It looks like Ms Neelie Kroes, the Competition Commissioner for the European Union is in agreement with governments and their agencies for choosing proper open standards, as reported by the New York Times:

“I know a smart business decision when I see one — choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed,” Ms. Kroes told a conference in Brussels. “No citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to choose a closed technology over an open one.”

So its apparent that Malaysian agencies like MAMPU are also doing the right thing in adopting true open standards like ODF as their document file format, despite the fact that Microsoft Malaysia is constantly lobbying and interfering with MAMPU's decisions. The reaction from Microsoft's lobbying is certainly interesting. I think people are getting tired of their underhanded tactics, and false cries of "competition" and "fairness".

Ms Kroes continues to applaud the efforts of governments in making the right choices:

She praised the German city of Munich for using software based on open standards, along with the German Foreign Ministry and the Gendarmerie Nationale, France’s national police force.

Ms. Kroes, who is Dutch, encouraged the Dutch government and Parliament to continue moving toward use of open standards. EU agencies “must not rely on one vendor” and “must refuse to become locked into a particular technology — jeopardizing maintenance of full control over the information in its possession,” she said.

A policy by the European Commission adopted last year to promote the use of software products that support open standards “needs to be implemented with vigor,” she said.

It would be great if she could look into the running of the Netherlands National Body which is was forced into a "abstention" decision not because of any technical ineptitude to review OOXML, but because Microsoft held the 'veto' to find no full consensus amongst the TC members, as described here:

The result of this intensive process was that during the last meeting on the subject on August 16th 2007 in Delft - where the vote was to be cast - after a majority rejection of a proposal for an "Approval" a final proposal for a so called conditional approval (i.e.: a no vote that would turn into a yes vote if a number of reasonable and already determined conditions were met at the next stage) almost got unanimous support - from all but the local support branch of Microsoft. This isolated position caused the vote to fail and the Netherlands to automatically vote for an "Abstain".

Ms Kroes is of course no stranger to the wrath of the Microsoft machinery, having to battle with them for over 4 years with regards to Microsoft's bundling of their proprietary products, and their indignation in defying her orders. What is interesting is that governments and regulators are getting tired of Microsoft's antics and are starting to bite back.

Ms. Kroes did not name Microsoft in advance copies of her speech, but she made her meaning clear by referring to the only company in the history of EU antitrust enforcement that has been fined for refusing to comply with commission orders — a record held by Microsoft.

“The commission has never before had to issue two periodic penalty payments in a competition case,” she said.

I wonder when the Ministry of Domestic Trade will wake up and realise that they are practising uncompetitive behaviour by mandating that all PC's should be shipped with operating systems from a single vendor? Surely consumers should have a "choice"? Why isn't the Institute for Software Choice / CompTIA lobbying Dell to have more choice in their OS offerings for their desktops? Ubuntu/Fedora/openSolaris/FreeBSD? Why aren't those being offered?

What is ironic is that we are being told by Microsoft that their rushing of OOXML is due to the EU's request for more open standards in their products. Unfortunately in their haste to push OOXML through the ISO process, they caused such a mess in terms of their relationships with governments, agencies, national bodies and more importantly the media, that Microsoft is now being investigated on their attempts to play the ISO system for OOXML, as reported by The Wall Street Journal in February 2008.

So things aren't looking so swell for Microsoft. Their OOXML is currently in limbo, and will not be published on schedule, because 4 countries (Argentina, Brazil, India and South Africa) have appealed against the ISO stamp of "approval". Additionally, the final draft as promised by the BRM is still not available to National Bodies to review, 3 months on (directives clearly state that it should be available within 1 month). Unless of course they don't want to see any changes between the final draft and published text because of the restrictions imposed due to the "Fast Track" process?

Lets see how the Microsoft machinery reacts to this set of interesting news, and see how they spin in.  How much has this fiasco cost them? What did they get out of it? A chance to be more open? Can you see a change yet?

yk.

Nearly One Million Beta Users, 24 Languages, Web 2.0 Extensions, New Technical Support Services for Enterprises


In September last year, I posted on the introduction of IBM Lotus Symphony - beta version. Symphony is a suite of free desktop software for word processing, presentations and spreadsheets based on ODF. Lotus Symphony supports Microsoft Office and can export content in PDF format, too.

Now it's out of beta! You can download it here, for free, of course.
 

Here's the text of the IBM press release:

ODF Comes of Age: IBM Lotus Symphony Turns 1.0

Nearly One Million Beta Users, 24 Languages, Web 2.0 Extensions, New Technical Support Services for Enterprises

ARMONK, NY - 03 Jun 2008: Open Document Format (ODF) comes of age today as IBM (NYSE: IBM) announces the commercial-grade, general availability of Lotus Symphony (http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony), a suite of free, ODF-based software tools for creating and sharing documents, spreadsheets and presentations.

This announcement affirms IBM's commitment to evolving office productivity software from static, financially draining software to a dynamic, cost-effective tool that allows businesses to invest in more innovative pursuits.

While Lotus Symphony remains a free, easy download from the Web with free online, moderated support, IBM is also announcing fee-based services to support the needs of large organizations. This optional service, IBM Elite Support for Lotus Symphony 1.0, delivers unlimited remote technical support at a level consistent with other IBM software products via an annual subscription to IBM's Passport Advantage or Passport Advantage Express volume licensing programs.

Lotus Symphony could save a company with 20,000 employees $8 million in software license fees or potentially more than $4 million in software renewal fees. If it chose to switch to Symphony for only half of its employee population, it could still save several million dollars in license or renewal fees, even if it subscribed to IBM's Elite Support services at $25 per user for 1,000 employees.

Launched in September 2007, Lotus Symphony has been downloaded by nearly one million individuals in an open public Beta program. Lotus Symphony is a truly global product, available in 24 languages, developed by a worldwide team anchored in Beijing, China, and improved through the community of individual users on the Symphony Web site.

"Major technology vendors are lining up to support ODF -- even those previously opposed to it," said Steve Mills, SVP of IBM Software. "Symphony -- backed by enterprise customer support services -- is ready for business."

A growing number of businesses are considering decisions to renew their Office licensing agreements, and move up to Office 2007 and Vista. Lotus Symphony 1.0 provides a timely and cost-effective alternative tested by nearly one million people worldwide and backed by IBM.

Plugging Into the Power of Web 2.0

Another noteworthy benefit of Lotus Symphony is aligned with Web 2.0 -- the newest Internet technology -- not the fading era of the personal computer. In the spirit of Web 2.0, Lotus Symphony individual users have the ability to influence the development of the software through feedback on the Symphony site, much the way that content is continuously revised and updated through Wikipedia.

More importantly, IBM offers a set of powerful, open APIs for extending Lotus Symphony with a wide range of plug-ins -- including Eclipse and Universal Network Object component model and others. This can empower business people to harness powerful business processes such as enterprise resources planning and customer relationship management directly from their desktop. Companies and governments can integrate Lotus Symphony tools into their custom applications and connect to myriad data sources that allow individuals to work in a single view while presenting and updating data from multiple sources instantly.

