Mass.’ dumb move
September 28, 2005Now that the dust surrounding Mass.’ switch to OpenDocument is settling, it’s time for me to voice my opinion about this. And the OSS zealots ain’t gonna like it.
I find that a government should serve its citizens, instead of the other way round. It should present its information and content in such a way that most of the people can access it. And whether all the OSS zealots like it or not– that means presenting information in formats that Windows users can access with the least amount of hassle.
Now that Mass. has switch to OpenDocument, all Mass. citizens are forced into downloading a new piece of software. That in itself is bad enough, but there’s something far worse: there is no piece of software available for Windows users yet that can read/write OpenDocument! OO.o2 seems to be in perpetual beta (not to mention the lack of developers), StarOffice 8.0 isn’t available yet and isn’t free, and Koffice doesn’t run on Windows yet (all we get is “soon!”). AbiWord is nice, but not half as full-featured as either MS Office or Star/OpenOffice.
So, then, do I support governments that cater only to Windows/MS Office users? No, of course not. What governments and institutions should do is simply supply their information in multiple formats. What’s wrong with supplying information in .pdf? As far as I know, there is a .pdf reader for just about anything that has a chip in it, so it’s accessible to everyone. Now. Not tomorrow, not in beta, but now.
Another advantage of using .pdf is that most people, Linux, Windows, OSX, or whatever, already have a reader. So, you won’t be forcing people to download unstable, untested pieces of software. It’s also rather awkward for companies, who now have to spend extra cash on buying StarOffice. Bad effect on the economy.
In conjuction, governments should release information in other formats too; MS Office formats, OpenDocument, etc. Converting documents isn’t exactly rocket science these days, so this should not pose any problems.
This switch is gonna bite Mass. back in the ass, I’m sure of it. Making descisions based on empty promises of open-nes and freedom is a stupid idea. You should base your descisions on what’s practical.
I am a taxpayer in Massachusetts and I can tell you the majority of us taxpayers are happy, it just seems the rest of the world doesn’t get it. None of us would have to download new software if MS would simply add support for OpenDocument; they can, they just wont and that’s their problem, not ours. Also, pdf IS an acceptable format as well and there are plenty of free pdf converters for about every platform on the planet. OpenDocument gets all the press but pdf is fine as well. Actually the state has been accepting pdfs for years.
Comment by Chris — September 28, 2005 @ 7:33 pm
Chris, there is also nothing wrong on having the State pick the format that it’s most used, and that’s .doc. When MS has the 99% of the market with .doc format, and people HAVE ALREADY bought Office (or pirated it) and OOo and AbiWord DO support it (at least when the layout has a simple form), why does the State of Mass has to FORCE people to download OOo or buy StarOffice? The market’s STANDARD is ALREADY there, and it’s .doc, we like it or not. Having the State decide on a new standard, while the rest of the world still uses .doc is pig-headed.
Yes, in an ideal world, having the OpenDocument as standard would be best, but this is not an idea world we are living in.
As for PDFs, this is not a hugely acceptable format, because it is extremely expensive to buy the Acrobat software (not the Reader, but the Writer). Yes, most companies CAN create PDFs, but individuals can’t (yes, some Linux apps can generate .pdfs, but 99% of the people don’t use Linux). It is fine for the State to DISTRIBUTE .pdf files, but not for the people to send such files TO the state because of the cost involved.
Comment by Eugenia — September 28, 2005 @ 11:01 pm
Eugenia,
There are plenty of free pdf writers for Windows and Mac OS X has built in pdf support—any app can create one. What the state government decided was that official Massachusetts documents have to be an open format and one that is royalty free. Open they define as a format not controlled by a single entity but rather by a group. OpenDocument and pdf both fit this, .doc doesn’t.
Comment by Chris — September 28, 2005 @ 11:55 pm
>OpenDocument and pdf both fit this, .doc doesn’t.
So what if .doc is not an open format? As I explained above, what matters is to get people to send-in documents in a format that their USUAL office suite (MS Office) supports. The important thing here is PEOPLE, not “let’s be jack asses and play it cool and supposedly forward-thinking”.
IF the State of Mass. wanted indeed to have an open format as their standard format, the FIRST thing they should have done is PRESSURE/ASK/BUY-OUT Microsoft to support one. Not because we like Microsoft Office, but because that’s what the *people* are currently using.
And IF the above was not possible, they should DISTRIBUTE FOR FREE OOo or Adobe Acrobat Writer in a CD, in ALL the homes of their citizens, pretty much as they do when they send you the tax bill. Either that, or they should shut the f*ck up, and only support whatever the rest of the world uses: and that’s .doc.
Again, the important thing here is the people, that’s what a public service/group should care-for first, not their IT department’s wim to go all cool and geeky. Asking the people to FIND and install all by themselves an application that supports that new and weird “format” for documents, it is NOT something that my grandmother or my mother would be able to understand or do. If the State wants changes, they should support their decisions the right way to make the lives of their citizens EASIER, not more complicated.
Comment by Eugenia — September 29, 2005 @ 2:21 am