"Josef Moellers" <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote in message

news:ft5ao2$5kn$1@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>

>> "Josef Moellers" <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote in message

>> news:ft4lqj$nt7$1@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...

>

>

>>> No, we are upset because they prevent us from joining the game, because

>>> they use their power to bully the rest of the worls, because they use

>>> unfair methods.

>>

>> Which game? Do you want to write and *sell* and operating system or an

>> office suit?

>> If you do why do you use FOSS?

>

> No, I'd like to communicate with people using MS office suite (DOC, XLS

> DOCX). I'd like to view videos (WMV) and listen to sound (WMA) produced by

> people using Microsoft products. I'd like to access information from

> websites created by people using Microsoft products (ActiveX controls).

> I'd like my FOSS-based client to attach to Windows shares and use

> Windows-based printers (SMB). I'd like to attach a Windows-created

> filesystem on my brother's USB disk and access the contents (NTFS).

>

> *That* game I mean.

 

Well you can legally use the file formats that have been published and you

can use the interop functions that are defined.. you need to read them to

see if they enable you to do what you want, or you could pay someone to do

it for you.

"Linonut" <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message

news:0lpJj.29689$r76.5495@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

> * Josef Moellers peremptorily fired off this memo:

>

>> Linonut wrote:

>>> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>>

>>>> However it should be the web site owners choice.

>>>>

>>>> I wonder if lino (lino is an old fashioned oil based floor covering

>>>> BTW) nut

>>>> understands why he wrote a load of cr@p yet?

>>>

>>> I ask, again, what crap? The OP said nothing about restricting choice

>>> in any shape, form, or fashion, yet dennis-the-menace claimed he did,

>>> and I corrected him.

>>

>> To be fair: I did claim that whoever provided some information I'm

>> interested in should be limited in his/her choice to *not* use

>> formats/protocols that *I* cannot use.

>

> So what? Everyone can use open formats.

>

> That's kind of the point that goes right over dennis-the-menace's head.

 

OOXML is open, that goes over your head.

>

> He's even more for restrictions than you are, yet doesn't seem to

> realize it.

 

How? I am not the one trying to remove a product from the market, I like

choice, you just like one thing and don't want others to have a choice. You

probably do realise this but don't give a damn about other peoples choice.

>

>> This gets critical if I were running a business based solely on FOSS and

>> e.g. the tax authorities required me to send in my tax declaration in a

>> Microsoft file format which I cannot legally produce using FOSS. Or if

>> information I *must* have to run my business is available only using an

>> ActiveX component in my web browser.

>>

>> So: Personally, yes, I would like others to be restricted in their

>> choice to use file formats and protocols that are publicly available.

>> BTW I think this would benefit *all*, not just me (well, maybe some

>> would not benefit -).

>

> Restricting to open formats is no restriction.

 

So some company wants to add some features.. they change the file format and

its no longer the same as OO.. its still open but OO no longer works, shame.

Now another company does the same for a different feature.. OO no longer

works, shame. Being open is useless alone.

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:27:51 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Linonut" <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message

> news:0lpJj.29689$r76.5495@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

>> * Josef Moellers peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>

>>> Linonut wrote:

>>>> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>>>

>>>>> However it should be the web site owners choice.

>>>>>

>>>>> I wonder if lino (lino is an old fashioned oil based floor covering

>>>>> BTW) nut

>>>>> understands why he wrote a load of cr@p yet?

>>>>

>>>> I ask, again, what crap? The OP said nothing about restricting

>>>> choice in any shape, form, or fashion, yet dennis-the-menace claimed

>>>> he did, and I corrected him.

>>>

>>> To be fair: I did claim that whoever provided some information I'm

>>> interested in should be limited in his/her choice to *not* use

>>> formats/protocols that *I* cannot use.

>>

>> So what? Everyone can use open formats.

>>

>> That's kind of the point that goes right over dennis-the-menace's head.

>

> OOXML is open, that goes over your head.

 

No, it isn't.

>

>

>> He's even more for restrictions than you are, yet doesn't seem to

>> realize it.

