Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Technology

Danish Study Recommends Open Standards for EU 185

Posted by timothy from the danish-studies-are-fattening dept.
PDAJames writes "The Danish government has wrapped up a two-year study of open source's potential for the public sector, and has some pretty interesting things to say. For one, it says that tie-ins to proprietary software effectively eliminate competition for government procurement and are inherently bad. For another, it recommends a public sector-led effort to adopt an XML-based standard document format, either that of OpenOffice or a new one developed by the EU. Will they push ahead with these plans or is it just more talk?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Danish Study Recommends Open Standards for EU More

Danish Study Recommends Open Standards for EU

Comments Filter:

  • OpenOffice vs. other office products (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:07PM (#7314437)
    Why don't the KDE developer stop working on KOffice and support OpenOffice instead?

    We need more people working on OpenOffice. OpenOffice is the only product that has a chance against MS Office.

    • Re:OpenOffice vs. other office products (Score:5, Funny)

      by Carewolf ( 581105 ) * on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:25PM (#7314522) Homepage
      Why don't the KDE developer stop working on KOffice support OpenOffice instead?

      He is busy convincing the GNOME developer to just give up and support KDE.

    • Re:OpenOffice vs. other office products (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Elektroschock ( 659467 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:31PM (#7314550)
      Both KOffice and Abiword will adopt the OO.org file format! OO may be a technology trap. Concumers want choice. Programmers also want choice. This is not totalitarism, everybody is free to do what he wants. 1 + 1 2!! Your philosophy is the philosophy of state economy (one factory has the best economies of scale) or the big old industries. A market economy enforces competition.
    • OpenOffice and KOffice have very different approach to word processing. KWord uses textflow oriented editing and is in that respect much more like FrameMaker than MS-Word or OpenOffice that both uses a document centric approach.

      However it would be nice if we could import OpenOffice documents as textflows into KOffice.
      The other way round is harder, but I suppose one could always export each KOffice textflow as an OpenOffice document.

      I suspect that this kind of expart/import functionality will emerge quite

    • The way I see this is that, while several open source projects working on a similar concept but different products might result in a slower development time for an overall MS Office killer, the resulting products will have played off each others strengths and weaknesses to become better works.

      Phew. Maybe an analogy would work better...
      Ok, if you've ever been in a large band practice complex, you'll have seen the different bands rub shoulders in the hall, listen to each other's music, sit in on sessions

    • We need more people working on OpenOffice. OpenOffice is the only product that has a chance against MS Office.

      Who's "we"?

      The world needs more diversity of software. More choice not less. A healthy software ecosystem depends on a wide variety of different software, all suited to doing particular jobs well, not one or two giant monoliths trying to do everything, and doing it badly as a consequence.

      File format compatability is needed. We're getting there, thanks to projects like OpenOffice.

      One size does not

  • Stop press.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by adeyadey ( 678765 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:08PM (#7314449) Journal
    Maybe, in the light of the release of Windows RG edition [onzin.com] they should rethink their position on proprietry software..

  • Theres the Killer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:08PM (#7314453)
    Open standards are the best thing imaginable for the customer. The data that software manages is consistently orders of magnitude more valuable than the hardware/software that does the managing.

    This wont open up things entirely, there are still patented feature sets, and purely proprietary technologies. It will at least let the best product win, not the company that got their first.
    • The company who gets there first rarely wins. It is the first company who gets there with a good marketing department that usually wins.

      Other that that I completely agree with you.

  • Inherently bad? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:10PM (#7314459) Homepage Journal
    it says that tie-ins to proprietary software effectively eliminate competition for government procurement and are inherently bad.

    Well, I might say that if one were considering government procurement only, they might be inherently bad. But there absolutely *is* good software out there that is proprietary that is good, and better than anything available open source. This is not to say I am not in favor of open source. Quite the contrary, I believe in an open source foundation, but companies should be allowed to bid on contracts for their proprietary products as long as those products are either based on open source, or support open source formats and alternatives.

    • Re:Inherently bad? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This proposal isn't against closed software, it's against close FORMATS.

      Any commercial product which will support open formats will be also considered as viable alternative.

    • Re:Inherently bad? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The two statements are not necessarly exclusive. Tie-ins to proprietary software are indeed inherently bad, because they limit the user's ability to change to different software later. If the difference in quality between the proprietary software and any competing software is great enough, it can be enough of an advantage to overcome the disadvantage of being tied to proprietary software.

      However, if I were a large organization requesting bids for software that included proprietary data formats, I would r
      • That's exactly the point. While proprietary software may be better that free software in some cases, tying yourself to proprietary software is not wise.

