In our ongoing series of Free and Open Source Software deployments in Malaysia, OpenMalaysiaBlog is proud to highlight the efforts of the City Council of Melaka. They were one of the first few departments to migrate completely to OpenOffice.org (98% of their 300 hundred seats. They need to retain a few copies of MS Office for some difficult proprietary files). Back in 8 December 2006, the Mayor of Melaka, Y.Bhg. Dato’ Haji Zaini bin Mohd Nor, presented "Successful Deployment Of OpenOffice In The Public Sector Seminar" and was very enthusiastic about OpenOffice.org.

Although not as far reaching in terms of number of seats as Pahang and Kedah, the Melaccan story is interesting by itself as a city council looking for ways to reduce costs, increase efficiencies and promote Free and Open Source Software.

What is different about the previous two states is that Melaka is trying to migrate their desktops to Linux as well. Unfortunately there are legacy applications which are holding them back from migrating completely.

                     OSCC Case Study Awards 2008
                                    OSS on Every Desktop

Name: Hj. Mohsin bin Sarip
Government Agency:
Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah (Melaka City Council )
Full Street Address:
Graha Makmur, No. 1 Lebuh Ayer Keroh
75450 Hang Tuah Jaya, Melaka
Postal Address:
Peti Surat 107
75720 Melaka.
Email: mohsin-at-mbmb.gov.my
Phone: 06-23264xx ext 13x / 019-6575xxx
Fax: 06-23104xx
URL: www.mbmb.gov.my
Type of Solution: Desktop Applications

Introduction on Agency
As a local authority with an orientation of service to citizens, MPMBB [Melaka City Council] has been the main driver to make historic Melaka dynamic, advanced and beautiful. Its administrative jurisdiction is in tune with the development of the whole of Melaka state, where focus is on sectors of agricultural, industrial and most recently, tourism. Infrastructure development is highly visible, competing with other advanced states in Malaysia. This situation accelerates the inflow of investors to put in capital as well as creating job opportunities to her population. Total number of staff at this agency is 840 people.

Mission
To make Melaka City Council the main driver towards the creation of a city that is dynamic, advanced and excellent.

Operational objective

• Planting the spirit of loving the organization and working as one team with one destination towards creating an organization that is solid, dynamic and excellent
• Executing duties and working to obtain keredhaan
• Solidifying system and way of working to be more transparent, fast and accurate
• Personifying workers who are dedicated, lively and diligent, united in loving MBMB [Melaka City Council)
• Rallying the roles of the community and other agencies more effectively

Clients
Property assessment taxpayers, licensees, Council Members, compound payers, etc.

Project Objective
Every compute at Melaka City Council uses OSS technology

Key Partners

Senior Management

Mayor
Directs all members to use OSS

Secretary, Melaka City Council

Monitors progress of usage of OSS in the Council

Director of Information Technology Department

Ensures usage of OSS in the Council is implemented as planned by Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU)

OSS Technology Used

Operating System
Desktop

• Ubuntu - http://www.ubuntu.com
• Xandros - http://www.xandros.com
• Redhat – http://www.redhat.com

Server

• Centos – http://www.centos.org

Apache

• Web server – http://httpd.apache.org/

Office Productivity

• OpenOffice.org – http://www.openoffice.org

Purpose of Usage

• Easy to install

End User usage

• Office productivity: OpenOffice.org
• Internet / Web browsing: Mozilla Firefox

Hardware and Applications

• Desktop PCs:  ± 300 PC
• OpenOffice.org usage: 98%
• Operating Systems: Ubuntu, Xandros : 60%
• 40% do not use OSS because there are application software which are not compatible like
• MAPINFO, AUTOCAD, Sistem e-Kewangan, Sistem e-Pbt

Application Servers

• e-Pbt – Oracle
• Backup – Bak Bone
• Stok – Php; MySql
• Twincities – Apache;php;MySql
• Logins – Centos
• Mail – Redhat
• Domino server – Redhat
• Firewall – network box

Why use Open Source Software / Linux?

1. Saves costs - RM120K a year saved from licensing
2. Easy to maintain, and can be configured for end users needs with the availability of source code
3. No virus attacks
4. Less maintenance on PCs

How and why does OSS solve your needs / problems

1. Security - virus free
2. No additional costs for purchases of "upgrade" licenses
3. No piracy

Effect of OSS Migration on the Agency and the public

1. Agency saves costs
2. The public receives better service
   1. Updated information
   2. Faster access to information
3. Management of the Council is more efficient

Experience

1. Users found difficulty accepting OSS in the early stages of implementation
2. There are several applications operating in the Council which are not compatible with Linux
   1. MapInfo, AutoCAD, System e-Kewangan (Microsoft Internet Explorer dependent), e-Pbt System

Project Status

1. Open Office - 98%
2. Operating System - 60%

Testimonial
Name: Tuan Hj. Mohsin bin Sarip
Position: Director of Information Technology
Tel: 06-2326411 ext 134

What is great about this case study is the support from upper management all the way down to the end users.The enthusiasm by the team in Melaka is certainly commendable, and it looks like they are still going strong. This was what the Mayor said then:

"... I don't understand why some agencies may still be hesitant despite all the sessions MAMPU has conducted ... go back and convince your superiors on the benefits of OSS and OpenOffice.org, and that implementation is easy"

Now that we know that the State Government of Kedah has been migrating since 2003, and the State Government of Pahang has just initiated their migration, the growth of ODF adoption will now happen in a more organic manner, and in a few years time be the du jour standard especially in the public sector.

yk

A case study submitted to the Open Source Competency Center by the Center of Information Technology, Office of the Chief Minister and State Secretary of Kedah, has indicated that OpenOffice.org has been installed in 70% of the computers in the Kedah state government agencies. There are currently 2,202 installed seats and by the looks of it, the numbers will just keep rising!

For the convenience of international readers, here is a translation in English of the case study (original was in the Malay language):

Project Objective

OpenOffice.org as office productivity software (1 PC - 1 copy of OpenOffice.org)

OSS Technology Used

OpenOffice.org

Desktop software is the main software for all computers of the officers and office staff. It is not specific to groups of officers or specific staff. The need and requests for desktop software has increased in line with the additional computers provided.

From cost analysis performed, 25% of the purchase cost of a computer is allocated for the purchase of desktop software which is Microsoft Office, where it should should be licensed according to the number of units purchased.

Taking into account the state government's financial allocation restrictions, cost saving measures have been implemented through the use of desktop software applications which is OpenOffice.org. It was first introduced in the year 2003 in several stages through the annual supply of computers for several departments. Purchase control was performed at the State Secretary Office (Kedah Information Technology Center).

Training courses under the State Public Sector ICT Cultivation Program was conducted along with the purchase controls noted above. Other  then email and Internet courses, OpenOffice.org was among the main modules for which training courses were given.

Project Specification

Each new computer provided by the State Government is only supplied with desktop software which is OpenOffice.org for the purposes of administration work by officers and departmental staff.

OpenOffice.org courses are open to all interested public sector personnel. At the early stages, attendance was mandatory. It was conducted by the State Information Technology Center.

System Usage

OpenOffice.org was used as the main desktop software for daily state administration work.

Software

OpenOffice.org 2.4

Why Use OSS/Linux?

1. Cost savings for the government
2. Avoiding non-compliance of the Copyright Act by government agencies
3. Technology choices that are fit for purpose

Why and How OSS Solves Needs/Problems

1. Percentage of departments owning computers and ICT equipment is still low
2. Cost savings allows for more ICT equipment to be purchased
3. Choice of technology on par with departmental users' need
4. Non-compliance to Copyright Act can be reduced in stages

Effect of OSS Conversion on Agencies and the Public

1. Number of computers supplied can be increased
2. Increase in skills and knowledge of officers and staff in multiple desktop applications
3. The spread of virii which is common through the use of MSWord file formats is reduced/stopped

Experience

1. Officers and staff found it hard to adapt to equivalent features between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org.
2. OpenOffice.org is more open compared to Microsoft Office. It supports multiple file formats and is not tied to Windows based files only.

Project Status

a) OpenOffice.org installation in government departments

Until today, computers supplied and installed with OpenOffice.org are:

Year	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	Total
Computers	450	122	550	350	380	350	2,202

In total, it is estimated that 70% of all computers are installed with OpenOffice.org software. This policy is continued in line with the efforts of the State Secretary so that government departments take cost savings measures.

b) ICT Cultivation Program (OpenOffice.org)

Till 2008, 1913 people were exposed and given training to OpenOffice.org.

Testimony

Name: Ahmad Bawadir Bin Haji Abdul Ghani
Post : Director of Information Technology for the state of Kedah
Telephone: [omitted]

What is surprising is that the migration to OpenOffice.org occurred way back in 2003, and this looks like a pretty extensive long term project. It also is good to know that they are consistently covering 10-15% of their users per year. This would mean they would need another two more years to fully migrate over to OpenOffice.org.

Kudos to Ahmad Bawadir and team in Kedah.

