Industry Hijinks

Retribution

Christopher Wright — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:58:09 -0600

From Newshounds, by Thomas K. Dye.

One of the instrumental figures behind the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' decision to use the OASIS OpenDocument standard as its official format for computer documentation was Peter Quinn, the Commonwealth's Chief Information Officer.

According to Infoworld, Peter Quinn has resigned.

This is hardly surprising. Microsoft has been pitching a fit ever since they learned that their closed, proprietary file format was passed over in favor of a format that any company selling a word processor could adopt without paying a damn thing to anyone, and shortly after the announcement was made Quinn was suddenly and mysteriously investigated for supposed improprieties concerning several out-of-state trips he made. The investigation ultimately found that he'd done nothing improper, but the damage, apparently, was done. Quinn has resigned, and it remains to be seen whether or not the Open Standards he trumpeted will remain in place in Massachusetts.

Alas, this turn of events is not particularly new when it comes to defying Microsoft. Remember Ed Curry.

Reinventing the Square Wheel

Christopher Wright — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:40:11 -0500

From Lost and Found, by Matt Milligan. Nevermind what it is... look at the shiny.

You can almost set your watch to it: every year some president or spokesman from a company that isn't Microsoft makes the grandiose pronouncement that Personal Computers are dead, and that the successor to the PC just happens to be, by nothing more than fortuitous coincidence, something they happen to be selling at the time.

This time around it's Johnathan Schwartz, president of Sun Microsystems. Sun actually has a grand tradition of heralding the end of Personal Computers -- Sun has used the phrase "The Network Is the Computer" for years, trying to shift the focus of computer use to the internet, to programs that run over networks instead of on your hard drive... but I suspect they'd be happy with anything that would rip users away from Microsoft's lock on desktop computers and get them to focus on other ways to "do stuff with those computer things."

Of course, all these companies who talk about how the PC is going to be replaced by other things -- usually the internet or a business network -- try very hard to convince us that, from our perspective, nothing will actually "change." Our end-user experience will be exactly the same, they claim. We won't realize that when we boot up our machines we'll be reaching across the internet to retrieve all our data, access all our programs, and do all the things we've been doing with our computers. Write a note to a friend, write the great American novel, balance your checkbook, do your taxes... even, God forbid, publish a web comic, all of these things can be done with programs on the internet, through your web browser, via java applets or Microsoft .NET, or something else they haven't bothered to fill us in on, and -- here's the important part -- we'll never know the difference.

After carefully considering this Prophetic Vision of Silicon Developments Yet To Come, I have composed a response that I feel accurately sums up my opinion:

Bollocks.

The problem with pronouncements like these (and even more, with the way that the computer press takes them at least semi-seriously) is that it reflects a level of laziness within the industry that is not shared by the people who make that industry far more rich than it really deserves to be. It assumes that the "Computer User" really is only one person, with one preferred method of Doing Things. And now that search engines on the internet are popular, the thinking goes, it's obvious that this single, monolithic Computer User wants to use the Internet for everything, right?

Right?

Anyone?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

While I'll freely grant that there are a lot of people who probably use a web browser and an email program and not much more -- the target market of people who want to turn the "network into the computer" -- I think the companies who are trying to kill the PC in favor the network device, or the search engine, or whatever the flavor of the month is this week, are overlooking a rather important piece of the mystique that comes part and parcel with every PC that gets sold: PC's like cars, represent a certain level of freedom and self-sufficiency that internet-centric platforms simply don't have.

It's not the "Computer," stupid -- it's the "Personal."

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the reason people started buying computers in the first place was because computers were enablers -- they made it possible to do things that were either too expensive or too difficult (or a combination of both) to do without them. The spreadsheet allowed you to ditch the ledger and the adding machine, and keep track of your finances even if you weren't particularly good at math. The word processor allowed you to write and revise on the fly without wasting reams of paper due to spelling and typographical errors.

These programs weren't (and still aren't) particularly easy to use -- every tool requires a certain level of familiarity in order to use it effectively -- but they were accessible. Sure, the DOS version of WordPerfect cost hundreds of dollars back in the 80s, but a computer running WordPerfect and a dot matrix printer still cost significantly less than a printing press. A spreadsheet like Lotus 1-2-3 was, after you learned to use it, less expensive than hiring an accountant any time you wanted to figure things out.

That's what the personal computer did -- it allowed people to have access to tools that they previously couldn't afford. And it was, for all intents and purposes, theirs to use as they saw fit.

Today, despite the fact that personal computers seem to be reaching the limits of their original design, they've succeeded when it comes to making work more accessible. My desktop computer, despite the fact that it is not what you would call a "high end workstation," can very ably create graphics, animation, edit video, record music, and publish music in ways that exceed the capabilities of standalone products that existed twenty years ago. My laptop, which I use mostly for writing, email, browsing, and drawing and publishing my comic, weighs less than a portable typewriter from the 1970s and is far more useful.