IBM is offering a free developer toolkit on the Symphony site that enables individual users of Lotus Symphony, as well as independent software developers, to create plug-ins, or software adaptors, and composite applications, or mashups. These can transform static documents into living information streams capable of managing primary business functions such as shipping, sales and fulfillment.

The three core tools comprising Lotus Symphony -- Lotus Symphony Documents, Lotus Symphony Spreadsheets and Lotus Symphony Presentations -- handle the majority of office productivity tasks that most people perform. Quick reading reference cards and online tutorials on the Lotus Symphony Web site show how easy it is to transfer documents between Symphony and Word, PowerPoint or Excel.

Symphony Provides a Foundation for SMBs

In a related development, Lotus Symphony is being extended to small businesses within a new turnkey collaboration product called IBM Lotus Foundations (www.ibm.com/lotus/products/foundations), commercially available today. Lotus Symphony will serve as the office productivity software within Lotus Foundations, which also includes Lotus Notes and Domino mail, file management, directory services, firewall, back-up and recovery, anti-virus, and anti-spam features. Lotus Foundations is part of a broad IBM initiative code-named "Blue Business Platform" to simplify information technology for small businesses.

Local IBM Business Partners are the primary route to market for Lotus Foundations. A variety of third parties, such as Linux distributors, media companies and IBM Business Partners from North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region are offering Lotus Symphony either as a free, standalone download off the Web or for sale with customized applications.

When Patrick Durusau wrote that Microsoft had no opposition to ODF, he was indefensibly and gloriously wrong. Those of us involved in national standards bodies and on government policy panels have had the dubious honor of having to defend against Microsoft's desperate attempts to kill any possible introduction of ODF as a voluntary standard. Perhaps even worse was having to witness first hand Microsoft making loud complaints against any internal government policies of the usage of ODF and any software which uses ODF (OpenOffice.org being the most prominent). And, of course, many of us have faced the intense lobbying campaign carried out by Microsoft against open source governmental policies.

So when Yasmin Mahmood, Microsoft Malaysia Managing Director, made the famous statement that "It's not about choosing, but about having a choice" with reference to ODF and OOXML, we assumed this was a new chapter in Microsoft history.

Then came along a recent blogpost by Harisfazillah Jamel, "Apabila Membuat Pilihan Dipersoalkan / When Choices are Questioned", on the right of government agencies to make choices. It's written in Malay, but it has been translated by Yoon Kit for the benefit of our international readers. It makes for extremely interesting reading on the pressure Microsoft Malaysia is placing on a government agency because of their choice to use OpenOffice.org/ODF over Microsoft Office:

Apabila Membuat Pilihan Dipersoalkan (When Our Choices Are Questioned)

Ada yang sebuah syarikat ICT yang kononnya mempunyai satu lagi standard bagi satu perkara adalah satu pilihan kepada pengguna. Sedangkan pengguna, mana-mana pengguna juga faham, standard, mempunyai standard bermaksud kita telah membuat pilihan, membuat satu pilihan daripada pelbagai pilihan yang terbaik untuk pengguna.

There is an ICT company which has one more standard for one more application for one more choice for consumers. While consumers, many users understand standards, having standards means we have made a choice, a choice which  is the best for users from many options.

Wakil mereka di Malaysia dalam satu muka surat sebuah akhbar menyatakan, kejayaan mereka mendapatkan iktiraf standard bagi satu format adalah satu pilihan kepada pengguna. Teruskan membaca, apabila membuat pilihan bukan kehendak mereka, adalah bukan pilihan mereka.

Their Malaysian representative, in a page of a newspaper stated that their success of having the standard as a format is yet another choice for users. Read it, if we make a choice not to their liking, it is not their choice.

Lalu sebuah agensi dalam kerajaan Malaysia telah membuat pilihan. Membuat pilihan bukan dalam kehendak syarikat ICT tersebut. Pilihan setelah panjang membuat penilaian. Pilihan atas dasar untuk memberi sokongan dan pilihan kepada agensi-agensi lain. Pilihan yang dibuat atas kehendak sendiri tanpa  tekanan mana-mana pihak. Pilihan yang dipesetujui diperingkat pengurusan tertinggi hinggalah keperingkat bawahan.

An agency in the government of Malaysia had already made a choice. The choice was not the choice of the said ICT company. The choice was made after a long study. The choice was based on principles to bring support and choice to other agencies The choice was made on its own needs without any pressures from any party. The choice was agreed by the highest level of management to the lowest level.

Sekarang timbul isu, syarikat ICT itu tidak senang dengan pilihan yang dibuat oleh agensi itu. Mereka merasakan agensi ini mahu menentukan dasar yang keras terhadap pilihan yang telah dibuat. Oh ya betul, mereka tidak senang dengan pilihan yang dibuat oleh sebuah agensi kerajaan Malaysia dan mula menjalankan kerja-kerja melobi untuk memaksa agensi ini, menurunkan maksud polisi penggunaan standard yang telah dibuat oleh agensi ini.

Now this issue has surfaced. The ICT company is not happy with the choice that was made by the agency. They felt that the agency wants to set a policy which is incompatible with the choice that they prefer. Oh that is true, they are not happy with the choice that was made by an agency of the Malaysian Government and have started work lobbying to force this agency to dampen the meaning of the policy of using standards that was announced by this agency.

Polisi yang telah disusun, dibincang dengan panjang lebar dan diluluskan dalam pengurusan tertinggi agensi ini mahu diubah oleh syarikat ICT tersebut kerana ia tidak menepati pilihan yang kehendak mereka. Bahawa diingatkan polisi ini adalah khusus hanya untuk agensi ini supaya memudahkan pelaksanaan atas satu standard. Itu maksud tujuan standard, memudahkan pelaksanaan kepada satu pilihan.

The policy that was prepared, was discussed widely and in detail, was approved by the highest level management of this agency, is to be modified by the said ICT company because it is not inline with their needs. Whereas it is reminded that this policy is specifically for this agency such that it  can easily implement one standard. That is the meaning and purpose of a standard, the ease of implementing one choice.

Yang buat saya marah, adalah teknik yang saya panggil, kilas tangan dengan kasar memaksa agensi ini tukarkan polisi agensi ini. Ya memaksa, walau apa pun cara yang digunakan, bagi saya ia masih panggil ia memaksa, agensi ini tukarkan polisi dari segi pelaksanaan.

What makes me angry is  what I call their heavy handed technique of forcing the said agency to change its policies. Yes force, by any means possible. I still call it force, to get the agency to change its policies on implementation.

Bagi saya, campur tangan dalam urusan sebuah agensi kerajaan Malaysia terutama melibatkan polisi, dan nyata sekali polisi ini adalah untuk penggunaan agensi tersebut oleh sebuah syarikat luar negara merupa satu campur tangan asing... Sebuah bentuk penjajahan ...

