Boston State House meeting on Open Document.
john_wh...@email.com
Beacon Hill are getting together to second guess the decision to
require Open Document format. There's also an article in the
Boston Globe by Hiawatha Bray. Anybody know anything else about
this?
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200510261321191
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/10/25/galvin_attacks_software_proposal/
lqu...@uku.co.uk
I read the article yesterday in the local paper (Boston Globe).
Basically if you can't beat them, buy them. MSFT has convinced several
lawmakers that switching from MS-Office isn't a good idea. Funny how
that works.
John Bailo
This goes into the "I told you so" category.
From the Information Week article quoted in Groklaw:
The InformationWeek story says, "Generally, the two *Democrats* argue
that the OpenDocument approach will unfairly block Microsoft from much
of the state’s electronic documents business…"
See, it's the Democrats who are the allies of the monopolists.
Free market traders, such as Real Republicans, choose Linux.
John Bailo
> I read the article yesterday in the local paper (Boston Globe).
> Basically if you can't beat them, buy them. MSFT has convinced several
> lawmakers that switching from MS-Office isn't a good idea. Funny how
> that works.
>
Both of them Democrats...the party that protects the consumer from
cheaper, better goods.
casioc...@gmail.com
John Bailo wrote:
> john_wh...@email.com wrote:
> >>From an article on Groklaw, it sounds like Microsoft's friends on
> > Beacon Hill are getting together to second guess the decision to
> > require Open Document format. There's also an article in the
> > Boston Globe by Hiawatha Bray. Anybody know anything else about
> > this?
> >
> > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200510261321191
> > http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/10/25/galvin_attacks_software_proposal/
> >
>
> This goes into the "I told you so" category.
>
> From the Information Week article quoted in Groklaw:
>
> The InformationWeek story says, "Generally, the two *Democrats* argue
> that the OpenDocument approach will unfairly block Microsoft from much
>
> See, it's the Democrats who are the allies of the monopolists.
>
> Free market traders, such as Real Republicans, choose Linux.
Are the people pushing for OpenDocument in MA republican?
billwg
"John Bailo" <jab...@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:RrSdnRS3Xpf...@speakeasy.net...
> john_wh...@email.com wrote:
>
> See, it's the Democrats who are the allies of the monopolists.
>
> Free market traders, such as Real Republicans, choose Linux.
>
soon as Mr. Green shows up, the real work gets done.
casioc...@gmail.com
OpenDocument is a no brainer. Anyone who argues against it at this time
must have a special, suspect and questionable interest. If someone is
arguing against OpenDocument there must be a money trail. Either that
or he's an idiot who's twisted by those with a money trail. Either way
it's not good. If he's an idiot he should shut up and stop voicing a
complaint about things he doesn't understand.
I annoys how the bastards say OpenDocument will deprive people of
access to documents. Yeah that really makes sense! OpenOffice=free vs
MSOffice=~$500. Yeah, it makes sense! The state should standardise on a
cloased format and require its citizens to pay a corporation hundreds
of dollars each!
DFS
> john_wh...@email.com wrote:
>>> From an article on Groklaw, it sounds like Microsoft's friends on
>> Beacon Hill are getting together to second guess the decision to
>> require Open Document format. There's also an article in the
>> Boston Globe by Hiawatha Bray. Anybody know anything else about
>> this?
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200510261321191
>>
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/10/25/galvin_attacks_software_proposal/
>
> OpenDocument is a no brainer. Anyone who argues against it at this
> time must have a special, suspect and questionable interest.
My special, suspect and questionable interest is I don't like to waste time
watching a slow piece of software do its thing. And I don't like having an
inferior file format forced on me by liberal weirdos from Taxachusetts -
home of Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and activist judges
approving of gay marriage. gag...
> If someone is arguing against OpenDocument there must be a money trail.
Why? MS Office users don't make money from downloading Office documents.
> Either that or he's an idiot who's twisted by those with a money
> trail. Either way it's not good.
Neither is the OpenDocument format.
> If he's an idiot he should shut up
> and stop voicing a complaint about things he doesn't understand.
Yet you keep talking.
> I annoys how the bastards say OpenDocument will deprive people of
> access to documents. Yeah that really makes sense!
