Modify Colors
Posts in Open Standards
Matching Microsoft On Interoperability
Microsoft’s concession to offer a so-called “browser ballot” in the European version of Windows 7 has been covered extensively. European buyers of Windows 7 will, except when the OEM has a separate deal, be presented with a choice of browsers, ordered by estimated market share. Microsoft has also released a less covered document [.doc] that extends the idea of a ballot to file formats in Office 14:
“Beginning with the release of Office 14, end users that purchase Microsoft’s Primary PC Productivity Applications in the EEA in both the OEM and retail channel will be prompted in an unbiased way to select default file format (from options that include ODF)…”
Microsoft hasn’t exactly been friendly to open standards in the past, but this is a serious concession that will, if properly implemented, change the balance of file formats.
As much as the FSF would like to continue framing Microsoft as the bad guy in every situation, they aren’t. The Microsoft of today is very different from the Microsoft of 5 years ago, and supporters of open standards should start to match their moves towards interoperability.
The best reaction to this news would be for OpenOffice.org and other prominent open-source desktop productivity applications to offer a file format ballot as well.This ballot would offer ODF, Microsoft’s .doc binary formats, and OOXML.
This proposal will, undoubtably, be contriversal. This move would have a number of benefits, though.
First, it offers more choice to users. Why shouldn’t I be able to choose to use Microsoft’s file formats if I prefer? In fact, I do use Microsoft’s older binary file formats most of the time, since it is essential that I am able to open files I create with unknown versions of Office when I don’t have my computer with me. I’m am completely in support of open-standards, but I am also in support of choice.
Second, matching Microsoft’s moves towards interoperability would cast free software advocates and users in a better light. Thanks to the FSF’s childish campaigns (see the instructions) and the blatent FUD of unnamed anti-Novell sites, free software advocates are usually viewed as borderline insane extremists. If OpenOffice publically recognized Microsoft’s positive steps and offered their own ballot, it would help remedy this situation. (The FSF does a lot of great work and, as he is fond of pointing out, without some of Stallman’s work we wouldn’t have Linux as we have it today. That doesn’t excuse anything, though.)
Free software advocates can’t just continue to pretend Microsoft is a big evil corporation. Perhaps they are, but they’re a lot less evil and a little less big than they used to be. Instead of dismissing every move Microsoft takes as a trap, let’s admit it was a good move and thank them for it.
HTML 5’s support of using the Ogg Theora video format in the upcoming <video> tag looked really promising for innovation in the web video area, but not everyone agrees on the new spec.
The critical different between Ogg Theora and the competing H.264 formats are that Ogg carries no petent license fees, while H.164 requires anyone who implements it to pay a patent license. Because of this, Mozilla and Opera would prefer to use the Ogg Theora format, as planned
Apple and Google, however, aren’t jumping on the boat, though. Apple, who has been a major supporter of H.164, using it extensively in iTunes videos, is apparently concerned about unknown patents which Ogg might violate. (Remind you of the whole Novell-Microsft thing?) Google, on the other hand, simply cites Ogg Theora’s supposedly lower quality, though they have not released anything to back the claim that Ogg offers much lower quality at the same bandwidth.
It just doesn’t make sense to make a video format that requiers a patent license in a standard like HTML. HTML is an open standard so that people can implement it – it shouldn’t depend on someting you have to license.
Microsoft And ODF: Bad For Everyone
In shocking news, Microsoft’s support of ODF in Microsoft Office is basically unusable in many respects, according to the OpenDocument Format Alliance. This is a real problem for ODF’s adoption, since Office users who try using it, either for opening a document or for sending a document to someone else, will likely blame their issues on ODF, and, thus, avoid it.
What Microsoft has done with ODF support seems likely to harm ODF’s acceptance, rather than help it. It’s hard to tell if this move was incompetent or malicious or something entirely different?
It’s hard to believe that with all of Microsoft’s resources they couldn’t put together decent ODF support, but, then again, they haven’t exactly been hitting home runs recently. Whatever the cause, Microsoft would be better off if they had done this correctly. A little good will from a bunch of geeks is so much more important than (probably unintentionally) giving a few users a bad experience with ODF.