>

> How? I am not the one trying to remove a product from the market, I like

> choice, you just like one thing and don't want others to have a choice.

> You probably do realise this but don't give a damn about other peoples

> choice.

>

>

>>> This gets critical if I were running a business based solely on FOSS

>>> and e.g. the tax authorities required me to send in my tax declaration

>>> in a Microsoft file format which I cannot legally produce using FOSS.

>>> Or if information I *must* have to run my business is available only

>>> using an ActiveX component in my web browser.

>>>

>>> So: Personally, yes, I would like others to be restricted in their

>>> choice to use file formats and protocols that are publicly available.

>>> BTW I think this would benefit *all*, not just me (well, maybe some

>>> would not benefit -).

>>

>> Restricting to open formats is no restriction.

>

> So some company wants to add some features.. they change the file format

> and its no longer the same as OO.. its still open but OO no longer

> works, shame. Now another company does the same for a different

> feature.. OO no longer works, shame.

 

With a truly Open standard, the OO.o team could then make changes to its

software.

> Being open is useless alone.

 

No, you just don't want things to be open.

 

--

Rick

* Bob Campbell peremptorily fired off this memo:

> MS doesn't control anything except Windows.

 

And that's a lot.

 

--

Bill Gates is a monocle and a Persian cat away from being the villain in a

James Bond movie.

-- Dennis Miller (attributed)

* Josef Moellers peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Linonut wrote:

>>

>> So what? Everyone can use open formats.

>

> So why do people use patent-encumbered formats or non-documented formats?

 

1. They were there first (that doesn't quite explain Microsoft's WM

formats, though, so see the next one).

 

2. They're pushed by the vendor of the dominant desktop platform.

 

3. The costs are hidden from the average consumer.

 

4. The costs are smaller enough to equipment manufacturer's that they

don't see a need for a royalty-free format.

 

Those are my guesses, anyway.

>> Restricting to open formats is no restriction.

>

> Any restriction is a restriction. People will argue that their web site

> would be less attractive if they can't use ActiveX. They'll argue that

> their documents will look poor if they don't have several hunderd line

> styles to their disposition (I recall that someone from MS claimed that

> OOXML is superior to ODF because, among other things, they can support

> several hundred types of lines).

 

That's too bad, isn't it? Even if such claims are true (they aren't),

it seems somewhat unethical to required people to purchase a particular

vendor's products in order use the formats.

 

It's anti-business.

 

--

We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and

underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten. Don't let yourself

be lulled into inaction.

-- Bill Gates

* dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>> So what? Everyone can use open formats.

>>

>> That's kind of the point that goes right over dennis-the-menace's head.

>

> OOXML is open, that goes over your head.

 

OOXML is ownded by Microsoft. That says it all.

 

Open schmopen.

>> He's even more for restrictions than you are, yet doesn't seem to

>> realize it.

>

> How? I am not the one trying to remove a product from the market, I like

> choice, you just like one thing and don't want others to have a choice. You

> probably do realise this but don't give a damn about other peoples choice.

 

Well, they don't give a damn about others, then do they, if they don't

want to either provide their content in a form /everyone/ can use, or

provide it is two forms.

>> Restricting to open formats is no restriction.

>

> So some company wants to add some features.. they change the file format and

> its no longer the same as OO.. its still open but OO no longer works, shame.

> Now another company does the same for a different feature.. OO no longer

> works, shame. Being open is useless alone.

 

And you sound like you are all for locking a significant segment of

users out of the game.

 

--

Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't

lose.

-- Bill Gates

"Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message

news:c-mdnVx-bt3cPGvanZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@supernews.com...

> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:27:51 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>

>> "Linonut" <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message

>> news:0lpJj.29689$r76.5495@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

>>> * Josef Moellers peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>>

>>>> Linonut wrote:

>>>>> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>>>>

>>>>>> However it should be the web site owners choice.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I wonder if lino (lino is an old fashioned oil based floor covering

>>>>>> BTW) nut

>>>>>> understands why he wrote a load of cr@p yet?

