Mass. holding tight to OpenDocument

Massachusetts is sticking to its plan to adopt OpenDocument, despite a critical report calling for a delay to the high-profile move.

Louis Gutierrez, Massachusetts' chief information officer, said in an interview with CNET News.com that the Information Technology Division (ITD) is forging ahead with its project to make OpenDocument the default document format for executive branch agencies by January next year.

"Our next action is to do what we are doing right now, which is working toward the goal. We believe in the utility of open standards," Gutierrez said Friday.

On Thursday, state Sen. Marc Pacheco, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight, released a report that blasted the process behind the choice of OpenDocument, calling it "closed" and controlled by a few individuals.

Gutierrez said he disagreed with the report's characterization of the process that led up to the state's decision to standardize on OpenDocument, or ODF. But he noted that the oversight committee was not opposed to the state's movement to open standards.

"There is substantial concurrence on going forward in the right way," Gutierrez.

The report's release and the ITD's response to it are the latest twists in a months-long saga in Massachusetts that has attracted worldwide attention.

Supporters of the state's plan to go with OpenDocument, rather than a Microsoft format, have hailed it as a landmark move that will tilt the balance of power to customers and away from vendors. Critics, meanwhile, have called it a biased decision, unfairly favoring open-source products to the exclusion of Microsoft.

The state's efforts to wrest control of its data from proprietary formats appears to have struck a chord with a number of government agencies, companies and even individuals seeking to avoid "vendor lock-in."

Listen up

OpenDocument: CNET News.com reporter Martin LaMonica finds out from Louis Gutierrez, CIO of Massachusetts' IT division, why he's pressing ahead with OpenDocument.

Download MP3 (3.25MB)

Stephen O'Grady, an analyst at RedMonk, said that Massachusetts has validated the idea of standardizing on a non-Microsoft format, giving its effort a symbolic significance for others.

"Many enterprises are not thrilled about paying Microsoft what they do for Office, but feel like they have to. ODF by itself does not remove those concerns, but it does begin to open doors that were not there previously, if only from a negotiating standpoint," O'Grady said.

Although Gutierrez was not involved in the original decision to choose OpenDocument, he lauded the decision as the right thing to do.

"That move has helped move the dial for everyone," he said, noting Microsoft has submitted its own document formats to standards bodies and that it has made changes to its licensing terms.

"I think it was surely controversial and it did, in fact, have certain defects the process...But it was the right thing. It's something that will be recognized as having been an important step in a really valid direction," he said.

The promise of plug-ins
Since taking over the reins as CIO earlier in January this year, Gutierrez has led a few pilot projects of OpenDocument-compliant products from Sun Microsystems, IBM and the open-source OpenOffice suite.

The state has also engaged IT services company EDS to do a full-scale, five-year cost analysis of moving to OpenDocument, which Gutierrez said the state was nearly done with.

In addition, the state has hired an expert and created a lab to address the needs of people with disabilities--an area where Pacheco and some disabilities advocates have been critical of the planned OpenDocument move.

Although observers initially thought the state's decision to use OpenDocument would lead to the removal of Microsoft Office from 50,000 desktops in Massachusetts, Gutierrez said that Office may stay around.

Massachusetts CIO
Louis Gutierrez

He said the state's IT department is investigating a plug-in that would allow people using Office to save and share documents in the OpenDocument format. Microsoft has said it will not build support for OpenDocument into Office 2007, citing lack of demand.

So far, that plug-in approach shows "enormous promise" because it could meet accessibility requirements and potentially cost less than a large-scale migration, Gutierrez said.

He added that he is prepared to evaluate Microsoft's Open Office XML formats, which are expected to become standardized next year.

But what's essential is a transition to XML-based document formats like OpenDocument, Gutierrez said.

"Our whole mindset is around writing memos and saving them to disk, but that is not the future of this. The future is about document workflow, and document workflow is greatly enhanced with XML-based documents," he said. "And it's hard to work with XML-based documents unless you have the standard form."

Gutierrez added that the Massachusetts IT Division, in conjunction with the Secretary of Administration and Finance, intends to give a formal update on the project in late July or early August.

[qazwiz]

selection process "closed minded"?

Because they won't lock into a closed, and VERY EXPENSIVE, alternative....HA! ain't that the pot and kettle calling the Klan robe black?


If Microsoft wants to overcharge the government of Massachusetts for document software it looks like they will need to back pedal on their statement of earlier this year that they would never consider Open Document for inclusion into Word.

