Topic: A 2nd Boston Tea party.

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

Massachusetts, the people who brought you the Boston tea party, have joined in another revolution against good King Billy’s Office software.

The state government has decided that all electronic documents saved and created by state employees have to use open formats from the beginning of 2007.

From then every state document must be in PDF or using Open Office formats. The big idea is to make sure that every citizen one can open and read electronic documents, something that it is convinced that VoleWare cannot do.

[E_Look]

Well, diversity is good, especially in here.

[Bonk]

http://www.microsoft.com/office/000/viewers.asp      

PDF, 
Openoffice... OK (it will open MS word documents too anyway...)

Typical bureaucratic BS, the managers don't have the first clue about IT, seems they're search engine impaired too (how I found the MS viewers linked above: http://www.google.com/search?q=word+viewer ... hit #1...) 

[toasty0]

Funny how Nem didn't know either.

Yeah, open source is for developers. WTF is Miss Piggy working in Politico Boss Kermit's office gonna do with that app that open source is going to help. NOTHING!

And with open source there are sometimes several different developers working on a product release then support becomes nightmare...

[Bonk]

Thought you'd appreciate that Toasty0. 

Peronally i don't approve of PDFs as I have seen plenty of PDF files that opened just fine in Acrobat4 but refuse to open or produce excessive errors in Acrobat6, a definite lack of backward compatibility, much like Sun's java... 

[Nemesis]

Funny how Nem didn't know either.

Yeah, open source is for developers. WTF is Miss Piggy working in Politico Boss Kermit's office gonna do with that app that open source is going to help. NOTHING!

And with open source there are sometimes several different developers working on a product release then support becomes nightmare...

Actually you are missing the point. 

The point is very simple, government documents should not be locked into a proprietary format that you can only guarantee access to with a single companies software.   If you request information under the "Freedom of Information Act" should you then have to buy Windows and Microsoft Office to access it?  Should you not be able to access it using any operating system or office suite?  A viewer from Microsoft that is not guaranteed to be available in the future or on other operating systems is barely better. 

Considering that Microsoft has announced plans to apply for 3000 patents each year, how many of those are on file formats?  Microsoft already has patents on XML and is integrating XML into the MS Office formats.  Once your government files are in patented file formats that only the patent holder can legally create programs to allow access to how do you get them into other formats?  How do you migrate them to another system if the government ever chooses to use a different Office Suite?  Personally I don't like the idea of a company having that much control over my documents or my governments documents.

If the only way to access government information was Linux and OpenOffice wouldn't you be complaining?  So why shouldn't the other side complain about being cut off or forced to buy Microsoft products?

When the government asks for a bid on a contract why should the bidders be required to use Windows and Office?  Shouldn't the proposal be able to be created in whatever program the bidder likes and readable in whatever program the Government likes?  PDFs are not useful as you can't edit them and send the results back with comments.

How can the government have a competitive bidding for office software if the format is proprietary and only available from one source?  Would you agree to your government single sourcing anything else without allowing competing bids?  Would you agree that they should buy all cars from Ford and all aircraft from Boeing without bidding?  How about military equipment?  If not then why allow the software lockin and no competing bids?

[Bonk]

The point is very simple, government documents should not be locked into a proprietary format that you can only guarantee access to with a single companies software.

Um, my copy of OpenOffice opens Word documents and Excel spreadsheets just fine. Is there something wrong with your install? Perhaps your download was corrupted?

And what about Acrobat's lack of backward compatibility?

[Nemesis]

Um, my copy of OpenOffice opens Word documents and Excel spreadsheets just fine. Is there something wrong with your install? Perhaps your download was corrupted?

Go back and read the patent section of my post.  You will notice that I pointed out that Microsoft has announced upcoming "enhancements" to Office file formats including patented XML.  Once those patented methods are included OpenOffice won't be able to implement those features or reliably read the files.   Not unless they want to risk lawsuits from Microsoft.

And what about Acrobat's lack of backward compatibility?

As I dismissed PDFs due to the lack of editing ability I don't see why backward compatibility is an issue.

My comment on PDFs

PDFs are not useful as you can't edit them and send the results back with comments.

