Will Linux Benefit from Microsoft's SNAFU in Massachusetts?

O'Reilly ^ | Sep. 28, 2005 | Tom Adelstein

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

David Berlind over at ZDNet wrote a remarkable article called Did Microsoft send the wrong guy to Massachusetts' ODF hearing?. If you missed this article, you'll have missed the equivalent of what Intel's Andy Grove called an inflection point. This one has the potential to have more impact than the release of the first Pentium processor.

...

Microsoft has essentially alienated the rest of the IT industry. I can't remember a single company that had so many people working in harmony against it, including IBM at the height of its arrogance. The Java Community Process provides just one example of an industry working again a company.

[N3WBI3]

If that is the case they have nothing to worry about, and good for them to embrace an openstandard they cant 'extend'..

[Golden Eagle]

By just what we're seeing here, having liberal politicians pass rules that outlaw any software or formats that includes patents.

[Khym Chanur]

"Outlaw"? The state is making a decision about what software the state uses. Everyone else in Massachusetts can use whatever they want to. Of course, those in Massachusetts who want to read ODF documents must have software that implements ODF, but any software vendor that wants to can implement ODF... inclduing Microsoft.

[Golden Eagle]

Of course, those in Massachusetts who want to read ODF documents must have software that implements ODF

And since there are basically 0% percent of their citizens who have the ability to read ODF right now, their claim that this is to make it easier on them is ludicrous.

[Khym Chanur]

I don't think MS will lose out too much by this, most people who use "MS Office" will still use it if they can save the document in open format. [emphasis added]

But users of MS Office won't be able to. If MS provided the ability to open from and save to an open format, then they would lose their vendor lock-in, which at the very least would reduce their profit margin, since customers could then more realistically use the threat of migrating away from Windows to get MS to lower their prices.

[Golden Eagle]

But users of MS Office won't be able to.

How do you know? If a third party filter is relased, should MS Office remain banned in your opinion? Let me guess, you see no value added with MS Office to begin with, so yes, it might as well stay banned at that point anyway. Am I right?

[Khym Chanur]

And since there are basically 0% percent of their citizens who have the ability to read ODF right now, their claim that this is to make it easier on them is ludicrous.

This isn't an immediate, everyone-must-switch-now type situation. The state is letting vendors know what their requirements are, so that vendors can include ODF compatibility in their newer releases. Microsoft could include the ability to read from and save to ODF format, but they aren't going to.

Also, the point isn't to make government documents more easily readable right now, isn't considering what software citizens have at this very instant, but is a longer term thing.

[ShadowAce]

...that outlaw any software...

sigh--haven't we just completed this discussion?

[Khym Chanur]

How do you know? If a third party filter is relased, should MS Office remain banned in your opinion? Let me guess, you see no value added with MS Office to begin with, so yes, it might as well stay banned at that point anyway. Am I right?

If a third party filter/plugin for ODF was provided, I wouldn't care if they continued to use MS Office; in fact, it would be a good idea, since it would grealty reduce the amount of money the government would have to spend. Does Office/Word allow for such a filter as a plugin? I sort of doubt it, since that would reduce vendor lock-in.

Also, what choices the government makes about software purchases as a consumer doesn't seem like a "ban" to me.

[Golden Eagle]

Oh no, you're starting to resort to bolding to try to make your points. When do the colors and point size increases come in like we see from several of the other open source proponents?

Spin all you want, this change makes reading any state created files by their citizens much more difficult, both now and at any time in any near future.

[Khym Chanur]

How do you know? If a third party filter is relased, should MS Office remain banned in your opinion? Let me guess, you see no value added with MS Office to begin with, so yes, it might as well stay banned at that point anyway. Am I right?

If such a third party plugin/filter were available, then I would have no objection to the state continuing to use Microsoft Office, assuming that the TCO was wasn't higher than switching to something else; in fact, if the TCO was the same or lower than other alternatives, it would be a good idea to stay with MS Office, since in that case switching would cost the taxpayers more money. (Of course, I rather doubt the technical possibility and/or license compatibility of such a filter, since it would cut into Microsoft's vendor lock-in).

Also, this a decision by the state, as a software consumer, which software it is going to use, so I'd hardly call it a "ban".

[Khym Chanur]

Oops, dobule-post; sorry. Moderators, feel free to delete one of 131 or 129.

[Golden Eagle]

If a third party filter/plugin for ODF was provided, I wouldn't care if they continued to use MS Office; in fact, it would be a good idea, since it would grealty reduce the amount of money the government would have to spend.