Much more sense than you. 90% or so of the population that has an office
program has MS Office. How is that huge chunk of the populace going to open
the "open" OpenDocument document? Waste their time downloading a 75mb piece
of slow-ware (OpenOffice)? I suppose the state could post a link to
download a small OpenDocument viewer app. But why infect your system with
OSS when we already have .pdf and free Adobe Acrobat?
> OpenOffice=free vs MSOffice=~$500. Yeah, it makes sense!
Did you really pay $500 for MS Office? You were had.
> The state should standardise on
> a cloased format and require its citizens to pay a corporation
> hundreds of dollars each!
It's been that way for at least a decade. Who's complaining? cola: we are!
Rick
> casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> john_wh...@email.com wrote:
>>>> From an article on Groklaw, it sounds like Microsoft's friends on
>>> Beacon Hill are getting together to second guess the decision to
>>> require Open Document format. There's also an article in the
>>> Boston Globe by Hiawatha Bray. Anybody know anything else about
>>> this?
>>>
>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200510261321191
>>>
> http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/10/25/galvin_attacks_software_proposal/
>>
>> OpenDocument is a no brainer. Anyone who argues against it at this
>> time must have a special, suspect and questionable interest.
>
> My special, suspect and questionable interest is I don't like to waste time
> watching a slow piece of software do its thing. And I don't like having an
> inferior file format forced on me by liberal weirdos from Taxachusetts -
> home of Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and activist judges
> approving of gay marriage.
... then stop using ms office....
> gag...
Something too deep in your throat?
>
>
>> If someone is arguing against OpenDocument there must be a money trail.
>
> Why? MS Office users don't make money from downloading Office documents.
WTH are you bleating about?
>
>
>
>> Either that or he's an idiot who's twisted by those with a money
>> trail. Either way it's not good.
>
> Neither is the OpenDocument format.
Yes, it is.
>
>> If he's an idiot he should shut up
>> and stop voicing a complaint about things he doesn't understand.
>
> Yet you keep talking.
Apparently he's not a idiot.
>
>> I annoys how the bastards say OpenDocument will deprive people of
>> access to documents. Yeah that really makes sense!
>
> Much more sense than you. 90% or so of the population that has an office
> program has MS Office. How is that huge chunk of the populace going to open
> the "open" OpenDocument document? Waste their time downloading a 75mb piece
> of slow-ware (OpenOffice)?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - and your stupidity and bigotry shows
itself.
> I suppose the state could post a link to
> download a small OpenDocument viewer app. But why infect your system with
> OSS when we already have .pdf and free Adobe Acrobat?
.. or micro$oft could really support OpenDocument.
>
>
>
>> OpenOffice=free vs MSOffice=~$500. Yeah, it makes sense!
>
> Did you really pay $500 for MS Office? You were had.
Retail prices are $300-$500. Maybe you can tell us what OEMs really pay
for it, and how much they pass on.
And whatever prices is paid for m$ office, it is more than $0.
>> The state should standardise on
>> a cloased format and require its citizens to pay a corporation
>> hundreds of dollars each!
>
> It's been that way for at least a decade. Who's complaining?
The U.S Government, several States, many foreign governments, many
companies and many individuals.
> cola: we are!
--
Rick
Linønut
> See, it's the Democrats who are the allies of the monopolists.
>
> Free market traders, such as Real Republicans, choose Linux.
Oh, bullshit.
--
Treat yourself to the devices, applications, and services running on the
GNU/Linux® operating system!
lqu...@uku.co.uk
Linønutlinøn...@bone.com wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, John Bailo belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > See, it's the Democrats who are the allies of the monopolists.
> >
> > Free market traders, such as Real Republicans, choose Linux.
>
> Oh, bullshit.
Exactly. The democrats are too busy taking money away from working
families so they can "redistribute the wealth" to slobs who would
rather sit on the couch all day, eat cheese-puffs and watch Oprah
instead of getting a job.
Linønut
Bob Hauck
There aren't very many Republicans to buy in MA, and even fewer that are
worth the money. The only one with any real power is Mitt Romney, and
he'd be pretty expensive.
You can be sure that if this were Texas, Republicans would be being
bought. Tom Delay would be holding an auction at the Sheraton.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the reality-based community.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Erik Funkenbusch
> john_wh...@email.com wrote:
>>>From an article on Groklaw, it sounds like Microsoft's friends on
>> Beacon Hill are getting together to second guess the decision to
>> require Open Document format. There's also an article in the
>> Boston Globe by Hiawatha Bray. Anybody know anything else about
>> this?