      • Re:Inherently bad? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Wolfier ( 94144 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @04:24PM (#7314990)
        >I would require that the ability to export data
        >into an open format be included.

        It is not enough.

        It should save data to an open format by DEFAULT.

        And if you choose an alternative format, it should not pop up an annoying dialog every time.

    • I think the study is only recognizing that being locked into a irreplaceable propietary platform is a problem. It's not saying that it's the only or even the worst possible problem.

      Common sense as this may seem, it needs to be said anyway. How many companies realized before adopting .DOC as a de-facto standard that this effectively prevented them from switching to non-Microsoft solutions, should the need arise?

    • No, Inherently bad is correct.

      If the government requires that all communications be in MS Word format, everybody wanting to do business with the government suddenly has to pay money to Microsoft. Either that, or break the law. Neither option is really all that great.

      And don't try to tell me that you can save your OpenOffice documents in MSWord format, that's flakey at best.

      If, on the other hand, the government required all communication to be in PDF, then it would be a level playing field. You can create

  • Well, at least some part of government has brains. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Hektor_Troy ( 262592 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:11PM (#7314465)
    It's hard to imagine something smart to come from a country that sent a corvette, snow plows and other winter equipment and a submarine (that broke down before its first mission) to help in the war against Saddam.

  • I've been thinking about the XML document format problem, and I don't think there will ever be a "pure and beautiful implementation" that will ever be perfect.

    As the capabilities of the document format grow, people gain the ability to embed images, arbitrary objects, graphs, etc. Much of this can be written in a self-describing style (ie: plain text XML nodes,) but there comes a point where the developers have to simply hack XML and embed some nasty CDATA kludge.

    Just looking at the embedded image problem alone -- static SVG is a great, pure-XML image format. Unfortunately, it will never have the power to describe the full set of images that you could create in a binary format.

    • The format is not the problem; it is the layout algorithm. It is no longer sufficient to be able to transfer the data, but the it needs to look the same on different systems. The layout algorithms need to be standardized to a bit-perfect level in order to have true compatibility between two word processing systems. Another (perhaps less intelligent possibility) is to add layout information to the file when it is saved, and this layout info is manipulated when and if the document is manipulated in different
    • The problem is all these people coming up with new XML document formats. They should just use plain XML.

      ;)

    • Bundles are the answer!! NeXT had this years ago.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by avarame ( 578734 ) <`joe' `at' `cfcl.com'> on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:43PM (#7314600) Homepage
      Better yet than XML... bundles!!!

      Go research .rtfd files on NeXT and Mac OS X. They're basically super-RTF files. They are actually a folder ending with .rtfd that the operating system presents to the user as a single file (for mere aesthetic and encapsulation reasons). They contain an RTF file and all the non-RTF resources (images, sounds, etc) that are embedded in the document as separate files in their own formats. I believe images are saved as TIFF by default.

      So why not combine open XML document formats and rtfd-style bundles! A complex document is really a folder full of files, but it appears to the user as a single file. This makes it easy to move around, esp from computer to computer, and presents a nice sensible metaphor to the user. It's also difficult to screw things up by messing with the components (but it is possible to get into the bundle if you need to). Inside these complex documents is an XML file that describes the components of the document. Then there are files that contain the components, in whatever (open) format you wish. RTF or OpenOffice or whatever for text, Ogg sounds, PNG or SVG images, CSV or more complex spreadsheet/table formats, all the fonts the document needs, etc.

      One of the replies to the parent addressed the issue of pixel-exact rendering. That's easy - just use the same rendering engine everywhere! All Gecko browsers render exactly the same everywhere (assuming the same fonts are available). So just use a single homogenous rendering engine everywhere. (And include fonts in the document bundle).

      I sure hope some brilliant application-software engineer reads this! :)

      (Final note: Another, more risky option would be to provide an API for rendering modules written in some suitable language, which would then be included in the bundle. You want to render, say, Maya IFF images? Include the IFF renderer in the bundle. Of course great security precautions would need to be taken, and optimally the rendering modules would have access to nothing outside the document-world, and preferably only a buffer to draw into and layout above them would be managed by the program. This has been tried before, I think. But maybe its time has come?)
      • I was just thinking of posting something along these lines. XML shouldn't be used for storing binary data, because we already have file formats for this. You could also use an open compression form so that you actually have one single file (or just use tar, whichever, since compressing images doesn't do jack shit) which is easier to send out.

        The main issue with using the same rendering engine is that screens are never the same. Colors are different, even font packages are different amongst Windows, Mac,
      • This is exactly what xml word processors do.

