Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> That is what the old salt will do and he will keep his job, the company

> will prosper and they will find ways to save money elsewhere.

 

He can still be fired if his work suffers from his compulsion

to persuade .61% of the world that they are idiots.

 

--

Wes Groleau

 

I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming

intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared

from the common culture. Near as I can tell, this coincides with

the release of MS-DOS.

-- Larry DeLuca

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Julie

<invalid>

wrote

on Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:51:06 -0800

<47f2beee$0$7274$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

>>

>> when I snap

>> my fingers.

>>

>> *click*

>

> click? CLICK??

>

> "when I _snap_ my fingers"

 

What is this, April Pedant's Day? :-P

>

>

>>

>> --

>> #191, ewill3@earthlink.net

>> Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #40490127:

>> for()

>

> ...it's "-- "

>

 

Blame it on Teranews, who wants to generate their own

siggy and mangle mine. It's dash dash space in the text

file I'm editing here, as it should be.

 

--

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net

Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:

bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true else h = false return h}

 

--

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

>> regression testing out some products my company sells, and the test

>> have always included ALL functions, no matter how small, or how old.

>> If the features are there, they are tested.

>

> You seem to have got mixed up or confused. We are not talking about

> stuff your company sells. We are talking about a company with a legacy

> infrastructure that might have developed haphazardly over many years

> suddenly having Open Office foisted on them by a zealot who assumes it

> will all just work. Big difference.

 

Not confused or mixed up.

 

The only difference is I'm working with physical products that utilize

software, not just software by itself. Products that evolve over time, all

needing to conform to long in-place systems interoperability.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb

<brick.n.straw@gmail.com>

wrote

on Tue, 1 Apr 2008 19:49:29 -0400

<1dr3m1mfbm8bk.11btfrasnjgmz.dlg@40tude.net>:

> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:23:55 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

>

>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb

>> <brick.n.straw@gmail.com>

>> wrote

>> on Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:58:11 -0400

>> <1xfutjmn8aw9u$.qdnkd17nw0uw.dlg@40tude.net>:

>>> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:36:53 GMT, Matt wrote:

>>>

>>>> Ezekiel wrote:

>>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/04/01/Office-2007-winning-converts-survey-says_1.html

>>>>>

>>>>> The survey also showed that 43 percent plan to deploy Office 2007 in the

>>>>> next six months and that 29 percent plan rollouts within the next 12 months.

>>>>>

>>>>> In addition, 43 percent said those rollouts were tied to upgrades in PC

>>>>> hardware, 32 percent said their rollouts would be broad and enterprise-wide,

>>>>> while 25 percent said they would be project-by-project.

>>>>

>>>> 32% of 72% is 23%. So 23% are planning "broad and enterprise-wide"

>>>> changes to Office 2007 in the next year.

>>>

>>> How many are planning to move to Open Office?

>>>

>>

>> None, of course. The rest are waiting for Office 2008 or

>> 2009, like good little sheeple who have been hypnotized

>> by the four-color flag waving in the breeze. Just that

>> beautiful square-holed flag, waving in the breeze.

>>

>> Relaxing, isn't it? Especially while the multicolored

>> butterflies flutter by as well.

>>

>> You will now go out and buy Vista Ultimate, when I snap

>> my fingers.

>>

>> *click*

>>

>> --

>> #191, ewill3@earthlink.net

>> Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #40490127:

>> for()

>

> Linux is free.

> Open Office is free.

 

Define "free".

>

> Windows is expensive.

 

Windows is free. It is preloaded on all x86 machines

unless one is very very careful, or builds one's own.

The costs of Windows (part of which goes back as revenue

for Microsoft) are well-hidden.

> Office is even more expensive.

 

Office has somehow made it into the lingua fraca, with its

Microsoft Word format. It is required to do any serious

work...unless one has half a brain.

>

> Why are people willing to pay a lot of money to use Windows software when

> Linux is free?

 

Because it's perceived to be better. Microsoft has a very

good sales organization.

>

> To me, that says it all.

>

> Something that is free, that virtually nobody is using and which can't

> compete with commercial products that cost a lot of money, has some serious

> problems.

>

> Linux has some serious problems.

>

 

Yes it does. Linux can do *nothing*, not even boot. (Yes,

I'm being a pedant again.) I suppose someone can modify

/usr/src/linux/init/main.c to spawn off a subprocess that

runs in the kernel code as opposed to simply reading the

init= parameter on the bootline, but in most cases I see at

least three files required, plus a bunch of symbolic links

and a bootloader somewhere.

