Topic: Bill Introduced in Minnesota to Require Use of "Open Data Formats"

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

I received an email yesterday pointing me to a bill, introduced on March 27, that would require all Executive branch agencies in the state of Minnesota to "use open standards in situations where the other requirements of a project do not make it technically impossible to do this."  The text of the bill is focused specifically on "open data formats," and would amend the existing statute that establishes the authority of the Office of Enterprise Technology (OET), and the duties of the states Chief Information Officer.  While the amendment does not refer to open source software, the definition of "open standards" that it contains would be conducive to open source implementations of open standards. The text of the affected sections of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 16E, showing the amendments proposed, can be found here.

The fact that such a bill has been introduced is significant in a number of respects.  First, the debate over open formats will now be ongoing in two U.S. states rather than one.  Second, if the bill is successful, the Minnesota CIO will be required to enforce a law requiring the use of open formats, rather than be forced to justify his or her authority to do so.  Third, the size of the market share that can be won (or lost) depending upon a vendor's compliance with open standards will increase.  And finally, if two states successfully adopt and implement open data format policies, other states will be more inclined to follow.

I haven't yet read the full article but it looks like Microsofts nightmare is spreading. 

This spread of open formats through government is something I have been wanting to see since the anti-trust trials began.  Level the playing field by removing lockin to a proprietary format then let the best players win - even Microsoft.

[Nemesis]

Related story that gives a justification unrelated to competition.

Corporate Alzheimer's: Coping With Forgotten File Formats

Debate over open file formats heats up as threat of lost data looms

By John K. Waters
Special to Law.com
April 4, 2006
What if the file formats in which we save text documents, spreadsheets, charts and presentations -- all that stuff generated by so-called productivity software -- were not supported by future versions of the programs used to create them today, or by some as-yet-unimagined successor products? Could drifting file formats cause a kind of corporate Alzheimer's that threatens our ability to recall contracts, insurance policies, financial records, payroll data and other critical documents?

"This is already happening today," says Simon Phipps, chief technology evangelist at Sun Microsystems. "People are finding that documents which are as little as 10 years old are inaccessible to them now. As long as the baseline file format continues to evolve at the rate of a new format every 18 months -- which it has for the past 20 years -- you can guarantee that the time to sunset of a particular format is going to be something like 10 or 11 years."

[Just plain old Punisher]

You reaaaaallly don't like microsoft huh?

[Nemesis]

You reaaaaallly don't like microsoft huh?

I don't like the abuse of power.  Microsoft has power and abuses it, therefore until such time as either they cease to abuse the power or the power is removed I will dislike them.

You will notice my comment on Microsoft competing and winning "then let the best players win - even Microsoft.".  Once they aren't abusive if they win by competing fairly and within the rules I will have no problem with them.

[Just plain old Punisher]

So, if I gave you a baseball bat and put you in a room alone with several microsoft execs....=)

[Nemesis]

So, if I gave you a baseball bat and put you in a room alone with several microsoft execs....=)

One thing that I understand is that not all of the executives necessarily like what the company does.  Some might actually fight to make Microsoft do what was right.  It would be wrong to assume the guilt of any below the top.  So I'd stay within the law.  It doesn't mean that I wouldn't make it clear to them what their actions as a compnay make me want to do.  I'd rather be better than them and attempt to show it with better behaviour than Microsoft exhibits. 

[Just plain old Punisher]

You're no fun. Come on, you know you'd have some fun with that baseball bat.

MAKE ME BUY A COPY OF YOUR CRAPPY OS WILL YA!?

THIS IS FOR YOUR sh*tTY PAY-PER-USE PHONE TECH SUPPORT!!!

AND THIS IS FOR YOUR DUMBASS DRM CRAP THAT WINDOWS MEDIA INSTALLS!

You know you want to. Just take the bat. Justice can be yours you know. You can right soooo many wrongs.

[Nemesis]

You're no fun. Come on, you know you'd have some fun with that baseball bat.

Only if they made me lose my temper.  That would be unwise of them as my temper is that of a berserker which is why I control it.  The alternative to controlling the temper is hurting people who don't deserve it.

MAKE ME BUY A COPY OF YOUR CRAPPY OS WILL YA!?

That annoying XP Home on the laptop grrr.  During my May vacation I intend to set that to dual boot Linux, eventually Linux will be the only OS on that machine.

Otherwise my last Microsoft OS was Windows 2000 Pro.  I build my own machines now and don't pay for an OS that I don't need.

THIS IS FOR YOUR sh*tTY PAY-PER-USE PHONE TECH SUPPORT!!!

Never bother to use it. 

The one time I could have used it I did some advance checking and found out that Microsofts only solution was reformat / reinstall any other solution was "impossible".  So I sat down and though the issue out in detail . . . and solved it, in 10 minutes.  That incident showed the quality of tech support at Microsoft.

AND THIS IS FOR YOUR DUMBASS DRM CRAP THAT WINDOWS MEDIA INSTALLS!