>>>>>

>>>>> I ask, again, what crap? The OP said nothing about restricting

>>>>> choice in any shape, form, or fashion, yet dennis-the-menace claimed

>>>>> he did, and I corrected him.

>>>>

>>>> To be fair: I did claim that whoever provided some information I'm

>>>> interested in should be limited in his/her choice to *not* use

>>>> formats/protocols that *I* cannot use.

>>>

>>> So what? Everyone can use open formats.

>>>

>>> That's kind of the point that goes right over dennis-the-menace's head.

>>

>> OOXML is open, that goes over your head.

>

> No, it isn't.

 

Yes it is.

>>> He's even more for restrictions than you are, yet doesn't seem to

>>> realize it.

>>

>> How? I am not the one trying to remove a product from the market, I like

>> choice, you just like one thing and don't want others to have a choice.

>> You probably do realise this but don't give a damn about other peoples

>> choice.

>>

>>

>>>> This gets critical if I were running a business based solely on FOSS

>>>> and e.g. the tax authorities required me to send in my tax declaration

>>>> in a Microsoft file format which I cannot legally produce using FOSS.

>>>> Or if information I *must* have to run my business is available only

>>>> using an ActiveX component in my web browser.

>>>>

>>>> So: Personally, yes, I would like others to be restricted in their

>>>> choice to use file formats and protocols that are publicly available.

>>>> BTW I think this would benefit *all*, not just me (well, maybe some

>>>> would not benefit -).

>>>

>>> Restricting to open formats is no restriction.

>>

>> So some company wants to add some features.. they change the file format

>> and its no longer the same as OO.. its still open but OO no longer

>> works, shame. Now another company does the same for a different

>> feature.. OO no longer works, shame.

>

> With a truly Open standard, the OO.o team could then make changes to its

> software.

 

As they can with any open standard including OOXML.

They could chase the format exactly the same as you think they have/will the

M$ one.

No difference at all.

>> Being open is useless alone.

>

> No, you just don't want things to be open.

 

Nothing I have said is against being open. If you think there is then it is

you that is in error.

"Linonut" <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message

news:YExJj.27369$dT.20831@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>

>>> So what? Everyone can use open formats.

>>>

>>> That's kind of the point that goes right over dennis-the-menace's head.

>>

>> OOXML is open, that goes over your head.

>

> OOXML is ownded by Microsoft. That says it all.

>

> Open schmopen.

>

>>> He's even more for restrictions than you are, yet doesn't seem to

>>> realize it.

>>

>> How? I am not the one trying to remove a product from the market, I like

>> choice, you just like one thing and don't want others to have a choice.

>> You

>> probably do realise this but don't give a damn about other peoples

>> choice.

>

> Well, they don't give a damn about others, then do they, if they don't

> want to either provide their content in a form /everyone/ can use, or

> provide it is two forms.

 

There you go again.. you want them to cater for you and the main group, no

thought for other users like Mac users, etc.

>

>>> Restricting to open formats is no restriction.

>>

>> So some company wants to add some features.. they change the file format

>> and

>> its no longer the same as OO.. its still open but OO no longer works,

>> shame.

>> Now another company does the same for a different feature.. OO no longer

>> works, shame. Being open is useless alone.

>

> And you sound like you are all for locking a significant segment of

> users out of the game.

 

That is not my decision, it is their choice, you are the one that wants to

remove their choice.

They aren't stopping you from accessing anything if you need to.. just use

different software, that is your choice.

Hadron wrote:

> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>

>> Hadron wrote:

>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>>>

>>>> Bob Campbell wrote:

>>>>> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote in message

>>>>> news:47f6212e$0$22855$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>>>>>

>>>>>> Remember the Hunts? They tried to corner the silver market. Gov't

>>>>>> stopped them.

>>>>> No, they stopped themselves when they could no longer afford to keep

>>>>> buying silver at the horribly inflated prices they caused by trying

>>>>> to corner the market. The government knew nothing about it.

>>>>> They actually only held about 1/3 of the world's silver.