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200510261321191
>> http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/10/25/galvin_attacks_software_proposal/
>
> OpenDocument is a no brainer.
I suppose it is, for someone with no brain.
> Anyone who argues against it at this time
> must have a special, suspect and questionable interest.
Oh, of course. Beceause you know EVERYTHING about the format, and all the
applications. Based on your extensive research, you have concluded that
there is no viable reason for anyone to dislike the format.
Other than the fact that there currently isn't any software that supports
it that has adequate ADA compliance. Oh, and other than the fact that the
format doesn't provide all the features that a mature office application
needs. Oh, and other than the fact that 90% of the people out there
ALREADY HAVE AN OFFICE APPLICATION that they may have invested significant
time and resources in learning, not to mention the macros, integrated
solutions (third party programs that use Office, such as Avery label
creation for example), and cost to remove the old application and install
the new on millions of machines.
No, anyone arguing against it MUST be suspect. You're absolutely right.
Nobody could POSSIBLY have real and valid reasons to oppose it.
> If someone is
> arguing against OpenDocument there must be a money trail. Either that
> or he's an idiot who's twisted by those with a money trail. Either way
> it's not good. If he's an idiot he should shut up and stop voicing a
> complaint about things he doesn't understand.
How do you get by in the world when you see everything in only black and
white?
> I annoys how the bastards say OpenDocument will deprive people of
> access to documents. Yeah that really makes sense! OpenOffice=free vs
> MSOffice=~$500. Yeah, it makes sense! The state should standardise on a
> cloased format and require its citizens to pay a corporation hundreds
> of dollars each!
"access" means "Accessible by people with disabilities". There is already
a significant investement in software by people with disabilities to
interface with programs like Office, and Office provides signifcant
features in and of itself.
Federal law requires that government documents be accessible by people with
disabilities. How do you propose that they do this when there aren't any
programs that support OpenDocument that adequately do this?
Linønut
>> OpenDocument is a no brainer.
>
> I suppose it is, for someone with no brain.
Tsk, I guess all our pounding on Erik has prompted him to expose a mean
streak.
The rest of his post is unsupported by any URLs, and some of it isn't
even supported by common sense. In fact, some of it is lies.
john_whitfield
The CIO isn't a political office and the governor -- Mitt Romney -- is
a republican. The ones backing Microsoft -- State Senator Pacheco and
Secretary of State Galvin -- are democrats. The scuttlebutt is that
Galvin is going to try and run for Romney's job in the next election.
Erik Funkenbusch
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> OpenDocument is a no brainer.
>>
>> I suppose it is, for someone with no brain.
>
> Tsk, I guess all our pounding on Erik has prompted him to expose a mean
> streak.
>
> The rest of his post is unsupported by any URLs, and some of it isn't
> even supported by common sense. In fact, some of it is lies.
Perhaps you'd care to elaborate.
Linønut
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:45:59 -0500, Linųnut wrote:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>>> OpenDocument is a no brainer.
>>>
>>> I suppose it is, for someone with no brain.
>>
>> Tsk, I guess all our pounding on Erik has prompted him to expose a mean
>> streak.
>>
>> The rest of his post is unsupported by any URLs, and some of it isn't
>> even supported by common sense. In fact, some of it is lies.
>
> Perhaps you'd care to elaborate.
No, except to note again your mood.
Ray Ingles
>> OpenDocument is a no brainer.
>
> Other than the fact that there currently isn't any software that supports
> it that has adequate ADA compliance.
Microsoft Word doesn't have adequate ADA compliance?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ooo-word-filter
> Oh, and other than the fact that the format doesn't provide all the
> features that a mature office application needs.
Name three.
> Oh, and other than the fact that 90% of the people out there
> ALREADY HAVE AN OFFICE APPLICATION that they may have invested significant
> time and resources in learning, not to mention the macros, integrated
> solutions (third party programs that use Office, such as Avery label
> creation for example), and cost to remove the old application and install
> the new on millions of machines.
Are you referring to Microsoft Office, perchance? Well, even if
Microsoft doesn't support ODF, it looks like others can and will. See
the above link.
> Federal law requires that government documents be accessible by people with
> disabilities. How do you propose that they do this when there aren't any
> programs that support OpenDocument that adequately do this?
