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.

[NJ_gent]

"TCP/IP is actually a suite of open protocols. It's not a standard per se."

Who the devil told you this? TCP is defined in RFC973. The RFCs for IP are listed here.

[for-q-clinton]

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.

Uh what about PDF then? Taxachussettes gave them a an exemption from the requirement? But any time Adobe can change the standard because they own it. So once again, it's proof that they are just doing an ABM move at the tax payers expense.

Also taxachussettes set the standard so tight so that it isn't allowed to grow as technology grows. I'm sure that's good for gov't too. Why not just pass a requirement that says all systems must be able to use wordperfect formatting from version 1.0 (I'm sure wordperfect would open their standard up if they said that). Anything going above that will not be allowed, except for PDF because we like Adobe and they aren't Microsoft.

[for-q-clinton]

That's isn't a TCP/IP Open Standard list. It's a suite of protocols that are open standard that make up TCP/IP. I think it was anti-republicrat that mentioned it to me...I researched it and I concurred with his statement.

It's a nuance, but an accurate one.

[for-q-clinton]

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.

But that's proprietary. Yet, you'll not accept office 12 XML documents because they require agreement to a royalty free license?

[NJ_gent]

"Uh what about PDF then? Taxachussettes gave them a an exemption from the requirement? But any time Adobe can change the standard because they own it."

Indeed, but they apparently lacked an alternative to PDF, and were thusly forced into using it. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything which would act as an appropriate replacement for PDF.

"Also taxachussettes set the standard so tight so that it isn't allowed to grow as technology grows. I'm sure that's good for gov't too."

You've never done work with a bank's technology base, eh? What you've described has worked extraordinarily well in numerous can't-fail implementations. Hanging out on the bleeding edge of technology is a good way to drop yourself into a support-laced Hell on Earth. Getting something that works and using the heck out of it brings TCO way, way down. That said, there's nothing to say the standard itself can't expand over time based on new technologies becoming available. Various vendors will decide for themselves how to implement these new changes. Those sorts of decisions potentially affect TCO. Since virtually every standard changes over time, it's best to have competition among vendors using the standard so as to keep TCO low and support quality high. Once again, competition is good.

"Why not just pass a requirement that says all systems must be able to use wordperfect formatting from version 1.0 (I'm sure wordperfect would open their standard up if they said that)."

Does that standard contain all the necessary features? Is it widely supported by various vendors?

"except for PDF because we like Adobe and they aren't Microsoft."

Without having any viable alternative to PDF, what, precisely, would you have them do?

[NJ_gent]

"That's isn't a TCP/IP Open Standard list."

Firstly, TCP and IP are two seperate things. TCP is defined in the RFC I mentioned. IP is defined in RFC791, and was added onto numerous times at later dates.

[NJ_gent]

"But that's proprietary."

I didn't say the government of the state of Massachusits should adopt it as a standard; I said I wanted to take a look at it because I was personally interested in its capabilities.

"Yet, you'll not accept office 12 XML documents because they require agreement to a royalty free license?"

That's a strawman argument because I never said I wouldn't. I was commenting on the policy decisions of a state government, but you already knew that.

[for-q-clinton]

Indeed, but they apparently lacked an alternative to PDF, and were thusly forced into using it. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything which would act as an appropriate replacement for PDF.

Really? How about not using it? Why do they need to use PDF at all? They can use their ODF for all document storage.

[for-q-clinton]

Still it's a suite of protocols NOT a single standard.

http://www.mumbaicyber.com/glossary_terms_temiote_scope_networl.asp

http://www.constellationnetcorp.com/definitions.htm

http://www.e-formation.co.nz/glossary.asp

http://www.cme.com/edu/course/resources/glossary.html?letter=T

http://www.iwi.com.sg/services/webhosting/terms.asp

http://www.btinternet.com/~mbohan/phantasy/jargont.htm

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=26&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP/IP

http://www.ionet.co.za/glossary.asp


Need more defitions that it's a suite of protocols?

[NJ_gent]

"Why do they need to use PDF at all?"