And the thing that all those functions have in common -- something that the people who are heralding the new age of internet computing are overlooking -- is that I don't actually have to be connected to a network in order to do any of it.

That's right: if Verizon's DSL connection crashes for some reason, I can still write, record, draw, design, even play games. Sure, I can't check my email until it comes back up, and I can't update my website until it comes back up -- but I can write that email, and I can modify my website. That is the "Personal" part of the PC at work, and it's something that goes away if the new focus becomes a network-distributed platform, where suddenly everything becomes dependent on whether or not your provider can keep everything running while managing to stay in business.

On the other hand, perhaps that's the point. It seems we're reaching a point with PC hardware and software where customers are going to say "oh, well, I guess I've got everything I need, then" -- and stop buying it. When we decide everything we want to do is already loaded on our PC, and we have all the features we need, when we reach the point where version 15.0's features make us yawn, and we lack any desire whatsoever to fork out the money for the upgrade, what's a computer company to do? They can go the Intuit and the Microsoft route, which is to try and force their customers into buying into a "subscription model" for the software they run on their computer... or they can try to call the whole thing "passe" and try to convince people that they really want to do everything from a browser.

(Look at the date on that press release to get an idea for how long they've been trying to do this.)

Companies who aren't Microsoft or Intuit seem a lot more interested in the latter approach, because it puts them on relatively equal footing as far as that market goes. It also allows them to proclaim themselves as trailblazers in a new computer revolution, which is always nice -- being able to claim street cred when you're trying to put one up over on the reigning 800-pound gorilla never hurts. But at the end of the day, this revolution isn't particularly revolutionary: all they're doing is re-inventing the wheel, only the end result isn't quite as round.

Open By Any Other Name Is Closed

Christopher Wright — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:00:08 -0500

From Help Desk, by yours truly.

Once upon a time there was a group named OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards), a

"not-for-profit, global consortium that drives the development, convergence and adoption of e-business standards."

The purpose of OASIS was, simply, to come up with a bunch of standards that its members would agree on, so that when business technology was built it would operate in such a way so that it would work everywhere. The groups sponsors included giants in the computer industry, such as Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, and even Microsoft. The group would meet to try and work out, for example, a standard way to exchange information about security vulnerabilities of applications exposed to networks, or a universally accessable system for writing structured documents using SGML or XML. Things that were useful, in other words, for business that needed to transmit information from one place to another without worrying about whether or not the place receiving the information was going to understand what was being sent.

One day OASIS decided it would be a great idea if there was an open standard for word processing application suites that provided a universal file format for text documents, spreadsheets, charts, and graphics. This standard, which they called OpenDocument, was a royalty-free file format that used another standard, XML, as the way that information in these documents would be stored. Any word processing program could use this standard royalty-free, and any word processing program that did use this standard would be able to read a file created by any other word processing program that also supported this standard. Suddenly it was possible to focus on creating your information instead of worrying over which program to use to create it.

On May 23, 2005, OASIS' members approved the OpenDocument standard.

On August 29, 2005, Peter Quinn, Chief Information Officer of the Information Technology Division of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts announced that the state would use OpenDocument as its official documentation standard.

Shortly thereafter, Microsoft had a cow.

Microsoft would rather Massachusetts not use the OpenDocument standard, mostly because Office 2003 doesn't support it. Instead, it uses it's own flavor of XML for their file format, and this "flavor" is a bit more... proprietary.

How much more proprietary, you ask?

In order for other applications to read and write to documents stored in this file format, it is necessary for Microsoft to issue a "Patent License."

What is a "Patent License," you ask? Essentially, this license says three things:

1. Microsoft "may have" patents (existing and/or pending) that are integral to the file format.

2. Any application that attempts to read or write to a file using this file format would infinge on these patents.

3. But we're going to let you do it anyway, as long as you post a notice on whatever application that you're using acknowledging that it incorporates Microsoft's intellectual property, and provide a link to the Legal Notice for the Microsoft Office 3003 XML Reference Schemas.

Now let's give credit where credit is due: that's a pretty big step for Microsoft, a company that is not exactly known for sharing in a way that is very similiar to Arsenic not exactly being known as an effective remedy for common ailments. That said, it also wasn't what Massachusetts wanted: Massachusetts wanted a truly open file format, and Microsoft's, while available for use, still belonged to Microsoft.

An article in ZDNet UK states that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had legal concerns about using the format.

Apparently when you create a license for using a file format, and that license discusses patents, it makes lawyers nervous. Who knew?

Microsoft, of course, responded with it's usual penchant for tweenspeech when, according to the same article, a Microsoft general manager described Massachussetts' decision as a "narrowing of the approach to openness."

