India must adopt free standards

http://www.infochangeindia.org/analysis236.jsp

By V Sasi Kumar

India should not make the mistake of being pressured to adopt a
non-free standard for computer applications or we could have big
problems in the future

Computers and the Internet have been with us for a number of years
now, and are becoming increasingly popular among those who can afford
them. Internet cafes are making this technology accessible also to a
section of the population that cannot afford personal computers.

Although the size of the population with access to the Internet is
admittedly tiny, this is a technology that's soon going to be
ubiquitous. More importantly, state and central governments have begun
using it to bring greater transparency in governance and to speed up
the administrative process. Records pertaining to land, people and
governance are being converted into digital format. Similarly, a lot
of information related to government, even courts of law, is being put
up on the Internet.

This raises certain issues related to the technology used.

In Information Technology (IT), there are broadly two kinds of
software: proprietary and free. Here, 'free' is used in the sense of
'freedom', not necessarily 'free of cost'. Examples of the former are
Microsoft software like MS Windows and MS Office, and other software
such as Adobe Photoshop. Examples of free software are the GNU/Linux
operating system, the office suite OpenOffice.org and image editor
Gimp. Free software offers users four kinds of freedoms -- the freedom
to use the software on any computer, for any purpose; the freedom to
share it with others; the freedom to study the software and modify it
for one's own use; and the freedom to redistribute the modified
version. While the use of free software benefits everyone, especially
governments, we shall look at another aspect of IT here.

File formats

Apart from the software used, we also need to choose the format in
which files are stored. For instance, documents containing only text
can be stored in text format, which does not permit complex formatting
like bold, italics or colour. It can also be formatted in a word
processor like Microsoft Word or OpenOffice.org Writer. Similarly,
pictures, sound files, movies, animation, databases and so on may be
stored in different kinds of formats. Some of these are proprietary
formats that can be decoded properly only using proprietary software,
while others are free and open formats that can be opened with a wide
variety of software.

Most computer users are not fully aware of the issues related to using
different kinds of formats. Let us look at one such problem. This is
based on a real incident.

When Raghu could not open a document he received by email from a
friend overseas, he decided to contact his colleague Harish who was
the local troubleshooter for all kinds of computer-related problems.
Harish took a look at the file and told Raghu that he would not be
able to open it in Word because it was a Lotus WordPro document. Raghu
was, naturally, taken aback. He did not understand what Harish meant.
Harish explained to him that Word is only one of several word
processors being used on computers, albeit the most popular one;
WordPro was another, so are WordPerfect and OpenOffice.org Writer. All
these, except the last, stored their documents in formats that are
understood properly only by their respective applications. So, a
document created using one word processor cannot be opened using
another.

Many people have faced this problem at one time or another, though not
very often. But it's a potentially serious problem, especially for
central or state governments. In most cases, documents are generated
in proprietary formats such as Microsoft Word or Excel. Five years
from now, if it becomes necessary to open one such document, two
conditions will have to be satisfied: one, that Microsoft still exists
and its applications still allow us to open documents in these
formats; and two, that we will have the required Microsoft application
installed. This means that we are bound to always use Microsoft
applications -- a phenomenon known as 'vendor lock-in'.

We don't face these drawbacks in other areas where we use technology
products. For instance, we still continue to use plugs, holders and
other electrical fittings installed 20 or more years ago. We are still
able to connect our modern gadgets to them without experiencing any
problems.

This is possible because of standardisation. There were standards in
place when these fittings were made, and we follow the same standards
today. Unfortunately there were no standards for documents generated
using computers, until recently that is.

This may appear to be a small problem, especially in India where few
people use computers. But it's not. Imagine a huge database for
e-governance built on a proprietary database. The company that
provides the database could, one morning, suddenly announce that it is
shifting to another format and will not be able to continue providing
support for the older version beyond a certain date.

Such things have actually happened. For instance, Microsoft told users
of its older system, Windows NT, that it would not provide support
beyond December 31, 2004, and that those who were using it should move
to the newer system, Windows 2000. This meant that people who were
using Windows NT and were happy with it were forced to install the new
system, which often meant replacing the computer itself, migrating all
the data (sometimes including applications) to the new system, and
retraining staff -- a very expensive exercise in many situations.