Microsoft often makes little gestures as if they are beginning to accept that they can co-exist with open-source software and open standards, but every time they manager to somehow undermine their own actions with some other unfriendly move. Reputation is key right now for Microsoft’s success. Lazy ODF support isn’t winning them any friends.
Linux and Creating a Custom Distribution for Everything
More and more, governments are deciding to make the switch to open-source software, usually citing or implying privacy concerns over Microsoft Windows, since Microsoft is a US company.
It is a great idea for governments to promote the use of open-source software, but I am not so sure about creating their own distribution of Linux. Internally within a government organization, it makes perfect sense to use a custom distribution, just to make managing everything easier. When you expand this to the entire government or, worse, the entire country, the logic starts to go away.
The only real reason to create a custom Linux distribution just for your own, or your country’s, use, is if all the users have very specific needs. Once you expand beyond a single department of the government, this becomes less and less true. Surely an entire country does not all have the same needs.
Also, from a user’s perspective, would you use an operating system your government handed you at home? It would be like letting them tape a camera to your head, because they claim they will not use the pictures.
Promoting open-source is great, but trying to create customized variants of distributions for too broad of an audience makes little sense.
The Natural Trend Towards Open-Source in Government
Every time you turn around, it seems like another government is considering using open-source software as an alternative to expensive proprietary software. While the progress has been slow, as it usually is with governments, the trend is obvious.
In fact, not only is it obvious, but it’s also very logical. Think about it. Governments are usually on very tight budgets, especially for smaller things like software, so the cost alone is a huge advantage. Furthermore, open-source software gives them control. With proprietary software, the government has no idea what could be in the software. Certainly they can have security experts examine it, but that is nothing compared to actually being able to see the complete source code. Plus, beyond security, there are other advantages to open-source software. Not only can the government inspect the software, they can modify it to their needs, giving them the ability to deliver exactly the right operating system to their users, possibly even customized to the job the computer performs.
If you think about it, it is almost suprising governments have tolerated proprietary software. It seems fair to say that governments are rapidly heading to open-source and will likely stay there.
Realistically Allowing for Numerous Software Preferences in Education
I consider the vast majority of people’s personal random complaints about Linux to be absolutely irrelevant. I really don’t care if one random person wants Linux to work like Windows in a particular way. The recent stories floating around are no exception, either. So far I have seen many, many people taken in by the idea that these stories about someone not understanding Linux actually mean something. They don’t. If you give enough people something other than what they have used their whole life, some of them will not get it. That’s just the way it works.
There does seem to be one interesting story coming out of all this, though. An OSNews article argues that universities should be far more willing to support whatever software the user chooses, rather than requiring a particular piece of software. I can’t say I fully agree, but I think the article is on the right track.
Realistically, asking universities to actually support whatever software their students choose to use is probably too much of a burden on the school. I don’t think that schools should have to provide this amount of support. Rather, I would only say they really need to provide direct support to those who use whatever software the university recommends. The university should, however, always choose formats that are well supported across many different operating systems and pieces of software.
If a student chooses to use software that is outside of the recommended software, the university would have to provide little, if any support, in fixing their problems. They would not, however, discourage the student from using their software of choice and they should try to be helpful in referring students having trouble with non-standard software to other students successfully using the same software.
In this way, students would not be prevented or discouraged from using non-standard software if it is what they prefer. At the same time, though, this approach would not unnessessarily burden the school.
Appcelerator Titanium: Like AIR, But Better
A while ago Adobe released Adobe AIR. AIR was a way of running web applications on your desktop, even when you don’t have an internet connection. The great thing about AIR was that it was cross-platform, so, in theory, you could run any AIR application on Windows, OS X, or Linux. The problem was, that never really worked. Only a few applications really ran right on Linux. In fact, the Linux client never even came out of beta. Worse, AIR was not open-source. Normally, I would not be that bothered by an application being closed-source, but for a technology that could conceivably be running all of our applications, open-source would be far preferable.
