Singapore Government should move to OpenDocument format

[royong]

Straits Times
April 19, 2006
Suggested document format not practical

I REFER to Mr Koh Choon Lin's letter, 'Govt should move to OpenDocument Format' (ST, April 1).

The Microsoft Office suite is used widely by PC users. Therefore, it is not practical for the Government to adopt OpenDocument as the only standard.

There is also third-party software, such as Open Office, which is available for both Microsoft and Linux platforms, and can be downloaded freely from the Internet to read the Microsoft document formats.

To facilitate viewing of documents on government websites, government agencies have been advised to publish documents electronically in PDF format. The PDF format requires only the use of free reader software.

However, we note that there are still documents that were published only in the Microsoft format, and we will work closely with government agencies to address this issue.

The Infocomm Development Authority thanks Mr Koh for his feedback.

Jennifer Toh (Ms)
Manager
Corporate & Marketing Communication
Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore

[royong]

Straits Times
April 22, 2006
Impractical?

I refer to the uninspiring reply (ST April 19th) from IDA on the use of the Open Document Format for all government documents. It is incredible that the IDA says that "the Microsoft Office suite is used widely by PC users. Therefore, it is not practical for the Government to adopt OpenDocument as the only standard."

How many of these PC users are using "unofficially obtained" Microsoft Office suite? Can IDA elaborate why it is "not practical"? Is the standard lacking something or is there covert pressure not to endorse ODF? Since this is an open standard, the National IT Standards Committee can help input additional requirements into it so as to make it useful for the whole world.

I expect thought and technical leadership to come from the IDA by actively encouraging the use of openly published and globally standardized file formats and not to dodge behind generalizations. The ODF has already been adopted as the standard for all government documents by the US state of Massachusetts and many others from around the world. Singapore can be a standards setter and leader in this area as well.

We are observing 25 years of IT leadership in Singapore and now rolling out the IN2015 vision. Is this vision going to be vendor-centric? Or will this vision be bold and forward thinking that will state that no more tax-payer monies will be spent on proprietary standards?

Harish Pillay

[royong]

Straits Times
April 28, 2006
Open-source software not all it's made out to be

I REFER to the comments by the president of the Linux Users' Group (Singapore), Mr Harish Pillay ('Why is OpenDocument Format 'not practical'?'; ST, April 22).

The Linux Users' Group did not portray the scenario in its entirety. The push for open-source software (OSS) has always revolved around cost and security. However, moving to OSS does not guarantee reduction in cost nor increased security.

Total cost of ownership involves not only the initial cost but also continued support and maintenance.

Migrating a whole enterprise over entails high initial cost. Support for open-source software also does not come cheap. Also, OSS has its fair share of vulnerabilities, such as in the popular Firefox browser which was touted as a more secure solution.

In addition, the US state of Massachusetts' decision last year to go with OpenDocument Format may not go through after recent protests by top officials.

Alan Yap Chee Wee

[royong]

Straits Times
May 01, 2006
Format impractical? Largest ministry uses it

I REFER to the reply by Ms Jennifer Toh of the Infocomm Development Authority ('Suggested document format not practical'; ST, April 19).

I applaud the move by IDA to encourage all government agencies to use PDF files in communications with the public. This will allow us to make use of free reader software to access important government notices.

However, I do not see the impracticality of using OpenDocument format within the Government. Since the policy is to use PDF to communicate with the public, it is logical to assume that Microsoft Office formats are used primarily in intra-government communications. Hence, the popularity of Microsoft Office formats outside the Government is not an important factor. Within the government, IDA has the authority to mandate a change to OpenDocument formats.

In addition, to generate PDF from Microsoft Office, one needs additional third-party products such as Adobe Distiller.

All these add to the overall cost of the office productivity package. For the record, OpenOffice can generate PDF files - for free.

In fact, the largest ministry, the Ministry of Defence (Mindef), has shown the wisdom of adopting OpenDocument formats as the de facto document format. Since 2004, Mindef has adopted OpenOffice and the OpenDocument format. It plans to deploy OpenOffice to 20,000 desktops by the first half of this year.

