- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Lots of bluster, but no real reply
|
|
Comments (22)
He seems to be missing something.
"If ODF has value, let it compete without a handicap."
Isn't this what ODF advocates are trying to do. It is an open standard that anyone can implement with out paying a license fee, allow for open competition, rather than the one entity that holds the patent of the standard they have forced on to the market to make money off all of their competitors who try to make something compatible.
ODF advocates are trying to get application providers to compete without a handicap. Microsoft would rather keep the competition between the formats instead, which with the already-present vendor lock-in, they're able to at least postpone the evil (to them) day when they have to compete on the merits of their application.
What point?
Stitch: >"[...] my central point – that it’s bad policy to mandate open source procurement."
That wasn't the point Stitch tried to make. He tried to confuse open source with open standards.
That is the same deliberate twisting of reality tried by Alan Yates and every other Microsoft flunky since Massachusetts decided their citizens are more important than Microsoft's maintenance of a monopoly.
Now Stitch wants to try to rearrange history to suit a new argument. It's like trying to nail noodles to a squid.
That wasn't the point Stitch tried to make. He tried to confuse open source with open standards.
That is the same deliberate twisting of reality tried by Alan Yates and every other Microsoft flunky since Massachusetts decided their citizens are more important than Microsoft's maintenance of a monopoly.
Now Stitch wants to try to rearrange history to suit a new argument. It's like trying to nail noodles to a squid.
>It's like trying to nail noodles to a squid.
And you know this because......? :^)
And you know this because......? :^)
> And you know this because......?
That's a fair question, Grouch. Is this another hobby of yours? Retirement sure sounds fun!
That's a fair question, Grouch. Is this another hobby of yours? Retirement sure sounds fun!
What kind of crazy bunch are you folks, anyway? You act like it's an unusual pastime or something. Have you no respect for traditions?
There's just nothing like the family reunion around the old wooden rain barrel. Dunking the wee ones head first to let them catch the holiday squid; watching the tears of joy in their dear mothers' eyes as they gurgle and splutter back to consciousness; prying the squid's tentacles loose from their pudgy little hands and arms.
The nailing of the noodles is the most delightful, sharing part of all! I've seen squid so enthusiastic that every uncle, cousin, aunt and guest took a turn before finally getting it properly decorated and attached to the roasting log. Nothing brings extended family close quite like comparing blood blisters and exchanging tips on how not to split the thumb with the hammer nor split the noodle with the nail.
I just can't believe there are no noodle-nailers among you.
There's just nothing like the family reunion around the old wooden rain barrel. Dunking the wee ones head first to let them catch the holiday squid; watching the tears of joy in their dear mothers' eyes as they gurgle and splutter back to consciousness; prying the squid's tentacles loose from their pudgy little hands and arms.
The nailing of the noodles is the most delightful, sharing part of all! I've seen squid so enthusiastic that every uncle, cousin, aunt and guest took a turn before finally getting it properly decorated and attached to the roasting log. Nothing brings extended family close quite like comparing blood blisters and exchanging tips on how not to split the thumb with the hammer nor split the noodle with the nail.
I just can't believe there are no noodle-nailers among you.
Well grouch, You have to admit that Squidlovian's and their descendants are not well represented in our society. Few are aware of their rich heritage, their unique customs, or other major contributions to our society. Luckily you are here to enrich our knowledge of this quaint Squidlovian custom.
Wow. As the druggies would say, that was some trip. Squidlovians are a fading culture.
A powerful blast of hot air carried us away and we landed in some kind of crazy institution where the walls were all soft and squishy but all the windows had bars. There were Lyons and Titches and Ballmers, oh my! Gates were everywhere but none would open. Chairs and plastic grass in astronaut suits were flying through the air.
Nothing was as it should be; everything was illusion and fear. Words were everywhere, but no one could use them because each word would magically redefine itself.
