Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Government Adopts Open Source Software Initiative
christian.einfeldt writes "The Dutch government has set a target date of April 2008 for its agencies to start preferentially using open standards-based software. Organizations in the government will still be able to use proprietary software and formats ... but will have to justify it. A Microsoft Netherlands spokesman claims that Microsoft's Office productivity suite will still be used widely in the Dutch government until April, and that Microsoft Office will comply with the new Dutch rules once Microsoft's so-called "Open Office XML" standard is approved as an international ISO standard in February."
I love my country, now and then. This is such a moment.
And I love Microsoft's comment as well. Now lets first see that they manage to make OOXML an open standard! But at least someone still beliefs in it. It's so heartwarming. And actually a bid sad.
heres the google cache
posted AC, im not a karma whore
Supporters of open source should tone down the rhetoric about it and fight for open standards. If open source is better, as they believe, it will win if the playing field is level. What levels the field is open standards. Same is true about the free/paid software issue.
We should not fall for the well engineered PR spin of conflating these two.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
What a bunch of tulip smelling, wooden show wearing, low lying pansies. If you go open, go open all the way. This makes sick. Smell your tulips, wear your wooden shoes, and pronounce your j's as y's while the world laughs at your lack of decisiveness. Bunch of orange clad pansies if you ask me.
And precisely what is your home country doing that's so superior, Mr Wanker?
This should prove an entertaining(and educational) event to watch unfold.
In the short term, there will not be realy much change, I asume, but in the long term there will be.
Also everybdoy will be thinking about word, but I am also thinking about Excel sheets and all the scripting that goes with it very often.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Escape from the Windows/Office lock in is difficult, and, as the Munich city proved, time consuming, delayed and over budget.
One step at the time - and if Microsoft can document fully their OOXML format, it's still a win for OpenOffice and the rest of the office suites out there - compatibility with Microsoft Office will be easier to obtain.
This action plan (it's not legislation, yet) is intended to get government agencies to use both open source software, and open standards.
I don't really care wheter or not our government uses open source or proprietary software, whatever works best for the task at hand. I do however care a lot about them using open standards. It sure would be nice if we can still figure out how to open a certain document in 50 years time, without depending on a single software vendor to help us out.
Brazil too has directed ms crap not be used if I recall correctly. ms was furious over that one ( tee hee, cheer cheer cheer ! ) ya know how to send a message to the capt. of a battleship? use a torpedo
One step at the time - and if Microsoft can document fully their OOXML format, it's still a win for OpenOffice and the rest of the office suites out there - compatibility with Microsoft Office will be easier to obtain.
I'm unconvinced - from what I've seen of the OOXML "spec", I am not sure maintaining compatibility by following it would be any easier than the current reverse engineering done on the existing formats. So the only change I think we're going to see if OOXML gets approved as a standard is that the third party software writers will _look_ worse since they will lose the "well it isn't documented so we're doing the best we can" excuse.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
The Associated Press article yet again misquotes the MS standard as "Open Office XML". It is Office Open XML; and the tragedy is that neither is it Open; nor does Office 2007 fully support the OOXML; as documented.
The only saving grace would be for the BRM to reject this from becoming an ISO standard in February. Else Microsoft's efforts to confuse the market with their skewed terminology looks set to continue.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
For fucks sake, can't anyone in the media tell the difference? There is nothing to stop a closed source software using an open standard.
This is something that should have been settled along time ago (many years ago), yet just because someone wants to control the market and the interfaces between programs, it is taking much longer then it should.
I believe that ODF allows for a new point of adjustment to the current way things are perceived in the Office suite environment.
I have a hard time understanding why people don't see the benefit of standardizing ODF as the standard, it allows for so much progress. The fact that it is not controlled by a money hungry company that has made many attempts to capitalize on anything they do. They have been caught red handed many times in bad business practices, they do not like competition or having to compete, should be a major factor for everyone to adopt ODF format.
Keeping it as open as possible is extremely important for the liberty of the users, developers, and businesses alike to make sure that no one gets the raw end of the deal. It truly could allow for a true transparency between office suites. It will also make all office suites keep in check with interoperability between each other.