 

vmlinux

libc.so

busybox

ls -> busybox

sh -> busybox

cat -> busybox

vi -> busybox

....

 

That gives one a bare-bones, primitive CLI, "oh gosh I

have to type a bunch of crap now" environment.

 

Granted, most distros have tens of thousands of files,

lots of forms, GUIs up the wazoo, customization central,

etc. But they're not Linux, any more than a pearl is a

grain of grit, though that's how a pearl starts.

 

And of course Windows is better known and glitzier --

marketing again.

 

--

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net

Linux. An OS which actually, unlike certain other offerings, works.

 

--

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> writes:

>>> regression testing out some products my company sells, and the test

>>> have always included ALL functions, no matter how small, or how old.

>>> If the features are there, they are tested.

>>

>> You seem to have got mixed up or confused. We are not talking about

>> stuff your company sells. We are talking about a company with a legacy

>> infrastructure that might have developed haphazardly over many years

>> suddenly having Open Office foisted on them by a zealot who assumes it

>> will all just work. Big difference.

>

> Not confused or mixed up.

 

No. You are. You started talking about a totally different scenario. You

were mixing up regression tests on released SW by the company who

releases that SW with acceptance tests done by the target company to

ensure their legacy procedures and processes and supporting SW

infrastructure worked with or could be ported to Open Office.

>

> The only difference is I'm working with physical products that utilize

> software, not just software by itself. Products that evolve over time, all

> needing to conform to long in-place systems interoperability.

>

 

Err, sure.

 

--

I don't think 'It's better than hurling yourself into a meat grinder'

is a good rationale for doing something.

-- Andrew Suffield in

<20030905221055.GA22354@doc.ic.ac.uk> on debian-devel

Mushy Goldbrick wrote:

> The problem with a lot of Linux advocates in COLA is that they have never

> worked in the Information Technology field and thus have no clue as to how

> things work.

 

Speaking as one who works in that field, I can tell you that you don't know

what you're talking about.

> Ever hear the saying "you'll never get fired by buying IBM", well for

> better or worse that is true and BTW you can replace IBM with Microsoft,

> Apple iPod, Sony etc IOW any leader in the field.

 

That /might/ have been true 20 years ago, but it /certainly/ isn't today.

> So let's take OpenOffice for example and let's take a fictious person who

> just got their first job (finally) out of college.

> We shall call him Roy Schestowitz.

>

> So here we have ABC Spammo company that makes widget's.

> The CIO is complaining because costs are sky rocketing.

> So along comes Roy and suggests that they replace Microsoft Office with

> Open Office which is free.

> The other managers explain that MSOffice is already paid for, they have a

> contract for support that is rolled into a site support contract and that

> the employees and the various suppliers are familiar with MSOffice.

 

"Contract for support"? Total nonsense. Have you ever tried to

get "support" from MS? Speaking as someone (now retired) who maintained

a /huge/ computer network for a global bank, again I can assure you that

M$ "support" contracts are entirely worthless.

> Roy is persistent and makes a convincing long term deployment case for

> Open Office.

>

> The CIO swallows Roy's line.

>

> One year later the company can't interact with their suppliers because the

> various macros they were running under MSOffice do not work under Open

> Office.

 

More nonsense. /Any/ competent IT department can migrate M$ macros to OOo -

but /truly/ competent IT departments will /ban/ macros as a security risk.

> Microsoft has now re-evaluated their support contract price due to their

> not using MSoffice.

 

Wouldn't make /any/ difference. M$ "contracts" are as worthless as

their "operating systems".

> And last but not least the employees are having a difficult time making

> their already archive documents import completely and accurately into Open

> Office.

 

*Wrong* - you /really/ are stupid, and have *no* *idea* how IT works in a

major corporation.

> Roy Schestowitz gets fired and decides to go back to school again for

> another 15 years of sponging off his parents.

 

Grow up! You /really/ haven't got a clue at all.

> The company is now out of business.

 

Don't be silly. Corporations that collapse do so either because they're run

by American MBAs (just /another/ worthless American "qualification") or

there's serious financial malpractice. Either way, IT has little or

nothing to do with it.

> Now, let's suppose that instead of eager beaver Roy, the company had an

> old salt experienced IT person.

 

Like me, for example.

