Mission, Morality and Computers?
Are we as mission partners and mission agencies thinking about the impact we make by our use of computers? Should we be doing so? Do we care, we need to use them for our work so what is the problem? Who knows or cares what OpenDocument Format (ODF) is and have any of us heard of ISO 26300?
Well, I suspect, that there are many of us who neither know nor care about such things but I think that we should be giving a good deal of thought to these matters.
So, what on earth am I going on about?
We use computers to write documents e.g. letters, articles, financial calculations etc. and the computer has to follow rules about how it records things so that we get back a document that looks like the one we wrote next time the open it. These rules are the document format, most of us are familiar with Microsoft Word's .doc and Microsoft Excel's .xls formats. ODF is an alternative to these .odt for text and .ods for spreadsheets for example.
What is wrong with .doc and .xls we have been using them, we are happy using Word and Excel so why should we throw them away and use something else? Word and Excel use proprietary closed formats that are covered by patents and can not be used by anyone but Microsoft and those who buy their products. ODF is a set of open standard formats, internationally recognised and approved as ISO26300, that any producer of computer software can use if they so wish.
All's fair in love and commerce so why shouldn't Microsoft produce and use its own proprietary formats?
No reason at all why it should not and no reason for any other software house not to do the same. Remember Lotus, WordPerfect etc., remember the frustration of receiving a document in a format you could not open? Yes, but now everyone uses Microsoft there is no problem unless you use Word 2003 and I use Word 2007 of course. And anyway if I use OpenOffice.org Writer and you use Microsoft Word we are going to get frustrated again so lets all stay as we are and remain happy. Or perhaps not.
I think we need to look further than our own comfort zone and look at what we are doing in our mission fields and amongst our supporters before we write off ODF as something for computer geeks. Microsoft, through a very successful marketing strategy, now has a huge market share in office software. Once you picked the software you wanted based on 'did it do what you needed in a way that you liked'. Endless argument raged about whether Word was 'better' than AmiPro etc. and we all had problems exchanging documents. Now, students learn to use Word, on cheap software at school, and then want to use it at work. Businesses use Word because everyone else does and no one wants to rock the boat or get left out in the cold so we are all forced to buy Microsoft and upgrade to new versions as and when they come along. This is expensive, and what about freedom of choice?
Well that is the reality of commercial freedom, what does it have to do with us as mission agencies and mission partners? Think for a moment about your work. You bring your computer and produce your reports and financial statements and you turn up to meetings with your PowerPoint presentation on your memory stick. The world revolves round you. In Tanzania I could buy a computer for about $600US (in 2007). It's a lot for many Tanzanians but many can afford them, if they are in paid employment, as can many businesses. If I insist on using Word and Excel at work and email these documents to people they are forced to buy the same software too as I am perpetuating the myth that there is no alternative software good enough for me to use. This convinces people that any alternative they are offered is 'second best' so they prefer to use what the rich west uses. In Dodoma, Tanzania, Microsoft Windows XP cost about $300US and MS Office Pro 2003 was also $300US, in 2007, so I would have doubled the cost of ownership of a computer to someone I work with. Or I have encouraged them to use illegal pirate versions which they can get from a friend. Moral, ethical, in keeping with our 'mission' role? I think not! Surely we should lead by example and use something affordable and legal and facilitate our co workers, not say 'well we need this expensive stuff, but hey, this other stuff is good enough for you'. And anyway, who pays for our expensive software? Our supporters that's who, those who we are asking for more and more money every year to keep us in the field and run our mission agencies. Is it right we ask for what we don't need?
Ok, fair enough, but I don't work for a mission agency and can afford to buy MS Office so what has it got to do with me? Until there is a large body of ODF users in the west we will continue to transmit the message that ODF is only for the poor and so perpetuate the situation. So use it, encorage others to use it, make a difference!
The whole point of an ISO standard document format is that it gives back freedom of choice, you can pay for Lotus Notes or Star Office etc, if you want and like those products or you can get OpenOffice.org or other open source packages for free if that is your preference. Anyone, even Microsoft, can use ODF as a format in free or commercial software and no one gets excluded by being unable to open a document for want of not having the 'right' software. No one gets 'tied in' to a particular software package, true competition is possible again.
But if I change I will be isolated, as the rest of the world uses Microsoft, so bang goes your moral stand, I need to be practical about this.
Yes you will, to an extent, but are we not called to be revolutionary? In the world but not of the world? It will take time and effort, you will need to work with those you deal with to explain what you are doing and why. You will need to encourage them to cooperate, some people will and some won't. But you will be in good company!
Bristol City Council's Gavin Beckett observed that 'With Microsoft having dominated the office software domain for 20 years, many employees of British departments were unable -- to some extent out of sheer inertia -- to conceive of things being different. The point is to overcome deeply ingrained modes of behaviour.' - this is probably true of many other places too!
Many people have already taken the plunge or are taking it and some have found it hard, due to a lack of cooperation from those that they deal with but you can help as the more people who use ODF the easier it is for every one else. Many governments and government departments see the move as part and parcel of democracy - not denying anyone access based on ability to pay etc. Many businesses and educational establishments are making the change for economic reasons. Can we afford not to be a part of this movement? If we stay as we are we cost our donors money and foist expensive software on our partner organisations or criminalise them. Is this 'Showing the Love of Christ' or stubbornness?
Below are a few interesting web links, mostly about OpenDocument Format, giving some idea of who is using or planning to use ODF. Some e.g. German Foreign Office are going further and using Linux as an alternative to Windows, but that is another story.
Just in case anyone asks 'so does he put his money where his mouth is?' I would like to point out that yes I do (sort of). Money, perhaps not - my laptop is running Kubuntu (a version of Linux) and I use OpenOffice. I am afraid to say the software cost me the time to fill in a form on the web and request a free CD so no money involved there! I used to help with an internet café that runs Kubuntu and at a school that uses Edubuntu so I know it can be done! Was training a problem? Yes and no - Yes, people needed it but No, as they could not use Windows effectively either they needed training anyway (true of an awful lot of computer users in the UK as well). Initially customers would not come to the internet café as it did not have Microsoft Windows or Office, then they came back having seen that Kubuntu and OpenOffice.org were OK.
Major OpenOffice.org Deployments
http://www.eionet.europa.eu/software/opendocument
open formats enter u.s.presidential debate