Oh, that's right, didn't they do just that last week? something about a new version going to include open document?

seems like Microsoft has a policy of never considering anything they do!

It was called 'Closed', not 'Closed minded'.

The process is not called 'Closed Minded' anywhere in the article. Its called 'closed', meaning it was decided by a few people with little input.

[qazwiz]

selection process "closed minded"?

Because they won't lock into a closed, and VERY EXPENSIVE, alternative....HA! ain't that the pot and kettle calling the Klan robe black?


If Microsoft wants to overcharge the government of Massachusetts for document software it looks like they will need to back pedal on their statement of earlier this year that they would never consider Open Document for inclusion into Word.

Oh, that's right, didn't they do just that last week? something about a new version going to include open document?

seems like Microsoft has a policy of never considering anything they do!

It was called 'Closed', not 'Closed minded'.

The process is not called 'Closed Minded' anywhere in the article. Its called 'closed', meaning it was decided by a few people with little input.

This is incredibly stupid on MA's part

I think what Mass has is a couple IT goobers who think they know everything, and have decided upon what they 'think' is the best format to use. You see this in IT all the time - particularly among those who are trying to make themselves appear important. Its going to cost Mass millions, and for little to no benefit. The Mass IT people should let the software producer decide what the best format is, as its their software and they know it best. XML is a suitable format for data exchange between apps, but is NOT typically the best and most efficient format for general document storage.

[lsallen]

???

You are joking, right? Or do you work for Microsoft or a phone company or a similar organization?

[weeblnbob]

Ya don't say.....

Cost MA millions huh? Competition is more expensive than monopoly? Last I looked, competition drove costs down, not up. Let the software vendor decide for the customer what format to use? Doesn't sound like listening to the customer to me. XML isnt as efficient for document storage? I just opened a Word document and re-saved it as an Open document. Lo and behold! The Open document is about 10% smaller than the Word document. Hmmmm. Am I missing something here?

[regfolder2003]

Us and Now

If not Mass then who? If not now, when? Someone has to stand up and do what's right and break the grip MS has on large orgs' doc management. I am a long time taxpaying MA resident and am proud that MA is not passing the buck. It could more than pay for itself in the long run.

[mcbutterbuns]

umm... no

"XML is a suitable format for data exchange between apps, but is NOT typically the best and most efficient format for general document storage."

You do realize that Microsoft's newest format will be based on XML right? So, if they upgrade to the newest version of office, will they be equally as stupid for wanting to go with ODF?

"The Mass IT people should let the software producer decide what the best format is, as its their software and they know it best."

WRONG! First of all, should we really rely on Microsoft to decide what the best format for OUR needs are? Typically the best format for your data is the format that isn't tied to any specific product. This might not always be an option, but in a format for documents, this is an option.

"You see this in IT all the time - particularly among those who are trying to make themselves appear important."

No person in IT would make a radical decision that will affect their job and the ease of doing their job just to appear important.

"Its going to cost Mass millions, and for little to no benefit."

Not necessarily. The ODF Alliance (I believe its them) is currently working on a plug-in that will work with Office to work with ODF documents. I would also suspect that this plugin will be of little or no cost to the consumer due to the Alliance's hopes that this format will take off. How much money would it cost to install a plugin? ... and no you wouldn't necessarily need to go to every computer and install it as you might think.

[Mister C]

let the software producer decide?

And the next time I go to buy a car I will be sure to ask the dealer who makes the best cars! Somebody must be paying you to come you with this stuff because nobody could be that naive, could they?

[Seaspray0]

XML is a step in the right direction.

I disagree with you. XML will be good for documents. For those not familiar with the process, document data also has data that describes what the original data is (refered to as metadata). Metadata can be things like describing data as an integer, text, date, time, etc. The only way for one program to be able to import data from another program was to have a library (a .dll in microsoft's case) that held the translation between how metadata in one program was represented and used in the other program. Now along comes XML which is written using a standard HTML format (used on every webpage out there). The XML is an extension of the HTML format that also includes how metadata information is represented. The very nice feature about XML is that the metadata descriptors are included in the document... i.e. type=text, "Joe". A program wishing to import can now get the metadata information directly from the document rather than a translation table (dll). A typical document containing text includes metadata just like a webpage. It does benefit from this type of format, and the amount of storage space to include it is negligable compared to the size of the documents. It also makes the documents much more compatable because you now only have to support one format XML rather than deal with requiring a library for each translation between program A to program B.

