Gnubuntu
Mark Shuttleworth mentioned a few days ago on the Ubuntu mailing list that the Ubuntu folks were interested in developing a version of Ubuntu that contains only software deemed by the Free Software Foundation to be "free." Shuttleworth mentions that they might collaborate with Ututo, an Argentinian Linux distribution that includes only free software (English description of project).
I was curious about how much non-free software was included in Ubuntu, so I installed the virtual Richard M. Stallman, or vrms (which sounds like a joke, but is not):
sudo apt-get install vrms
vrms took the liberty of not only installing, but also adding itself as a monthly cron job-- reminds me of the real RMS: irritating but right.
It turns out that my Ubuntu server is pure-- free software only-- but my desktop machine has the Sun JDK, Opera, RAR, and XMame. The first three I don't actually use, but with regards to XMame, I will confess that I like Zaxxon. In my defense, by the time I was old enough to have quarters, Zaxxon had been replaced by NBA Jams, or some other irritating business.
I suspect that vrms is not as particular as the real RMS, as I have installed the w32 codecs and the gstreamer mp3 decoder on my desktop machine. I thought those are both non-free. Maybe the iPodLinux people will get ogg working on generation 4 ipods soon. It's believed to be possible, as the gen 4 has the faster PortalPlayer 5020 processor.
Microsoft plans to submit Office 12 formats to ECMA
According to a report at PC World, Microsoft is planning to submit the XML formats it will use in Office 12 to the European Computer Manufacturer's Association (ECMA) for approval. PCWorld mentions tha Massachusetts ODF controversy and quotes Alan Yates of Microsoft: "We have a few barriers [with government contracts]," says Alan Yates, general manager for Microsoft Office. "It will give governments more long-term confidence." Yates was the man who wrote Microsoft's initial response to Massachusetts' new policy.
The Financial Times has an article that frames the move as a response to a "concern raised by the European Union executive body." The article, by Maija Palmer, does not cite any sources for its information.
Microsoft now has a press release up.
Andy Updegrove has a quick summary and brief analysis up at Consortiuminfo.org. The interesting question that he asks is: "[I]f Microsoft is willing to open its formats and to come up with the necessary converters to allow old documents to be upgraded, why not just support ODF?"
I suspect that the answer is that Microsoft will not actually go all the way without adding a restriction that prevents programs like OpenOffice from using their formats. They have already said that they will release the formats under the same liberal license as their Office 2003 Reference Schema; they just don't allow sublicensing of the royalty-free license that they grant, which excludes any GPL program from using the formats.
If nothing else, it will be entertaining to see how they pull this off. As Andy Updegrove points out, both Microsoft and the ODF folks are claiming the support of Apple and Intel now.
Nothing from the Between The Lines blog at ZDNet yet.
Curtis Chong, OpenDocument, accessibility, and web standards
David Berlind at ZDNet has been exchanging email with Curtis Chong, the president of the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science, on the topic of the OpenDocument policy in Massachusetts. Chong's concern is that Massachusetts discontinuing the use of Microsoft Office will result in screen readers failing to work for people with disabilities. Berlind thinks that moving to an open standard will mean that once screen readers are fixed to work with the standard, they will work forever.
The tough part of the question is deciding when to adopt a new, open standard over a dominant, proprietary standard. As far as I know, nobody makes the argument that proprietary standards are better for the person using the standard. I suspect that even a Microsoft zealot would love to erase their history of changing file formats with new releases of Word, if they could maintain the same features and market share they have today.
Software users want open standards, not because they're interested in open standards, but because they're not interested in standards at all. Standards are boring. As someone who has actually read IEC 60950 (Information Technology Equipment-- Safety), I can verify that standards are not interesting. Converting documents from Word 97 format to .rtf to get rid of macro viruses is also no fun. I did a lot of it a few weeks ago-- it is boring.
On the other hand, sometimes your just trying to get your job done so you can go home and play with your kids, or whatever it is that people who don't like computers do. Sometimes, the shackles of a proprietary standard are comfortable, particularly in the short term. On a day to day basis, the incentive to disrupt your work on behalf of "standards compliance" is very low.
In the long term, it's quite high. As Curtis Chong writes in his first letter to David Berlind: "[W]henever Microsoft decides to come out with a new version of Office or Windows, screen access technology developers and the blind community must race to keep up." If the screen readers don't keep up with Microsoft's ever-changing standards, they are screwed.
The role of government, (for example, the state government of Massachusetts, where I live), should be to make sure that we take the long view. They should do this to minimize the total amount of pain that we go through. This is the same issue we face with the environment. We want the efficiency of the free market to maximize profits, but we have no reason to think that the free market will maximize, say, air quality. As a result, we allow the government to restrict the market to protect important shared resources through, for example, automobile emissions controls.
What does the long view tell us about file formats? By now, it is predictable that Microsoft will continue to change formats and force upgrades on their customers. It has been happening for approximately 20 years-- I first used Microsoft Word 1985; I suffered; and I stopped using it regularly in 2001. If nobody forces us to switch to an open standard, it is very likely that the pain will continue. I suspect that Microsoft actually needs to change standards to stay competitive. Given that most people would be reasonably satisfied with the functionality of Word 97, if Microsoft loses the battle against OpenDocument, and there are free alternatives that reach the level of Word 97, they're hosed.
Is it time to switch to OpenDocument? I use OpenDocument on a daily basis for spreadsheets and text documents. It works. The Massachusetts policy allows that accessibility will trump format, i.e. nobody will be forced to use OpenDocument if it means they can't read it. Given that escape clause, OpenDocument's maturity, and the strong incentive for all of Microsoft's competitors to make OpenDocument work for everyone, mandating the use of OpenDocument is exactly what the Massachusetts government should be doing.
