Skip to main content

Hopefully open? What turkey would trust GreedyMegaCorp Inc on that one?

Here, we discover that “Adam Jansen, a digital archivist for the state of Washington [...] and his IT team completed a three-year [USD$1.5M] project to create an open-systems-based archive management center for the state of Washington”.

So far so good. But then we discover that “Washington spent US$1 million more on a joint development project with Microsoft, which is helping the state create what it hopes will become an open format” — the glinga-a-ling-a-ling of alarm bells start sounding — and “Jansen says he is considering using Microsoft’s Office 12 and its new XML-based file format as a standard archiving format in the future”.

OK, so how many joint development programs has Microsoft run? And how many of them have resulted in truly open standards, vs how many of them have wound up either with a patent millstone around their necks, delayed until they’re obsolescent, or “adopted” and violated?

Consider that right now, Microsoft is stalling the TPM standards for all they’re worth until Longhorn Shorthorn Vista Windows 2006 (whatever it’s finally called) is released, so that they don’t have to make it comply [and if you’re planning on using it, dwell on what the panic to get it out the door will do to quality and reliability]. Consider that MS-Office’s “open” XML document formats contain arbitrary Microsoft-specific binary junk. Look back on what MS-FrontPage (and MS-Word) did to HTML.

Phrases like “butterfly in a blast furnace” come to mind when considering the chances of an MS-spawned format ever being truly open. One also has to wonder what other Microsoft-specific tarpittage those quasi-XML files are wrapped in.

Right now, today, the OASIS document format is available, does everything (useful) that Microsoft’s bastard child of sin does, and is completely, truly open and unencumbered.

If I suckered the Western Australian government into an archival project based on handing control over to a proprietary file format beclonging to a rich and notoriously greedy and controlling corporation that said corporation “hoped” would one day become a standard, somebody would be politically hung, drawn and quartered for it. Why should Washington be any different?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...