|
13 Sep 05 - 02:16 PM (#1562899) Subject: BS: When Open (Data) Standards Matter From: Bo Vandenberg When Open Standards Really Matter - The Katrina Factor Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 07:46 AM EDT http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2005091305273070 If you have any doubts about the direction Massachusetts is following in requiring open standards for all government documents, consider what happened when Hurricane Katrina knocked out almost all communications except the Internet. Cell phones and walkie talkies failed, once again, just as they did in 9/11, as David Kirkpatrick tells us in an article in Fortune: In the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, much of the region's communication systems failed or didn't work properly. Water and wind knocked out power, toppled phone lines, and destroyed cellphone towers. What systems remained were quickly overwhelmed. When rescue workers' did have working equipment, like walkie-talkies, they often couldn't connect with others on different communication systems. Catch that? "On different communication systems." The same thing happened after the tsunami disaster in Thailand, as a report just released by the ePolicy Group reports: "Responding agencies and nongovernmental groups are unable to share information vital to the rescue effort," the report recalls of the government in Thailand in the tsunami's immediate aftermath. "Each uses different data and document formats. Relief is slowed; coordination is complicated. The need for common, open standards for disaster management was never more stark or compelling." Isn't it time, after so much suffering, to recognize that keeping people alive is more important than allowing private companies to lock in customers into proprietary systems that don't then work in an emergency? And why does the Internet always work, no matter who you are or what operating system you use? Because it was built, not on proprietary standards, but entirely on open standards. That's why you can send an email to me, even if you are using Microsoft Outlook. I don't run any Microsoft products currently, but because of open standards, I can still read your email, and in an emergency, we will not be disconnected because we are on "different communication systems." Now, you can't leave decisions like that up to private companies. They will always try to lock us into their little garden, where you can call anyone for free, for example, as long as they sign up for the same cell phone service you use. When I went to visit a relative last year with my cell phone, I found out that my service didn't work in that entire state. Something is really wrong with that. In an emergency, it could cost us our lives not to be able to rely on standards in communications. Similarly, being able to communicate with our governmental agencies, no matter what operating system we use, is essential. It's like the air we breathe, so essential that you simply can't plan to be without it. The fact that FEMA required victims of Hurricane Katrina to only use Microsoft IE in order to sign up for relief services is a national shame. It's like saying that millions of people don't matter, that the government should just let them fend for themselves. We saw in New Orleans what happens when people have to just fend for themselves, did we not? You can read about the efforts of tech companies like Google, Sun, Microsoft and IBM to aid the victims of Katrina in the Fortune article, but one thing is worthy of note in particular. There are discussions between the government and companies about how to be better prepared next time and particularly how to set up the Internet to be a primary communications system for emergencies. Note what Microsoft is proposing: Many industry executives are already talking about how to insure a less ad hoc response to the next disaster. For instance, Microsoft's Markezich says the industry needs to develop common standards using the XML language (which enables software applications to interoperate), so information can be shared across sites in an emergency. Jonathan Schwartz, president of Sun Microsystems, agrees with Markezich, but adds one serious caveat: "We ought to agree on a set of standards through which the government and private agencies can provide emergency services, but in no case should a company name be attached to those services." Schwartz was alarmed this week when FEMA announced that online applications for Federal Disaster Assistance would only be accepted from victims who use Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser. "I'd hate to see a day when one company would have to be paid before relief could come to a community," he says. Schwartz says he'd like to see industry-wide standards so that the Internet can have similar capabilities as the 911 emergency telephone number. Even a cellphone user without a service contract can dial 911 in the U.S. to get help, he points out. "We need to take a close look at whether some of that should be applied to the Internet," Schwartz says. Microsoft's XML is a problem. It's part of the controversy in Massachusetts, as they explained when announcing their format choices. For example, in the section on XML, Massachusetts said, "To insure maximum interoperability, it is recommended that proprietary extensions to any XML specifications be avoided." Microsoft refuses to use the XML everyone else has agreed to use. That's the problem. They want us to adopt their proprietary extensions, patents and all, instead. Why would that be in the public's best interest? Can anyone seriously argue that maximum interoperability isn't the proper goal? If it is the right goal, then Microsoft's proprietary version of XML can't be the right choice. It's really that simple. And note Microsoft's attitude to OpenDocument format, the other part of the controversy: they won't agree to support the standard everyone else has agreed to either. You can read Microsoft's letter [PDF] to Massachusetts along with letters from other companies on the Massachusetts website. We'll be writing about this in more detail, answering Microsoft point by point, but for now, I'll just point out that it's there, so you can get started. Your comments will be helpful too in what we end up writing, so feel free to