This is incredibly stupid on MA's part

I think what Mass has is a couple IT goobers who think they know everything, and have decided upon what they 'think' is the best format to use. You see this in IT all the time - particularly among those who are trying to make themselves appear important. Its going to cost Mass millions, and for little to no benefit. The Mass IT people should let the software producer decide what the best format is, as its their software and they know it best. XML is a suitable format for data exchange between apps, but is NOT typically the best and most efficient format for general document storage.

[lsallen]

???

You are joking, right? Or do you work for Microsoft or a phone company or a similar organization?

[weeblnbob]

Ya don't say.....

Cost MA millions huh? Competition is more expensive than monopoly? Last I looked, competition drove costs down, not up. Let the software vendor decide for the customer what format to use? Doesn't sound like listening to the customer to me. XML isnt as efficient for document storage? I just opened a Word document and re-saved it as an Open document. Lo and behold! The Open document is about 10% smaller than the Word document. Hmmmm. Am I missing something here?

[regfolder2003]

Us and Now

If not Mass then who? If not now, when? Someone has to stand up and do what's right and break the grip MS has on large orgs' doc management. I am a long time taxpaying MA resident and am proud that MA is not passing the buck. It could more than pay for itself in the long run.

[mcbutterbuns]

umm... no

"XML is a suitable format for data exchange between apps, but is NOT typically the best and most efficient format for general document storage."

You do realize that Microsoft's newest format will be based on XML right? So, if they upgrade to the newest version of office, will they be equally as stupid for wanting to go with ODF?

"The Mass IT people should let the software producer decide what the best format is, as its their software and they know it best."

WRONG! First of all, should we really rely on Microsoft to decide what the best format for OUR needs are? Typically the best format for your data is the format that isn't tied to any specific product. This might not always be an option, but in a format for documents, this is an option.

"You see this in IT all the time - particularly among those who are trying to make themselves appear important."

No person in IT would make a radical decision that will affect their job and the ease of doing their job just to appear important.

"Its going to cost Mass millions, and for little to no benefit."

Not necessarily. The ODF Alliance (I believe its them) is currently working on a plug-in that will work with Office to work with ODF documents. I would also suspect that this plugin will be of little or no cost to the consumer due to the Alliance's hopes that this format will take off. How much money would it cost to install a plugin? ... and no you wouldn't necessarily need to go to every computer and install it as you might think.

[Mister C]

let the software producer decide?

And the next time I go to buy a car I will be sure to ask the dealer who makes the best cars! Somebody must be paying you to come you with this stuff because nobody could be that naive, could they?

[Seaspray0]

XML is a step in the right direction.

I disagree with you. XML will be good for documents. For those not familiar with the process, document data also has data that describes what the original data is (refered to as metadata). Metadata can be things like describing data as an integer, text, date, time, etc. The only way for one program to be able to import data from another program was to have a library (a .dll in microsoft's case) that held the translation between how metadata in one program was represented and used in the other program. Now along comes XML which is written using a standard HTML format (used on every webpage out there). The XML is an extension of the HTML format that also includes how metadata information is represented. The very nice feature about XML is that the metadata descriptors are included in the document... i.e. type=text, "Joe". A program wishing to import can now get the metadata information directly from the document rather than a translation table (dll). A typical document containing text includes metadata just like a webpage. It does benefit from this type of format, and the amount of storage space to include it is negligable compared to the size of the documents. It also makes the documents much more compatable because you now only have to support one format XML rather than deal with requiring a library for each translation between program A to program B.

[weeblnbob]

Somebody's Nervous

Horror of horrors! An open, non-proprietary document format! My God! What are we gonna do? Or something like that. But seriously folks, an open format ensures that your hefty investment in document generation, distribution and storage won't be for naught should your primary software vendor go belly-up or cease development. What if the vendor decides to obsolete what you are using and go to another format without supporting the old format? Spend more money! Using a proprietary format is short-sighted at best, criminal at worst. The arguement that open documents don't have all the required support for disabled users is bunk. The application used to generate and/or read the document requires support for the features disabled users need, not the document itself. I'm sure many applications by companies other than MS support or will soon support Text-To-Speech and other aids at reasonable cost. Hey, the guys in MA are just trying to spend less of the the taxpayers' money and make archived documents accessible for the next few hundred years. Whats so bad or discriminatory about that? I smell FUD.