For me, their intervention in the business of an agency of the Government of Malaysia especially when it involves policies, and especially when this policy is stated for the use of this agency, by a foreign company represents ... a form of colonisation ...

Siapa mereka untuk tentukan dasar dan pentadbiran sebuah negara.  Saya sebagai rakyat Malaysia cukup marah dengan campur tangan sebegini. Perkara ini telah lama diperhatikan sejak daripada melobi penerimaan standard yang kononnya adalah satu pilihan.

Who are they to define the policies and the running of a sovereign country. I, as a Malaysian citizen, have enough with their interference of this nature. This behaviour has long been witnessed ever since the lobbying efforts of the standards which is claimed to be yet another "choice".

Saya tidak akan duduk diam dengan bentuk penjajahan cara baru ini. Saya tidak akan berhenti menulis dan berkempen untuk mendedahkan apa jua yang dilakukan oleh syarikat ICT ini untuk terus memaksa penggunaan produk mereka.

I am not going to sit quiet with this new form of colonisation tactic. I am not going to stop writing and campaigning and resist any action by this ICT company which forces the use of their products.

Banyak sudah duit rakyat, duit rakyat mengalir keluar daripada Malaysia, hanya untuk pembayaran lesen. Pembayaran hanya atas kertas, tiada hasil kepada kita rakyat Malaysia, hanya menjadikan syarikat luar negara atau individu luar negara lagi kaya.

Too much of our citizens money, money of the people has flowed out from Malaysia, only to purchase licenses. The payment is only for paper, without any value to us Malaysian citizens, only to make a foreign company or individual foreigners rich.

Sedangkan duit yang berjuta-juta itu boleh dialirkan kepada industri ICT negara kita dalam bentuk pelaksanaan sistem sokongan, penyelidikan dan pelaksanaan kepada aplikasi sumber terbuka atau Open Source Software.

If only the multi-millions of riggit could flow to our ICT industry in the form of system support, research and implementations in Open Source Software.

Mengapa perlu kayakan orang lain sedangkan rakyat ini yang membayar cukai tersebut perlu lihat sahaja duit itu keluarkan. Sedang sudah ada pilihan, pilihan yang setelah dikaji, boleh mendatangkan faedah yang banyak kepada rakyat Malaysia.

Why must we make other people wealthy while citizens have to pay the tax. Just see the expenditure. While there is already a choice, a choice that has been evaluated which can bring much benefits to the citizens of Malaysia.

Polisi dan dasar sudah ada. Mengapa tidak sokong? Soalan yang hendak tanya kepada ahli-ahli politik negara kita ...

The Policies are already defined. Why is there no support? These are the questions which need only be asked to the politicians of our country ...

Apa yang saya tulis ini adalah pendapat peribadi, akan tetapi saya mahu ia dipandang  serius oleh banyak pihak. Lama mana kita mahu dijajah ... ???

What I have written is just my personal opinion, but I want this viewed seriously by many. How long do we ever want to be colonised ... ???

I really must commend Patrick Durusau's innate capability of writing the most inflammatory and outrageous publications, publications that are so divorced from reality that one cannot help but think that the dude must be hoarding some seriously good weed to be able to live so completely within his own defined existence. His latest publication, "Not With a Bang, but With a Whimper", has been receiving flak from the collective open standards community for exactly that reason and rightly so.

Patrick writes that:

Signs the document standards war was entirely fictitious have been around for quite some time. Where was the Microsoft opposition to OpenDocument in standards bodies such as OASIS and ISO? Perhaps they forgot? Didn't get the memo?

Given that we at OpenMalaysiaBlog, as open standards supporters, have been at the forefront of receiving the brunt of their vicious (and often personal) attacks on ODF, I find Patrick's assertions as ridiculous and cockeyed at best, and deliberately offensive at worst.

Microsoft has been running an anti-ODF campaign in favour of OOXML for a long long time now. In Malaysia, their campaign started with opposition to Malaysia's proposed adoption of ODF ISO26300:2006 as a voluntary standard by invoking Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt on the ODF standard. The campaign continued on by personally attacking members of the technical committee who were in favour of ODF, by casting undue aspersions on their characters, in particular, insinuating that we were subversive agents of IBM intent on the destruction of Microsoft (apparently, anybody who supports truly open standards is a biased IBM agent).

In fact, during a technical standards meeting on ODF, senior management of Microsoft Malaysia printed out an unrelated and personal blog post from Yoon Kit (in which he was slightly critical of a Malaysian government agency whose representative was also present during the meeting), passed it around to all members present in the meeting and demanded for proper ethical conduct from members. That's right, folks - he printed out a non-technical blog post and attempted to cast a false and misleading charge on the character of a member of the technical meeting.

To the credit of the representative of the government agency in question and the chairman of the meeting, the meeting was quickly brought to order. The representative of the government agency did not have a problem with Yoon Kit's blog post but Microsoft Malaysia did. Note that this is not hearsay, I witnessed this first hand and was thoroughly shocked at the extent Microsoft would go to destroy any perceived threat to their Microsoft Office cash cow. The Microsoft Malaysia representative in question also distributed printed blog posts from OpenMalaysia and circled the name of a member of this blog who also happens to be an IBM employee, insinuating to all that members of OpenMalaysia are influenced by IBM in pushing for a pro-ODF stand. This happened during a meeting to discuss the technical aspects on ODF!

That particular meeting was followed by an anonymous smear campaign against one of the TC members. A letter was faxed to the organization of the TC member in question, accusing the TC member in question of helping politicize the issue (which is, of course, untrue). I too had the dubious pleasure of hearing first hand how Microsoft attempted to remove me from the TC (they did not succeed, thanks to integrity and cojones of the organization I am affiliated with).

If this unethical behaviour by Microsoft was not sufficiently despicable, they did the unthinkable by involving politics in what should have been a technical evaluation of the standard by writing to the head of the Malaysian standards organization and getting its business partners to engage in a negative letter writing campaign to indicate lack of support of ODF in the Malaysian market. Every single negative letter on ODF received by the Malaysian standards organization was written either by Microsoft, or a Microsoft business partner or a Microsoft affiliated organization (Initiative for Software Choice and IASA).

That's right, Patrick, every single negative letter on ODF can be traced back to Microsoft. And you ask where was Microsoft's opposition to ODF? Here is a letter by Yasmin Mahmood, Microsoft Malaysia Managing Director to the head of the Malaysian standards organization, opposing ODF as a voluntary standard (note that I have digital copies of all the letters in questions, if you wish to read them):

Patrick, you write that:

Need more? Watch the reaction to this announcement by Microsoft. Remember the cry has been that Microsoft should adopt OpenDocument. Microsoft has now adopted OpenDocument and it will be devoting resources to its development. For those unfamiliar with the concept, that means Microsoft will be making a positive contribution to the ODF development effort.

My recommendation is that everyone put up their noise makers and welcome Microsoft to the OpenDocument community and prepare to work with them to advance its development

Patrick, you make the assumption that those who are opposing OOXML are doing it solely because we oppose Microsoft. You couldn't be more wrong and I think it's high time you recognize the most excellent effort by many parties in helping improve the OOXML specification.