Sounds reasonable, thanks.

Does Office/Word allow for such a filter as a plugin? I sort of doubt it, since that would reduce vendor lock-in.

Yes, absolutely that could be provided, and very likely will.

[N3WBI3]

And throw away inflamatory words? what would a troll do without those?

[Golden Eagle]

This particular state is apparently no longer discussing this issue in legislature, but they have, and so have others. Call it a ban, prohibitted, resrticted, whatever else you want, but they all do the same thing, and that is foolishly limit what types of technology the government can use to perform its duties.

[Still Thinking]

How, since every open source fanatic that pushes the "Open Office" clone claims the proprietary "Microsoft Office" formats have been legally reverse engineered, and their free alternative offers complete compatibility? Have all those claims been a lie?

If I were someone looking for software to product docs in an open format, I would be willing to accept Office .doc and .xls and so on if and only if Microsoft took a public, binding, irrevocable position that reverse engineering of those formats is legal for reading, writing, etc, without royalty and without agreeing to some sort of conditional terms. Just because a practice is legal (and I'm not taking a position on this one) doesn't necessarily give competing developers adequate legal cover in a practical sense if their opponents have legal pockets the depth of Bill & Co.'s. Litigation can be used as a weapon regardless of it's merit.

[N3WBI3]

Khym,

Thats the way pretty much everyone here feels... Stiull does not stop certain people from calling us out a communist and anti American..

[Dominick]

Call it a ban, prohibitted, resrticted, whatever else you want, but they all do the same thing, and that is foolishly limit what types of technology the government can use to perform its duties.

They already do this now. Microsoft would not have grown so large, if it were not for the government using it's power to commit violence on individuals and the power to take money in the form of taxes. Instead of telling use your tax money to prosecute people doing nothing but using the common law right to dispose of property that they purchased, the government should have been telling MS that they can't sue people for selling things they bought from them. It is like a author rescinding a book from me, that I gave to a friend.

All that aside, there is no ban. The feds have done the same thing, and told vendors to use particular formats/products/software for computer data, and they have been doing this since the 60s. Massachusetts picked a format that was developed to be non-proprietary, as they saw that XML was not a functional file format.

Your characterization of this in hysterical terms is ill founded in technology, as the Federal Government has been doing this for years. State governments being users of computer data is new, and up to recently, many were using outdated VT220 terminal mainframes. MS can complete easily with a filter, and the market will decide.

I would love to hear that using ADA as we had to some years ago for Defense contracts, and how RS-232 is a communist/socialist plot. Those are specified every day in specifications published in PDF (another open format) form, that cost you as a taxpayer a chunk of money to produce.

If anything the nonsense with patents is anti-conservative, as it chokes the free market and gives government a great amount of power to enforce the right to control ideas. It is important to note, without patents that are meant by our founding fathers to protect a owner for a limited time, the technology business would not be profitable. With patents that run forever, technology will stagnate as the free exchange of ideas envisioned by the Framers, will end in a flurry of lawsuits. Obviously, there is a balance to the length of time someone should enjoy patent protection.

The government should be limited, in fact as conservatives thats why we are here. If we want to give away software tools, and consumers, even government consumers, want to use it, using the power of law to prevent this is wrong. To tell a consumer, even a government consumer, that they can't make demands on the type of tools they want, is an abuse of the principles of limited government, which is one of the cornerstones of conservatism.

[N3WBI3]

Call it a ban, prohibitted, resrticted, whatever else you want

lol, its called an IT acquisition policy and every serious organization has one. MA is merely saying that part of their software standards include support for ODF and that any vendor (open or closed) needs to support that standard. Nothing is banned, prohibited, or restricted save the final format of a document. If the software acquisition policy stated doc/xls/ppt (as the policy at my office does) the ramifications would be the same, any software that supported that software could be considered.

By mandating an open document format that no individual can limit MA has not limited the types of technology they have, in fact, expanded them. By sticking with a proprietary format you are *BY DEFINITION* limiting what technology can be used, by picking an open one you are giving every software vendor in the world a shot at filling your needs, and that includes Microsoft!

[ShadowAce]

...that is foolishly limit what types of technology the government can use to perform its duties.

You claim to work for the DoD, yet you don't see any "limiting" of technology in RFQ from the gov't? Nothing about ADA must be used? Nothing about technical specs? Are you honestly trying to convey the impression that the gov't merely asks for a product and accepts whatever is delivered?

You're either lying about working for the DoD, or your whole argument about Mass. is just to get people riled up and you don't believe it yourself.