Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Microsoft Formats Causing Issues Again...

(1/2) > >>

Renegade:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/government-hits-back-over-claims-of-microsoft-favouritism/story-e6frgakx-1225993876379

THE Australian Government Information Management Office has taken to Twitter and the blogosphere after being criticised for an IT policy seemingly biased in favour of Microsoft.

AGIMO last Wednesday finalised its Common Operating Environment policy for desktops and laptops.

According to AGIMO, the policy "defines the principles and standards that will apply to agency desktop operating environments" and ensure desktop standardisation across agencies.

The policy covers a range of areas, but what riled the software community was that document formats seemed to mandate a Microsoft-only environment.

Open source software advocate Jeff Waugh described it as an "arse-covering" exercise, an attempt by AGIMO to avoid using the word "Microsoft" in the policy. "I suspect that use of the term 'ECMA-376' (document standard) is almost entirely an arse-covering exercise, when what they really mean is docx and friends (including .doc) created with Microsoft Office 2007," he wrote on the Linux Australia list, comments that were repeated to the The Australian.
--- End quote ---

Here we go again...

zridling:
Yea, taxpayers shouldn't fund proprietary corporate formats, much less their operating systems, and no government division or office should dictate such. Dictate ODF and if Microsoft can't read/write to the format, then it shouldn't quality for government purchase. I also support Italy's suit against Microsoft that says by merely turning on your machine and starting the software, you've already agreed to the EULA!
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2011/01/24/italy_consumers_sue_microsoft/

Renegade:
Yea, taxpayers shouldn't fund proprietary corporate formats, much less their operating systems, and no government division or office should dictate such. Dictate ODF and if Microsoft can't read/write to the format, then it shouldn't quality for government purchase. I also support Italy's suit against Microsoft that says by merely turning on your machine and starting the software, you've already agreed to the EULA!
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2011/01/24/italy_consumers_sue_microsoft/
-zridling (January 25, 2011, 04:29 AM)
--- End quote ---

Hmmm... Dunno... I way go with whatever works best for the particular situation, proprietary or not.

For the Italian stuff... Sheesh... I have a hard time with some of that:

The statement from the Italian authorities made it clear that they do not believe that hardware manufacturers are entirely blameless, but said: "the principal cause of the failure is Microsoft itself..."
--- End quote ---

That's simply BS. If you want a computer, you can buy one without Windows. I never buy computers with Windows on. (Well, my laptop is a different story, but none of my desktops.) Anywhere you go, you can get computers built with no OS.

It's like blaming trees because your house is made of wood. Damn trees~! If you don't want a wood house, buy one made of concrete!

Or like blaming Madonna or Prince Charles for being environmentally unfriendly because newspapers report on them a lot and waste paper.

It's not Microsoft that needs to pay anyone there. It's the computer manufacturers.

they do not believe that hardware manufacturers are entirely blameless
--- End quote ---

Huh? They're basically saying that they aren't to blame with a stance like that. The direction of the suit is obvious that they aren't blaming the carpenter for the warped floors -- they're blaming the trees.

The class action case says Microsoft makes it too difficult for people who buy a computer with Microsoft software on it to remove that software and get their money back. Most users do not realise that starting the software means you have accepted the end user licence.
--- End quote ---

If you don't want something, don't buy it. It's not that hard a concept.

I wonder if I can go out and buy a chocolate bar, eat it, then bitch and complain because I didn't want the sugar in it. I should get my money back for the sugar, yes I should~! :P 

Actually, I want a refund for all the booze I've drunk here! I really only wanted the lovely taste, and I certainly didn't want the alcohol. So why should I be forced to pay taxes to the government for something I don't want? When I crave the lovely taste of some good ol' Tennessee bourbon, but I certainly don't want all that C2H5OH, I get rammed with a government TAX~! Where's my refund~! :P

Come to think of it, the water from the tap has fluorine put in it, and I don't want it, so I should get a refund for that too!


Ok... I'm done being totally silly now. But I'm not that far off the mark.

What kind of an idiot would buy a black leather jacket, then demand a refund because they want a brown one? It's beyond stupid.

Sorry Zane, but the case really just sounds like a "let's pick on MS" circus. I'm all for people buying computers and getting the OS they want, but I'm not for people buying stuff knowing full well what it is then being idiots. It's just not that hard to get a computer without Windows.

zridling:
Here's the response to complaints by open source folks to the AIGMO:
"Government agencies in Australia should actively participate in open source communities and will be required to consider open source options equally when going to tender, under new policy announced Wednesday."
http://www.zdnetasia.com/aust-govt-enforces-equal-rights-for-open-source-62206328.htm
_______________________
Problem with "if you don't want it, then don't buy it," is that in the US, I have no retail choice except to first buy unwanted [Microsoft] software with my computer. I either build my own or buy online. Most folks would rather just walk in the store and walk out with a new machine. But then if you trick me into licensing your product [Windows] that you've already forced me to buy by merely turning on the machine, that's outright fraud. If that's the case, then be honest enough to put it in 72pt type on the outside of the box in a warning label. Worse, you're forcing me to buy what consumers like myself consider to be an inferior and cumbersome product. It's a lose-lose for the consumer, but all win for Microsoft.

It's not a matter of picking on Microsoft, simply because Microsoft has never changed its ways unless forced to by the EU or other such enormously long and complex legal actions. At the very least, let Microsoft give me a refund for choosing not to use their software on the system I buy. That's not an unreasonable transaction by any measure.

Renegade:
Microsoft doesn't make computers. How it's their fault that hardware manufacturers don't offer alternatives escapes me. "The Devil made me do it" isn't a real excuse.

If people don't want a computer with Windows on it, they can buy a Mac. Nobody is stopping them.

I'm also unaware of any legal requirements or human rights that dictate what manufacturers must manufacture and what retailers must sell.

If there were some actual, real principles at work here, they'd be suing Apple as well for the same thing. They're not. What does that say? It's a "let's pick on MS" party.

Apple is perfectly within it's rights to be dickheads. But it's overstepping to legally force them to not be dickheads. And nobody is trying to stop them from being themselves. So why persecute Microsoft for what hardware manufacturers and retailers are responsible for?

For the Australian government, well, I suppose that if an open source solution is a better fit, they should go for it.

From the article you posted:

In addition to this, suppliers to government agencies will also be required to equally consider open source solutions when sourcing requirements to respond to tender requests from government. The policy provided examples of clauses agencies could use to ensure suppliers take open source software into account when responding to tender requests.
--- End quote ---

That only seems like common sense. You'd have to be semi-retarded not to.

"The government's previous policy, established in 2005, was one of 'informed neutrality'," Gray said in the blog post. "This meant that agencies took an unbiased position that did not favour open source or proprietary software and procured the solution that was the best 'value for money' and 'fit for purpose' for their specific requirement."
--- End quote ---

That seems reasonable. However, if an open source and proprietary solution offered the same thing, it would be hard to choose a proprietary solution. The only thing I can think of would be support. But if you can get equal support, you'd have to be semi-retarded not to go with open source.

All things being equal, OSS is preferable. But the core job of what the software is supposed to do is the most important thing. It would be irresponsible of a government to use OSS (or proprietary software) that doesn't perform the job properly.


Dunno... Freedom and all is great, but you don't get freedom by stripping it from others.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page