A... what?

If the idea of an open format is that "anyone can use this format, royalty-free," and Microsoft's proprietary format states that "anyone can use this format, royalty-free, but only under certain conditions," then it seems clear that it is Microsoft, not Massachusetts, that is coming up short. In fact, the OpenDocument format is so open that Microsoft could support it Microsoft Office, if they really wanted to.

They really don't. According to an article on CRN -- the article that describes Microsoft giving birth to a milk-producing farm animal -- they have their reasons:

First, they claim, it is an "inferior file format" and not compatible with older versions of Microsoft Office. Oddly enough, the fact that the next version of Microsoft Office does not support OpenDocument does not seem to be an equally pressing problem for Microsoft.

Second, they continue, OpenDocument doesn't support the following data:

Pictures
Audio
Video
Charts
Maps
Voice
Voice-Over-IP
and unmentioned "other stuff"

Note that these bullet points are taken directly from a statement made by Alan Yates, described in the article as "general manager of Microsoft's Information Worker Business Strategy." Also note that the beta of the 2.0 version of Open Office, a free software office suite, contains an integrated graphics program and a spreadsheet application that can, you know, create graphics. Also note that "Charts" and "Maps" are essentially Pictures, that "Voice" is essentially Audio and that Voice-Over-IP is essentially using the Internet to talk to someone else on the Internet.

The only people I can see being interested in that feature are virus authors.

But there it is: Massachusetts has taken the unusual and encouraging step of trying to adopt a standard that was designed to make information accessible to just about everyone, and Microsoft, unable to strongarm the Commonwealth into adopting a file format they think they can make more money from, is now whining about it to anyone who will listen.

It's only a matter of time before we hear more song and dance from the "Free Software and Open Standards will destroy our American Way of Life" camp, finishing up with a hearty refrain of "If You're Not Selling It, You Must Be a Communist."

Communists like, oh, IBM. They don't call them Redbooks for nothing...

You're Wanted in the Schoolyard, Lunch Money Optional

Christopher Wright — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:54:21 -0500

From Alice! by Michael McKay-Fleming.

What does a schoolyard bully practicing spin control at its most fundamental level have to do with the rest of this article? It illustrates what is becoming standard operating procedure in much of the computer industry: if someone writes something you don't like, threaten to beat them up. And to cover your bases, put that threat in writing as part of your product's license agreement.

There are plenty of companies that do this, and not just in the computer industry... but to start us out I'm going to pick on Microsoft.

Why pick on them, you ask? Because it's Microsoft. What a silly question.

Microsoft devotes part of its website to an explanation -- or, as some would call it, spin control -- dealing with why Windows is a better, more affordable, more stable and inherently more secure operating system than any of the various and sundry Linux distributions that dot the digital landscape. Microsoft's website, helpfully enough, is called Get the Facts on Windows and Linux.

Their facts, of course. But why quibble?

The site is full of white papers and research reports purporting to show Windows is more reliable than Linux, has fewer vulnerabilities than Linux, and is cheaper than Linux in the long term. It happily offers up a number of case sudies further driving home their claim that Windows gives you a lower total cost of ownership than Linux. This information is very carefully organized so that whatever your particular concern is, Microsoft has a reason why Windows is better than Linux.

Their white papers, of course, and case studies that they paid for, but there's nothing wrong with that. It's their web site. They're making a case for their software. I expect their site to have information that supports what they want you to buy. Heck, I half-expected there to be a testimonial page that claims not only that Windows can heal the sick, make the blind see, and occasionally reveal the face of God, but also that Linux is responsible for cancer.

(Oh, wait -- they sort of did that already.)

So if you want to read a bunch of white papers and look at studies proclaiming that, compared to Linux, Windows is the bee's knees, the cat's meow, aces, the tops, the Mona Lisa, Tower of Pisa, and any other adulatory phrase you can think of, it's all right there on their site. If, on the other hand, you were to perform your own study, and you happened to reach a different conclusion entirely, where would you be able to publish your data?

Nowhere, that's where. You're not allowed to publish your data, at least according to the license agreement for Windows Server 2003:

Benchmark Testing. The 32-bit version of the Software contains the Microsoft .NET Framework. Disclosure of the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the Software to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval is prohibited.

This particular piece of their license agreement is probably not legally enforceable... in fact, in 2003 Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General for the state of New York, successfully sued Network Associates for including a similar clause in their license agreement in part on the grounds that it had a chilling effect on free speech. But for most people that doesn't matter. Why, you ask? Because for most people -- and yes, for most news organizations -- companies like Microsoft are bigger and stronger and have more money than they do, and are willing to take someone to court and lose, just on the off-chance that instead of losing they happen to win. Most people, on the other hand, probably can't afford to go to court at all... even if they win.

