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.
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.
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.
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.
All your format are belong to us!
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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.
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.
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
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!