Massachusetts Adopting 'Open Format' Software 273
XopherMV writes "A Massachusetts state senator who had complained about the state government's effort to promote open-source software at the expense of proprietary software has hailed the state's effort to reach a compromise over future software purchases by the state. The latest iteration of the state's policy emphasizes 'Open Formats' such as TXT, RTF, HTM, PDF, and XML." And if file formats for state use must be in truly open and free formats, then it matters much less what OS or application is used to create or open them. (On the other hand, XML and other TLAs don't always mean free or open formats.)
True, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
>always mean free or open formats.
This is true, but XML documents themselves are also considerably more open than their binary counterparts. Anyone can parse a well-formed XML document, and validate it if a DTD is provided. While companies may still create XML that behaves in a specific way bound to their application, the data in the XML document is available to any application. While developers could create obfuscated DTDs or encrypt their data in a proprietary manner, they would lose most of the benefits of using XML. XML doesn't bar the creation of proprietary formats, but its openness is one of its greatest advantages.
Re:True, but... (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're missing what Microsoft would consider the benefits of XML. Namely, that they could create obfuscated DTDs and encrypt their data in a proprietary manner while still using it, thus convincing the masses that they're using an open format while not actually using one. They're actually doing this with their html exporter now.
Another thing they like to do is put bugs and workarounds into their code that no one else knows about (of course, they only do this in places they own the marketshare). Their RTF encoder is riddled with these.
So...I think the only fair thing to do is to make an open format and make the government-approved reference implementation open source.
Re:True, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
But they won't. They can't. Microsoft has a history of sticking with the original file format they created along with 1.0 of the application. Today's Word docs have a lot "tacked on", but they still have the basic structure openable by the original Word.
WordML (Microsoft's XML structure for Word docs) is fairly clear-cut. They can "obfuscate", but they won't, because people'll will want those original files openable in 10-15 years. Backwards compatibility is a huge goal at MS.
Re:True, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Word documents are not backward compatible, except in a few lucky cases, despite the fact that most of the functionality is the same. Have you even tried this? Word XP documents don't work in Word 97; 97 don't work in 95, and I would assume it goes back even farther.
I think a better claim would be "backwards compatibilty is a huge thing to avoid at MS" considering that almost no new functionality has been added to word in the past 10 years and yet the document format has changed.
Re:True, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Have you tried this? On a recent trip for work, my company laptop had Word XP (2002) installed, the machines at the client site used Word 97. There were no problems whatsoever with compatibility.
Office is generally pretty good with forward and backwards compatibility.
Re:True, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:True, but... (Score:3)
>the figure positions, get screwed up, equations get put everywhere.
Equations? Academic papers?
In general, your documents are complex, not others are simple.
Nope (Score:2)
It'll open, but not look the same (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It'll open, but not look the same (Score:2, Informative)
Re:True, but... (Score:2, Informative)
there is a Converter Pack from Ms for those ancient
so no, Word 1.0 file formats are not even close to being compatible with the current version
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
I'm not sure about Publisher or Visio (or whatever it is called), since I've never used them. I do have to use the basic three pieces for (highly Microsoft-biased) school work, though. If it wasn't for Words Forward/Backward compatibility, my grades would've been lower.
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
I find that it is terrible for all but the simplest of documents. I normally use it when writing papers. When I'm writing with others maintaining the required formatting, with diagrams in the right places becomes a task in and of itself. Even when I'm just writing by myself Word can do some very odd things to the document.
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
Something like latex is better suited to writing papers but I'm dyslexic and Word (plus suitable addins) provides better platform for me to use.
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
It isn't really Word that is the better platform, it is the addins for Word that I have which make it a better platform. Things like reading back what I have written helps (but is also available for other word processors) but there is also enhanced spell and grammar checkers which I use. They mostly manage to catch my spelling and grammar mistakes but I still like to have someone local read what I've written just in case. Oh and I'm probably
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
open documents don't mean clients stop evolving (Score:2)
This is true. However, that has nothing to do with the big picture. Open documents are documents, not documents and clients/readers/editors. Take any of the open formats in the original story and the same is true: opening in different clients will cause changes in the way the document is displayed. That is not the point, the point is that the docum
yep. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
On the original point, this decision could work really well for MS and the gub'mnt. Data is kept in a fairly future proof, open format, but you can do something like patent your ingeneous schema to prevent other people from using it.
Xix.
