- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Titch's OpenDocument Straw Man Falls
Titch's Straw ManSteven Titch must be a glutton for embarrassment. First, he writes an article that confuses what few facts it contains. Then, in response to my two articles, one correcting the facts, and the other addressing the difference between fact and fiction, he complains on his blog that I failed to reply to his "central point - that it’s bad policy to mandate open source procurement." He apparently doesn't realize that was exactly the point of my two articles - his central point, which is a straw man, is built on fiction. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts mandated a standardized document storage format implementable by FOSS and non-free software vendors alike. They did not mandate, as he claims, "open source procurement". By using this term, he is attempting to re-frame the debate in terms of FOSS vs non-free software. He thus ignores the fact that, with a freely available, fully documented XML specification, any vendor - including Microsoft - can support the format. This opens the door to increased competition, which in turn, opens the door to reduced costs for customers. Titch is looking for hard financial data. "Nowhere does Parris say how much Massachusetts is going to save, or gain in economic value, from an open source - which is my big question." I'll assume he means an open source program, since OpenDocument is a document storage format standard. How much Massachusetts will save from adopting a FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) application depends on how attractive the pricing on the services offered around it. Interestingly, Andy Updegrove's blog points to the City of Bristol, England, which will save 40% over the next five years by switching from Microsoft Office to Sun StarOffice - including migration, training, etc. Let's Talk CompetitionAgain, Titch misses the point. "...but when a state assigns the power of dogma to what is, bottom line, a vendor’s business strategy, it does an immense disservice to its citizens." Massachusetts is not mandating the use of open source software, but rather a freely available document storage format. Since non-free software vendors are able to implement the OpenDocument Format, his central point is moot. The real question is whether Titch understands that point. If so, it would appear rather disingenuous on his part to raise a straw man, knowing the real issue is something else entirely. Again, Titch argues, "From all signs I think this directive will cost at least as much, and probably more, than a policy that allows state IT administrators to consider all alternatives, including the use of Microsoft software." He never mentions how Microsoft is being prevented from competing - they simply refused to meet the Commonwealth's request. In fact, mandating the use of a standard document format that anyone can implement actually prevents vendor lock-out. Currently, Microsoft has a literal monopoly in the government arena (not to mention pretty much every other arena), with Corel happy to get a few accounts. In my initial letter to Titch, I wrote, "Quinn's decision actually supports allowing any business to compete in Massachusetts - including Microsoft. Hello? Is anyone listening? Microsoft can compete using an OPEN STANDARD. That they seem so obstinate in this regard is to their own detriment, not that of the state, or of their competitors." And Titch thought I failed to reply to his central point. If the Commonwealth had not mandated an open format that allows everyone to compete - including Microsoft's competitors, Microsoft would still be able to keep their competitors effectively locked out of competition. Currently, it is difficult for anyone at all to compete against Microsoft because Microsoft's format is competing with a handicap - it's a patented, undocumented, binary format. And Titch probably doesn't even know that many FOSS developers are still nervous about Microsoft's XML format licensing. The Elephant In Titch's RoomI'll even take the opportunity to address the "elephant in the room" - uptake of OpenDocument. According to Titch's original article, "There is, however, one big problem with this mandate: Very few users have bothered to download the free software to open and read ODF files. OpenOffice.org is not enjoying the reception Firefox has. This fact alone tells us PC users can discern degrees of value among open source alternatives." Really? You mean it doesn't tell us that OpenOffice.org hasn't made the intense marketing effort that Firefox has? Unfortunately, Titch is out of his league here. He probably wouldn't know that unless he paid attention to the OpenOffice.org community. So, here is a senior research fellow embarrassing himself in his own field of expertise by publishing misinformation from who knows what source. Titch even misleads with respect to OpenOffice.org's popularity. According to the latest statistics at OpenOffice.org's website, there have been nearly 63 million downloads of OpenOffice.org. Even accounting for duplicity, that's not exactly "dismal". This doesn't count the copies sold on CD or shared among users. OpenOffice.org probably has close to 10% of the total market share. If we add in the users of Sun StarOffice, KOffice, and IBM Workplace, I would say the number of OpenDocument users is significant. Additionally, several other applications are still implementing the OpenDocument standard, thus opening the future to an even greater number of users. Titch's view of OpenDocument adoption is short-sighted. First, Just because something has not yet been widely adopted does not mean that it will not be soon. How will it be received after it finishes the ISO process, which is nearly complete now? Secondly, There is no mandate anywhere that Massachusetts - or any other entity - has to wait for OpenDocument to be widely adopted. If it is a useful format for storing documents, it certainly needs to be weighed on its merits. The Massachusetts ITD must have found that it meets their needs. So, too, will a number of organizations. The Core IssuesSadly, Titch doesn't argue whether Microsoft's XML format is actually superior, or offer reasons as to why it might be so - which would be the core issue. Instead, he has chosen to address a non-issue - the right of Microsoft to compete in Massachusetts. He doesn't address whether Microsoft's XML license is open enough to quell developers' concerns. He doesn't address the ability of Excel's format to handle varied implementations of spreadsheet calculations. He does not touch on the accessibility issues. All of these have been and are being addressed. Either he doesn't know that Google is his friend, or he doesn't want his audience to understand the real issues. Titch can rail about my zeal for freedom (darned right I am), but he has not given a single reason why Massachusetts citizens should feel any remorse for their ITD's decision. He has instead raised misleading arguments for an issue that doesn't exist. In the end, since both document format standards are likely to be adopted, and there is an ODF plug-in for Office, the competition should become a free-for-all. Massachusetts citizens will get to have their cake and eat it too. That probably is pretty dangerous - for some people. This brings us back to my first two articles. Titch faces a serious credibility problem. He has built up a straw man argument around false information, and missed the core issues of the debate. Either he is unable to discern the central issues at stake in Massachusetts, or he is intentionally confusing the issues. Either he is unable to recognize when someone has refuted his arguments thoroughly, or he is vainly attempting to prop up his straw man. I'll leave that for readers to figure out. Either way, I would have great trouble trusting his opinion on the matter. How's that for bluster? Related Stories
|
LXer Feature: 24-May-06
|
|
Comments (9)
OpenOffice is well known
You're a mean one, Mr. Titch.