answer their letter in your comments. You might like to read Wikipedia on OpenDocument for some refreshing counterarguments to Microsoft's assertions in their ugly and menacing letter. The introduction reads like this: OpenDocument, short for the OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications, is an open document file format for saving and exchanging editable office documents such as text documents (such as memos, reports, and books), spreadsheets, charts, and presentations. This standard was developed by the OASISconsortium, based upon the XML-based file format originally created by OpenOffice.org. The standard was publicly developed by a variety of organizations, is publicly accessible, and can be implemented by anyone without restriction. The OpenDocument format is intended to provide an open alternative to proprietary document formats including the popular DOC, XLS, and PPT formats used by Microsoft Office, as well as Microsoft Office Open XML format (this latter format has various licensing requirements that forbid some competitors using it). Organizations and individuals that store their data in an open format avoid being locked in to a single software vendor, leaving them free to switch software if their current vendor goes out of business or changes their software or licensing terms to something less favorable. While it may not bother Microsoft to have everyone required to buy and use their products in a disaster or to be able to communicate in an emergency, it bothers me a great deal, because I don't use their products. I don't trust their products to work reliably, for one thing. I heard on the news that the FEMA servers kept crashing. And I don't wish to be forced to use any one company's products, period. I'd be one of the dead bodies they find two weeks later, I'm afraid, because I won't be able to communicate, to let people know to come and rescue me. Microsoft's answer to that is that I should just use their products. Monopolies always want everyone to have to have to use their products. Why wouldn't they want that? It's their bread and butter. Microsoft has spent a great deal of money and effort to kill off its competition, so we'd be left with no choice but to use their products. GNU/Linux and Apple are still standing, however. And millions of us prefer to use their operating systems instead. If my life depends on it, and I have to choose between those three operating systems, I wouldn't choose Microsoft. The Department of Defense uses Linux and Apple, and I want to too. It is the role of government to protect the lives and property of citizens, to look after us. Didn't you feel that deeply when watching Katrina's aftermath? If governments don't play that role, then it's just every man for himself, and while the human spirit is more reliably kind than corporations or governments, as we've witnessed, the truth is that some things are too big for individuals to handle on their own. So we can be so grateful to those who built the Internet for us, that they chose not to make a bundle for themselves by patenting every bit of it and them balkanizing it into proprietary fiefdoms, but gave thought to creating a fail-safe communications system, something you can rely on no matter what. And it worked. Of course, it was the government that did that. I shudder to think what Microsoft would have done, if it had invented the Internet. Every bit of it would be patented, and we'd all be paying through the nose and would be restricted to whatever Microsoft chose to let us do. Now, it would like to be the toll booth that all citizens must pay to communicate, and specifically to communicate with the government. They refuse to support standards like the OASIS OpenDocument format that Massachusetts has chosen to ensure open communication with all citizens not only today but for generations to come. Why? Isn't it obvious? Schwartz notes something else of interest: For all the corporate efforts, Schwartz points out that in many ways the most useful services for victims and evacuees are bubbling up organically from below, thanks to the work of individuals and small groups using the Internet. For instance, Craigslist became a key tool to find loved ones and services in many cities affected by Katrina. Volunteers started gathering up abandoned pets in New Orleans and started a site with photos online for owners to come claim them. And The Open House Project, started by three venture capitalists in Nashville, is coordinating offers of housing nationwide with Katrina victims who need it. "Thank God the network was there," says Schwartz, "and for Craigslist, and for the networks that survived. The tech community was there to help make up for the inability of the government to recognize that there was a crisis." Those ad hoc citizen relief efforts were more useful than the government precisely because of open standards. Anyone, no matter what operating system they were using, could use Craigslist. The same isn't true for FEMA's site. So, people flocked to sites like Craigslist to find one another. The only reason they could do that is because the Internet it built on open standards. If Microsoft is successful in persuading the powers that be to establish emergency communications based on their proprietary XML, it will shut out millions of people. That is too big a price to pay. And there is no reason why Microsoft can't follow the same XML standards as the rest of the world. They may feel it is in their best interest to have proprietary extensions on XML, patented to boot, but it isn't in the public's best interest to be forced to use it, and frankly, why would any government wish to reinforce a monopoly's monopoly position? How is that good for the marketplace? For that matter, how does it build faith and respect for the law? Microsoft complains in its letter that Massachusetts first said it would accept Microsoft as an "open" format, based on it being a kind of ad hoc standard, in the sense that a lot of people use Microsoft. But the change in Massachusetts' policy resulted from listening to comments from the public. That really is what happened. Should Massachusetts *not* listen to its citizens, after asking for their comments? Really. Think about that seriously. All Microsoft has to do is support OpenDocument and the same XML everyone else wants to use. That's it. You tell me why they won't. Give me one good reason. Microsoft has a lot of money already, you know. Let's not let it become blood money. |
