Massachusetts Should Close Down OpenDocument

FOX News ^ | September 28, 2005 | James Prendergast

[Golden Eagle]

The broader media usually take little interest in public policy debates about technology, but they’re missing a big story in Massachusetts.

The technology trades, blogs and industry are buzzing about a monumental policy shift in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Officials in the state have proposed a new policy that mandates that every state technology system use only applications designed around OpenDocument file formats.

Such a policy might seem like something that should concern only a small group of technology professionals, but in fact the implications are staggering and far-reaching. The policy promises to burden taxpayers with new costs and to disrupt how state agencies interact with citizens, businesses and organizations.

Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in turn will hurt innovation. The state has a disaster in the making.

[for-q-clinton]

In regards to PDF. I still don't understand why taxachusettes exmpted them. There is nothing saying they need to save their format in PDF...they can use ODF to save their files and publish them. Taxachussettes can only set policy on what they will save as and use to do business with. Why do they need PDF?

I know the real answer and you do to...ABM.

[Redcloak]

MA will have thousands of state workers annoyed when they can no longer use Microsoft Word.

At which point, those employees will discover that one word processor is pretty much like any other word processor. WordPerfect is Word is OpenOffice is Kword is Abiword is...

Just because you learned to drive in a Ford, that doesn't mean that you can't drive a Chevrolet.

[sono]

If that's not enough for WinTel ... wait until this hits the fan ...


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1865071,00.asp

[glorgau]

You may want to brush up on what an OPEN STANDARD is. The fact that Adobe owns pdf means it's not an open standard. Just like Java isn't an open standard--sun owns it.

Open, whatever. It's published, and whoever wants can produce documents that will be read by any compliant reader. The problem with MS Word, PowerPoint, etc. are that the contents of the files are an unknown blob. The specification has not been published.

[ShadowAce]

The fact that Adobe owns pdf means it's not an open standard.

So why does MS feel the need to license its implementation of XML, while Adobe feels no such need for PDF?

It's that license that is troublesome, regardless of the fact that its royalty-free.

Why doesn't MS publish its XML specs, like Adobe publishes the PDF specs (without qualifications)? MS can still own the standard even if the specs are published.

Here's another question--what is the purpose of MS' license? What rights does it withhold from third parties?

[whd23]

I just checked my two PCs. OO v1.1.2 and v1.1.9 both have Export as PDF in the File menu.

[for-q-clinton]

Open, whatever. It's published, and whoever wants can produce documents that will be read by any compliant reader. The problem with MS Word, PowerPoint, etc. are that the contents of the files are an unknown blob. The specification has not been published.

Great! so you're in support of Office 12's "Open Standard" (by your definition) document format, right? It's XML and anyone can license it royalty free and use it how they see fit. Good news, huh? I'm glad to have you on board.

[for-q-clinton]

It's that license that is troublesome, regardless of the fact that its royalty-free.

Why doesn't MS publish its XML specs, like Adobe publishes the PDF specs (without qualifications)?

First, there isn't a big difference when talking compatibility. Adobe can change the standard at anytime forcing everyone to update their code to meet the new published standard.

Second M$ licenses their IP because it's their IP and they don't want others "stealing" it. And that is a good thing. Hey it's FREE, which is the catch that the OSS crowd uses to try and hook suckers. What's the problem with Microsoft using the same hook? Somehow, I think it has more to do with it being Microsoft than it being a free license.

BTW: How long have you supported JAVA? (You know where I'm going with this so be careful how you answer).

[ShadowAce]

...because it's their IP and they don't want others "stealing" it.

First of all--what IP? It's XML, a langauge MS didn't invent. They are merely riding the coattails of another technology. Extensions? Fine, use 'em. But it won't be ODF anymore.

You still haven't answered my questions--what is the purpose of MS' license? What rights does it withhold from third parties?

[for-q-clinton]

After re-reading my post I and noticing your screen name...I realized you weren't a typical part of the back and forth on other threads. As such, my comments probably came across harsh. Please accept my apology.

