On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 12:04 +1000, Susan & Wesley wrote:
> >How would we set up this
> > system so that it works and so that we can benefit from the productivity
> > increases that some significant advances in software provide? What are
> the
> > costs and the savings, who would bear the costs and who would benefit from
> > the savings? Would it actually advance social justice in a practical way?
> >...
> > Ann
>
> Thankyou for your comments everyone. Ann raised a couple of questions which
> I think are very relevant, and deserve some consideration.
>
> IMHO it would be a huge call and a massive task for the UC to abandon MS
> completely. I've had a look at a fairly popular web-site to see what the
> main browers and operating systems are used. Out of 1.5 million page views,
> over 85% use Windows, with the next most used is Mac with a little over
> 1.5%. Entirely moving outside of MS would seriously risk isolating the UC
> and possibly reduce the effectiveness of its work.
I wrote about four paragraphs about alternative web browsers and why
open standards have made the web what it is today, only to realize I'd
been distracted by the platform argument and that I needed to get to the
point.
What I should have been doing is responding to the idea that a move away
from Microsoft's products would "seriously risk isolating the UC" and
that the Uniting Church needs to "easily exchange files with one another
within the church (including congregations, church members, community
service facilities, church schools and agencies) and with the
organisations beyond the Uniting Church with which we also work."
This is of course, the point I'm trying to make. Re-read the quotes
above, but don't read church, read "low income", or poor, or under-
class. How ironic. While we in the church continue to use file formats
that require expensive applications to work with, we continue to isolate
those who can't afford such applications. We create artificial
barriers, rather than promoting a environment of contribution, and all,
I suspect, because we are concerned that it might mean changing the
software we use.
One example of why we need to use Word was that "Parliamentary
inquiries ... ask for submissions to be in Word format". So, instead of
questioning why you should have to pay for $600 worth of software to
submit something to parliament, and wondering how the poor might ever
afford to make a submission, we allow our government too create an
artificial barrier, in this case expensive software controlled by a
single organization, instead of promoting communication.
Let me get a little more technical now. When I first made these
comments, a private conversation ensued asking why this was such an
issue since OpenOffice.org was able to use MS Office files. It's a
great question, since it seems to negate my argument that low-income
families are being isolated. The answer is that while OpenOffice.org is
able to read and write MS Office file formats, it's also beholden to
Microsoft not to change these formats, and that as we speak, Microsoft
is in the process of changing to a new file format, this time protected
by patents instead of trade secrets which mean OpenOffice.org may not be
allowed to use the new format.
The next question was what format would we use instead. The answer I
gave to this was:
...lets move the office file format from Offices proprietary
formats to the OpenOffice.org file format which is already
compliant with the OASIS XML-based document format standard.
A wide range of companies and individuals were involved in
developing the OASIS XML-based document format standard with one
notable exception - Microsoft (I wonder why). There is no
(technical) reason why Microsoft can't either participate in the
development of this file format, or use it in their own
products. As far as I'm aware, the only limitation to this
format is that changes must be accepted before they can be used
so that no-one is at a disadvantage (ie, no one company can
embrace and extend the format for their own gain, limiting
compatibility)
So as you see, there are already appropriate solutions to this problem.
Even better, while OpenOffice.org is able to read MS file formats, now
is the time to start moving away from this lock-in.
The reality is that as soon as Microsoft sees people moving away from
their file formats, rather than arguing that it will 'isolate them' they
will be forced to support the format people are using. We wouldn't be
asking Microsoft to go away, we'd be asking them to play fair.
I'm not after a world without Microsoft (some think I am). I'm after a
world without artificial barriers where anyone can contribute.
Rodd
Rodd
------------------------------------------------------
- You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe
insights-l' (ell, not one (1))
See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm
------------------------------------------------------