>>>>>

>>>>>> Now Ms has cornered the computer market

>>>>> Nonsense. The computer market is the most stunning example of

>>>>> freedom and capitalism the world has ever seen. What other market

>>>>> sees capabilities INCREASE and prices DECREASE every year?

>>>>>

>>>>> You have no idea what you are talking about here.

>>>> Hunts did not stop themselves. The gov't stepped in and told them if

>>>> they didn't stop that they would stop them for what they were trying

>>>> to do was illegal.

>>>> You are not following the thread. There are those here that believe

>>>> that there is nothing wrong with MS controlling things. And if you

>>>> think they haven't you're the one acting like an Ostrich.

>>>> caver1

>>> You could always buy alternatives to MS. What nonsense are you talking

>>> about? Try advocating Linux instead of being a paranoid Loony and making

>>> things up in your quest to discredit MS.

>>>

>>

>>

>> Prove where I am wrong Hadron.

>> caver1

>

> I just did.

>

> You could always by alternatives to MS.

>

 

 

Where does that prove that MS never did anything wrong?

caver1

Bob Campbell wrote:

> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote in message

> news:47f6537c$0$24117$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>> Hunts did not stop themselves. The gov't stepped in and told them if

>> they didn't stop that they would stop them for what they were trying

>> to do was illegal.

>

> No, they DID NOT. The government knew nothing about it. The Hunt's

> simply couldn't afford to buy any more silver (to keep the price

> artificially high) and everything collapsed. You are very wrong on this.

>

>> You are not following the thread. There are those here that believe

>> that there is nothing wrong with MS controlling things.

>

> MS doesn't control anything except Windows.

 

 

 

You're wrong.

Ms also controlled most all of the computer manufacturers.

They also try to control every business, school, non-profit, that uses

thier product.

Case in point, that is a norm for MS. Schools that use MS on some of

their computers must have a license for MS for every computer they have

even if it has Apple or Open source. They do the same to businesses.

Thats not control?

caver1

Bob Campbell wrote:

> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote in message

> news:47f6537c$0$24117$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>> Hunts did not stop themselves. The gov't stepped in and told them if

>> they didn't stop that they would stop them for what they were trying

>> to do was illegal.

>

> No, they DID NOT. The government knew nothing about it. The Hunt's

> simply couldn't afford to buy any more silver (to keep the price

> artificially high) and everything collapsed. You are very wrong on this.

>

>> You are not following the thread. There are those here that believe

>> that there is nothing wrong with MS controlling things.

>

> MS doesn't control anything except Windows.

 

Office

 

Xbox

 

Zune

 

You

 

Frank

 

Alias

Bob Campbell wrote:

> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote in message

> news:47f6537c$0$24117$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>> Hunts did not stop themselves. The gov't stepped in and told them if

>> they didn't stop that they would stop them for what they were trying

>> to do was illegal.

>

> No, they DID NOT. The government knew nothing about it. The Hunt's

> simply couldn't afford to buy any more silver (to keep the price

> artificially high) and everything collapsed. You are very wrong on this.

>

>> You are not following the thread. There are those here that believe

>> that there is nothing wrong with MS controlling things.

>

> MS doesn't control anything except Windows.

 

 

The Federal Reserve changed some rules to stop the Hunts. No The didn't

know until the Hunts had something over 70% of the silver market. But

they did step in which helped bring them down.

They weren't the only regulatory board to step in against the Hunts.

caver1

caver1

Alias wrote:

> Bob Campbell wrote:

>

>> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote in message

>> news:47f6537c$0$24117$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>>

>>> Hunts did not stop themselves. The gov't stepped in and told them if

>>> they didn't stop that they would stop them for what they were trying

>>> to do was illegal.

>>

>>

>> No, they DID NOT. The government knew nothing about it. The Hunt's

>> simply couldn't afford to buy any more silver (to keep the price

>> artificially high) and everything collapsed. You are very wrong on

>> this.

>>

>>> You are not following the thread. There are those here that believe

>>> that there is nothing wrong with MS controlling things.