The original case study in Malay is as follows:

[Update 3:35am 16 August 2008: Thanks to MingShi for the better translations!]

Its just been made official that the State of Pahang is migrating all its productivity suites to OpenOffice.org. This succint memo from the State Secretary of Pahang entitled "Perlaksanaan Penggunaan Perisian OpenOffice.Org Di Semua Agensi dan Pentadbiran Negeri" (translated: "Implementing the use of OpenOffice.org suite in all State Agencies and Administrative centres") outlines the reasons for migrating, the benefits and how to proceed.

Here's my rather rough translation from Bahasa Malaysia to English. Apologies in advance (corrections are welcomed):

Distributed to:

All State Head of Departments

All District Officers

All Head of Units
Secretariat Office for the government of Pahang

Implementing the use of OpenOffice.org office in all state agencies and administration

1. Purpose

1.1 The purpose of this memo is to ensure the usage of OpenOffice.org for office automation in the administrative offices of the State of Pahang.

2. Background

2.1 OpenOffice.org is one of choices of software for office administration or Office Suite. It features and integrated suite for word processing, spreadsheets, slides and database.

2.2 OpenOffice.org can be used in different operating systems like 'Windows', 'Linux', 'Solaris', 'Mac OS' and 'FreeBSD'

2.3 OpenOffice.org is distributed for free and represents a suite which is on par with other office suite software applications.

2.4 The main objectives for the use of the OpenOffice.org suite are:

2.4.1 It is easy to use and ensures that civil servants are not left behind in the ICT field;

2.4.2 It encourages civil servants to use the latest software available to help and facilitate daily tasks;

2.4.3 To help the State Government save ICT costs; and

2.4.4 To encourage the use of software based on open source.

2.5 Additional advantages of using OpenOffice.org are:

2.5.1 This suite is easy to obtain and distributed for free

2.5.2 It is an integrated suite. All the needs for office work, from typing letters, preparing charts, preparing presentations, saving data and other uses of office documents can be done using OpenOffice.org

2.5.3 OpenOffice.org can read file formats like DOC, XLS, PPT and files created by Microsoft Office from previous to current versions. It can also save in Microsoft Office formats;

2.5.4 The OpenOffice.org file formats are small because it uses XML compared to other software which uses binary formats; and

2.5.5 The cost savings from the ICT maintenance can be realized, as this suite does not require paid licenses.

3. Implementation

3.1 Usage of OpenOffice.org is encouraged for all civil servants who use ICT devices supplied by the State Government in all offices of the State of Pahang

3.2 All Head of Departments are required to ensure that the implementation of the usage of OpenOffice.org suite occurs smoothly and all computers in departments should be prevented from using any form of software that does not have a valid license. The State Government will not be responsible in the event that an audit finds software in use without a valid license.

4. Effective Date

4.1 This circular is in effect from the date of this letter (7th August 2008)

"Serving our Country"

*signed*

Dato' Muhammad Saifan bin Ismail, DSAP., DIMP., AAP., AMP)

State Secretary of Pahang

The driving force for this migration seems to be cost of proprietary software and the fear of unlicensed software. OpenOffice.org is the obvious solution to these two pressing problems (thanks, BSA!) What is good is that they have chosen ODF by default, and they are not changing the file format to the binary proprietary ones.

What is interesting is that the public sector in Malaysia is moving towards FOSS independently from any government directive or mandate, so no amount of whining would derail our government from choosing and making their choice. Its a simple business decision, and the market has decided.

State Governments are faced with the reality that software costs money, and they would rather use the money saved with FOSS rather than flashy and bloated software, on better things.

Now I wonder if tomorrow, Microsoft will 'extend' their RM99 Microsoft Office Home & Student license for 3 computers to these Government officials now. Or maybe even better;  USD5 per seat? Any takers?

Bye bye fat margins, you've been commoditized!

yk

[Update 9:45am 14 August 2008: Thanks to MingShi for the better translations!]

What we have learnt throughout the two years with the OOXML / ODF issue, is that Microsoft always complains about the need to have a "Technology Neutral" outlook in policies and to "Let the Market Decide" as it whinges to government officials. 

What is ironic or ... hypocritical is the fact that they have made it so that their products are mandated in every new PC sold by manufacturers. Or else face the wrath of the BSA. I guess its the legacy of having Malaysia as the nexus of pirated software, where every unpaid software copy is automatically assumed to be illegal.

Fortunately times have changed. We should be more sophisticated now to realise that an unpaid copy of an application may not be pirated. It could be totally legitimate as a licensed Free and Open Source Software.

If you need to purchase a new PC for your office, which requires reliable service, support and warranty on parts, you would need to approach reputable companies like Dell, HP or others. What is restrictive is that they do not sell machines where the Operating System is optional, especially for desktops.

I have been using Ubuntu exclusively on my laptop coming up to two years now. Linux has come to a stage where I don't have to use ANY software which requires Windows in a separate boot partition. I can run all my office work and be extremely productive on a Linux desktop.

I do not need Windows. I do not need NT, 2K, XP, and most definitely Vista.

I would like a choice to purchase a PC from Dell without having to pay the additional RM300 for Microsoft software. I don't need IE, MS Works, Media Center, nor all the other bloatware which comes pre-installed just to get the machine to be protected and to be remotely functional.

Unlike Yasmin Mahmood (MD of Microsoft Malaysia) who only believes in an illusion of choice; "Its not about choosing but about having a choice", I think its is totally about having a choice, and choosing your preferred option.

So I decided to write in. I believe if consumers have been artificially restricted in their choice, or that vendors are collaborating in creating uncompetitive markets, this is a problem which can only be fixed by complaints against these vendors through government regulatory bodies.

In the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs (KPDNHEP), there is an "eAduan" system which is online.

This eAduan System is developed and implemented with one primary objective   in mind: to provide an Internet medium of receiving complaint from the public.

By having this system, it is hoped that it will ease affairs between public   and KPDN & HEP. For your information, this system is made available beginning   14th June 2004.

All complaints shall be investigated and complainants information shall be   made confidential. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there is no response   or feedback within 3 days.

I am not sure how efficient the service is, but we can only test it out. The fields required is about average for a government website. It took me less than a minute to fill in the particulars, and a few minutes to compose the complaint itself. It looked something like this:

I couldn't find an appropriate "Complaint Category" for "more choice", so "No Price Tagging" was the closest candidate. After filling in the information, an email confirming the "aduan" will be sent to your account, and this reassuring page will appear:

The content of my complaint was something like this:

Dell restricts users in purchasing computers. I intend to install Ubuntu on my new computer, which means I do not need to have Windows Vista as an operating system (OS) installed in the system. The price of the Windows OS can cost up to 30% of the purchase. This is a cost which should be optional.

Ubuntu is a valid alternative, and even Dell USA sells machines preinstalled with Ubuntu for over a year already. Dell Malaysia does not have that option yet.

My consumer rights are restricted as there is no option to 'opt-out' of the inclusion of the Windows OS. I do not expect Dell to provide software support as my team and I are technically competent to self support the systems. I only expect Dell to provide support on hardware failures.

Offering Ubuntu as an option not only reduces the cost of computing, but also discourages piracy, as it comes with a multitude of productivity software which makes my computer fully functional at zero cost.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the KPNHEP received a deluge of requests from Malaysian users of Gentoo, Fedora, Ubuntu, Mandriva, CentOS, openSUSE, openSolaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD and the thousands of other alternative OS's for manufacturers like Dell, HP, Acer or Lenovo to offer, or at least allow the opportunity for us to "opt-out" in purchasing Windows preinstalled?

I know some cynics out there would say that companies like Dell would never budge, either "it doesn't make business sense" or "50% of their marketing budget comes from Microsoft". But lets make it a consumer rights issue, a pressure external from their companies, and then they will HAVE to conform to our needs.

If you think this is worth doing, please spend 5 minutes filling in this form, and help get the FOSS community heard. Its about time we have the choice to choose not to pay the Microsoft tax. Let the market decide. Long live Technology Neutrality.

yk.

ps. I would like to make it clear that I have nothing against Dell per se, I chose them in this complaint because most of the computers I purchase are from them, and I will purchase more if they give me the choice I so deserve. I want them to improve to compete better. This is also a true and sincere complaint.

The team at OpenMalaysiaBlog just received this strange letter from a foreign MNC demanding that the Malaysian Government explain themselves on the choices this country wants to make.

It's strange, bizarre, and mind boggling. Enjoy!

===

Microcars (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
Level B2 Tower 2,
Petronas Twin Towers,
Kuala Lumpur City Center,
50088 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia

3rd July 2008

Big Chief of the Malaysian Government,

Re: MAVEMPU's Migration to OpenCars

First of all, I would like to thank you for your time and fruitful meeting on 18th May 2008.

Further to our discussion, we would like to express our concern and seek some clarification on Malaysian Vehicle Modernisation Planning Unit's (MAVEMPU) recent announcement that it is migrating to OpenCars and demolishing all its Microcars by the end of this year.

