Slashdot Mirror
Library of Congress's $3M Deal With Microsoft
Cory Doctorow sounds the alarm over a Library of Congress deal with Microsoft that will have collections locked up in Silverlight. I'll double the Microsoft deal and offer them $6M in perl scripts and an infinite value of free OS software if they let me (or Google or any other honest company) publish their collections in free formats. "This deal involves the donation of 'technology, services and funding' (e.g., mostly not money) with a purported value of $3M from Microsoft to the Library of Congress. The Library, in turn, agrees to put kiosks running Vista in the library and to use Microsoft Silverlight to 'help power the library's new Web site, www.myloc.gov.'"
Okay so they traded off having to use use silverlight in order to use Vista kiosks? That seems like a bit of a lose-lose deal to me. They must have some pretty stupid negotiators. Plus, how could anyone be so stupid that they put something that important into a super proprietary format?!
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Aside from vendor lock-in, this product is far too new to be relying on like this.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So when things break, they can get the standard, RTFM? response that seems typical (albiet a sterotype) of the OSS community? Or they can pick up the phone can call MS, who does not wish to tarnish a reputation by letting the LOC down. That would be some reallllllly bad publicity. I'm not saying that MS and Silverlight are the answer, but having accountable support (for what it may be worth) is a nice ace to have in your pocket. It sure beats the atypical RTFM.
/. enough to warrant an account.
Don't use
Imagine that in order to drink these Pepsi bottles from your school, one needs a special bottle-opener which is only sold by Pepsi for $100, and that it's illegal (for good reasons) to share your bottle opener with your friends, so each of you needs to buy your own. Assume also that Coca-Cola bottles can be opened by any old bottle-opener, including bottle-openers you make yourself, and that it's perfectly legal to share bottle openers for Coca-Cola bottles. Would you still be OK with Pepsi buying off the retailer to only stock Pepsi?
Because the government also knows, that the cost and value of a product doesn't lie in its carrier. E.g.: The value of the United States' Constitution isn't $1.00 simply because it's written on a sheet of parchment with cheap ink.
It's actually illegal to remove Section 508 compliance from a government website (hence why many of them suck so much)... and Silverlight, true to typical usages of it, will break that compliance in a big way. So Microsoft (and LOC's move) may actually be illegal depending on how it's implemented. I would hope that Cory, or anybody who has some sway, will realize this and call them on it.
I actually make an effort (have since 1996) to design every one of my sites I run to be complaint (as much as possible) with section 508 Handicap Web Accessibility rules. I used to use Bobby at CAST to do some preliminary checks. I'm actually appalled how many of the sites out there are broken on those simple accounts (table nesting, bad CSS and not ALT tags), and now even thinking about compliance on mobile browsers (iPhone, Palm, Windows Mobile, Symbian, etc.) that these sites also suffer from in accessibility.
This country's hypocrisies are a persistent, petty and subtle agenda of a few, tired dying people. The LoC was never the people's library in practice so much as a promise...folk recordings represented that promise crying out from a stubborn reality that not everbody can afford to make a trip to D.C., stay at a hotel, and view the library's contents.
And the internet was going to change that...and dying, dying dying Micro$oft steps in to handle the bottleneck.
Not for another 50 years now will the promise of the LoC be realized because somebody's daddy is somebody's daddy in America
Would were! Should is! Could be! And live a hundred times three.
That's not the point. The point is that it's a Microsoft controlled format, and Microsoft has a track record of continually updating their software, which in turns, often ends up breaking compatibility with free implementations of said software, making it a game a perpetual catch-up to be able to read their formats. Not to mention, this is a government website, which shouldn't be forcing people to use a certain operating system just to view their website.
If you're tired of seeing these things happening, support Lawrence Lessig's movement "Change Congress" and if you happen to vote in California 12th in the Congress elections, take a look. http://lessig08.org/
Bad decisions like this one are either caused by incompetence or economy of influence. Time to change congress!
