Response to a Deceiving Flawed Logic
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Abe Jan 07, 2006 2:24 PM EDT |
"We have substantial concerns ... with the definition of 'open formats' in the current proposal," wrote Alan Yates, general manager at Microsoft, in the letter. That definition would require adoption of a single format for office documents throughout all state agencies, requiring deployment of a single office application technology, he noted. This statement shows Yates total ignorance of XML and/or his total moronic deceptive thinking. XML is totally flexible to the point where, any application, can be enhanced and adopted to interpret any type of well structured elements by any company. That was and still is the whole idea behind creating a standard to suite any organization and to enable data exchange among any applications running on any platforms. As a matter of fact, the ODF standard can be extended to include even MS Office XML structure. Of course, this would not be the optimal approach since it could result in a standard that is too complicated and cumbersome and consequently defeating the original purpose of XML. What would have been best is for MS, since they were a an original member of OASIS, and to my knowledge still are, to voice their suggestions, recommendation and concerns, if any, from the beginning. They had the chance but, they elected not to. MS devious intentions are becoming obvious and their sleazy tactics are being constantly exposed as they, using their vast financial resources, keep resorting to political pressure. XML is not an application code, it is a data structure standard that is open for use at no cost by any one including MS. So Mr. Yates, how is this restricting state agencies from using any other office applications they select? The established and widely know fact that ODF is supported by many applications furnished by various vendors can not be obscured or ignored. The state is the customer who determined that they will server their citizens best using ODF. MS has to do much better; it needs to fulfill their obligation to their customers by furnishing what their customers require and mandate not the other way around. Customers should have no obligations towards their suppliers other than complying with the terms of a license they agree to. "As such, this unprecedented approach not only prevents impacted state agencies of the Commonwealth from using many critical and well-established technologies but also runs afoul of well-established procurement norms without due consideration for the enormous costs and technical challenges that stem from the proposal," Yates wrote. What do we have here? A vendor dictating to their customer what to do and how to conduct their business? This is a case of outrageously arrogant dictatorship. Implementing ODF shouldn't have any impact on the state agencies if MS would support ODF and as the customer required. A well-established technologies does not mean it is the best. There is always new and better technologies being developed all the time. Established technologies today could be obsolete legacy by tomorrow. How could MS be unbiased in determining what would be more costly to their client when implementing new technologies especially when MS have vested interest in the older technology? It is not up to MS to determine that, it is purely to the state's discretion to analyze, evaluate and determine. There are numerous studies with indisputable evidence that proves that MS Office is more costly than any other. Using common sense and pure tabulation of costs will certainly discredit Yates statement about the cost issue. Take for instance the case of 100 users. The cost of deploying OpenOffice consists of purchasing, converting, training cost. OpenOffice is available for free, $0 as in beer, while MS Office cost ~$250. per license. One time conversion is insignificant since OOo natively supports opening MS Office docs. and saving in ODF. Cost of training for new MS Office 12 is basically the same as OpenOffice if not more involved. And finally support, which in my opinion, MS support is more cumbersome and consequently more costly due to its insecurity, inflexibility and its dependence on other software and tools. Oh yes, some docs have Macros. Well the savings from not paying for the base licenses annually should cover the cost of translating the Macros. Considering that Mr. Yates, how could you determine that other alternative is more costly? That is not all Mr Yates, consider this for multiple years, it becomes very obvious that going with OpenOffice certainly saves much needed funds that could be used for any other projects. Again, MS is leveraging their financial clout to exert political pressure to influence the state's decision. MS must not be allowed to be able to do that. Microsoft stressed that it had shipped an open format in the current version of Office 2003 and planned to focus even more on the issue with the next iteration, Office 12. The company then announced in November that it had decided to open up its Office XML format, submitting its Office 12 XML format specifications to Ecma International to become an open standard. If it wasn't for OpenSource.org ODF, MS wouldn't have even thought of opening their Office format. But are they really truthful about it? Knowing its history, I doubt it. MS would never open up their Office format because they know for sure, if they do, it would spell its demise. They will try to keep their lock-in, some how and no matter what simply because they can't compete in any other way. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!