Another financial report from Ramböll Management

The Norwegian newspaper TU (http://www.tu.no) claims that the Norwegian adoption of open standards and open source software will be very expensive. The article (Norwegian): http://www.tu.no/it/article129909.ece. The conclusion comes from a report done by Ramböll Management based on calculations of the amount of documents that has to be converted.

Ramboll Management - Don't we recognize that company name ?

Yes we do. This is the exact same company that made two similar reports in Denmark last year. Here they also claimed, that the costs will be huge and the benefits will be small. Also then (last year in Denmark), Ramböll Management could only come to a negative conclusion because they think that the authorities will continue to use (and buy) Microsoft software. Basically Ramböll takes only the costs and claims that the benefits will never come.

How about asking someone else next time. To me, this sounds like a fotocopy of the Danish report of last year.

Groklaw: Denmark Pretends MSOOXML is an "Open Standard"

According to Grocklaw the Danish government is pretending that EOOXML is an open standard approved by ISO. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071211153924324

It's true that the public authorities is about to implement open standards in the public sector and that EOOXML is one of the accepted standards.

It must be emphasized that the ISO approval (or rejection) has never been a part of the discussion in the Danish Parliament. The ISO approval is not the final and true prove weather a document format is an open standard. ISO doesn't have the final word, but the the decision will of cause have effects in Denmark as well.

The Danish decision is this:

• ODF is an open standard (accepted)
• EOOXML is for now accepted as an open standard, but Microsoft must prove true openness in the process before end of 2008. The Danish Competition Authority has been asked to look after this.

I have talked to a few MP's about this both last summer when the discussion was open in the Parliament but also this late autumn where there was an election for Parliament. The politicians is very much aware of this problem and Microsoft will not get a final accept if the process isn't getting more open.

The Microsoft coup

The Microsoft coup in Sweden has had some consequences in Denmark. Sweden and Denmark are very close, and we speak almost the same language, so we read each others papers and so on.

• A representative from Microsoft in Sweden admits that they have send a mail to 'some' business partners telling them to join the TC and vote yes. 'But that wasn't what we mend to do', Microsoft says (http://www.computerworld.dk/art/41083?cid=1&a=cid&i=1&pos=11).

• A representative from The municipal of Århus, Jens Kjellerup, says that the meetings in Denmark was alright and fair (http://www.computerworld.dk/art/41082?a=rss&i=0).

• Microsoft in Denmark claims that they didn't put any similar pressure on Danish business partners (http://www.version2.dk/artikel/3744).

• One (anonymous) Danish business partner says that he was under pressure. Repeating questions about if he had submitted his yes-comments. The comments was actually given to him by Microsoft (http://www.version2.dk/artikel/3759).

• The Danish Parliament is now asking the Danish Minister of IT- and Telecom, Helge Sander about his role (http://www.version2.dk/artikel/3757). The Parliament is asking for an investigation (http://comon.dk/index.php/news/show/id=32455).

There has been a lot of focus on this in the Danish media. I don't know if there is any connection, but there has been more interest in open source in general ? These 3 newsmedias are delivering IT-news to almost all newspapers in Denmark.

The Members of parliament is also interested in the matter, because the discussion about implementing two parallel standards, was very much connected to the expectation, that OOXML would get approved by ISO. This case might end up, that Microsoft will get kicked out because of bad behavior.

I'll keep you up to date later.

Interoperability or compatibility ?

The governments are expecting compatibility. But what can they expect to find in the plug-in technology ? Not compatibility, but interoperability and I think they will get disappointed.

Two words that flows around these days are interoperability and compatibility. As a non-native English, I often mixes the two words around and find myself (and others) confused in the discussion. Both words is used to way to describe the situation with two document standards. We need the two standards to be able to work together or somehow get the computer applications to accept both formats.

Is this a question of interoperability or compatibility ?

hmmmm.

I decided to try and find out. Any comments are welcome from native English speaking readers. I really would like to know. By the way: Is these words commonly used in your every day life ?

I started to have a look at wikipedia to see if I could get a clue.

The definition of interoperability:

the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged.

This dictionary says: ability of a system (as a weapons system) to work with or use the parts or equipment of another system.

With respect to software, the term interoperability is used to describe the capability of different programs to exchange data via a common set of business procedures, and to read and write the same file formats and use the same protocols.

Okay. Interoperability is when two different things are working together in respect for each other. This sounds like a plug-in to me.

In technology, especially computing (irrespective of platform), a product is said to be backward compatible (or downward compatible) when it is able to take the place of an older product, by interoperating with other products that were designed for the older product.

Forward compatibility (sometimes confused with extensibility) is the ability of a system to accept input intended for later versions of itself. According to the dictionary it means designed to work with another device or system without modification; especially : being a computer designed to operate in the same manner and use the same software as another computer.

Okay, compatibility is when one can replace the other without any problems. This could be a filter plug-in too.

Please tell me if I'm wrong here.

Interoperability is usable in a situation, where you are expecting to convert a number of documents once, and never again. Compatibility is what you need if two standards is 'living together in harmony'.

But how is the actual situation out there ?

From my discussions with Danish politicians this summer and later on some IT guys from several municipals I will claim that the customers is expecting fully compatibility between the two standards. But what is actually happening is a few project trying to get interoperability. Non of the existing projects are expecting MS Word to use ODF format as native format and neither is the plug-in from Novell meant to use OOXML as native file format in OpenOffice.org.

When one vendor overrules an existing document standard and creates a new one for them selves, it shows us that they actually don't want compatibility. And why ? Because if we actually get there one day, the customers can actually make their own choice. By keeping the two formats away from each other, MS is keeping customers locked in with MS Office. Why is MS supporting one of the projects ? Because that way they can control the development process and either directly or indirectly make sure that development is in a slow hurry.

Compatibility will not happen as long as MS don't want it to happen. And the customers that is expecting compatibility will be disappointed, because what they might get is interoperability. Dual standards will not work.

Compatibility can only be reached with one single standard !

By the way, you should read this article by Bob Sutor about Interoperability

Danish IT Society supports OOXML as ISO

The Danish IT Society (called Dansk IT) has announced that they will support OOXML being an ISO certified standard. Source is the computer magazine Version2. This is actually no surprise, because the same society is already known as being very friendly to you-know-who. The society claims to be independent from single vendors but earlier this year they commented very positive to dual standards on one of thew reports from The National IT and Tele Agency here (in Danish).

The Society says, that they will ask for a Yes with comments because they find it very important that some of the serious faults in the specification from you-know-who are corrected.

The Danish IT Society is one of the members in S-142/U-34 technical committee under Danish Standards.

This position has already been criticized by another organization OSL (The Danish Open Source Business Association) in the same magazine. OSL is also member of the technical committee. OSL makes some kind of a fool of the Society, when they says:

You have misunderstood the rules for voting

And it is a fact, that it is possible to vote Yes with comments but in the fast-track the comment will be trashed.

The Society is also the managing institution in Denmark behind the European Computer Drivers License witch has actually become a M$ Drivers license in Denmark. Today it's not possible to take that drivers license without being tested in the use of products from you-know-who.

I don't mind that people, companies and organizations takes a stand on subjects like standards and so, but they shouldn't claim to be neutral when they are not. The society enjoys a virtual monopoly on the marked for certification and education and shouldn't use their own marked position to support another monopoly.