        OpenOffice uses zip to combine several xml files (one for content, others for meta-info and editor advice) and any image files or similar embedded content in their native formats. IIRC, KOffice uses tar.bzip2 and Abiword uses tar.gz, but I don't have those in front of me at the moment.

      • You mean like:
        $ ls
        chap1.sxw
        $ file chap1.sxz
        chap1.sxw: Zip archive data, at least v2.0 to extract
        $ unzip chap1.sxw
        Archive: chap1.sxw
        extracting: Pictures/10000000000002BB000000E0A5892BF2.jpg
        extracting: Pictures/10000000000001AA000000E98217936A.jpg
        extracting: Pictures/10000000000001CD000000FB9C72793D.jpg
        extracting: Pictures/10000000000001C30000010DA8FFD18C.jpg
        extracting: Pictures/100000000000026B000000B59CB54057.jpg
        extracting: layout-cache
        inflating: content.xml
        inflating: styles.xml
        extracti

      • You've got a good point, but at the same time you're also illustrating mine :)

        I'm not saying at all that any given document format sucks. What I'm saying is that XML starts to become a poor framework once the format grows powerful enough. A cool XPath query isn't really that cool when you still have to unpack the binary blob it returns! Bundles sound like a good document format, as do many of the other binary-based formats.

        Don't get me wrong -- I am fully behind XML document formats, and quite enjoy th

    • I've been thinking about the XML document format problem, and I don't think there will ever be a "pure and beautiful implementation" that will ever be perfect.

      Perhaps you want to share your thoughts by joining the OASIS Openoffice XML file format standardization effort

  • That XML buzzword again (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:14PM (#7314476)
    For another, it recommends a public sector-led effort to adopt an XML-based standard document format, either that of OpenOffice or a new one developed by the EU. Will they push ahead with these plans or is it just more talk?

    What's wrong with good [asciitable.com] old [indiana.edu] reliable [w3.org] existing [tug.org] formats?
    • The cool thing about XML-based implementations like DocBook [docbook.org] is that I can generate all the formats you mentioned (ASCII, PS, HTML, TeX) plus a few more from just one single document in XML.
    • Ah, well, if you're talking plain text ASCII is obviously the way to go. Only a limited number of documents are actually just plain text though. If you wish to display online HTML is obviously the way to go. If you wish to print TeX is obviously the way to go.

      So you end up with three source documents just to publish, "Hello World."

      Whereas with OO XML you can do everything these three seperate quarter page documents do with only eight frikkin' pages of XML code. (Go ahead, try it. Open OO Writer, type "Hel
      • The funny thing is, the RFC's are written in plain text (or nroff translated to plain text) and communicate some pretty substantial ideas. They use ascii art where necessary. The more I see of the ever-changing world of rich documents, the more I think everything should be plain ascii. It has more chance of being readable 50 years from now.
      • Adopting OO XML will give you access to every solution that has been need while developing OpenOffice.

        Developing an inhouse XML format would make solutions solutions for data-mining and cross-linking more feasible while still being able to easily translate to whatever office suite is in fashion at the time.

        I'm not saying that it's easy or working right now, but EU ought to use its momentum and recognize XML for what it's good at and not choose it as one among other fileformats.

  • nooooo! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by willll ( 635932 )
    either that of OpenOffice or a new one developed by the EU
    Just what we need: another XML document format. As if we didn't already have enough.

  • my government (Score:4, Funny)

    by broeman ( 638571 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:22PM (#7314512) Journal
    I must say that I am a bit confused. Not long time ago our "beloved" government (I even voted for them) were in favor of software patents and the use of industry standard software (read Microsoft) ... Open Source has been discussed in the Danish parlament for some years, even before the current government (2 years old in a month). The former government promised to change all state-institutions to OSS, but still nothing has happened. SSLUG [sslug.dk] (Skane Sjaelland Linux User Group, biggest LUG in Denmark) have had some discussions on this topic without much succes ... but saying this, I am looking forward to a initiative from our very quiet IT-minister. The report is from the Board of Technology, that have many good and forgotten discussions.
    • The lawyers dictate the law.

      You'd better talk to your department of Justice now or ask the ministers of economy to put pressure on the justice ministers. Also for parliamentary initiatives is now the right time.

      The council of ministers will decide on nov 10th. They are not bound by the EU parliament's decision as national governments are only accountable to the parliament. And the uk is likely to push for a horribel proposal. Note: now the government groups themselves decide about this issue.

      Take a look
      • If you speak Danish, instead of the mailling-list (3 people subscribed), take a look at this site [softwarepatenter.dk].