Yoon Kit and myself have spent countless weekends and many, many, many man hours finding ways of improving the proposed standard. My report to the TC, based on the reading made of the proposed standard, have always been on a solely technical basis, and Patrick, you of all people, should accede to the fact that there are/were severe technical deficiencies in the proposed standard and that input from members of National Bodies helped improve the specification.

The campaign against Open XML was at its start, in the middle and at the end an anti-Microsoft campaign. The merits or demerits of Open XML were simply a convenient launching point for criticisms of Microsoft.

Making the dangerous argument that "the merits or demerits of OOXML were simply a convenient launching point for criticisms of Microsoft" works to undermine the important constructive value of  criticism, which is to improve the proposed standard in question. The logic you have employed, that any attempt to criticize the technical deficiencies in OOXML is equated to criticism of Microsoft, is superfluous. By any measure, our criticism and feedback has helped improve the proposed standard immeasurably and you simply must recognize that, if intellectual honesty carries still carries weight with you.

Patrick, to further claim that we are solely "noise makers" does irreparable damage to value of the work we have put into improving the proposed standard. In fact, some of the decent folk at Microsoft (yes, they actually exist) helped arrange a conference call to Brian Jones, whose input helped clarify some the issues I was attempting to understand. I subsequently revised my technical contribution to the TC based on the clarification by Brian Jones. Your assertion that we are doing this so as to criticize Microsoft is an unfair charge and only serves to undermine your already dwindling reputation among the open standards community.

Now, when I was first told about Microsoft Office support for ODF by a Microsoft employee, my reaction was: "Awesome!". Then I puzzled for a minute over why they didn't do this two years ago and avoid opposing the passage of ODF as a Malaysian standard. In any case, the following day, I relayed this message to Yasmin Mahmood, the Microsoft Malaysia Managing Director, with an invitation for OpenMalaysia Blog to interview her on this positive and constructive development. I've not heard back from Yasmin on my invitation, but let me publicly assure the lady that the invitation is still open and we are committed to publishing the interview verbatim (word for word). Yoon Kit and I also offered to publicize the good work Microsoft is doing on ODF by running an interview with them. Brian and Doug, that invitation is still open if you choose to accept it by answering the questions we sent to you 11 days ago.

So all in all, Patrick, you owe us an apology for your thoughtless remarks, your unfair insinuations and biased connotations on our character.

May 17, 2008 is Open Malaysia blog's 2nd. birthday!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

The first post 2 years ago declared, "This is a blog
about openness, saying that the changing times call for innovation through open collaboration." Open innovation, ODF, open standards and open source were what we championed then and what we still champion today.

Malaysia had voted Approval of ODF as an ISO standard just before this blog started 2 years ago. OOXML came into the picture since then, but in the last one year, Malaysia cannot be considered to have officially accepted OOXML -- the Malaysian National Body committees  (TC4, then ISC G) voted Disapproval of OOXML, and the Malaysia final vote of Abstention decided by the Minister is at best non-committal to OOXML.

On the blog's 1st. birthday on May 17, 2007, there were 194 posts and 163 comments. In the one year after that, we added 111 posts but the number of comments tripled to 512 comments within the same one year! The worldwide dialog created by this blog was awesome.

In the 1st. year, we had 32,000 visits (by Sitemeter). In the 2nd. year, the month of March 2008 alone had 32,000 visits, with a total of 100,000 visits in the whole of this 2nd. year. The most popular post was definitely The Last Lap on the OOXML results which attracted thousands of visits every day.

Yes, the times they are a-changing. I leave it to you to recount the changes you have seen in "openness" in Malaysia and elsewhere over the last year -- do write your comments below.

South Africa has taken major steps in recognising ODF as a national and government standard.

Back in October 2007, it was announced that South Africa mandated that ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) would be in the Minimum Interoperability Standards for Information Systems in government (MIOS).

The plan then was to have all government departments to view ODF documents by March 2008, all published government documents to be in ODF or non-proprietary formats by end of 2008, all internal government documents by March 2009 and finally a conversion of legacy documents to ODF or non proprietary formats.

So now, the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) approved ODF as a national standard to make ODF as a standard more visible and accessible to South African citizens. The latest update:

Aslam Raffee, chief information officer at DST (Department of Science and Technology), says that the deadlines for ODF adoption in government have already been set and are underway. The initial deadline was March this year for government department to be able to read documents in ODF format. By September it is expected that all departments will be able to read and write in the Open Document Format. Finally, in 2009, ODF will become the default document format for South African government departments.

Raffee says this process is progressing well and at this point “citizens should be able to send documents in Open Document Format to departments”

What is significant is that South Africa was one of the countries which voted "Disapprove" OOXML consistently as an abnormal candidate for the "Fast Track" process. Its concerns against OOXML is reiterated in SABS final comments submitted to ISO:

The overwhelming majority view of the South African committee is that the scope of the overlap between the proposed standard and the existing ISO/IEC 26300 standard is significant.  A significant majority view is that South Africa sees no benefit in adopting another standard for document formats in this area.

If Microsoft thinks it can now inject its immature OOXML as an alternative format in South Africa's MIOS, they certainly are facing an uphill battle. SABS and DST will undoubtedly expect to hear a lot of whinging about "choice" and "market forces" lobbied at certain Ministerial Departments. Will CompTIA and ISC please step up?

This goes to show that certain Ministries of Science and Technology can stand up for the interests of their citizens, and not have to feel pressured by a single foreign multinational. If only this independence was more prevalent around the world.

yk.

The ODF Alliance released the following statement at their ODF Alliance blog:

ODF Alliance Statement on the ISO Vote on OOXML

Washington, DC, April 2, 2008—ODF Alliance managing director Marino Marcich issued the following statement regarding the ISO vote on Microsoft’s Office Open XML.

“The ISO vote on OOXML has raised awareness at the highest levels of government of the importance of preserving access to public information and records. For too long, this information has been locked into the closed, proprietary format controlled by a single vendor. This is increasingly unacceptable. For this reason, governments around the world have been adopting the already-ISO approved OpenDocument Format (ODF).

ODF will continue to be the document format of choice that best meets the needs of governments interested in ensuring access to their own information, now and in the future. The process itself brought to the fore OOXML’s deficiencies that will prevent its use by public administrations, chief among them that OOXML remains a “community of one”—undocumented features, IPR restrictions, and features and functionality linked to other Microsoft products that will prevent OOXML’s use in other software products. Governments will naturally take a “buyer beware” attitude toward OOXML and its lone implementation, Microsoft Office 2007. Nothing about the process will provide governments with any more confidence in OOXML’s openness and interoperability than they had before the vote.

The vote shined a spotlight on OOXML that will not dim. Only in response to growing public pressure has Microsoft promised to make changes to OOXML, and, to be sure, similar promises have been made on numerous occasions. To avoid any questions concerning the legitimacy of the vote, which included many documented irregularities, Microsoft needs to ensure that these promises made to national standards bodies are actually delivered. 

