|
|
| FOX's Anti-MASS FUD is a Dud - Updated |
 |
|
Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 03:15 PM EDT
|
If you go to Fox News, or in my case, if someone sends you the url, you find the following blurb:
Wrong Move
Massachusetts adopts a
bad technology policy that
will cost taxpayers and
consumers
Of course, it sends you to an editorial about the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' decision to use the OpenDocument format. And it's our chance to see inside of Microsoft's head, because it's a guest editorial by James Prendergast of Americans for Technology Leadership. The editorial has the hilarious title, "Massachusetts Should Close Down OpenDocument." Like they could close down OpenDocument, even if they had a mind to. It's a standard. No one can close it down. That's the beauty part. It's one reason Massachusetts has chosen it.
Americans for Technology Leadership is listed on SourceWatch, where it says that the organization has been "frequently described as a Microsoft front group" and if the name sounds familiar to you, here's why:
In August 2001 the Los Angeles Times reported that a ATL was behind a "carefully orchestrated nationwide campaign to create the impression of a surging grass-roots movement" behind Microsoft. "The campaign, orchestrated by a group partly funded by Microsoft, goes to great lengths so that the letters appear to be spontaneous expressions from ordinary citizens. Letters sent in the last month are printed on personalized stationery using different wording, color and typefaces--details that distinguish those efforts from common lobbying tactics that go on in politics every day. Experts said there's little precedent for such an effort supported by a company defending itself against government accusations of illegal behavior."
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." So this ... snort ... "grassroots" group would like Massachusetts to close down OpenDocument, and here are a few of their reasons:
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.
Until now, Massachusetts citizens and government agencies have been well served by a competitive, merit-based procurement process for technology services. Agencies can turn to the marketplaceoften to small state-based systems integratorsand receive bids for the best solutions at the best price to meet specific needs. The proposed policy throws out this system, and instead makes the blind pre-determined selection of applications using the largely immature, rarely deployed OpenDocument technology.
For many needs, such applications do not exist and will have to be built from the ground up. In other cases, the OpenDocument solution may cost more and provide less, but agencies and citizens will have to pay the price and make do. . . . In many cases, new technologies will have to be purchased even when current systems are fully functional. In other words, taxpayers will be paying duplicative costs.
I feel like answering Mr. Prendergast, directly, person to person, mano a mano, so to speak, if he doesn't mind wrestling with a girl.
Cost more? Duplicative costs? OpenOffice.org is free for the download, sir. Please explain to me how that can cost more. No "independent" studies, please, with brain-twisting arguments on how free really isn't free and how the earth is actually flat. We saw enough of those "studies" to know how much they offer the discussion. Thanks, anyway, but we caught on to that game already. Just so you know.
An attack on marked-based competition? I believe that is Microsoft's skill. It is the convicted monopolist, is it not? Both in the US and in Europe? As a result, the world finds itself locked into a convicted monopoly's products. That is the problem. Or we would be locked in, except the most wonderful thing has happened. A group of good-hearted and skilled volunteers decided to write an operating system that is available under the GPL, so it's free as in speech and free as in beer, and we can download it ourselves and we don't have to use Microsoft's software unless we actually want to. Isn't that great news? Massachusetts has decided not to be locked in to any vendor in particular, although it isn't anti-Microsoft, because it has this idea in its head that citizens have the right to access their own documents without having to pay anyone and without restrictions as to what operating system they have to use or technical blockages to access not only now but way into the future. Lots of people like to use GNU/Linux systems and Apple software, you know. Or maybe you hadn't heard? And what if Microsoft isn't in existence in 200 years or no longer supports a certain application? Then how will our children and grandchildren open and read the documents we are saving today? With proprietary software, you can't just take a look at the code and figure out how to open and read the document. There are laws about that. The OpenDocument format ensures we'll always be able to open and read the documents. That is why it is a superior format for Massachusetts' governmental needs.
As for throwing out prior systems, isn't Microsoft itself moving away from the .doc format with its next release of
its code? So there is going to be a migration going on, one way or another.
And the Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council called a meeting with Massachusetts Secretary of Administration & Finance Eric Kriss, CIO of the Commonwealth Peter Quinn, representatives from Microsoft, IBM, Adobe, Sun, and other companies and groups to discuss the XML/Open Document format decision and to provide feedback to Massachusetts. At that meeting,
Massachusetts' Kriss very clearly told Microsoft exactly how to be included. It was Microsoft that refused to support OpenDocument, which it is still free to do, not Massachusetts refusing to let Microsoft in. We heard it ourselves on the audio, James. So you can't spin this one. The audio tape is still available right here, so you can listen also and not suffer from this misinformation in your head or spread it, either.
If you missed it, Sun Microsystem's CEO Scott McNealy's letter to Peter Quinn, ITD Director & Chief Information Officer for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is worth rereading on this point: Some may contend that the decision is unfairly dictating a software preference. This is entirely wrong; the guidelines make it clear that any applications need only support an open, unencumbered document format. Your guidelines do not limit any vendors ability to compete for state business because the required open formats are available equally to all, and participation in their development is equally open to all.
The Commonwealth has an Open Standards policy too, which they explain has the following related purpose: The Commonwealth must ensure that its investments in information technology result in systems that are sufficiently interoperable to meet the business requirements of its agencies and to effectively serve its constituencies. This policy addresses the importance of open standards compliance for IT investments in the Commonwealth. For the purpose of this policy, open standards is defined as follows:
Open Standards: Specifications for systems that are publicly available and are developed by an open community and affirmed by a standards body. Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) is an example of an open standard. Open standards imply that multiple vendors can compete directly based on the features and performance of their products. It also implies that the existing information technology solution is portable and that it can be removed and replaced with that of another vendor with minimal effort and without major interruption (see current version of the Enterprise Technical Reference Model).
Applicability
Agencies within the Executive Department and vendors providing information technology goods and services to these agencies must comply with this policy.
The new data formats policy is evidence that Massachusetts likes open standards and formats, and they have set forth which formats meet their needs and are therefore acceptable. The decision is made, and for some mighty fine reasons. The decision won't change now. Microsoft is therefore faced with a decision. Everyone hopes it will decide to support the OpenDocument format, but if it doesn't choose to, any difficulties users of its software face -- and they should be few, thanks to the labor by the FOSS community -- falls on *Microsoft's* shoulders, not on Massachusetts. The whole world is watching.
As for OpenDocument being allegedly largely immature and rarely deployed," in reality, the format was developed and reviewed by experts in the field over several years.
As for which software is superior in performance, you quote a journalist who wrote that OpenOffice.org is slower than Excel and various other irrelevant things. I say irrelevant because what Massachusetts is after is something far more important. It wants the documents saved today to be accessible in 100 years. OpenDocument ensures that. Microsoft's software does not. Or, more accurately, it could, but it refuses. This discussion isn't about which software is more polished. It's about which one is open, unencumbered, and usable by all operating systems, standards-based, and not tied to just one commercial vendor. Of course, OpenOffice.org would be better if Microsoft would open up its APIs and let the world interoperate, but it is good enough to meet the Commonwealth's needs already. That is the point Microsoft hasn't absorbed. We don't have to use Microsoft's software any more, unless we want to. It has to make us *want* to, and in the case of Massachusetts, that means supporting the OpenDocument format. Of course, it won't do that, because it feels that its proprietary information is the company's leg up, which is its decision to make. But the company has done so many tricky things in the past, hooks and switches with the software, that we don't trust it to interoperate with other software we like to use, and we are aware that using its products means we are dependent on its whim as to access in the future. That's the heart of the problem Microsoft faces in trying to qualify for a governmental requirement of support for open standards and open formats. That is Microsoft's dilemma, not Massachusetts'. The Commonwealth is very happy to have Microsoft participate, but they have certain needs in regard to the software they use, and Microsoft will have to meet those needs, if it wishes to join the party. Honestly, we consumers all wish it would, in all sincerity.
We notice Microsoft's refusal to support OpenDocument format, and we know what it means. It means they are thinking competitively, not cooperatively. When Microsoft refuses to play nicely with others, we know from history exactly what that means for us consumers. It means we get fewer choices in the marketplace, and software we like to use ends up Microsoft road kill, with the result that we can't use it any more. Is that what you meant by encouraging innovation?
