Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 25, 2003 07:06 PM
Actually, it's all about open (or openly documented) standards, and since the standards employed in Open Source software are obviously implemented in the open, the standards are openly documented (and frequently genuinely open as well). Therefore, the users of that software have a certain set of freedoms otherwise denied to them when they use proprietary software whose "standards" are a secret of the software vendor.
What seems to have happened in various sectors, including the public sector in various countries, is that technology policymakers have supposedly taken a "pragmatic" approach: in the technology buying frenzy of the past decade, they've been wowed by neat features and have decided that interoperability doesn't matter because Vendor X (frequently Microsoft) is the "industry standard" and that it isn't a big thing to ask everyone who deals with you to use Vendor X's software too.
Unfortunately, now that Vendor X has them "over a barrel" (insert other metaphors here), they're having to re-evaluate their "pragmatism". Sadly, that is something they should have done for more honourable reasons some time ago, ideally by continuing to use open standards as opposed to sucking up to monopolists.
If you've ever had to edit a Word document or template in order to interact with government agencies then you should realise that the supposed "convenience" in making documents available in such formats is overstated, as you download the huge file, fight with the format and bizarre version mismatches, discover that the document is littered with macros and other in-your-face "features", and doesn't lend itself to convenient automation or decent integration with other technologies. You should wonder who is really in control of your data: you, the agencies, Microsoft?
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Why?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 25, 2003 07:06 PMWhat seems to have happened in various sectors, including the public sector in various countries, is that technology policymakers have supposedly taken a "pragmatic" approach: in the technology buying frenzy of the past decade, they've been wowed by neat features and have decided that interoperability doesn't matter because Vendor X (frequently Microsoft) is the "industry standard" and that it isn't a big thing to ask everyone who deals with you to use Vendor X's software too.
Unfortunately, now that Vendor X has them "over a barrel" (insert other metaphors here), they're having to re-evaluate their "pragmatism". Sadly, that is something they should have done for more honourable reasons some time ago, ideally by continuing to use open standards as opposed to sucking up to monopolists.
If you've ever had to edit a Word document or template in order to interact with government agencies then you should realise that the supposed "convenience" in making documents available in such formats is overstated, as you download the huge file, fight with the format and bizarre version mismatches, discover that the document is littered with macros and other in-your-face "features", and doesn't lend itself to convenient automation or decent integration with other technologies. You should wonder who is really in control of your data: you, the agencies, Microsoft?
#