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
Re:True, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Artificial market segmentation appears to have become a primary hobby at Microsoft. First there was XP Home and Pro but now there is also Starter, MediaCenter and TabletPC editions. It really bugs me how MS labels the standard edition "Pro" and how it artif
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
Re:True, but... (Score:4, Funny)
<Byte Offset="0x1234">83</Byte>
<Byte Offset="0x1235">117</Byte>
<Byte Offset="0x1236">114</Byte>
<Byte Offset="0x1237">101</Byte>
<Byte Offset="0x1238">63</Byte>
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
could be patent protected too - while still being 100% open.
Re:True, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not with any meaningful intepretaion. The problem is there no information about the meaning of the terms that appear nor about the meaning of the absence of terms.
Even with a DTD/schema all you get is syntactic information - it doesn't tell you what anything actually means without getting access to documentation.
Good specification documentation that is freely available and freely implementable makes something open.
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
aGVsbG8gc2xhc2hkb3Q=
part of a valid xml document
XML does not guarantee any kind or portability
Re:True, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
you can pour a gallon of perfume on shit, but it is still shit.
if you accept "open on the outside but proprietary on the inside" you do not understand what it takes to be truly open. you have lost to the marketeers and spin artists, and given up your only true possession -- your mind and its ability to think critically.
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
Not at all...
<Document Type="MSWord">
(binary crap)
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
In other words, XML makes it easier to reverse-engineer somebody else's format. That's cool, but it just doesn't make that much of difference for word processor or spreadsheet files. The format of Microsoft .doc and .xls files is actually pretty well documented. Parsing them is a nightmare, but the hard work has already been done.
The real problem with these files is that they're very poorly structured. You express this l
Ploy On Price Negotiation? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about you guys but I won't believe it until I see office workers using it, before then it is just a negotiation ploy to save some money with Microsoft (Why else announce it early?)..
Re:Ploy On Price Negotiation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not in the case of Massachusetts. Look at the state's history with Microsoft -- they were the only ones not to cave in with regards to the antitrust case, and there are numerous stories [zopezen.org] regarding their ongoing efforts to better embrace open source.
I see the announcement both as a way to encourage the regular rank & file and the various commonwealth communities to embrace the efforts more than it is an effort to gain some ground negotiating with Microsoft.
And.. (Score:2)
They want to be able to open an archive of documents in 20+ years. What if Microsoft stopped making office? What if the only versions of Office you could get for Windows 2030 won't open an Office 97 document correctly?
With open standards to the file formats, it's fairly trivial to write parsing software to bring the documents into new software correctly, not to mention
Re:Ploy On Price Negotiation? (Score:2)
Yeah, we still have the quaint idea that public officials and employees are supposed to work for the people. We even more or less treat them with the same level of respect we'd treat anyone else. Consequently, we occasionally get some actual initiative on their part.
On the other hand, our legislature would be an embarassment if the national standards weren't so low. What do you expect in a state with a one party monopoly? I
PDF (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that for specific purposes proprietary formats are ok, but for interchanging and for storage purposes, the open formats are important.
Re:PDF (Score:5, Informative)
Re:PDF (Score:3, Informative)
Re:PDF (Score:5, Funny)
Re:PDF (Score:2)
Re:PDF -- there are not free readers of all of the (Score:2, Interesting)
(I think the extension is
After no reader in Linux would work, I decided to try it with my iBook. Apple's preview also won't show the hidden parts -- it actually demands AA Reader. Sigh. So I d
Re:PDF (Score:2)
That sounds like pretty twisted logic, you know....
Re:PDF (Score:2)
The LZW patent has expired [unisys.com].
Re:PDF (Score:2)
Re:PDF (Score:2)
Furthermore, the specs are published in book format and available amazon and technical bookstores.
Re:PDF (Score:2)
Re:PDF (Score:2)
HTM? HTM? (Score:5, Informative)
HTM is the filename suffix that broken operating systems like Windows used to assign to HTML files. The document format is called HTML.
Re:HTM? HTM? (Score:5, Funny)
Geez.
Re:A *real* OS doesn't need a suffix (Score:2)
Great but (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's good because it will permit people/company to interact and be able to exchange document without to be forced to use some particular software.
But I think if you take XML, we need to have some effort to produce some standards DTD or XML-schema to be sure to have a real interoperability
Also it will be neccesary to have some kind of validator for each format to force that everybody is using the real standard and not some fancy extension that could ruin the all idea
XML, RTF ... open? (Score:2, Interesting)
By thinking of XML as an "open" format they are walking right into Microsofts little trap... Try decoding Office-XML sometime. Or my little XML format here: <blob>()Yyfoas/FGTif</blob>.