The people will be forced to switch fib. Maybe you don't realize that it's incorrect to state the following:
The burden, however, reaches well beyond simple taxpayer costs. Businesses, organizations and citizens who interact with the state will also be forced to support Massachusetts mandated technologies. Law firms that file electronically, businesses that regularly share information with agencies via electronic files, even citizens who want to take advantage of online services will potentially have to purchase, install and learn new software to comply with the policy. These added costs would be substantial.
That's flat out FUD. It's not true. OpenOffice.org and other software that supports the OpenDocument format can open Microsoft Office documents, so no one has to buy anything new. And, may I remind you, they can download it for free, anyway, even if they did need to change. But they don't. They can send in whatever they wish, and Massachusetts will be able to read it. Massachusetts doesn't have to throw out any Microsoft software either, in order to save documents in OpenDocument format. You can download OpenOffice.org for Windows. You can put a document written in Word format into OOo, read it just fine, and then just choose to save it in an OpenDocument format. Yes, OpenOffice.org can do that too. It does the reverse also. If I type up a document, here are my choices. I can save it as: - OpenOffice.org Text Document (.sxw)
-
Microsoft Word 97/2000/XP (.doc)
-
Microsoft Word 95 (.doc)
-
Microsoft Word 6.0 (.doc)
-
Rich Text Format (.rtf)
-
StarWriter 5.0 (.sdw)
-
StarWriter 4.0 (.sdw)
-
StarWriter 3.0 (.sdw)
-
Text (.txt)
-
Text Encoded (.txt)
-
HTML Document (OpenOffice.org Writer)(.html;.htm)
There are probably more now. That's just the list of what the version of OpenOffice.org I have on my computer today can save as.
So, never fear, James. You can quit clutching your Microsoft Office with your cold dead hands. No one is going to try to wrench it from you, or anyone, or make you or anyone else stop using it. If you wish to send the Commonwealth a letter, you can download OpenOffice.org and save the letter in an appropriate format, but if you don't feel like it, Massachusetts will have the ability to deal with the issue on their end. And if Massachusetts wants to send you a letter, they can use OpenOffice.org or StarOffice or any application that supports the OpenDocument format, save the letter in Word format just for you, and send it. End of "problem".
Then, you list two implied legal threats, or I take them as being such. First, you allege that some say that the policy may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you go to the Massachusetts website, you'll find this statement: Open Document Format Standard and the Disabilities Community
ITD is grateful for the thoughtful comments that we have received from the community of persons with disabilities. ITD will work closely with this community to ensure that their legal rights are respected and their practical concerns regarding the implementation of the proposed Open Document format standard are addressed.
Next, you say that the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association (MDAA) "raised practical and legal questions about the plan. At the most fundamental level, the MDAA questioned why district attorneys offices would be forced to switch away from technology that meets their needs." They have to switch because their boss said so. It's that simple. Bosses do that. They can because they are the boss. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a sovereign state. Sovereignty means they can make laws and set regulations and no one can stop them, unless they clash swords with the US Constitution. Other than that, the federal government itself can't tell Massachusetts what software to use. Neither can Microsoft. As Secretary Eric Kriss told Microsoft at the meeting, "Sovereignty trumps intellectual property." It trumps almost everything. You may have noticed that in the Katrina disaster. Without getting into the results and blame or any of that, one thing you may have noted is that Louisiana had to ask the federal government to help; the feds couldn't just march in and take over.
I would suggest that you read David Berlind's article on ZDNET, "Did Microsoft Send the Wrong Guy to Massachusetts' ODF Hearing?"
Had Microsoft come to play ball instead of digging its heals in as it did, the outcome might have been very different. Had I been a member of Gates and Ballmer's executive team, I would have advised them to be at this meeting. I would have said "Be prepared to listen and gauge the state's resolve. If you're alone in this fight and you probably will be you don't want to come across as the arrogant agitator. That's not going to look good to the people in attendance. It's not going to look good to the public. It's not going to look good to the industry. And it's certainly not going to look good to other governments and organizations that are watching with a keen interest in the outcome. Instead, be prepared to be the cooperative facilitator. They're looking for partners. If being a partner means opening our formats as much as Adobe has opened PDF, or if it means supporting ODF, then now is the time to do so. This is the opportunity to show the world that we're so confident in our implementation of Office that we can comply with such standards and still win. After all, Adobe did it with PDF and they're way smaller than us. Not to mention, if Bill or Steve are there with that sort of message, it really looks like you're personally interested in the needs of a very important customer and that's always a good thing."
But that's not the message that Microsoft sent to the world on Sept. 16. And seven days later, on Sept. 23, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Enterprise Technical Reference Model 3.5 was final and Microsoft was officially "out." Whereas Microsoft's proprietary formats had a shot at becoming the open standard (perhaps giving Office 12 a head start over competitors), that honor is now ODF's and ODF's alone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this may be the first time that Microsoft so publicly got sent home with its tail between its legs. If Microsoft keeps this "we know better than you" behavior up, it probably won't be the last.
Microsoft is out in the cold because it marched itself out into the snow and slammed the door behind itself on itself. All it has to do is turn itself around, open the door, support the OpenDocument format, and that is the end of its problem. But the ball is in Microsoft's court. FUD won't work on this. It's the Internet age, you know. Haven't you heard? The Internet changes everything. Even the effectiveness of FUD. Which is why your FUD is a dud.
UPDATED: Fox News has today, Friday, September 30, place an article on its website, linked from the Prendergast article, "Editor's Note: Disclosing Writers' Affiliations", and it reads in part: The column "Massachusetts Should Close Down OpenDocument" that appeared on FOXnews.com Sept. 28 identified author James Prendergast as executive director of Americans for Technology Leadership, but failed to disclose that Microsoft is a founding member of that organization. . . . Mr. Prendergast's affiliation with Microsoft should have been stated clearly in the article. If you note, the bio information after the article by Mr. Prendergast now states his affiliation.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: geoff lane on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
---
I'm not a Windows user, consequently I'm not
afraid of receiving email from total strangers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 03:29 PM EDT |
Note the instructions in red describing how to use HTML.
---
I'm not a Windows user, consequently I'm not
afraid of receiving email from total strangers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- XML-based integrated services parsing, patent No. 6,950,866 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:24 PM EDT
- FUD, FUD, Glorious FUD - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:40 PM EDT
- New life for the Eolas patent? - Authored by: Ed L. on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:17 PM EDT
- A though for the day - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:33 PM EDT
- Another fine one by Pendergast - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:37 PM EDT
- OT - Google book scanning - Authored by: eric76 on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 06:51 PM EDT
- Lenovo to offer Linux and StarOffice on consumer PCs in Asia? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 06:55 PM EDT
- GL News - Dell and Linux - Authored by: Mecha on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 07:00 PM EDT
- Hey PJ, was it you... - Authored by: Mecha on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 07:18 PM EDT
- Fox....the people who cancelled Firefly - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 08:43 PM EDT
- What's with the FOX-bashing? - Authored by: danb35 on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 09:23 PM EDT
- A Canopy connection turned up on YahooSCOX - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 10:51 PM EDT
- Stats uncovers some rocket scientists at the USPTO - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 11:18 PM EDT
- $100 laptop runs Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 11:22 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: freeio on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
It is amusing the fine sounding names - clever euphemisms - that are used to
distract the reader from understanding the sources of arguments. It could be
"Citizens United Against Something" or "Save the Something
Foundation" or "Concerned Taxpayers against Something" or even
"Popular Front for the Liberation of Something" if the intended
audience would seem sympathetic to that sort of cause.
The important thing to remember is that this is an attempt at misdirection. We
are not supposed to notice the sleight of hand right before our eyes. And note
that the media are many times either taken in by this, or are actually complicit
with it.
It is dishonest, but we have come to expect that as a part of meida, business,
and politics.
