Article: Document or else

Fri Jul 7 07:48:32 MDT 2006

techwr-l-bounces+eric.dunn=ca.transport.bombardier.com at lists.techwr-l.com 
wrote on 07/06/2006 06:28:06 PM:
> I don't see what's so hard to understand about this:

> The EU and Massachussetts decided that open file formats suit their 
> customers better. They could have simply dropped MS and gone with 
> open formats. Would that have been better for, or more 'fair' to, 
Microsoft?

> What's good for Microsoft - or any large corporation - is not 
> necessarily good for anybody else.

> All the best,
> Brian

What did I miss? Wasn't the original thread and news story, about 
Microsoft being told to document properly or be fined, NOTHING to do with 
"open" file formats?

Honestly.

It was about Microsoft being held to their obligation to properly document 
their API so that competitors would stand a fighting chance against 
Microsoft competition when it comes to programming integrated 
applications. Government intervention is entirely justified in that 
regard. Dishonestly enforced monopolies should be broken to encourage 
competition and give consumers a choice.

Being able to share is great. And Microsoft, Adobe, and other giants all 
have their "open" formats. RTF, MIF, dxf, and a slew of other exchange 
formats. Are they fully functional? Do they work perfectly? Perhaps not.

But consider any "open" solution. It's going to be no more functional and 
exchangeable than a workflow that used one of the above formats if the two 
users aren't using EXACTLY the same tool chain and work environment. 
Anybody who advocates that you're "stuck" in a format or held hostage by 
Adobe, Microsoft, or another is an idiot IMO. At anytime, you can evaluate 
the costs and advantages of changing formats and tools. An exercise that 
is not changed one bit if the tool chain or file formats are "open". Just 
the location of the costs changes. Instead of paying for boxed software, 
you pay for developers, consultants, or internal resources to reconfigure 
and set-up the system.

That is unless your workflow is one of the pathetically bland and 
ill-fitting, designed by committee, adheres to every standard, provides no 
use specific alterations, tool chains. Whether ATA, Docbook, DITA, CALS, 
or any other storage and interchange system using an "open" architecture 
or "freely" available components and definitions, why is they all require 
5 to 7 figure investments to create the kind of system required by any 
company or group bigger than simply "dabbling" to effectively implement, 
control, and manage content creation and storage using those systems?

The crusade and evangelisation against the evils of big corporations gets 
incredibly tiring to hear. And it's not all rooted in evil, greed, and 
need to "lock you in". The idea of an all encompassing document storage 
format is stupidity IMO. Take just one functional difference between Word 
and FrameMaker, Sideheads. How do you define an "open" and universal 
format for something that one application supports and another doesn't?

Then, are binary encryptions of data the work of the devil as some zealous 
OSS advocates would have us believe? Well, why should MS or Adobe reveal 
the inner working of their software and architecture by encoding the 
binary with an easy to decipher code and show things they worked long and 
hard to develop? Debates about the support and stability of RTF aside, you 
CAN share all of the content from Word and import content from anywhere 
that can provide RTF. Just as MIF allows the same for Frame and the open 
standard for PDF allows similar advantages and open access. But Microsoft 
doesn't owe anyone a glimpse into the inner architecture of Word and 
exactly how their data is stored, structured, and controlled for display.

There are other business models that work. But one business model does not 
invalidate another. OSS companies also ply the same waters of trying to 
tie up customers in their products or services. In many cases, they're 
just as insidious. Get the public to use them for free and then rape the 
corporate world in support and usage fees.

Think DITA was released by IBM out of kindness? That they switched to 
Linux servers out of altruism? Of course not. They just changed business 
models. Instead of selling boxed solutions the promise of complete 
functionality and turn-key performance, they lure companies in with the 
promise of "free", "open", and "exchangeable" knowing full well they'll 
have the opportunity to earn a small fortune in fees and consulting once 
the customers realise that building a truly robust and all encompassing 
tool chain for their corporate needs is going to be a little more complex 
than having the local computer geek surf the web and download freebies. 
Or, that changing the "open ssource" code for their needs will require 
investment in programming resources and development outside their business 
focus?

Anyone who knows anything about even moderate sized DITA, ATA, or other 
open standards, and who is willing to be even the slightest bit honest 
intellectually, will admit that the openly available ATA standard compared 
to a successful ATA implementation and workflow is the same as the MIF 
definition and MIF files compared to FrameMaker running with FrameMaker 
binaries.

Chose the right tool for the job. Drop the religious fervour.

[/rant]

Eric L. Dunn
Senior Technical Writer

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

This e-mail communication (and any attachment/s) may contain confidential 
or privileged information and is intended only for the individual(s) or 
entity named above and to others who have been specifically authorized to 
receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, 
copy, use or disclose the contents of this communication to others. Please 
notify the sender that you have received this e-mail in error by reply 
e-mail, and delete the e-mail subsequently. Please note that in order to 
protect the security of our information systems an AntiSPAM solution is in 
use and will browse through incoming emails. 
Thank you. 
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Ce message (ainsi que le(s) fichier/s), transmis par courriel, peut 
contenir des renseignements confidentiels ou protégés et est destiné à 
l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute autre personne est par 
les présentes avisée qu?il est strictement interdit de le diffuser, le 
distribuer ou le reproduire. Si vous l?avez reçu par inadvertance, 
veuillez nous en aviser et détruire ce message. Veuillez prendre note 
qu'une solution antipollupostage (AntiSPAM) est utilisée afin d'assurer la 
sécurité de nos systems d'information et qu'elle furètera les courriels 
entrant.
Merci. 
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 