(Of course, they don't trust that people really can't decipher it, so they protected it heavily with patents too.
It's like saying ASCII is an open format. That's right, but ... there's something written in ASCII too, is that format open? Like RTF, which is written in ASCII but *not* open.
Have you actually worked with WordML? (Score:2, Interesting)
Granted, there were features in the DTD that weren't in the spec, but I was using a pre-release documentation set, so hopefully they've gone back and fully updated things. Besides, everything was in the DTD, so if you had to, you could look at how it's supposed to work.
Try reading through the documentation and some WordML files of your own, instead of just talking out of your
Re:XML, RTF ... open? (Score:2)
AdAGFGgfdgdfKfHKJGHfffGK
if they are serious about it, that's enough (Score:4, Insightful)
A format isn't open until it has actually been standardized by an independent body that can guarantee that it is free from patent or other claims, and until it has been demonstrated that it can be implemented independtly by actually doing so.
Impossible requirenment (Score:2)
What the standards are good for are ironing out small wrinkles like concatenating arguments in macros after millions on users have already chosen the technology and settled any major differences. The solutions are often kludgy, unsatisfactory and simply take the lowest common denominator rather than the most
This is bad news, not good news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is bad news, not good news (Score:2)
It's the right way - mandate use of open formats and let the better software win!
Since open source is better, it will win easily (since it has lower cost of ownership) - why do you consider this to be bad?
Re:This is bad news, not good news (Score:4, Insightful)
XML does not autmoatically mean "open format", at least not in the way you seem to be thinking. Even if everyone in the Massachusetts administration starts using exclusively WordML for their documents (including converting all old documents), any open-source product would still have the problem of relying on a format defined by the very same monopoly they're trying to compete with. WordML is patent-protected specifically to prevent the equivalent of a "fork" of the format, so anyone using it is completely at the mercy of Microsoft's whim on where to take the format in the future.
Re:This is bad news, not good news (Score:2)
I assume you're referring to Open Office. (I'm not sure what the company's Web site has to do with this.) I don't think you'd be asking the question if you'd ever tried to use Open Office. It's really, really bad software. In particular, parts of its user interface are different from the Office just for the sake of being different. Not better, just different. That's bad, bad.
Or even cheaper proprietary choices--Corel, Lotus, etc.?
Same answer. They're bad
Re:This is bad news, not good news (Score:2)
That's not a name. It's a Web address. When the Web address is "openoffice.org," the name is Open Office. What about this is confounding you?
Illustrative of what?
I'm sorry you had trouble following my anecdote. Next time I'll do my best to write with an audience of short-attentioned mouth-breathers in mind.
For you to claim that open source software doesn't provide licensing freedom is either stupid or dishonest.
But "open source" software has nothing at al
Re:This is bad news, not good news (Score:2)
Correct. If the Web address is "openoffice.org," the name of the company is "Open Office." If the company that makes Open Office wants to deliberately confuse people by choosing a name that baffles, that's their choice. But it doesn't make it a name. It's still just a Web address.
You are trying to argue that if something has even the slightest restriction then it cannot be free.
No, I'm saying that freedom and "open source" s
Re:This is bad news, not good news (Score:2)
Whatever. "Community." Blah. I am unimpressed by new-age jargon. It's a company.
Software under OSI-approved licenses is more libre than most other software.
I don't recognize concepts like "more free." That's like arguing that somebody is "less pregnant." Sure, there's an interpretation you could make that would lead to that conclusion, but it's hardly a useful or interesting one.
You also think your opinion is more valid than anyone else's.
Um. Duh. If I thought some conflicting id
Re:This is bad news, not good news (Score:2)
Um, no. The name is what everybody else calls it. And that's "Open Office."
You're just trying to minimize the importance of having the freedom to modify and distribute software.
Two things here.
First, freedoms are not something that can be granted. They emerge from natural rights, and no person has the power to grant them. This is fundamental to our system of political thought.
Second, because nobody can grant the free
Re:This is bad news, not good news (Score:2)
What does a business license have to do with being a company?
Freedom is not an absolute.
If there are any words more frequently uttered by people who are trying desperately to take away our rights, I don't know what they are.
