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 can't help thinking that we are seeing a tide starting to turn in mainland Europe - governments and public organisations are starting to wake up. It's a case of 2 steps forward, one step back, but progress none-the-less.
Now if only the Dutch could export this way of thinking across the North Sea to us non-mainland Europeans, we'd all be happy......
43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
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
It doesn't matter how "open" OOXML is, or if it'll become an "open standard". The bottom line is, that whatever it becomes, it'll never be a specification of all the secrets that Microsoft Office puts in its file formats. Things like autoSpaceLikeWord95, etc, must remain secrets since their secrecy is the only thing that makes MS-Office worth buying.
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.
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
I was at the commission meeting, lets say the Christian Democrats really don't get what Open Source is. They think in terms of 'Experimental' and 'Gratis'. The other parties understand the concept completely, thank God ;) ODF is the preferred way to go. Open Source should have preference if the software is equal on the requirements. Next to this, software specially made for the government shouldn't be licensed to, but completely owned by the government. This was the procedure but many 'errors' were made at some ministries.
The Socialist Party wants the cost of a PC split in a software part and a hardware part. This concept of course is the way to go, but I don't see this happen soon.
Microsoft should not worry at all, since the users in the government use the plug-in at some departments already. I didn't hear anyone mentioning OpenOffice.
Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
Now I don't know how vigorously the rules are enforced, but certainly the times that I've worked with various governmental bodies they have been very keen indeed on using open standards and software as far as possible. It's a pragmatic approach though - if a proprietary solution really is the best, all things considered, then that's what'll be used.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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.
Microsoft need no worry on the short term, because most departments will most likely resort to the Sun ODF plugin for MS Office. But a lot of cities and smaller goverment bodies are switching or have switched to OpenOffice.org. As for as their ooxml format: the new policy specifically names ODF as the standard for office documents. So it doesn't matter al that much if ooxml is approved as an ISO standard or not. I'm just curious how many countries need to adopt policies like this before Microsoft takes it loss and starts supporting ODF natively.
;)
Fixing the faulty ISO process should be next on the list for the Dutch government
This is not about 'MS crap'. This is about open standards. If MS adopts open standards for use in their programs, their software can still be used.
-- Cheers!
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.
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?)
"I think even if MS switched to ODF by default, they would still sell just as many copies of Office. "
Me too. So why in the Hell does MS fight ODF tooth and nail at every turn? They just can't wrap their head around the concept of winning their customer based on the merit of their product. The user has choice? OMG, the sky is falling!
"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.
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
First, it was "In May 2003 Munich's city council voted to switch its 14,000 desktop and notebook computers from Microsoft products to the Linux operating system and open-source desktop applications", not 2002. Next there was a pilot, then they delayed a year, but the mayor has said last yeat at the Systems IT trade show in Munich,"But we're very happy with the results so far. I'm no technology freak but even I must admit how easy it's been to migrate to the new software." By the end of the year, some 200 workstations close to Lord Mayor Christian Ude and a number of nearby organizational units will be running on a special LiMux client. If everything runs according to schedule, most of the approximately 14,000 PCs will be migrated to Open Source in the next two years.
Note that the delay began with debates over patent issues, and companies fighting for contracts (the pilot was based on SuSE but "the city finally chose Softcon and Gonicus to install open source software provided through the Debian GNU/Linux project.") There was certainly resistance to change, but the delays have been more political than technical in nature.
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...
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....