[for-q-clinton]

You can license XML tags, just not the IP surrounding XML. Kind of like I can license my code I wrote in JAVA, but I can't steal JAVA by licensing JAVA. Or I can license my webpage graphics and layout; however, I can't license HTML.

Just because you can read XML doesn't mean it's your property.

[N3WBI3]

So why does MS feel the need to license its implementation of XML, while Adobe feels no such need for PDF?

ding ding ding... we have a winner, fqc, this is why PDF may have been exempted and MS's XINO format was not! Anyone sans license can make an application to read and write PDF the only think Adobe enforces is a trademark that you must ad-hear to in order to call it a PDF. MS's Xino formats are not OPEN.

BTW Open has nothing to do with ownership, it has to do with the conditions of use and the visibility of the schema so that it is reproducible..

[for-q-clinton]

Open Standards do have to do with ownership. As far as "Open" that's not realy defined and is left up to personal interpretation.

I can argue Microsoft's new format is Open. Meaning you can clearly see what is required to use it and it's transparent. Which is exactly what people said they wanted from Microsoft's office docs, but then since M$ met that request they ABM crowd moves the ball again.

Why not just say, we want M$ to close down and go out of business...at least be honest.

[N3WBI3]

Why not just say, we want M$ to close down and go out of business...at least be honest.

If you take some time off from putting words into my mouth I have said if MS supported ODF and was better TCO MA should go with them. Having one company own a format that public documents are in makes me uncomfortable, even if youre ok with it..

[HAL9000]

Why should this be a problem when basically any off the shelf office suite can read those formats now?

I'm talking about 100 years from now. For long-term document storage, governments would be better off printing and storing paper instead of Microsoft Word files. By implementing open standards, governments will have a much more certain and managable path to ensure that documents created today will be accessible in the future.

There is nothing preventing Microsoft or any other software vendor from fully supporting the ODF format. That is a much more sensible format for the state to standardize on than Microsoft's proprietary formats which are encumbered with a bunch of anti-competitive restrictions.

You sound like parrots repeating the same illogical point over and over.

You believe that concepts like "long-term document storage and retrieval" and "planning ahead" are illogical. It's obvious why your side lost - you lack common sense.

The only possible issue would be the technical will to restablish connectivity into the files, but even these proposed formats would require that.

Since the specifications for ODF and PDF are far more widely distributed than Microsoft's formats, the open formats will be much economical and technically feasible to access in future decades and centuries.

I've written applications to extract data from both PDFs and BIFF format, and I've developed systems to handle massive volumes of documents. The PDF project went much better than BIFF because the official data format specification was readily available. I'm pretty sure I have a lot more practical experience with these matters than you do, based on your ignorant comments on the subject.

[for-q-clinton]

I'm talking about 100 years from now. For long-term document storage, governments would be better off printing and storing paper instead of Microsoft Word files. By implementing open standards, governments will have a much more certain and managable path to ensure that documents created today will be accessible in the future.

LOL. Are you serious? What will happen over the next 100 years? Technology will go backwards...they'll look at a word doc like the rosetta stone? There may be good reasons for open doc standards, but that is definitely not one of them...that's one's actually quite laughable.

100 years from now. "I can't seem to open this document. It's made with some type of ancient encryption that our quantum computers can't even crack. If only we has the advanced techology of the 1990's we could read the document. We're doomed to failure. Good thing we can still open those PDFs though. They published their standard so we could read the format."

[for-q-clinton]

You believe that concepts like "long-term document storage and retrieval" and "planning ahead" are illogical. It's obvious why your side lost - you lack common sense.

Well if that's your position, then use a basic text file. No need getting any of that messy proprietary formatting in the way.

[for-q-clinton]

Since the specifications for ODF and PDF are far more widely distributed than Microsoft's formats, the open formats will be much economical and technically feasible to access in future decades and centuries.

So when/if M$ publishes their Office 12 XML formats and allows everyone to use that format for FREE, I assume you'll be onboard. That dove tails in with your point above, so it's great to have you supporting Office 12. Spread the word! Office 12 will use by default OPEN XML formatting.

