Hi :) The UK Government is ostensibly and proudly independent of the US government.
Although the decision appears to have already been made in the US, (to support a US company) the discussion is still open in the UK. Would the US Government have been so quick to support MS if it had been a foreign company? I think that might be one of the crucial differences. MS is foreign to the UK. Hopefully that might make the decision more controversial. Back when MSO 2007 came out there were a LOT of people still using the older versions. OOo and the rest had an opportunity to join forces with them to petition and make a strong stand against using the newer format. For whatever reasons Sun were always shy about promoting OOo and the ODF formats in the USA (and in England). Hopefully if the same thing happened today then TDF would be better positioned to seize such opportunities. Also the UK's consultation document specifically states things like "reduce lock-in to a particular vendor or product". I think if people could write in and address specific points raised in the consultation document. Then it might go someway towards swaying opinion in favour of ODF as used by LibreOffice and OpenOffice and all the rest. Now is the time for action, not for grumbling! Regards from Tom :) --- On Fri, 30/3/12, webmaster-Kracked_P_P <[email protected]> wrote: From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Fw: 'Open' Standards dependant on a single company? To: [email protected] Date: Friday, 30 March, 2012, 14:43 When MSO 2007 first came out and they were the only one that could use .docx formats, the US government started to produce .docx documents for the Library of Congress for public assess for documents. At that time for whatever reason MSO get the US government to REQUIRE the people to upgrade to MSO 2007 if they wanted to read public documents. MS had that much power back then. I wrote a letter to LOC and some other government officials, via email and post-office-mail, about that subject. I stated how much I was concerned that the US government no required their people to buy one company's newest software to access the documents required by LAW to be FREELY ACCESSIBLE. The US government was producing documents that was no longer freely accessible since you were required to buy MSO to use them. Forget the MSO file readers. You need to be able to read/edit/use those government documents. You could not do that for free at that point. The government was breaking its own laws for freedom of information. Now there are other office suites that can read/write .docx files, so it is not as much of a concern. But, the US government needs to realize that there are more vendors out there that can be used for their office suite needs. Yes, having them switch to ODF formats instead of MSO formats would be challenging, but packages like LibreOffice can replace most government users office packages without too many problems. They still will be able to use the .doc and .docx file, along with the spreadsheet and presentation files. Access files may take a little longer to get a Base version usable by both types of users. I really think instead of "open standards", we need "open vendors". Get people to realize that there is more than MSO to be chosen as their office package. THEN we can start getting people to look into ODF as a replacement for MSO's formats. Even MSO is now working to read/write ODF, although not up to any real quality. IF their users started to demand MSO to read/write ODF more that it does now, then "Open Standards" for office file formats will get a real boost. The US government is pushing open source, but I have not seen nay articles about them pushing open source for office packages in the government offices. Just think what savings it would be if instead of buying the newest MSO for 10,000 computers, they install LO's newest business ready version [not 3.5.1 at this point, but 3.4.5/3.4.6]. Even with a discount for volume, Free 10,000 package vs. $50 each for 10,000. That would give those agencies that get the 10,000 LO packages a half-million of monies to use for other things in their limited budgets [ less the cost of helping the user to realize how easy their work is with LO]. This will only work for those who do not use MSO for those complex document needs that less than 0.01% of MSO users seem to need. The average office worker, or at least for those agencies I have worked with, do not do or need to do complex documents. YES we need to get MSO for being the one company in control of the office document formats that most governments use, as well as the people who have to deal with the government agencies. We need to have it in the hands of the community who knows better what they need than one company telling us we need this and nothing else. BUT get the users to realize that MSO is not their only choice for a good office suite than can read/write MSO formatted documents. THEN let them know that there are other formats that are out there that more and more people/businesses/governments world-wide are using successfully instead of what MSO tells us we have to use. We who use Linux, knows what it is like to not be able to read/write documents that were in the newer MSO file formats, till OOo/LO came along, if did not have a Windows machine as well. So we might be more vocal about open documents standards. Windows users need to start being as vocal as some Linux users. If Windows users start demanding open document standards for their individual and business use, the MSO might get the point. If we can get the Windows users to realize that they do not need to use MSO, and they start switching over to LO and not buy the newest MSO offerings, the MSO might take notice. Once you get a user to use LO, it may be an easy step to get them into using an open standard for the documents, instead of MSO's one company controlled standard. That is my opinion. . On 03/30/2012 07:51 AM, Tom Davies wrote: > HI :) > Hmm, ok so i have read the Open Standards Consultation web-page on > http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/open-standards-open-opportunities-flexibility-and-efficiency-government-it > > They claim they want ... > " > Background: The cost of the Government’s IT is > currently too high and needs to be reduced. There is a lack of market > diversity in existing government contracts. A more diverse market and > level-playing field for access to government IT contracts is needed to > improve competition, reduce cost and improve public service outcomes. > > > From a user perspective, it is difficult to transfer information and > data across government boundaries and systems due to a lack of > interoperability between products and services. > > > Citizens, businesses and delivery partners must be able to interact > with the Government, exchanging information/data across in the software > package of their choice and not have access costs imposed upon them by > the IT choices which the Government makes. > > > A lack of interoperability also makes it difficult for the Government > to reuse components, switch between vendors and products or to deliver > efficient public services that leverage the value of government > information, for instance through the provision of interfaces that > allow delivery partners to build on government information services, > delivering more innovative solutions. > > > Government is therefore seeking to: > give citizens and businesses a choice in the software they use when accessing > government information and services reduce lock-in to a particular vendor or > product;reduce the cost of IT through a more competitive and diverse market > and sustained commercial leverage; and improve software interoperability and > sharing of data and documents across government boundaries." > Interestingly the full booklet is only available in English (Uk? or US?) and > only as a Pdf. So, it's probably better to deal with their stated goals > rather than just do a rant or a ramble like mine. In fact now i re-read mine > i'm a bit embarrassed about it. > Regards from > Tom :) > > > > --- On Fri, 30/3/12, Tom Davies<[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Tom Davies<[email protected]> > Subject: Fw: 'Open' Standards dependant on a single company? > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Date: Friday, 30 March, 2012, 12:35 > > Hi :) > I have forwarded a long rambling rant i just sent to the "Open Standards" > agency. Short and sweet might have been better. Please feel free to write > your own or perhaps modify bits of mine. The marketing list had a great post > a few weeks ago from someone in Thailand or Vietnam or somewhere and some of > the comments from that would be superb. > I would really like to see "e-letter" write to them because it's one of the > things he is fantastic at. > Please, even if you don't live in England (or the rest of the UK) or/and are > not English please write in to the "Open Standards" office to express > dissatisfaction about the Microsoft formats. I guess it wouldn't work if > your email address clearly places you in a different country but .com or .org > addresses would be great. > Regards from > Tom > :) > > > --- On Fri, 30/3/12, Tom Davies<[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Tom Davies<[email protected]> > Subject: 'Open' Standards dependant on a single company? > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, 30 March, 2012, 12:24 > > Dear Sirs, > > I heard that an American company is trying to push their exclusive formats as > an "Open Standard". > The format as used in their programs apparently differs according to which > version of their operating system is > being used and which version of their product is used to view the format. >While they have managed to get a format granted ISO status and the format they >use in their programs has the same name it seems there are significant >differences between any of their implementations and the ISO version. Other >companies are kept out-of-the-loop about variances so agreeing to use their >formats means being tied in to constantly buying their latest products. > Interestingly they attempted to do this before with a format called .Rtf (= > "Rich Text Format"). The newer format seemed to magically appear just after > they lost a court-case involving the Rtf format and they have withdrawn >development support for it. > Meanwhile all other programs and office suites continue to happily use the > ODF format that has been an ISO standard for so long. The upgraded 1.2 > version of the ODF standard has recently been released after extensive > testing out in the field with many programs on many different platforms. The > older ODF format will continue to be supported for many years. Most other > programs and office suites allow add-ons that can provide support for > specific formats. Such add-ons are usually maintained by various companies > or individuals. > So, unlike the American company's format the ODF standard does not depend on > a single company to maintain and develop it. If one company withdraws from > developing and supporting it the others carry on and new ones join the > umbrella organisation. > Also from a security > point of view the American company's format makes a lot of noise about >security but keeps getting compromised. Just this week my company has had >trouble with a few machines running their office suite. Microsoft seems to >blame the user after their formats have been compromised and then sell them >their latest product. > By contrast the ODF format has never been compromised out in the wild (ie "in > the field"). Indeed a huge fuss was recently made when someone noticed a > theoretical possibility of a potential problem and a patch applied far before > anyone could take advantage. > Perhaps Microsoft don't keep records of how often their various products get > compromised and so they can claim "there are no problems on record". I would > try google or any other search engine to test the validity of such claims. > Regards from > Tom Davies > -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
