On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 09:39 -0400, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: > Hi, > > On 2006-05-06, at 06:10 , Ian Lynch wrote:
> Not so simple. To begin with, each public sector unit tends to > differ. Certainly in different countries. I can only speak for the UK public sector where my main experience is founded. In the UK there are relevant global policies such as the e-gif policy on interoperability that span all government sectors. And in any case, if a precedent is established in one its easier to carry it over to others. > But where they tend to unite is when evaluating change: how > much it will cost them, in cost and in work. For a lot of entities, > switching over to OOo costs too much and they'd rather stay with > MSFT; this is particularly true for the portion of power users. I think you missed the point I made about the timing of change and confidence. The evidence from the Open Source Academy and the research in Bristol points at cost being a lot lower than was first assumed. In fact its confidence more than cost that matters as evidenced by the fact that when Bristol had the confidence to change they found costs were not what they feared. When Ernie Ball abandoned MS they found they saved a lot of money but they needed an emotional reason to initiate the change. The biggest factor is confidence not cost. Cost calculations can be done to prove almost anything depending on which factors and time spans are taken into account. If you don't want to change, its easy to use "objective" cost calculations to prove the logic in not changing. Confidence first then cost kicks in unless the cost saving is obvious and large. With MS cutting prices confidence becomes even more important. > In > that case, making it *easier* to use MSFT with ODF abets MSFT's > position: they can have their cake and eat it too. So why has MSFT not rushed to build ODF filters into its products? Its not like they don't have the resources. > Added to this, in > about 9 mos., maybe more, maybe less, Open XML is also likely to be > an ISO standard, with all that implies. > > Is that what you want? What I want is to make it easier to migrate to open systems and I'm using evidence not emotion as the basis. Breaking the file dependency is a key objective and I have no control over whether MOOX becomes an ISO standard or not. Overall, I'd say the best bet for OOo and indeed KOffice and other FLOSS office apps would be to get ODF as highly visible as possible on download sites and E-mail attachments before MS get their own ISO if indeed they do. I have looked at the evidence and provided the analysis here, you clearly don't agree. That's OK, there always will be differences in view about strategy. > Me, I'd rather advance open source. I'd rather make OOo the appealing > and compelling alternative; I'd rather encourage the use of ODF, not > encourage a continuation of the status quo. I don't think there is an argument about the desired outcome, the argument is about the method of getting there. I guess its for the community to decide whether or not it thinks having MS support ODF is good or bad for OOo. I think on balance it would be a good thing but I'm quite happy for community members to act on the opposite assumption if that is what they really believe and in fact I have no power to stop them, mostly they'll do what they believe is right. I respect their views. All I do is make some suggestions just like other people on the list. If people think I'm talking bollox they can just ignore me. > I want people to use OOo, not MS O; I am for the ODF, in part b/c OOo > uses it; my advocacy for it is not separable from my advocacy for > OOo. I am on the OASIS OpenDocument Adoption Committee as an > individual (but obviously representing OOo) and with the ODF > Alliance, also representing OOo. I give presentations on behalf of > the ODF and think it important that it be promoted. But every time I > do this I clarify that I believe the best situation is to promote > open standards *with* open source; ODF plus OOo. I want people to use Linux not Windows. I'm for OpenOffice.org in part b/c it runs on Linux; my advocacy for it is not separable from my advocacy for Linux. I am a member of the Association for Free Software. I give presentations on behalf of OOo and think it is important that it be promoted. But everytime I do this I clarify that I believe the best situation is to promote open platforms with Open Source applications; OOo plus Linux. Why then are you managing a project that runs on Windows? Surely on your logic it would be better not to have a Windows version of OOo ;-). > I am thus against us--OOo--endorsing MSFT to use the ODF. So is > Jacqueline. Ok out of the whole OOo community its clear at least 2 members think the way you do. No doubt others will but I'm sure if you actually consulted with people you would find a lot who would see the logic in why a MS adoption of ODF would actually be good for OOo. If it was bad for OOo I think MS would have already done it. > But your group, the ODF Fellowship is all about > endorsing the ODF independent of anything else; Not quite, the Fellowship advocate the use of ISO 26300 in the context of software applications. Its hardly sensible to have it for its own sake and independent of anything. But in all your paranoia about the Fellowship, Louis, you seem to be forgetting that most of the membership, want OOo to succeed too. Quite a few are in other projects too and don't seem to get negative emotional responses to making straightforward suggestions. Making unnecessary enemies of people who actually want OOo to succeed seems a strange way of managing a project dependent on voluntary contributions. > fine: we know where > you stand. You clearly don't but don't let that get in the way of objectivity ;-) -- Ian Lynch www.theINGOTs.org www.opendocumentfellowship.org www.schoolforge.org.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