>>

>>

>> MS doesn't control anything except Windows.

>

>

> Office

>

> Xbox

>

> Zune

>

> You

>

> Frank

>

> Alias

 

MS controls you? Hahahah...LOL!Frank

caver1 wrote:

> Bob Campbell wrote:

>

>> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote in message

>> news:47f6537c$0$24117$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>>

>>> Hunts did not stop themselves. The gov't stepped in and told them if

>>> they didn't stop that they would stop them for what they were trying

>>> to do was illegal.

>>

>>

>> No, they DID NOT. The government knew nothing about it. The Hunt's

>> simply couldn't afford to buy any more silver (to keep the price

>> artificially high) and everything collapsed. You are very wrong on

>> this.

>>

>>> You are not following the thread. There are those here that believe

>>> that there is nothing wrong with MS controlling things.

>>

>>

>> MS doesn't control anything except Windows.

>

>

>

> The Federal Reserve changed some rules to stop the Hunts.

 

Horseshit!

 

No The didn't

> know until the Hunts had something over 70% of the silver market. But

> they did step in which helped bring them down.

> They weren't the only regulatory board to step in against the Hunts.

> caver1

> caver1

 

You're out of your mind.

Frank

Frank wrote:

> caver1 wrote:

>

>> Bob Campbell wrote:

>>

>>> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote in message

>>> news:47f6537c$0$24117$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>>>

>>>> Hunts did not stop themselves. The gov't stepped in and told them if

>>>> they didn't stop that they would stop them for what they were trying

>>>> to do was illegal.

>>>

>>>

>>> No, they DID NOT. The government knew nothing about it. The Hunt's

>>> simply couldn't afford to buy any more silver (to keep the price

>>> artificially high) and everything collapsed. You are very wrong on

>>> this.

>>>

>>>> You are not following the thread. There are those here that believe

>>>> that there is nothing wrong with MS controlling things.

>>>

>>>

>>> MS doesn't control anything except Windows.

>>

>>

>>

>> The Federal Reserve changed some rules to stop the Hunts.

>

> Horseshit!

>

> No The didn't

>> know until the Hunts had something over 70% of the silver market. But

>> they did step in which helped bring them down.

>> They weren't the only regulatory board to step in against the Hunts.

>> caver1

>> caver1

>

> I'm out of your mind.

> Frank

 

Well said Francis!

 

Cheers and LOL!

 

--

 

"Linux is a very complete and sophisticated operating system. And there is a

lot of work being done to improve it in and of itself, particularly to make

it easier to use and easier for people to set up on their personal

computers."

 

--Paul Maritz, senior vice-president of platforms and applications,

Microsoft

 

Latest Patch for MS Word ...

http://tinyurl.com/2cpbev

 

How to get help at Microsoft Support ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C2SIZ5qsSQ

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Bob Campbell wrote:

>>

>>> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote in message

>>> news:47f6537c$0$24117$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>>>

>>>> Hunts did not stop themselves. The gov't stepped in and told them if

>>>> they didn't stop that they would stop them for what they were trying

>>>> to do was illegal.

>>>

>>>

>>> No, they DID NOT. The government knew nothing about it. The Hunt's

>>> simply couldn't afford to buy any more silver (to keep the price

>>> artificially high) and everything collapsed. You are very wrong on

>>> this.

>>>

>>>> You are not following the thread. There are those here that believe

>>>> that there is nothing wrong with MS controlling things.

>>>

>>>

>>> MS doesn't control anything except Windows.

>>

>>

>> Office

>>

>> Xbox

>>

>> Zune

>>

>> You

>>

>> Frank

>>

>> Alias

>

> MS controls me! Hahahah...LOL!Frank

 

Well said Francis!

 

Cheers and LOL!

 

--

 

"Linux is a very complete and sophisticated operating system. And there is a

lot of work being done to improve it in and of itself, particularly to make

it easier to use and easier for people to set up on their personal

computers."