> He would have said, MSOffice is the standard.

 

No - if he was /really/ experienced, he would warn against the vendor

tie-in, the outrageous expense, the insecurity and the unreliability.

> Everyone is using it.

 

/Nobody/ sensible is.

> It works.

 

It doesn't. It's fundamentally broken, like /every/ M$ product.

> It doesn't cost us a lot of money in scheme of things.

 

It costs /stupid/ amounts of money in initial outlay, and if the company is

fooled into buying a worthless "service" contract, it costs even more.

> Why switch?

 

Corporations I've worked for, and companies I own have *never* bought into

the M$ crapware, so there's /nothing/ to "switch".

> Why Fsck with what is already working.

 

Exactly. /Without/ M$ crapware, productivity is /much/ higher.

> Remember that part about not getting fired by buying IBM etc....

> That is what the old salt will do and he will keep his job, the company

> will prosper and they will find ways to save money elsewhere.

 

Yes - /we/ bought IBM (and still do) - they ship their servers and desktop

machines to us pre-loaded with /Linux/ - /and/ they provide /real/ support!

> IOW the smart person wants to keep his job and can easily see that there

> is really nothing to be saved by using Open Office.

 

In other words - a stupid, unwarranted, nonsense conclusion.

 

C.

Mushy Goldfart dribbled:

> Linux is free.

> Open Office is free.

 

Correct.

> Windows is expensive.

> Office is even more expensive.

 

Correct.

> Why are people willing to pay a lot of money to use Windows software when

> Linux is free?

 

Because the vast, stupid majority of the populace think that Windoze

came "free" with their computer!

> To me, that says it all.

 

It would. You're just as clueless as the majority of slack-jawed Windoze

point-n-click-n-drool morons.

> Something that is free, that virtually nobody is using and which can't

> compete with commercial products that cost a lot of money, has some

> serious problems.

 

You /really/ have no clue whatsoever.

> Linux has some serious problems.

 

No it certainly doesn't. It has significantly fewer problems than Windoze -

no viruses, trojans, instabilities, expense, insecurities...

 

Game Over.

 

C.

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

news:eKednfwLpeNVW2_anZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@supernews.com...

 

>> How many are planning to move to Open Office?

>

> Who knows? Any positive number is a good number.

 

Why is it?

What possible advantage does it have to anyone?

Just exactly who gains from having people move to OO?

If they don't have a word processor then OO is fine, but I don't see the

benefit of moving to OO from something you have and are using.

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:51:56 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

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

> news:eKednfwLpeNVW2_anZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@supernews.com...

>

>

>>> How many are planning to move to Open Office?

>>

>> Who knows? Any positive number is a good number.

>

> Why is it?

 

Almost anything that lessens business for Microsoft is a good thing.

Yeah, that's the anti-MS bias in me.

> What possible advantage does it have to anyone?

 

It costs a lot less.

> Just exactly who gains from having people move to OO?

 

Anyone that doesn't have to pat for an office suite.

> If they don't have a word processor then

> OO is fine, but I don't see the benefit of moving to OO from something

> you have and are using.

 

OO.o doesn't cost money to upgrade. OO.o is much closer to the "previous"

MS Office interface than 2007, so training, at worst, is a wash. You

don't have to track licenses. Those are some fairly good reasons to move

to OO.o, as long as it does what you need.

 

--

Rick

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

news:pfOdnUY1yIcL_G7anZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com...

> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:51:56 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>

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

>> news:eKednfwLpeNVW2_anZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@supernews.com...

>>

>>

>>>> How many are planning to move to Open Office?

>>>

>>> Who knows? Any positive number is a good number.

>>

>> Why is it?

>

> Almost anything that lessens business for Microsoft is a good thing.

> Yeah, that's the anti-MS bias in me.

 

So its reasonable to disregard anything you say as it has a bias which works

against the users interests.

All you want to do is remove choice, not make things better for the user.

>

>> What possible advantage does it have to anyone?

>

> It costs a lot less.

 

Less than something you have?

>

>> Just exactly who gains from having people move to OO?

>

> Anyone that doesn't have to pat for an office suite.

 

So in the context of what this was about that would be nobody.

>

>> If they don't have a word processor then

>> OO is fine, but I don't see the benefit of moving to OO from something

>> you have and are using.