NoDough, you were there! They took your leg and threw it over there, then they nailed a parrot to your shoulder and glued a patch over one eye. They made you walk a plank because you had no dough!
jimf was there, surrounded by flying, infected jpegs! Each time he created one, it turned into a diseased monster and tried to destroy the others!
dinotrac was there but wasn't dinotrac. He was some evil green thing in a suit and had no heart, but was all chin! He kept ranting in the voice of Boris Karloff that freedom was an un-Constitutional cancer that would destroy capitalism and apple pies!
D.C.P.! D.C.P.! You were there, trying to stick a fork in some squirmy stuff that kept slithering between the prongs!
Through the tangles and traps and twisting words, from a hole in the soft walls, came a chorus :
"But when Quinn the Eskimo gets here, All the pigeons gonna run to him. Come all without, come all within, You'll not see nothing like the mighty Quinn."
As we ran up the grove toward the singing, we finally grokked that the distortions, redefinitions and mangling of our standards of communication can stall man's quest for freedom for the individual.
From that heartless institution of failure, unease and dubiety came a parting, whining shriek as we scattered in our various ways into the light, "I'll get you little GNUbies, and your little tuxchick, too!"
I never want to go back to such a horrid place.
A powerful blast of hot air carried us away and we landed in some kind of crazy institution where the walls were all soft and squishy but all the windows had bars. There were Lyons and Titches and Ballmers, oh my! Gates were everywhere but none would open. Chairs and plastic grass in astronaut suits were flying through the air.
Nothing was as it should be; everything was illusion and fear. Words were everywhere, but no one could use them because each word would magically redefine itself.
NoDough, you were there! They took your leg and threw it over there, then they nailed a parrot to your shoulder and glued a patch over one eye. They made you walk a plank because you had no dough!
jimf was there, surrounded by flying, infected jpegs! Each time he created one, it turned into a diseased monster and tried to destroy the others!
dinotrac was there but wasn't dinotrac. He was some evil green thing in a suit and had no heart, but was all chin! He kept ranting in the voice of Boris Karloff that freedom was an un-Constitutional cancer that would destroy capitalism and apple pies!
D.C.P.! D.C.P.! You were there, trying to stick a fork in some squirmy stuff that kept slithering between the prongs!
Through the tangles and traps and twisting words, from a hole in the soft walls, came a chorus :
"But when Quinn the Eskimo gets here, All the pigeons gonna run to him. Come all without, come all within, You'll not see nothing like the mighty Quinn."
As we ran up the grove toward the singing, we finally grokked that the distortions, redefinitions and mangling of our standards of communication can stall man's quest for freedom for the individual.
From that heartless institution of failure, unease and dubiety came a parting, whining shriek as we scattered in our various ways into the light, "I'll get you little GNUbies, and your little tuxchick, too!"
I never want to go back to such a horrid place.
apple pies and capitalism....mmmmmmmmmmm!!!!
grouch,
I didn't understand a word of that! Have you been taking lessons from Titch?
...and somebody get this $%^@#$ parrot off my shoulder!
I didn't understand a word of that! Have you been taking lessons from Titch?
...and somebody get this $%^@#$ parrot off my shoulder!
NoDough:
Sorry. I tried to figure out how a standard for a document file format dictates to a government that it must purchase software that can be freely downloaded, and my mind blew a fuse. I got sucked into that crazy world of continuously redefined words, for a while.
Sorry. I tried to figure out how a standard for a document file format dictates to a government that it must purchase software that can be freely downloaded, and my mind blew a fuse. I got sucked into that crazy world of continuously redefined words, for a while.
grouch:
..and your little dog, too?
..and your little dog, too?
dinotrac:
It scares me when you start talking about little dogs. You're not going to pull that strange heart restart ritual again, are you?
BTW, in case I didn't tell you already, I really enjoyed your "Comment of the day". You had two lines in there that concisely cover the entire issue of Microsoft's disingenuous whining:
"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."
It scares me when you start talking about little dogs. You're not going to pull that strange heart restart ritual again, are you?