Why, by using the programs that *do* support OpenOffice, which you
erroneously assert do not exist.
http://ui.openoffice.org/accessibility/at.html
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"If you knew that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had received a
memo a month before Pearl Harbor entitled, "Japanese Determined
to Attack the United States in the Pacific," and that he had done
nothing about that information, would that knowledge change your
perception of FDR as a wise war leader?" - Jim Pinkerton
Linønut
> On 2005-10-27, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>
>>> OpenDocument is a no brainer.
>>
>> Other than the fact that there currently isn't any software that supports
>> it that has adequate ADA compliance.
>
> Microsoft Word doesn't have adequate ADA compliance?
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/ooo-word-filter
>
>> Oh, and other than the fact that the format doesn't provide all the
>> features that a mature office application needs.
>
> Name three.
>
>> Oh, and other than the fact that 90% of the people out there
>> ALREADY HAVE AN OFFICE APPLICATION that they may have invested significant
>> time and resources in learning, not to mention the macros, integrated
>> solutions (third party programs that use Office, such as Avery label
>> creation for example), and cost to remove the old application and install
>> the new on millions of machines.
>
> Are you referring to Microsoft Office, perchance? Well, even if
> Microsoft doesn't support ODF, it looks like others can and will. See
> the above link.
>
>> Federal law requires that government documents be accessible by people with
>> disabilities. How do you propose that they do this when there aren't any
>> programs that support OpenDocument that adequately do this?
>
> Why, by using the programs that *do* support OpenOffice, which you
> erroneously assert do not exist.
>
> http://ui.openoffice.org/accessibility/at.html
Thanks, Ray. I just didn't have the energy to joust with EF (EFF?
[Erik's FUD Foundation]) this go 'round.
Ray Ingles
>>> Federal law requires that government documents be accessible by people with
>>> disabilities. How do you propose that they do this when there aren't any
>>> programs that support OpenDocument that adequately do this?
>>
>> Why, by using the programs that *do* support OpenOffice, which you
>> erroneously assert do not exist.
>>
>> http://ui.openoffice.org/accessibility/at.html
>
> Thanks, Ray. I just didn't have the energy to joust with EF (EFF?
> [Erik's FUD Foundation]) this go 'round.
No prob. I even forgot to point out that OpenOffice can export to
Microsoft-friendly formats, so whatever ADA-enabled software he likes
can read it. And that there's more than one project to crowbar ODF
support into Microsoft Office, whether Microsoft wants it or not:
http://www.phase-n.com/openopenoffice/
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"If PacMan had affected us as kids we'd be running around in
dark rooms, munching pills and listening to electronic music."
- iso
Ray Ingles
> No prob. I even forgot to point out that OpenOffice can export to
> Microsoft-friendly formats, so whatever ADA-enabled software he likes
> can read it. And that there's more than one project to crowbar ODF
> support into Microsoft Office, whether Microsoft wants it or not:
>
> http://www.phase-n.com/openopenoffice/
Cripes, it's hard to even keep up. Now it appears that Microsoft is
quietly working to add ODF support to its apps:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=2061
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/28/126230
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which
is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man
in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to
investigation." - Herbert Spencer
Linønut
> No prob. I even forgot to point out that OpenOffice can export to
> Microsoft-friendly formats, so whatever ADA-enabled software he likes
> can read it. And that there's more than one project to crowbar ODF
> support into Microsoft Office, whether Microsoft wants it or not:
>
> http://www.phase-n.com/openopenoffice/
And this one:
http://www.clever-age.com/references/interne-plugin-openoffice-pour-word-424.html
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ooo-word-filter/
Linønut
> On 2005-10-28, Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> No prob. I even forgot to point out that OpenOffice can export to
>> Microsoft-friendly formats, so whatever ADA-enabled software he likes
>> can read it. And that there's more than one project to crowbar ODF
>> support into Microsoft Office, whether Microsoft wants it or not:
>>
>> http://www.phase-n.com/openopenoffice/
>
> Cripes, it's hard to even keep up. Now it appears that Microsoft is
> quietly working to add ODF support to its apps:
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=2061
> http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/28/126230
Of course! They have to embrace it before extinguishing it.
Bob Tennent
> Other than the fact that there currently isn't any software that supports
> it that has adequate ADA compliance.