Please let us assure you that we support promoting the awareness, training and skills related to locally produced cars, and we are certainly not against the use by anyone of locally assembled vehicles based on merit and cost consideration. In fact, we believe in the co-existence of local cars and imported cars and we leave it to the end users to decide or choose freely which vehicle best suits their needs.

Our position is also in line with the Cabinet's policy on "vehicular neutrality" which was reaffirmed by the Minister concerned in November 2006 that the government would not favour one technology, platform or vendor over another (unless security, safety or national interests are involved).

The Cabinet's decision on "vehicular neutrality" is also consistent with the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which do not support any procurement policy that favors one foreign car vendor over another.

We are wondering, based on the announcement and feedback, whether or not the above action by MAVEMPU's goes against the spirit of Cabinet's policy on "vehicular neutrality" and also the rules of WTO.

We are particularly concerned with MAVEMPU's decision to demolish all its current inventory of Microcars cars as it does not make administrative sense and logic to do so. There is no technical requirement to obliterate the cars for any garage to service and house OpenCars. It also presents no real cost savings to the organization. Perhaps MAVEMPU should further clarify this aspect of their program and why they are doing this.

With the greatest respect, we would also like to know if there was any proper study done before MAVEMPU decided on the vehicle migration program. If such a study was done, we would like to know the content of the study and how MAVEMPU based its recent decision on it. We believe that this is not purely an internal technical or administrative matter as we feel that MAVEMPU's above decision has wider implications for the Car Industry in the country.

MAVEMPU makes and enforces policies and it also acts as the role model in promoting administrative efficiency in the government. The government is a major user and purchaser of cars and vehicle procurement policies by the government has a major impact on the development of the Car Industry in Malaysia. There should be greater transparency surrounding the basis of such decisions by MAVEMPU as it is of public interest and there are no state secrets involved.

Since the above announcement by MAVEMPU, many of our Malaysian car distributers and partners (who see this case as a threat to their transport business and livelihood) have written to us to express their worries and anxieties. Therefore, we feel this issue may have far reaching implications to Malaysians who are involved in the development and trading of proprietary and foreign vehicles.

We are also extremely concerned whether this vehicle migration program by MAVEMPU is a prelude to similar implementations in other governmental departments or agencies as well. We have also received information that PUSPAKOM is also launching the same initiative on migrating to OpenCars. We would like to hereby seek your clarification on this matter.

We hope you would view the above concern expressed by us in a constructive manner and as a genuine feedback from the Car industry.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

*signed*

Hairy Purée
Senior Director Government Affairs
For Microcars Malaysia

===

Don't you think it's rather presumptuous of this particular foreign company to question the right of a country's choice in a certain product? Maybe it's because all these foreign companies just think that it's not about choosing but about having a choice, and we poor third rate countries haven't the brains to think for ourselves.

yk.

It looks like Ms Neelie Kroes, the Competition Commissioner for the European Union is in agreement with governments and their agencies for choosing proper open standards, as reported by the New York Times:

“I know a smart business decision when I see one — choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed,” Ms. Kroes told a conference in Brussels. “No citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to choose a closed technology over an open one.”

So its apparent that Malaysian agencies like MAMPU are also doing the right thing in adopting true open standards like ODF as their document file format, despite the fact that Microsoft Malaysia is constantly lobbying and interfering with MAMPU's decisions. The reaction from Microsoft's lobbying is certainly interesting. I think people are getting tired of their underhanded tactics, and false cries of "competition" and "fairness".

Ms Kroes continues to applaud the efforts of governments in making the right choices:

She praised the German city of Munich for using software based on open standards, along with the German Foreign Ministry and the Gendarmerie Nationale, France’s national police force.

Ms. Kroes, who is Dutch, encouraged the Dutch government and Parliament to continue moving toward use of open standards. EU agencies “must not rely on one vendor” and “must refuse to become locked into a particular technology — jeopardizing maintenance of full control over the information in its possession,” she said.

A policy by the European Commission adopted last year to promote the use of software products that support open standards “needs to be implemented with vigor,” she said.

It would be great if she could look into the running of the Netherlands National Body which is was forced into a "abstention" decision not because of any technical ineptitude to review OOXML, but because Microsoft held the 'veto' to find no full consensus amongst the TC members, as described here:

The result of this intensive process was that during the last meeting on the subject on August 16th 2007 in Delft - where the vote was to be cast - after a majority rejection of a proposal for an "Approval" a final proposal for a so called conditional approval (i.e.: a no vote that would turn into a yes vote if a number of reasonable and already determined conditions were met at the next stage) almost got unanimous support - from all but the local support branch of Microsoft. This isolated position caused the vote to fail and the Netherlands to automatically vote for an "Abstain".

Ms Kroes is of course no stranger to the wrath of the Microsoft machinery, having to battle with them for over 4 years with regards to Microsoft's bundling of their proprietary products, and their indignation in defying her orders. What is interesting is that governments and regulators are getting tired of Microsoft's antics and are starting to bite back.

Ms. Kroes did not name Microsoft in advance copies of her speech, but she made her meaning clear by referring to the only company in the history of EU antitrust enforcement that has been fined for refusing to comply with commission orders — a record held by Microsoft.

“The commission has never before had to issue two periodic penalty payments in a competition case,” she said.

I wonder when the Ministry of Domestic Trade will wake up and realise that they are practising uncompetitive behaviour by mandating that all PC's should be shipped with operating systems from a single vendor? Surely consumers should have a "choice"? Why isn't the Institute for Software Choice / CompTIA lobbying Dell to have more choice in their OS offerings for their desktops? Ubuntu/Fedora/openSolaris/FreeBSD? Why aren't those being offered?

What is ironic is that we are being told by Microsoft that their rushing of OOXML is due to the EU's request for more open standards in their products. Unfortunately in their haste to push OOXML through the ISO process, they caused such a mess in terms of their relationships with governments, agencies, national bodies and more importantly the media, that Microsoft is now being investigated on their attempts to play the ISO system for OOXML, as reported by The Wall Street Journal in February 2008.

So things aren't looking so swell for Microsoft. Their OOXML is currently in limbo, and will not be published on schedule, because 4 countries (Argentina, Brazil, India and South Africa) have appealed against the ISO stamp of "approval". Additionally, the final draft as promised by the BRM is still not available to National Bodies to review, 3 months on (directives clearly state that it should be available within 1 month). Unless of course they don't want to see any changes between the final draft and published text because of the restrictions imposed due to the "Fast Track" process?

Lets see how the Microsoft machinery reacts to this set of interesting news, and see how they spin in.  How much has this fiasco cost them? What did they get out of it? A chance to be more open? Can you see a change yet?

yk.

Nearly One Million Beta Users, 24 Languages, Web 2.0 Extensions, New Technical Support Services for Enterprises


In September last year, I posted on the introduction of IBM Lotus Symphony - beta version. Symphony is a suite of free desktop software for word processing, presentations and spreadsheets based on ODF. Lotus Symphony supports Microsoft Office and can export content in PDF format, too.

Now it's out of beta! You can download it here, for free, of course.
 

Here's the text of the IBM press release:

ODF Comes of Age: IBM Lotus Symphony Turns 1.0

Nearly One Million Beta Users, 24 Languages, Web 2.0 Extensions, New Technical Support Services for Enterprises

ARMONK, NY - 03 Jun 2008: Open Document Format (ODF) comes of age today as IBM (NYSE: IBM) announces the commercial-grade, general availability of Lotus Symphony (http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony), a suite of free, ODF-based software tools for creating and sharing documents, spreadsheets and presentations.

This announcement affirms IBM's commitment to evolving office productivity software from static, financially draining software to a dynamic, cost-effective tool that allows businesses to invest in more innovative pursuits.

While Lotus Symphony remains a free, easy download from the Web with free online, moderated support, IBM is also announcing fee-based services to support the needs of large organizations. This optional service, IBM Elite Support for Lotus Symphony 1.0, delivers unlimited remote technical support at a level consistent with other IBM software products via an annual subscription to IBM's Passport Advantage or Passport Advantage Express volume licensing programs.

Lotus Symphony could save a company with 20,000 employees $8 million in software license fees or potentially more than $4 million in software renewal fees. If it chose to switch to Symphony for only half of its employee population, it could still save several million dollars in license or renewal fees, even if it subscribed to IBM's Elite Support services at $25 per user for 1,000 employees.

Launched in September 2007, Lotus Symphony has been downloaded by nearly one million individuals in an open public Beta program. Lotus Symphony is a truly global product, available in 24 languages, developed by a worldwide team anchored in Beijing, China, and improved through the community of individual users on the Symphony Web site.

"Major technology vendors are lining up to support ODF -- even those previously opposed to it," said Steve Mills, SVP of IBM Software. "Symphony -- backed by enterprise customer support services -- is ready for business."

A growing number of businesses are considering decisions to renew their Office licensing agreements, and move up to Office 2007 and Vista. Lotus Symphony 1.0 provides a timely and cost-effective alternative tested by nearly one million people worldwide and backed by IBM.

