Manage updates with the Download App
September 23, 2005 11:45 AM PDT
Massachusetts moves ahead sans Microsoft
- Related Stories
-
Massachusetts to adopt 'open' desktop
September 1, 2005
(continued from previous page)
decision to rely on standards organizations.
"You seem to have selectively chosen one format (Adobe's PDF) that has some IP associated with (it) and said, 'That's OK, but this one (Microsoft Office) isn't.' So I'm curious about the consistency," Zuck told Peter Quinn, the state's CIO, and Eric Kriss, the state's secretary of administration and finance. "We all know that standards groups are not hives of innovation by any means."
Massachusetts officials defended their decision, saying the move will save the state money, make sure that state records will be preserved over time, and ensure the state's "sovereignty."
In a FAQ, the state's Information Technology Division said that current users of Microsoft Office in executive-branch agencies do not necessarily need to uninstall Office. "Use of existing MS Office licenses is allowed as long as agencies use a method permitting the saving of documents in Open Document Format," the FAQ said. Third-party products could in theory perform a conversion from Office to OpenDocument formats.
In addition, Microsoft could still become part of the state's procurement policy by meeting its definition of open formats, Kriss said at an open-format meeting, which was held last Friday with the Mass Technology Leadership Council.
Kriss said that Microsoft's Office formats would have to be free of or have minimal legal encumbrances and be a standard that is subject to peer review by organizations outside Microsoft. He added that Microsoft document formats would have to be subject to "joint stewardship" by a standards body not controlled by one company or a small consortium.
"If you were to do (those things), we would be delighted to do a technical comparison of your standards and the OpenDocument standard," Kriss said, addressing a Microsoft representative. He added that the question is a "moving target" because Microsoft has already made some modifications to its patent policy.
On the question of why Adobe's PDF format meets the definition of "open format," state officials said it was a "gray area" but that Adobe's legal and licensing terms were deemed sufficiently open.
During the hearing, Kriss said that the state would save significantly by migrating to OpenDocument-based products rather than going with Office 12--on the order of $5 million for OpenDocument versus $50 million for Office 12, including hardware and operating-system upgrade costs.
But he said that fundamentally the state's policy is based in the notion of sovereignty.
"Here we have a true conflict between the notion of intellectual property and the notion of sovereignty, and I'd say that 100 percent of the time in a democracy, sovereignty trumps intellectual property," Kriss said. "That's the issue we're grappling with."
64 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
$0.
so if you want to pay to make or read a document buy Adobe pro
or you can get the OpenSource version OpenOffice for free
only need to quickly view a file? adobe offers a free viewer... a bandwagon that M$ has only reciently joined for some of it products
we need functionality and both formats do this but we also need portability and M$ is slow to allow others to use its propriatary standards
with their PDF Format, then they wouldn't be excluded.
program to read a 10 KByte PDF file. But then, Adobe is the true
champion of bloatware. And Adobe is interested only in the
professional user and doesn't give a damn about the typical
consumer.
I would hope that MS has a better idea of where its buttered
bread comes from, but it wouldn't be the first time that MS has
lost sight of the real world.
Wahhh.
I want to wear a button that says WAAHHH for all those beople crying because they cant spend all their tech budget because everything is free!
I use WordPerfect which doesn't support the OpenDoc format, but I wish they would. It would make interchanging documents a snap.
Not ever kind of software needs to follow somekind of standard format, but theses days Office, Web, and communications do. As a user I am tired of all the different formats and trying to get a converter or some other application to open, view, and print them.
I look at it this way... companies like Microsoft and Corel at the very least need to create an import/export utility for the OpenDoc format. At the most they need to make it their native format. I know that's a drastic view, but so be it. I am one of those people who support the standardization of information formats. I don't want more formats that require more software.
But hey that's just me.
But now, some governments are finally recognizing that they can't continue to allow one vendor's control of file formats to dictate their technolology choices, thereby giving the government's imprimatur to the format and the vendor, and forcing its citizens into the same choices. Other nations, most of whom were poorer and thus suffered more, saw this earlier, and it was easier to make the case against a foreign monopoly. This is the first US state government to make this stand, and it's significant also because it's a major information technology and financial services state.
Mass. has focused on this point and made the real requirements non-negotiable. The problem for Microsoft is that meeting those requirements would endanger their monopoly - a fact to which, obviously, they dare not admit publicly.
I am also grateful to Dan Bricklin for publishing the recording of the meeting. It was, however, painful to hear, because the arguments that the Microsoft supporters brought were truly embarassing. Petulant, misleading, irrelevant (except to Microsoft), fatuous, transparently self-serving, logically tortured to the point of actually supporting the Commonwealth's arguments, and even blatantly, obviously false, all the statements painted a clear and damning picture of a bloated, arrogant, spoiled playground bully and his gang finally called into the headmaster's office, with parents present and nowhere to hide.