That mostly began with XP and I don't enable any Windows Media player upgrades or configurations.  I keep that ground down to a stub.  Even my IE is not configured, nor is Outlook Express.  Those features are weaker in Win 2K Pro than in XP and I keep then suppressed.

You know you want to. Just take the bat. Justice can be yours you know. You can right soooo many wrongs.

Justice?  Sounds more like revenge.  More Microsofts style than mine. 

I will do worse than hospitalize them.  I'll work with others to break the monopoly and promote honest competition and fairplay.  Beat them with honesty, integrity and fairness.  Things that they can't comprehend and therefore despise.

I will use Open Source software.  I will promote the use of Open Source software to others.  I will use Open Document Formats and promote their use to others.

The goal is to spread Open Source and Open Document the way a Von Neumann factory is proposed to spread itself.  A binary spreading if you will.  In the beginning it seems small but in each stage it doubles the size of the prior stage.  In time it will be the software ecosystem not Windows.  Microsoft will have to live within the Open Source world rather than Open Source live in the Microsoft world.

The joy of this is that Microsoft sees it coming.  An individual forsakes Microsoft and it is nothing in itself.  One individual however leads to another and another.  Eventually Cities began it also.  Now states (Massachusetts, Minnesota, Extremadura and others).  Whole countries are leaning that way now. 

Choose to stay with the Evil Empire as it crumbles or choose to join the rebels as you wish.  But the fall of the Empire is inevitable. 

Long live the revolution.

[Just plain old Punisher]

::sigh::

You know, it used to be a lot easier to incite people to violence.

Now it's "Open source" instead of "Open wounds"

People used to be so wonderfully violent.

[Mr_Tricorder]

The Open Source community likes to think we're "better than Ballmer".  He may thow chairs at M$ defectors, but we know that all violence does is make you look like a dumbass.

[Nemesis]

The Open Source community likes to think we're "better than Ballmer".  He may thow chairs at M$ defectors, but we know that all violence does is make you look like a dumbass.

Violence for the sake of violence yes. 

Violence applied at the needed location to achieve a goal that can't be achieved without violence is something different.  If I catch an intruder in my house beating them to a pulp that may or may not be living is perfectly justified for example.  Someone who tries to mug me had better be ready to rumble.  Attack someone I care for?  Beware the berserker within.

Beating unarmed and cowering Microsoft execs with a baseball bat?  Not justified just by their working for Microsoft.

::sigh::

You know, it used to be a lot easier to incite people to violence.

Now it's "Open source" instead of "Open wounds"

People used to be so wonderfully violent.

Gates can stitch up an Open Wound.  He can point to the violant attackers as being lowlife scum and be believed. 

Open Source used against Microsoft can't be bandaged up, Microsoft just continues to bleed and bleed money.  That hurts Gates far more than mere pain.  He can point to Open Source and call the people communists but since when is giving to the community being communist or even bad?  If it is then every charitable act is communist and Gates likes to claim to be charitable.  Even though his charity is used as a weapon to defend Microsoft.

Gates only feels pain in the wallet.  Every time an Open Source product is used Microsoft does not get any money and Gates feels pain.  Violence is used to cause pain.  Open Source is the most effective form of violence against Microsoft.  It is also a weapon that Gates cannot pickup and wield to attack the Open Source world for to wield the weapon he becomes his own enemy. 

Violence need not be physical to harm someone where they are most vulnerable.  Ask a woman the best way to hurt a man.  Its not with a slap, punch or kick.

[GE-Raven]

If this extends to the Minn. State University system... it will go down in flames.  I got a buddy that works at U of M (Twin Cities) and he said he would switch to open source "Over his dead body" as it would cost a "at least" 5 million dollars (not counting open source Database switch over) and would love to know if the bill would be funding that.

In the end this is same thing as Wisconsin gets the couple of Independents that want to "stir things up" think they have a great idea.  But sometimes you have to make sure the prisoners you are freeing WANT to be freed.

I understand what you are saying Nem... however if you want to talk about unfair business practices there is a HUGE list before MS that could and should be looked at (*Cough* Healthcare) and so far as it goes, MS has the defense that people DO like their stuff and it works.  In the long run there is a HUGE market for a company that "takes care of its customers" like Microsoft does.  I have heard the vehement protests of those that swear by Open source, however my easy point is, my wife is brilliant, an Industrial  Engineer, that is very good at "picking stuff up" on a computer.  Her work place is about half "open office" however she and several others have MS products.  Why?  Because they actually have to use them alot.  So it is cheaper for the company to pay MS for the product that they already know and can use productively then it is for them to lose productivity for the amount of time it would take to "teach" Open Office functionality. 

In the end a Monopoly in the Oil business is bad, Same for Electrity, etc...  However in computers Monopoly can also be called "standard".  While I am no huge fan of MS, I will say that they have done more to "standardize" the work place than any other 50 companies could dream of.