[Bonk]

Right, gotcha on the PDFs, sorry I missed that, have to agree there.

Patented XML...?    I doubt they'll have much sucess with that. The same way they tried to coopt/pervert html standards... they'll only get backlash. The PDF format is XML in my opinion.

Worse comes to worse if it contains text information free hex editors will always be able to read their files... uless they want to patent binary and claim it as their own... 

[toasty0]

Funny how Nem didn't know either.

Yeah, open source is for developers. WTF is Miss Piggy working in Politico Boss Kermit's office gonna do with that app that open source is going to help. NOTHING!

And with open source there are sometimes several different developers working on a product release then support becomes nightmare...

Actually you are missing the point. 

The point is very simple, government documents should not be locked into a proprietary format that you can only guarantee access to with a single companies software.   If you request information under the "Freedom of Information Act" should you then have to buy Windows and Microsoft Office to access it?  Should you not be able to access it using any operating system or office suite?  A viewer from Microsoft that is not guaranteed to be available in the future or on other operating systems is barely better. 

Nor is your open source software guaranteed to be backward, forward, or even supported 3, 5, or 10 years down the road. It's a fallacious bill of good you're selling when talk about access.

Also, FOIA docs should be released as text or rtf if released in digital form, imho. That usually solve comapatability and cross platform/OS issues. Otherwise, hard copies ain't so bad either.

Considering that Microsoft has announced plans to apply for 3000 patents each year, how many of those are on file formats?  Microsoft already has patents on XML and is integrating XML into the MS Office formats.  Once your government files are in patented file formats that only the patent holder can legally create programs to allow access to how do you get them into other formats?  How do you migrate them to another system if the government ever chooses to use a different Office Suite?  Personally I don't like the idea of a company having that much control over my documents or my governments documents.

Alarmist claptrap. Really, Nem, you have got to get over this fear or envy of corporate America.

If the only way to access government information was Linux and OpenOffice wouldn't you be complaining?  So why shouldn't the other side complain about being cut off or forced to buy Microsoft products?

And that is a valid cause for ocncern, how?

When the government asks for a bid on a contract why should the bidders be required to use Windows and Office?  Shouldn't the proposal be able to be created in whatever program the bidder likes and readable in whatever program the Government likes?  PDFs are not useful as you can't edit them and send the results back with comments.

How can the government have a competitive bidding for office software if the format is proprietary and only available from one source?  Would you agree to your government single sourcing anything else without allowing competing bids?  Would you agree that they should buy all cars from Ford and all aircraft from Boeing without bidding?  How about military equipment?  If not then why allow the software lockin and no competing bids?

*.txt and *.rtf  Case closed.

[Nemesis]

Nor is your open source software guaranteed to be backward, forward, or even supported 3, 5, or 10 years down the road. It's a fallacious bill of good you're selling when talk about access.

Did I even mention forward or backward or supported?  No.  I said available.   Microsoft can cease to distribute the viewer without notice and since they have the copyright on it no one else can legally distribute it.

Unlike proprietary formats if the format is open then other companies can provide support.  If it is proprietary not only can the company drop support but it can block others from providing it.  So if a given program is not available to read an open format document it does not much matter. 

I wasn't even referring to open source at that point merely to the format.  So what made you bring it up?

Maybe you should read more carefully so you know what is on the bill of goods before you call it fallacious.

Also, FOIA docs should be released as text or rtf if released in digital form, imho. That usually solve comapatability and cross platform/OS issues. Otherwise, hard copies ain't so bad either.

If they are in fact released that way then it would solve the problem.   Are they?   If they are, is there a legally binding commitment to continue to so provide them or can the rules change at any time?

Alarmist claptrap. Really, Nem, you have got to get over this fear or envy of corporate America.

Insults again Toasty?  I thought you disliked it when insults were being slung around?  Perhaps you just dislike it when you are the target?

Fact: Microsoft has XML patents
Fact: Microsoft is incorporating those patents into Microsoft Office
Fact: Microsoft has already used their (invalid) FAT patent against other companies
Fact: Microsoft has announced that they plan on applying for 3000 patents over the next year.
Fact: Microsoft has been using patent licensing terms that exclude open source programs.

