsoft will look like a pack of greedy scoundrels let by a chair-throwing baboon.
I'm starting a project to assemble data on all federal as well as state legislators. Would you like to help?
I was going to try something like a hot-or-not for politics, or some other ratings system, but just to kick things off, I'm just going to use the wiki.
There is a ton of pulic info on the web. You just have to do the busywork of organizing it.
-Cyrus
http://www.bytesfree.org/
Mod parent way, way down. It's like I walked into the Steve Ballmer Reality Distortion Field.
.doc format government and everyone else will still have to use MS Office & MS Windows.
Plus since 99.9% of the rest of the world still uses
What is so evil about this well-crafted statement is it manipulates the reader by doing the "everyone uses it" argument. When your Mom said, "If everyone you knew wanted to jump off a cliff, then I suppose you would jump too." when you wanted to do something justified by referring to your friend's activities. Maintaining closed standards is harmful, like jumping off a cliff.
The truth is everyone doesn't use it. Look at the standard document format in the American legal system. Most documents published on the web are in PDF and there's a Free (as in speech) pdf generator for every platform. Even windows. http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/
ODF is a great idea. But it is only a tiny step away from propriatary formats.
This statement is materially false. No patent encumbrances, no license encumbrances, no distribution encumbrances, and an API that a programmer can _actually_ use. versus Microsoft's API which should win an award for documents that say nothing.
Microsoft harms everyone who uses a computer by defending their closed document formats. Congratulations, you've blown the truthiness meter up.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
vendor neutrality and interoperability
When you are with a bunch of the government sales people, uttering that phrase would make you look like a complete ass hass.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
If ms-office competes on quality, if it's not just a matter of vendor-lock, then why is msft in such a panic about ODF? BTW: with a free plugin, ms-office works just fine with ODF.
Also, I think Toyota, not Ford, makes the Yaris.
Pure FUD.
Cost us what? Cause /. pseudo-geeks to stop buying our stuff? You freaks don't know anything. If you were actually the target market, then maybe someone would care.
If you don't care, why are you here?
Anyone here own a f500 corporation?
Well, you don't either, so you had better quit while you are behind. You never know who's reading. When enough people report back to the boss or the boss reads enough of the wrong words, it's the other company's interest that rules the day and M$ is out the door like DEC and many other large computer companies. In the end, M$ is just another manila folder company and that's why people don't care. Contemplate this.
hone your forum debating skillz here, while Microsoft makes money.
Bill Gates pays you too much. PR is not my job but I can tell you that you should never make yourself look like such an ass.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Wow, we got one: MickDownUnder is indeed one of those rare individuals--a Microsoft fanboi.
But the facts are clear nevertheless: OOXML ("Microsoft OpenXML") is not an open format, while ODF is. That's all there's to it.
How is any of this relevant to the State of New York issuing public documents in ODF format?
Because the only impediment is a company that does not have much to offer, other than men in black and other smear masters.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
As a coder of the 80's, I was on mainframes and pdp's (mumps). When PCs came out, I pointed out to other co-workers that PCs were going to be the norm and that is where to go to. Why? Because overtime they were going to be cheaper to run. When I suggested that we should be moving off COBOL and on to what was the language of the time(basic), I was told that I was nuts. Why? Because IBM had money and MS had nothing.
Now, we are seeing the EXACT same situation for Linux vs. MS. MS, unlike you, learned from the past. They are very worried and working hard. They know that they can not beat Linux on price, and worse, Linux is increasingly beating them on other areas, in particular security.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_curren t_work/TC45-2006-50_final_draft.htm
...
... statement?
I've actually looked at OpenXML, read the licensing and have some development experience with it.
How much time have you spent looking at OpenXML before coming to your
That's all there's to it
A petition is available for NYS residents to download and complete. It contains the address of assemblyperson Destito's office so it can be mailed directly there when it is completed.
t ion.pdf
http://ithacafreesoftware.org/images/nys_odf_peti
How much time have you spent looking at OpenXML before coming to your ...
Not very much, because I don't have to: all it takes in order to determine that "OpenXML" fails to be open is to find places where it is defined in terms of Microsoft's implementation, and there are plenty of those.
A standard document format has to say something either like "spacing like they do in ISO standard xyz" or "spacing done with a multiplier parameter <spacing fact="1.01"> where fact = a multiplier factor for backward compatibility, use 1.01987 for wordperfect 6.0 and 1.00 for everything else" but NEVER "spacing like in the proprietary software product word perfect 6.0, go buy it and buy a computer that can still run it if you want to perform the experiments necessary to know how to implement this feature".
And ISTR Microsoft, as a MEMBER of OASIS, was invited and encouraged to help define the ODF? They declined the invitation. Otherwise, this special Microsoft spacing feature would have been in ODF already (if what you say is true -- I'm tired and can't be bothered to look up in the spec whether its functionality is already described anyway).
Finally, I think the point of most standards is
. Think: contracts, design documentation of 30-year old airplanes, etc.Good grief.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Anyway, about compatibility:
This is a partial quote from section 1.5 of ODF v1.1 about conformance, not specifically compatibility; anyway I hope this helps:
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Says you! There are billions of Microsoft Office documents out there in legacy formats. Any standard that fails to support these documents is irrelevant to the majority of people out there.
As can be seen in this article it's pretty clear there is demand for open file formats. Unfortunately for ODF its creators never had any intention of providing backwards compatibility support for Microsoft Office documents. ODF is a cross industry standard to the exclusion of Microsoft and its customers, this is ODF's greatest failing and why there is a demand for OpenXML - a freely licensed file format for office documents backwards compatible with Microsoft Office legacy documents and supported by Microsoft.
Such as?
Such as "autoSpaceLikeWord95", "suppressTopSpacingWP", etc.
p oint0.html
You can find a longer discussion here:
http://fussnotes.typepad.com/Achieving_Openness_1