An open reply to Mr. Titch

"A Massachusetts directive that mandates use of an open source software format for electronic document storage marked a major victory for the open source movement." First of all, ODF is not an open source software format. Its only tie to open source is that two implementations have been released as open source. At least two more implementations have been released as closed source, commercial products (from Sun and IBM), and there are promises of more to follow. ODF is not an "open source software format", it is an "open standard format".

"It remains to be seen, however, whether the order will benefit the state's agencies and employees or save taxpayers money." The origin of the Open Formats standard was not about saving money with open source software. It was about saving the property of taxpayers, documents generated by their government, so it would always be available to anyone, at any point in the future. An open standard format guarantees that there can always be software that will use that format, whether the company with the founding implementation is still around or not. ODF was selected by Massachusetts last November for office documents because, during the time spent preparing the decision, it was the only open standard format available. An important by-product of open standards is that they introduce competition in the marketplace, which will lead to better products for lower prices, thus potentially saving taxpayers money. As long as the undocumented Microsoft Office format, either binary or XML, remains the de facto standard, there can be no true competition and Microsoft can set the price where they desire.

"Unlike proprietary software...the authors of open source software have elected to waive collection of any copyright or license fee." License fee, yes, copyright, no. Open source software is copyrighted, but it is released under a license, such as the GPL, that allows use of the software without a fee. However, since the subject of this article is the selection of ODF, we are debating open standards vs. closed de facto standards, and open source is a totally unrelated subject, so I will not dwell on it.

"At the same time, where there is product choice, especially in technology, informed evaluation is essential. One size rarely fits all. It's dangerous for governments to legislate or dictate procurement decisions." Amen! I would have been proud to write this. It explains very succinctly why we must replace a Microsoft-only procurement guideline with a guideline that guarantees competition - from IBM, Sun, Corel (maybe), and even Microsoft if they want to still be involved. With multiple vendors competing equally, each agency can choose the product that best meets their needs.

"Last November, Peter J. Quinn, Massachusetts' Chief Information Officer, ordered the use of Open Document Format (ODF), the format for documents, spreadsheets, and presentations used by OpenOffice.org, an open source competitor of Microsoft Office. The strengths and weaknesses of OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office make for great debate in IT circles--a debate Quinn stifled with his sweeping mandate." Once again Mr. Titch is confused on the debate that occurred in Massachusetts. ODF vs. Open XML (as it is now called by Microsoft) != OOo vs. MSO.

"Starting in 2007, all documents created by the state, including all those posted on the state's Web site, must be in ODF format. This is being done, we are told, to ensure "interoperability" across multiple software platforms and avoid vendor "lock-in," principally to Microsoft Office. 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." "Find in this page" in Firefox could not find any reference to PDF in your entire article. Yet, PDF is the preferred format I have seen at any government web site for downloadable files, and will still be permitted under the new guidelines in Massachusetts. ODF is only necessary, and indeed only suitable, when the person receiving the document needs to make modifications (beyond what form capabilities allow in PDF). I don't think any users will find themselves needing OOo to read files from the Massachusetts web site.

"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." Even though you have forgotten, or not realized, that OOo is not the only suite available to Massachusetts, your comparison brings up some interesting points. The web was created based on an open standard, and any browser that follows that standard should be able to compete on a level playing field. Microsoft upset the playing field by inducing web developers to use proprietary extensions to the standard that only Microsoft's product knew how to handle. Mozilla spent years playing catch-up to Internet Explorer. Finally with the release of Firefox 1.0, users had utility and experience as good as or better than IE offered. As more users gravitated to Firefox, web developers paid attention and began dropping Microsoft's proprietary extensions. Now nearly the only reason to stick with IE, beyond visiting the few lone sites that still require it, is a personal preference to continue battling spyware and viruses on a daily basis. Star Office has also spent years playing catch-up to MSO, but I believe only with the relatively recent release of OOo 2.0 did it reach a level where the majority of office suite users, including this long-time WordPerfect suite user, could make a complete switch. However, OOo does such a good job at dealing with MSO documents (binary format only at this time) that many people who need to share documents resort to using the MSO format rather than the superior ODF format. As more users make the switch to OOo or some other suite that supports the ODF format, we will see more exchanging open standard ODF documents, just as we now are seeing more open standard web sites.