If anything, this vote has galvanized the ODF community, making us more confident than ever of ODF’s emergence as the document format of the future.”

The final votes for DIS29500 is now done. Apparently, results will only come out tomorrow. So, it's all over for now, bar the screaming and shouting. For many observers, it's absolutely clear that the voting process in various National Bodies have been less than ... logical. However, because there's not actually been anything illegal, in so far as anyone can tell, the hanky-panky have been described as "irregular".

There's been accusations of corruption, but none that anyone could really make stick. In Malaysia, there's been cajoling, lobbying, pleading, cabinet paper attempt-ing, lunches, dinners, following of officials like a puppy, arse licking, ego stroking, economic doom-spelling and other methods to convince the vote caster to approve the draft standard, OOXML, or failing that, to abstain. However, there haven't been any reports of outright vote-buying or any other forms of money exchange, nor do we expect any to come in the future.

So, on the surface, in Malaysia at least and in many other countries (except, allegedly, Sweden), the efforts of Microsoft to convince the NBs to approve OOXML as an ISO standard has been legal.

That it stinks to high heaven is beside the point.

What is the point is that we have collectively, globally, bore witness to an awesome display of power by a single corporation. Awesome. Ruthless, even. That Microsoft would fight in every nook and cranny, every possible avenue, every committee, sub-committee, sub-sub-committee, upwards, downwards and sideways to the committees, is simply astounding.

That Microsoft can and did encourage the final decision makers to ignore the wishes of their own standards bodies, majorities be damned, is further affirmation of this awesome display.

Some are saying that this is a Pyrrhic victory for Microsoft, that the battle is not yet over. They refer to Norway kicking back as the first return salvo. We await other nations (and personally, especially my own, Malaysia) to join Norway.

But let's make it clear here that protesting the approval of DIS 29500 OOXML is not a protest against Microsoft per se, but more against the besmirching of the process, the subversion and brushing aside the collective technical expertise of countless of interested/non-interested parties and experts, and sheer ignorance of any due respect to other people's opinions.

However, it was awesome. One company, Microsoft, against all comers, all over the world.

Simply, awfully, awesome.

Right, okay, so there was a meeting at Pikom's office, where their councillors were seeking clarification on issues brought up by Malaysia during the BRM, regarding DIS29500. Yoon Kit's explained why he wasn't there (in a nutshell, since there was some initial confusion as to whether non-members of Pikom could attend or not, he elected to spend time with the in-laws[1]), and Doug's [2] given his take on it.

As is the nature of these things, I would like to start my account of the meeting by nitpicking on one tiny little point -- I am not on the anti-OOXML side and in so far as I can tell, neither is Jeremy Allison (a.k.a. Jazzer me mate), Dinesh or Shane. Speaking for myself, I have no real strong opinion on OOXML, other than that DIS29500 seems broken to me, not just because Malaysia had 23 comments, but because the world and their pets seems to have collectively made more than 3000 comments.

Doug noted that the guys on the opposite side of the table from Microsoft (and (BANGS hand on table!) Ecma!) did not discuss any of the 23 comments made by Malaysia for the BRM ... and he's right, we didn't. Again, speaking for myself, prior to the meeting, I was sceptical that the "pro-OOXML" gang would actually just concentrate on that. This was mainly because I didn't know who would be attending on their side. I certainly did not expect that Microsoft would bring Doug Mahugh, Oliver Bell, Dave Welsh and (BANGS hand on table!) Jan van de Veld, former Sec-Gen of Ecma International. I fully expected Microsoft to apply the Chewbacca Defense strategy, and therefore figured that I must concentrate on my own Wookie-based defense.

Jeremy Allison prior to the meeting had already told me that he felt that restricting the meeting solely to discussing the 23 comments made by Malaysia would not be productive, since DIS29500 did not affect Malaysia alone, but the entire world. I just nodded, because at the time I was still thinking if there was any other Wookie that actually had a name in the Star Wars universe.

Anyway, before that line of thought gets even sillier, I'll get to my point and leave it at that.

My main reason for attending the meeting at Pikom was I was hoping to be able to make the Pikom councillors understand that DIS29500 at its current state is not fit to be approved as an ISO standard. Sure, there are questions raised regarding the efficacy of the Fast Track process (i.e. maybe Ecma should have tried a Not-So-Fast Track if there was one), and Jeremy at the very least would have been happy to discuss technical issues. Yoon Kit and Ditesh could have attended, and proceeded to split hairs with the Microsoft (and Ecma (BANGS hand ... never mind)) guys.

But that would only emphasise the main problem with DIS29500: given the volume of comments submitted, given the fact that Malaysia's representative (along with a bunch of other countries' reps) to the BRM chose to disapprove a majority of the resolutions means that there is something wrong.

Mr. van de Veld had pointed out that it's better to have a good standard now rather than a perfect standard later and well, the point is that it's not good now. And while everyone can accept that it would be highly improbable for something like DIS29500 to ever be perfect, let's at least get a good start first.

He also noted that the BRM was not the beginning of DIS29500, and that it was in 2005 when it all started and there weren't that many keen people wanting to get involved then (except, of course, the British Library of Congress, Apple, Novell, and another entity or two). So, to moan about the process now is a bit late. Well, better late than never, is what I say! Or rather, what I should've said at the meeting and didn't, because ... well, I felt it would be impolite and I didn't want to seem rude to him[5].

Oliver Bell pointed out that ODF was passed without as intense a scrutiny as OOXML and that ODF has flaws too. I pointed out that ODF is not quite why the meeting was being held that night, and as far as I'm concerned, that's no longer relevant. He then pointed out that it would not be fair for us to have a lower bar for ODF and a higher bar for OOXML. I wish I had the erudition that night to point out that if the bar was lowered for OOXML, then ... well, two wrongs don't make a right. PDF was also mentioned as well, and I must admit that I began to wonder if we were going to descend into a "which standard is lousier" argument at that point in time. It didn't, thankfully, because I'm usually useless at the "Yo Momma so fat" genre of hissy fights.

So, to return to the point, given that DIS29500 does not even seem to be good at this point, if Pikom voted "Yes" to it, it would be irresponsible on their part. They should vote "No", and allow Microsoft (Ecma!) to consolidate, rationalise and resubmit the draft standard to ISO, via normal process. Microsoft's reps alluded that if OOXML is not passed this time around, there's no guarantee that it would be resubmitted to ISO, and I fail to see why that should mean that it needs to be passed now. The standard doesn't magically become better simply because it was given a pass.

On the subject of handling the issues in Maintenance, the point is why? Why do it in Maintenance, when you can do it in The Now?

And finally, because I really need to be doing something else right now, I would like to appeal to Microsoft and Ecma to just pull back, make the thing look like an actual OPEN standard, and resubmit. While I respect your intensity and dedication in trying to get DIS29500 approved, I still cannot avoid thinking that your sincerity is still suspect.

