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."

12 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. 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.
  2. 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."
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

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

    You forgot projectile comfy chairs.

  7. 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

  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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 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."
  11. 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.