It truly is an important decision, yet it should be an easy one, when it make so much more availability to all users, contributers, and business people alike to allow ODF as a betterment for business, community and choice.
dont worry dutch govt... Microsoft will still welcome you back in a year or two when the project fails or you realise you only have 5 people running the new system.
... it seems like clockwork that you see these items come through ... and clockwork that they all change their minds eventually... you just dont see those items on the homepage ;)
yawn
You tell 'em! There's only two things I hate in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.
That article by Toby Sterling should be used as course material on how many mistakes you can find.
I believe the author had good intentions, but he mixes up the terminology.
1) It's "Office Open XML" (this OOXML), not Open Office XML.
Microsoft did not think the choice of name might confuse...
2) An open standard and open source are different
Open sores in germany what is new ?
It seems apparent that "Open Office XML" sufficiently resembles "OpenOffice.org", and moreover, that the standard sufficiently relates to the same market as OpenOffice.org, that anyone wishing to retain the OpenOffice.org trademark should demand Microsoft stop confusing the marketplace with the name of their coincidentally no-so-open standard.
In a recent Dutch Podcast ictroddels.nl Microsoft was complaining that this brief would hurt their business, and that it was unwise of the Dutch government to opt for the ODF, because MSOffice could not read it natively, and that they should also include OOXML in the brief. .doc format was also open enough, because many open source solutions could read and write to that format.
In the same interview, Theo Rinsema, general manager of MS Netherlands also said that MS doesn't want to compete on Office formats.
He also mentioned that the
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
I talked about this with a friend yesterday, and we noticed that this was a very badly written article that gets basically everything wrong. But that's tech journalism for ya.
Here are some relevant links from his blog:
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
What's with the !oktoberfest tag? I mean, yeah, oktoberfest is over, and this article isn't about it, but I think that kind of applies to just about everything.
IBM didn't sink from prominence overnight. It took from about 1980 to about 2000
at first there was a whisper of dissent along the hall in acedemia
and then new voices joined the complaint
and the pundits all screamed we are set upon by fools
and as it turned out the king actually did not have any clothes at all.
OOXML will not be an allowed document format according to the current policy. ODF is the mandatory standards. If and when OOXML is ISO approved the Dutch government *may* add this format. But there is very little reason to do so. No applications use OOXML (the version up for ISO-approval anyway) and all applications (even MS-Office) support ODF. So MS-office will be usable as a tool as long as ODF is used to store documents.
Rgds,
Arjen
Yes, OOXML is a misnomer. Because no one else can modify or fully implement ooxml the name should be "msxml". I suggest that we all use this term to describe the thing M$ is trying to push. It's short and impossible to confuse with anything else.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Ripped from groklaw posts regarding Denmark's decision (also applies here):
...open standards in all new IT solutions, unless it will significantly increase
Even if MSOOXML gets the ISO stamp, it doesn't make it "open", merely
a standard. On the "open" front it's pretty much pretense all the way.
Not that ISO even pretends to usually care if a standard is open or not, even if
in this case even they seem to be party to the shell game.
the costs of the project.
- new Office, not really ooxml: $$$
- new OpenOffice.org: Free
Moreover, all authorities must be able to receive office documents in two open
document standards - namely ODF and OOXML. This allows citizens to communicate
with government using open standards.
- rx ODF with OpenOffice.org: True
- rx OOXML with any version of MSOFFice: false
The openness of a standard implies that:
* the standard must be fully documented and publicly available;
- ODF: True
- OOXML: False, proposed "standard" includes by reference
undocumented components
* the standard must be freely implementable without economic, political or legal
constraints on its implementation and use, now or in the future;
- ODF: True
- OOXML: False Legal Constraints
* the standard should be managed and maintained in an open forum via an open
process (standardisation organisation).
- ODF: True
- OOXML: False see recent articles on OOXML Bait and Switch
This sounds optimistic to me, but it could easily be true. Actually, it would be very good news if it became n ISO standard ... if Microsoft gets the standard by improving and clarifying it, and by explicitly dropping all patent restrictions on its features. But it's entirely possible that they won't do that but will get an ISO standard anyway, in which case we'll have an "open" standard that can't be implemented properly by any third parties, and can't be implemented legally in the United States without licensing patents on the standard from Microsoft.