Plugging Into the Power of Web 2.0

Another noteworthy benefit of Lotus Symphony is aligned with Web 2.0 -- the newest Internet technology -- not the fading era of the personal computer. In the spirit of Web 2.0, Lotus Symphony individual users have the ability to influence the development of the software through feedback on the Symphony site, much the way that content is continuously revised and updated through Wikipedia.

More importantly, IBM offers a set of powerful, open APIs for extending Lotus Symphony with a wide range of plug-ins -- including Eclipse and Universal Network Object component model and others. This can empower business people to harness powerful business processes such as enterprise resources planning and customer relationship management directly from their desktop. Companies and governments can integrate Lotus Symphony tools into their custom applications and connect to myriad data sources that allow individuals to work in a single view while presenting and updating data from multiple sources instantly.

IBM is offering a free developer toolkit on the Symphony site that enables individual users of Lotus Symphony, as well as independent software developers, to create plug-ins, or software adaptors, and composite applications, or mashups. These can transform static documents into living information streams capable of managing primary business functions such as shipping, sales and fulfillment.

The three core tools comprising Lotus Symphony -- Lotus Symphony Documents, Lotus Symphony Spreadsheets and Lotus Symphony Presentations -- handle the majority of office productivity tasks that most people perform. Quick reading reference cards and online tutorials on the Lotus Symphony Web site show how easy it is to transfer documents between Symphony and Word, PowerPoint or Excel.

Symphony Provides a Foundation for SMBs

In a related development, Lotus Symphony is being extended to small businesses within a new turnkey collaboration product called IBM Lotus Foundations (www.ibm.com/lotus/products/foundations), commercially available today. Lotus Symphony will serve as the office productivity software within Lotus Foundations, which also includes Lotus Notes and Domino mail, file management, directory services, firewall, back-up and recovery, anti-virus, and anti-spam features. Lotus Foundations is part of a broad IBM initiative code-named "Blue Business Platform" to simplify information technology for small businesses.

Local IBM Business Partners are the primary route to market for Lotus Foundations. A variety of third parties, such as Linux distributors, media companies and IBM Business Partners from North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region are offering Lotus Symphony either as a free, standalone download off the Web or for sale with customized applications.

When Patrick Durusau wrote that Microsoft had no opposition to ODF, he was indefensibly and gloriously wrong. Those of us involved in national standards bodies and on government policy panels have had the dubious honor of having to defend against Microsoft's desperate attempts to kill any possible introduction of ODF as a voluntary standard. Perhaps even worse was having to witness first hand Microsoft making loud complaints against any internal government policies of the usage of ODF and any software which uses ODF (OpenOffice.org being the most prominent). And, of course, many of us have faced the intense lobbying campaign carried out by Microsoft against open source governmental policies.

So when Yasmin Mahmood, Microsoft Malaysia Managing Director, made the famous statement that "It's not about choosing, but about having a choice" with reference to ODF and OOXML, we assumed this was a new chapter in Microsoft history.

Then came along a recent blogpost by Harisfazillah Jamel, "Apabila Membuat Pilihan Dipersoalkan / When Choices are Questioned", on the right of government agencies to make choices. It's written in Malay, but it has been translated by Yoon Kit for the benefit of our international readers. It makes for extremely interesting reading on the pressure Microsoft Malaysia is placing on a government agency because of their choice to use OpenOffice.org/ODF over Microsoft Office:

Apabila Membuat Pilihan Dipersoalkan (When Our Choices Are Questioned)

Ada yang sebuah syarikat ICT yang kononnya mempunyai satu lagi standard bagi satu perkara adalah satu pilihan kepada pengguna. Sedangkan pengguna, mana-mana pengguna juga faham, standard, mempunyai standard bermaksud kita telah membuat pilihan, membuat satu pilihan daripada pelbagai pilihan yang terbaik untuk pengguna.

There is an ICT company which has one more standard for one more application for one more choice for consumers. While consumers, many users understand standards, having standards means we have made a choice, a choice which  is the best for users from many options.

Wakil mereka di Malaysia dalam satu muka surat sebuah akhbar menyatakan, kejayaan mereka mendapatkan iktiraf standard bagi satu format adalah satu pilihan kepada pengguna. Teruskan membaca, apabila membuat pilihan bukan kehendak mereka, adalah bukan pilihan mereka.

Their Malaysian representative, in a page of a newspaper stated that their success of having the standard as a format is yet another choice for users. Read it, if we make a choice not to their liking, it is not their choice.

Lalu sebuah agensi dalam kerajaan Malaysia telah membuat pilihan. Membuat pilihan bukan dalam kehendak syarikat ICT tersebut. Pilihan setelah panjang membuat penilaian. Pilihan atas dasar untuk memberi sokongan dan pilihan kepada agensi-agensi lain. Pilihan yang dibuat atas kehendak sendiri tanpa  tekanan mana-mana pihak. Pilihan yang dipesetujui diperingkat pengurusan tertinggi hinggalah keperingkat bawahan.

An agency in the government of Malaysia had already made a choice. The choice was not the choice of the said ICT company. The choice was made after a long study. The choice was based on principles to bring support and choice to other agencies The choice was made on its own needs without any pressures from any party. The choice was agreed by the highest level of management to the lowest level.

Sekarang timbul isu, syarikat ICT itu tidak senang dengan pilihan yang dibuat oleh agensi itu. Mereka merasakan agensi ini mahu menentukan dasar yang keras terhadap pilihan yang telah dibuat. Oh ya betul, mereka tidak senang dengan pilihan yang dibuat oleh sebuah agensi kerajaan Malaysia dan mula menjalankan kerja-kerja melobi untuk memaksa agensi ini, menurunkan maksud polisi penggunaan standard yang telah dibuat oleh agensi ini.

Now this issue has surfaced. The ICT company is not happy with the choice that was made by the agency. They felt that the agency wants to set a policy which is incompatible with the choice that they prefer. Oh that is true, they are not happy with the choice that was made by an agency of the Malaysian Government and have started work lobbying to force this agency to dampen the meaning of the policy of using standards that was announced by this agency.

Polisi yang telah disusun, dibincang dengan panjang lebar dan diluluskan dalam pengurusan tertinggi agensi ini mahu diubah oleh syarikat ICT tersebut kerana ia tidak menepati pilihan yang kehendak mereka. Bahawa diingatkan polisi ini adalah khusus hanya untuk agensi ini supaya memudahkan pelaksanaan atas satu standard. Itu maksud tujuan standard, memudahkan pelaksanaan kepada satu pilihan.

The policy that was prepared, was discussed widely and in detail, was approved by the highest level management of this agency, is to be modified by the said ICT company because it is not inline with their needs. Whereas it is reminded that this policy is specifically for this agency such that it  can easily implement one standard. That is the meaning and purpose of a standard, the ease of implementing one choice.

Yang buat saya marah, adalah teknik yang saya panggil, kilas tangan dengan kasar memaksa agensi ini tukarkan polisi agensi ini. Ya memaksa, walau apa pun cara yang digunakan, bagi saya ia masih panggil ia memaksa, agensi ini tukarkan polisi dari segi pelaksanaan.

What makes me angry is  what I call their heavy handed technique of forcing the said agency to change its policies. Yes force, by any means possible. I still call it force, to get the agency to change its policies on implementation.

Bagi saya, campur tangan dalam urusan sebuah agensi kerajaan Malaysia terutama melibatkan polisi, dan nyata sekali polisi ini adalah untuk penggunaan agensi tersebut oleh sebuah syarikat luar negara merupa satu campur tangan asing... Sebuah bentuk penjajahan ...

For me, their intervention in the business of an agency of the Government of Malaysia especially when it involves policies, and especially when this policy is stated for the use of this agency, by a foreign company represents ... a form of colonisation ...

Siapa mereka untuk tentukan dasar dan pentadbiran sebuah negara.  Saya sebagai rakyat Malaysia cukup marah dengan campur tangan sebegini. Perkara ini telah lama diperhatikan sejak daripada melobi penerimaan standard yang kononnya adalah satu pilihan.

Who are they to define the policies and the running of a sovereign country. I, as a Malaysian citizen, have enough with their interference of this nature. This behaviour has long been witnessed ever since the lobbying efforts of the standards which is claimed to be yet another "choice".

Saya tidak akan duduk diam dengan bentuk penjajahan cara baru ini. Saya tidak akan berhenti menulis dan berkempen untuk mendedahkan apa jua yang dilakukan oleh syarikat ICT ini untuk terus memaksa penggunaan produk mereka.

I am not going to sit quiet with this new form of colonisation tactic. I am not going to stop writing and campaigning and resist any action by this ICT company which forces the use of their products.

Banyak sudah duit rakyat, duit rakyat mengalir keluar daripada Malaysia, hanya untuk pembayaran lesen. Pembayaran hanya atas kertas, tiada hasil kepada kita rakyat Malaysia, hanya menjadikan syarikat luar negara atau individu luar negara lagi kaya.