The one question they could not answer either truthfully or credibly was: why can't you just support the format? The truth was obvious, and their attempts at pretending that there was any other plausible explanation revealed their terrified anguish at being backed into a corner. Whether the self-deception is finally eroding or not, it is a truly pitiable thing to witness. It was satisfying and cathartic to see truth upheld, and those appointed to serve the public standing unswayed by either deception or threat, but the human misery was heartbreaking, however richly-deserved it may have been. I have no sympathy for their cause, and justice is long overdue. But they are still people, and their livelihood is at stake. It's hard not to imagine myself in similar self-inflicted misery, wicked and foolish child that I have often been.
Of course, Microsoft still has some options open, but none that are likely to preserve their hegemony. Either support the format, and risk the Windows value proposition - which is primarily the cost of switching - or refuse and lose it all. The problem is that they have profited so much from forcing the users to switch that it's no longer the fear that it used to be.
Of course, if they're even more deluded than I think they are, they could try, SCO-like, to drag the whole matter into court, but at best it would only delay the inevitable.
but they required a format audited by an independent body so instead of requiring electrical cords approved by General Electric they required approval by Underwriters Laboratories (the UL tag you see on all Electrical appliances) (UL is a testing facility set up by a group on insurance companies to reduce fire loss by shoddy manufacturing)
our fires are consumer portability. and its shoddy manufacturing is formats that lock you into products, that bloat your budget, and are hard to spread the information to others.
All states, nay GOVERNMENTS. should take notice. public access needs require you make available to the public certain things, Are you going to require your taxpayers, ie your employers, to spend even more to get what they have a right to get? you save money when they get electronic versions of what you are required to supply so make it as easy as possible to save them money.
I foresee a time that government officials that require proprietary programs be used for access will find themselves looking for a job the very next election day after their constituents wake up to the excess cost (are you listening Copyright Office?)
Mass. didn't shut out M$, M$ shut out M$! THEY (M$) ARE THE ONES WHO SAID THEY WON'T SUPPORT OpenDocument! Mass made it clear to M$ that they can compete for Mass procurement only IF M$ is OpenDocument compliant!
GET IT RIGHT!
PDF open? No it isn't, and it isn't very performant either. On the other hand, it's no problem to write print drivers to make it. But it is IP encumbered and Adobe is getting away with weaseling down the middle. Typical for Adobe but they are survivors and the ultimate beneficiaries of the decision.
What will happen if Microsoft says "ok, we'll saveAs PDF because those are print semantics and that's easy, but not OpenDoc because being semantic laden, it is incompatible. We will continue to provide an XSLT convertor, and that's a good enough "SaveAs", so you can continue to use your Office apps and still get OpenDoc, although it's up to you to find viewers for it because we can't guarantee fidelity on Import". Same as MIDI.
I compliment MASS on their cahones, but I doubt we've seen the ultimate decision here either. Kriss claims it "isn't" about procurement, but that is exactly what it is about. The US DoD tried this kind of stunt with CALS and with all of their buying power, it failed.
Maybe it will take, but not if I have to use WordPerfect. Compared to MS Word, WordPerfect really bites. So someone has to pick up the commercial slack here. Early adopters don't make markets. The market is in the long tail and OpenDoc products aren't there.
or when the original product it was written in is no longer
available.
This is about being able to send a document to somebody else
who does not wish or does not have the money to purchase the
software used to create it.
This is about interoperability damn it!
Do you know why the Internet works? It's because the format for
these web pages and their pictures are open standards made by
the World Wide Web Consortium.
Imagine if you had to purchase a $500 web browser just to
browse the Internet and create web pages. Well, that is the way it
is with all of these Microsoft Office documents and it has to
stop!
Word & Microsoft Office my dominate the office, but make no mistake WordPerfect is a real Office application. Word is a container for some objects that have some attributes that sometimes can't be changed due to an error in the program and since this was created in Office 2003 you can't open it in Office 2000 because it's to old so you need to upgrade.
Of course this is just my opinion.
I disagree with you completely and I am quite sure Microsoft disagrees with you completely(at least internally.)
Why is Microsoft so reluctant to include the SaveAs OpenDocument option? A couple man hours of developer time and they could. Do they realize that if other software can communicate seamlessly with MS Office they will lose their vendor lockin?
Lets think about those desktops down in purchasing or maintance. Do they really need the full power of MS Word? Could they get by with notepad except for the fact that others send they documents in .doc format.
Please support open standards in all of your products.
For example, those made by
* The World Wide Web Consortium
* OASIS
Please standardize your own technologies to foster
interoperability.
I will refuse to use or recommend your products until the above
actions have been taken.
Please support open standards in all of your products.