Looking at the problems that a companys proprietary actions can cause is not envy.  It is caution.  Justifiable caution when looking at the actions of a convicted abusive monopolist.

And that is a valid cause for ocncern, how?

So if you needed to access government documents you would have no objection to being required to buy an OS and Office Suite that you have no other use for just to read the documents?  That is what you are asking non MS Office users to do. 

*.txt and *.rtf  Case closed.

Case open.  Most such requests for proposal specify the document format.  If you submit in *.txt or *.rtf it gets deleted and you get told to do a "proper" submission.  That is what happens if you are lucky.  Most likely they will just delete it.

I think that we should let the government speak for themselves.

Issue Statement
The Commonwealth must ensure that its investments in information technology result in systems that are sufficiently interoperable to meet the business requirements of its agencies and to effectively serve its constituencies. This policy addresses the importance of open standards compliance for IT investments in the Commonwealth. For the purpose of this policy, open standards is defined as follows:

Open Standards: Specifications for systems that are publicly available and are developed by an open community and affirmed by a standards body. Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) is an example of an open standard. Open standards imply that multiple vendors can compete directly based on the features and performance of their products. It also implies that the existing information technology solution is portable and that it can be removed and replaced with that of another vendor with minimal effort and without major interruption (see current version of the Enterprise Technical Reference Model).

The key phrases:
Open standards imply that multiple vendors can compete directly based on the features and performance of their products

replaced with that of another vendor with minimal effort and without major interruption

Explain to me Toasty why it is that you are so adamantly against open formats.  What is the downside of open formats?  Formats fully documented and freely usable by anyone at all?  Usable even by Microsoft. 

[toasty0]

I'm not against open source software, I'm against how you sell it and mislabel it for the consumer. You misrepresent it as a panacea when it is not. It is as plagued or more so with bugs and compatablitiy issues as anything MS or Sun Systems might release. The different here is support. With MS we know the vendor is not going to disapper overnight, or get tired of this boring project and move on, or worse, have 13 different developers trying to make their onw latest version that mangle the whole thing. In other words, with MS you are far more likely to get stability and reliable support. Open source development, even though more exciting for the geek crowd, fails to see the consumer as anything other than an afterthought to their play toys.


What is the downside of open formats?

I already explained that in my last two posts and again here.

[Sarek]

It's my understanding that the idea isn't to adopt open formats, but to adopt "the OpenDocument format, which was issued in May by a consortium that includes Microsoft, IBM Corp., Dell Inc., aircraft maker Boeing Co., and the US Department of Defense".  The idea is to allow different agencies using different applications to be able to exchange documents.  All Microsoft needs to do is add the format to Word in order for it to be eligible.

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/09/02/state_may_drop_office_software/

[Nemesis]

I'm not against open source software, I'm against how you sell it and mislabel it for the consumer. You misrepresent it as a panacea when it is not. It is as plagued or more so with bugs and compatablitiy issues as anything MS or Sun Systems might release.

Again you bring up open source when I was discussing open formats.  Why do you persist in bringing it up when it is not the point of the whole issue which is open format use by government?  You seem rather obsessive about it.  You have injected it twice into this discussion while attributing it to me.  Show me where I made issue in this discussion of open source.

Unless you are trying to divert the issue I suggest that you drop the open source topic which is irrelevant to the discussion.  If you want to discuss open source vs proprietary feel free to start a new thread.

Perhaps I will start the Toasty0 open source thread as a service to you.

The different here is support. With MS we know the vendor is not going to disapper overnight, or get tired of this boring project and move on, or worse, have 13 different developers trying to make their onw latest version that mangle the whole thing.

So you are against open formats because they could "disappear"?  Open formats like HTML?  Open formats like txt, rtf, jpeg, png? 

The OpenOffice.org format referenced is part of Sun Microsystems Star Office as well.  So since you trust Sun not to vanish you shouldn't have any problem with this particular Open Format backed by them.  I'm glad that I could put your fears of this format to rest.

Sun Microsystems is part of the Oasis foundation that defines the Open Document standard as well.  Microsoft and IBM have made submissions to Oasis for standards as well.  It does not look to me like Oasis is about to disappear any time soon.