Too much of our citizens money, money of the people has flowed out from Malaysia, only to purchase licenses. The payment is only for paper, without any value to us Malaysian citizens, only to make a foreign company or individual foreigners rich.

Sedangkan duit yang berjuta-juta itu boleh dialirkan kepada industri ICT negara kita dalam bentuk pelaksanaan sistem sokongan, penyelidikan dan pelaksanaan kepada aplikasi sumber terbuka atau Open Source Software.

If only the multi-millions of riggit could flow to our ICT industry in the form of system support, research and implementations in Open Source Software.

Mengapa perlu kayakan orang lain sedangkan rakyat ini yang membayar cukai tersebut perlu lihat sahaja duit itu keluarkan. Sedang sudah ada pilihan, pilihan yang setelah dikaji, boleh mendatangkan faedah yang banyak kepada rakyat Malaysia.

Why must we make other people wealthy while citizens have to pay the tax. Just see the expenditure. While there is already a choice, a choice that has been evaluated which can bring much benefits to the citizens of Malaysia.

Polisi dan dasar sudah ada. Mengapa tidak sokong? Soalan yang hendak tanya kepada ahli-ahli politik negara kita ...

The Policies are already defined. Why is there no support? These are the questions which need only be asked to the politicians of our country ...

Apa yang saya tulis ini adalah pendapat peribadi, akan tetapi saya mahu ia dipandang  serius oleh banyak pihak. Lama mana kita mahu dijajah ... ???

What I have written is just my personal opinion, but I want this viewed seriously by many. How long do we ever want to be colonised ... ???

I really must commend Patrick Durusau's innate capability of writing the most inflammatory and outrageous publications, publications that are so divorced from reality that one cannot help but think that the dude must be hoarding some seriously good weed to be able to live so completely within his own defined existence. His latest publication, "Not With a Bang, but With a Whimper", has been receiving flak from the collective open standards community for exactly that reason and rightly so.

Patrick writes that:

Signs the document standards war was entirely fictitious have been around for quite some time. Where was the Microsoft opposition to OpenDocument in standards bodies such as OASIS and ISO? Perhaps they forgot? Didn't get the memo?

Given that we at OpenMalaysiaBlog, as open standards supporters, have been at the forefront of receiving the brunt of their vicious (and often personal) attacks on ODF, I find Patrick's assertions as ridiculous and cockeyed at best, and deliberately offensive at worst.

Microsoft has been running an anti-ODF campaign in favour of OOXML for a long long time now. In Malaysia, their campaign started with opposition to Malaysia's proposed adoption of ODF ISO26300:2006 as a voluntary standard by invoking Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt on the ODF standard. The campaign continued on by personally attacking members of the technical committee who were in favour of ODF, by casting undue aspersions on their characters, in particular, insinuating that we were subversive agents of IBM intent on the destruction of Microsoft (apparently, anybody who supports truly open standards is a biased IBM agent).

In fact, during a technical standards meeting on ODF, senior management of Microsoft Malaysia printed out an unrelated and personal blog post from Yoon Kit (in which he was slightly critical of a Malaysian government agency whose representative was also present during the meeting), passed it around to all members present in the meeting and demanded for proper ethical conduct from members. That's right, folks - he printed out a non-technical blog post and attempted to cast a false and misleading charge on the character of a member of the technical meeting.

To the credit of the representative of the government agency in question and the chairman of the meeting, the meeting was quickly brought to order. The representative of the government agency did not have a problem with Yoon Kit's blog post but Microsoft Malaysia did. Note that this is not hearsay, I witnessed this first hand and was thoroughly shocked at the extent Microsoft would go to destroy any perceived threat to their Microsoft Office cash cow. The Microsoft Malaysia representative in question also distributed printed blog posts from OpenMalaysia and circled the name of a member of this blog who also happens to be an IBM employee, insinuating to all that members of OpenMalaysia are influenced by IBM in pushing for a pro-ODF stand. This happened during a meeting to discuss the technical aspects on ODF!

That particular meeting was followed by an anonymous smear campaign against one of the TC members. A letter was faxed to the organization of the TC member in question, accusing the TC member in question of helping politicize the issue (which is, of course, untrue). I too had the dubious pleasure of hearing first hand how Microsoft attempted to remove me from the TC (they did not succeed, thanks to integrity and cojones of the organization I am affiliated with).

If this unethical behaviour by Microsoft was not sufficiently despicable, they did the unthinkable by involving politics in what should have been a technical evaluation of the standard by writing to the head of the Malaysian standards organization and getting its business partners to engage in a negative letter writing campaign to indicate lack of support of ODF in the Malaysian market. Every single negative letter on ODF received by the Malaysian standards organization was written either by Microsoft, or a Microsoft business partner or a Microsoft affiliated organization (Initiative for Software Choice and IASA).

That's right, Patrick, every single negative letter on ODF can be traced back to Microsoft. And you ask where was Microsoft's opposition to ODF? Here is a letter by Yasmin Mahmood, Microsoft Malaysia Managing Director to the head of the Malaysian standards organization, opposing ODF as a voluntary standard (note that I have digital copies of all the letters in questions, if you wish to read them):

Patrick, you write that:

Need more? Watch the reaction to this announcement by Microsoft. Remember the cry has been that Microsoft should adopt OpenDocument. Microsoft has now adopted OpenDocument and it will be devoting resources to its development. For those unfamiliar with the concept, that means Microsoft will be making a positive contribution to the ODF development effort.

My recommendation is that everyone put up their noise makers and welcome Microsoft to the OpenDocument community and prepare to work with them to advance its development

Patrick, you make the assumption that those who are opposing OOXML are doing it solely because we oppose Microsoft. You couldn't be more wrong and I think it's high time you recognize the most excellent effort by many parties in helping improve the OOXML specification.

Yoon Kit and myself have spent countless weekends and many, many, many man hours finding ways of improving the proposed standard. My report to the TC, based on the reading made of the proposed standard, have always been on a solely technical basis, and Patrick, you of all people, should accede to the fact that there are/were severe technical deficiencies in the proposed standard and that input from members of National Bodies helped improve the specification.

The campaign against Open XML was at its start, in the middle and at the end an anti-Microsoft campaign. The merits or demerits of Open XML were simply a convenient launching point for criticisms of Microsoft.

Making the dangerous argument that "the merits or demerits of OOXML were simply a convenient launching point for criticisms of Microsoft" works to undermine the important constructive value of  criticism, which is to improve the proposed standard in question. The logic you have employed, that any attempt to criticize the technical deficiencies in OOXML is equated to criticism of Microsoft, is superfluous. By any measure, our criticism and feedback has helped improve the proposed standard immeasurably and you simply must recognize that, if intellectual honesty carries still carries weight with you.

Patrick, to further claim that we are solely "noise makers" does irreparable damage to value of the work we have put into improving the proposed standard. In fact, some of the decent folk at Microsoft (yes, they actually exist) helped arrange a conference call to Brian Jones, whose input helped clarify some the issues I was attempting to understand. I subsequently revised my technical contribution to the TC based on the clarification by Brian Jones. Your assertion that we are doing this so as to criticize Microsoft is an unfair charge and only serves to undermine your already dwindling reputation among the open standards community.

Now, when I was first told about Microsoft Office support for ODF by a Microsoft employee, my reaction was: "Awesome!". Then I puzzled for a minute over why they didn't do this two years ago and avoid opposing the passage of ODF as a Malaysian standard. In any case, the following day, I relayed this message to Yasmin Mahmood, the Microsoft Malaysia Managing Director, with an invitation for OpenMalaysia Blog to interview her on this positive and constructive development. I've not heard back from Yasmin on my invitation, but let me publicly assure the lady that the invitation is still open and we are committed to publishing the interview verbatim (word for word). Yoon Kit and I also offered to publicize the good work Microsoft is doing on ODF by running an interview with them. Brian and Doug, that invitation is still open if you choose to accept it by answering the questions we sent to you 11 days ago.

So all in all, Patrick, you owe us an apology for your thoughtless remarks, your unfair insinuations and biased connotations on our character.

Pic: On flag off day, 27 May 2008, Adnan Osman with Dato' Dr Low, Commander-in-Chief of St. John Ambulance Malaysia

My uncle, Pak Nan (Adnan Osman) is 65 years old. He's cycling all 9,000 km from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia to Beijing, China! This will take him 2 months, from Malaysia through Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and into China for the summer Olympics.

Datuk Johan Jaaffar first highlighted Adnan's quest in the New Straits Times early this month. Datuk Johan said a duo will be cycling to Beijing, but no, when I called Pak Nan last weekend to wish him well, he said he and his partner will cycle to the Malaysia-Thailand border town of Bukit Kayu Hitam; from then on he will ride alone!

You can read updates on his adventure at his own blog: http://oadnanxtreme.blogspot.com -- please post your comments there and lend your support!

Update 1 June 2008: Join the Facebook Group: Adnan Osman Cycling from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing

God, and all people meeting him in Malaysia, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and China, please take care of Adnan Osman. When I was 21, I cycled from KL to Langkawi. That was not even 1,000km. But my uncle is making history. It's arduous, but I know he will make it. Safe journey, Pak Nan.

