What is Digg?63 Comments
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -6/+71Well bless their pea-pickin' lil 'ol hearts.
How will they pay for their Hummers and McMansions if they can't overcharge for their products? They'll be reduced to eating truffles and Cornish game hens only twice a week.
We need to stop this open-source craziness!!!! - OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29I'm pretty sure an open source bias is healthy. If I prefer that the publicly owned products rather than those of a company, I'm not evil.
- zweben, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30There are pro-Microsoft groups?
...Learn something every day. - lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25by pro-microsoft I believe they meant funded indirectly and/or directly from microsoft.
- chad78, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21The thing is, they don't actually have to do anything. An open source group (go figure) is already working on an ODF plugin for MS Office.
And someone needs to learn the difference between open source and open standards. ODF is an open standard, an ISO standard now, and an OASIS standard. Microsoft is just mad because ODF has been approved by the ISO and MSXML has not. What's funny is, if MSXML had been approved as an open standard, they wouldn't be complaining about governments demanding an MSXML filter for other office suites. Or, maybe they would because that would mean you wouldn't need MSO to work on them. - ghast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19would seem to me that since government agencies are funded with public money, there SHOULD be a bias to use open source products whenver possible.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Hahahahaha. What's so bad about having a bias for things that are free & just as good ( usually.. or.. at least ALMOST as good ).
Must everything be completely neutral?
I can just envision it tomorrow:
"President Bush accused of republican bias!" - tapo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I fail to see how using an open standard that allows for choice, rather than a mostly-closed and patented one (OfficeXML) or a closed, binary, unstable one (DOC, XLS, PPT) is a bad idea.
I'm a Massachusetts resident, and I'm really glad they're pushing OpenDocument, as I don't like Microsoft Word and fail to see why I should (personally) spend my money on it. Aside from that, Ubuntu is my platform of choice, and it's great that if I need to interact with the government, it's guaranteed to be compatible.
I honestly do not care if Massachusetts uses Microsoft Office over OpenOffice (except for the cost reduction) but I would love to see the local government use a format that doesn't depend on the whim of a company that doesn't exactly have the best legal track record. - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You keep using this word, "Bias." I do not think it means what you think it means.
I myself am particularly biased towards products that work well, are extensible, and don't have lengthy usage restrictions or expensive licensing schemes. It's a healthy bias. Like being biased against cold climates or being biased against living near a toxic waste dump. - sporkwitch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Though I love opensource, that's not true. They should be biased towards FREE software. Not all open-source stuff is totally free, per se. You get things like Redhat selling their support and whatnot as a bundle with Redhat Linux. This is the kind of thing the government would like, because it gets them someone else to blame when things get mucked up. I agree though, OSS should be the way to go, if for no reason other than it's cheaper/free, scalable (in most cases that I've seen), and just as effective, if not better (I spend more time trying to PREVENT MSO from ***** up my formatting than actually working on my papers -- and no I'm not writing a ***** letter! -- back when I used it; don't worry, I never paid for it :P)
- syberghost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7MIT responds "yes, yes it is. Now give us the plugin or ***** right off."
- RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Is there anyone in the world who doesn't have a bias toward free things? Why is that wrong?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What exactly is wrong with "a biased, open source-only preference policy." ???
- The_Decryptor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"What I do find odd about this is that they are demanding a plug-in. Now I guess the question I have is that is this plug-in for MS Office to produce/read ODF or is this plug-in for StarOffice to produce/read doc?"
They are asking for a proposal to write a plugin (not even directed at MS), and it's for MS Office to support the ISO standardised OpenDocument format.
"but what real life practical advantages does it offer? Is the file size smaller?"
Well, yes, it is, and it's not controlled by one company that likes to change it's format every so often, killing backwards compatibility in the process. - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thats funny, but you really hit the nail on the head of a very important point.
Massachusetts is a body of people. Therefore massachusetts has a bias towards standards that can be accessed/understood by the people...
Governments, states etc should have *only* a bias toward open source & creative commons... anyone that says otherwise is telling you fibs. - threepio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Is it telling that the woman's name is Wyne?
- Rio517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, it's quite different. As several commenters have already pointed out, bias toward things that are inexpensive subsitutes, or in this case free subsitutes, is rather common bais. I don't think it would be a strech to that nearly 99% of the population shares this bais. This isn't even getting into arguments for systems built on open-standards.
An organization saying, "You shouldn't be baised toward free stuff" is a different matter entirely from an organization saying you shouldn't buy microsoft's products becuase they're buggy, overpriced, and built on closed, proprietary systems. - dahat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Because by supporting such freeness you are harming those poor souls whose entire livelihood is tied up in proprietary systems... or so the argument likely goes.