Mindef gave the following reasons for its decision to select OpenOffice:

# It avoided paying more than $10 million by not upgrading more than 20,000 desktops to Office 2003. When the next release of Office is launched, it has the option of staying on OpenOffice or adopting this new release. In other words, in two to three years' time, it can again avoid paying tens of millions of dollars by not migrating to the latest version of Microsoft Office. This decision cycle will be repeated every three to four years.

# It retains the choice of using proprietary software or OSS as OpenOffice can coexist with existing, older versions of Microsoft Office.

# It will not be forced to upgrade by vendor-introduced obsolescence when a proprietary software vendor introduces a new version of its software.

# It has the flexibility to read and modify codes, which is not possible with proprietary software.

With proprietary software, even if you are a big customer and the changes you want are reasonable, and reflect the needs of most users, the most the vendor can promise is that the feature will be available with the next release.

With the money saved by not buying new Microsoft Office licences, Mindef can channel valuable resources to its core competency areas.

I believe the reasons given by Mindef apply to other government agencies.

Is the Government 'locked in' by vendors? Based on the arguments by Ms Toh against the adoption of OpenDocument formats, IDA should not even consider replacing existing enterprise applications with alternatives.

Wong Onn Chee
Singapore Marketing Contact
OpenOffice.org

[royong]

Straits Times
May 01, 2006
There's no such thing as 'bug-less' secure software and there are different vulnerabilies

I refer to the comments by Mr Alan Yap Chee Wee in his letter 'Open-source Software not all it's made out to be' (ST, April 28).

Mr Yap made a sweeping statement without providing any details to support his assumptions. While I agree that moving toward OSS does not guarantee reduction in cost in the short term, it does show some reduction in the long term.

It is almost impossible for an enterprise to be using the same software for as long as it is around. At one time or another, it will have to upgrade and hence it effectively migrates the software to a newer version.

To purchase a full new version of software when it is not entirely compatible with the newer version is perhaps equal to overhauling the whole system.

This is the time where the enterprise can consider migrating to Open Source Software where future upgrades will be less of a hassle and a lot cheaper. Continued support and maintenance are virtually the same in proprietary software. I suggest Mr Yap looks into the licensing conditions by the world's biggest software manufacturer before making remarks such as it is cheaper to keep proprietary software.

On the clause which says OSS is a more secure solution, let me say there is no such thing as a 'bugless', secure software other than the international 'Hello World' software.

Whenever a software is written, it is likely to have some vulnerabilities. It is the number of problems the software has and the time taken to solve them that counts.

To date, based on secunia.com, Firefox has 30 vulnerabilities, in which four have not been patched yet. IE 6, however, has 101 vulnerabilities, in which 21, which range from low to high critically, have not been patched.

This proves that Firefox is a more secure solution. No one claims that OSS is the ticket to an invulnerable software, but it is definitely a ticket to a less vulnerable software since other programmers and software engineers can read the quote and protect it.

I would like Mr Yap to point to me his reference where 'OpenDocument Format may not go through after recent protests by top officials'.

Even though I know Senator Pacheco had some reservations and he had in fact set up a hearing with Mr Peter Quinn on the issue last October, there is no concrete evidence to point to any information where Massachusetts may scrap the decision to go with OpenDocument Format.

Mr Yap may be interested to know the following facts:

1) James Gallt, associate director for the National Association of State Chief Information Officers, said that a number of other state agencies are also exploring the use of OpenDocument.

2) British Education Communication Technology Agency, UK agency in charge of defining information technology (IT) policy, including standards, for all schools in the United Kingdom had published a comprehensive document describing the policy for infrastructure in schools in 2005. In this document, it makes known that the Office Productivity Standards used must be able to 'Saved to (and so viewed by others) using a commonly agreed format that ensures an institution is not locked into using specific software'. It has also cited OpenDocument format together with RTF, CSV, HTML as examples.

3) On 27 March 2006, a bill, chapter 16E, was introduced in the Minnesota state legislature to require all state agencies to use open data formats. In which case OpenDocument Format meets all the requirements.

