I am sure most people don't find that headline very surprising. It may be worth while to note the "article" is actually a guest editorial in the "views" section. The writer is not a Fox News columnist. The author is Jim Prendergast, the executive director of Americans for Technology Leadership. From the slant of that article I am guessing that organization is one that spouts praise for Microsoft and attacks Open Source all in the name of well paid research.
The OpenDocuments format is an OASIS approved document format that anyone is welcome to support. Choosing to standarize on OpenDocument supporting applications is like choosing to use applications that suppport XML or other standardized formats. It is not lockin to a specific vendor. While the article does raise what might appear to be good points it misses the whole objective. First of all it claims the decision circumvents the "merit-based procurement process", which is totally false. The state has decided to standardize on an open format that has free tools available for all to use while interacting with the state. As a government agency providing a free way for citizens to interact with them seems like a good policy.
They are still open to the merit-based procurement process and bids and proposals. Microsoft, or anyone else (including "mall state-based systems integrators") could choose to support the OpenDocument format and they may win the state contract.
I think government agencies that standardize on a closed and proprietary format that forces citizens to buy overpriced software just to interact with them is providing a public disservice. What if I am using Linux or some other platform that doesn't run Microsoft Word? Or what if I don't own a copy of Office? Should I be required to purchase a platform that runs office, and then purchase office just to interact with the government?
What if the state standardized on Bill and Ted's Excellent Office Suite because it was the absolutely fastest performer, uses the least memory, and they got a great deal. The only bad news is it uses a propritary file format that can only be read by this specific suite. Sure the state got an incredible deal because they purchased so many coppies, but if an individual wants to create or view one of these documents then it will cost them $5000 because it only runs on a specific operating system that only runs on specialized hardware. Is that doing the public a service?
OpenOffice and StarOffice are big supporters of the OpenDocument format and they alos provide excellent interoperability with Microsoft Office. In fact, they provide better interoperability then Microsoft Office, opening more formats of Office documents then even Microsoft Office does. A fact conveniently neglected in the opinion piece.
Interestingly the piece also says that:
In many cases, new technologies will have to be purchased even when current systems are fully functional. In other words, taxpayers will be paying duplicative costs.
But then later says "Microsoft keeps expanding into XML and metadata"
So the author is advocating the state upgrade to the latest Microsoft Office product, and pay all the additional duplicative (replacement) and training costs associated with that. But the author has a problem if the state wants to move in an open direction that could save money on licensing (up front and over the long run) and provide greater accessibility by standardizing on a tool that supports the OpenDocument format.
It sounds to me like the author owns MSFT stock and wants to see his portfolio improve more then he wants to encourage open accessibility to government technology.
He also falsely states that OpenOffice and StarOffice don't support assistive technologies. He obviously didn't research any since both StarOffice and OpenOffice have extensive accessibility features.
He does not the exception granted PDF, but I believe that is rightfully so. Adobe provides a free viewer for most all platforms, and they provide the useful feature that the document can be formatted on one machine and then printed identically on any other machine. I thought it was interesting that the author points out that "How confident can Adobe and others be that the government won't later change their minds and suddenly deny the exemption?" Isn't that the nature of government contracts? If a better, cheaper, more accessible alternative comes along, then the contract is awarded to a new vendor. It would appear the author doesn't believe in "free market competition" after all.
Tags: [Standards] [Microsoft] [OpenDocument] [Government] [Bias]
No comments:
Post a Comment