- OriginalOG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I work for a state government and many don't think in these terms. Most people who are the head of state technology standards choose programs and software based on what they know exists. We can't even use CVS for our version control if we wanted...and costs isn't the issue. Our group is the only one in the state using source control and because someone knew of VSS they placed it on the standard. Now the result is the state would rather dish out the cash for VSS than redo the standard.
- GeekyGirl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7MA and other governments should have the flexibility to adopt a standard that is open and non-proprietary. Choosing open source and avoiding being locked into a single company and proprietary format is a smart choice.
This is not unlike many manufacturing companies that always have multiple suppliers for key parts. - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Right. As a manufacturer of baby-grinding machinery, I'm outraged by your anti-baby-grinding practices!
You'll put my entire factory floor out of work if you don't grind up more little babies! Are you some sort of unamerican communist? Buy more baby grinders, darn you!
That's it.. I'm going out and buying me a senator! - malliemcg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The group is a Trade Assocication - they are just scared, very scared that their lock in tecniques are now being deliberatly avoided and now they cannot use the lockin of one product to produce more sales later on down the line, in addition to the whole upgrade cycle fiasco.
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Open Source bias? What the hell is the government doing using proprietary software anyways? How much sense does it make to favor one private corporation over all the others when one needn't even bother with any of them?
- rishimaharaj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So they're biased toward no-cost high-value alternatives. I don't see what the problem is.
- dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'd call it a better bias. They're biased in favor of anything better. :) In this case better means cheaper, cross platform, and free of vendor lock-in.
- Aninhumer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They want to change it to get away from proprietry lock in, oh and they would have to change it anyway because MS wants them to use their "Open" XML format. Infact that shows the MS lock in, because they use MSO they have to switch format whenever MS decides to.
I don't think anyone can deny that ODF is better than the current .doc formats, as is MS's Open XML (File sizes etc. vastly improved) however ODF has been around much longer than MS's. ODF hasn't "caught on" because every state is locked in to .doc formats, which is the primary reason Mass. wants to switch. - Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I look forward to hearing about the latest proposed law mandating 3 baby grindings per person per day.
- jbus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Big evil Open Source is victimizing poor little Microsoft... This story brought tears to my eyes.
- DBCubix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh, here I thought they were talking open bribery and the government. That would make more sense. haha
- RCourtney, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Imagine that... a government entity which is suppose to be community driven and transparent preferring software and standards which are community driven and transparent.
I guess some people literally want a "Microsoft" world, logic be damned!
"Hail Xenu!" err I mean... "Hail Gates, supreme overlord of all things document!" - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ghast
I agree...The ironic part of this charade is that if you look at how much of the city is using closed-source, proprietary software, vs. open source, the bias that exists is clearly *not* in favor of open-source software. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Asking for an open standard for govt. use is not that unreasonable. It's not like they're legislating that everyone in the state needs to use the standard.
There's a difference between wanting an open standard and having an open source bias. An open standard gives proprietary and open source vendors the ability to compete without lock-in - yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A: I am not biased. I make only unbiased choice.
B: did you just say "only"? You are only choosing #1. : #1 unbiased choice. #2 biased choice. Then you are #1-biased. Because you are pro-#1 and anti-#2.
A: huh? - ggrant2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As many have pointed out - the Mass. government is *not* asking for the use of open source software - just software that uses ODF - which is a file format.
If you read ISC's parent company's web page - http://comptia.org - it looks like an organization representing software and technology companies, and they seem to make money by offering certification programs. They, and their members, want to make a profit from the software industry, which I have nothing against, if they add value. I know I might get modded down by some folks for voicing that opinion - but some above have pointed out models like Red Hat's, which I think is OK. I even think proprietary software is OK - but if it can adhere to standards that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Competition isn't bad, it is what makes for improvements. These days we have competition from open source initiatives too - YEAH.
However, CompTIA obviously doesn't get the whole open source, open standards model, and the various ways of making money that way. Oh well. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wait a second... they are accusing people of an open-source bias because they want a plugin to use a closed-source office suite with their preferred file format? That makes no sense whatsoever.
- dodava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They are not demanding a plug-in or asking Microsoft to bow down before them. They have issued a request for information regarding the availability of a plug-in for Microsoft Office to allow it to read and write ODF format files.
The question isn't whether the ODF format is better in the since you seem to mean it. The technical merits of the two formats can be argued back and forth but are actually moot to the argument here. The argument is whether a government and the people that government represents should be able to freely access the information produced by that government.
Since msxml is a proprietary format encumbered with patents, if the state decided to switch productivity suites or just wanted to use their data in another application they could be prevented from doing so by Microsoft. Microsoft could chose to not allow use of their patents and thus their file format to any new vendors the state may select. Thus eliminating the states ability to usefully access their own data. This creates vendor lock-in and the a lack of competition can drive prices higher which in the long term may cost the state more than the cost of switching standards today.