A partial list of companies and Organizations which voted for the Open Document standard no votes against:

AMD. Airbus, AOL, Adobe, American Bar Association, Cisco Systems, Computer Associates, General Motors, Hewlet Packard, IBM, Intel, Novell, Sun Microsystems, Boeing,

Among others Microsoft was eligible to vote but abstained.

This does not look like a group that is about to go away soon.  Even Microsoft takes part in them. 

The article Sarek linked to had the key points.

The state currently stores documents in electronic formats that were created by a variety of companies, including Microsoft. These proprietary formats are incompatible with one another, making it difficult to share information between agencies. In addition, a particular format may be abandoned by a software company at some point. If the state buys new software, it might not be able to understand files generated by older programs.

The report recommends that the state embrace a new document standard called the OpenDocument format, which was issued in May by a consortium that includes Microsoft, IBM Corp., Dell Inc., aircraft maker Boeing Co., and the US Department of Defense. The OpenDocument standard is used in OpenOffice, a free software program available over the Internet, and in StarOffice, which is sold by Sun Microsystems Inc. But any company can adopt the standard, which is available free of charge. Microsoft Office file formats are the property of Microsoft and cannot be incorporated into software from other firms.

You should read his article.  The author clearly understands the reasons to use open formats.  Perhaps after reading the article you too will understand.

Notice for example how the article notes that formats can be abandoned by companies, just as you are concerned of abandonment by non company groups.

[toasty0]

I'm not against open source software, I'm against how you sell it and mislabel it for the consumer. You misrepresent it as a panacea when it is not. It is as plagued or more so with bugs and compatablitiy issues as anything MS or Sun Systems might release.

Again you bring up open source when I was discussing open formats.  Why do you persist in bringing it up when it is not the point of the whole issue which is open format use by government?  You seem rather obsessive about it.  You have injected it twice into this discussion while attributing it to me.  Show me where I made issue in this discussion of open source.

Unless you are trying to divert the issue I suggest that you drop the open source topic which is irrelevant to the discussion.  If you want to discuss open source vs proprietary feel free to start a new thread.

Perhaps I will start the Toasty0 open source thread as a service to you.

The different here is support. With MS we know the vendor is not going to disapper overnight, or get tired of this boring project and move on, or worse, have 13 different developers trying to make their onw latest version that mangle the whole thing.

So you are against open formats because they could "disappear"?  Open formats like HTML?  Open formats like txt, rtf, jpeg, png? 

The OpenOffice.org format referenced is part of Sun Microsystems Star Office as well.  So since you trust Sun not to vanish you shouldn't have any problem with this particular Open Format backed by them.  I'm glad that I could put your fears of this format to rest.

Sun Microsystems is part of the Oasis foundation that defines the Open Document standard as well.  Microsoft and IBM have made submissions to Oasis for standards as well.  It does not look to me like Oasis is about to disappear any time soon.

A partial list of companies and Organizations which voted for the Open Document standard no votes against:

AMD. Airbus, AOL, Adobe, American Bar Association, Cisco Systems, Computer Associates, General Motors, Hewlet Packard, IBM, Intel, Novell, Sun Microsystems, Boeing,

Among others Microsoft was eligible to vote but abstained.

This does not look like a group that is about to go away soon.  Even Microsoft takes part in them. 

The article Sarek linked to had the key points.

The state currently stores documents in electronic formats that were created by a variety of companies, including Microsoft. These proprietary formats are incompatible with one another, making it difficult to share information between agencies. In addition, a particular format may be abandoned by a software company at some point. If the state buys new software, it might not be able to understand files generated by older programs.

The report recommends that the state embrace a new document standard called the OpenDocument format, which was issued in May by a consortium that includes Microsoft, IBM Corp., Dell Inc., aircraft maker Boeing Co., and the US Department of Defense. The OpenDocument standard is used in OpenOffice, a free software program available over the Internet, and in StarOffice, which is sold by Sun Microsystems Inc. But any company can adopt the standard, which is available free of charge. Microsoft Office file formats are the property of Microsoft and cannot be incorporated into software from other firms.

You should read his article.  The author clearly understands the reasons to use open formats.  Perhaps after reading the article you too will understand.