|
13 Sep 05 - 02:25 PM (#1562907) Subject: RE: BS: When Open (Data) Standards Matter From: Bo Vandenberg I beg peoples patience with the complete reposting of this article. I personally think its pretty central to developing the communications we share. If you use a computer, issues of file compatibility and universality of data should matter to you. Whatever country you live in has a responsibility to accessibility and survivability of its decisions and its public data. I apologize to those who find this message overly long. Sigurd |
|
13 Sep 05 - 04:00 PM (#1562947) Subject: RE: BS: When Open (Data) Standards Matter From: Amos A good article and well worth noting not just from the FEMA aspect but because it reflects on a really entrenched piece of human stupidity. During the invasion of Granada, the failure of different operations under the Joint umbrealla was so pathetic that one sergeant ended up using a pay phone to Washignton DC to find out what he was supposed to be doing. Turf wars between the proprietary investments of the Army, the Marine Corps, the Air Force and the Navy have ALWAYS cost the taxpayers billions more than they ever should have, and have ALWAYS cost untold amounts of time, materiel and lives due to massive inefficiency in any joint-services undertaking. The Joint Simulation Program, intended to build a huge, all-services strategic and tactical simulation, ran years over schedule and billions over budget before it was canceled for non-production. The reason, above all else was two-fold: NO common design standards were imposed and NO authority was established at the top to enforce common design. Each service coped with the probelm as best they could; the Navy did the best job of trying to acheive cooperative design, but they could not overcome the intransigence and self-interest of the Army component, whose officers weren't sure what the definition of "Joint" was. These are just a few examples. In the software business the redundancy and waste caused by not addressing commonalities with good common design elements has over the last twenty years amounted to billions and billions of duplicative effort and unnecessary expense. This is "system ignorance" at its most appaling -- local arbitrary boundaries creating the false appearance of an autonomous effort with no cognizance of its need for interplay with a larger system. System-wide thinking is something that needs to be taught from kindergarten up, before the world as a whole gets shredded by small-minded buffoonery (if it hasn't been already). It is a woefully lacking skill. A |
|
13 Sep 05 - 04:32 PM (#1562963) Subject: RE: BS: When Open (Data) Standards Matter From: katlaughing Sigurd, thanks for posting all that you did! Very interesting and understandable without being too technical. I had not heard about people being required to use IE, that's outrageous! I hope Massachusetts sticks to its guns, so to speak. Thanks, again, kat |
|
14 Sep 05 - 10:37 AM (#1563518) Subject: RE: BS: When Open (Data) Standards Matter From: mack/misophist Hear hear!! Microsoft even has a name for what they do: "embrace and absorb." |
|
14 Sep 05 - 05:39 PM (#1563805) Subject: RE: BS: When Open (Data) Standards Matter From: The Fooles Troupe Resistance is Futile! Microsoft was the inspiration for The Borg, I'm sure... |
|
15 Sep 05 - 09:53 AM (#1564235) Subject: RE: BS: When Open (Data) Standards Matter From: sapper82 One thing which came out in the aftermath of the London Bombings was the effectivness of the Airwave TETRA system in allowing the emergency services to talk to each other. |
|
15 Sep 05 - 10:01 AM (#1564243) Subject: RE: BS: When Open (Data) Standards Matter From: DMcG And a quotation from this website - the bolding is mine: This initial study identified that only TETRA was able to meet the requirements of the emergency services and the other diverse user groups. The authorities considered TETRA as the best system in that it is an open, non-proprietary standard and is compatible with proposed changes for the rest of the British Isles and Europe. |
|
15 Sep 05 - 08:04 PM (#1564701) Subject: RE: BS: When Open (Data) Standards Matter From: GUEST,.gargoyle Ignore the the laughkat's compliment - it is doubtful she understands.
However, for myself - THANK YOU - excellent article....well deserved in its entirity.
Compared to the U.S.A. Europe has better cell-phones and so does Japan (but one is an island the other a continent.)
Even more surprising - in today's WSJ - Asia has broadband access that is 13TIMES faster than the American DSL. (Not 56K phone - but continental DSL)
At least the DT understands ANSI.
Forget Java, and XT, and scripting, and Active X
Just give me DOS 3.0 again...and we can all get along together just fine.
Sincerely, |
|
15 Sep 05 - 08:48 PM (#1564728) Subject: RE: BS: When Open (Data) Standards Matter From: The Fooles Troupe Gargoyle Wouldn't CPM/MPM be better? MicroCrap didn't get their hands on that... |
|
15 Sep 05 - 08:52 PM (#1564731) Subject: RE: BS: When Open (Data) Standards Matter From: Steve Latimer Even Linux is getting proprietary. |
|
15 Sep 05 - 08:59 PM (#1564738) Subject: RE: BS: When Open (Data) Standards Matter From: The Fooles Troupe UNIX always was - in spite of what most hackers*** thought. *** this term in this meaning comes from the days before the media corrupted it to mean 'cracker, thief, terrorist'. |
|
15 Sep 05 - 09:09 PM (#1564744) Subject: RE: BS: When Open (Data) Standards Matter From: GUEST PIP off foolestroupe! ;-) (can't remember much else of CP/M though I used it) ---- I think Linux, sadly is being seen as a way for companies who otherwise would be supporting thier own proprietry software as routes to rival MS. I doubt they would be so "GNU honourable" otherwise. and , yes, as they find ways to lock you in, they will do... |
|
16 Sep 05 - 10:51 AM (#1564926) Subject: RE: BS: When Open (Data) Standards Matter From: mack/misophist Only the name 'linux' is proprietary; to prevent others from stealing it. |
|
16 Sep 05 - 08:18 PM (#1565197) Subject: RE: BS: When Open (Data) Standards Matter From: The Fooles Troupe Roll on Minix... :-0 |