[odf-discuss] Linspire's MOOX initiatives

Wed Jul 11 16:54:42 EDT 2007

On 7/11/07, Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera at zmsl.com> wrote:
>
> I should note that a bi-directional converter also has pro-ODF benefits.
> Yes, the bad side is that it makes it easier for MS to get government
> approval for MOOX. But the good side is that it makes it easier for
> their customers to migrate away.
>

This latter point is, IMHO, the crux of the entire competition between
freedom and slavery in cyberspace:  migration between the Free
(FOSS-centric) business network and the non-Free (Microsoft-centric)
business network.  IMHO, if we are going to beat the non-Free network in
North America, we are going to need to beat them in the market place.
Outside North America, and particularly in South America, parts of Europe
and Asia, we are seeing greater governmental support for FOSS apps and truly
open standards.  We are also seeing greater enterprise adoption of FOSS,
even in North America.

But in North America, corruption is legalized in the form of lobbying, and
IMHO, we have seen very few success stories in governmental mandates for ODF
in North America, sadly, with the one exception being the wonderfully fast
adoption of ODF as an ISO standard.

So to a newbie like me, it seems as if the upside of even broken
interoperability between ODF and MOOX is greater than the downside.  IMHO,
this plugin is another camel's nose in the tent.  Once we get MS talking
about a plugin, then we can work on advocating adoption of a BETTER plugin.

And here is a really big thing.  If Microsoft is contending that plugins
break Microsoft Office, doesn't the mere fact that the Sun ODF plugin works
tend to refute that claim?  IMHO, maybe the EU would be open to requiring
default install of ODF once they see that a plugin won't break Microsoft
Office.  I'm obviously in over my head here, but from a layperson's
perspective, it seems to make sense.

IMHO, one of the biggest thorns in Microsoft's side is all of the FOSS that
runs on Windows.  There is a lot of sound business theory that suggests that
building bridges between business networks tends to favor the customer at
the cost of the market leader, assuming that there is a viable challenger in
a parallel business market, as is the case with Canonical, OOo, ODF, and the
numerous other supply-side players in the FOSS network.

So it makes sense to continue to push for legislation in North America and
elsewhere requiring ODF, because we will win in some areas; we will start
debate in other areas; and we will bleed Microsoft of energy and cash even
in the areas where we lose. But IMHO, it might not be a bad fall-back idea
to have this kind of interoperability that Linspire is talking about, even
if it is broken anti-interoperability interoperability.  IMHO, this is an
area where maybe it is better to take half a loaf, rather than no loaf at
all.

At the same time, I don't think that I am interested in encouraging
widespread adoption of this broken anti-interoperability interoperability,
and I am planning on scaling back my advocacy for Linspire.  Up until the
recent Linspire-Microsoft deals, I felt that Linspire was serving as a
decent third-fallback position for the mainstreaming of FOSS.  After all,
the CNR implementation of apt-get functionality is really marvelous for
newbies.  Microsoft simply has no answer to the Debian pool or apt-get, and
it never will have that answer.  So now maybe Linspire drops to a fourth
level fall back for newbies.  But IMHO, we need to think long and hard about
how we are going to reach simple end users in North America with apt-get.  I
am a firm believer that apt-get is THE microsoft killer. I am personally
willing to take some losses in using non-Free codecs and even a few apps in
the short term if it will mean increasing the apt-get (and YAST, yum, etc)
install base. It is my personal experience that once you get people on FOSS
boxes, they want more freedom, not less.

And now that Microsoft is weak due to the botched late launch of Vista, IMHO
we need to do what we can to increase the FOSS install base globally as
rapidly as possible.  Maybe this broken anti-interoperability
interoperability MOOX plugin is a step in that direction.  I really don't
know.  I wish I did.  I wish I could see a silver bullet for the rapid
adoption of FOSS.  But IMHO, there is a magic number, and it is 20%.  I
believe that once we get FOSS market share above 20% in North America, we
will see a true digital tipping point.  Hence the name for our film.

In case you haven't seen this segment, at the risk of promoting our
community's own film, I would urge people to watch Eddie Bleasdale talk
about his experience of attending a conference in the UK run by Gordon
Brown.  Yes, THAT Gordon Brown.  Eddie says in this segment that he was at a
conference run by Gordon Brown at which Bill Gates was a speaker.  Eddies
says that Bill said (in so many words) that he (Bill) believes that a
monopoly is broken when a competing technology reaches 20%, and it is his
job to see that number is never reached.  I know that seems difficult to
believe, because it would seem to be an admission by Bill that he has a
monopoly.  But Eddie Bleasdale is a reputable guy, and I can only suggest
that you watch this 4:51 segment and judge for yourself.  The Internet
Archive version is here:

http://www.archive.org/details/proof_of_concept_four_mins.mpg

and the YouTube version is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA95iGe2aZY

This goal is what drives me every day.  To break the MS business model we
don't have to hit 51 % market share on the desktop.  IMHO, all we have to do
is hit 20%, and Microsoft's business model begins failing on its own, and
true competition might then begin to enter the desktop consumer retail
market even in North America, the most backward region on earth.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070711/ac89a9d2/attachment-0001.html