---
Tux et bona et fortuna est.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Phony names - Authored by: Jude on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:08 PM EDT
- The schools systems job, - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:32 PM EDT
- Phony names - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:10 PM EDT
- Phony names - Authored by: Jude on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:28 PM EDT
- Phony names - Authored by: Tyro on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:39 PM EDT
- Phony names - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:09 PM EDT
- Hey not a bad Idea...American Anti-FUD coalition. - Authored by: Mecha on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:23 PM EDT
- Phony names - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- Phony names - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 04:39 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
It was mentioned that the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association had some
concerns. Didn't we hear some time ago that DAs and lawyers preferred
WordPerfect, not MS apps? Something to do with better legal formatting.
Has OpenOffice taken any steps to make the software appealing to the legal
profession?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dyfet on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
| As a disabled American I would not be able to access a Microsoft XML
encoded
document without their expressed permission. The company claims
it can choose
who it permits to impliment such solutions by patent licensing,
and so I cannot
use or modify software without accepting such a license and
it's odious terms.
With opendoc
I can do this because it is not artificially restricted, whether I
wish to mearly
"access" the file to "transform" it, for
example, to something
like Daisy talking books, or to otherwise use it in the
software of my choice,
but Microsoft has chosen to
try and license even the act of accessing one's own
data if it is in their XML
format.
If Microsoft were to offer it's XML
fully on a fully RF license without
restrictions on sublicensing, then it could
perhaps have been considered, but
in desiring to try and legally control how
others use their own documents,
Microsoft has chosen to legally lock itself out
of offering truelly open and
compatible solutions compliant with state statutes
and/or
that meet the needs of the marketplace, and it's nobody else's fault but
their
own selfishness. They chose to do it to themselves.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Thanks, dyfet! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 09:52 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
| It occurs to me that there may be a more technical reason why Microsoft finds
itself unable to support an open save format.
OpenDocument is both
documented and has well known symantics. It is like the Greek text on the Rosetta
Stone. It is a known language that can be used as a key to read the badly
known and undocumented .doc language. To support OpenDocument, Microsoft would
effectively be opening it's internal .doc and any future related
formats.
So, it's not just a question of supporting OpenDocument, it is a
deep and continuing commitment to opening up Microsoft data formats. A huge
decision that could change the way the Microsoft works in the
future.
OpenDocument could be a dagger pointed at the heart of
Microsoft.
---
I'm not a Windows user, consequently I'm not
afraid of receiving email from total strangers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
I have to wonder why Fox was even willing to air this. Is Fox protraying this
as public service, i.e. journalism? Or is it really more like paid programming,
and as such, are they providing the proper disclaimers?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Because... - Authored by: RPN on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 03:58 PM EDT
- Because... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:20 PM EDT
- Just remember - Authored by: roadfrisbee on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- FOX's Anti-MASS FUD is a Dud - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:07 PM EDT
- FOX's Anti-MASS FUD is a Dud - Authored by: Hydra on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:39 PM EDT
- Out Foxed... - Authored by: Latesigner on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:46 PM EDT
- Follow the money - Authored by: cmc on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- Follow the money - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 07:49 PM EDT
- Maybe Bill O'Reilly will do right - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 07:47 PM EDT
- FOX's Anti-MASS FUD is a Dud - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 07:09 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
. . .than being dead?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: saltydogmn on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
As posted on the front page of the FUD-meisters' website;
"ATL Executive Director Jim Prendergast will appear live on the following
upcoming program:
KLAV-AM, Las Vegas, NV
Computer Outlook with John Iasiuolo
Thursday, September 29
Time: 8pm - 8:30pm ET
http://www.computeroutlook.com/"
The website has a "listen live" link, so you can listen in real time.
I don't know the on-air frequency for the AM station, though.
Perhaps if enough of us ask him about the dead people campaign, it will rattle
him a bit. Just a thought. -saltydogmn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:01 PM EDT |
The 'system' that Prendergast accuses Massachusetts of 'throwing out' is the
long-standing 'competitive, merit-based procurement process for technology
services', not, as you seem to indicate, the current office data and document
processing software technology.
Prendergast is lying, of course. Far from discarding its procurement process
for office technology, Massachusetts is enhancing it -- by requiring it to be,
for the first time in a decade, truly competitive and merit-based.
-Wang-Lo.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AliveAgain on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
I sent this email last week to my Representative in the MA House and Senator in
the MA Senate:
I would like to express my appreciation for the
vision and leadership of Eric
Kriss and Peter Quinn in the development of the
Enterprise Technical
Reference Model - Version 3.5.
In today's world there are
too few times when we get to say our government
truly understands the
challenges of the future and are really preparing for
it. This is different.
In this case, I hear comments like "Massachusetts
really understands things; I
wish my state government did!" It makes me
proud to be a citizen of our
Commonwealth.
I hope that you will be able to support these excellent examples
of public
service to the citizens of Massachusetts.
I hope that
it will help them resist any pressure to alter the decision. I got this reply
this morning:
Thank you for your email.
It is nice to hear that
the Commonwealth is doing something right !
Thank you for letting me know.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey D. Hall
Chairman
Committee on Post Audit
& Oversight
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
>>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."<<
Even the dead clamour its wondrous advantages :^)
LOL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
The Microsoft Monopolist just seem totally unable to grasp the fundamental fact
that people will use what they <gasp> want to use instead of being forced
to use something. I'll bet they're just "appauled". You ever notice
that cops drive around in all kinds of different makes and models of cars? I'll
bet Willam Ford isn't appaulled. These FUDsters act as if "Oh, no! If you
don't use MS Office you can't create documents and spreadsheets." As if
it's the only office suite there is. That's like saying if you don't own a Ford
you can't drive a car. By the way I like both Ford, Chevy, and Chrysler. Just
using it as an example.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Fundamentals - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- Fundamentals - Authored by: Jude on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 08:35 PM EDT
- Fundamentals - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 09:05 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: wdickson on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
Starting as early as 1972,
ALL government programming jobs (and systems)
required using
"STANDARD" FORTRAN OR
"STANDARD" COBOL. etc.
No extensions by IBM, Control Data (CDC) etc were allowed:
(DECNET had to be replaced by the open standard (ftp/telnet).
See below text:
What has changed ?
Shouldn't this now also be a standard.
1-4 STANDARD FORTRAN AND NON-STANDARD EXTENSIONS
*************************************************
In the general programming rules section, it was emphasized how
important it is to adhere to the standard of FORTRAN, and avoid
fancy but unportable language extensions.
Since MIL-STD compliance was mandatory for FORTRAN systems sold
to the US Government, it quickly became a world-wide standard.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
As a regular British reader of Groklaw and other American websites I was
aware that Fox News was biased.
But this is far worse. This is not biased journalism. The whole article is a
collection of deliberate lies, knowingly made.
This is not a misunderstanding of Massachusetts position. The writer
obviously has an exact understanding of the issues and quite deliberately lies
about it.
Even calling it FUD seems too polite.
Tony
Sorry to be anonymous, i still haven't registered.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Tony Blair? - Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:32 PM EDT
- Tony Blair? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 06:28 PM EDT
- Tony Blair? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 06:38 PM EDT
- Tony Blair? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 11:40 AM EDT
- Tony Blair? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 04:55 PM EDT
- FOX is owned by Rupert Murdoch - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:33 PM EDT
- FOX's Lies - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:40 PM EDT
- FOX's Lies - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 06:13 PM EDT
- FOX's Lies - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 11:38 AM EDT
- Not just Fox, how about CBS, NY Times, etc. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 07:28 PM EDT
- FOX's Lies - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 08:08 PM EDT
- FOX's Lies - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 03 2005 @ 11:51 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: RichardR on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
For quite some time now, I'm mystified why the .doc "format" is allowed in any
serious information exchange at all.
One of the problems rearing its
ugly head is MS' infamous practice of "slipping standards", which causes
incompatibilities between older and newer versions of the same software. E.g.
Word 6 documents are already not fully compatible with current Office versions -
up to the point of sometimes crashing the application and producing a corrupted,
MS-Office unreadable .doc file - which, ironically enough, OpenOffice can
open, and save again in a workable state.
More importantly, however,
.doc files can (and do) contain all kinds of hidden information, such as the
names of all people who worked on it, and even deleted text fragments, which,
for one reason or another, were only hidden by MS-Office, not actually deleted.