>

> OO.o doesn't cost money to upgrade. OO.o is much closer to the "previous"

> MS Office interface than 2007, so training, at worst, is a wash. You

> don't have to track licenses. Those are some fairly good reasons to move

> to OO.o, as long as it does what you need.

 

And no reason to do so if you already are doing what you need.

This OO is better than what you already have is a dead loss.

* dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>> How many are planning to move to Open Office?

>>

>> Who knows? Any positive number is a good number.

>

> Why is it?

> What possible advantage does it have to anyone?

> Just exactly who gains from having people move to OO?

> If they don't have a word processor then OO is fine, but I don't see the

> benefit of moving to OO from something you have and are using.

 

To ease their guilty conscience?

 

To avoid dealing with product-activation?

 

http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/mpa.aspx

 

The goal of Product Activation is to reduce a form of piracy known as

"casual copying" or "softlifting." Casual copying is a form of piracy

characterized by the sharing of software between people in a way that

infringes on the software's end user license agreement (EULA). For

instance, Windows XP is primarily licensed for use on a single PC and

without purchasing additional licenses cannot be installed on other

machines. If someone were to obtain a copy of Windows XP and load it

on his or her PC, then share it with a second person who loaded it on

his or her PC, they would be guilty of casual copying.

 

--

Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.

-- Bill Gates, Business @ The Speed of Thought (1999)

Hadron wrote:

> Maybe you two know each other from some kind of "big shot" golf meet?

 

Hadron, the guy was lord and master over 500,000 workstations. Why would he

associate with a lowly peon who oversees only a few dozen?

--

Regards,

[tv]

 

....A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.

 

Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company

Good to the last supper

Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> writes:

> Hadron wrote:

>

>> Maybe you two know each other from some kind of "big shot" golf meet?

>

> Hadron, the guy was lord and master over 500,000 workstations. Why would he

> associate with a lowly peon who oversees only a few dozen?

 

Good point. He probably fired the guy who hired the guy who once asked

who you were.

 

--

"There is no such thing as Intellectual Property"

Mark Kent

Head of Technology Strategy, BT Global

COLA Hypocrite

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

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

> news:pfOdnUY1yIcL_G7anZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com...

>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:51:56 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>>

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

>>> news:eKednfwLpeNVW2_anZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@supernews.com...

>>>

>>>

>>>>> How many are planning to move to Open Office?

>>>>

>>>> Who knows? Any positive number is a good number.

>>>

>>> Why is it?

>>

>> Almost anything that lessens business for Microsoft is a good thing.

>> Yeah, that's the anti-MS bias in me.

>

> So its reasonable to disregard anything you say as it has a bias which

> works against the users interests.

> All you want to do is remove choice, not make things better for the user.

>

>>

>>> What possible advantage does it have to anyone?

>>

>> It costs a lot less.

>

> Less than something you have?

>

>>

>>> Just exactly who gains from having people move to OO?

>>

>> Anyone that doesn't have to pat for an office suite.

>

> So in the context of what this was about that would be nobody.

>

>>

>>> If they don't have a word processor then

>>> OO is fine, but I don't see the benefit of moving to OO from something

>>> you have and are using.

>>

>> OO.o doesn't cost money to upgrade. OO.o is much closer to the "previous"

>> MS Office interface than 2007, so training, at worst, is a wash. You

>> don't have to track licenses. Those are some fairly good reasons to move

>> to OO.o, as long as it does what you need.

>

> And no reason to do so if you already are doing what you need.

> This OO is better than what you already have is a dead loss.

>

>

 

 

 

With that argument you can also ask why upgrade to 2007 if any of the

previous versions will do what you need?

OO is about choice 2007 is about MS bottom line.

caver1

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

news:47f37c3b$0$1096$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>

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

>> news:pfOdnUY1yIcL_G7anZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com...

>>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:51:56 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>>>

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

>>>> news:eKednfwLpeNVW2_anZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@supernews.com...

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>> How many are planning to move to Open Office?

>>>>>

>>>>> Who knows? Any positive number is a good number.

>>>>

>>>> Why is it?

>>>

>>> Almost anything that lessens business for Microsoft is a good thing.

>>> Yeah, that's the anti-MS bias in me.

>>

>> So its reasonable to disregard anything you say as it has a bias which

>> works against the users interests.

>> All you want to do is remove choice, not make things better for the user.

>>

>>>

>>>> What possible advantage does it have to anyone?

>>>

>>> It costs a lot less.

