Slashdot Mirror
Open Standards Initiative Fails in Massachusetts
walterbyrd writes "Massachusetts has decided to use Microsoft's Open-XML standard. This decison: 'stands in sharp contrast to the positions taken by predecessor CIOs Peter Quinn and Louis Gutierrez, backed by then governor (and now-presidential hopeful) Mitt Romney. Both Quinn and Gutierrez insisted on including only "open standards" in the ETRM, and withstood significant pressure from Microsoft to give ground and accept OOXML...'"
I guess the good news is how long it took Microsoft to kill it. They are not as good as they used to be with the FUD.
...that undoubtedly business and politics are tangled together in a bed of money.
Does this really come as a surprise that a change in regime would change the direction of a major initiative? I think we've seen this many times before, not the least of which being the Microsoft antitrust trial. When the old boss moves out, the new boss moves in, waves his hands, and changes the playing field yet again.
*sigh*
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
is no substitute for actually getting up off your fat ass and voting and making your voice heard to the state governments?
if you read TFA it says that they are including both ODF and Open XML as acceptable document formats.
So while the original intention to only include really open formats is regrettably given up (curiously by an interim CIO, why does he decide that if he is only a temporary hire?), it is not like ODF got dumped for the Microsoft format.
...if it's rejected as an ISO standard, there is plenty of room for rejecting the present acceptance.
But that said, I am admittedly ignorant of any appeals or reapplication processes that Microsoft would undoubtedly pay... err, uh attempt.
Nutrasweet was rejected multiple time until the company that makes it put someone into the FDA office that would approve it. ("No, we reject it because it's poison... we reject it because it's poison... oh okay, we no longer 'feel' it's poison...") OOXML was rejected by two or three parties in a position to do so (depending on how you count them) until finally, Microsoft got someone in office that they could bend to their will.
This is "competition in the market place?!" This is "innovation!?"
I'd like to hear from Microsoft apologists why they think this is an ethical and acceptable way to do business.
How much can MSFT charge for MS-Office? It can price it just a shade under what it would cost you to switch to an alternative. Your switching cost determines the money you need to pay to MSFT. If a company wants to lower the money it pays, it has to lower the switching costs. Slowly ODF will gain acceptance.
Also the ODF proponents should realize that the total money collected by MSFT is just 40 billion dollars. I say just because, for the amount of money corporate America is spending, it is not much. For most companies their core operation is transportation or retail or selling insurance or whatever. Compared to the health insurance, labour costs, office building maintenance and rent, advertising expenses, the amount they spend on Office software is a pittance. As long as MSFT keeps prices that low, it is difficult for ODF to gain traction.
The switch will be very very gradual initially. First companies for whom office software costs is a significant portion of their operating expenses. Then slowly it will spread to other companies. We should not expect any quick victories. Then once the alternative formats have gained enough critical mass, and the backward compatibility issues have become less of an issue, there would be quick upsurge for ODF. But still MSFT will have a significant market share in office software for a long time to come.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This can hardly be called FUD. They destroyed at least one man's career in government -- probably two mens'. Who knows what else they did to get this through, and head off a pan-american shift away from MS products.
Just yesterday I was sitting in the relevant meeting of SNV/UK14 (http://www.snv.ch/), that decides how Switzerland will vote. The chairman (Hans-Rudolf Thomann) explained the following rules:
...) vote against the best interest of their customers and theirself!
- we are here to create standards, not to reject them
- if we reach consensus (>=75%) to vote for Microsoft, we will vote for Microsoft
- if we only reach a majority (>=50%) to vote for Microsoft, we will vote for Microsoft
- if we reach a majority to vote against Microsoft, we will vote for Microsoft
- if we reach consensus to vote against Microsoft, we will abstain
The present spin doctors of Microsoft and ECMA managed to convince Mr. Thomann to reject every serious technical and general concern we had regarding OOMXL by pointing to compatibility reasons. At the end we had a majority _against_ Microsoft but which (giving the unfair rules) results in a Swiss vote _for_ Microsoft. Mr. Thomann was fretting and fuming at the end of the meeting how it can be that successful international companies (we had representatives from IBM, Google,
Yes, this is how the democratic system at SNV / ISO works. After the meeting I could not eat as much as I wanted to puke...