In other words: by using .doc, you may unwittingly leak sensitive information -
and several embarrassing situations have already arisen as a result of this -
also in relation to government documents.
All this is is the result of
a company with only one priority: keeping the market in a locked-in,
forced-upgrade stranglehold. And I think the Massachusetts decision is a good
sign that people are getting increasingly fed up with MS dictating the rules of
the Word game.
--
Richard Rasker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
Over here FOX does not have a very good repuation. Its considered to just be a
mouthpiece for Big Business.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phantom21 on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
Don't forget, ODF isn't the only format for documents the commonwealth support.
They also support PDF. Anyone can send a PDF to state agencies, and receive
same.
I don't want people modifying my documents or spreadsheets (unless that's
exactly what I'm asking the recipient to do), so I only send PDFs (i.e.,
reports, invoices, memos, etc.).
Don't forget also, even though many are highlighting the fact OpenOffice.org
works with ODF, so does the relatively low cost (compared with MS Office)
StarOffice, KOffice (which comes with the KDE desktop which may soon be
available for Windows), and soon Abi Word and Gnumeric.
I'm also sure WordPerfect Office will come up with a version that supports ODF.
The only company refusing to support it is Microsoft.
They're problem.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:26 PM EDT |
First, as a resident of Massachusetts, I just want to say I'm glad they did
this. If it ends up being a disaster, so be it. Only time will tell. It's not
the end result that's always important, but the journey there. Here, the
journey is to make the information available to as many people as possible for
as long as possible. That's a noble journey if ever I've seen one. Not only
that, but it's also the duty and responsibility of the government.
Second, as a resident who does not own Microsoft Office, I call foul on all
those who claim that any state or government agency should use Microsoft Office.
Why should I (and every other resident who wants or needs to access state
documents) have to pay up to $500 (per computer) to be able to view documents we
pay (through our taxes) to produce? Yes, currently I can view most MS-Office
files (.doc, .xls, etc) with OpenOffice. But that's not guaranteed. Nor is
that compatibility guaranteed in the future. In the future, with MS's XML
patents (which, if I remember correctly, they reserve the right to revoke at any
time), you are at their mercy. Only Microsoft will be able to tell you what
software you can use to view their file formats. That is unacceptable. I say
as a computer user, and as a resident of the state, that that would be
unacceptable.
Massacusetts has made the right move. We know it, they know it. In fact,
everyone *knows* it. Some people just don't agree with it because it means
their companies, employers, supporters, or whatever may have less revenue
resulting in less profits. Wait a minute. Isn't that the free market that
those "independent journalists" keep referring to? We've said it
before (and I'm sure we'll have to keep saying it) that there is absolutely
nothing stopping Microsoft from supporting OpenDocument except their own egos.
If the next version of MS-Office supported OpenDocument, then it could be
considered and used by the state. If it doesn't, then it can't. Simple as
that. How is that not a free market system or market-based competition?
cmc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mecha on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
I responded to this address:
Foxnewsonline@foxnews.com
I wrote this (correct me if I was wrong somewhere):
I read this letter from a Mr. Prendergast and it is full of mistatements.
First he makes a claim that the new policy is an attack on Market Based
Competition.
Since this in regards to OpenDocument format and Microsoft Office, some facts
need to be listed:
1. Microsoft is free to support the OpenDocument format, but no one is really
free to support their proprietary format and must reverse engineer it in order
to use it.
2. When Microsoft brought out Word, they bundled it with their Windows operating
system for free so that they can take market share away from their Market Based
Competition. Please see the recent Novell vs. Microsoft suit where Novell is
suing Microsoft for this reason when Novell had owned Word Perfect (at the time
the world's leading Word Processor program).
So Mr. Prendergast is accusing the Commonwealth of Massachussetts of the very
thing Microsoft has done and is doing to themselves.
Mr Prendergast: "Agencies can turn to the marketplaceoften to small
state-based systems integratorsand receive bids for the best solutions at the
best price to meet specific needs. "
The problem with this statement is that Microsoft is a convicted Monopolist who
has and continues to abuse their monopoly status. This means that they continue
to manipulate the marketplace in order for their own proprietary formats to
thrive while purposefully hindering other ones. Please see the recent Sun
Microsystems vs Microsoft lawsuit where Sun sued Microsoft to stop putting out
their own crippled version of a Java Virtual Machine. Microsoft crippled their
version of Java Virtual Machine because they have a competing product in their
.net programming. This caused many java applications to fail or to run
improperly under the windows format.
He then goes on to say that there are issues with the OpenDocument Format (or
.odf) because the applications that support them are not mature and would cost
even more.
This is not true at all. He mentions OpenOffice.org. Well this is released
under the Lesser General Public License(LGPL) from code donated by Sun
Microsystems StarOffice product line and is a free download. OpenOffice.org
also can open most Microsoft Office documents, but not all (through reverse
engineering). But even that is a moot point because Microsoft is planning on
dumping their .doc format in their next version of Office. So now we are going
to have TWO immature document formats. One supported by one abusing Monopolist,
and the other supported by OpenOffice.org, Sun's StarOffice, and IBM's future
office productivity suite. There are other word processors that support the odf
format - kword (KDE) and abiword do aswell.
Mr Prendergast: "But for now, the policy simply promises enormous and
unnecessary migration costs to Massachusetts taxpayers. The mandate forces the
entire state government to acquire new technologies, train personnel, and
contract for new services and support.
In many cases, new technologies will have to be purchased even when current
systems are fully functional. In other words, taxpayers will be paying
duplicative costs."
Again, see my last response. Microsoft is dropping the .doc format in their
upcoming Office release. Also, given Microsofts forced upgrades in order for
compatibility where Microsoft changes something in the format that it doesn't
work to well when you open (if you can open it) a document in their previous
versions if it was made with their latest version. In every case, new versions
of Microsoft Office can open documents from a previous version but that is not
always the case vice-versa. This was the crux of the issue that Massachussetts
has with microsoft. If they make any new documents, then there is a good chance
that someone in that state may not be able to read it if they have a version
several versions below the one it was created on.
Mr. Prendergast: The main advantage to using Microsoft products in an office
environment is that, in large measure, these products provide very reliable
interoperability and rich functionality. Since most of our users are not IT
experts, such interoperability and functionality are critical to the day to day
operation of our offices. We are unaware of any organizations with which we
exchange documents that use products such as OpenOffice or StarOffice.
As I stated above, OpenOffice.org (and by extension Sun's StarOffice) can open
the majority of documents created by Microsoft Office and it can also save the
document in that very same format if it needs to be done. That of course may be
the reason they are unaware of any such organizations that use those formats.
At a previous job, I used OpenOffice.org and no one even knew that I did that
when they had Microsoft Office.
And finally Mr Prendergast says : "The proposed policy is also puzzling and
arbitrary in its approach to Adobes PDF format (search). The policy
acknowledges that PDF falls outside the open format mandate, but grants PDF an
exception so that agencies can continue to use it. The exception essentially
underscores the weakness of establishing fixed formats in the first place. Adobe
may be happy to find a special place carved out for its format, but the company
should be wary nevertheless. How confident can Adobe and others be that the
government wont later change their minds and suddenly deny the exemption?
"
Well I know that I can use several readers to read PDF, not just the Adobe
Acrobat Reader. I also know that I don't have to use Adobe Acrobat to make PDF
documents either. Even though it is a proprietary format, it is somewhat open
for others to use. Unlike the formats that Microsoft uses in their Office
suite.
Microsoft is all about vendor lock-in. They have done this with Word in the mid
90s, they were successfully sued by Sun Microsystems for attempting to do this
with their crippled version of the Java Virtual Machine, and their refusal to
implement the OpenDocument standard is another attempt. Keep in mind that they
also did this with Internet Explorer and was forced to settle with several
states because of it. In Korea they are being sued for Anti-Competitive actions
regarding their Windows Media Player and that of Apple's Quicktime and Real's
RealOne Realplayer. With the coming Vista they are planning on crippling the
OpenGL format in favor of their Direct3D format and I can only presume based on
their past that they will cripple all the Image formats in favor of their
Windows Image (WIM) format.