Kuah Yeow Teng

[royong]

Straits Times
May 01, 2006
OpenDocument format is practical and economical

I refer to the reply from the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) on the use of the OpenDocument Format (ODF) for all government documents (Suggested document format not practical; ST, April 19), comments by the president of the Linux Users' Group (Singapore), Mr Harish Pillay (Why is OpenDocument Format 'not practical?'; ST, April 22) and comments by Alan Yap Chee Wee (Open Source software not all it's made out to be'; ST, April 28).

Mr Yap is correct that total cost of ownership (TCO) involves not only the initial cost but also continued support and maintenance.

However, he fails to mention that studies have shown the TCO of using OpenDocument format (OASIS ODF) is still significantly lower than using Microsoft's proprietary software even when excluding the consideration of vendor lock-in.

Mr Harish should be able to tell us that Linux became widely accepted not because it is cheap or free but because on functionality and features, it is simply too expensive to continue using proprietary software.

Mr Yap also fails to highlight the fact that not only has the European IDA standardised on ODF as the de facto document format for exchange (europa.eu.int (http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2601/330)), several US government and educational institutions, as well as our Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), had also done so after realising the significant economic benefits.

Unless Singapore plans to be isolated, shouldn't the adoption of a world standard be more practical? I fail to see how IDA alone finds it otherwise.

In 2004, the state of Minnesota sued Microsoft for overcharging its residents Microsoft's productivity software using monopoly and illegal business tactics. (news.minnesota.publicradio.org (http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/07/01_horwichj_microsoft/))

Microsoft subsequently settled with the state for US$175 million in compensation. This is just one of the many class action lawsuits against Microsoft.

Finally, there are two office productivity software programs that support OpenDocument (OASIS) format today; OpenSource OpenOffice and its commercial twin, StarOffice. Both offer a lower TCO than Microsoft (searchopensource.techtarget.com (http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/qna/0,289202,sid39_gci888081,00.html)).

Perhaps the IDA can shed some light on the TCO study it has conducted (if any) to convince the citizen that our money is well spent.

Daniel Lee Wee Chong

[royong]

Straits Times
May 01, 2006
Open Formats versus Open Sources software: Is the comparison valid?

I refer to the letter 'Open-source software not all it's made out to be' by Mr Alan Yap Chen Wee (ST, April 28).

Mr Yap seems to have mistaken the issue of Open Formats with Open Source Software. I'm not sure if comparing them is valid as the two are quite different in essence. Very superficially, formats could be likened to the alphabet. A person could write a document using the English alphabet.

But imagine if the English alphabet got obliterated. That same document which has important information may not be readable anymore. In essence, this can be used as an analogy to describe formats.

Software, whether proprietary or Open Source, are just computing tools. In the case of programs like word processors or spreadsheets, the file types which they can open depend on which type of formats have been incorporated into the program. Thus, a software can incorporate proprietary or Open Formats.
Comparing file formats to software may not have been entirely appropriate.

With regard to the issue of implementing Open Source Software at the enterprise level, the points put forth are, I believe, highly debatable.

I would comment on the point made about the popularity of the Firefox browser. Security is not the only reason for the popularity of the browser. There are other features such as skins and extensions.

It is indeed true that some regard Firefox as a more secure solution. This was probably a valid statement given the known vulnerabilities at that time. During this period, malicious individuals were more likely to target popular web browsers.

However, no software is invulnerable. The security of a piece of software would very much depend on the way the program code is written and the time taken to patch vulnerabilities.

Some Open Source developers are indeed very efficient in writing software patches. As Firefox becomes more popular, it will become increasingly targetted by malicious individuals. During this period I think end-users will get a better idea if Open Source web browsers are indeed more secure solutions.

Goh Lu Feng

[royong]

Straits Times
May 5, 2006
Let IDA make its study to select the most effective software for the civil service

I refer to the reply by Mr Wong Onn Chee of OpenOffice.org (Format impractical? Largest ministry uses it'; ST, May 1).

I was surprised by the remarks made by Mr Wong. Despite his professional status he openly criticised his direct competitor Microsoft and also the Infocomm Development Authority's software application selection process.