News flash, Sparky: Freedoms are absolute. They are unalienable. You may have heard this if you went to school anywhere in the past two hundred years or so. It is our exercise of those freedoms that must be regulated with laws. We have laws, for example
Re:This is bad news, not good news (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the main complaints about closed source software is that the proprietary, closed file formats keep you locked in to using the product, and that changes to said file formats tend to push you to upgrading because everyone else has, so you have to to be able to read their documents.
Opening the file formats removes this restriction - now *anyone* can write software to create and edit them flawlessly. You're no longer tied to a single editor. How many
Mandating open source software, while appearing good, would be a bad thing. Software should be used based on fitness for purpose; if the open source solution is superior, then use it. But don't use an inferior open source app just because it's open source if a superior closed source one is available and affordable. Mandating open file formats increases the likelihood that an appropriate open source solution will become available.
Re:This is bad news, not good news (Score:2)
Other valid complaints are the per-seat costs, upgrade costs, limited effectiveness of outside support, architecture lock-in, and a slow, costly route to get bug-fixes and new features implemented. And, of course, the threat of being left out-in-the-cold if the company stops offering the proprietary program (or if said company collapses).
Re:This is bad news, not good news (Score:2, Insightful)
If the file formats used are truly open (as in a decent standard that's well documented and actually works as it's described, which allows other applications to read and write in the same format without legal encumbrance), then the customer can take their data and have a new application or data converter written, allowing them to easily migrate to a new platform.
That addre
Re:This is bad news, not good news (Score:3, Insightful)
And, rather than throwing good money after bad to upgrade and maintain closed source software, public agencies should fund efforts to bring free open source software to the public. Perhaps they should keep proprietary software that has already been paid for, but as a taxpayer I want the most bang for my buck. This would be a strong argument against any commercial product that could
Re: This is bad news, not good news (Score:4, Insightful)
Policy, Not Mechanism.
They are very close, but need some additions to nail this right. Everyone freaking out over XML being cited should read the article. Reading the original article, I note that they defined "open format" by policy and not mechanism:
This means they really don't care about the actual format, they care about the terms of access to the format. Microsoft can't drive a DTD with encrypted blocks through a mechanism-based loophole simply by declaring, "Hey! Look! XML!".
However.
It is said that even the largest companies bear the imprint of their founders. Gates was raised by lawyers, and his company operates like one. Unless you adversarially test this legislation before it passes, I guarantee you Microsoft will find a perfectly legal way to protect their crown jewels if it passes. There are other big players who will fight tooth and nail against this legislation, too. Oracle. IBM's DB2 folks.
It is unfortunate that I could not find on their web site [masoftware.org] a full explanation of what they meant by "open format". However, going by that small excerpted blurb, if I was thinking of legal and marketing workarounds, here are some things I can come up with off the cuff.
Re:This is bad news, not good news (Score:2, Informative)
e-government and our Boston City Council (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe they want to preserve enbolded text as if that enbolded text was some sort of legal document. Maybe they want to preserve the image of a seal of the city. At the expense of wider more compatible distribution of important information our city council is even unwilling to put the full text of public hearings notices on the web site at http://cityofboston.gov/citycouncil [cityofboston.gov]
An online calendar at the website does list the meetings minimally with no details. The full explanation for the purpose for holding the public hearing needs to be posted every time with an archive for reviewing past hearings.
So much for a mandate of so called e-government !
Re:e-government and our Boston City Council (Score:2)
Saugus [saugus.net] uses open formats and open source. Perhaps Boston can learn a bit from its smaller (but older) neighbor to the North.
TXT is not a format (Score:5, Informative)
Re:TXT is not a format (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:TXT is not a format (Score:2, Informative)
Re:TXT is not a format (Score:2)
The Mac, interestingly, is completely agnostic. It reads and writes 7-bit ASCII, Mac OS Roman, Windows Latin 1 and UTF-8 files with Mac, UNIX and DOS line endings with equal aplomb.
Heck, TextEdit even opens Word files.
Re:TXT is not a format (Score:2)
Sounds like your gripe is with "grep," not with the Mac. A good approach is to avoid using obsolete legacy tools written for obsolete legacy operating systems. Choose modern tools instead, preferably tools that are based on the Mac's built-in "Cocoa" framework. These tools all get the ability to handle various line encodings and character sets as part and parcel of their makeup, as opposed to vintage-1973 tools that were written under the assumption that seven-bit ASCII was the acme of technologic
WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
if you think back to the old typewriter, you have to have a Carriage Return, and a Line Feed to get to the start of the next line when typing.