For example, those made by
* The World Wide Web Consortium
* OASIS
Please standardize your own technologies to foster
interoperability.
I will refuse to use or recommend your products until the above
actions have been taken.
original product it was written in is no longer available.
I want to be able to send a document to somebody else
who does not wish or does not have the money to purchase the
software used to create it.
I want interoperability damn it!
This is why the Internet works so well. It's because the format
for these web pages and their pictures are open standards made
by the World Wide Web Consortium.
Imagine if you had to purchase a $500 web browser just to
browse the Internet and create web pages. That is the way it
is with all of these Microsoft Office documents and it has to
stop!
insane to have to convert things in the first place. Documents
should just be compatible. Why should they have to buy more
software to convert documents made by other software?
proprietary XML format? Microsoft's own .doc
formats are incompatable between versions. This
will insure a standard by which all vendors must
comply with. Otherwise, the Microsoft tax would
continue ad infinitum.
I want to wear a button that says WAAHHH for all those people crying because they cant spend all their tech budget because everything is free!
If I recall correctly Microsoft is moving to a licensing rather than ownership model for their software. Let us imagine that 20 years from now, Massachusetts realizes that they have some old documents saved as a MS Word 2003 .doc file. How much do you think Microsoft will charge for a license to convert that old document to something new.
Plus it is MS that doesn't play well with others. Wordperfect gives you the option to impot WORD docs but please show me where my WORD will do the same for a Wordperfect doc. WORD doesn't have such an option ....one more way to make everyone WORD customers.
to available documents.
PDF and OASIS provides this, because any one citizen can read
documentation about these formats and figure it out. So can
software vendors, if they choose.
If one is forced to use an MS Office standard, are Mass. citizens
really expected to purchase a $300.00 EDITOR to read such
documents? Why does one need an EDITOR to read a Word
document? That's like handing out a memo at a board meeting
and requiring everyone have a typewriter to read it. Fits
Microsoft's model just swell, actually.
Please don't tell me MS makes a free Word reader, you Windows
slave.
Every modern OS can create and read PDF out of the box.
Except Windows. Why do they deny their users this feature?
Answer: so users will email each other Word documents instead.
And you all fall for it. Idiots.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=95e24c87-8732-48d5-8689-ab826e7b8fdf&DisplayLang=en" target="_newWindow">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=95e24c87-8732-48d5-8689-ab826e7b8fdf&DisplayLang=en</a>
adobe doesn't directly provide a tool any more useful than this for viewing pdf files.
Standards and proprietary products are available in parallel so that they can each enjoy a natural development of acceptance in the market. The normal success and failure stories should be beneficial to the economy as all players and factors naturally and readily move towards their respective directions.
Artificial success and failure stories are unpredictable and may disrupt harmony and balance in the economy. Suddenly, people and businesses, ready or not, must move towards a direction. Suddenly, talents and skills must be invested on in order to keep up to the demand. Suddenly, there's no freedom to take your own direction.
This is sad and I don't think it is immediately beneficial to people and (small, medium or large) businesses. I have nothing against open standards, but the way it is enforced to success is a big shame...
"Artificial success" is to force people to use one format which can only be written on product you must pay for. And not long ago, even the MSWord documents made on Macs needed a filter to be opened on Windowns. So if they sent a form to anything public on MSWord format, to use it the public would be forced to buy MS software just to see it.
I believe that you either misread the mandate or are wrongly representing it. The mandate only refers to the executive branch of government of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. That is far from mandating public behavior.
With all the government investigations businesses would be unwise to use applications who's file formats change from one version to the next and are incompatible with older versions of the software.
Mabuhay ang Open Source!!!!
;)
Mabuhay kababayan...
Peace...
every company enforces its own standards and will not allow interoptibility. MS, Corel, they are all guilty of it. they don't want the enemy using their standards so they don't publish them. they will also refuse to support OpenDocument since it is against their best interests, especially MS. if they supported OpenDocument then their leverage would be weakened since people could use OpenDocument to send information to each other and cut out the need for MS Office. without the governement enforcing it, this would only continue. now MS is in a situation where they either have to accept the standard and support it, or be locked out of the Mass. market and lose money. if this is a success then many more governments will want to look into enforcing this, and Office will no longer be able to sell through lock-in, but companies (MS, Corel etc) would have to compete properly by offering superior software over their competitors and innovation will (hopefully) come back to the marketplace, and only the customer can win.
I use WordPerfect. I love WordPerfect. I think it's the best document writer available. BUT, frankly it has problems. Corel has been playing tag along when it comes to WordPerfect. Instead of competing with Microsoft they have chosen to play along. Corel has many benifits over Word and OpenOffice. One of the most popular is Reveal Codes. Second is the fact their format is based on SGML and DocBook (old version). Third is their format hasn't changed since 6.x. Not to mention they are a true WYSIWYG editor unlike Word.