Another point related to your comment. Compared to Firefox, OOo is a huge download, especially for those with a slow connection. Because of this, those who need to install it on multiple computers are far more likely to download it once and save it locally, while many will download Firefox repeatedly at each computer that needs it installed. Like any free software, it is almost impossible to get a complete count of users for OOo. You may know many OOo users that send you documents in MSO format because they know that is what you use. I challenge you to try using OOo for one month, and to invite everyone with whom you exchange documents to do the same.

"In addition, as legislators in other states mull similar open source mandates..." Similar to what? Once again I would like to remind you that an ODF mandate has nothing to do with open source.

"While Microsoft has a strategic interest in the choice of Windows and Microsoft Office, companies like IBM have a similar strategic interest in the choice of open source. The Massachusetts law tilts state procurement heavily toward vendors like IBM...", that is multiple vendors who have chosen to support the ODF standard, and tilts away from a single vendor with one proprietary format. Sounds good for the consumer to me. For the moment I will ignore the fact that you persist in using the term "open source" instead of "open standard" in a subject that does not involve open source.

While it has nothing to do with the ODF debate and should not be discussed in the same article, I will not argue with the point that many companies (including, but not exclusively, IBM) are swinging towards a model of giving away software and selling support. This has been well documented in recent news articles. To me, this makes much more sense for the consumer. If there are multiple programs that may work for you, you can try out each of the free programs at no cost and determine which is best in your situation. Then you can purchase the level of support that is fitting for your situation, or, like the company I work for, you can decide to depend mostly on support from your own IT staff and the free software community.

"The key procurement choice is whether the state's IT organization will commit to a long-term product path with companies like Microsoft, or a long-term consulting path with companies like IBM." No, the key procurement choice is whether the state's IT organization will commit to a long-term product path with only Microsoft, fully dependent on the continued existence of Microsoft and their non-existent track record of supporting old file formats, or a long-term path of choosing the best product from multiple companies, with different costs and support options.

"The sweeping, pre-emptive policy devised by the former Massachusetts CIO, unfortunately, prevented any of the state's other IT decision-makers from making any long-term evaluation..." I would strongly advise that you research the timeline for this decision. Massachusetts spent nearly a year seeking feedback from vendors and other interested parties before it announced its decision. All of the research done has been made available on the web, so anybody, including the state's other IT decision-makers, can review it and see for themselves how comprehensive it is. No, this was not a policy dropped suddenly on the state by any single man with no outside input.

"... and dangerously assumes the open source path will always be less expensive and more user-friendly." Once again you persist in using "open source" instead of "open standard". I would like to refer you to the beginning of my reply where I address the real reasons for their choice.

"IT officials in Massachusetts--along with the thousands of state employees who are being asked to implement and learn new software, not to mention the state's taxpayers, who may get stuck with a huge IT consulting bill--may end up ruing this policy." Or the thousands of state employees can be asked to implement and learn new Microsoft Office software next year, with a new interface, new file format, and a monopolistic price tag, and a future generation of state's taxpayers, who live in a world where there is no Microsoft, will rue the fact that nobody ever stood up for the long-term preservation of government documents.

Now that you realize, I hope, that the majority of your article had nothing to do with the original subject, I want to make sure you also realize that Microsoft has finally come to agreement with Peter Quinn. It was after his final decision to use open standard formats was announced in November that Microsoft began the process of making their own new XML format an open standard. Even though I believe that the ODF format is still far superior to the Open XML format (the reasons would take another whole article, but have been well addressed by Andy Updegrove and others), and that it will take the continued monopolistic practices of Microsoft for them to retain a majority of the market, nobody can argue that Microsoft still believes this is just a battle against open source, or that open standards are always a bad thing.

DISCLAIMER: I am part of the IT department for a rural electric cooperative, not located in Massachusetts, which uses open source and open standards wherever it is feasible. I have no ties to Massachusetts, and all information I have presented here has been gleaned from articles written by both sides of the debate for over a year.