 

--Paul Maritz, senior vice-president of platforms and applications,

Microsoft

 

Latest Patch for MS Word ...

http://tinyurl.com/2cpbev

 

How to get help at Microsoft Support ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C2SIZ5qsSQ

"Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post

c-mdnVx-bt3cPGvanZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@supernews.com on 4/4/08 2:44 PM:

>> OOXML is open, that goes over your head.

>

> No, it isn't.

 

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML>

-----

Office Open XML (often referred to as OOXML or OpenXML) is a

free and open XML-based international standard for representing

electronic documents such as spreadsheets, charts, presentations

and word processing documents.

-----

 

<http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%20

Paper.pdf>

-----

Office Open XML (OpenXML) is a proposed open standard for

word-processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets

-----

 

You were saying?

 

....

>> So some company wants to add some features.. they change the file format

>> and its no longer the same as OO.. its still open but OO no longer

>> works, shame. Now another company does the same for a different

>> feature.. OO no longer works, shame.

>

> With a truly Open standard, the OO.o team could then make changes to its

> software.

>

>> Being open is useless alone.

>

> No, you just don't want things to be open.

 

If someone goes against a standard, even an open one, then they are no

longer following the standard. This is circular reasoning... yet you seem

to be disagreeing with it.

 

--

Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!

* dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>> Well, they don't give a damn about others, then do they, if they don't

>> want to either provide their content in a form /everyone/ can use, or

>> provide it is two forms.

>

> There you go again.. you want them to cater for you and the main group, no

> thought for other users like Mac users, etc.

 

Did you or did you not just read what I wrote?

>> And you sound like you are all for locking a significant segment of

>> users out of the game.

>

> That is not my decision, it is their choice, you are the one that wants to

> remove their choice.

 

Yes. I want to remove their choice to lock Linux users out of their

systems.

> They aren't stopping you from accessing anything if you need to.. just use

> different software, that is your choice.

 

Look, dude, I get enough of Windows at work. I don't want to be

/forced/ to use it at home, either.

 

My choice, then, is to avoid sites that use vendor-specific protocols.

 

It used to be that mere Flash was vendor-specific. The community had to

reverse-engineer it. Adobe kept churning it. In spite of that, Flash

is no longer such an issue, little thanks to Adobe.

 

You seem to want vendors to be able to choose to use closed formats and

protocols. Why is that?

 

--

It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software properly, so you should

look into that. -- The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix

bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a new version I

ever heard. When we do a new version we put in lots of new things that

people are asking for. And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to

a new version. It's never a reason.

-- Bill Gates, http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html

"Linonut" <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message

news:e3LJj.1815$DY1.1722@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>

>>> Well, they don't give a damn about others, then do they, if they don't

>>> want to either provide their content in a form /everyone/ can use, or

>>> provide it is two forms.

>>

>> There you go again.. you want them to cater for you and the main group,

>> no

>> thought for other users like Mac users, etc.

>

> Did you or did you not just read what I wrote?

 

I did, it didn't make much sense so I had a guess.

I assumed the odd is to be in but if I was wrong I apologies.

>

>>> And you sound like you are all for locking a significant segment of

>>> users out of the game.

>>

>> That is not my decision, it is their choice, you are the one that wants

>> to

>> remove their choice.

>

> Yes. I want to remove their choice to lock Linux users out of their

> systems.

>

>> They aren't stopping you from accessing anything if you need to.. just

>> use

>> different software, that is your choice.

>

> Look, dude, I get enough of Windows at work. I don't want to be

> /forced/ to use it at home, either.

 

Nobody is forcing you, you have a choice.

>

> My choice, then, is to avoid sites that use vendor-specific protocols.

 

That is what most people do with sites that don't work, some vendors learn,

some go bust.

>

> It used to be that mere Flash was vendor-specific. The community had to

> reverse-engineer it. Adobe kept churning it. In spite of that, Flash

> is no longer such an issue, little thanks to Adobe.

 

You could use silverlight instead. -)

>

> You seem to want vendors to be able to choose to use closed formats and

> protocols. Why is that?

 

Why don't you?

What do you have against competition?