Yes, the Commonwealth of Massachussetts is makine a stand against Microsoft and
more states should because market forces are being manipulated by Microsoft's
abuse of their monoply status. Therefore we cannot rely on those forces to keep
Microsoft inline.
---
************************************************************
I am not clever enough to write a good signature. So this will have to do.
*****************[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jslyster on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:48 PM EDT |
Has anyone pointed out to the doofuses who harp on about how Microsoft's file
format is based on XML, that the OpenDocument format is also XML-based?
Here's an exercise, class: create a document using OpenOffice 2.0 (beta, release
candidate, whatever); change the extension from ODT to ZIP; now double-click the
file. It will open up like any other zipped package, and within you'll see
(among other things) a file called content.xml. That's your data.
By the way, this works with earlier versions of OpenOffice also; the SXW format
is XML-based too. M$ is way behind the curve here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:58 PM EDT |
Remember how MS called Linux un-American? They'll probably say the same about
this current decision too. But don't we all remember that America is NOT about
money and convenience. It's about freedom and, as many would agree, freedom
under God. Yes, this is a hard path to take, yes there may be problems, even
disasters, but does it all compare to the freedom we have gained? On the day
this decision was made, I feel that the world became a better place. On that
same day, I also believe that America re-gained many of its traditional values
from the past.
God bless this decision, God bless Massachusetts, God bless all of us and
America![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: UglyGreenTroll on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:10 PM EDT |
| I read Prendergast's article and I think PJ is correct with many of her
points.
But was Prendergast's article FUD?
Calling an opinion FUD
doesn't just suggest it's wrong. It implies there was a conscious effort by the
author to spread rumours and half-truths. It questions the author's very
motives.
Now it may be that Prendergast's motives are not the purest - I
don't know, I'm not psychic. But PJ's article would have been stronger had she
kept to criticism of the article's contents, rather than guessing at the motives
behind it. It would have been more persuasive without the 'F' word. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sward on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:13 PM EDT |
First, the standard includes PDF as well. Pretty close to universal
availability, even if it is proprietary.
Second, as a 10-yr citizen of MA, I have NEVER received an electronic document
from state (or local) government. They still use plain old PAPER v1.0 for
practically all communications with ordinary citizens. And they should - you
can't beat that format for readability or OS-independence (but the search
function isn't so good).
Third, most electronic interactions with the government do not involve document
exchange - they involve government websites (e.g. the Registry of Motor
Vehicles).
So the biggest effect of all this, on the general public, will be that our tax
dollars can be wasted on something else, instead of wasted on a monopoly-priced
office-suite.
We won't notice.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:15 PM EDT |
| This article is clearly in their "Opinion" section. It's not Fox's lousy
reporting, or inability to distinguish truth from lies, or whatever. It
is, however, Fox giving a public forum to a FUDster.
But rather than
ragging on Fox, a better response is to use the same medium. Someone (PJ? A
collective effort?) should write a well-reasoned, fact-based response and seek
to have Fox publish it in the exact same way - as an opinion
piece.
MSS
P.S. I don't know if Fox is more biased than the
other media, but it is certainly differently biased, and for that reason
stands out. But it seems to me that the other media are often just as biased,
merely in the opposite direction. Don't take the non-Fox media as the unbiased
truth either... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
I have been using OO for about 2 years now and have not had any issues with it.
I recently became the president of my local HOA and remembered seeing some
Template files on Microsofts website for meeting minutes and agendas. I logged
on to microsoft, downloaded the templates and was able to open then in OO
without and problems and then saved them as OO template files.
It boggles the mind that people right articles like this without testing or
verifying there facts first. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
Are ATL's printers busy churning out thousands of letters expressing the outrage
of dead Massachusetts citizens at this decision?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jws on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:27 PM EDT |
There must be a push to put out this Anti OSS in general. /. picked up an
article today as well about some foolishness about a company dumping linux for
Microsoft. No facts, just how they were "forced" to switch to windows
and all was wonderful.
here is the slash dot link
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/28/2356254&from=rs
s
(I tried href, it did not work, sorry)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
On the main page of www.techleadership.org there is an article titled:
"ATL's opposition to the proposed Mandate of Open Office and Portable
Document Format (PDF) formats as contained in Enterprise Technical Reference
Model v.3.5. "
It just happens to only be available in Portable Document Format (PDF)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dwheeler on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 05:57 PM EDT |
There are 2 ISO standards for PDF: PDF/A (for archiving documents) and PDF/X
(for color prepress). They are _ISO_ _standards_. Just spec _those_ versions of
PDF, which I think was really their intent, and you aren't using a proprietary
format. ISO has the right update those specs, too. And anyone can implement
PDF, with no restrictions. PDF is not proprietary, certainly not like
Microsoft's XML formats are.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
I will make a couple of points:
(1) If the only copies of our Declaration of Independence were writen using the
Wordstar word processor, we would be in a pickle right now. Today, Microsoft has
its 15 minutes of fame as a monopolist. Tomorrow, who knows? And who remembers
Lotus 123, dBaseIII, etc. Gloria sic transit mundi.
(2) The fact is that as an open society, we must require that government
documents be written in a format that's open enough that we can design readers
for these docs, and that there may be no legal encumbrances on these readers. To
be blunt about it, Microsoft flunks the test.
(3) The standards must be stable from one version to the next, which is not the
case with Microsoft's products. The stability of these standards has a direct
impact on the accessibility of the government documents.
(4) The attorneys of the state of Massachusetts may complain that Microsoft's
Office meets their needs, but I doubt that these attorneys give two hoots about
preserving their state's documents in an accessible format - And this latter
need happens to be a non-negotiable need of the taxpayers'. Nobody wants to be
in a situation where the State of Massachusetts cannot read its own documents
from 20 years earlier.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
1. PDF absolutely _OWNS_ the public document space on the internet. DOC is
conspicuous by its rarity (and all the virus filters sniff it over while they
decide whether to let it by), RTF and XLS are conspicuous by their absences.
Bill, Paul, pay attention now--the de facto standard is PDF! Adopting PDF as a
standard really is SOSO, stasis, business as usual, SSDD, whatever, etc.
2. Microsoft has so far refused to provide a tool to write (or even _read_) PDF,
the de facto standard.
adjusts tinfoil beanie
I draw the conclusion that M$ and the bosses of the media in which M$ advertises
genuinely expected MA to toss PDF and to standardize on DOC. $BORG for which I
ork provides little plastic cups and a special kind of temporary privacy for
people who are _that_ detached from reality while at work.
Appendix A: How many court documents are published with other than PDF or dead
trees? Hm?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
If Microsoft's heavily touted, multi-billion-dollar development group is
unwilling (they're certainly able) to implement the Open Document format in the
coming year, that is an error on the part of Microsoft.
It's not an error
for Massachusetts to refuse to be led down the garden path by a would-be
single-source supplier.---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the
jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
This is blatant FUD, but so much so as to be almost meaningless. No matter how
much its tossed around, the bottom line is its only for show. None of it has any
factual or legal basis that could affect MA's decision.
The M$ counterattack however, is going to come from a different angle, and I
suspect that the current swell of FUD is only going to get louder in order to
try and mask the real attack.
If you read through the public comments link on the MA website, its very clear
where the real battle lines are being drawn; M$ is going to try and overturn
this policy on procedural grounds. There are several comments from state
representatives, senators and other high mucky-mucks that are all the same, all
harping on the length of the review period or access for disabled.
They know they cannot sue in court, there is simply no law being broken they can
sue over. But state procedures are much flimsier than law, and if they can find
enough of an issue in procedures somewhere to at least get this put on hold,
then they can start chipping away it from other angles.
It will be worthwhile to keep an eye on some of those who commented, because I'm
betting we'll see some challenge that will come from the legislative level down
through departmental channels, and in a fashion that is not widely disseminated
publicly. Beware the backroom...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I agree - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 09:45 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 08:24 PM EDT |
It's obvious where Prendergast's comments are coming from. But what about
comments attributed to David Coursey?
His editorial is another collection of
misinformation and unsupported conclusions from a self-proclaimed "consultant"
who:
1. Believes "renting" software for a business if an effective financial
strategy.