This is why I think it's important for governments to clearly define what they mean by "open." The definition should have nothing to do with any standards body like ISO or Ecma. As we've all seen, ISO votes can be rigged, so "open" should mean that a standard is well-documented and contains no patent, copyright or trademark restrictions that would prevent a third party from implementing it without working with the developer of the standard. It should also require that the original developer of the standard not be the sole authority in charge of developing it further, and keeps their own products compliant with it. (How many people have imagined Microsoft "deviating" from their own OOXML standard in undocumented ways when they release the next version of Office?)
Maybe they were afraid to end up like the City of Munich, who has been stuck in an unending nightmare of FOSSie total conversion. Their IT infrastructure has been completely shut down since 2002, because the idiots in charge wanted, like yourself, to go 100% FOSS. And now they went 100% FAIL.
That's why FOSSies have been trying to avoid competing in the marketplace, and have been focusing their energies on destroying governmental IT: because the private sector has already rejected FOSSie software. It doesn't make the grade. But a government doesn't have to worry about being run out of business by using (well, choosing since it isn't usable) FOSS.
Look for Munich to eventually bite the bullet and come crying back to Windows. I'm surprised they've held out as long as they have. Maybe IBM is bribing public officials or something, since IBM views Teh Lunix as their chance to rebuild their tech monopoly.
"We think it's not in the best interest of the wider software market to single out one model for endorsement like this" the spokesperson for Microsoft said.
Think about it, think hard. A single model ? That is like the mafia boss telling the judge "it is unfair to single out the model of law-abiding citizenry as only allowable one".
Nobody hinders Microsoft to compete in the market of open standards; just like Nokia and Ericsson compete in the world of the open standards of telecommunication. Sure, they'd prefer if each had a monopoly, and nobody else could even manufacture handsets.
The Dutch policy directs government organizations at the national level to be ready to use the Open Document Format to save documents by April
No reason for Microsoft to whine. ODF is some ISO standard, and they are more than welcome to place their ISO/IEC 26300-compliant product in the market. Nobody hinders Microsoft to make the big buck at supporting their software.
...somewhere in between their competitors... between free, free and almost free.
--
I've been using OpenOffice in a corporate, MS only, environment for 3 years now... go on and try to tell me that it is impossible.
FWIW, the name of the Microsoft proposed ISO standard is "Office Open XML", not "Open Office XML", nor OOXML. Be accurate, please.
A standard ought to include an open reference implementation. The open implementation need not be the only implementation, but if the only reference implementation is confidential and proprietary, it's not an open standard at all.
Security through obscurity does not work. You know it, I know it and most slashdotters and security professionals know it. But still some non engineers in the top management don't buy it. Many top politicians don't buy it. Selling closed/proprietary software as "more secure" works for them. Blocking open source as "insecure" works there. Now we are in a no-win situation. Either explain and prove them wrong and thus antagonize them, (these top dogs don't like to be proven wrong) or leave them alone and get blocked by them.
In the case of open standards, it is much more difficult to argue against it. That is why even MSFT is coming out with, "ours is also an open standard" line. That is why I was asking people not to get into open/close source argument and give the other side less foot hold.
Let us face a pragmatic reality. There are many closed source vendors who would like to get just a piece of MSFT's market share. It would be foolish for the open-standards advocates not to include them in the big tent. Don't antagonize these people whose interests are aligned with ours.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I've actually had smarmy corporate types giggle at me on the phone and say things like "can't afford to migrate the whole office to 07 yet, eh?
I'm glad I don't have to deal with such people, who don't know how to run a business.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Microsoft's efforts to confuse the market with their skewed terminology looks set to continue.
Dude, that's what Microsoft DOES. It's been part of their core strategy for decades.
I posted a similar comment before, but I'll say it again: this won't change *anything*. There will always be an excuse to stick with Microsoft, making it "better" than the open source alternative in at least some way (it could be vendor support, training costs, exact compatibility with Microsoft Office, or just about anything else). And the weasels that are in charge of our computers will stick with the warm, fuzzy glow they get from using only Microsoft software.