>>

>> Less than something you have?

>>

>>>

>>>> Just exactly who gains from having people move to OO?

>>>

>>> Anyone that doesn't have to pat for an office suite.

>>

>> So in the context of what this was about that would be nobody.

>>

>>>

>>>> If they don't have a word processor then

>>>> OO is fine, but I don't see the benefit of moving to OO from something

>>>> you have and are using.

>>>

>>> OO.o doesn't cost money to upgrade. OO.o is much closer to the

>>> "previous"

>>> MS Office interface than 2007, so training, at worst, is a wash. You

>>> don't have to track licenses. Those are some fairly good reasons to move

>>> to OO.o, as long as it does what you need.

>>

>> And no reason to do so if you already are doing what you need.

>> This OO is better than what you already have is a dead loss.

>>

>>

>

>

>

> With that argument you can also ask why upgrade to 2007 if any of the

> previous versions will do what you need?

 

I have. i can't see why any home user would need to upgrade to office 2007.

They may want to upgrade, that is their choice.

At a corporate level the decision should be based on need and cost and has

nothing to do with the rants here.

> OO is about choice 2007 is about MS bottom line.

 

Its another choice, I know you would rather it wasn't there but that's you

being stupid.

How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?

 

> caver1

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

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

> news:pfOdnUY1yIcL_G7anZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com...

>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:51:56 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>>

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

>>> news:eKednfwLpeNVW2_anZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@supernews.com...

>>>

>>>

>>>>> How many are planning to move to Open Office?

>>>>

>>>> Who knows? Any positive number is a good number.

>>>

>>> Why is it?

>>

>> Almost anything that lessens business for Microsoft is a good thing.

>> Yeah, that's the anti-MS bias in me.

>

> So its reasonable to disregard anything you say as it has a bias which

> works against the users interests.

 

No, it isn't reasonable. As I have said OpenOffie, for instance is a

good alternative to MS Office, as long as OO.o meets the needs of the

user. In my view, any move to someting like OO.o away from is good for

people in general and the market.

> All you want to do is remove choice, not make things better for the user.

 

.... in your incorrect opinion. I want a truly level playing field. There

has never really been one in relation to PC software and operating systems.

>

>>

>>> What possible advantage does it have to anyone?

>>

>> It costs a lot less.

>

> Less than something you have?

 

How much did what you have cost?

>

>>

>>> Just exactly who gains from having people move to OO?

>>

>> Anyone that doesn't have to pay for an office suite.

>

> So in the context of what this was about that would be nobody.

 

So, in context of what this is about, every legal copy of Windows and

every legal copy of Office is paid for by someone.

>

>>

>>> If they don't have a word processor then

>>> OO is fine, but I don't see the benefit of moving to OO from something

>>> you have and are using.

>>

>> OO.o doesn't cost money to upgrade. OO.o is much closer to the "previous"

>> MS Office interface than 2007, so training, at worst, is a wash. You

>> don't have to track licenses. Those are some fairly good reasons to move

>> to OO.o, as long as it does what you need.

>

> And no reason to do so if you already are doing what you need.

> This OO is better than what you already have is a dead loss.

 

.... in your opinion.

 

--

Rick

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

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

> news:47f37c3b$0$1096$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>

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

>>> news:pfOdnUY1yIcL_G7anZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com...

>>>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:51:56 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

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

>>>>> news:eKednfwLpeNVW2_anZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@supernews.com...

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>> How many are planning to move to Open Office?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Who knows? Any positive number is a good number.

>>>>>

>>>>> Why is it?

>>>>

>>>> Almost anything that lessens business for Microsoft is a good thing.

>>>> Yeah, that's the anti-MS bias in me.

>>>

>>> So its reasonable to disregard anything you say as it has a bias

>>> which works against the users interests.

>>> All you want to do is remove choice, not make things better for the

>>> user.

>>>

>>>>

>>>>> What possible advantage does it have to anyone?

>>>>

>>>> It costs a lot less.

>>>

>>> Less than something you have?

>>>

>>>>

>>>>> Just exactly who gains from having people move to OO?

>>>>

>>>> Anyone that doesn't have to pat for an office suite.

>>>

>>> So in the context of what this was about that would be nobody.

>>>

>>>>

>>>>> If they don't have a word processor then

>>>>> OO is fine, but I don't see the benefit of moving to OO from something

>>>>> you have and are using.

