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 ----
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?
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.
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.
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!
Or they could do it with (amongst others and just as big names I know): Google, Redhat, Novell, Canonical and dozens of other companies who are FOSS and provide paying customers with support.
... the GP doesn't have the bigger picture. Honestly, the Feds would be far better off coming up with their own solution to the problem: hire somebody really good to lay out the system and then build a staff to maintain and improve it. In the long run, they'll end up with a system that will do what they want, not what Microsoft tells them they want, and serves the needs of We the People.
Yes, and more to the point, this is the Federal Government we're talking about here, with the resources to hire the right people and provide in-house support if it really needed to do so. The need for support is simply not a deciding factor in this case
It isn't just proprietary, closed-source companies who offer support.
Not only offer it, but in Red Hat's case it's their bread-and-butter.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
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
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.
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.