I applaud this initiative, but after dealing with these people for a long time I find it hard to believe anything good will come of it.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Hi All,
;), this is what it boils down to:
I attended the conference of ososs.nl (http://www.ososs.nl/, mainly Dutch), which was held the day after the documents passed Dutch parlement. Ososs was set up by the Dutch government and they are co-writes of the document of the Netherlands Economic Affairs Ministry
To get the facts
1) Any govenmental agency must by default use solutions and products that use open standards. Only with a very good reason one can choose a closed standards product. If currently a closed standards solution is used, replacing it should be done with an open standards version ("ist" to "soll" situation).
2) Open-Source products must be considered in any aquisition of new products. It must be weighted on equal terms with closed-source products.
3) All things being equal, open-source is the preferred choice.
4) Interoperability, govenmental transparancy and innovation are at least as important as the price of the solution.
4) There is a deadline of April 2008 to implement the use of Open Document Format for all external communications within all branches of the govenment
5) All semi-govenmental agencies have until 2011 to implement ODF
6) The parlement explicitly stated that education must be included in this initiative. Not only for their internal ICT, but as an integral part of education of pupils and students in ICT.
7) The parlement will keep watching progress being made.
I personally feel that the most intresting point is not just the points above, but the fact that the govenment is using a top-down approach, which has full support of both the Home office as well as the Economic Affairs Ministry. I feel this is a landslide victory for open standards and open source in the Netherlands.
Futhermore, I'd like to add that all parties in the parlement, left to right, were in favour of this act; this has not happened in a very long time...
> Microsoft's efforts to confuse the market
.doc formats and RTF. The only connection is that they have been written by MS Office of various versions. This firmly illustrates that MS is itself confused between the application and the format.
They also try to confuse the market (and it has worked) by confusing the Office 2003 XML as being MSOOXML (they are completely different XML formats).
Also they claim that there are 'billions' of documents which are supported by MSOOXML. These billions are all various differing
MSOOXML is 'what Office 2007 does' (or nearly). Thus they can only think that ODF is 'what OpenOffice.org does'.
Sorry dude, your wrong I spoke to several "top brass" guys at the ministries and the are dead serious. Open standards is the way to go, open source the thing to follow it up. The reaction to Microsoft's FUD letter on the conference the day after was very clear. The balance has been shifted....
It's happening already!
Aargh .... there is more to open standard than certification at ISO. But the Thing does not get it. Oh well.
Not RLY:
City of Munich admits Lunix migration is a failure
Do try to keep up to date, mkay? Having all your "Lunix Desktops" running Windows in a VM isn't actually a "migration". Sounds more like ignominious failure to me.
dollar signs and everything.
If you truly believe Open Software is the best way to have good software, you would not ask for anything more than Open Standards. That is enough for us to win.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
"We think it's not in the best interest of the wider software market to single out one model for endorsement like this" the spokesperson for Microsoft said.
"ONE MODEL"??!! You mean ONE STANDARD, you cretin. And yes, it would be in the interest of "the market" and "the people" to have one standard, and NOT have important information locked up in an American corporation's proprietary format. PLEASE stop this doublespeak, idiot, and get with the program. We are using one standard for the Intarweb (TCP/IP), one for elctricity (volts), one for data storage (bytes) etc. etc.
It's when you use more than one standard when you get fuckups like the mars mission.
But hey, MicroSnot knows best. Well, fuck you and fuck your American Fascist Imperialism.
The Associated Press article yet again misquotes the MS standard as "Open Office XML".
Worse than that: the author (Toby Sterling) who wrote the original piece states: "Microsoft has raced to achieve "open source" certification....but has so far failed to receive endorsement from the International Standards Organization".
Methinks Mr Sterling was clearly out of his depth in this report: perhaps he should stick to writing about flower shows in future; they must have loads of those in the Netherlands.
In my experience, the Dutch are very pragmatic and quick to learn from other's mistakes. This is a move towards open standards in a phased approach, understanding that a big bang switch-over would fail. It rarely works for significant, mandated technology change. I recall in the US the mandate for all defense software to be written in Ada. That neveer worked. A slower, steady switchover is better. At least the Dutch are making a clear move in the right direction with an official policy to highly encourage open standards.