Its official.

At least one National Body has submitted a formal complaint to ISO and IEC. South Africa was rather vocal about the Fast Tracking process of OOXML from day one.

It also has recently made ODF as its National Standard, and has a firm plan on how to standardise on one document format in their  Minimum Interoperability Standards for Information Systems in government (MIOS).

This is what was submitted to ISO and IEC in separate appeals:

Download DIS_29500_appeal_letter_ISO.pdf

Download DIS_29500_appeal_letter_IEC.pdf

yk.

[Update: 7:35pm Letter transcribed <read more>]

[Update: 7:46pm Steven Pepper, ex-Chair of the Norwegian TC has also blogged this new development and has more information on Norway's position]

This is a follow on blog post from one of my first entries almost 2 years ago (7th July 2006) when I commented on Microsoft's announcement of their pseudo-support of ODF via the Clever-Age plugin.

Microsoft Office Supports ODF? Hardly!

I was optimistic when I read about  Microsoft Expands Document Interoperability - Company to Sponsor Open Source Project for Open XML-ODF File Translation to Deliver More Choice for Government Customers and Their Constituents. Optimistic because I thought that this company finally "got it" and understood the intention of the ODF, to make documents universally exchangeable.

However my hopes were dashed as I read more into the press release ...

So when I heard that there was talk about Microsoft supporting ODF last night, I was, as most people were, sceptical. And why shouldnt we be? After all, we heard over and over again, by the same mouthpieces of Microsoft, over the same issue, that Microsoft is all about "choice" and customer demands and yet hypocritically bars the choice their customers demand for native support of ODF in their dominant software applications.

I blogged about this apparent inability for Microsoft (and their spokespeople) to see how silly they sounded, this back in April 2007:

Choice to Choose

... So in reality, one standard promotes interoperability, and with interoperability, you get healthy competition and innovation between competing applications, and ultimately choice and a better marketplace for consumers like Malaysians.

We must not confuse "choice of standards" with the "choice of applications" which support the standard. There should just be one standard and multiple applications implementing that specific standard.

... This is the real "choice" which the market demands, and we must make it clear to vendors that this is the only direction Malaysia should head towards if we intend to claim back the ownership of the data and documents we create.

Then in August 2007, it was drummed into us that the reason why Microsoft is not providing native support for ODF is because "there is no Customer demand." All this while Governments around the world started working towards adopting ODF as their standard of choice! The reason why Microsoft did not see "customer demand" was because they had a rather myopic view of what their definition of what a customer is. They do not see you or I as their customers. They sell to resellers, distributors, ISVs ... people who do not see the value in ODF and may even view ODF as a threat to their businesses. So of course they can claim that there is no customer demand.

Then a few weeks ago (April 2008), we had the famous words of Malaysia's very own Yasmin Mahmood, "The industry just wants to have the best innovation; they want to have the freedom of choice. The whole idea is not about choosing, it's about having a choice ... and that is what customers and partners want." And oh, did I go on a rant (which I really enjoyed):

But if Microsoft really has the interests of "choice" for their customers, why then don't they really, walk the talk, and provide choice of ODF in their products? Why are they restricting my choice as an end user who prefers the better ISO standard? Do they really practice what they preach? Why is there less choice in their products?

Why do they complain so loudly when their 'formats' are not considered and yet are so blatant about leaving out competing formats in their products? Why is Novell so much more capable in building OOXML support in OpenOffice.org and Microsoft, a vastly larger company with teams of developers having such difficulty writing ODF support in their products?

Considering that she would (or should) have received the memo that Microsoft Office would be supporting ODF then, I wonder how she can, with a straight face push the "demand" of OOXML, when she knows for a fact, that the emerging demand is for ODF? After all, all the OOXML projects which she stated were fully sponsored by Microsoft themself. Is that demand? I guess sincerity flows easily for marketeers.

I actually emailed her a long time ago, after a TC4 meeting back in 16th December 2006. In it I said (with certain parts removed to protect the not-so-innocent):

Dear Yasmin,

It was a pleasure meeting with you yesterday at SIRIM TC4. Its interesting how Microsoft is willing to invest time and effort in this issue at such an early stage.

As mentioned in our conversation, ODF is a significant improvement to the way we manage documents for the future. It is something which the world is recognising and will be the global trend for the next 5-10 years.

With your intentions to mould Microsoft Malaysia into a better corporate citizen, I hope you take time to reflect the responsibilities you have, and consider the alternatives to the current strategy you are taking.

The support for the ODF Add-in is a significant step towards Microsofts new found direction towards truly opening up its interests and competing on the features and value to Malaysian customers.

I hope that you can re-affirm this direction by supporting ODF more fully in the Malaysian context.

Its an undeniable fact that Microsoft makes great products. Channel your resources in better products: great UI's, more features and make sure that interoperability is ensured via open standards like ODF.

Show your customers that you dont have to hide behind artificial barriers, and are not afraid of competing honestly in a technology neutral market.

Remember, this was written a long time ago. Before I had first hand experience of how contentious this issue could become. Before I had ever been a target. Before Vista. What is interesting that it has taken them so long to realise the obvious.

My last post I discussed Microsoft's wasted opportunities in becoming a good ICT citizen. They want to appear to be open, but their original noble intentions never translates well into actions, from their ODF plugin to their "Open Source Interoperability Initiative", they unfortunately appear evil instead, so you really can't blame us for being very cynical about any future, past or present Microsoft "Initiatives".

However, I am an optimist, and I do hope that the Microsofties driving ODF support in core Microsoft applications are sincere in their intent. So far, I don't see too much of the smarmy doublespeak this time in their press release, and I really applaud the guys for that. Although they tried to dilute the ODF subject with PDF (didnt they already have that last year?) and XPS (who really uses that?) and UOF (ni hui jiang ODF ma?), the message is quite clear.

So overall, its very encouraging. I hope Microsoft follows through with this announcement, and does not mess it up when they finally release the patch.

Before today, it used to be very hard in taking these statements seriously  ...

"...  it is very important that customers have the freedom to choose from a range of technologies to meet their diverse needs."
-  July 2006 Jean Paoli, GM of Interoperability and XML architecture at Microsoft

... but now its definitely reads a lot less hypocritical.

yk.

This post was actually meant to be a response to a journalist who asked what I thought about the February 2008 announcement by Microsoft on their "Strategic Changes in Technology and Business Practices to Expand Interoperability". To put into context, this was released on Feb 21st, the weekend before the BRM, so it was not particularly on my mind at that time.

In March, I got a call from the journalist to comment on this issue because they were going to feature it as Microsoft Malaysia was going to make a big re-announcement or something. I gave my thoughts, but never saw the light of day of my input, so I guess its now safe to post my comment.

Groklaw has an extensive list of quotes from far more qualified industry experts, but very few posts as end users from a developing country.

To recap, the announcement is Microsoft's promise in:

1. Ensuring open connections to Microsoft’s high-volume products.
2. Documenting how Microsoft supports industry standards and extensions.
3. Enhancing Office 2007 to provide greater flexibility of document formats.
4. Launching the Open Source Interoperability Initiative.
5. Expanding industry outreach and dialogue.

I have personally experienced #5, however we have yet to see progress with #1, #2 and #3. #4 however is the most interesting for me. I mean "Open Source Interoperability Initiative". That sounds great! Does this mean that Microsoft is opening up to the Open Source was of doing things? I hope so!

Unfortunately its not the case. The transcript of the Press Conference on this announcement reveals the rather major pitfalls (my emphasis):

BRAD SMITH: On the other hand, with respect to companies that are engaged in commercial distribution, or use internally, there is a need to obtain a patent license where there are applicable patent rights, and we're committing to make these patent licenses readily available. Novell already has an agreement with us that covers all of these patent rights. Some other companies, such as Xandros and others, also have a patent license. So they've already addressed all of that, and their users are already addressed. With respect to other distributors, and users, the clear message is that patent licenses will be freely available.

STEVE BALLMER:  Patents will be, not freely, will be available.

BRAD SMITH:  Readily available.

STEVE BALLMER: Readily available for the right fee. The basic economic analysis that you should go through sort of goes like this. We have valuable intellectual property in our patents, we will continue to view that as valuable intellectual property in all forms, and we will monetize from all users of that, not all developers, but for all users of that patented technology, all commercial developers, and all commercial users of that patented technology.

We also have trade secret information, which we will continue to protect, with the exception of some important trade secret information in the interoperability realm, which we will still value, but we will make available free of charge, so that people can do appropriate interoperability. So from an economic perspective you could say, in some senses, we're opening up. Yet, at the same time, we retain valuable intellectual property assets.

On reading the official announcement properly, this is clearly stated:

Microsoft is providing a covenant not to sue open source developers for development or non-commercial distribution of implementations of these protocols. These developers will be able to use the documentation for free to develop products. Companies that engage in commercial distribution of these protocol implementations will be able to obtain a patent license from Microsoft, as will enterprises that obtain these implementations from a distributor that does not have such a patent license.

