Posted on 09/23/2005 8:39:05 PM PDT by ShadowAce
The commonwealth of Massachusetts has finalized its decision to standardize desktop applications on OpenDocument, a format not supported by Microsoft Office.
The state on Wednesday posted the final version of its Enterprise Technical Reference Model, which mandates new document formats for office productivity applications.
As it proposed late last month before a comment period, Massachusetts has decided to use only products that conform to the Open Document Format for Office Applications, or OpenDocument, which is developed by the standards body OASIS.
State agencies in the executive branch are now supposed to migrate to OpenDocument-compliant applications by Jan. 1, 2007, a change that will affect about 50,000 desktop PCs. The reference model also confirms that Adobe's PDF format is considered an "open format."
What's new:
Agencies in Massachusetts' executive branch will use only desktop software applications that conform to OpenDocument standards, which excludes Microsoft Office.
Bottom line:
Some observers have praised the move as a bold step toward breaking Microsoft's monopoly on desktop applications. The state says it will save money by migrating to OpenDocuments-based products rather than to Office 12. Others argue that the decision to use only OpenDocuments-based products severely narrows the state's options.
The move to adopt OpenDocument shuts Microsoft out of the state's procurement process because the software giant, which dominates the office application market, has said it does not intend to support the OpenDocument format.
Microsoft's Office 12, which is due in the second half of next year, will store Office documents in an XML format. XML is also the basis of OpenDocument. However, Microsoft executives have consistently said that the company will not support OpenDocument natively and rely instead on "filters" to convert formats.
OpenDocument is used in open-source application products, such as OpenOffice and variants of it from companies including Sun Microsystems, IBM and Novell.
On Friday, a Microsoft manager questioned whether the IT division's technical reference model is really the last word on state policy.
"We understand that this is not a final decision for the commonwealth and that state lawmakers and the secretary of state have raised some of the same questions and concerns about this proposal that many others have raised," Alan Yates, Microsoft general manager of information worker business strategy, said in a statement. "Some in state government have talked about potential hearings to delve into this issue further, and we encourage that additional public review and evaluation." Even before finalizing its plan, Massachusetts' embrace of OpenDocument has stirred strong reactions, both positive and negative.
Some have praised the state's policies as the best way to break Microsoft's monopolistic control of the PC software market. Others, including Microsoft and software industry groups, have criticized the state, saying its decisions narrow choices to open-source products.
"The commonwealth's decision is a watershed event for the adoption of open standards," Bob Sutor, IBM's vice president of standards, said in an e-mail Friday. "Massachusetts residents, rather than any one vendor, now control their own information."
The OpenDocument format is being considered by some European governments, including Norway, Denmark and Japan, as well as other U.S. state governments, an IBM representative said.
Meanwhile, foes of Massachusetts' policy said the state is acting unfairly.
During a hearing regarding the proposal last week, Jonathan Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology, said that Massachusetts was moving ahead with a policy before it had adequately considered the cost or the potential impact.
He also questioned the state's endorsement of Adobe PDF and the decision to rely on standards organizations.
"You seem to have selectively chosen one format (Adobe's PDF) that has some IP associated with (it) and said, 'That's OK, but this one (Microsoft Office) isn't.' So I'm curious about the consistency," Zuck told Peter Quinn, the state's CIO, and Eric Kriss, the state's secretary of administration and finance. "We all know that standards groups are not hives of innovation by any means."
Massachusetts officials defended their decision, saying the move will save the state money, make sure that state records will be preserved over time, and ensure the state's "sovereignty."
In a FAQ, the state's Information Technology Division said that current users of Microsoft Office in executive-branch agencies do not necessarily need to uninstall Office. "Use of existing MS Office licenses is allowed as long as agencies use a method permitting the saving of documents in Open Document Format," the FAQ said. Third-party products could in theory perform a conversion from Office to OpenDocument formats.
In addition, Microsoft could still become part of the state's procurement policy by meeting its definition of open formats, Kriss said at an open-format meeting, which was held last Friday with the Mass Technology Leadership Council.
Kriss said that Microsoft's Office formats would have to be free of or have minimal legal encumbrances and be a standard that is subject to peer review by organizations outside Microsoft. He added that Microsoft document formats would have to be subject to "joint stewardship" by a standards body not controlled by one company or a small consortium.
"If you were to do (those things), we would be delighted to do a technical comparison of your standards and the OpenDocument standard," Kriss said, addressing a Microsoft representative. He added that the question is a "moving target" because Microsoft has already made some modifications to its patent policy.
On the question of why Adobe's PDF format meets the definition of "open format," state officials said it was a "gray area" but that Adobe's legal and licensing terms were deemed sufficiently open.
During the hearing, Kriss said that the state would save significantly by migrating to OpenDocument-based products rather than going with Office 12--on the order of $5 million for OpenDocument versus $50 million for Office 12, including hardware and operating-system upgrade costs.
But he said that fundamentally the state's policy is based in the notion of sovereignty.
"Here we have a true conflict between the notion of intellectual property and the notion of sovereignty, and I'd say that 100 percent of the time in a democracy, sovereignty trumps intellectual property," Kriss said. "That's the issue we're grappling with."
It's easy to thinkg you're abe a genius when you're spending other people's money.
Why? Why would you want the format (and accessability) of public documents to be controlled by a private company?