Obviously you have never even seen a typewriter. On old typewriters the big silver bar on the left did both cr+lf. Electric ones had a key (where "Enter" is on your computer) that did both cr and lf. If you wanted to overprint, you did the return action, then turned the big knob on the left to
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Yet pretty much every standard that specifies how lines are terminated specifies CRLF. Some examples: FTP, POP, IMAP, HTTP, NNTP.
CRLF is the world standard for line termination.
Re:TXT is not a format (Score:2)
I remember being very irritated when I realised that Microsoft Word had adopted .DOC as its standard file extension. At the time, it was a very common extension used everywhere else for text files in DOS (especially README.DOC), to the point where the MS Word developers couldn't possibly have missed it.
The consequence? In a
Um (Score:2, Insightful)
What sort of "open" are they talking about??? (Score:5, Informative)
Obligatory disclaimer: I wrote this humble file formats FAQ [nrao.edu] and it represents my personal and professional opinion (not necessarily my employer's).
That said, can someone in MA please ask the movers and shakers there to read that document? It's probably in the class of "common sense" to most of us here, but clearly we've done a less than stellar job so far of imparting this clarity to those in political circles.
For the impatient: the conclusion I reached is that RTF and PDF are very questionable if you want to use them as truly interchangeable formats in a heterogeneous environment. This is an empirical finding, based on real life experience.
A strong position (Score:2, Insightful)
Nonetheless, requiring the use of open formats is a strong, defendable position in practise. like it or not, mandating the use of open source isn't possible, or at least highly unlikely. The reason for this is that open source might be good but it's not *neces
I think this is the correct way to go (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the government should mandate that output from any software be an open standard format (XML or whatever) and then they choose, based on a competative bid process like they are supposed to do, the software that will do what they want (which may include adding features at some point). If some OSS group wins, so be it. If some proprietary group wins, so be it.
Allowing only OSS is both wrong and bad, IMO, for a number of reasons.
1. It is straight against capitalist economy to require one business/development model. In capitalism, you specify the product and whoever can do it best/cheapest/easiest wins. Only an OSS zealot would think that OSS would always win.
2. The government should not dictate the "right" business model for people to follow. As long as they are legal under the laws (both criminal and financial) of the country, they are valid. The government should not dictate that some valid models are not valid for the government.
Re:I think this is the correct way to go (Score:2)
TXT? HTM? (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, this isn't MS-DOS, and even if it were there's no need to resort to such barbarisms. You mean plain text, and HTML.
Ported doc format? (Score:2)
Re:Ported doc format? (Score:2)
Have you tried using Adobe's reader? I'm sure it will work.
And can create PDF? Without grinding a PIII/800 to its knees?
I use pdflatex (part of the standard teTeX distribution), which runs adequately quickly on a Pentium 133 MMX with 32Mb RAM.
OpenOffice.org (Score:2)
OpenOffice.org OpenOffice.org OpenOffice.org
Did I mention OpenOffice.org? It runs on Windows, too.
RTF Open? Since When? (Score:2)
Why is it considered open?
What is "HTM" ?? (Score:2)
I have heard of Microsoft's three-letter naming system that turned "HTML" files into "HTM" files.
Same with "TXT" files.
It's pretty obvious if you say you want "HTM" and "TXT" files you've already made up your mind about what you want.
Should have done this earlier... (Score:2, Interesting)
Think about it -- if something like this had been done earlier, we could have saved an awful lot of time and money that was instead spent on anti-trust lawsuits that the government ultimately "lost" (yes, I know they technically won, but have _you_ noticed any benefits from that win? I sure haven't).
Here's the problem -- Federal, State, and Local Government agencies of all sorts put out press releases, solicitations, regulatory notices and the like by the tens of thousands on a daily basis. Companies an
Non-porous *complete* specifications (Score:2)
MA needs to insure the specifications are complete as well as free, publicly-avaiable, open, etc.
A few years ago there was a brouhaha about Microsoft Active Directory authentication and MIT's kerberos standard that developed because the latter left a hole in the specification and the former took advantage of the opportunity to "add value" and "extend" the protocol in their product offering.
Re:Open Formats (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ironic Ad Placement (Score:2)
Re:TLA (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Worse problem... (Score:2)
Yeah, it's too bad when you have to compete on a level playing field, especially in the Communist Commonwealth of Massachusetts. You would think that for ideological reasons they'd give unearned benefit to fellow travelers.