BTW, in case I didn't tell you already, I really enjoyed your "Comment of the day". You had two lines in there that concisely cover the entire issue of Microsoft's disingenuous whining:
"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."
Wear the badge with pride.
It's official. I'm a zealot now. Per Steven Titch, Senior Fellow, The Heartland Institute. - dcparris
In other words, you are not gullible, you are not easily corruptible and you dare to fight for a cause you believe in, instead of just waving the white flag.
Calling anyone a zealot these days means you can't handle the merit of their words and actions and you can't refute their statements.
In other words, you are not gullible, you are not easily corruptible and you dare to fight for a cause you believe in, instead of just waving the white flag.
Calling anyone a zealot these days means you can't handle the merit of their words and actions and you can't refute their statements.
In fact, he admitted to screwing up one fact. Aside from the question of intent or ineptitude, he still missed the implications of the other important facts he failed to acknowledge. For instance, if Microsoft is capable of implementing ODF, then his whole point is moot.
And, of course, in spite of complaining that people don't answer his points, he provides no means to do so. At least he provided a link to LXer so that people can read the responses here.
Which is perhaps fortunate for him, as his "central point", "that it’s bad policy to mandate open source procurement" is a complete straw man. The Massachusetts law does nothing of the kind. It only mandates the use of standard storage formats. Whether a particular vendor chooses to implement those formats is up to them.
Oh, and DC, you work for an overtly Linux and FOSS oriented site. Obviously you're the unacknowledged result of a liason between the children of Stalin and Mao. :)
Which is perhaps fortunate for him, as his "central point", "that it’s bad policy to mandate open source procurement" is a complete straw man. The Massachusetts law does nothing of the kind. It only mandates the use of standard storage formats. Whether a particular vendor chooses to implement those formats is up to them.
Oh, and DC, you work for an overtly Linux and FOSS oriented site. Obviously you're the unacknowledged result of a liason between the children of Stalin and Mao. :)
> Obviously you're the unacknowledged result of a liason between the children of Stalin and Mao. :)
Excellent jdixon!
Great to finally know that Don, a retired US Marine, and now a Reverend, is really the Red Menace. Now the world makes sense.
Excellent jdixon!
Great to finally know that Don, a retired US Marine, and now a Reverend, is really the Red Menace. Now the world makes sense.
Open Document Format is NOT Open Source *twitch*
Is it my imagination or does this author *not* understand that ODF has nothing to do with *OPEN SOURCE*. There is NO source. ODF is a document format. A way of putting a piece of documentation together. Like that horrible open format (note the lower case "o" and "f", it's a description) XHTML... I repeat, no source.
Is he under the impression that "JavaScript" is a child of Sun because it has Java in the name? I've heard you can use similar words to describe things in English.
Lying in your very first paragraph is an excellent way to start a rant. Giving this air time recalls my recent thoughts on giving false statements equal time from some twisted sense of objectiveness to mind. Next we'll give the flat-world society vocal equality with those round worlders.
Sorry if that's a bit rant-like. I'm going to go get a nice glass of water and forget I read that before I get twitchy.
Is he under the impression that "JavaScript" is a child of Sun because it has Java in the name? I've heard you can use similar words to describe things in English.
Lying in your very first paragraph is an excellent way to start a rant. Giving this air time recalls my recent thoughts on giving false statements equal time from some twisted sense of objectiveness to mind. Next we'll give the flat-world society vocal equality with those round worlders.
Sorry if that's a bit rant-like. I'm going to go get a nice glass of water and forget I read that before I get twitchy.
Oh, and great coverage dcparris.
Your posts and Andy Updegrove over at Consortiuminfo.org have kept me pretty up on the whole ODF/Mass thing.
Your posts and Andy Updegrove over at Consortiuminfo.org have kept me pretty up on the whole ODF/Mass thing.
You're more than welcome. See my upcoming reply in the morning. :-)
Hey, that's *my* twitch!