You can't have competition in a world where everything does the same and

costs the same.

caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

> Hadron wrote:

>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>>

>>> Hadron wrote:

>>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>>>>

>>>>> Bob Campbell wrote:

>>>>>> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:47f6212e$0$22855$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Remember the Hunts? They tried to corner the silver market. Gov't

>>>>>>> stopped them.

>>>>>> No, they stopped themselves when they could no longer afford to keep

>>>>>> buying silver at the horribly inflated prices they caused by trying

>>>>>> to corner the market. The government knew nothing about it.

>>>>>> They actually only held about 1/3 of the world's silver.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Now Ms has cornered the computer market

>>>>>> Nonsense. The computer market is the most stunning example of

>>>>>> freedom and capitalism the world has ever seen. What other market

>>>>>> sees capabilities INCREASE and prices DECREASE every year?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You have no idea what you are talking about here.

>>>>> Hunts did not stop themselves. The gov't stepped in and told them if

>>>>> they didn't stop that they would stop them for what they were trying

>>>>> to do was illegal.

>>>>> You are not following the thread. There are those here that believe

>>>>> that there is nothing wrong with MS controlling things. And if you

>>>>> think they haven't you're the one acting like an Ostrich.

>>>>> caver1

>>>> You could always buy alternatives to MS. What nonsense are you talking

>>>> about? Try advocating Linux instead of being a paranoid Loony and making

>>>> things up in your quest to discredit MS.

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Prove where I am wrong Hadron.

>>> caver1

>>

>> I just did.

>>

>> You could always by alternatives to MS.

>>

>

>

> Where does that prove that MS never did anything wrong?

> caver1

 

So now your "argument" is that at one time MS "did something wrong"?

 

LOL.

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post

> c-mdnVx-bt3cPGvanZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@supernews.com on 4/4/08 2:44 PM:

>

>>> OOXML is open, that goes over your head.

>>

>> No, it isn't.

>

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML>

> -----

> Office Open XML (often referred to as OOXML or OpenXML) is a

> free and open XML-based international standard for representing

> electronic documents such as spreadsheets, charts, presentations

> and word processing documents.

> -----

>

> <http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%20

> Paper.pdf>

> -----

> Office Open XML (OpenXML) is a proposed open standard for

> word-processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets

> -----

>

> You were saying?

 

Considering Rick can't grasp the importance of a consistent User

Interface for users I am astonished that he now thinks anyone will

listen to his "views" on Open Standards.

 

COLA is getting wackier by the day.

Hadron wrote:

> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>

>> Hadron wrote:

>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>>>

>>>> Hadron wrote:

>>>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Bob Campbell wrote:

>>>>>>> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:47f6212e$0$22855$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Remember the Hunts? They tried to corner the silver market. Gov't

>>>>>>>> stopped them.

>>>>>>> No, they stopped themselves when they could no longer afford to keep

>>>>>>> buying silver at the horribly inflated prices they caused by trying

>>>>>>> to corner the market. The government knew nothing about it.

>>>>>>> They actually only held about 1/3 of the world's silver.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Now Ms has cornered the computer market

>>>>>>> Nonsense. The computer market is the most stunning example of

>>>>>>> freedom and capitalism the world has ever seen. What other market

>>>>>>> sees capabilities INCREASE and prices DECREASE every year?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You have no idea what you are talking about here.

>>>>>> Hunts did not stop themselves. The gov't stepped in and told them if

>>>>>> they didn't stop that they would stop them for what they were trying

>>>>>> to do was illegal.

>>>>>> You are not following the thread. There are those here that believe

>>>>>> that there is nothing wrong with MS controlling things. And if you

>>>>>> think they haven't you're the one acting like an Ostrich.

>>>>>> caver1

>>>>> You could always buy alternatives to MS. What nonsense are you talking

>>>>> about? Try advocating Linux instead of being a paranoid Loony and making

>>>>> things up in your quest to discredit MS.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Prove where I am wrong Hadron.

>>>> caver1

>>> I just did.

