When failing handle the truth, Microsoft generates lies
A variety of reports seem to indicate that ODF, which Microsoft and its partner Novell have turned their back on, will sustain its great momentum. Adding to examples or case studies that were shared earlier today, here are some more signs of progress, only to be hindered by more dishonesty from Microsoft’s direction.
More ODF Support from the Industry
There are many existing examples of ODF support in a variety of software (e.g. this one) and these examples did not involve payments, contracts and other forms of persuasion (incentives) which are always found in Microsoft’s case (OOXML support is typically paid for). Here is yet another example for one’s consideration.
Denmark Delivers a Mouthful
Moving on in a similar direction, consider this great find. It is a study about the cost of OpenOffice.org deployments, conducted by the Copenhagen Business School. A rough translation is summarised thusly:
“The total TCO for implementing OpenOffice.org at Klaksvík hospital … OpenOffice.org results in a cost reduction of 24 % … The total TCO for implementing OpenOffice.org at Landssjúkrahúsið … OpenOffice.org results in a cost reduction of 67 % … The total TCO for implementing OpenOffice.org LandsNet (the entire public sector) … OpenOffice.org results in a cost reduction of 91 %.”
Sadly enough, Erwin has also pointed out some remarks from Michael Silver, who is a close friend of Microsoft wearing the bogus hat of an 'analyst'. We wrote about Silver before, the context being OOXML.
Also from Denmark [via Andy Updegrove], consider this new bit.
Evaluation of Ten Standard Setting Organizations with Regard to Open Standards. Edited by Per Andersen. Prepared by IDC for the Danish National IT and Telecom Agency (NITA). An April 03, 2008 press release from the the Danish National IT and Telecom Agency (IT- og Telestyrelsen) announced the publication of a 92-page report titled “Evaluation of Ten Standard Setting Organizations with Regard to Open Standards.”
The definition of “open standards” was specified to consist of three criteria: (1) The standard is fully documented and accessible by public [Open documentation]; (2) The standard should be free to implement without economical, political or legal restictions — now as well as in the future [Open IPR, Open access, Open interoperability]; (3) The standard is managed and maintained in an open forum through an open process [Open meeting; Consensus; Due process; Open change; Ongoing standards support]…
Again, the presence of IDC should be discomforting because this is the same firm that once produced a document formats ‘study’ upon Microsoft’s request, using Microsoft funding [1, 2]. Guess whose favour it worked in?
“It’s one of the most dishonest industries out there, least honest bar lobbyists perhaps.”These invest-to-generate-report firms ought to be taken with a barrel of salt, especially as they tend to conceal funding sources (at least sometimes). It’s one of the most dishonest industries out there, least honest bar lobbyists perhaps. Sadly enough, the Linux Foundation invited Al Gillen from IDC, who is at the moment spouting out mixed messages at the annual summit. When will people learn?
Microsoft’s Open Confusion
The other day we mentioned the possible sneaky moves by Microsoft against IBM. Among many known maneuvers, more recently Microsoft was seen wrongly transforming this document formats battle from "Microsoft against everyone else" to "Microsoft against IBM" (vendor versus vendor). What was the impact on perception? Just have a look:
This battle for the software market pitches Microsoft, the world’s largest software company against another American computer firm IBM. Microsoft is competing in the software market with its Office OpenXML (OOXML) while IBM has the Open Document Format (ODF).
Can you see what’s wrong with this picture? This case of misguidance is Microsoft imposed. This misleading statement appears in here also. It’s an identical article, but it comes to show you just how quickly the big lie spreads.
Speaking of misguidance, remember the use of "porn spam techniques" against document freedom (further complaints about it in [1, 2])? It was intended to have people believe that document freedom was all about OOXML. It was a case of hijacking a very special day.
Well, guess what? Microsoft now has this thing called “Open Source Day”. No kidding. And the dilution of the term continues. Someone ought to police this. With Open Office XML [sic], Microsoft has already hijacked just about everything it can, leading to confusion. Asking it politely to withdraw has never proven effective. █