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."

27 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. open formats win, MS loses by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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....
    1. Re:open formats win, MS loses by epee1221 · · Score: 5, Funny

      FUD and disinformation are their primary weapons. Their two weapons are FUD and disinformation, and ruthless efficiency.
      ...
      Their three weapons are FUD, disinformation, and ruthless efficiency ... and pushes for insane extensions to copyright/patent protections.
      There four weapons are....
      Amongst their weapons are...

      Ok, lemme try this again....

      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
    2. Re:open formats win, MS loses by kungfoolery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Open source/format is such a misunderstood term. By extension, it is believed that this means a completely democratic, transparent, and even collegiate collaborative development environment. Increasingly, it means "using this term is one of the best ways we can bring down Microsuck" 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.

    3. Re:open formats win, MS loses by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I bet MS already has ODF compatibility ready to put on their website for download if a bill like this were to pass. Plus since 99.9% of the rest of the world still uses .doc format government and everyone else will still have to use MS Office & MS Windows.

      ODF is a great idea. But it is only a tiny step away from propriatary formats.

    4. Re:open formats win, MS loses by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they can't compete based on the quality of their products, that's for sure But that's just it -- they do.

      No one would ever use MS Office, or Visual Studio, or Windows, if there wasn't sufficient quality therein to justify the expense of staying. There are huge flaws and gaping shortcomings, to be sure, but somehow MS still manages to have enough quality over the free alerternatives that they stay in business.

      If you think otherwise, I offer that you may not understand exactly what "quality product" means. A Ford Yarius might be a crappy toy car, but it's weird and efficient enough that it fits an exact niche big enough to earn a profit -- it is a quality product.
    5. Re:open formats win, MS loses by ozbird · · Score: 5, Funny

      You forgot projectile comfy chairs.

    6. Re:open formats win, MS loses by munrom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's simple, if we deployed OOo around the site here, and it plays up just a little bit, we get our arses handed to us by management.

      We deploy MSO and it borks up big time, it's all good cause, well I don't really know why, seems management have all the forgiveness for MS products but not for any others

    7. Re:open formats win, MS loses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. They didn't compete on the quality of their software, the succeed by excluding the competition.

      Why don't they have office for Linux? Then they could compete on the quality of their Operating System. Oh wait, they don't want to do that. What about making Visual Studios work under Linux?

      What about opening up their formats so you're not locked into them? Oh wait, they don't want competition on quality, they want you to buy their stuff no matter what. That's not necessarily bad, but when you've broken the law to obtain a 95% market share, then it's bad.

    8. Re:open formats win, MS loses by dotlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Open source/format is such a misunderstood term. It might be tough for some to understand. However the term single vendor lockin is something that anyone can understand.
      --
      Transmitting energy without a license.
  2. It doesn't matter... by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:It doesn't matter... by DogDude · · Score: 3, Funny

      more people will understand that software itself has no intrinsic value.

      Speak for yourself. The code I write is quite valuable to me.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:It doesn't matter... by epee1221 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, GP appears to be confusing cost with value.

      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
  3. ya.. by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The big problem here is that we have politicians deciding the case who are not tech savvy, I mean looking at the last time ODF was killed in bills it isnt comforting when you hear things like this from them:

    But during the ensuing policy debate, Betzold and other politicians quickly felt overwhelmed by the technical jargon presented by each side. "I wouldn't know an open document format if it bit me on the butt,"

    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.
  4. Bias Showing by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bills that would have required state agencies to use freely available document formats in Texas, Connecticut, Florida, and Oregon were shot down mainly due to the pro-Microsoft lobby Incorrect. They were shot down because of the FUD spread by both IBM and Microsoft.

    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.
  5. Just once by blindseer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. One Missing Weapon by Erris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:One Missing Weapon by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nobody is saying that MS or any other commercial company cannot produce software to read the open formats. The only thing that public standards allows is for people to use free software (or any commercial package) if they choose to. Nobody is forcing anybody to use any specific software. If the government put out everything in MS .Doc, then the only way to properly and reliably read the documents would be with MS Word. However, if they release the documents in ODF, then you could read them in OpenOffice, KOffice, MS Office, WordPerfect, and any other word processor that you might want to use. Sure some word processors don't support it yet, but it's a free and open spec to support, so if there's a market for it, and the choices are support the format or lose customers, then they choice is pretty clear.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  7. States' rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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.

  8. bullshit by nanosquid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:bullshit by spitzak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is interesting to see what Microsoft is really scared of. All those slashdot patent stories do not seem to have Microsoft astroturfers, but this one is thick with them. I do believe the patent stuff is probably just to confuse people and they don't really care where it goes, but the threat of having to make their software write a format that others can read is making them go at it big time.

      Anyway, although the above astroturfers are not going to listen it is pretty simple.

      All those OOXML importers you say "prove it is an open standard" are simply programmers applying their previous work in reverse-engineerning .doc format. Those importers work exactly as well/poorly as the .doc importers do: simple documents and carefully-made large ones work fine, but typical office users will find their text mangled by the import, and thus to them there is no competing product.