GE-Raven

[Dracho]

A baseball bat is harsh.. how about a pair of steel-toed shoes... we'll call them "Boot" and "Re-Boot".   

[kmelew]

A baseball bat is harsh.. how about a pair of steel-toed shoes... we'll call them "Boot" and "Re-Boot".   

So that's what General System Fault calls his boots...

[Just plain old Punisher]

A baseball bat is harsh.. how about a pair of steel-toed shoes... we'll call them "Boot" and "Re-Boot".   

Why not use both at the same time?

[Nemesis]

If this extends to the Minn. State University system... it will go down in flames.  I got a buddy that works at U of M (Twin Cities) and he said he would switch to open source "Over his dead body" as it would cost a "at least" 5 million dollars (not counting open source Database switch over) and would love to know if the bill would be funding that.

What is the cost of converting everytime Microsoft breaks compatibility with their old formats?  Office Vista is coming and by all reports they are breaking compatibility and requiring retraining of end users. 

Should your Office software vendor be dictating that your file format changes or should you be deciding that?

Microsoft makes the changes so that people have to upgrade the software on Microsofts cycle to keep their coffers full.

I understand what you are saying Nem... however if you want to talk about unfair business practices there is a HUGE list before MS that could and should be looked at (*Cough* Healthcare) and so far as it goes, MS has the defense that people DO like their stuff and it works. 

Take them all on.  I'll leave your American Healthcare battles to you and your neighbours. 

Some people like MS stuff and it works for some people.  Those who don't like it though often get forced to pay for it as they don't have the ability to build their own computers and have to purchase from Dell or one of the other big 3 suppliers who make it impossible to buy without paying Microsoft.  I should not have to pay Microsoft if I don't want to use their products.

In the long run there is a HUGE market for a company that "takes care of its customers" like Microsoft does.  I have heard the vehement protests of those that swear by Open source, however my easy point is, my wife is brilliant, an Industrial  Engineer, that is very good at "picking stuff up" on a computer.  Her work place is about half "open office" however she and several others have MS products.  Why?  Because they actually have to use them alot.  So it is cheaper for the company to pay MS for the product that they already know and can use productively then it is for them to lose productivity for the amount of time it would take to "teach" Open Office functionality. 

I have no objection to any company, organization or individual choosing MS Office.  I do object to the idea that Microsofts proprietary file format being the "defacto standard" often removes that choice.  If things go the way I want then Microsoft will end up choosing to support ODF so that they don't lock themselves out of various markets such as governments.  At the same time the end users get to choose.

In the end a Monopoly in the Oil business is bad, Same for Electrity, etc...  However in computers Monopoly can also be called "standard".  While I am no huge fan of MS, I will say that they have done more to "standardize" the work place than any other 50 companies could dream of.

GE-Raven

Here you and I are going to disagree as the Microsoft "standard" changes everytime Microsoft needs an infusion of cash or needs to block a competitor from arising.  Those are bad things.

[Just plain old Punisher]

You have the option of not upgrading. Most people get all the functionality they need with existing programs.

[Nemesis]

You have the option of not upgrading. Most people get all the functionality they need with existing programs.

True to a point.  That point being when you must send or recieve a document from someone who has already upgraded and has the power to dictate that YOU be compatible with them. 

That is the whole point of the government choosing a format that anyone can support.  Right now with the defacto MS Office standard you must use MS Office and you must use MS Windows to share documents with most governments or major corporations.  Switch to ODF as the standard and any Office software on any Operating System can be used to exchange data so long as the maker supports the standard.  Microsoft is trying to make it out that ODF blocks them out of competition but that is only by their own choice.  On the other hand the undocumented MS Doc format does block others from competing to provide Doc compatiblity.

[Just plain old Punisher]

MS Office has the capability to save documents in some 20 different formats. If one doesn't work, pick another.

[GE-Raven]

You know I am trying to think of any MS upgrade we have ever done in my (albeit few) years here that has some how broken something in terms of file format. Still thinking...

Yeah not one.  If something didn't work it was almost always the 3rd party vendor that "messed up" in how they are using SQL.  The diffence, I get an exact error log that I can send to the company  and say... um... this is your softwares fault.  MYSQL?  Well lets just say I hope you have some pretty verbose logging turned on.

This of course is one example.  If it was SQL Servers problem, then I get a Microsoft tech on the phone and they help me fix it... why?  Because they want my business.

I would also not that I have seen quite a few programs that can open MS Word, Excel, Access, Publisher, etc.... files.  (Wordperfect has done it for years).  So again I would say their is a standard... it just happens to not be one that was determined by a bunch of guys not looking to make a profit.

My problem with open source has always been... lets just say that a problem (like the one found very early on in mp3 development) occured in the "new" open standard for databases.  Who is responsible for fixing it?  If a company lost millions due to the error, who is responsible? 

This is my main problem... sure with dedicated people it and good Q&A it "shouldn't happen" but when there is no profit involved, you have to be a hell of a lot more trusting.

GE-Raven