[weeblnbob]

Somebody's Nervous

Horror of horrors! An open, non-proprietary document format! My God! What are we gonna do? Or something like that. But seriously folks, an open format ensures that your hefty investment in document generation, distribution and storage won't be for naught should your primary software vendor go belly-up or cease development. What if the vendor decides to obsolete what you are using and go to another format without supporting the old format? Spend more money! Using a proprietary format is short-sighted at best, criminal at worst. The arguement that open documents don't have all the required support for disabled users is bunk. The application used to generate and/or read the document requires support for the features disabled users need, not the document itself. I'm sure many applications by companies other than MS support or will soon support Text-To-Speech and other aids at reasonable cost. Hey, the guys in MA are just trying to spend less of the the taxpayers' money and make archived documents accessible for the next few hundred years. Whats so bad or discriminatory about that? I smell FUD.

CNET writers biased towards Microsoft

From the article:

"Critics, meanwhile, have called it a biased decision, unfairly favoring open-source products to the exclusion of Microsoft."

WHAT? The whole point of open standards is that anyone can use them, so there is no bias to one particular vendor, open-source or otherwise. If you can't understand that, why on earth did they let you write this article?

CNET writers biased towards Microsoft

From the article:

"Critics, meanwhile, have called it a biased decision, unfairly favoring open-source products to the exclusion of Microsoft."

WHAT? The whole point of open standards is that anyone can use them, so there is no bias to one particular vendor, open-source or otherwise. If you can't understand that, why on earth did they let you write this article?

[fastpathguru]

"citing lack of demand"

Ponder this incredible juxtaposition:

"Critics, meanwhile, have called it a biased decision, unfairly favoring open-source products to the exclusion of Microsoft.
[http://...|http://...]
Microsoft has said it will not build support for OpenDocument into Office 2007, citing lack of demand."

Who's dumber, the critics or Microsoft?

Go ahead, go home with your ball, Microsoft...

Don't worry, we can make our own.

fpg

[fastpathguru]

"citing lack of demand"

Ponder this incredible juxtaposition:

"Critics, meanwhile, have called it a biased decision, unfairly favoring open-source products to the exclusion of Microsoft.
[http://...|http://...]
Microsoft has said it will not build support for OpenDocument into Office 2007, citing lack of demand."

Who's dumber, the critics or Microsoft?

Go ahead, go home with your ball, Microsoft...

Don't worry, we can make our own.

fpg

[fastpathguru]

Ponder this incredible juxtaposition...

"Critics, meanwhile, have called it a biased decision, unfairly favoring open-source products to the exclusion of Microsoft.
[http://...|http://...]
Microsoft has said it will not build support for OpenDocument into Office 2007, citing lack of demand."

Q: Who is excluding Microsoft?
A: Microsoft.

Q: Who are the critics?
A: Idiots, every last one of them.

End Of Story.

fpg

[fastpathguru]

Ponder this incredible juxtaposition...

"Critics, meanwhile, have called it a biased decision, unfairly favoring open-source products to the exclusion of Microsoft.
[http://...|http://...]
Microsoft has said it will not build support for OpenDocument into Office 2007, citing lack of demand."

Q: Who is excluding Microsoft?
A: Microsoft.

Q: Who are the critics?
A: Idiots, every last one of them.

End Of Story.

fpg

[country1205]

Not Stupid - Ignorant!

This is a common response of a CIO who is really by definition the poster boy for a total lack of concern for the Company/State/User that they suport. Rather, they would like to be the the "First On The Block". Now Is NOT the time for Ma. to jump on this bandwagon. That is not to say that it will never be the time but right now... WRONG... Oh, unless you are "Joe's Candy Store" but come on Ma... I would really start looking around for a new CIO...

[jelabarre]

Should have been done years before

This isn't about who provides the *SOFTWARE*; it's about *anyone* being able to access the data, not just a priveleged few that have the appropriately restrictive subset of software needed for this week's file format. And just as importantly, it's about insuring that future generations can access the data as well. Already there has been *FAR* too much information lost to closed formats and closed systems. To say that you don't support open formats is to say that the public is not entitled to fair & open access, and you are suggesting they should shut up & be good little sheeple.

Microsoft is welcome top play along with everyone else, but instead they're being spoiled little brats, throwing a tantrum & kicking the family pet. Real adult, MS.

[country1205]

Not Stupid - Ignorant!

This is a common response of a CIO who is really by definition the poster boy for a total lack of concern for the Company/State/User that they suport. Rather, they would like to be the the "First On The Block". Now Is NOT the time for Ma. to jump on this bandwagon. That is not to say that it will never be the time but right now... WRONG... Oh, unless you are "Joe's Candy Store" but come on Ma... I would really start looking around for a new CIO...