Ed Foster has been one of the few consistently vocal industry journalists concerning this practice. His website, GripeLog, has covered this practice in the past, going so far as to point out that the practice is not one that is restricted to the computer industry.

So if Consumer Reports can be sued by a company that makes an air freshener over a less-than-glowing review that was carefully researched and included a rebuttal from the company in question, then anyone can be sued for anything. And unlike Consumers Union (the non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports), not everyone is willing or has the werewithal to bear the financial strain of litigious nonsense.

"But wait!" I hear you cry. "Aren't all these articles you're linking to a bit dated? Isn't most recent article you've mentioned from the end of 2004? Don't you realize that according to the principle of Internet Time, all of the information you have cited is ancient history?"

Oh, I'm sorry. I hadn't realized the computer industry had suddenly developed a conscience and taken it all back.

This kind of stuff is important. Censorship clauses allow companies to control how information about their products is disseminated, and nine times out of ten they aren't interested in what we want to know, or what we need to know... just what they want us to think.

Yes, my tin-foil hat is very stylish. Thank you for noticing.

It amounts to a war of attrition: for every company or individual willing to go to court to challenge these "censorhip clauses," there are plenty who decide it's not worth the hassle. In the end, the legality of the practice is relevant only if people are willing to hold them accountable, and if enough people aren't, then it doesn't matter if the clauses are legal or not -- they still work. And as long as they continue to work, we will have to deal with companies that are more inclined to resort to common bullying any time somebody says something they don't like hearing.

Job Satisfaction

Christopher Wright — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 21:29:59 -0500

From Soap on a Rope by Bob Roberds.

On August 2, 2005 Slashdot posted an odd submission about an article in IT Managers Journal describing a study that showed that IT workers in the United Kingdom are dissatisfied with their jobs.

Well... duh.

Next issue: IT Managers learn that their employees prefer eating lunch to troubleshooting faulty routers.

The big surprise, according to the article, was that there was a disparity between what the employees thought about their jobs and what their jobs were actually like. Employees in IT felt taken for granted by their companies, felt they were discriminated against by age, felt the tasks their jobs demanded of them didn't live up to what they were capable of doing. Meanwhile it turns out that people working in IT were generally paid better salaries, received more promotions and were given more raises than people in other parts of the company... and were were thought of very highly by other parts of the company. The problem, according to the study, was that IT workers were actually being treated quite well... they just didn't know it.

Ultimately the study concluded... well, I can't do it justice in my own words. Let me quote the relevant paragraph here:

Baldwin-Evans says that employers need to communicate more directly with their IT workers. "The fact that they don't feel valued means there's not enough communication actually telling them they are valued. It's one thing to do it indirectly through training and promotion, but in this instance they have to say 'you are valued -- we value your skills, and this is a manifestation of how we value you.'"

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I didn't spend a lot of money conducting a statistically valid study in order to assess the mores of the IT community, but -- and I'm just stabbing in the dark here -- by and large, regardless of the work you're doing, people tend to hate their jobs.

I don't know how to break it to any managers out there who have accidentally arrived at this site and are currently reading this article, but in all my years in the work force I have yet to meet anyone who was ecstatic at the prospect of getting up in the morning, marching into an office and being told what to do for 8-12 hours every day. It would seem a self-evident truth to me that any job, no matter how much it pays, how easy the hours, how friendly the environment, how prestigious the position, will cause a solid majority of the people who do it to bitch and moan about how thoroughly annoying, infuriating, frustrating, and insulting it is, and how abysmally stupid the people they have to deal with are, and how they'd like to pack it all in and get a job where people actually respect the work they do. That sort of comes part and parcel with the whole idea of giving up solid portion of your day over to someone else's concerns.

It doesn't matter if you're working in a starched-white-shirt-corporate-america-hellhole or a cutting-edge, "worker-friendly" company that has no dress code and a honey of a policy when it comes to telecommuting. Job dissatisfaction is a natural byproduct of having a job. It's one of those extra work benefits they don't bother to tell you because they're too busy trying to explain the latest revision of your health, dental and vision plan.

So what does this all mean? Now that this eye-opening study has been released to the world, what will come to pass as managers huddle in boardrooms in order to address the "job dissatisfaction issue?" My knee-jerk reaction is that they will start a 30-day wellness campaign using the motto "Think your job sucks? You're WRONG!" The mascot of the wellness campaign will be a non-IP-infringing derivative of Buddy Christ. Employees will be sent to information seminars that explain to them that, in spite of what they actually think, their job is a wonderous, magical land filled to the rim with satisfaction, and if they only understood their scope and importance within the company they would abandon their bitterness and disillusionment and embrace the joy that is Working For The Man.

After which I fully expect job satisfaction to plummet to depths heretofore undelved.