It could have been worse: suppose the company itself were to wind up!
Like in the case of a company that was developing an application
(called 3B2) for typesetting academic journals which was taken over by
another company that is now silent about the software's maintenance.
Typesetting companies that were using this application are now getting
the jitters since changing over to a new application means retraining
hundreds of employees and the consequent loss in production.

So, what's the solution? The solution is to have a standard format for
all documents.

This fact was realised by users in developed countries long before we
did, as a consequence of which we have an ISO standard -- the Open
Document Format (ODF). This includes standards for text documents,
spreadsheets, presentations and drawings. And it is a free standard
(all ISO standards are not free).

What is a free standard? A free standard is a standard that belongs to
no one. It belongs to all of humanity and is not controlled by any
person or organisation.

It may appear strange that standards are controlled by people. But
it's possible. For instance, Microsoft has proposed a document
standard known as OOXML (Office Open XML, where XML is a language that
is becoming popular for formatting documents and stands for eXtended
Markup Language). OOXML has been accepted as a standard (Ecma 376) by
Ecma (originally, the European Computer Manufacturer's Association), a
private standardisation body, on December 7, 2006. It is now under
consideration for acceptance as a standard by the International
Standards Organisation (ISO) but has lost out in the first stage.

OOXML is a proprietary format by Microsoft and someone who wants to
implement it will require a licence, though it is an open standard.
This is one of the reasons why organisations like the Free Software
Foundation and industries like Google and IBM are fighting the
acceptance of OOXML as an ISO standard. Another reason is that they
are trying to create a second standard while the ISO-approved ODF
standard still exists. Interestingly, both are based on XML. Moreover,
instead of using existing standards for components inside the document
standard (such as ISO 8601 for the representation of date and time),
it uses its own non-standard formats. Finally, it is strange that
Microsoft refuses to support the ISO's existing ODF standard. They are
actually duplicating the effort of creating an ISO standard, namely
ODF, which is totally unnecessary.

India voted against OOXML at the preliminary stage. Along with several
other countries, India points to aspects of OOXML that are not
acceptable in the country. Microsoft submitted a 6,000 page document
for evaluation. Since it had asked for (and was given) the fast-track
route for acceptance, the time available for people to respond was
just about a month. This was probably done deliberately so that people
would not find the time to study the document, necessarily a highly
technical one, in detail. In spite of this, teams in India and other
countries burnt the midnight oil to go through the document carefully
and come up with major objections, some of which Microsoft may find
difficult to counter. They get another opportunity to defend
themselves against the criticism; if they are able to respond
satisfactorily to the issues raised by the various parties, then OOXML
could become an ISO standard.

However, India and other countries have the option of deciding on the
standard they will follow. This should be a free standard, like ODF (a
few countries and regions like the state of Massachusetts have already
adopted this standard). If OOXML becomes an ISO standard there is
bound to be a lot of pressure on governments to adopt it. We should
not make that mistake.

(V Sasi Kumar is with the Atmospheric Sciences Division of the Centre
for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram)

Microsoft clarifies:

This is with reference to the story 'India must adopt free standards'
by V Sasi Kumar. The article which expands on the individual view held
by the author, raises questions around Open XML as a technology
standard and the intent of Microsoft as a technology player. I would
like to strongly point out that there is some erroneous understanding
of the entire process as well as the technology.

At the outset, Microsoft software is completely interoperable. In fact
Microsoft has consistently invested in helping customers integrate our
platform and applications with a broad array of popular (and even not
so popular) hardware, software and networks. We have partnered with
Novell & Sun among others to ensure Windows interoperability across
technology platforms. As a result of these efforts, Microsoft offers a
comprehensive portfolio of interoperability software capabilities,
from the operating system to individual applications. This development
highlights our commitment to address customer interoperability needs,
and that we acknowledge the mixed source environment needs of our
customers. Our efforts are helping our customers run both Microsoft
Windows and SUSE Linux Enterprise systems seamlessly together.

The article mentions that Microsoft is pushing for Open XML as a
standard despite a host of technical flaws. The fact remains that Open
XML was submitted for ISO standardisation by Ecma International, and
is an open standard and was developed as part of a
cross-industry/cross-organisation collaboration that included Apple,
Barclays Capital, BP, The British Library, Essilor, Intel, Microsoft,
NextPage, Novell, Statoil, Toshiba, and the U.S. Library of Congress.