[jelabarre]

Should have been done years before

This isn't about who provides the *SOFTWARE*; it's about *anyone* being able to access the data, not just a priveleged few that have the appropriately restrictive subset of software needed for this week's file format. And just as importantly, it's about insuring that future generations can access the data as well. Already there has been *FAR* too much information lost to closed formats and closed systems. To say that you don't support open formats is to say that the public is not entitled to fair & open access, and you are suggesting they should shut up & be good little sheeple.

Microsoft is welcome top play along with everyone else, but instead they're being spoiled little brats, throwing a tantrum & kicking the family pet. Real adult, MS.

[rpms]

"Open Standards, Closed Government"; auditor's report = interesting reading

I encourage people to read the auditor's report, entitled "Open Standards, Closed Government". It's available online at:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st02/st02612.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st02/st02612.htm</a>

The report is a first step toward looking at the issue rationally, rather than in terms of a philosophical war between Microsoft and the open source movement.

[Maccess]

forcing Apples and Oranges comparisons

the assumption of the report is that there is only a limited number of software packages that support OpenDocument. that may have been true while they were developing the standard for obvious reasons, but with its ratification, we're seeing new products and enterprise solutions that support the standard.

Just like TCP/IP, and open standard quickly attracts supporters and programs that support it.

In a few months, OpenDocument may have more disability accessible programs than any proprietary product for the simple treason that there is choice.

[rpms]

"Open Standards, Closed Government"; auditor's report = interesting reading

I encourage people to read the auditor's report, entitled "Open Standards, Closed Government". It's available online at:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st02/st02612.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st02/st02612.htm</a>

The report is a first step toward looking at the issue rationally, rather than in terms of a philosophical war between Microsoft and the open source movement.

[Maccess]

forcing Apples and Oranges comparisons

the assumption of the report is that there is only a limited number of software packages that support OpenDocument. that may have been true while they were developing the standard for obvious reasons, but with its ratification, we're seeing new products and enterprise solutions that support the standard.

Just like TCP/IP, and open standard quickly attracts supporters and programs that support it.

In a few months, OpenDocument may have more disability accessible programs than any proprietary product for the simple treason that there is choice.

[km4hr]

MS said they couldn't use TCP/IP at one time

I recall years ago when MS finally woke up to the realization that the internet was something they needed to be involved in. They had been completely asleep at the wheel. So they decided to take over in a big way. As usual, they tried to enforce the use of their own proprietary network protcols (netbios?). They claimed their stuff was the "de facto" standard and they couldn't adapt. Everyone else would have to adapt to them. Well, it became obvious pretty soon that the internet community knew what they were doing, unlike the MS lemming's who always accept MS's word as gospel. The internet community basically told MS to stick their protocols where the sun don't shine. The internet train had already left the station. Almighty MS was forced to change its ways, or stay off the internet. It will be interesting to see if MS eats crow again. However this issue is the life blood of MS. It's hard to see how they can stand to loose this one. If ODF succeeds it goodbye MS monopoly. GO MASS!

[JuggerNaut]

Open Standards = Common Sense!

Anyone arguing against such either have a screw loose of have too
much invested into Microsoft stock!!

It's time to break the chains of proprietary file formats enforced by
a single vendor and return the market to a competitive one.

[Buzz_Friendly]

a few problems to note

Standards are great IF people use them. Adopting a standard that few to nobody uses will not get you far no matter how good your intentions are.
On investment in Microsoft. Well you have a point many people have HUGE investments in MS. Be it good or be it bad it exist and is widely adopted. If you currently have millions tied up in MS Office simply dumping the product in favor of a standard isn't good business sense. And since we are talking tax dollars in this case most taxpayers aren't going to be real happy that all that money has been wasted and more will be wasted in an effort to be on an open standard that few people have ever heard of. What we have hear is a collision with standards vs common sense.

[Maccess]

Anti-OpenDoc arguments now moot with MS Office translators for ODF.

..the arguments are moot.

If MS Office is touted as the only disability friendly Office, then there is no reason not to use OpenDocument, since MS is now funding a project to support OpenDocument from within Office.

GO MASSACHUSETTS! You guys did the right thing! Go OpenDocument!

[Maccess]

Anti-OpenDoc arguments now moot with MS Office translators for ODF.

..the arguments are moot.

