Software Free

One of the great things about the blogosphere is the scope it provides for the unfettered rant – a piece where the author is totally and utterly out of his or her pram. I should know: as a blogger, I've penned a few myself. So I was delighted to come across a fine example, which begins thus:

Another anti-Microsoft (MSFT) front group has emerged in favor of “free and open standards,” hyping what it calls the Hague Declaration and making some absurd connection to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The propagandists, partially funded by publicly traded companies, have a little trouble describing what that term “free and open standards” means (or even using it consistently) but the group has no trouble indicating its political stripes. Unbelievably it calls itself Digistan, apparently to indentify with the fascist terrorists based in countries and regions using the Farsi-based suffix “stan.”

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Source: open...

ODF as a default format was first adopted by OpenOffice.org (OOo). Naturally, when OOXML’s approval cast a doubt on ODF, we sought reactions of the OOo team, on how they viewed the future of OOo, ODF and OOXML. Thus, this interview, which was conducted over a series of e-mails, with Louis Suarez-Potts, community manager, OpenOffice.org.

On Open Enterprise blog.

On Open Enterprise blog.

A little while back I gave Peter Murray-Rust a hard time for daring to suggest that OOXML might be acceptable for archiving purposes.

Here's his response to that lambasting:

My point is that - at present - we have few alternatives. Authors use Word or LaTeX. We can try to change them - and Peter Sefton (and we) are trying to do this with the ICE system. But realistically we aren’t going to change them any time soon.

My point was that if the authors deposit Word we can do something with it which we cannot do anything with PDF. It may be horrible, but it’s less horrible than PDF. And it exists.

There was clearly a transaction of money made by Microsoft in Norway, which passed it on to ISO.

On Open Enterprise blog.

Peter Murray-Rust is one of the key figures in the world of open data and open science, and deserves a lot of the credit for making these issues more visible. Here's an interesting post in which he points out that PDF files are not ideal from an archiving viewpoint:

I should make it clear that I am not religiously opposed to PDF, just to the present incarnation of PDF and the mindset that it engenders in publishers, repositarians, and readers. (Authors generally do not use PDF).

He then discusses in detail what the problems are and what solutions might be. Then he drops this clanger:

I’m not asking for XML. I’m asking for either XHTML or Word (or OOXML)

Word? OOXML??? Come on, Peter, you want open formats and you're willing to accept one of the most botched "standards" around, knocked up for purely political reasons, that includes gobs of proprietary elements and is probably impossible for anyone other than Microsoft to implement? *That's* open? I don't think so....

The International Organization for Standardization's OpenDocument Format standard is broken and needs to be mended, according to an expert who claims to have carried out tests on the format.

On Open Enterprise blog.

A BAND OF BRITISH Unix beardies has issued a High Court challenge over the national approval of Microsoft's OOXML document standard.

What kind of a monster would bully innocent computer scientists in order to defeat an international standard (ODF) that was created to facilitate the need of the entire industry, including universities?

The other day we mentioned South Africa because of its decision to embrace OpenDocument format. Shortly afterwards we spotted Microsoft’s plan to pay a little visit to this country. Coincidence? Maybe.

I've written many times about the distinction between multiple competing impementations of a standard, which promote competition because there are no switching costs, and multiple standards, which promote lock-in. But it seems that some people just don't get this simple idea:

The “South African Bureau of Standards” (SABS) approved the Open Document Format (ODF) on Friday 18 April as an official national standard. This adoption, if implemented, will reduce choice, decrease the benefits of open competition and thwart innovation. The irony here is that South Africa is moving in a direction which stands in stark relief to the reality of the highly dynamic market, with some 40 different formats available today.

“Multiple co-existing standards as opposed to only one standard should be favoured in the interest of users. The markets are the most efficient in creating standards and it should stay within the exclusive hands of the market”, Hugo Lueders explains.

How stupid it was for us to debate about stuff like ODF/OOXML without understanding the meaning of “standards”! Now that Microsoft has defined it clearly for our benefit, the darkness has vanished and everything is as clear as sunlight.

Businesses have discovered a new way of doing things—the professional way. And this way has much to do with Standards.

Original Microsoft software is the standard for Operating Systems, Office Productivity, Server and Developer Tools.

In even simpler terms, we define:

What Microsoft does is THE STANDARD

Period