Posted on 05/10/2006 7:45:08 AM PDT by ShadowAce
A trade association has blasted the Massachusetts Information and Technology Division (IDT) for requesting a plug-in for Microsoft's Office Suite, seizing on the issue as evidence that the state's policy of mandating the OpenDocument Format (ODF) is "a biased, open source-only preference policy."
The request for proposal (RFP) was posted last Wednesday but the OpenDocument Foundation Inc. said two days later that it has such a plug-in and it will be submitted soon to the IDT.
Late Monday, Melanie Wyne, executive director of the Initiative for Software Choice (ISC), said in a statement: "The RFP reveals that the choice presented by the previous ITD bureaucrats – i.e., ODF-compliant desktops for state agencies are the only viable options for citizens to have access to their data in the future – was purposely exclusionary, being primarily designed to distort the competitive landscape.
"In other words, it had little to do with access to documents, and everything to do with excluding proprietary software providers."
The ISC is a unit of CompTIA, which has supported Microsoft in its ongoing battles over the Massachusetts policy and, more recently, in the software giant's struggles with regulators in the European Union.
Wyne noted that "other governments" have closely followed the Massachusetts policy, which mandates that the state's documents be preserved in ODF starting in January. She railed away at what she called "a specious administrative process" that led to the mandate in Massachusetts complaining that the policy was really "an open source-only objective."
The IDT last updated the RFP last Wednesday.
Wyne observed that the issue is also important in Europe where EU regulators have not promoted ODF-compliant standards.
Microsoft is scheduled to release its Office 2007 version in January at about the same time Massachusetts is committed to implement the ODF-only policy. However, Microsoft is expected to try again with Massachusetts state officials after it receives expected approval for its new office software from the ECMA European standards body.
Because you haven't ever proven there's an actual need. You did just claim 99 percent compatibility from your freeware, did you not? And that's not even a commercial attempt.
The need is to prevent any single vendor from controlling a format.
Indeed. What the heck are they bitching about?
I can't wait to see the MS-suckup spin on this one.
IBTT
Please ignore post 23. It was a delayed double-post due to fat fingers, and not paying attention to what I was clicking. :-)
:)
Your link leads to a bible study webpage...;)
Because Microsoft can (and has, and will) change the format on a whim, and we're back to square one.
Then make a better format, that attracks users to it. But forcing users to use something they don't have or want, as these politicians are attempting to do, is barbaric.
What the heck is that?
The politicians run the government. The government is the user. You might as well complain that a company can tell its employees to use MS Office.
The government is not the sole user. This whole thing started because they claimed those at home were having to buy MS products, which would be typical BS if the freeware is 99 percent compatible.
That's a partial reason. The others include long-term document retention, interoperability and freedom of future product choice.
which would be typical BS if the freeware is 99 percent compatible.
Yet it's that 1% that destroys your idea.
99% compatible for now. Again, MS can (and does) change their format on a whim.
Ridiculous, you're pushing something ~90 percent of current users din't have. Or want.
So keep using that version till you get up to 99 good on the next version. Duh!
The bottom line is supposedly trying to find a format everyone can read, when one already exists. Completely switching to something nobody has or wants is the stupidest idea one could ever imagine, coming of course from the open source lunis. If you really cared anything about the format you'd be happy with the plugin.
"The bottom line is supposedly trying to find a format everyone can read, when one already exists."
And that format is about to be thrown to the wayside. Same as trying to read Word 97 documents with Word 6. This is the point that you don't get.
And I AM happy with the plugin, as should anyone be, because it allows people to use MS Office and yet still save in an open format. I just wonder why Microsoft isn't happy, with their ISC arm raising a fuss about it. Maybe because now, people can actually use a format that can be read by software that doesn't rely on proprietary licenses or reverse engineering?
Ironic that an organization called Initiative for Software Choice actually doesn't want people to chose anything other than Microsoft.
Yea so in fifteen years you will have one of two situations
1) Very old documents that need legacy software to read *or*
2) An effective ban on any software that does not support 15 years worth of data formats..
The bottom line is supposedly trying to find a format everyone can read
No the bottom line is trying to find an open standard that everyone has the ability *and right* to read and create without requiring a license from a given entity..
If you really cared anything about the format you'd be happy with the plugin.
You'll have to point out the post where he says he is not happy with the plugin. We are all *thrilled with the plugin* because it proves what we have been saying all along this was 100% about the data format not 'getting MS'.
Gonna require that either way, duuh.
An effective ban on any software that does not support 15 years worth of data formats
More ridiculous FUD.
We are all *thrilled with the plugin*
LOL no you're not because you wanted Anyone But Microsoft loaded on those computers, and instead all you're getting is a plugin that may or may not even be used significantly or long term. If you want something better than Microsoft on those computers, then come up with something better, but using government mandates to force feed specific products just because they are "open", as was being attempted, is draconian. But that's what we know to expect from the open sourcers, whine about Microsoft dominance, but only because they want to establish their own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.