2. Hasn't updated or replaced his placeholder for his official website
but advises his new guide to Windows Vista will be out in 2006. (site copyright
date is 22 Aug)
3. Suggested here his problems with his tablet PC might be
caused by data corruption. Yet didn't seem to understand the reason for the
"winlogin" process taking up 99% of his processor cycles.
It's nice to know
that "well-informed experts" like Prendergast and Coursey are so concerned with
the terrible burden the adoption of open standards will be for the citizens of
Massachusetts. Better to keep those citizens in the dark and tied to proprietary
formats. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fgoldstein on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 08:27 PM EDT |
| I'm happy that my state has made a stand in favor of open (small O) documents.
Microsoft can't even keep up with its own formats! While the typical word
processor was designed for the purpose of creating a printed document, and thus
the original was somewhat ephemeral, nowadays .DOC files are sometimes kept
around for a long time, or used for displayables. So backwards compatibility
matters.
I started using Word for DOS around 1990. I used it to write a
book (ISDN In Perspective). Not bad for its day, either. (I mean Word,
though I hope people think the same of the book, too.) Nothing like the current
product, though. As an Information Pack Rate, I keep old files around. I just
tried reading a Word file from 1990 into Word 97 (not all that many years
later), the version I used for my most recent book, The Great Telecom
Meltdown. It didn't work -- lots of gobbledygood:
N € H
. @ H
D:NU *-,-0-5-:->-" cm p10 p12 pt li 7 x -^-a-d-h-l-o-" in cm p
1 €
(Actually, it looks even worse
in Word.)
For that reason alone, official documents need to be in a
documented and public format! Government does not work at the same speed
as the computer industry. Documents last, sometimes, almost forever. The
Massachusetts Consitution is IIRC the oldest one in the world still in effect;
it predates independence, and the US Constitution was in some ways modeled on it
(bicameral, separation of powers, etc.). Lots of 19th century laws are still in
effect. Document formats that are deprecated after 5 years don't hack it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 08:36 PM EDT |
Do the Mass District Attorneys even realize that they are in the vast minority
as compared to the general populace?
---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 09:13 PM EDT |
if he doesn't mind wrestling with a girl.
Oh, I'm not even gonna go
there!
:)
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to
it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The image of PJ - Authored by: ws on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 10:03 PM EDT
- The image of PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 01:34 AM EDT
- Pig - Authored by: Cyberdog on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 05:47 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 10:33 PM EDT |
Lamlaw
Read his last few
posts. Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 10:44 PM EDT |
> We notice Microsoft's refusal to support OpenDocument format, and we know
what it means. It means they are thinking competitively, not cooperatively.
Sorry PJ, they are thinking neither competitively nor cooperatively. They are
thinking like a true monopoly. Nothing *but* their own, closed format should be
allowed - that is their view. They aren't even slightly interested in
competition - if they were, they would be announcing *the best* OpenDocument
support in Office 12.
On the other hand, Sun and IBM are thinking competitively. They will be
competing for the business on the basis of their implementations that both know
how to handle OpenDocument. The open source community is the one thinking
cooperatively.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 10:59 PM EDT |
My layman's reading of the Canadian forgery law (from the Canadian Criminal Code
but I'll bet American laws are worded in a similar way) makes me think that
anyone who makes or passes off letters purported to be from dead people is
committing a forgery. (I also wonder if this law could be applied to plagiarism
by students.)
"366. (1) Every one commits forgery who makes a false document, knowing it
to be false, with intent
(a) that it should in any way be used or acted on as genuine, to the prejudice
of any one whether within Canada or not; or
(b) that a person should be induced, by the belief that it is genuine, to do or
to refrain from doing anything, whether within Canada or not."
The wording "to do or refrain from doing anything" seems to indicate
that trying to change public opinion with false documents counts as forgery.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 11:08 PM EDT |
"Americans for Technology Leadership is a broad-based coalition of
technology professionals, consumers and organizations dedicated to limiting
government regulation of technology and fostering competitive market solutions
to public policy issues affecting the technology industry. We believe that this
approach will ensure that all Americans are able to take advantage of the
benefits of the technologies that are shaping the new economy."
* Association for Competitive Technology
* Citizens Against Government Waste
* Cityscape Filmworks
* Clarity Consulting
* CompTIA
* CompUSA
* Microsoft Corporation
* 60Plus Association
* Small Business Survival Committee
* Staples, Inc.
--[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ashtead on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 11:49 PM EDT |
I started thinking up this one a few days ago, but this latest -- what shall I
call it? it doesn't qualify as news -- gave me the momentum to finish it.
----
You and I in a software shop
Buy a box of Word with the money we've got
Write some letters and some other text,
Some by me, some by you
A few weeks later, bugs in the software,
flash the message, "May not read this"
One by one, our files were gone
99 documents were lost
99 documents, floating in the unknown void
Panic hits, raise red alert,
There's something in there blocking us,
Something in there isn't right.
Others have seen a similar sight,
Massachusetts couldn't stand the risk of
their 99 documents become lost.
99 others were hit, 99 ministers meet,
They agree they can't go on like this,
they chose another format that
would clarify and simplify,
document and rectify,
They announced it under the september sky,
Microsoft hung themselves high and dry.
99 astroturfers go on
say that this isn't right,
they claim that there are violations,
that someone are being locked out
The FUD machine springs to life,
opens up its eager mouth,
but doesn't change the state of law,
All 99 documents remain.
99 dreams the MS had,
one of them was locked documents
It's all over, they're not looking pretty
They shut their software out of the cities.
If they want to they can find a way around
to keep up their market share,
And here is one of their documents,
I look at it, but I no longer care...
----
Ashtead
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apologies to Nena - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 01:01 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 12:02 AM EDT |
| Usually those opinion pieces stay there a couple days. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 12:13 AM EDT |
| Eolas
v. Microsoft: Eolas Patent Set to Reissue
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 02:53 AM EDT |
The claim that people will be forced to switch word processors so that they can
read the government stuff......
Well, if the government decided to use Microsoft's new document format they'd be
required to switch anyway. But, it would be a switch that they would have to
pay for and already have a Windows computer to use.
With Opendocument, you'll be able to switch to whatever word processor you want,
free or not, that supports the opendocument format. And, you'll be certain to
be able to find one that works on your Operating system of choice.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 03:10 AM EDT |
The most funniset thing is: the argument can be also held against the new MS
file format.
It is not even available yet, and when it will be available, only the users with
the very latest MS Office version will be able to use it.
And as it is not yet avalailable, it is also "unproven".
And if I have to sent a document or read a document in the new MS format, I have
to pay a lot of money to MS to get the latest MS Office. whereas now I just have
to download OpenOffice for free ...
So the cost apect is really against MS.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 03:17 AM EDT |
>>As for OpenDocument being allegedly "largely immature"
and "rarely deployed," in reality, the format was
developed and reviewed by experts in the field over
several years.<<
Quite the contrary. OpenOffice accounted for about 14.3%
of the market a year ago, and this excludes
SrarOffice. It must have grown further by now. Both MS
Office 2003 and MS Office XP (according to Microsoft's
Balmer's statement made in a pep talk to sales personnel,
figures for MS Office 2003 are only 15% of the market
now) account for less than this market share, and
because OpenOffice is free, pretty well all current users
will upgrade to OpenOffice 2.0 with OpenDocument
compatibility. Few MS Office users will upgrade
immediately to MS Office 12 with Microsoft's proposed
proprietary XML format, and indeed it will probably take
5 years for them to reach current OpenOffice numbers if
past performance is anything to go by.
OpenOffice is the most widely deployed up-to-date Office
suite at the moment (although MS Office 2000 and 97
both exceed it in deployment nunbers - note. these have
serious compatibility problems with later versions of MS
Office as well as other office suites), and OpenDocument
format is the only widely deployed XML file format at the
moment, and free upgrade from current versions of
OpenOffice and support by other office suite software will
mean that it will be by far the only widely deployed XML
file format in the near future. By the way, Microsoft
won't release read/write MS Office XML filters for older
versions of MS Office, because if they did, there would
be no incentive to pay for an upgrade to MS Office 12.