Notice for example how the article notes that formats can be abandoned by companies, just as you are concerned of abandonment by non company groups.

Maybe if it isn't me saying it you'll listen:

The Computer Technology Industry Association, which represents software vendors, also criticized the proposed standard. Melanie Wyne, executive director of CompTIA's Initiative for Software Choice, said that implementing the standard would be costly to taxpayers. She said it would also put software companies with proprietary file formats at an unfair disadvantage when bidding for state contracts.

''The goal of archiving and storing citizen-centric data is commendable . . . but this plan misses the mark," Wyne said.

[Nemesis]

Maybe if it isn't me saying it you'll listen:

The Computer Technology Industry Association, which represents software vendors, also criticized the proposed standard. Melanie Wyne, executive director of CompTIA's Initiative for Software Choice, said that implementing the standard would be costly to taxpayers. She said it would also put software companies with proprietary file formats at an unfair disadvantage when bidding for state contracts.

''The goal of archiving and storing citizen-centric data is commendable . . . but this plan misses the mark," Wyne said.

How does a format that ANYONE can implement (without royalties) put a company that owns a proprietary format at a disadvantage?  Afterall they don't have to use either format exclusively.  You yourself have indicated the MS-Word can use other formats such as rtf and txt, adding another shouldn't be too difficult.   

The other side of the coin is that if you are using a proprietary (and undocumented) format such as the WordPerfect wpd format (as one example) then only the one company can fully support it.  That one company can change or drop it and leave you in the lurch with no recourse.  That ability to make changes at the drop of a hat prevents anyone else from competing on an equal level.

How about a link to back that up?  I can't seem to find that quote.  I'd love to see the context.

I did look at the site.  Seems that some of the same players are in both the CTIA and Oasis.  Microsoft and IBM for two.

[toasty0]

Maybe if it isn't me saying it you'll listen:

The Computer Technology Industry Association, which represents software vendors, also criticized the proposed standard. Melanie Wyne, executive director of CompTIA's Initiative for Software Choice, said that implementing the standard would be costly to taxpayers. She said it would also put software companies with proprietary file formats at an unfair disadvantage when bidding for state contracts.

''The goal of archiving and storing citizen-centric data is commendable . . . but this plan misses the mark," Wyne said.

How does a format that ANYONE can implement (without royalties) put a company that owns a proprietary format at a disadvantage?  Afterall they don't have to use either format exclusively.  You yourself have indicated the MS-Word can use other formats such as rtf and txt, adding another shouldn't be too difficult.

   

Why not ask them?

The other side of the coin is that if you are using a proprietary (and undocumented) format such as the WordPerfect wpd format (as one example) then only the one company can fully support it.  That one company can change or drop it and leave you in the lurch with no recourse.  That ability to make changes at the drop of a hat prevents anyone else from competing on an equal level.

I already suggested two formats (without even suggesting XML--the latest toothfairy format) that are cross compatible. Look into the software Final Draft to see how they do it.

How about a link to back that up?  I can't seem to find that quote.  I'd love to see the context.

I did look at the site.  Seems that some of the same players are in both the CTIA and Oasis.  Microsoft and IBM for two.

your link will be in the following quoted from Sarek's post:

It's my understanding that the idea isn't to adopt open formats, but to adopt "the OpenDocument format, which was issued in May by a consortium that includes Microsoft, IBM Corp., Dell Inc., aircraft maker Boeing Co., and the US Department of Defense". The idea is to allow different agencies using different applications to be able to exchange documents. All Microsoft needs to do is add the format to Word in order for it to be eligible.

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/09/02/state_may_drop_office_software/

[Sarek]

Maybe if it isn't me saying it you'll listen:

The Computer Technology Industry Association, which represents software vendors, also criticized the proposed standard. Melanie Wyne, executive director of CompTIA's Initiative for Software Choice, said that implementing the standard would be costly to taxpayers. She said it would also put software companies with proprietary file formats at an unfair disadvantage when bidding for state contracts.

''The goal of archiving and storing citizen-centric data is commendable . . . but this plan misses the mark," Wyne said.