Here are their down sides. PDF creation out of WordPerfect sucks. Word coversion sucks. The fact that they are content on being second fiddle to Word sucks. The fact that they won't try to untie themselves from Windows sucks. The fact that they too believe that the only way to compete is to lock people into a single format sucks. If who ever is in control over at Corel would be replaced by somebody with a real vision I think WordPerfect would become the defacto Office application again (assuming people are willing to pay for it). The big problem is that OpenOffice is a compelling alternitive to Word and WordPerfect. A simple fact for me is that if OpenOffice had something like reveal codes I probably would switch and not look back, but I am stuck on reveal codes.
I say give me two things. A fully customizable interface with the ability to save the customization for later use (like having to reinstall the application) and Reveal Codes so I can dig deep into the document and I'm good.
budget cuts and implementing FOSS in their workflow.
Its about giving their citizens equal opportunity to read
government documents and communicate electronically with
government officials.
If MS says that the OpenDocument format or PDF format are
severely short on features, then all they need to do is add the
missing features to these standards and publicly document
these added features, thus allowing Mass. citizens
UNENCUMBERED ACCESS to them.
Wouldn't anything else be, dare I say ... unAmerican?
Now, we can argue all day long about how Office 12 will allow
one to embed VIOP objects in a document (what the hell does
this mean anyway, MS?), or whether Microsoft's XPS is better
than PDF, but it TOTALLY MISSES THE POINT!
Right now on my linux and Mac system (this will be hard for you
to fathom Windows users) I can create and read OpenDocument
and PDF documents. No need for any Adobe software
whatsoever. Is Apple losing sales because of this? Why does
Apple allow me to print ANYTHING to a PDF document?
When someone emails me a Word document to relay information
only, I immediately realize I'm dealing with an idiot and proceed
to treat him/her that way. So I send them back the document in
PDF. Then I remember they have to download 3rd part software
to read it. So I give up. Maybe Mass. government officials were
tired of being treated this way.
Who is will to bet that as we read this article, a numer of WordPerfect developers are working on changing that shortcomming.
1. Some here are still confusing portable data vs interoperable software.
2. Interoperability is about semantics. OpenDoc (in fact any XML you care to name) doesn't guarantee interoperability.
A mandate for portable data (Lifecycle support) that degrades ease of use or interoperability won't be very effective at reducing costs OR sustaining information. You still have to confront the desktop/server share. If OpenDoc doesn't have enough votes on the desktop, the votes in committee are irrelevant. It loses.
So have at Mass. I like the spirit, but you are a long way from having a done deal.
Adobe PDF is open enough such that anybody, including Microsoft, is free to implement the reader/writer for the format. I've seen more than a few PDF reader/converters that are not encumbered by licenses. It is still fair to allow PDF as long as the 100% open format is always a main choice.
MS Word document format is not open enough that anybody, other than Microsoft, can freely implement well beyond into the future.
If MS Word format is open and freely implementable by anybody other than Microsoft without restrictions whatsoever of any license requirements right now and into the future, then that would require second thoughts. But IT IS NOT.
I wouldn't want a state utility be tied to a specific vendor. It just doesn't make any sense to choose something that is not 100% open and free (not cost, but freedom) to implement for public utilities. Whether they cost money to implement or not is not the issue here.
Let the commoners be able to read public documents with freedom, as in democracy. Any other way, that is, a state-sponsored industry dictating what to use in order to use a public utility, is communism.
Adobe PDF is open enough such that anybody, including Microsoft, is free to implement the reader/writer for the format. I've seen more than a few PDF reader/converters that are not encumbered by licenses. It is still fair to allow PDF as long as the 100% open format is always a main choice.
MS Word document format is not open enough that anybody, other than Microsoft, can freely implement well beyond into the future.
If MS Word format is open and freely implementable by anybody other than Microsoft without restrictions whatsoever of any license requirements right now and into the future, then that would require second thoughts. But IT IS NOT.
I wouldn't want a state utility be tied to a specific vendor. It just doesn't make any sense to choose something that is not 100% open and free (not cost, but freedom) to implement for public utilities. Whether they cost money to implement or not is not the issue here.
Let the commoners be able to read public documents with freedom, as in democracy. Any other way, that is, a state-sponsored industry dictating what to use in order to use a public utility, is socialism.
It's great to see real democracy and capitalism at work. Let the commoners access to public documents with freedom.
Anybody, including Microsoft, is free to implement the open document format.
If Microsoft implements a better word processor using open document format, that is good. People will buy them if they are good. Nobody is saying don't buy Microsoft products.
I don't see any logic fighting against it. There have been many historic examples of converting to new and better (open) standards, and nothing was really insurmountable.