It's easy to thinkg you're abe a genius when you're spending other people's money.
I will say, Adobe PDF files can encase a lot of differing kinds of material. But... they take forever to open. In a strictly business environment, I only use Excel and Word. My brother who builds heliports and has to show graphics, sketches, etc., he uses Adobe as a transmission medium.
If Microsoft doesn't like this move, they can provide support for ODF. I don't see the problem.
Consulting fees for what? This is a document standards motion--not software. If MS would suport the document standard, they are more than welcome to conduct business with the state of MA.
They will. OpenDocument is just a subset of what MS is up to.
<snicker>
If they respond to this move by fully supporting ODF, this entire event is a tempest in a teapot.
So they will wind up buying both.
As long as MS supports the Standard and not just its derivative.
I don't know about you, but I am certainly not homework. Some people have said I'm a piece of work, but that was another thing altogether.
I predict this is going to cost MASS a fortune. But expected since it falls in line with their anti-corporate philosophy. Since their also going to have to retrain a bunch of low level bureaucrats, and it's always doubtful if they'll be able to keep up with technology, and be able to integrate with other software. My company a few years back migrated from Exchange to Lotus Notes, and then back to Exchange about 2 years later, because Notes really sucked. And we are still migrating database from that 4 years later.
Shhhhh! Geeks have right to their fair share of the public's money.
How do you know you're not homework?
How will using an open industry developed file format cost the state of MASS a fortune?
Because this is about open standards, not open source. And rightfully so! I have no iseeu with the govt choosing whatever software is the best use of the tax payers dollars. I do not, however, support the government forcing a defacto standard on and private entity who wants to deal with them by using a closed format.
If MS would support a real open document format then MS should just do a straight cost comparison..
I believe the decision by the state of Massachusetts not to allow themselves to be locked in by proprietary, strictly licensed computer file formats legally controlled by the whim of a single monolithic software vendor is a very smart move. The proponents of Microsoft in this decision may scoff at the notion of non-proprietary, open spec, open source, parsable, cross platform, application neutral, vendor neutral file formats, but they are not only here to stay but gaining momentum in the middleware application arena as a response to Microsoft's frightening corporate belligerence and unsavory business practices. The day after they confiscate your guns, Microsoft will enforce the fine print in the EULA.
Wow the grammar nazi's are out in force tonight... I guess if it makes you feel good about yourself demean someone else becuase you never make a mistake while posting online *you're* doing slightly better than the folks over at DU who think they are better than *everyone*.
I thought my response would make you smile, not throw a tantrum.
Microsoft should tell them to go fly off a cliff. The world is a lot bigger than mASSachuttsets
Here is the problem for MS, not support an open doc format in one US state will cause problems in other states. Also it could set a precident where other states look into making sure their documents are an open format...
Because I've yet to turn in.
Even if MS supports Open standards, it doesn't mean that MA will then consider MS Office. It just means that they will have an easier time making their documents available to more people. If MS supports Open standards, then you can count on more people jumping ship, not the other way around.
Microsoft is openly hostile to standards. Their malware is evidence enough of that.
Q: How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. They just declare darkness the industry standard.
I am?
Errr...I mean...I am!
;o)
We've used the Windows version of Open Office for a few years on some of our workstations. My only complaint with it is it is slower than Word, and has some problems with Thai font documents or very complex (tables, many different fonts) Word 6.0 format documents.
If it wasn't for the Thai font problems, I would have converted 75% of our workstations to it. The speed and other issues - most users would never know the difference and not have any complaints with it.
Have you had some bad experiences with it?
Micr'soft would be cutting its own throat.
You see, governments have this requirement that the documents they produce remain readable by their citizens for years into the future. MS ignores this customer requirement at its own peril.
MS would do far better by supporting the Open Standard and keeping some of this business, rather than pissing off some of its best customers.
Ace, having worked with multiple platforms, I don't care one way or another when it comes to MS versus Linux. I can support either.
However, anyone that thinks this is a good idea is seriously delusional. I'm not knocking the direction, what I don't like is the fact this is State government that is well known to be "tax and spend." There is no way the State of Mass. will successfully implement this without serious cost overruns.
If it were possible to place a wager against the efficiency of State governments when it comes to spending, I'd bet against the State every time. I'd be rich after a winning a few such wagers.
This isn't about MS vs. Linux--it's about document standards.
There is no way the State of Mass. will successfully implement this without serious cost overruns.
While I don't doubt that, do you honestly believe that sticking with MS--and "upgrading" to Office 12--would be any better? The screenshots I've seen of Office 12 indicate that some re-training of workers would be necessary whether you change from the current Office to OOo or Office 12. With Office 12, they'll probably also have to upgrade hardware (and probably OS) as well, introducing more chances of cost overrun.
Given the source of the following link, I may understand why you'd reject it, but check out The Empire's New Clothes, an opinion piece about the new Office 12. I believe that he makes some good points.
Yeah, I lost site of the document standards portion of this.
My general cynicism toward government "efficiency" colors the way I view such things.
I don't even want to go down the road of Office being a resource hog. That is a given.
I'll check your link a little later and give you further thoughts on the direction this is going.
Actually, the plural of nazi is nazis, not nazi's.
Oh, look at the time! Gotta go.
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.