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'
Greanted, $3M is not petty cash, but surely that's the "sticker price" of the software to be installed (e.g. on the Vista kiosks), not the cost to Microsoft or the true cost after negotiations. So is LOC so cash-strapped that they can't afford to create their website without this ``donation'' ?
Aside from vendor lock-in, this product is far too new to be relying on like this.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Can someone explain to me where the term "locked up" applies to this news article? I read the (very brief) article linked to - and didn't see how anything in the library would become 'locked up', which I assume to mean, available only to people using Windows software. Yeah, they're going to accept some 'donations' of OS's and stuff (so Microsoft spends $10 burning a bunch of CDs and calls it a multi-million-dollar donation, with all the relevent tax perks as well - why does the government let them get away with this?) for their new kiosks (which if my experience with Windows kiosks is anything to go by, will be sitting at a blue screen or an empty Windows desktop 50% of the time), but how does this equal anything being 'locked up'?
So Google is deemed "honest" by virtue of simply NOT being Microsoft?
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.
As I noted on Slashdot recently, the library of congress website is possibly the most dysfunctional site on the internet. If you ever browse their collections, it's literally impossible to get a permanent URL (which makes it incredibly difficult to copy their public domain stuff to Wikipedia - all the URLs to confirm the copyright status break after an hour) What's even worse, it feels like somebody spent a lot of my taxpayer money to put together something that is functionally useless.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Silverlight is planned for Linux: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070507-mono-developers-to-bring-silverlight-to-linux.html
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.
I hate to pick on Slashdot (okay, no I don't) - but this was "news" back in mid-January.
/. "story") it sounds like the LOC will be using Silverlight in a specific, probably limited, fashion. It'd be nice to get more information, though. From what little information is available, it's possible that MS proposed this as a new project - adding content, not replacing current LOC web materials.
I'll be curious to see how this plays out. Currently the LOC uses a lot of Flash. After reading the article (the one I linked above, not the non-informative blog post in this
In any case it seems like a silly thing to do unless there's something Silverlight does that Flash doesn't do (given that the LOC site already uses Flash). Plus Silverlight currently doesn't include accessibility support, which to my mind would make it a non-starter for a government website.
#DeleteChrome
I'm not sure about Silverlight's ability to conform to accessibility standards. Are not all American Government websites required to be accessible? I mean, I know a site can have different entry points for different browsers and accessibility levels, but doesn't this seem very counter productive?
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.
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.
It isn't just proprietary, closed-source companies who offer support.
Bad publicity? Like when MS bought HotMail? Replaced the Free Software with their own stuff, and the site failed under the load? Not like this would be the first time, for sure...
Yeah, I'd be fine with that so long as I can still readily buy Cokes elsewhere, or even if I preferred Pepsi in the first place. What I *wouldn't* be fine with is having to buy a Pepsi-opener in order to view publicly-funded archives of my nation's history (er, to drink the free soda my government is entrusted with preserving for the benefit of all humankind--hey, it was *your* analogy!).
Such as found on the front page, http://www.loc.gov/ (homepage/swf/main.swf)
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
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.
Ok, lets take this a step further:
Lets say Apple purchases Coke. And then they change the bottle so that any nonofficial iBottle opener will ruin the taste of the product.
How would you feel about that?
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.
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.
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.
Am I the only one that can't get Silverlight to work with Firefox on Windows? I have now tried on two different machines, several times, with the same result.
VPS-like shared hosting, on under-crowded servers.
Web Site Comments looks like the appropriate place to tell them what you think of non free information and non free formats.
The LOC should not host works that can't be exactly reproduced for non commercial purposes. Rights holders who disagree with that can host content on their own dime and pay for their own advertising. At the very least, the copyright status of works on the LOC site should be unambiguous. Serving them that content with restrictions is a waste of everyone's time and money. Sooner or later, all of the work will have to be redone because non free formats are always flash in the pan. Non free content will violate everyone's rights and pocketbook in the mean time. There's no amount of equipment, software or money that M$ can come up with overcome the cost of giving them control of our national library. Our heritage and freedom is worth more than the $20 billion in cash they have.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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."
Dear Library Of Congress,
We are interested in donating $3m USD in technology, services, and funding if you will use kiosks powered by Windows Vista and Silverlight.
If you choose not to accept our offer, we reserve the right to pursue all necessary steps to ensure that the Library Of Congress's patrons are provided with the opportunity to realize the value inherent in our proposal.
We will fuck with you if we have to.
Sincerely,
General Presidente Señor Lanzero de Sillónes Ballmero
La Republica de Bananas de Redmondia
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
What's that in LOCs?
Uh, wait...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
It's not as flashy as Flash. Frankly, I'd count that as a positive trait...
Circumcision is child abuse.
What's really stupid about this is that Library of Congress, or at least a component within them, are seen to be a champion for open formats: http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/intro/intro.shtml/ (that's a Library of Congress site). They've got a $3 million dollar deal, but at the cost of a lot of credability in the archival community.
The issue with Moonlight is that its patent encumbered, and the only vendor that Microsoft has a licensing agreement with is Novell. While they've indicated that they don't intend to sue users of Moonlight even if they don't use Novell Linux, they haven't entered into any soft of legally binding covenant and could go back on that decision at any time. Therefore, unless you use Novell Linux, you have nothing other than Microsoft's word protecting you from a patent infringement lawsuit if you use Moonlight.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
"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)
All American suck, because they let their government do idiotic things like only make data available in proprietary formats.
Seriously: Can we have the government define government-wide standards for data accessibility? No OOXML crap. We need real, open standards that any company can use and interface with. Perhaps all standards have to be ISO and Creative Commons/GPL licensed?
I'm sure Google, IBM, and a host of other companies would love it, especially if it aided prior-art research with the USPTO. If Microsoft tries to inject their semi-open crap, hopefully the other companies will pound it down.
Good for MSFT for donating much-needed equipment to the LOC, but they do more harm than good sometimes. Silverlight? Hopefully there is a simple HTML page I can use instead.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Silverlight, unlike Flash, is designed with full accessibility support including screen readers.
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.
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.
It in fact IS an issue about Mac and Linux users.
Silverlight for Mac PowerPC is at version 1.0, with Intel Mac at 1.1. And Silverlight for Linux is vaporware. Either way, though, it's wrong to require a plugin to do things that don't need it. The few silverlight things I've seen (on a Windows box at work), most could have used plain old HTML + JPEGs -- the Silverlight requirement was flat-out gratuitous. A few had inline videos. And the fancies could have easily used flash -- flash is already ubiquotus, reinventing the wheel is ridiculous