The main thing I've seen wrong with both his articles is that he argues about open source. It seems most of his diatribe is against "shutting out" Microsoft and mandating "open source" (which to him equates to IBM). Teach him that the fundamental premise in his argument is flawed--that Open Document Format, though OpenOffice supports it, is an open *standard*. Standards are necessary in any business.
The decision in Massachusetts is about a *standard* and doesn't mandate anything about the product that produces it. One has the choice to use whatever program one chooses to produce the document. Only the final document format is dictated as Open Document Format. It's not dictating *open source*, but an *open standard*.
If you want to drive the point home, you might even take up the argument that for Massachusetts to dictate the use of OpenOffice would be just as bad as dictating MS Office. The situation isn't about dictating the means, just the end. Dictating any means would be wrong. The end, though, is another matter.
If we want the documents to be available to all, dictating an *open* standard as the end is necessary. Then all are freely able to use any means possible to reach the openly defined end. An end that is not openly defined (the definition of the end is freely available) would be wrong in that it effectively shuts out two groups.
The first would be those wanting to enter into the competition in the production end without access to the definition of the standard. The second group would be those who wanted to be on the receiving end (i.e. those wanting to read the documents) without access to the select group of programs (those that had access to the standard's definition) to produce a means to decode the format.
If you want, you could even pull in the related area of Free Trade versus trade barriers. Mostly, the US has stood for free trade and not for artificial barriers thinking that free trade promotes good competition and progress. This whole thing in Massechusetts is basically knocking down artificial trade barriers by giving everyone access to the goal.
How many would think it fair to hold a competition (race) where only half of those who entered would know the exact definition of the goal (the finish line)? This whole thing is about giving everyone free access to know the finish line of the race.
I, personally, wouldn't go much farther in my rebuttal. Leave all the rest as periphery. The rest isn't necessary to the argument, because it comes from a flawed premise.
The main thing I've seen wrong with both his articles is that he argues about open source. It seems most of his diatribe is against "shutting out" Microsoft and mandating "open source" (which to him equates to IBM). Teach him that the fundamental premise in his argument is flawed--that Open Document Format, though OpenOffice supports it, is an open *standard*. Standards are necessary in any business.
The decision in Massachusetts is about a *standard* and doesn't mandate anything about the product that produces it. One has the choice to use whatever program one chooses to produce the document. Only the final document format is dictated as Open Document Format. It's not dictating *open source*, but an *open standard*.
If you want to drive the point home, you might even take up the argument that for Massachusetts to dictate the use of OpenOffice would be just as bad as dictating MS Office. The situation isn't about dictating the means, just the end. Dictating any means would be wrong. The end, though, is another matter.
If we want the documents to be available to all, dictating an *open* standard as the end is necessary. Then all are freely able to use any means possible to reach the openly defined end. An end that is not openly defined (the definition of the end is freely available) would be wrong in that it effectively shuts out two groups.
The first would be those wanting to enter into the competition in the production end without access to the definition of the standard. The second group would be those who wanted to be on the receiving end (i.e. those wanting to read the documents) without access to the select group of programs (those that had access to the standard's definition) to produce a means to decode the format.
If you want, you could even pull in the related area of Free Trade versus trade barriers. Mostly, the US has stood for free trade and not for artificial barriers thinking that free trade promotes good competition and progress. This whole thing in Massechusetts is basically knocking down artificial trade barriers by giving everyone access to the goal.
How many would think it fair to hold a competition (race) where only half of those who entered would know the exact definition of the goal (the finish line)? This whole thing is about giving everyone free access to know the finish line of the race.
I, personally, wouldn't go much farther in my rebuttal. Leave all the rest as periphery. The rest isn't necessary to the argument, because it comes from a flawed premise.
Lies, damned lies, and James Carville smiles as he lies.
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:
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:
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.
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:
Quoting: 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:
Quoting: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.
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:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post