That is, perhaps, a question best asked of the people actually working for that states' government.

[for-q-clinton]

Ok, so should the Taxachussettes gov't allow the Office 12 document standard...assuming they can use it free of charge and that it's transparent?

[for-q-clinton]

That is, perhaps, a question best asked of the people actually working for that states' government.

So you don't know but you back the state's position? And it's Taxachussettes no less. Now typically conservatives are more than willing to bash such a liberal state like that...they are one of the big three for us to pick on (the other 2...cali and NY). But their IT views are spot on and you'll defend them even without knowing why.

Let's face it...PDF is required just as much as a .doc is. They chose to allow PDF because it's not Microsoft. They were out to get Microsoft duing the Anti-trust trial and now they see they failed. So they are spending more tax payers money to try again, but using different tactics. it's fine with me really as this will just drive their taxes higher and make more people leave that corrupt over-taxed state. I just hope it's the conservatives that leave.

[NJ_gent]

"Still it's a suite of protocols NOT a single standard."

TCP and IP are both RFC-defined standards. The protocols associated with them are also RFC-defined standards. Their use on the internet can involve protocols built atop either one of them which are not defined standards. That doesn't change the fact that unless you build your own wires from scratch, you're layering whatever it is you're doing on something standard. Generally, you're at least working over the RFC-defined IP standard.

Google OSI model for more information.

[NJ_gent]

"Ok, so should the Taxachussettes gov't allow the Office 12 document standard...assuming they can use it free of charge and that it's transparent?"

Sure, if they can get contractually binding assurances in writing from Microsoft that it will remain that way for all time.

[for-q-clinton]

The protocols associated with them are also RFC-defined standards.

So you agree...it's a suite of protocols and not just one. See it's not that hard to admit. I was corrected on it a couple weeks ago. It took me a couple posts to realize I too was wrong like you are today. It's not a big deal, I'm just educating you on the finer points.

[for-q-clinton]

Sure, if they can get contractually binding assurances in writing from Microsoft that it will remain that way for all time.

Do you also expect the same from the standards body for the ODF?

Oh wait, that will never happen. Standards bodies can do what they want just like Microsoft can. So we'll just up the reruirement on M$ and not on the standards body. Yeah, that's fair.

[steve-b]

LOL! Busted!

[steve-b]

This is a slight modification of a competitor's format

Well, then, all Microsoft needs to do is strip out the modifications. Problem solved.

[steve-b]

According to the Times, the campaign was discovered when Utah's Attorney General at the time Mark Shurtleff received letters "purportedly written by at least two dead people ... imploring him to go easy on Microsoft Corp. for its conduct as a monopoly."

LOL!

How is Microsoft like the Democratic Party?

They both get BUSTED when somebody compares their "grassroots support" with the list of DEAD people.

[NJ_gent]

"So you don't know but you back the state's position?"

I don't know why they require it, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that they do. PDF is very commonly used, and it's not unlikely that those making policy were told time and time again that workers could not live without PDF or a workable replacement. Lacking said workable replacement, the policy was set to exclude PDF.

"typically conservatives are more than willing to bash such a liberal state like that...they are one of the big three for us to pick on"

I don't like to generalize; I take situations as they come. I'll file this under 'broken clock'.

"But their IT views are spot on and you'll defend them even without knowing why."

They've explained why they're moving to openly available document standards. As for why they have an exception for PDF, I'm working off the only reasonable assumption I can make on the issue. You're making an assumption based on a displaced paranoid persecution complex. Their policy does not exclude Microsoft; Microsoft's failure thus far to adhere to an agreed-upon standard causes them to be excluded. If and when Microsoft supports the standard document format, agencies within the state will be free to purchase Microsoft supplied solutions under this policy.

"Let's face it...PDF is required just as much as a .doc is."

There are many alternatives to .doc which are widely available. Can you say the same for PDF?

"They chose to allow PDF because it's not Microsoft. They were out to get Microsoft duing the Anti-trust trial"

Again with the persecution complex... Are you Steve Ballmer?