[NJ_gent]

"Not to be rude, but you're closing tag fits you to the a T."

How so? In this specific comment, or in all my comments?

"First, when you use the word FREE how are you using it? To me it looks as if it's free from cost. But I'm sure after I prove it's not free in that sense you'll switch to FREE as in FREEDOM."

TCO is not free for anything, but cost for obtaining the software is zero.

"It's been proven the so called FREE software actually costs more to install, operate, and maintain. Now this isn't a blanket statement, but more time than not it has been proven right."

Proven? By whom? You can point to 15 Microsoft-funded studies that say the TCO is higher for free/open source software, and I can point to 15 Red Hat or other OSS vendor funded studies that say the exact opposite. Steve Balmer has said numerous times that competing with Linux (another free/open source piece of software that competes with Microsoft) on the TCO end is very challenging.

"So just to get this straight, you'd rather spend money on getting an inferior product in place because it has an open standard interface?"

I'd rather spend money establishing an open standard among the users in the group so that a minimum TCO can be maintained regardless of the vendor or product. If OpenOffice's TCO is too high due to support issues, then go with Sun Microsystems' StarOffice, which has enterprise support. If you don't like that, go with any other vendor's product that supports the standard. If you want to add some Linux machines, Apple machines, or other machines to the mix, you have no problem when you're using an open standard. Let's see a proprietary vendor cover all of those situations. Let's see Microsoft help you integrate your Linux, SCO Unix, and Solaris machines. What open standards do is give you choice, which decreases longterm TCO. When vendors compete, you win. When you're locked into proprietary formats that change on the whim of the vendor, you're out of luck if your TCO becomes unacceptable. At that point, your cost of switching vendors or products becomes unimaginably high.

"Note the policy doesn't say it has to have certain features, so if the only one that can meet the requirement is something that gives you the features of notepad, you'd be fine with that?"

Since we're not talking about products with only the features of Notepad, you're begging the question and presenting a strawman argument. I think they should be using the product which supports the features they require and which has the lowest longterm TCO. As longterm TCO is impossible to accurately predict due to changes made by vendors in their policies, products, and support offerings, the availability of competing vendors must be taken into account. You aren't against competition in the marketplace, right?

"To me you go withe the most cost effective solution. Period."

Pencil and paper it is! No, seriously, you go with the product which supports the features you require and which has the lowest longterm TCO, taking availability of future vendor competition into account.

"Once again Taxachussettes and the liberals are leading the way for the Anything But Microsoft crowd."

So you're claiming that those seeking competition in the marketplace are all liberals? Funny; I'd call them capitalists...

"The next version of office is going to be an ODF."

No, it's going to be XML-based. That doesn't mean that it will be openly available throughout the life of that product, nor subsequent versions, so that changes to the 'standard' are available to other vendors. You can always reverse-engineer the standard, but as AOL has proven with its Instant Messenger client, you can keep yourself far enough ahead of those reverse-engineering your own personal 'standard' by obfuscating what you're doing with it that it's next to impossible for anyone to keep up with you.

"I bet most on this thread supporting ODF, won't be supporting MS though."

I give credit where credit's due. If Microsoft supports the existing standard in their next version of Microsoft Office, then I'll applaud them for doing so. If Microsoft's new XML-based standard remains open and available for all, I'll remain suspicious (based on past experience), but I'll give them credit for that as well.

While there are some who are anti-Microsoft for the sake of being anti-Microsoft, I take each thing on an individual basis. For instance, Microsoft's new CLI ('Monad') looks incredible. I haven't had time to download what's available of it thus far, but I'm looking forward to exploring its capabilities. From what I've seen and read of it, it looks to be a step or two above and beyond any currently existing shell for Linux or *nix.

[NJ_gent]

Support for exporting to PDF was added in version 1.1. As for 2.0, I've been using it since it was 'alpha', and I've never had a single stability issue with it. I've loaded it onto a bunch of computers for various people and haven't heard of any problems yet. It's also worth noting that the PDF writer has been improved in 2.0.