--

[1] That someone would rather spend time with the in-laws rather than go to a meeting says something. I don't know what, though.

[2] Having met him for the first time, I can categorically confirm that Doug Mahugh is a bald dude with a tache[3].

[3] This is because I was once asked to describe what Hasan was like, and all I could say is that he's the dude with a white spot on the back of his head[4].

[4] Please do not ask me any more to describe who anyone is like.

[5] Because Mr. van de Veld looked like a guy you didn't want to be rude to, okay.

The Prime Minister's Office of the Government of Iceland has released their policy on Free and Open Source Software. Reading it shows that the policy is well thought through. In the introduction itself, the policy states that:

"Free and open-source software is expanding rapidly all over the world, having already earned recognition as a realistic option when selecting information technology solutions. Such software has brought competition to a market previously dominated by a relatively small number of suppliers. Rather than hindering this trend, it is important for governmental authorities to support it and allow for its continued development, since the use of free and open-source software can reduce the ties of businesses, the authorities and the public to individual suppliers or service providers, thereby cultivating greater choice.

There are numerous factors, particularly the expense of proprietary software, which call for noting the possibilities involved in using free and open-source software. These possibilities add weight to recommendations stemming from cooperative projects and international organisations, such as the European Union and Nordic Council, that free competition be promoted in these matters. Public bodies are at the same time encouraged to utilise the power of their size to push for the use of free and open-source software. In fact, most of Iceland's neighbouring countries have already formed policies on such software."

The policy itself consists of five simple yet effective action items:

Point 1: When purchasing new software, free and open-source software and proprietary software are to be considered on an equal footing, with the object of always selecting the most favourable purchase.

Observation: The Malaysian MAMPU open source policy was similar in nature except that it was sensible in the sense  that it required preference to be given to open source software when all other considerations were of equal merit. This policy was under intense lobbying to be overturned from Microsoft Malaysia and its various fronts (such as CompTIA and IASA) in the interest of technology neutrality, which was a silly argument considering that technology neutrality benefited the proprietary Microsoft stack status quo and did not benefit the entire industry as a whole.

Point 2: Every endeavour shall be made to choose software based on open standards, regardless of whether the software in question is standard or bespoke (custom-designed). Generally, software which is free for anyone to use is also typified by open standards.

Observation: The focus on open standards is timely and wise. Open standards increase choice for users and vendors alike so it works to the benefit of all. However, a reference to a definition of open standards would prove useful as certain vendors have been known to fudge the definition of open standards and confuse the debate.

Point 3: Public bodies shall endeavour to avoid any undue dependence on particular software manufacturers or service providers. The utilisation of free and open-source software is one means of this.

Point 4: One goal for bespoke (custom-designed) software financed by public bodies, including software for research and development projects, should be its reusability. Keeping the software free and open-source is one way to achieve reusability. Strategies shall be devised at the outset of such projects for ensuring reuse of the software.

Point 5: Students in Icelandic educational institutions shall be given the opportunity of learning about and using free and open-source software on a par with proprietary software.

Observation: I love point no 5. Day in and day out, I encounter fresh university graduates who have been trained on proprietary software platforms and know very little about the fundamentals of computer science. They are really point-and-click developers (think Visual Basic) who are just denied from learning about the fundamentals thanks to the opaque interface provided by the proprietary platforms. By comparison, every single graduate with an open source background shines primarily because he/she has been able to grok and plumb the software stack to their hearts content. Being able to learn through open source software is a big big win and will reap benefits for the Iceland ICT industry for years to come.

All in all, good stuff from the Icelandic government. Let's hope more European governments follow suit!

The Malaysian Administrative Modernization and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU) has announced that the agency will be migrating to OpenOffice.org office suite as well as adopt the OpenDocument Format (ODF). In addition, Microsoft Office is to be phased out by end of 2008. The press release follows:

Putrajaya, 19th March 2008 - The Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU), today officially adopts a policy to migrate to the OpenOffice.org open source productivity suite. This is in line with the Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Master Plan, which calls for government agencies to reduce costs, increase freedom of choice and interoperability.

From April 1st, MAMPU will start adopting the OpenDocument Format (ODF), standard for all new documents created. ODF the ISO open standard for electronic documents is also the default format for OpenOffice.org. The agency will also uninstall all copies of Microsoft Office by the end of 2008.

To ensure a smooth migration, presently over 80 agency staff have been trained by the Open Source Competency Centre (OSCC). Additional staff will then be trained internally by the IT department, which will also provide support for OpenOffice.org.

[Update by Hasan, 1:32 PM, 19 March 2008: Below are my translations of the MAMPU 2-page policy statements on the move to OpenOffice.org and ODF]

--- Page 1, originally Polisi Penggunaan OpenOffice.org MAMPU (in Malay) ---

The case for open source software has been made with general acceptance of its promise of better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility and lower cost. Now is the time to hasten execution.

Y.Bhg. Tan Sri Sidek Hassan
Chief Secretary to the Government of Malaysia
December 2007

OPENOFFICE.ORG USAGE POLICY

1. Document distribution

a) Internal within MAMPU, in the basic OpenOffice.org format

b) Going outside of MAMPU, in PDF format if not necessary to be edited and in OpenOffice.org or MS Office if to be edited

2. All preparation of documents need to use standard fonts that have been stipulated.

3. Mandatory for every PC or Notebook to have OpenOffice.org that has been stipulated.

4. Every MAMPU citizen need to own OpenOffice.org to support prevalent usage of OpenOffice.org.

5. Before 1 April 2008, every user need to complete back-up of MS Office documents.

6. From 1 April 2008, new documents need to be produced using OpenOffice.org and templates that have been stipulated.

7. From 1 July 2008, MS Office software will be uninstalled from every PC and notebook.

Released on 19 March 2008

--- End of Page 1 ---

--- Page 2, originally Mengapa Bertukar Kepada OpenOffice.org (in Malay) ---

Increased Interoperability, reduced costs and vendor lock-in, and increased growth of knowledge-based society are among the compelling reasons for moving in this direction.

Dato' Normah Binti Md yusuof
Director General MAMPU
Prime Minister's Department
December 2007

WHY CHANGE TO
OPEN OFFICE.ORG?

1. Saves software licensing cost

2. Prevents supplier lock-in situations

2. Increases compatibility and interoperability

4. Stimulates growth of local ICT industry

5. Aligned with Malaysian Public Sector OSS Master Plan

--- End of Page 2 ---

My article on All for open standards was published in the Tech&U section of the New Straits Times newspaper yesterday (22 October 2007).

Not too long a writeup, so check it out by clicking on the image on the left to view its full size. See what you think of the article.

The only inaccurate part of the article is my pic -- should have sent them an updated one with my now shaved hairdo....

:-)

[Update 29 October 2007: Full text of article transcribed below.]

There was a press release about Netherlands adopting ODF. Here is the English translation of the press release:

Obligatory use of open standards by the government

17/09/2007 Press release subject: ICT policy

The government has to use open standards software from April 2008. This will increase the openness and accessibility of the government for the public, decrease the dependency from ICT-suppliers and it will give innovation more chance to take place.