How does a format that ANYONE can implement (without royalties) put a company that owns a proprietary format at a disadvantage?  Afterall they don't have to use either format exclusively.  You yourself have indicated the MS-Word can use other formats such as rtf and txt, adding another shouldn't be too difficult.   

The other side of the coin is that if you are using a proprietary (and undocumented) format such as the WordPerfect wpd format (as one example) then only the one company can fully support it.  That one company can change or drop it and leave you in the lurch with no recourse.  That ability to make changes at the drop of a hat prevents anyone else from competing on an equal level.

How about a link to back that up?  I can't seem to find that quote.  I'd love to see the context.

I did look at the site.  Seems that some of the same players are in both the CTIA and Oasis.  Microsoft and IBM for two.

My guess is that the proprietary venders feel at a disadvantage when they have to compete on a level playing field.  The assertion that implementing the standard would be costly is spurious, the savings gained by having a uniform standard and multiple venders should be greater than the cost of implementation. 

[Nemesis]

Why not ask them?

Because I don't think that they would bother to answer me directly. 

I did find a statement by one of their employees.  He claimed that the OpenDocument format was designed to match the structure of Star/Open Office and could not be easily migrated to another Office Suite. 

Oddly when looking for it I came across an Oasis document that claimed the exact opposite.  Claimed that the format was designed independently of any particular suite.  IBM does not seem to have any difficulty with it as they plan to integrate it into their suite.  The KOffice team is integrating it as the default in the next major version of KOffice.  Three to one seems to make the MS employee a BS artist.

I already suggested two formats (without even suggesting XML--the latest toothfairy format) that are cross compatible. Look into the software Final Draft to see how they do it.

Can excel files save in rtf and txt without losing information?  How about powerpoint?  Do either of those formats allow saving all the formating or do you lose some?  Txt will cost you most formatting.  Rtf will cost you some to much depending on how complex your document.

You see the OpenDocument format is for the entire suite not just the Wordprocessor as you seem to think.

your link will be in the following quoted from Sarek's post:

Thanks for the link. +1 for following through.

That article clearly states reasons to move to an open format.

The state currently stores documents in electronic formats that were created by a variety of companies, including Microsoft. These proprietary formats are incompatible with one another, making it difficult to share information between agencies. In addition, a particular format may be abandoned by a software company at some point. If the state buys new software, it might not be able to understand files generated by older programs.

But any company can adopt the standard, which is available free of charge. Microsoft Office file formats are the property of Microsoft and cannot be incorporated into software from other firms.

The policy change wouldn't affect only Microsoft. The state uses other programs, such as IBM's Lotus Notes and the word processing program WordPerfect, that employ proprietary file formats. These products would also have to be replaced, or upgraded to versions that work with the OpenDocument standard.

IBM is doing the upgrade and can bid on the next contract.  I don't know about WordPerfect.

Microsoft and other companies could keep doing business with the state government by adding OpenDocument as a standard file format. The upcoming version of Microsoft Office, due next year, will use a file format based on the open XML document standard, which is similar to OpenDocument.

Microsoft could do the same while saying... 

But Alan Yates, general manager of Microsoft's information worker business strategy unit, indicated in an e-mailed statement that the company isn't interested in adopting the full OpenDocument standard.

''We do not believe . . . that the answer to public records management is to force a single, less functional document format on all state agencies," Yates said.

He added that the Microsoft XML standard will meet the state's need for a data format that will not become obsolete.

So Microsoft "isn't interested".  Why not?  Are they afraid it would make it too easy for customers to leave them and that many want desperately to do so?  If they are so sure that they are the customers willing choice then they should view this as a way that customers can migrate to them. 

That article is mostly pro OpenDocument thanks for providing it to me.  It is excellent ammunition for my viewpoint.

[Nemesis]

My guess is that the proprietary venders feel at a disadvantage when they have to compete on a level playing field.  The assertion that implementing the standard would be costly is spurious, the savings gained by having a uniform standard and multiple venders should be greater than the cost of implementation. 

Other vendors seem to have no trouble with the idea, only Microsoft.  I guess being a monopoly they don't think they need to change, evolve and improve.

I found a site that shows Microsofts future OS plans.

For anyone who may be humour impaired that is in fact a joke site.