Posted as AC for obvious reasons
OK, so they allow the use of either ODF or Open XML - at least simple programs can extract text and style data form both formats. I blogged recently about how I prefer ODF, and included a little Ruby program to process ODF files:
t er-than-microsofts.html
http://markwatson.com/blog/2007/05/why-odf-is-bet
and one of my readers pointed out that by changing a line or two of my code, that Open XML could be processed in the same way - I stand corrected.
Still, I am a member of the ODF Foundation, and don't like Microsoft's heavy handed actions. I sold all of my Microsoft stock a few years ago specifically because I did not like their proprietary file format lockins. I use both Open Source and proprietary software - I have no problem with people (including myself) buying Microsoft products except for their use of proprietary formats: hurts users and could cause expensive data loss now and in the future.
If Microsoft perfectly supported ODF in their release of Mac Office next year, I would buy a copy - but slap on plugins don't count here: I would require perfect native support.
It's sad so many people instantly think "corruption" when the government makes a decision they don't agree with. Isn't it possible Microsoft made a better case for their standard? A decision like this is like a civil court case, the person with the best argument wins.
Of the top of my head, I can think of a few reasons lawmakers (from their perspective) might want to use Microsoft's standard before any others:
1. Microsoft is a very large, very well known company. They will be around for a very long time to support any of their formats.
2. Microsoft creates a lot of jobs.
3. Most government offices use Microsoft Office on Microsoft Windows for word processing, so Microsoft is the best format to use since the government is already integrated with their products.
This is probably what the politicians were thinking about, and from that perspective, Microsoft looks like the right choice. Most decisions in government are not bought and sold, they are negotiated based on the better argument.
The important thing is that the information is freely available to the public.
This is clearly not important to the government of Massachusetts, nor to most other US states.
This could be an interesting precedent. The important point is that there are government documents that citizens are legally required to understand and obey. In the past, the most "encoding" of such documents was in microfilm, which is just an image that can be viewed or printed with cheap, commodity hardware. Government agencies would generally do this for you, often without even asking.
But now we're seeing a lot of government agencies move online, with extra charges if you want readable hard copy. For example, there are a number of states that charge less for things like licenses if you renew online. But this decision takes this change a step farther: It holds the prospect that, to read the document that you are legally required to read and obey, you must pay a specific corporation (Microsoft) for the software to read it. Alternatively, you will have to pay the surcharge for hard copy, which already an established practice. Also, without licensed Microsoft software, you may not be able to reply electronically, and again you'll have to pay a surcharge to someone who has such software. The safest would be to take time off from work and visit the government agency to handle whatever is in the document.
It's basically a surcharge on poor people, of course. To us middle-class and geek types, it's mostly an annoyance, that we have to keep a Windows box on hand and up to date, to prove that we have the legal right to read any OOXML doc that the government tosses our way.
What I think would be interesting would be not to challenge the use of such proprietary encodings, but rather to ask the courts to make the government refund to us the price of the machine and software we must buy to read such documents.
Remember that in the US, under current law, unauthorized decoding of protected (via patent or copyright) documents is a $500,000 fine and five years in a federal prison. And Microsoft's XML encodings are being patented. If it were legal for me to decode and read any document that anyone sent me, I wouldn't be worried. Most proprietary formats get cracked soon after they're released. But with the law imposing such a draconian punishment for merely attempting to read a document that a government agency sends me, I'd feel a lot better if they were required to protect me from prosecution for decoding and reading such documents. Probably the cheapest way would be to require that they pay for my Windows box.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.