So, we found out who’s the Senator-mouthpiece for Microsoft in the lege’s debate over the state moving to document types that aren’t owned by a single, monopolistic company. It’s Marc Pacheco, ostensibly of Taunton, but he’s doing a better job of representing Redmond, WA.
Link:
The policy adopted by the state contains a standard within a standard, asserted Marc R. Pacheco (D-Taunton), chairman of the Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight.
"It sets forth under its wording language that would essentially still preclude Microsoft," he told TechNewsWorld.
"One has to question if this is about open document standards or is it about an exclusionary policy so that some people can’t play in the system," he said.
Now there’s an argument for you. Using document formats whose source code is open to the public — "free, as in speech", as they say — would somehow preclude Microsoft?
Horsehockey. It would prevent Mr. Softie from monopolizing the state’s software purchase decisions, like they do most of the world. It would actually make them compete with other companies — some of which actually are based in Massachusetts.
Now, Mr. Softie has supposedly offered to open up its formats (MS Open Office XML) for their next version of MS Office, but there’s a problem… no one’s seen what they’re offering.
You smell a bluff?
No matter: RomneyCo’s folding like origami masters! Let’s listen to Massachusetts Secretary for Administrationand Finance Tom Trimarco:
"The Commonwealth is very pleased with Microsoft’s progress in creatingan open document format. If Microsoft follows through as planned, weare optimistic that Office Open XML will meet our new standards foracceptable open formats."
Optimistic that Mr. Softie will play fair? Based on their past behavior?
Anyway, if you’re in Sen. Pacheco’s district, I’m sure he’d welcome your comments on how he’s shilling for a monopolist at the expense of your taxpayer bucks and Bay State businesses. (617) 722-1551.
(Update: Well, background, really. Old news, but news to me, here and here.)
The entire Microsoft debate aside. Mr. Pacheco een barking about htis for a while and I don’t think. You are missing the entire point. Romney, Kriss, and Bain Capitol have serious financial investment in the Open community. They are using government to change policy to help their financial interests. They are up to old school patronage around new school language that usual folk do not understand. A switch to Open does not equal free necessarily. Systems still must be supported. Poeple must be trained. It sounds nice, but it is naiscent. Not to mention that someone will make a ton of money off the switch.Just ask Ben over at Romney is a Fraud.
anon — Don’t know about Bain’s alleged investments in Open Source companies. Do tell.You’re right, the changeover will cost money, and be a cash bonanza for someone. “Free software” is “free as in speech”, not necessarily “free as in beer”.Let’s not forget that MS costs money, and is a cash bonanza for them. Is it because they offer a demonstrably superior product, or because they have monopoly power?
anon- Also… if RomneyCo were so “invested” in open-source companies, and that were motivating them to switch to open-source, then why is Trimarco slobbering over MS’s mirage open formats, and why did they throw Quinn under the bus? These things don’t go together.
Microsoft can bite me. Seriously. My husband went for an MCSE – paid (Microsoft) an arm and a leg and two extra fingers for THEIR books, then an arm and a leg and another leg for their courses, then another arm for each goddamned test (how many arms does that add up to?). To Microsoft.Then, the education “loan” (more like a credit card) has an insane interest rate. Payable, of course, to Microsoft.
Funny, coming out of the workings of a blog that’s assumed to be so progressive…. you would think that you’d be interested in things like ensuring that the disability community would be properly served by the switch from Microsoft to ODF. Which, if you went to the hearing or asked any of their reps, you’d know they won’t be. Or maybe you’d care about the balance of powers. Or something having to do with the laws in place. I sat in on the hearing at the State House with the Post Audit and Oversight committee, and I’ll be honest: the issue was never Microsoft vs. the world. The issue is that Peter Quinn, with the assumed support of the administration you are usually so quick to blame, went ahead and made a decision that was not his to make. Call up Bill Galvin’s office, he’s the chief records-keeper… he should have a say in this. Or maybe go through the MGL to the part where it creates Quinn’s position, but limits his authority to have to be approved by the legislature. Pacheco and the committee don’t have an in with Microsoft, but they DO have an in with policy. And they’re following it. So before you throw any of them under a bus, why don’t you stop and look into the legal side of it?