This is a plan posed by the Deputy Minister of Economics, Heemskerk, which he sent to the parliament on Monday 17^th of September 2007. The Deputy Minister of Domestic Affairs, Bijleveld, also supports this plan. On the very same day he gave a speech on the conference ‘Grenzeloos samenwerken’ (cooperation without borders) to further outline his plans.

Through open standards and the use of open source software, the dependency from ICT-suppliers will be decreased. Furthermore, more opportunities will be created for designers of this type of software. In addition, the exchange of information between citizens and the governments will become easier.

From April 2008 on, government entities have to consider software with open standards if they purchase or modernise their software. Only in exceptional cases, for example when operations are endangered, proprietary software can be considered.

From the 1^st of January 2009, all government departments need to have a strategy for the use and purchasing of open source software. According to the deputy minister it is good that politicians are looking into the ICT policy since it is not only a technological tool but also an important part of modern Dutch society.

Open source software is software of which the source code is freely accessible. A well-known example is the operating system Linux. The main features of open standards is that everybody can use it without paying for a license.

My only comment on this would be for those in Netherlands championing this initiative to look out for Comptia and other allegedly neutral vendor organizations who would probably have already started lobbying against such initiatives in the dubious interest of maintaining technology neutrality (in layman's terms, "technology neutrality" would basically mean to  "maintain the status quo of using proprietary software from a software vendor found guilty in the US and the EU of abusing its market monopoly").

An acrimonious battle to make <a vendors product> specifications an international standard has moved into round two with the approval of <the vendor> as the standards submitter to the International Organization (ISO) for Standardization in Geneva, Switzerland.

On reading this, one would think that this was a matter of the Microsoft Office Open XML (MSOOXML) as "the vendor's product" and Microsoft as "the vendor". The 2nd September vote showed that Microsoft failed to get the necessary votes (67% approval) from P National Bodies (NB) and failed to acheive less than 25% negative votes. However MSOOXML storms in to stage 2 (the Contradiction Period seemed to be irrelevant, since all the concerns raised by the NBs were disregarded).

However this is not about MSOOXML. This is about something which happened a decade ago. This is the story about Sun, the vendor, and its efforts in standardising Java, the vendor's product, as an ISO standard in 1997-1998.

This post is based on an article I stumbled upon, entitled "Java ISO standards battle rages" by Amy Zukerman, written on the 26th of January, 1998. I will quote from the article and subsequently provide information to see how the complaints 10 years ago translate to today's actions.

Disclaimer: I have no real idea why Malaysia abstained in the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 voting. The following is just speculation.

In the run up to the 2nd September deadline, there were a lot of lobbying, cajoling, and pleading from both sides of the OOXML divide. For those who opposed the ratification of OOXML, reasons given were on technical grounds -- essentially saying that OOXML as a technical specification is defective. For those who wanted OOXML ratified (and really, there was only one -- Microsoft), reasons given were on economic grounds -- essentially saying that if OOXML is not voted in as an ISO standard, Malaysia would lose out economically.

To expand:

The "No" to OOXML faction

This very blog, among many others all over the world, would generally painstakingly put down the deficiencies of OOXML, with examples. Yoon Kit and Ditesh, especially, have contributed a lot. Within the context of Malaysia's NB, comments given to justify a "No" vote were also extensive. For what it's worth, there weren't any reasons given in the form of "We will save/lose x million dollars if OOXML is approved", because that would be rubbish. Regardless of whether we were to save money in disapproving OOXML, or spend more if OOXML was approved, it had no place (to the minds of the "No" crowd) in a discussion of whether a technical specification for a suite of file formats should be approved as an ISO standard. Further, apart from employees of IBM, no one else who objected to the ratification of OOXML were under the pay of IBM, nor were they under IBM's magic spell nor did any of them receive any favours, discounts, women, rent boys or any other sort of incentives from IBM.

The "No" crowd works with the technically minded bureaucrats and technocrats in the Standards Body.

The "Yes" to OOXML faction

Microsoft have generally forwarded the following arguments when countering any FOSS initiatives in Malaysia, and therefore I don't think they changed much when arguing about Open Standards, because in my encounters with personnel from Microsoft (Malaysia, and one dude in Riyadh once), they themselves have absolutely no clue about the difference between Open Source and Open Standards:

1. Microsoft have contributed a lot to the Malaysian economy and the Malaysian IT industry.
2. Microsoft have invested x million ringgits in Malaysia, with y million ringgits last year alone.
3. Microsoft have <big number> --> ∞ of ISVs in the country, all depending on Microsoft to help them along.
4. Microsoft have assisted governments and big business all over the world with their IT needs.
5. Microsoft have always put importance on interoperability.
6. Microsoft have always believed that "The Children Are Our Future".
7. Microsoft have always believed in competition.
8. Microsoft loves you very much.

And therefore, given the reasons above, and the fact that Chewbacca lives on Endor (which makes no sense), the country must therefore say "Yes" to OOXML as ISO/IEC 29500. Because saying "No" would result in:

1. Malaysia going back on its Technology Neutral stance.
2. Malaysia losing out in competitiveness against other nations.
3. Malaysia gets left behind by the other countries which would be using Microsoft Office happily.
4. Malaysia no longer gets to preserve its sovereignty.
5. Malaysia would lose Microsoft as a valuable contributor to the nation's economy and IT growth.
6. Malaysia would no longer be a Halal Hub.

The "Yes" crowd works on the politicians and top-ranking civil servants. The "Yes" crowd also "encourages" their partners to be part of the standards body, in order to get more "Yes" men.

––

Given the above two approaches, with such divergent tactics, I suspect that the only available response from the country was to "Abstain". This is so that no one wins and no one loses. Further, I suspect the above scenario was also played out in many other countries. Though not necessarily ending with the same result, obviously.

Man, is the world frakked or what?

After what seemed like an insane period of frenetic lobbying, with accusations of vote-buying, back pedalling, last minute changes, ekcetera, voting for the ratification of OOXML as ISO/IEC 29500 ended on Sunday, 02 September 2007. Two days later, it seemed that OOXML failed to garner enough "Yes" votes and has not been approved. For now. There'll be a Ballot Resolution Meeting in February 2008, where apparently Microsoft Ecma will work towards resolving the comments raised by both the "No with comments" and "Yes with comments" votes. According to Brian Jones, there are only about 10,000 comments of which some are duplicated. So, roughly 6 months is enough to fix them, I suppose.

By the way, what would "No with comments" really mean, exactly? I take it to be, "We don't approve of this draft, and it should be fixed so that it might one day be agreeable to us." As for "Yes with comments", I take it to be, "We approve of this draft, but if you feel like it, can you make some changes? No, you won't? Okay then."