      Any claim that it is an "open standard" is blatently false. There are commands in it like "work like Word 95", yet the standard does not include the source code to Word 95. Well, you say, just ignore that command, it's a minor detail, right? But that is exactly why those office documents come out mangled. It is in fact exactly the same as .doc format and it is pretty clear that inability to accurately transcribe .doc format is the main reason there is no competition to Word.

      You can continue to spew your lies. You will probably win. But this is one of the sickest things I have seen coming out of Microsoft ever and you can bet that you are making enemies that you never had before. Slashdot is a big cesspool of crazy zealots, but when you see Microsoft doing such a blatent, desperate ploy to save their monopoly, and the absolute insane direct lying in their posts here, I start to agree with slashdot.

    2. Re:bullshit by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Interesting
      All those slashdot patent stories do not seem to have Microsoft astroturfers, but this one is thick with them.

      Yep, and the GPL3 stories seem to draw a lot of flies as well. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/07/149 240

      Makes you think the FSF might be on the right track after all.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:bullshit by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Informative
      You say stuff, but nothing on how it's either closed or proprietary.

      I provided you with a link to explanations clearer and more concise than anything I could include here.

      I'm aware you're not prepared to look at evidence which would conflict with your view, but for the convenience of other readers, I've posted the headers to the Groklaw articles which contain the complete explanations.

      # 7 Ecma 376 contradicts numerous international standards

      * 7.1 The Gregorian Calendar
      * 7.2 ISO 8601 (Representation of dates and times)
      * 7.3 ISO 639 (Codes for the Representation of Names and Languages)
      * 7.4 ISO/IEC 8632 (Computer Graphics Metafile)
      * 7.5 ISO/IEC 26300:2006 (OpenDocument Format for Office Applications)
      * 7.6 W3C SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics)
      * 7.7 W3C MathML (Mathematical Markup Language)
      * 7.8 ISO/IEC 10118-3, W3C XML-ENC, and other cryptographic hash standards
      * 7.9 W3C SMIL (Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language)

      # 8 Ecma 376 is immature and inconsistent

      * 8.1 Fabricates units of measurement
      * 8.2 Internal inconsistencies: the w:sz element
      * 8.3 Internal inconsistencies and omissions: ST_Border
      * 8.4 Confusing and inconsistent definitions of lengths of hexadecimal numbers
      * 8.5 Unspecified terms: plain text
      * 8.6 Poor names and inconsistent naming conventions for elements and attributes
      * 8.7 Inflexible notation for percentages
      * 8.8 Inappropriate non-document settings (application settings)
      * 8.9 Non-XML formatting codes
      * 8.10 Inflexible numbering format
      * 8.11 Uses a Microsoft-specific namespace

      # 9 Ecma 376 uses bitmasks, inhibiting extensibility and use of standard XML tools

      * 9.1 Background: bitmasks
      * 9.2 Bitmasks in Ecma 376
      * 9.3 Bitmasks are not extensible
      * 9.4 Bitmasks cause significant validation problems
      * 9.5 Bitmasks defeat XSLT manipulation
      * 9.6 Bitmasks conflict with the Ecma TC45 charter

      # 10 Ecma 376 relies on undisclosed information

      * 10.1 Undisclosed proprietary specifications
      * 10.2 Cloning the behaviour of proprietary applications
      * 10.3 Relies on application-defined behaviors

      # 11 Ecma 376 cannot be adequately evaluated within the 30-day evaluation period

      * 11.1 Ecma 376 has not met the stability requirement

      # 12 Ecma 376 cannot be reasonably implemented by other vendors

      * 12.1 Ecma 376 requires implementation of undisclosed specifications
      * 12.2 The "compatibility with legacy formats" can only be implemented by Microsoft
      * 12.3 Patent rights to implement the Ecma 376 specification have not been granted
      o 12.3.1 The Microsoft covenants not to sue grant no rights
      o 12.3.2 Microsoft licensing documents are ambiguous
      + 12.3.2.1 The Microsoft Open Specification Promise is ambiguous
      + 12.3.2.2 The Microsoft Covenant Not to Sue is irrelevant and ambiguous in any event
      * 12.4 End-User License Agreements (EULAs) may forbid full implementation


      Anyone wishing to understand the full risks of implementing OOXML in their own software should read the Groklaw page very carefully.
      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  9. That's why M$ Sucks. by Erris · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  10. Re:Fair Enough? by nanosquid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. What Microsoft wants to happen by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Funny

    All your format are belong to us!

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  12. Slightly off-topic... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  13. Mod Lying Parent Down by asphaltjesus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mod parent way, way down. It's like I walked into the Steve Ballmer Reality Distortion Field.

    Plus since 99.9% of the rest of the world still uses .doc format government and everyone else will still have to use MS Office & MS Windows.

    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!