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Secondly, I'm just wondering, is there a clause in the deal with MS that prohibits LoC from presenting same information in any other format or Google or any other honest company can also join in and provide the similar service in an open format? Like say, when you go to www.myloc.gov and wanna see a book/item, you get to choose:
In case MS gets any sort of ruling power on how myloc.gov is run then that's something to worry about.
PS: "honest company"? What does that even mean?!!
I just sent them a message explaining the issues with choosing a proprietary technology to hold the LOC content on their website via their Contact US form on the mylog.gov website. Explaining the track record and history of Microsoft is to change the technology midstream, or abandon it, (ie. Play for Sure and the new Zune) also it does not allow FULL and OPEN access by ALL people. And that locking that content in Silverlight would require me having to purchase a new computer, new OS, PLUS several companion products (anti-virus, anti-spyware etc..) Just to view content semi-securely and safely.
Yea, it's funny how Microsoft is cooperative with third party developers when they are losing, trying to catch up to a dominant format (Flash). Let's say they succeed in overtaking Flash, and Silverlight becomes the dominant format for interactive applets. How long do you think Microsoft will continue to aid the linux developers? I give 'em 5 minutes, tops.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
You make the mistake of assuming that they care about these issues.
No knowledge of open source?
No caring, possibly. You'd likely be amazed how many people don't even know Linux exists. Computers run Windows, or they are Macs. Then there are people who know, but see the Linux crowd as a bunch of techie extremists who are adverse to easy interfaces. (Emacs, I'm looking at you, yes I am).
No knowledge of the LONG TERM issues of proprietary data formats?
It's more likely that they don't see it as important. This may be dumb to us in the know, but they are more likely thinking that since they use Microsoft products, it makes sense to store their data in Microsoft formats.
No knowledge of the lock in issues involved in mandating only one OS & hardware platform?
Like it or not, to the great majority of PC users, there *is* only one OS and computer type. That's not going to change any time soon. Perhaps when Ubuntu goes mainstream in a big way things might start to change, but that won't be quick.
You think the LOC IT department can't read the publications it gets every month?
Don't know, but I'm pretty certain the guys they hire to maintain this stuff are not the people having dinner and playing golf with the Microsoft Reps and deciding strategy.
It's patent encumbered and not compatible with the GPL. It's not an open platform like HTML/CSS/JS etc. See this comment
Fortunately We know Microsoft has an excellent policy for when their product is not compatible with the law. Lobby, bribe and cheat until the law is twisted into allowing their product to resemble compliance.
Microsoft has a track record of continually updating their software, which in turns, often ends up breaking compatibility with free implementations of said software, making it a game a perpetual catch-up to be able to read their formats.
.doc files for the latest version of Office.
Hell, it breaks compatibility with Microsoft software, too! Ask anyone who has spent long, boring hours reformatting
Which kinda explains how they will get their $3M back. "Gee, it doesn't work with our new Silverlight? Yeah, we'll be glad to come in and fix it, but we gotta charge now." Lather, rinse, repeat.
Like any drug dealer on the street: the first one's free!
Not every network-connected computing device is a desktop PC. Citizens with handhelds, rich-interface cell phones, and internet tables all should be able to access the information at the library of congress. Indeed, even users without access to install specialized plugins should have access.
There's really no need for silverlight here.
MRSH-Recording device, corned beef sandwich with kraut, seafaring bird, and the foamy top of a beverage.
And then the Vista built-in DRM will then prevent anyone from actually accessing any of the possibly copyrighted information. Better to err on the side of caution and block everything.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Obviously you are new to using MS products in a mixed environment:
- Microsoft provides a version of X for Mac and/or other platform (case in point MS made for Macs: MS Project, Outlook, FoxPRO, Windows Media Player, Office VBA, Internet Explorer, Virtual PC, Frontpage, Fight Simulator, etc).
- Updates usually go to windows versions first, but due to "technical problems" (or something similar) X version does not always receive all of the updates.