There's a neat art lawyers and good pr flacks learn: how to lie without telling lies. It's a matter of framing, misdirection, and simply ignoring the inconvenient. A couple of choice lines: Finally Parris evades completely the big elephant in the room – that the adoption rate of OpenOffice and ODF is dismal. From all signs I think this directive will cost at least as much, and probably more, than a policy that allows state IT administrators to consider all alternatives, including the use of Microsoft software. We see the repeated assertion of ODF = OpenOffice and Microsoft != ODF to support a misrepresentation so blatant that we are forced to abandon polite labels like advocacy, exaggeration, and puffery for the naked truth: he's lying. The Massachusetts IT policy absolutely allows state IT administrators to choose Microsoft software. The policy simply mandates the use of an ISO information-exchange standard. Microsoft is, of course, free to implement the standard, much as it chooses to implement http and html in Internet Explorer. The standard is documented, published, and free of strings. Massachusetts policy provides plenty of time for that. Years ago, Microsoft included import/export for just about every competitive product on the market. ODF support will not overly burden them. Given the fondness some governments have for ISO standards, it might even help them. Alternatively, IT administrators could use tools written by someone other than Microsoft. The ODF Foundation provided just such a plug-in in response to a Massachusetts senator's enquiry. If Microsoft stands fast, Massachusetts businesses might even make a few dollars providing their own alternatives. That is Titch's tripping point, the light to his lie. Technology writer Scott Kirsner used to write a column called @large for the business section of the Boston Globe. His final @large column, which came out around the time that the ODF issue heated up, looked back on changes to the local high-tech economy: Quoted:
When I began writing it, in February 2000, the local tech economy was sizzling. Harvard students were dropping out to build websites, and my first column was about how challenging it was to find affordable office space. ... But nearly six years later, high-tech and biotech are facing big problems both industries have barely begun to address.
Kirsner lamented the state of high tech in a region that gave us, among other things, Digital Equipment and Lotus Software. He noted a tendency for business to eschew innovation, to stick with the tried and the true. That very flight from innovation, of course, is precisely what Titch advocates. Titch scolds: Nowhere does Parris say how much Massachusetts is going to save, or gain in economic value Change costs money. Nobody's denying that. It just does. Massachusetts government will pay a short-term price for this change, just like it's paid a short term price for a multitude of other changes. But the actual cost to the economy will be lower than that because the nature of the changes required imply that much of that money will go to local consulting firms, local IT workers, university grants and the like. Long term potential is always difficult to measure, but who, other than TItch, can imagine that the home of MIT and the Harvard Business School will not benefit from a move that opens up opportunities for internationally marketable business solutions? Kirsner asks the better -- and bigger -- question: Quoted: So what are you doing to help new industries take shape, or to get your kids ready for jobs in those industries?
Titch's reply? In so many words, "Doing my best to prevent it." He prefers Washington software to Massachusetts initiative and hustle. While shedding crocodile tears for Massachusetts taxpayers, he fights to send their money, their opportunities, and their bright young faces flush with the glow of great things yet to come, straight out of town.
It is well worth repeating. It's especially so with the new subject title. :)
I suppose if we could turn back the clock to when AC became the open standard for electricity delivered to homes in the U.S., Mr. Titch would be crying about locking Edison out of the electrical appliance market by adopting that standard. History shows us how disasterous it was to create an open standard for household electricity.
Mr. Titch meet IBM's Lotus Notes
ODF is a format. not an application. If the difference between OpenOffice and Open Document Format confuse you, I would suggest you write for something else. Your obviously not intelligent enough to understand the difference between the 8x11.5 sheet of paper on your desk versus the pen/pencil/printer used to create the contents on that paper.
numbers don't tell the story
I always wondered how do you measure the adoption of open source. I downloaded Openoffice and I made cds for seven people - so how do you count that?
same goes for linux adoption - it might be quite bigger than we all think. I downloaded the latest linux distro and gave it to three other people - how do you count that?
if you are just counting sales then ya microsoft dominates - because you have to pay out of the wasoo for windows and it is not even better - so I don't know what all these people are paying for. easy of use? that subjective - I think linux is easier to use and install than windows any day. so all these are myths created by press that microsoft invites over for lunch.
But it's okay to Dictate Procurement to Parents?
A copy of Microsoft Office 2003 Student and Teacher edition retails for $149.00. This is provided I have a computer that is running Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows XP, or a late model Macintosh. If my computer is more than five years old, I'd be forced to replaced it.
This discriminates against people who choose to run other operating system software. It also discriminates against low-income people who could choose any of several excellent free software packages to do the same paper.
Also, say I decide to write my own operating system software and my own word processing software from scratch. I would be open to litigation if the system I wrote for myself was capable of reading and writing to Microsoft's proprietary formats.
Titch is a shill or..........
You "nailed" it with this, Don!! This IS the crux of it - in totality! Titch is a shill, as he's proved so well on his own without any help. I can't believe he's so ignorant that he couldn't do a better job of research on his own.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Stitch is dreaming. In your dreams, Stitch!