How do you know none of the software that will support it by 2007
will have ADA compliance?
> Oh, and other than the fact that the
> format doesn't provide all the features that a mature office application
> needs.
Features like a patent time-bomb that Microsoft hopes will allow it to
use a government sanctioned monopoly to perpetuate its illegal monopoly?
If there are features that OpenDocument needs, why didn't Microsoft
suggest them to the committee? What is preventing them from doing so
now?
> Oh, and other than the fact that 90% of the people out there
> ALREADY HAVE AN OFFICE APPLICATION that they may have invested significant
> time and resources in learning, not to mention the macros, integrated
> solutions (third party programs that use Office, such as Avery label
> creation for example), and cost to remove the old application and install
> the new on millions of machines.
As if the Office 12 application that supports Microsoft's XML format
will magically replace those current office applications at no cost.
As if third-party applications can't be written for other applications.
> "access" means "Accessible by people with disabilities". There is already
> a significant investement in software by people with disabilities to
> interface with programs like Office, and Office provides signifcant
> features in and of itself.
> Federal law requires that government documents be accessible by people with
> disabilities. How do you propose that they do this when there aren't any
> programs that support OpenDocument that adequately do this?
And nobody can possibly provide those features on any of the applications
that support OpenDocument by 2007?
How pathetic that a company like Microsoft and its apologists have to
resort to rabble-rousing and muck-raising in a desperate attempt to keep
*all* the goodies to itself.
All Microsoft has to do to solve its problem here is to *really*
open up its format or to provide input and output filters to support
OpenDocument.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:29:51 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Other than the fact that there currently isn't any software that supports
> > it that has adequate ADA compliance.
>
> How do you know none of the software that will support it by 2007
> will have ADA compliance?
How do you know that it will?
You can't assume it will. Assuming it won't is the safer option.
> As if the Office 12 application that supports Microsoft's XML format
> will magically replace those current office applications at no cost.
> As if third-party applications can't be written for other applications.
Microsoft always makes free import/export filters available. For example,
you can load Word 2003 documents into Word 95 by downloading a free
conversion filter from MS.
Even so, Office 2003 has XML support today.
> > "access" means "Accessible by people with disabilities". There is already
> > a significant investement in software by people with disabilities to
> > interface with programs like Office, and Office provides signifcant
> > features in and of itself.
> > Federal law requires that government documents be accessible by people with
> > disabilities. How do you propose that they do this when there aren't any
> > programs that support OpenDocument that adequately do this?
>
> And nobody can possibly provide those features on any of the applications
> that support OpenDocument by 2007?
Certainly they could, but Will they?
> All Microsoft has to do to solve its problem here is to *really*
> open up its format or to provide input and output filters to support
> OpenDocument.
And drop all the features in Office that OpenDocument doesn't support, in
effect making it impossible for Office to be any better than OpenOffice.
Linønut
>> And nobody can possibly provide those features on any of the applications
>> that support OpenDocument by 2007?
>
> Certainly they could, but Will they?
Sure, in the newly-competitive market that is emerging.
>> All Microsoft has to do to solve its problem here is to *really*
>> open up its format or to provide input and output filters to support
>> OpenDocument.
>
> And drop all the features in Office that OpenDocument doesn't support, in
> effect making it impossible for Office to be any better than OpenOffice.
Horseshit!
Thomas Wootten
<snip>
>
> And drop all the features in Office that OpenDocument doesn't support, in
> effect making it impossible for Office to be any better than OpenOffice.
You are assuming that more features automatically makes a product 'better'.
that is the MS way and it's fine if you are willing to upgrade your
hardware with most every Office software upgrade.
--
Tom Wootten, Fresher NatSci, Trinity Hall.
oof.trinhall.cam.ac.uk
There was only ever one valid use for the notorious <blink> tag:
Schrodinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> And drop all the features in Office that OpenDocument doesn't support, in
>> effect making it impossible for Office to be any better than OpenOffice.
>
> You are assuming that more features automatically makes a product 'better'.
> that is the MS way and it's fine if you are willing to upgrade your
> hardware with most every Office software upgrade.
I assumed no such thing, but two products with identical feature sets can
only compete on quality of implementation, and if both products have
similar quality there is no way for them to be better than the other.
Features are what differentiate products, and certainly if you need a
feature the other doesn't have, then it's "better".