The so-called 'technical flaws' are comments made by ICO committee
members in order to document the standard. As part of the
standardisation, Ecma is currently in the process of collating
resolutions for the comments given by the ISO. At the end of the
Ballot Resolution phase, the ISO will ask all national bodies like the
Bureau of International Standards (BIS) to ascertain the resolutions.

The report erroneously suggests that the Indian committee meeting of
BIS rejected Open XML. This is incorrect since the committee
unanimously supported the need for multiple standards and they have
also stated they would welcome Open XML as an ISO standard once Ecma
reverts on the comments given by the committee.

Contrary to what the article suggests, users do not need to sign any
licence agreement or pay Microsoft anything to use Open XML. It is
also important to understand that placing a standard under ISO
actually means handing over its control to the international standards
body!

The piece quotes Massachusetts as an example for having 'chosen' ODF
over other standards – while the reality is that the opposite is true.
The state of Massachusetts included Open XML and ODF, both, in its
state policy on August 1, 2007. The state opted for choice of open,
XML-based document formats by including both standards in its
Enterprise Technical Reference Model (ETRM).

--Meenu Handa
(Director Corporate Communications, Microsoft India)

InfoChange News & Features, January 2008

* * *

http://swatantryam.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Microsoft Responds

Microsoft has responded (see here) to my write-up about the need to
adopt the Open Document Format. As may be expected, they are just
trying to convince people with propaganda. Since Infochange is
unwilling to publish my response to Microsoft's clarification, I have
to do it here. So here goes:

Microsoft says, "At the outset, Microsoft software is completely
interoperable."

I think this must be a joke. Just today, the media report (see here
for a report in The Hindu) that Microsoft has been fined a record
$1.35 billion by the European Commission regulators for not complying
with their 2004 order related to an anti-trust case. The case was that
Microsoft has been trying to avoid giving essential information
required for interoperability to others by asking for a huge price. As
the report says, "Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of EU
competition policy that the commission has had to fine for failure to
comply with an antitrust decision," Let me quote a couple of lines
more from the report:

"Microsoft has tried to allay European antitrust concerns, announcing
last week that it will help competitors' software work better with
some products, such as MS Office.

It sought to limit potential EU fines by agreeing in October to make
network data available to open-source software developers so their
server software can connect to the Windows operating system."
Of course, they were willing to give all the information, apparently.
But just ask for an enormous sum (not specified in the report) for it.

Microsoft says, "In fact Microsoft has consistently invested in
helping customers integrate our platform and applications with a broad
array of popular (and even not so popular) hardware, software and
networks."

Really? Maybe they forgot to point this out to the EU? Sorry for the
sarcasm. Genuinely. I have nothing against Microsoft or any other
company, so long as they do not think that all others are total
idiots.

Microsoft says, "We have partnered with Novell & Sun among others to
ensure Windows interoperability across technology platforms."

Of course, that is old story. As though SuSe and Solaris are the only
other operating systems people use. If Microsoft is really concerned
about inter-operability, why not make the necessary information
available to anyone? Why only to "partners"? What is Microsoft afraid
of? They are, aren't they?

Microsoft says, "As a result of these efforts, Microsoft offers a
comprehensive portfolio of interoperability software capabilities,
from the operating system to individual applications. This development
highlights our commitment to address customer interoperability needs,
and that we acknowledge the mixed source environment needs of our
customers. Our efforts are helping our customers run both Microsoft
Windows and SUSE Linux Enterprise systems seamlessly together."

LOL! Sorry for that. Meenu Handa who wrote this, must have written it
before the EC slapped a record fine on the company. She probably had
no clue about what was coming, and therefore may be excused. So if one
wants to run GNU/Linux and Microsoft Windows together, one better get
SuSE. My God! They really seem to think that we all are idiots.

So far I have addressed only one paragraph in their response. I really
do not have the patience to reply to the entire statement. Please read
it. You may find it the biggest joke of the century. Hope you have a
nice laugh.
Posted by Sasi at 11:16 PM 0 comments Links to this post
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Frederick 'FN' Noronha | Ym/Gmailtalk: fredericknoronha
http://fn.goa-india.org | fred@bytesforall.org
Independent Journalist | +91(832)2409490 Cell 9970157402
----------------------------------------------------------