>>>

>>> You could always by alternatives to MS.

>>>

>>

>> Where does that prove that MS never did anything wrong?

>> caver1

>

> So now your "argument" is that at one time MS "did something wrong"?

>

> LOL.

 

 

 

You think they haven't?

caver1

Hadron wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

>

>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post

>> c-mdnVx-bt3cPGvanZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@supernews.com on 4/4/08 2:44 PM:

>>

>>>> OOXML is open, that goes over your head.

>>> No, it isn't.

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML>

>> -----

>> Office Open XML (often referred to as OOXML or OpenXML) is a

>> free and open XML-based international standard for representing

>> electronic documents such as spreadsheets, charts, presentations

>> and word processing documents.

>> -----

>>

>> <http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%20

>> Paper.pdf>

>> -----

>> Office Open XML (OpenXML) is a proposed open standard for

>> word-processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets

>> -----

>>

>> You were saying?

>

> Considering Rick can't grasp the importance of a consistent User

> Interface for users I am astonished that he now thinks anyone will

> listen to his "views" on Open Standards.

>

> COLA is getting wackier by the day.

 

 

 

Being that MS keeps moving target where is their consistency?

caver1

"caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> stated in post

47f7c8a2$0$24079$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/5/08 11:44 AM:

> Hadron wrote:

>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

>>

>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post

>>> c-mdnVx-bt3cPGvanZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@supernews.com on 4/4/08 2:44 PM:

>>>

>>>>> OOXML is open, that goes over your head.

>>>> No, it isn't.

>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML>

>>> -----

>>> Office Open XML (often referred to as OOXML or OpenXML) is a

>>> free and open XML-based international standard for representing

>>> electronic documents such as spreadsheets, charts, presentations

>>> and word processing documents.

>>> -----

>>>

>>> <http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%20

>>> Paper.pdf>

>>> -----

>>> Office Open XML (OpenXML) is a proposed open standard for

>>> word-processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets

>>> -----

>>>

>>> You were saying?

>>

>> Considering Rick can't grasp the importance of a consistent User

>> Interface for users I am astonished that he now thinks anyone will

>> listen to his "views" on Open Standards.

>>

>> COLA is getting wackier by the day.

>

>

>

> Being that MS keeps moving target where is their consistency?

> caver1

>

Who said Windows and the programs on it (even from MS) were a good example

of consistency? Office 2007 is better, but here are some screen shots from

Office 2003:

 

<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/interface/pages/Office2003.html>

 

* How many dots should be on the menu bar... three or four?

* In the title bar what should come first: the name of the program

or the name of the file?

* What icons should be under the big red X?

* Should Help be the last item on the menu or not? Of variable what

are the rules?

* Should there be an application icon on the left hand side of the

title bar?

* What do brackets around something in the title bar mean? Parenthesis?

 

On and on.

 

With Office 2007 MS actually did a much better job of making the programs in

the suite have a consistent look (except the ones which have yet to get the

new look!)

 

--

"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to

all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs

"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post

ft8g9j$4i1$2@registered.motzarella.org on 4/5/08 11:26 AM:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

>

>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post

>> c-mdnVx-bt3cPGvanZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@supernews.com on 4/4/08 2:44 PM:

>>

>>>> OOXML is open, that goes over your head.

>>>

>>> No, it isn't.

>>

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML>

>> -----

>> Office Open XML (often referred to as OOXML or OpenXML) is a

>> free and open XML-based international standard for representing

>> electronic documents such as spreadsheets, charts, presentations

>> and word processing documents.

>> -----

>>

>> <http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%20

>> Paper.pdf>

>> -----

>> Office Open XML (OpenXML) is a proposed open standard for

>> word-processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets

>> -----

>>

>> You were saying?

>

> Considering Rick can't grasp the importance of a consistent User

> Interface for users I am astonished that he now thinks anyone will

> listen to his "views" on Open Standards.

>

> COLA is getting wackier by the day.

 

Still less whacky than CSMA... by far.

 

 

--

When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how

to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not

beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller