Skip to main content

Massachusetts: a simple prophecy

Having failed to snow the technical people involved, Microsoft are working hard to snow politicians into believing that some great calamity will arise as a result of the State of Massachusetts electing to exclusively use the OpenDocument standard for all of their documents.

The usual lies about excluding fair competition (the reality being only that Microsoft have been thwarted in their attempts to dominate) and conversion issues (the reality is that future versions of MS-Office will be just as prone to conversion issues; have you tried to open an MS-Word 5.0 document with MS-Word XP?) abound, but the key issue is: will the politicians be fooled enough to overturn the State’s decision?

If the answer is “No”, speculation will then turn to Microsoft’s reaction. In the past, they’ve not been shy to use the courts or powers like the US Trade people (and didn’t the Latino countries just love that little manoeuvre?) to force recalcitrant markets to march to Microsoft tunes, but that is unlikely to be a good option here. So what will they do?

My prognostication is:

They will kick and scream until shortly after it obviously isn’t going to work any more, then they’ll announce that they’ve been reluctantly forced to put an enormous amount of work into supporting OpenDocument in time for MS Office v13. That support will be broken.

There will be subtle differences in their files which will occasionally break OpenOffice, or result in their documents not formatting properly when opened in it. The differences will include metadata which is already covered by the standard, but which they will store differently. Their apps will also read their own version of OpenDocument better than the standard. They will complain that supporting the standard is hard, and that everyone else’s applications are producing broken files. They will (falsely) claim that MS-Office’s native formats don’t have such issues. So far, business as usual.

However, this is an open format, and the exact nature of their tricks will be relatively easy to discover and explain. It will become obvious to anyone of a technical bent that the leopard has not changed his spots, nor the Ethiopian his skin [micro-digression: what’s wrong with leopard spots or melanin-enhanced skin, anyway? I would like some (melanin, not spots) myself]

Microsoft will then raise a big cloud of bulldust around the issue, both to muddy the waters as far as the deliberate nature of their tricks is concerned (antitrust, anyone?) and to generate some primary FUD as regards OpenDocument with a view to frightening off other state offices.

Korea will note this and hastily move to drop all Microsoft products at all levels of government. Other countries may follow suit. Nobody likes to be bullied or snowed.

Comments

Tony Fisk said…
Microsoft are working hard to snow politicians into believing that some great calamity will arise

Oh prophet: check out this Groklaw article
Leon RJ Brooks said…
Thanks, Tony. I guess I’ll go and order a big swag of camel-hair and a loom now.

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...