- Second generation of product comes out employing some more Windows-only exclusive technology - the version for platform X is kind of crappier and not compatible (no explanation just some short "use Applescript instead" for the missing features).
- MS announces that the X version of the software will be discontinued due to lack of 'customer interest' (more so on MSs part)
- MS touts how great they are at supporting multiple platforms on their next product... (repeat)
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
"Well, we are running a deficit. I guess the government needed the $3 million dollars."
That's the kind of low energy, uncaring way of thinking that makes a mess of things. Readers of Slashdot, if they decide to work together, can be very powerful.
Let's end the dominance of the depressed people among us, who constantly imply that nothing is worth much effort. (Notice that one of the tags given by K. Dawson to this story is "googleisevil". That doesn't even make any sense in the context.)
Let's do something more than just complain about Microsoft's abusive behavior. Slashdot, or some other site we start, could grow up and be adult and take responsibility for something other than just our own lives.
Access in 20 years is not guaranteed. Silverlight is proprietary. Micorosoft have made it accessible to other operating systems but ongoing accessibility is absolutely dependent on the whim of Microsoft maintaining the availability and leaving the format untouched.
In addition to libraries, many Records Management Systems in many Universities and public services are equally tied to proprietary formats.
What happens in 20 or 30 years. I can still read documents that are hundreds of years old that are on paper.
Microsoft's record in the past 20 years doesn't give me much confidence in their ongoing behaviours.
It also assumes that current storage media will stay the same or similar. In only the last 20 years, my 8" floppy disks have become redundant, cassette tapes are almost unusable now, some old computer tapes no longer have drives that can read them and on it goes.
This approach to important documents is so myopic, I find it difficult to believe that librarians and records management experts can't see that far ahead.
No, Mac users can use silverlight, and have been able to for quite some time. Linux users will be able to use it soon, although I don't know about licensing and patents.
So, from a user's perspective, this is irrelevant. The concern in this new technology is on the server side of things, and in Microsoft's market position. Silverlight's purpose in life is to dynamically load xml within the DOM tree, which should sound familiar since that is essentially what Ajax does. Ajax, however, has some short comings, for which the w3c developed the E4X standard.
However, given the high quality of web applications written in Ajax, Microsoft rightly assessed that E4X threatened their office and email monopolies, and therefore their OS monopoly, because such applications are platform-agnostic. It is no coincidence that MS really started to push Silverlight development shortly after Google started testing high quality Ajax-based office, email and collaboration software.
Therefore, IE, which is already pretty non-standards compliant in its javascript syntax, still does not support it at all, although all other major browsers have for years. By creating and promoting silverlight, MS is essentially embracing and extending to get control of dynamic web page standards away from the w3c. They will try to promote silverlight in as many places as possible, and hobble Ajax in IE. They will develop a series of neat free tools that make it easy to develop in silverlight. Once there is a critical mass of pages that use silverlight, they will start to make "improvements" to the standard but only integrate those changes into their Windows plugin. When that happens, all web users will once again be locked into Microsoft. It will MS will also have the bonus of also being able to integrate features that depend on asp, forcing their way into the server market.
If you don't believe MS would use a strategy like this, just ask yourself why there was an IE5.5 for Macs and no IE6 for Macs.
Thus, improvements in technology that should be happening around an open standards making body, indeed would happen faster and more effeciently in this standards making body, are going to go into the hands of one company at proceed at a much slower rate. It's a classic embrace/extend/extinguish. It is just sad that the US government is supporting this.
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
Some years ago, there was an effort by the LOC to implement an online registration system for copyrights. They tried then to do a windows-only implementation in a way that violated section 508. It didn't fly, and they are using a PDF system with generated barcodes. I have done some work for multi million dollar production houses with not a single networked Windows box. Nobody would risk connecting their dedicated Gigastudio machine to the internet either.
