Steven Boothe schrieb: > Christoph Sch?fer wrote: > >> Steven Boothe schrieb: >> >>> Christoph Sch?fer wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> have a look at: >>>> >>>> http://www.mass.gov/portal/site/massgovportal/menuitem.59254d74c0e831c14db4a11030468a0c/?pageID=itdterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Policies%2c+Standards+%26+Legal&L2=Open+Standards&L3=Open+Formats&sid=Aitd&b=terminalcontent&f=policies_standards_opendocformfaqs&csid=Aitd >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Actually suggesting that it was "recommended" is stretching things a >>> bit. It was merely listed as one of many current applications that >>> also support the Open Document Format. None of the applications were >>> recommended over any other. If anything was advocated it was the >>> format of the output, with liberty being given to use "any" >>> application, just as long as the output was Open Document compatible, >>> and even then there were exceptions allowed for issues over >>> accessibility, etc. >>> >>> Just for the sake of clarity I hope that helped. >> >> >> Hi Steven, >> >> you're right in that none of the applications named on the list are >> real recommendations. But it's most important to notice that they are >> _qualified_ for use in MS. With respect to ODF, Scribus seems to be >> the only DTP software that meets Massachusetts' requirements. Since >> Adobe is member of OASIS, I suppose InDesign will follow soon, but the >> fact that scribus has been identified as a product qualified for use >> in public administration is quite encouraging. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Christoph
Hi Steven, > > Hi Christoph: > > I agree it is most encouraging to see it qualified for use, but > unfortunately at present I am fairly certain the computing requirements > make its' use extremely unlikely. Why? Because if you noticed from the > big document format they are moving away from is a Microsoft based > format, which in turn we can be quite sure that they are also running > Microsoft Windows on %99.9 of all their computers. This is the point I > was trying to get at, although in a round about way. If Scribus had been > formally "recommended" it would have right now meant a migration of more > than just another document type, but also would require a much larger, > more painful, and politically charged migration to the Linux operating > system on their desktops in order to run it "out of the box". > > > Thus the inclusion of Scribus in the list of apps is "nice", and indeed > "encouraging", but until either the state of MASS migrates to Linux or > Scribus is available natively as an easy install for windows, the > listing is of little more than marketing value. I think Massachusetts won't change their IT anytime soon. ODF is a format for future Implementations. I don't recall exactly, but I think I have read, MA (thanks to Greg ;: ) may not start before 2007. Moreover, until then, Scribus will be available for Windows as well. > But hey your right, > being mentioned and knowing that it qualifies at output is very good. > Just not likely to be used in the short term due to the OS requirements. > But yes, these are good steps in the right direction to which will > hopefully be many more. That was actually the main point :) > > Cheers, > > Steven Cheers, Christoph