Microsoft could still make msxml acceptable to Massachusetts by standardizing the msxml format and disencumbering it from the patent issues. Unfortunately Microsoft so far has chosen to standardize the format without removing the patent issues thus retaining control on who can use the format. Massachusetts has in fact also selected the Adobe created pdf format as an acceptable format. The pdf format is documented and freely usable without patent restrictions.
Massachusetts issued a set of requirements and gave all vendors an opportunity to provide products that met the requirements. Microsoft had several options to meet the requirements including opening the msxml format or allowing the importing and exporting of ODF documents. Microsoft chose to do neither and eliminated themselves from doing business with the state.
Microsoft has now probably spent more money on lawyers and lobbying than it would have cost them to develop an ODF filter for Office. This should give you an indication of how much additional revenue vendor lock in produces for them and how much the state could potentially save by eliminating it.
So to answer your question about the practical advantages there are at least two, cost savings and guaranteed ongoing access to your data. - sporkwitch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+310 points for the Princess Bride reference! ^_^
- eosp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I take an A+ cert class (also run by CompTIA) and the bias is clear. "Linux is a small, stripped-down version of Unix suitable for small servers or as a teaching tool to learn Unix."
- workharderscum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But this isn't really about being biased in favor of open source or against microsoft
These guys are asking for a filter to allow people to use their open-standard document formats in the proprietary microsoft office applications - if anything this seems to be a pro-microsoft move as it allows MS office to be considered for use where open document standards are required! - krunchy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Uh, is it considered biased to seek support for the software that's most price-effective and already used?
- aconbere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually most likely (as in the case with my burying) you'll be buried because you haven't spent anytime familiarizing yourself with the issues at hand. If you had... you would understand that the movement towards ODF and away from the proprietary, patent encumbered, and oft to change doc format was one of preservation, and freedom.
.doc's binary format, which requires license of the Microsoft owned office technology to read fully is a terrible format to keep government documents in, as it _requires_ Microsoft word in order to view and or edit. This as opposed to something like rtf, or txt, or pdf which are all open standards stands out as being biased towards those that can afford Microsoft technology (or are willing to put up with using it) and stifling to competition.
This is not to mention the problems with .doc changing at Microsoft's whims (as it's not a registered standard) and thus forcing the government to keep around nasty old copies of office 98 to read the word document they wrote 5 years ago a viable document.
Contrast this with the open document format which is an ASCII, XML based file format, a registered standard, it has to patents encumbering it's adoption by any company, software, or agency, and it's compatible with free software licenses like the GPL, MIT, and BSD.
If you want to compare a more apples to apples format, one can take a look at the officeXML format that is currently under consideration at several standards bodies, and would provide many of the same benefits of ODF. HOWEVER Microsoft has not agreed to license this format in a manner that would be compatible to free software licenses and thus renders making competing products significantly more difficult.
There you go... that's the real cruxt of the argument. In today's day and age no one cares about the 5 kilobytes that converting to a binary format saves you (.doc) we all just want to know that we can always have the power to read and edit our documents, to distribute them freely to anyone, and to empower our constituents with the ability to read them on whatever operating system they want... for free.
~ Anders - sinmerchant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@sporkwitch: I'd argue that a government entity's bias should be toward the best VALUE rather than just trying to find something that is free. If a free software product requires hiring (or extensively training) one or more competent IT professionals to keep it operating correctly, it's not as good a value as one that offers adequate tech support but costs a little bit out of the box. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case with RedHat (or MS or whoever the vendor is), but focusing on the up-front cost alone frequently leads to expensive boondoggles.
- brandizzle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Wow. Somebody doesn't want anybody to get a free lunch.
- Denamite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Again, this seems rather arrogant to force all parties who wish to do business with you to download and install a plug-in. From and IT standpoint I bet that is going to be a nightmare in it's self."
Isn't it just as arrogant if not more to force anybody, including private person who wish to read public government documents to buy and install an expensive office suite which they might not even have any need for otherwise? - cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1DUH! So what's the problem?
- v3xt0r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1spread the fud
- kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's called a front.
- jtwJGuevara, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1From the Article: "In other words, it had little to do with access to documents, and everything to do with excluding proprietary software providers."
Why shouldn't it? It's a major burden when huge organizations are deadlocked into proprietary systems and formats and are then subject to the support and pricing of the vendor of those systems. Converting becomes harder and harder as time passes.
Kudos to Mass. for their initiative. I wish more organizations would do the same.
Kudos for Mass. for realizing this. - SVPirate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeh, biased, as in they took a sensible choice and no-one believes they had the balls to do it and people that don't like it have decided to castigate them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
- ProphetSix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"OMG! You won't use *OUR* software! You're so biased!"
Ummmmm... ok.... NEXT! -
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is