Anyway, the point is:
They have been exceedingly shortsighted in providing non-Windows support in the past. If they offer two versions of their content, then that is acceptable, but if they don't offer something that is 508 compliant, perhaps it is time for a lawsuit. It would probably do more than anything else to wake them up. They keep assuming that the entire world uses Windows, but many of us don't. Windows is NOT a standard. Standards are good. Potential congressman Lessig would probably agree.
----------
If anyone is writing them, posit this:
I can only use the LOC website with silverlight if I have a windows PC.
Would the LOC use MARC records as a data standard if they could only use MARC records:
a-With a $500 reader that will no longer be useful after 3 years?
b-With a $500 dollar reader that only a single company makes?
c-With a $500 dollar reader that users can't legally and freely share with other users?
d-If only MARC records could only be hosted on a (expensive) server made by said company?
e-If the company wasn't willing to support MARC records if they didn't end up widely adapted by commercial markets?
e-If the MARC records standards was owned by said company, and changes were illegal?
f-If MARC records violated ss.508 and many usability standards your patrons rely on?
----------
Maybe they will understand in that context.
I don't mean to bash the LOC. I have worked with some amazing staffers and librarians there. They do an awesome job. But, the bureaucracy and some of the leadership have their heads so deep in sand they have hit bedrock.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Flash would be as inadequate as Silverlight for publishing information.
Silverlight is worse than Flash for several reasons. 1) It's from Microsoft, a company that has been known for introducing proprietary technologies to lock in people to their products. 2) It's a new, unstable and unproven technology; Flash at least has been around for many years now. 3) Silverlight seems to be patent encumbered, and it seems Microsoft will try to use it against free software and the GPL.
However, ultimately I believe that Silverlight will fail for the same reasons Flash failed. 10 years ago I remember that every single company was converting their websites to Flash. Every webdesigner at that time was versed at that technology and it was being pushed very strongly. At that time, the incompatibilities and bugs in implementations of HTML (introduced by... can you guess it? Of course! Microsoft's IE!) made a big case for starting to use Flash and have consistent look and feel among different browsers and platforms.
But now most companies are back to having HTML based websites, and using Flash sparingly, and not for publishing content. They realised that using Flash had many shortcomings, and that they would have to use HTML if they wanted to:
The need for plugins is not longer the reason why people don't use Flash (and won't use Silverlight). When content is king, it has to be served in an open standardized format, that allows it to be accessed, indexed, linked and ultimately used. That's what the Web 1.0 was about, and the Web 2.0 kind of tried to bring these core ideas back, after technologies such as Flash were being misused for content publishing.
We've already been mistaken once. Are we going to do it again? I really hope not.
Except the Linux version isn't maintained by Microsoft.
Understood. So it has no MS support then, and under the IP/FUD shadow of MS as well, so Linux/Silverlight doesn't make a great platform to rely on eh?
AND even if it was, the web technologies development team at Microsoft is quite different from most of their other teams...
Heard the same about the FoxPro guys, also the Mac Office Team both of which had ther day for a while but are no more. It may be that way now for Mac Silverlight, but those guys are the proverbial 'nails sticking out' at Windows-first Microsoft, they'll be hammered back into the woodwork eventually.
(Many of them rave about Firefox and MAC OSX on their blogs for one...)
Blogs don't make executive decisions. Balmer does.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Someone make a petition against it. I'd definitely sign it, and I'm sure thousands of others would, too. Then submit the petition to the Library of Congress.
If someone offered to buy a house for me, on condition that all my friends will have to pay him rent to visit, I would be quite concerned, and might decline the offer.
Don't forget that LoC is not a private company -- it is actually charged with providing a public service. Once this spiffy public service becomes accessible only to those members of the public who first purchased a product from a specific private company (coincidentally, the one that made the "donation"), you are in serious trouble. The alternative is between having a ``free'' extra-spiffy website only accessible to Microsoft's clients, or a less-spiffy website accessible to everyone, but paid for by the LoC. It's true that the taxpayers would save money upfront were MS to build the website, but they would then have to pay the "microsoft tax" to use the website later. That is quite unfair, especially to those of us who are more comfortable with other operating systems.