In a nutshell, they are saying that they will not sue "hobbyist FOSS users and developers" but they will sue FOSS distributors and enterprise end-users who fail to obtain a patent license from Microsoft. This is no bogey man. Its quite clear in the announcement, and the BSA is pretty active in Malaysia, not hesitating in sueing end user companies.

So here is my response as an IT Manager of a local manufacturing company:

As an Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) user in both work and play, I am happy that Microsoft has yet again reiterated their intention to move towards a more interoperable world. According to this initiative, they only provide covenants to FOSS developers for "non-commercial" distribution of implementations of these protocols. For customers of FOSS services, their local enterprise level support may require licensing issues, and this may hinder the local ICT growth of the FOSS ecosystem.

Will each reseller have to 'license' from Microsoft Malaysia? Additionally, this threat to sue in Malaysia may be moot, as software patents registered in the United States is not recognised here in Malaysia. There is therefore no case of infringing any 'Intellectual Property' of this type in countries outside of the US (except for Singapore, Japan, Australia and other countries who have signed on to the US-FTA agreements). Software Patents are vastly different to Copyrights.

As such, this is much of the same rhetoric we have heard from Microsoft since 2003, and I hope that they will show true initiatives of interoperability by adopting more open standards like CSS/HTML, which they recently have in  IE8, and hopefully also the ISO 26300 standard in OpenDocument Format in their office productivity suites.

What is sad about the Microsoft situation is that they seem to want to open up, but their reasons for opening up are not for the right reasons. This halfhearted approach shows in these 'so-called' initiatives. It is also evident that the reluctance to open up is not from upper management at all. Notice how Ballmer corrects Brad Smith. It appears that the vision of the CEO is not shared with the rest of the organisation. One side really needs to correct the other and re-align to better reflect the trends of today.

Here was a golden chance for Microsoft to gain some precious goodwill with the Open Source Community. Instead they botched it up just like they did before, again and again, cementing their reputation as the biggest and baddest anti-FOSS company in existence today.

How many other companies out there have such a anti-FOSS policies? Which company can be so unfriendly to their end users who prefer more choice? Why threaten when you should coax?

Anyway, that was my 2sen 3 months on. Every year Microsoft announces a new initiative for Interoperability. Hopefully next year they take genuine steps towards this goal and not just bandy about this rather overused term.

[Update: 1:20pm May 21st.
Here were Ditesh's quotes,  as an Open Source Developer, on this matter.

"Microsoft's Interoperability Initiative is geared to ensure that software (open source or otherwise) run well on Microsoft platforms. It is important to view this in its correct perspective: there has been very little effort from Microsoft to ensure its own software runs well on competing platforms. In other words, this initiative locks down users to Microsoft platforms instead of offering true interoperability which puts users and customers in charge by offering them choice and flexibility.

Interoperability must always been seen as a two way street, and history has taught us that true interoperability only works to the benefit of all members of the software industry when it is based on existing industry accepted open standards. Unfortunately, Microsoft has decided not to pursue this with their initiative and has chosen a very restrictive approach that does not benefit the overall software industry.

My second observation is that Microsoft's initiative seeks to bar open source developers from participating freely and openly in their program, as Microsoft is insisting on its protocol patents and that open source developers cannot engage in commercial development.

Firstly, no interoperability program should ever mandate that developers desist from developing and distributing commercial programs. Such a mandate would be a death-knell to the software industry and it clearly only benefits Microsoft. Any attempt to stop competition in the market by insisting on non-commercial development, as Microsoft's initiative seeks to achieve, will have extremely harmful and lasting effect on the industry as a whole.

Secondly, software patents have been rejected soundly in many countries (most stunningly in the European Union) due to the chilling effects it would have on the software industry. In fact, there has been studies showing evidence of the harm of software patents to the industry. As such, any initiative that insists on software patents will simply fail over the long term as the industry will reject initiatives that result in monopolies that hurt overall industry growth prospects."

]

yk.

May 17, 2008 is Open Malaysia blog's 2nd. birthday!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

The first post 2 years ago declared, "This is a blog
about openness, saying that the changing times call for innovation through open collaboration." Open innovation, ODF, open standards and open source were what we championed then and what we still champion today.

Malaysia had voted Approval of ODF as an ISO standard just before this blog started 2 years ago. OOXML came into the picture since then, but in the last one year, Malaysia cannot be considered to have officially accepted OOXML -- the Malaysian National Body committees  (TC4, then ISC G) voted Disapproval of OOXML, and the Malaysia final vote of Abstention decided by the Minister is at best non-committal to OOXML.

On the blog's 1st. birthday on May 17, 2007, there were 194 posts and 163 comments. In the one year after that, we added 111 posts but the number of comments tripled to 512 comments within the same one year! The worldwide dialog created by this blog was awesome.

In the 1st. year, we had 32,000 visits (by Sitemeter). In the 2nd. year, the month of March 2008 alone had 32,000 visits, with a total of 100,000 visits in the whole of this 2nd. year. The most popular post was definitely The Last Lap on the OOXML results which attracted thousands of visits every day.

Yes, the times they are a-changing. I leave it to you to recount the changes you have seen in "openness" in Malaysia and elsewhere over the last year -- do write your comments below.

I always have a 2 month backlog of podcasts because fortunately I don't spend too much time in the car. This morning, I started catching up with Cranky Geeks, a vidcast of John C Dvorak and his fellow cranks who gripe about the state of technology today.

I was surprised when they brought up the topic of OOXML. Here is a transcript (and my emphasis in bold) of their conversation (mp4 mp3):

John C Dvorak, Chief Crank, "dvorak.org/blog"

Sebastian Rupley, Co-Crank, Editorial Director, PCMagCast.com

Lance Ulanoff, Editor-in-Chief, PC Magazine

Veronica Belmont, Host/Producer, Mahalo Daily

Time: 15:00

JD: Microsoft OOXML has finally passed... Anybody here have a clue .. because Microsoft has been fighting it, fighting it fighting it, ... what do they want this for?

SR: Because the OpenDocument Format was the competitor for this, which is what the open source community wanted, and that would be basically and easy translatable way from all kinds of products, from open source to commercial products to exchange documents. Microsoft has its eyes on a proprietary type of format based on XML based on all its ...

JD: ... buts its gotta be open, its gotta be a standard, not proprietary .. ?

SR: Its not open though, this is really a shame I think that this went through. There also are some rumours, that there were voting irregularities, that Microsoft pulled stunts, in getting this passed. It means we have to jump through hoops like getting the translator to download, mobile translator that they have now,  for the 'x' documents that we do. Its a pain and it shouldnt happen ...

VB: Is this the DOCX? It confused the hell out of my mom I can tell you.

LU: It is driving people in the office and my office CRAZY, because every once in a while, a docx file shows up. Now if you want to open it you got to download the compatibility module for Office 2003.

SR: And its not just DOCX too, I get people sending me PPTX. "I cant open this PowerPoint, could you open it and rename it, save it to your disk and resend it back to me so that I can open it?"

VB: My dad installed the newest version of office on my Mom's computer at home, and she's not techie, but she uses Word everyday. And suddenly all her files were DOCX. And she was trying to open things, and send things to co-workers, and she just couldn't figure it out. ...

Im like .. thats ..?

SR: Its ridiculous

LU: There should be a rule that we are not allowed to go past 3 characters for file extensions.

JD: What is the point of docx?[1]

LU: Its like XML is a widely used standard for companies to inter-operate because they will have a structured document. Its a big document so theres a kind of description of what the document is going to be like, and then there is the different parts plug in to that, and as long as you have those two things riding separately, you can easily change stuff and have a whole vast set of documents changed.

At the desktop level, I dont entirely understand what the massive benefit is going to be, I think Microsoft understands it better than others, er, I have no idea whether or not they push people hard, but Microsoft wants to own something ...

JD: whats the thing on that movie 'Officespace', the guy who always had the TP report or whatever it was: TPS report ...

SR: Yes, its funny when they bring the birthday cake out "Whats the cake to person ratio" .. ?

JD: that would be for this report, you can make one change, and not worry about changing the coversheet, because it all would be automated. So I think they would be watching that movie too often apparently in Microsoft.

[1] It was pretty accurate up to the point Lance tries to explain what OOXML was, and when John tries to equate OOXML as a templating engine. Ah well, at least Sebastian Rupley really gets it and understands how harmful OOXML is as an international standard. It would have been better if he had more "airtime" in explaining the issues regarding this. And perhaps even elaborating on the "irregularities".

What is really interesting is how these people "in the know" have real world experience of these new file formats in the wild, and what the reaction is to them. Like the uptake of Vista, its pretty much negative.