        I don't know how other countries deal with software-patents, but in Denmark we discuss every detail in the parlament (it is very unlikely that you can gain anything through lawyers). Just a fast browse on the page, and I found that even discussions about Konquorer and Mozilla Browsers have found their way into a Board-meeting. The answer is pretty bad, since the Economy&Residence-minister (who are the re
    • Why is the parent modded "+4, Funny"? I find it interesting and informative, but there isn't anything "funny" about it really. (Well, I do find it funny that people still bother to vote, as if it would actually make a difference, but that's another story...)
    • but saying this, I am looking forward to a initiative from our very quiet IT-minister

      Don't hold your breath while waiting. It will take a while before the IT-minister grasps what this is all about. Not that his predecessor was much better...

      And I have a sinking feeling that this problem is not confined to Denmark...

  • The largest product development center Micrsoft has outside the United States is in Vedbaek, Denmark.

    Should be interesting following this story...

  • sweet!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by the_2nd_coming ( 444906 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:58PM (#7314646) Homepage
    nice...if the EU uses a public open format, their economic power will force MS to have filters for the format!!

  • Well, go for competition and drive M$... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by praedor ( 218403 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @03:49PM (#7314834) Homepage
    To add a filter for the very open OO format. Nothing stops M$ from adding support for OO's file format, it is right there for the copying. This excerpt from the report:


    However, the report recognised that establishing a existing alternative or a new format would be an uphill battle, given that Microsoft Office cannot read OpenOffice documents or other formats.


    is real simple to correct. Start using OO format (via OO/SO) in government and M$ would be compelled by competition forces to support OO format...of be locked out of government. An OSS developer could also whip up an OO document "viewer" of small size so people could easily download this "plugin" and view OO government docs on their M$ systems (for those unwilling due to bandwidth constraints or obtuseness to simply install OO/SO).

    It is wrong to essentially require people to spend lots of money for a specific, propriatory wordprocessor just so they can view government documents. It is another thing entirely for them to "have to" download and install a free-of-charge office suite to do the same (though a plugin would alleviate most unreasonable heartburn). Even if they didn't do either, the contents of the document are still fully available to them in a cluttered form if they simply unzip the OO document and look at the ascii contents. Can't do that with word docs.

  • MS FUD (Score:2, Insightful)

    by danme ( 144941 )
    And now we only have to wait for the FUD to come along from Redmond on this topic too ...

  • Garbage In - garbage Out (Score:2, Insightful)

    by r7 ( 409657 )
    What could have been a good paper was, sadly, another example of researcher bias. Perhaps the the worst of it is their cite of a 2001 IDC comparison of Linux vs. Unix TCO. IDC claims that "Linux, which is open source, and Unix, which is proprietary"! Really? Haven't they heard of BSD? How about OSX? They really dig themselves into a hole further down where they explain this claim!

    There's a table comparing Unix and Linix item costs. Somehow "deinstallation and disposal" costs 7x more for Unix (RICS/U
  • As a dane I can safely say that this is all talk and no they want push ahead with anything. Denmark is one of the most Microsoft-centric countries in Europe. What a shame.

  • Looks good but.... (Score:2, Informative)

    by bYTEREALm ( 559537 )
    Ive hears about these initiatives in my country before, and well talk is cheap. I'm a free software user and supporter. We need at least open standards for all companies wanting to do business with our goverments. Open source would be nice, but i could settle for open standards as the next best thing.. ;) And yes we danish are a lot more than pastry, for years we were known and feared as the notoriuos vikings at sea. Tro det eller lad vaer - Believe it or not.. ;)
  • On such issues the EU should not show itself to be as parochial as mainland China and the US Congress and President. The EU should request action by the UN to develop such globally important standards.

    Such "Open Technology" actions that do not focus on the UN as the only path towards success are counter productive for humanity and wasteful of valuable and limited resources.

    "Open Technology" for all of humanity to develop. Learning Environment Independent Architecture (LEIA) technology from digitized common format content to global broadcast hardware and software open source/standards. Research and Development (Medicine, Science, Technology, ...) centers that translate voice and/or documents on-the-fly (real-time) for Collaborative Learning Interactive Communities (CLIC), ... continue to all the benifits for developing nations and global business/commerse/markets/...

    GET MOVING ASAP for all humanity.

    OldHawk777

    Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
  • As one of the authors, I will point to one major and one minor error in the original posting: - It is not a report from the government, but from the Danich Board of Technology - an independet, public technology assesment board. - It was not a 2 year study. Work started in jan. 2002 and the Danish report was published on oct. 12, 2002. The English translation (financed by EU Commision) was published last week. The report is available from www.tekno.dk

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ask not what A Group of Employees can do for you. But ask what can All Employees do for A Group of Employees." -- Mike Dennison

Close