If MS Office is touted as the only disability friendly Office, then there is no reason not to use OpenDocument, since MS is now funding a project to support OpenDocument from within Office.

GO MASSACHUSETTS! You guys did the right thing! Go OpenDocument!

[System Tyrant]

Little Picture... BIG Picture.

So far the argument in this forum has been to...

A. Let the software vender decide the format,
B. MA is going to waste millions of tax payer dollars to support this,
C. IT people are generally stupid,
D. A CIO who wants an open document format that isn't tied to a proprietary peice of software is an idiot and should be fired,
E. XML isn't a good format for document storage.

You know what I won't argue a one of those. Maybe they are valid and maybe they aren't.

Here's what I think...

The little picture says that...

A. It will cost MA and it's taxpayers a lot of money,
B. ODF isn't as robust as it will be,
C. It isn't a well supported format yet, but their are no well supported generic formats yet,
D. It isn't likely going to make much of a difference in the short term.

The big picture says that...

A. The format will someday be very robust and well supported.
B. It will save the taxpayers money when states and even users don't have to shell out $500 plus dollars to be compatible.
C. Eventually all office programs will support ODF which makes the office software front more competitive.
D. It will lead to better services that center around document exchange because they won't have to focus on supporting many different formats and it will help drive down the cost of development.

The fact is that in the long run have a standardized, non-proprietary, and open document format that's not controlled by the intrest of a single company is good for all. Maybe ODF isn't the right format or maybe it isn't far enough along to be considered a viable option, but as it gains support it will be. At the very least the idea is valid and I think MA is bold in making this move. I hope other states make the same move and I hope that ODF becomes the standard document format of the future.

[System Tyrant]

Little Picture... BIG Picture.

So far the argument in this forum has been to...

A. Let the software vender decide the format,
B. MA is going to waste millions of tax payer dollars to support this,
C. IT people are generally stupid,
D. A CIO who wants an open document format that isn't tied to a proprietary peice of software is an idiot and should be fired,
E. XML isn't a good format for document storage.

You know what I won't argue a one of those. Maybe they are valid and maybe they aren't.

Here's what I think...

The little picture says that...

A. It will cost MA and it's taxpayers a lot of money,
B. ODF isn't as robust as it will be,
C. It isn't a well supported format yet, but their are no well supported generic formats yet,
D. It isn't likely going to make much of a difference in the short term.

The big picture says that...

A. The format will someday be very robust and well supported.
B. It will save the taxpayers money when states and even users don't have to shell out $500 plus dollars to be compatible.
C. Eventually all office programs will support ODF which makes the office software front more competitive.
D. It will lead to better services that center around document exchange because they won't have to focus on supporting many different formats and it will help drive down the cost of development.

The fact is that in the long run have a standardized, non-proprietary, and open document format that's not controlled by the intrest of a single company is good for all. Maybe ODF isn't the right format or maybe it isn't far enough along to be considered a viable option, but as it gains support it will be. At the very least the idea is valid and I think MA is bold in making this move. I hope other states make the same move and I hope that ODF becomes the standard document format of the future.

[giuliocesare]

This is the wrong line for Massachusetts

Changing to Open Office will bring no benifit at all. The reason is that Open Office offers less programs and features than Microsoft (check for yourself - Microsoft offers the same, plus more). Way better was to use the two Office suites together, because it balances costs and abilities.

[giuliocesare]

This is the wrong line for Massachusetts

Changing to Open Office will bring no benifit at all. The reason is that Open Office offers less programs and features than Microsoft (check for yourself - Microsoft offers the same, plus more). Way better was to use the two Office suites together, because it balances costs and abilities.

[JuggerNaut]

Open Standards = Common Sense!

Anyone arguing against such either have a screw loose of have too
much invested into Microsoft stock!!

It's time to break the chains of proprietary file formats enforced by
a single vendor and return the market to a competitive one.

[Buzz_Friendly]

a few problems to note

Standards are great IF people use them. Adopting a standard that few to nobody uses will not get you far no matter how good your intentions are.
On investment in Microsoft. Well you have a point many people have HUGE investments in MS. Be it good or be it bad it exist and is widely adopted. If you currently have millions tied up in MS Office simply dumping the product in favor of a standard isn't good business sense. And since we are talking tax dollars in this case most taxpayers aren't going to be real happy that all that money has been wasted and more will be wasted in an effort to be on an open standard that few people have ever heard of. What we have hear is a collision with standards vs common sense.