Its also funny that the segment before this was about the April Fools pranks which occurred online. I think its quite unfortunate for Microsoft that their hollow victory (if its one at all) would fall on April the First. Well, whether the joke's on us or not, OOXML to me will always be remembered as the April Fools' Standard.

ps. Where's the Final Text for DIS 29500? Shouldnt it be out oh, 12 days ago? I should have guessed and expected as much, though; Microsoft has always found it difficult to released anything in time. Im just surprised that ISO has allowed their enshrined processes to be infected by the Microsoft vapourware release cycles so quickly. I would have thought maybe OOXML v1.2 or v2.0. But even before v1.0? Shurely... Is this considered yet another irregularity in the process? Maybe they are hiding it from us so that we have less time to review the changes before the deadline to appeal on 1st June. How are we expected to go through 6000 7000 8000 pages in the next 2 weeks?

South Africa has taken major steps in recognising ODF as a national and government standard.

Back in October 2007, it was announced that South Africa mandated that ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) would be in the Minimum Interoperability Standards for Information Systems in government (MIOS).

The plan then was to have all government departments to view ODF documents by March 2008, all published government documents to be in ODF or non-proprietary formats by end of 2008, all internal government documents by March 2009 and finally a conversion of legacy documents to ODF or non proprietary formats.

So now, the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) approved ODF as a national standard to make ODF as a standard more visible and accessible to South African citizens. The latest update:

Aslam Raffee, chief information officer at DST (Department of Science and Technology), says that the deadlines for ODF adoption in government have already been set and are underway. The initial deadline was March this year for government department to be able to read documents in ODF format. By September it is expected that all departments will be able to read and write in the Open Document Format. Finally, in 2009, ODF will become the default document format for South African government departments.

Raffee says this process is progressing well and at this point “citizens should be able to send documents in Open Document Format to departments”

What is significant is that South Africa was one of the countries which voted "Disapprove" OOXML consistently as an abnormal candidate for the "Fast Track" process. Its concerns against OOXML is reiterated in SABS final comments submitted to ISO:

The overwhelming majority view of the South African committee is that the scope of the overlap between the proposed standard and the existing ISO/IEC 26300 standard is significant.  A significant majority view is that South Africa sees no benefit in adopting another standard for document formats in this area.

If Microsoft thinks it can now inject its immature OOXML as an alternative format in South Africa's MIOS, they certainly are facing an uphill battle. SABS and DST will undoubtedly expect to hear a lot of whinging about "choice" and "market forces" lobbied at certain Ministerial Departments. Will CompTIA and ISC please step up?

This goes to show that certain Ministries of Science and Technology can stand up for the interests of their citizens, and not have to feel pressured by a single foreign multinational. If only this independence was more prevalent around the world.

yk.

What?

Yes. Try to understand that fantastic quote from Yasmin Mahmood, Microsoft Malaysia's (current) Managing Director. This was reported by Tech&U, which is currently leading the pack as the most reliable source of Microsoft propaganda. What's wonderful is that they quote Yasmin word for word without questioning what she really means. It makes hilarious reading.

I have transcribed the article below, as it is not available online yet.

What's interesting is that finally, we have documented proof that Microsoft is not interested in real choice for customers, but merely an illusion of choice. This is straight from the horse's mouth, as they say:

"The industry just wants to have the best innovation; they want to have the freedom of choice. The whole idea is not about choosing, it's about having a choice ... and that is what customers and partners want," she said.

It's about having the freedom of choice. Not really about making a firm choice, but at least we have some choice. I could go on about how fallacious this argument is but I think you readers are intelligent enough to know how this is so wrong.

But if Microsoft really has the interests of "choice" for their customers, why then don't they really, walk the talk, and provide choice of ODF in their products? Why are they restricting my choice as an end user who prefers the better ISO standard? Do they really practice what they preach? Why is there less choice in their products?

Why do they complain so loudly when their 'formats' are not considered and yet are so blatant about leaving out competing formats in their products? Why is Novell so much more capable in building OOXML support in OpenOffice.org and Microsoft, a vastly larger company with teams of developers having such difficulty writing ODF support in their products?

What really is rich about her comment about the astroturfing Microsoft Malaysia had seeded to create the illusion of OOXML adoption in Malaysia:

... some strategic projects in Malaysia have successfully leveraged on the format. Among them are the Malaysian Halal Hub Open XML System, RosettaNet Automated Enablement, Tradenex.com and World Congress on Information Technology 2008's Registration System.

I have already elaborated on how Microsoft funded the development of OOXML integration on "strategic projects" above (Halal Hub and RosettaNet). What is new however is the WCIT'08 Registration System. Who needs OOXML to register for a seminar? Don't we just need HTML/HTTP to do online registrations?

It's laughable that Microsoft Malaysia is trying to tag on OOXML to everything they sponsor.

Speaking of which, if you visit the WCIT website, at the bottom, you can see these logos:

It does not take a statistician to find a correlation between voting patterns on OOXML in Malaysia and "smart partnerships" with this WCIT circus. MDeC and PIKOM voted "Approve". MoSTI (Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation) voted "Abstain" and its Minister ultimately overrulled the overwhelming 81% Disapproval position by TC4 and ISC-G, the technical committees overseeing the OOXML draft standard.

What has to be said is that the Microsoft Malaysia propaganda machine has to go into overdrive now because at the end of the day, while Malaysia voted "Approve" to ODF, in all intents and purposes, Malaysia strongly rejected OOXML in all sectors of the ICT ecosystem. At best, if spun properly, Microsoft can say that Malaysia is non-committal to OOXML as it merely "Abstained".

I wonder what other strategic projects Microsoft Malaysia can sponsor next? To them, the money train just left the first station and must keep going! We just have to sit back, and enjoy the spin. Eventually they will find that they cannot fund everything and buy support all the time.

yk

I think Canada's Final Position Statement states very clearly what was wrong with this entire OOXML circus. Instead of being overly critical, they too and provide sound advise on how ISO can fix it:

I hope they appeal.

yk

The ODF Alliance released the following statement at their ODF Alliance blog:

ODF Alliance Statement on the ISO Vote on OOXML

Washington, DC, April 2, 2008—ODF Alliance managing director Marino Marcich issued the following statement regarding the ISO vote on Microsoft’s Office Open XML.

“The ISO vote on OOXML has raised awareness at the highest levels of government of the importance of preserving access to public information and records. For too long, this information has been locked into the closed, proprietary format controlled by a single vendor. This is increasingly unacceptable. For this reason, governments around the world have been adopting the already-ISO approved OpenDocument Format (ODF).

ODF will continue to be the document format of choice that best meets the needs of governments interested in ensuring access to their own information, now and in the future. The process itself brought to the fore OOXML’s deficiencies that will prevent its use by public administrations, chief among them that OOXML remains a “community of one”—undocumented features, IPR restrictions, and features and functionality linked to other Microsoft products that will prevent OOXML’s use in other software products. Governments will naturally take a “buyer beware” attitude toward OOXML and its lone implementation, Microsoft Office 2007. Nothing about the process will provide governments with any more confidence in OOXML’s openness and interoperability than they had before the vote.

The vote shined a spotlight on OOXML that will not dim. Only in response to growing public pressure has Microsoft promised to make changes to OOXML, and, to be sure, similar promises have been made on numerous occasions. To avoid any questions concerning the legitimacy of the vote, which included many documented irregularities, Microsoft needs to ensure that these promises made to national standards bodies are actually delivered. 

If anything, this vote has galvanized the ODF community, making us more confident than ever of ODF’s emergence as the document format of the future.”

Finally, some press is picking up on Malaysia's strange voting decision. ZDNet Asia has been on the ball lately with OOXML news, and Lee Min Keong has picked up on information from OpenMalaysiaBlog to feature as an article (unfortunately) entitled "Malaysia unmoved in OOXML vote":

Some Quotes:

Minister ignored objections
According to Open Malaysia, the Malaysian Industrial Standards Committee for IT (ISC-G) took a vote on Mar. 27 to decide the country's stance on the OOXML-ISO vote, with 13 disapprovals, five abstentions and only three approvals.

By eventually taking the decision to abstain in the OOXML ISO ballot, Maximus Ongkili, who is two weeks into the job as Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation--following the country's Mar. 8 general elections--appeared to have ignored the ISC-G's majority "disapprove" vote.

In the article, the journalist tried to contact Microsoft Malaysia, but they said they wouldn't comment on the news, as the official result was not out yet. This was ironically "out of respect for ISO/IEC". They have a sense of humour, I suppose ...

It gets funnier. In response to some of my comments in by blog post on the ISC-G 81% vote, a "pro-OOXML industry source--who declined to be named" tried to justify PIKOM, MDeC and MIMOS's relevance as the 3 stalwarts of Malaysia's ICT's vision. The justification is laughable.

If the "pro-OOXML" source is so reputable, why decline to be named? Either the source is not reputable (e.g. Junk'em Conslutancy), or it's from Microsoft Malaysia themselves.

C'mon, don't be an anonymous coward. State your name and valid arguments please.

Anyway, I posted a "Talkback" stating that not all PIKOM's members are happy with their position. If at all, PIKOM should "Abstain" from this decision if they really listened to their members.

Please do read this article, and I look forward to more news like this in the future!

yk.