OpenDocument is hardly immature: they are essentially
OpenOffice document formats, slightly modified according
to Microsoft's comments to make conversion to/from
Microsoft file formats easy. OpenOffice file formats have
been in use for years as OpenOffice's default format, and
They are in use already in OpenOffice 2.0, StarOffice 8.0
and OpenOffice 1.15. MS XML formats are by contrast
immature, and are set to appear in Office 12 which is
some time away.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 05:02 AM EDT |
I think in the end M$ will try to make it look like they're going along, then
implement a "save as" function resulting in corrupted or 'degenerated'
documents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 05:34 AM EDT |
Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in
turn will hurt innovation. The state has a disaster in the
making.
Until now, Massachusetts citizens and government agencies have
been well served by a competitive, merit-based procurement process for
technology services.
I never understood arguments like this. It
has been chosen on merit as Massachusetts assessed it - even if the
decision were wrong. Massachusetts believe it is best for them, just as
Aunt Tilley running IE, Outlook and Word believes that is best for her.
That's the free market at work. Neither Aunt Tilley nor Massachusetts are
necessarily 100% informed and never will be.
It was a
competitive procurement - OpenDocument was up against MS's solutions at least.
MS failed to meet the requirements. In fact it has been a huge and very open
competition, a world blockbuster in fact - like those for Munich and the London
Borough of Newham. I have watched all three from the UK as if from a
grandstand. It's been fascinating.
It would not be a free market
choice only if : (i) Massachusetts had a direct interest in OpenDocument, or
(ii) bribes were involved.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 05:46 AM EDT |
"...the MDAA questioned why district attorneys offices would be forced to
switch away from technology that meets their needs."
They have to switch
because their boss said so.
You forget that Microsoft is making
them change format....again. MA Has no choice in the matter - MS is changing to
a new format, and MA would be forced to upgrade, along with their office
software, because this is what MS does in order to extract more money out of
people. Frequent software upgrades and associated format changes are MS's
policy. The format changes are to pressurise peers to upgrade too, so
incompatible format changes will continue to happen.
MA has a choice
then. Will it roll over and upgrade to Microsofts new format (which will almost
certainly change again in a few years time, and which requires an MS licence to
use), or instead select an open format which they can use for as long as they
like, without needing permission from a 3rd party. The choice has to be
made.
And if anyone tries to argue that they can continue with the old .doc
format, the question is "for how long?". It's not all that long since Word(1)
format was in use. Is that readable by any current MS software? Who uses it
now?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 06:00 AM EDT |
PJ wrote :-
what if Microsoft isn't in existence in 200 years or no longer
supports a certain application? Then how will [they] read the documents we are
saving today? With proprietary software, you can't just take a look at the code
and figure out how to open and read the document.
Sorry to be a
wet blanket, but it is a bit optimistic to think the OpenDocument format will be
a cure-all here. Computers and information storage will have moved on (or
regressed - see my footnote) a very long way in 200 years.
Someone then
will need to understand C/C++ very well indeed (its popularity on the wane
already) and will need a copy of the OOo source code to hand. And know how to
read the archive tapes (if they have not lost their magnetism).
It's a
serious problem. I grant that OpenDocuments stand more chance of readability
than Word ones in 200 years, but not a lot.
Footnote :
One of the
most haunting scenes I have ever seen in a movie was the one in the 1950's
version of "The Time Machine", where, in the far future, the hero (Wells?) finds
an old library; but finds that the books have all turned into blocks of dust.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nhorman on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 07:57 AM EDT |
| Nominally I really like fox news, but shame on them for letting this through.
James Prendergast is the executive director of Americans for Technology
Leadership. (http://www.techleadership.org/). Note
their about page, and who one of their big founding members is..... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 08:42 AM EDT |
My favorite part:
"It may be that an array of exceptional, low-cost OpenDocument applications
will emerge in the coming years. Such innovation would be welcome by anyone, but
these applications should have to compete on merit and cost. They should not be
given an arbitrary leg up that shuts out other vendors and forces government
agencies to settle on under-performing technologies."
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, did I say he was wrong.
This is about a government giving access to the CITIZEN'S doucuments without
forcing their CITIZENS to pay ANOTHER tax to a convicted monopolists. This
gives thier CITIZENS choices to use whatever software they want as long as they
comply with the OPEN standard that all the CITIZENS can look at and inspect if
they so desire.
I guess this guy thinks we should all buy our pencils/pens from one company when
we fill out forms for OUR government.
I hope FOX gives someone an equal article rebutting this stupid column. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 09:24 AM EDT |
The only way that an open source office suite that is free as in beer can be
more expensive than Microsoft's product is if the conversion costs are huge.
Every time a payment isn't made for a new copy, an upgrade or a license renewal,
there is savings.
Okay, so for Microsoft to guarantee that its product is cheaper means that they
have to maintain seemless compatibility with their old document formats forever.
They must never abandon .doc. Furthermore, they must never have an upgrade
that writes a format that isn't supported by other releases that are still in
use. That is, when release N comes out, it has to write the format for release
N-2 so that no one you are sending documents to notices that you've upgraded.
That means that new formats can be introduced, but they won't be written
immediately. Release N will write the format introduced in release N-2, which
release N-2 did not write. Release N+2 must be able to read that format.
Essentially, that means that every release will have to be able to read about 5
different revisions of the document formats. And no release will actually write
the most recent format revision by default.
Oh, and training costs must be kept lower than the retraining costs to convert
to another suite. That means that there can't be any radical changes to the
GUI. New features can be introduced, but old ones can't be abandoned.
Nothing can be changed in incompatible ways.
Any significant deviation from this plan would drive the cost of using
Microsoft's products higher than the cost of open source competitors.
Furthermore, without massive resources behind the development, this plan ensures
that the pace of innovation in Microsoft's products will be slowed to a crawl.
And of course, making any changes while maintaining this multigenerational
compatibility will be quite expensive, making the price of the products much
higher.
Microsoft has tried to tell us that open source products don't do what their
products do, and failed. They've tried to tell us their products are better,
safer and more secure than open source, and failed. They are currently trying
to tell us that their products cost less than their free competitors, and they
are failing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 11:35 AM EDT |
He also raises the fact that people will have to be retrained to use the new
software and that is a waste of money.
However according to Gartner
(http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=170703782
)
"The user interface (UI) for Office 12, the name for next year's update to
Microsoft Office 2003, "will differ significantly from its current
form," said Gartner analysts Michael Silverberg and Stephen Kleynhans in a
customer note on the firm's Web site.
The pair put the spotlight on Office 12's new command "ribbon."
"The familiar menus and buttons found in Office will be replaced with a
larger, more detailed 'ribbon,' which will change according to the users
task," wrote Silverberg and Kleynhans. "This ribbon will offer more
immediate feedback and previews on actions the user takes."
The downside of dramatic UI changes, however, is that migration may be rough for
some users and the IT departments which support them, cautioned the guys from
Gartner.
"Microsoft contends that, in the long run, the new UI will reduce help-desk
costs and trainingbut many IT organizations are likely to feel that, in the
short run, they will have to train users on the new UI, and will experience an
initial spike in help desk calls," said Silverberg and Kleynhans. "In
addition, because of the magnitude of the changes expected with Office 12, IT
departments may have trouble supporting a mixed environment, adding to the
difficulty of handling a phased implementation on new PCs."
The burden of proof is Microsoft's responsibility, the analysts added.
"[It] will have to prove that, in aggregate, help desk calls and training
costs will be reduced, rather than increased." '
So if they DONT move away from MS products then they still end up having to pay
for more training...
Odd that he forgot to mention that[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tz on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
It would be interesting if someone could write an OD filter for MSO. Of course
I expect MS to eventually do it, but it would take a lot of hot air out of their
sails, and maybe their sales too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 12:58 PM EDT |
Interesting
"Law firms that file electronically, businesses that regularly share
information with agencies via electronic files, even citizens who want to take
advantage of online services will potentially have to purchase, install and
learn new software to comply with the policy. These added costs would be
substantial."
If this slows law firms down - maybe the patent arms race would slow down. Yet
just another argument for opendoc.