He also used Mindef as an example to force the IDA to go his way ie, OpenOffice.

Each of us is a champion of certain causes and products (though most of the time it is commercially driven) and we can strongly advocate them with passion. But the IDA should be allowed to carry out its due diligence in selecting the most appropriate and effective software for the civil service.

I believe the IDA will make its selection by inviting the software vendors to pitch for the project. Mr Wong can use this channel to provide the IDA with all the facts, the competitive advantages, value-added services and Total Cost of Ownership of OpenOffice.

The IDA will also consult all the ministries and gather feedback from various channels for the market's best practices before drawing a conclusion. If after the presentation and OpenOffice does not get the project, just walk away professionally and accept the decision because in a commercial deal, you win some and you lose some.

We should trust the IDA to make an informed decision in its selection of software.

Alex Ho Chin Lam

[royong]

Straits Times
May 6, 2006
Why desktop users should move to Open Source

I REFER to the letter by Mr Wong Onn Chee from OpenOffice.org ('Format impractical? Largest ministry uses it'; ST, May 1).

As the president of the Singapore Microcomputer Society, I would like to endorse his many points, chiefly that Mindef avoided paying more than $10 million by not upgrading more than 20,000 desktops to Office 2003.

In fact, anyone who uses a desktop stands to save substantially - if not in absolute amount, at least in percentage terms - by using Open Source, of which OpenOffice is the easiest to start with.

As one objective of open formats like OpenDocument is to guarantee long-term access to data without legal or technical barriers, governments have become increasingly aware of open formats as a public-policy issue.

The Singapore Government should seriously consider public policies like those being considered in Europe, the United States and other countries. This will certainly keep us in the 'First World'.

Last year, Mr Eric Kriss, Secretary of Administration and Finance in Massachusetts, stated: 'It is an overriding imperative of the American democratic system that we cannot have our public documents locked up in some kind of proprietary format, perhaps unreadable in the future, or subject to a proprietary system licence that restricts access.'

Besides Singapore's Ministry of Defence, France's Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Economy and Industry; Brazil's Ministry of Health; the city of Munich, Germany; Britain's Bristol City Council; and the city of Vienna in Austria are all adopting applications that support OpenDocument.

Perhaps the Prime Minister's Office should initiate the move.

A two-day Open Source Conference, which started yesterday, is being held at the Grand Copthorne Hotel (www.conferences.com.sg).

Major (Ret) John Yap Poon Ann
President
Singapore Microcomputer Society

[royong]

Straits Times
May 16, 2006
Govt software decisions based on value and cost

I REFER to recent letters in the Forum asking that the Government considers moving to Open Source.

In software-procurement decisions for the public sector, the Singapore Government adopts the principles of value-for-money and fit-for-purpose.

Open Source Software (OSS) represents more choice for all government agencies in software procurement where decisions are made through an open-tender process.

A case in point is the current on-going tender for the Standard ICT Operating Environment (SOE). The industry will be invited to propose software solutions cum offerings that can be completely licensed-source software, completely OSS, or a combination of both. So we encourage all companies, including those which offer OSS, to participate in this tender.

The proposed solutions cum offerings will be evaluated for their ability to meet operational and business needs as well as the total cost of ownership.

There are also suggestions that the Government adopts the OpenDocument format as the only format for publishing documents on the Internet.

We would like to highlight that there are many users with only Microsoft Office suite. They cannot read documents stored in OpenDocument format, even though users of OpenOffice can read documents stored in Microsoft Office format.

It is thus not practical for the Government to adopt OpenDocument as the only standard as it will inconvenience many users.

Also, to facilitate viewing of published documents on websites, government agencies have used the PDF format which requires only the use of free reader software for viewing.

We thank all writers for their feedback on OSS. For further feedback on this matter, please contact Mr Leong Kai Seng (leong_kai_seng@ida.gov.sg) or the undersigned (pauline_tan@ida.gov.sg).

Pauline Tan (Ms)
Director
Government Infrastructure and Technology Division
IDA Singapore