Finally, it looks like the right thing has come along: Appcelerator Titanium. Appcelerator Titanium claims to be “the first open platform for building rich desktop applications.” Basically it lets you write desktop applications in HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, just as if you were writing a web application. Like Adobe AIR, though, you don’t need an internet connection to run Titanium applications.
Appcelerator Titanium is a promising replacement for Adobe AIR that, in the long term, would be a far superior option, since it would not take us down a route of closed systems controlling our applications, our data, and our computers, but instead allow for an open way to develop great web applications that run on any desktop, no matter the OS.
Appcelerator Titanium can be downloaded now for OS X or Windows. The Linux version will be coming soon.
Not at all surprisingly, I received a lot of negative feedback about this recommendation. Still, I stand by it. Here is why:
A new user using Ubuntu for the first time as their main operating system is bound to run into some snags. After all, whenever you switch to a different operating system there are almost certain to be some differences that snag you. While many of these differences are just necessary, in situations where they can be limited and made easier, that should be done. Having Open Office save in .doc is one of those situations where a new user’s life can be made much easier, simply by having Open Office save in a format they, and their co-workers, are used to.
The most frequent counter argument to this is that it is better to encourage new users to use ODF, because it is an open standard. While I recognize the importance of this, I think it is even more important not to scare off new users. The idea that sending someone an ODF file will make then go download Open Office and suddenly transform them into a happy convert is not likely to happen. More likely, that person will ask you to send them a readable format. Even if no other person is involved, what if you need to edit your files on a computer with only Office. Of course you could install Open Office, but a new user might not know to do this. Worse, you could be at a computer where you do not have sufficient rights to install an application.
I believe that it is far better to allow a new user to make the choice to use open standards on their own, rather than forcing it on them and potentially making them run away from everything open.
Cloud Computing Is Not Bad: It Just Needs Some Openness
Recently, Richard Stallman called cloud computing “worse than stupidity.” His argument for this view is that, by giving your data away to the host of the web application you are using, you are essentially giving up all rights to that data. After all, they own it and there is little you can do to stop them from doing whatever they want with that data.
I agree with Stallman that there is a potential risk to putting your data in a closed-source, closed standards web application. I do not believe, however, that it is fair to say that web applications in general are a data trap, or, for that matter, in any way something to avoid.
If a web application is open-source, supports open standards, and has a good privacy policy, I see little to worry about. The privacy policy, which you can in part confirm through the source code, ensures that your privacy is protected, assuming there are also some reasonable data protection methods in place; and the open standards ensure that you can easily get data in and out of the application, so you don’t have to worry about losing your data or being locked into the application.
I understand the concerns about locking your data into a web application, but we should keep in mind that, as long as you have good open standards and a good privacy policy, (open-source is, of course, good, but not absolutley needed), you don’t have to worry too much about your data.
Another Reason for Open-Source in Web Apps: Data Flow and Syncing
A recent Free Software Magazine article lays out the case for open-source and free software in web applications. I agree with the arguments, but I also want to add another one that I feel is important.
The author touches on data portability, saying that:
“If the users can’t get their data out they will be more reluctant to put it in and they will tell others.”
The issue is more than just getting your data out. Let’s take the example of e-mail. Say I use Thunderbird (if anyone cares, I actually just use the Gmail web interface). I can export my data from Thunderbird to another email client, but it is a hassle. It is perfectly usable if you plan to switch to that new program full time, but if you want to use both or want to try one out, exporting your data is not going to be a workable solution. What you need is a protocol for syncing and exchanging data between multiple applications (in this case, IMAP).
Without IMAP-like protocols for transferring data across web applications, working with web applications from different companies is going to be hard. Why does this require open-source? The answer lies a couple sentences back: “working with web applications from different companies is going to be hard.” Why would you put in effort to make your software work with the competition, particularly if you are Google, Adobe, Microsoft, or any of the other big players? If your application is open-source, though, someone else can do it for you, no matter if you like it or not.
As I have said before, without good data exchange across all web applications, the web app scene is either going to be a monopoly or a disaster. Thanks, but I think I will take the good data exchange option.