Also "even citizens who want to take advantage of online services will
potentially have to purchase, install and learn new software to comply with the
policy. These added costs would be substantial."
ya they would have to do that anyway when a new version of office comes out.
what koolaid is this guy drinking - obviously imported from Redmond Washington.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 04:50 PM EDT |
I already posted this elsewhere in this thread, but feel it's pertinent
enough to repeat here. After reading Mr. Prendergast's article, I wrote to FOX
News to point out to them that they failed to disclose Mr. Prendergast's
affiliation with Microsoft. They responded and issued a correction on the
website. Below are both my original letter, and FOX News's response.
I have
to give FOX News credit for following through on this. I honestly didn't expect
them to even read my letter much less take action to fill in their
ommission.
My Letter: What Ever Happened to Full
Disclosure? Dear Sir or Madam,
Recently I happened
across an opinion piece on the FOX News
website about the decision made by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
to adopt the OpenDocument format for its
electronic documents. I was
dismayed to find a distinct lack of full disclosure,
a principle of
journalism I would fully expect to be followed by any ethical
news
organization, accompanying this opinion piece.
The author of the
article, Jim Prendergrast, is, as you should be
well aware, the president of an
organization founded in part by
Microsoft Corporation. Now, I have nothing
against Microsoft. It is a
fine company run by a fine group of people. I am a
professional in the
technology industry and I would always be happy to work for
or with
Microsoft. They make excellent software and I personally use many
of
their software titles on a daily basis.
However, Microsoft has been,
as you should also be well aware, the
primary lobbyist against the adoption of
OpenDocument by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Given the relationship
between
Microsoft Corporation and Mr. Predergrast's organization, this
is
something that should have been disclosed by FOX News, but it was
not
mentioned at all.
The failure to fully disclose Mr. Predergrast's
affiliation with
parties interested in the outcome of the Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts' decision is a collosal ommission on the part of FOX
News. As
the news organization publishing his work, it is FOX News's
sole duty to fully
disclose Mr. Prendergrast's affiliations. FOX
News's failure to do so prevents
readers from being fully illuminated
about the source of the article and
therefore limits readers's ability
to discern the writer's biases, and judge for
themselves whether he is
"fair and balanced".
My personal opinion is that
FOX News should take more
precautionary steps in the future to avoid this type
of misstep. In
this case in particular, I would like to see a correction
issued
containing the full disclosure statement. If this is something you
feel
FOX News cannot or should not do, I would appreciate a response
letting me know
why it cannot or will not be done.
Respectfully Yours,
[Contact
Information]
FOX News's
Response Thank you for writing.
The column
"Massachusetts Should Close Down OpenDocument"
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170724,00.html> that appeared on
FOXnews.com Sept. 28 identified author James Prendergast as executive director
of Americans for Technology Leadership, but failed to disclose that Microsoft is
a founding member of that organization.
ATL is a coalition of technology
companies, professionals and organizations that advocates for limited government
regulation of technology and for competitive market solutions to technology
policy. In addition to Microsoft, ATL's founding members include Staples, Inc.,
CompUSA, Citizens Against Government Waste, CompTIA, Small Business Survival
Committee, Clarity Consulting, Cityscape Filmworks, Association for Competitive
Technology and 60Plus Association.
Mr. Prendergast's affiliation with
Microsoft should have been stated clearly in the article.
An Editor's Note
is now displayed on our Web
site:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170724,00.html
and the disclosure has
been inserted at the end of the original
article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170916,00.html
We are compiling
the best responses to publish a rebuttal.
FOXNews.com [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ruurd on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 06:31 PM EDT |
Too little too late?
---
--
Ruurd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rparent on Sunday, October 02 2005 @ 11:32 AM EDT |
If anyone is interested I believe this particular story began with writer David
Coursey of ziffdavis then was picked up by James Prendergast of Americans for
Technology Leadership. They are just spreading FUD. What's a bit unsettling is
that they really don't understand the open source movement, how it's growing in
popularity worldwide and only know how to speak from a Microsoft centric
viewpoint. Quite disturbing.
Rob [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 02 2005 @ 11:42 PM EDT |
It would be interesting to see what the state of Massachusetts can do once
OpenOffice 2 becomes finalized. Openoffice 2 looks great, especially the
database features. Pete.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 03 2005 @ 03:31 AM EDT |
But surely only those working on the document masters will need the ability to
read and write OpenDocument. The taxpayer will mostly be using his/her web
browser and accessing HTML.
Now here Microsoft have the bad history of compatibility, especially some
Microsoft based sites that have been terrible for the blind.
Thank you though for pointing out that if Microsoft have their way there will be
a migration to thw new, unproven, Microsoft XML format - which is completely
incompatible with old versions of Office. Also note that a lot of newer
Microsoft web based technologies are aimed at client side Windows.
I can't believe how cynical the article in Fox News actually is. I hope that a
good rebuttal is published at least as prominantly at some point.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jaywalk on Monday, October 03 2005 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
Massachusetts citizens and government agencies have been well
served by a competitive, merit-based procurement process for technology
services. As a software consultant, this is the most baffling of
Prendergast's claims. The problem with it is that this is exactly what
happened. A software customer (the state of Massachusetts) came up with what is
-- essentially -- a Request For Proposal (RFP). An RFP safeguards competition
by spelling out exactly what the requirments are. Interoperability with other
systems is a very common requirement. Microsoft's rejection was based on a very
simple problem; they didn't meet the stated requirements. They couldn't compete
on the stated merits the customer required. There's nothing in the system that
forces Microsoft to support this feature or that feature, but if their feature
set doesn't meet the requirements of a specific customer, that customer will
look elsewhere. That's how it works.
Agencies can turn to the
marketplaceoften to small state-based systems integratorsand receive bids for
the best solutions at the best price to meet specific
needs. Along with his misunderstanding of how businesses handle
RFPs, Prendergast also doesn't seem to be familiar with the issues involved in
system integration. What it sounds like he's proposing is that requests can
only come from individual agencies. In corporate terms, this would be like
saying that only departments (not corporate) should set standards. In the
corporate world, this is the opposite of the way things should be
done.
That's not to say it doesn't happen; it happens all the time. When it
does, it works like this: - Someone down in marketing needs a database of
customers for mailing lists, so he calls his cousin to bang out a standalone
database on Access.
- Someone in finance needs a database of major customers to
handle tax issues, so he convinces the database group to cut out some resources
to do something on the department server.
- Someone in operations needs
customer data for handling calls, so they manage to get something built for the
legacy mainframe that plugs into some filler fields that were supposed to be
used for credit card data.
- Eventually, someone at the corporate level needs
all this information coordinated.
- Everything hits the fan.
Because of the
hodgepodge of systems involved, it's a massive job to rebuild the whole neurotic
mess from scratch. All the work that went into building the original system
becomes throwaway code. All the training that was used for their staff needs to
be done over. I'm usually working for corporate, so I've seen what it takes to
fix these things. It's a mess and it's expensive. And it could have been
avoided if corporate had set standards to start with.If Prendergast really
wants a market-based solution, he can rest easy. Massachusetts did this one
exactly right. ---
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. ===== [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, October 04 2005 @ 05:46 AM EDT |
If you are a government, the software you currently use is almost irrelevant;
it's your document base - your heritage - that's important. That's where your
investment is.
So whether your word processor or spreadsheet does multi-threaded,
quad-optimised, differential-integral bi-cubic Runge Kutta interpolation xyz
doesn't matter two hoots. All that matters is: will someone be able to read
your documents in 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 years' time? It doesn't even matter
much that the documents can be modified, just so long as they can be read.
Providing they can be read well into the future, they can be re-saved in a
different format, if necessary.
But that's the whole point: having to re-save an ever-accumulating document base
in 20 years' time would be an Herculean task. Best avoid that at all costs.
So it's vitally important to standardise at an early stage on what government
documents will look like for the coming decades. And that means not using
software that the supplier can change at their own whim, for maximising upgrade
revenues. When you have a large number of documents, software upgrades with
compulsory document conversions are what you really, really do not want.
From Massachusetts' viewpoint, this is their only sensible way forward. I see
it setting a major precedent, once other organisations with large document bases
recognise the inherent wisdom of this decision.
---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