Anyhow, as a Malaysian, I'm rather interested in how Malaysia as a P country voted. This is because we didn't have any dramas in our Industry Standards Committee on Information Technology, Telecommunication and Multimedia, ISC-G (equivalent to the US' INCITS) such as having some dude voting twice (beady eyes on you, Sweden), or have the committee so divided that the body decided to abstain (a hello to our neighbours, Indonesia), or having 2/3rds of the committee voting "Yes with comments" despite the strong and valid objections made (down the Causeway -- yes, you Singapore), or running out of chairs for Sun and IBM (wahey, everyone say hi to Portugal).

Our committee, the ISC-G, voted "No with comments". Unequivocably. Score was ten-nil (10-0), if I'm not mistaken.  Or near enough, anyway. Whitewash. Walkover. Not because they didn't like Microsoft. Not because ISC-G members thought that Microsoft was the devil incarnate. It was because there were obvious problems with the draft proposal for ISO/IEC 29500. Reasons for the "No" was laced with comments. The contradictions raised during the enquiry stage of the draft wasn't even fixed, so it wasn't like the committee had to take too much time to make the comments, to be honest. Recycle the earlier contradictions, add a few more found later.

As such, looking at that, I am proud to see that we have done our duty as a responsible nation in voting ... "No with comments" ... at ... the ... JTC1 ... because ... aaaah .... Wha...?

According to this document, Malaysia have decided to "Abstain". When did that happen? Just as importantly, how did that happen? The Prime Minister of Malaysia endorsed it, is it? While he was launching some Halal Food thingy, was it?

To Microsoft Malaysia, I salute you, I really do. You managed to subvert due process in evaluating a technical specification for approval as an ISO standard into a circus. There were valid reasons for voting "No" at this point in time, and you know it. But you did it, anyway. The letters, the meetings, the phone calls ... the cabinet. It is appalling, how deliberation on a file format can turn out this way.

I am ashamed. It doesn't matter now that OOXML did not pass this round. I can no longer snicker at Sweden, shake my head at Indonesia or wiggle my finger at Singapore. Never mind buying some chairs for Portugal.

I am ashamed.

.
28 August 2007
Microsoft bashed in OOXML shens (and comparing loos)
By Richi Jennings
A digest of blog posts alleging Microsoft improprieties on the ISO ballot for OOXML, including shenanigans in Sweden and Norway.
Computerworld: http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/6099

27 August 2007

Open standards dilemma/Technology neutrality in question
By Tech&U Team

The article still got it confused by saying that this Malaysian public sector adoption of open standards is for eventual migration to the open source platform (see first paragraph of the main article).

Anyway, detractors are howling that the Malaysian Government adoption of ODF is against "technology neutrality."

Not so, say open standards advocates.

• Malaysian National Computer Confederation:  "There are many software out there that support ODF, so having an open standard document format will be good for end users to choose the software of their preference."

• Malaysia Open Source Software Alliance: "All companies and organisations in Malaysia can choose to adopt open standards without paying any royalties. This is because standards are not applications, interoperability is guaranteed, and competition is spurred."

Malaysia NST emedia: http://www.emedia.com.my/TECH/Computimes/Highlight/20070827111240/wartrevamp

Malaysia NST Tech&U (Scanned copy below - click image for full view):

24 August 2007
The world's fastest-growing economies reject Microsoft
By Matt Assay
"First it was China. Now India and Brazil. The rout of Microsoft's Open Office XML (OOXML) standardization efforts is now essentially complete. When the world's fastest growing economies reject Microsoft, Microsoft has a problem."
CNet News: http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9765759-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

23 August 2007
Microsoft kills its ‘Get the Facts’ anti-Linux site
By Mary Jo Foley
"Microsoft has finally acknowledged that its anti-Linux site had gone past the point of usefulness.  On August 23, Microsoft pulled plug on the 'Get the Facts' site, replacing it with a new Windows Server 'Compare' site.  I heard earlier this year that Microsoft intended to kill off the Get the Facts site. But Microsoft told me, at that time, I should get my facts straight, and that there was no intent to do away with the site."
ZDNet: http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/index.php?p=670

.

In today's online edition of the Daily Telegraph (UK), there is a headline and leader in the sports section which says:

'Miracle' of Istanbul

Edwin Yapp from ZDNet interviewed us at openmalaysiablog a few weeks ago. His article entitled "Open source gathers steam in Malaysia" describes accurately the environment here in Malaysia as of today.

"Ditesh cited a recent Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) World survey of Malaysia, which stated employers in the country generally value OSS skills, and noted that this is particularly evident during job interviews. "This indicates a strong preference for OSS by Malaysian companies," he said."

It a good day for Malaysia at ZDNet with regards to the growing momentum of FOSS in this country. Just yesterday, Lynn Tan reported "Malaysia formally embraces Open Document Format" which is the starting point of the slow but steady migration exercise of leveraging the OpenDocument Format in the government.

This trend justifies the decision made by Malaysia to support FOSS products back in 2002.

"Malaysia stands out in FOSS, mainly because there's a fairly well-organized FOSS movement, the media is FOSS-aware, and there is support from the government for FOSS usage," said C.P. Loo, country sales director, Sun Microsystems Malaysia.

And although a certain vendor and its lobbyists would declare the removal of the "preference" back in December 2006 as a victory, its not clear that a simple editorial job will not dampen the rise and rise of FOSS usage. Rather, the term "Technology Neutrality" leads a bright light towards a certain path towards Open Standards where, FOSS provides the best choices for consumers in both the private and public sectors.

"...  we can surmise that organizations in emerging countries such as Malaysia, would leverage OSS from the beginning to avoid vendor lock-in," said Prianka Srinivasan, Asia Pacific market analyst at IDC's software research group, "... OSS is now used in almost all verticals and in different software stacks as there is sufficient support from OSS vendors."

Despite FOSS being childishly name-called "cancerous", educated developers too can easily reap the rewards without the fear of viral infection:

"And as an independent software vendor (ISV), our ability to develop and improve our core application framework engine is enhanced with the usage of some OSS components. This is a huge plus point for us," [KeshMahinder Singh, CEO of Profitera]

Thanks for reporting, ZDNet.

yk.

[Update 15th August 2007 12:15pm : The title of the ZDNet article has now changed from "Malaysia embraces open docs format" to the more accurate title of "Malaysia embraces Open Document Format". It is still grammatically in error, and not entirely accurate, as it should read "Malaysia embraces the OpenDocument Format", but ah well, we take what we get]

From ZDNet Asia comes the breaking news that Malaysia formally embraces Open Document Format!

Excerpt:

"The Malaysian Administration Modernization and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU) last week issued a tender for a nine-month study to evaluate the usage of open standards in its information communications technology (ICT) deployment. The study will also look into how the Malaysian public sector should migrate to open standards and the ODF..."

This is indeed a strong commitment by the Malaysian Government to open standards, and in particular, ODF! The study to be conducted will provide a roadmap for implementing ODF in Malaysia's public sector.

This is hot on the heels of Japan having earlier embraced open standards. Outside Asia Pacific, other countries with pro-ODF policies include Belgium, Norway, France, Denmark, Brazil, Poland and Croatia.

Onward Malaysia!