>>>>

>>>> OO.o doesn't cost money to upgrade. OO.o is much closer to the

>>>> "previous"

>>>> MS Office interface than 2007, so training, at worst, is a wash. You

>>>> don't have to track licenses. Those are some fairly good reasons to

>>>> move

>>>> to OO.o, as long as it does what you need.

>>>

>>> And no reason to do so if you already are doing what you need.

>>> This OO is better than what you already have is a dead loss.

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>> With that argument you can also ask why upgrade to 2007 if any of the

>> previous versions will do what you need?

>

> I have. i can't see why any home user would need to upgrade to office 2007.

> They may want to upgrade, that is their choice.

> At a corporate level the decision should be based on need and cost and

> has nothing to do with the rants here.

>

>> OO is about choice 2007 is about MS bottom line.

>

> Its another choice, I know you would rather it wasn't there but that's

> you being stupid.

> How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?

>

>

>> caver1

>

 

 

No its not me being stupid. If 2007 wasn't about MS's bottom line then

why make it not compatible with their previous versions? Because then

eventually most all businesses would upgrade to be compatible with every

one else instead of by choice or need.

OO is no threat to MS so 2007 is costly.

caver1

dennis@home wrote:

>How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?

 

That's a non-sequitur. There's always "a choice" of word processors

and such. Word processors and spreadsheets are a very mature

technology, and should be very inexpensive if not free (at least for

light- or medium-duty products sufficient for the vast majority of

users).

 

In a healthy market, it would be impossible for someone to charge a

lot of money for these kinds of products, because a competitor would

arise to undercut the price (or even give it away). It's purely due

to Microsoft's proprietory, "defacto standard" file-formats that they

are able to get so much money for their products.

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

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

> news:47f37c3b$0$1096$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>

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

>>> news:pfOdnUY1yIcL_G7anZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com...

>>>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:51:56 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

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

>>>>> news:eKednfwLpeNVW2_anZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@supernews.com...

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>> How many are planning to move to Open Office?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Who knows? Any positive number is a good number.

>>>>>

>>>>> Why is it?

>>>>

>>>> Almost anything that lessens business for Microsoft is a good thing.

>>>> Yeah, that's the anti-MS bias in me.

>>>

>>> So its reasonable to disregard anything you say as it has a bias

>>> which works against the users interests.

>>> All you want to do is remove choice, not make things better for the

>>> user.

>>>

>>>>

>>>>> What possible advantage does it have to anyone?

>>>>

>>>> It costs a lot less.

>>>

>>> Less than something you have?

>>>

>>>>

>>>>> Just exactly who gains from having people move to OO?

>>>>

>>>> Anyone that doesn't have to pat for an office suite.

>>>

>>> So in the context of what this was about that would be nobody.

>>>

>>>>

>>>>> If they don't have a word processor then

>>>>> OO is fine, but I don't see the benefit of moving to OO from something

>>>>> you have and are using.

>>>>

>>>> OO.o doesn't cost money to upgrade. OO.o is much closer to the

>>>> "previous"

>>>> MS Office interface than 2007, so training, at worst, is a wash. You

>>>> don't have to track licenses. Those are some fairly good reasons to

>>>> move

>>>> to OO.o, as long as it does what you need.

>>>

>>> And no reason to do so if you already are doing what you need.

>>> This OO is better than what you already have is a dead loss.

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>> With that argument you can also ask why upgrade to 2007 if any of the

>> previous versions will do what you need?

>

> I have. i can't see why any home user would need to upgrade to office 2007.

 

I can't see why many home users need MS Office at all. Works does more

than enough for home users. That's an MS product. And, again, OO.o is

free, so why should most home users pay for MS Office?

> They may want to upgrade, that is their choice.

> At a corporate level the decision should be based on need and cost and

> has nothing to do with the rants here.

 

Cost: $$ for MS Offie. 0$ for Open Office.

>

>> OO is about choice 2007 is about MS bottom line.

>

> Its another choice, I know you would rather it wasn't there but that's

> you being stupid.

> How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?

 

$0. There was a lot of $0 software floating around at the beginnings of

PCs, you know.

 

--

Rick

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> writes:

> dennis@home wrote:

>

>>How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?

>

> That's a non-sequitur. There's always "a choice" of word processors

> and such. Word processors and spreadsheets are a very mature

> technology, and should be very inexpensive if not free (at least for

> light- or medium-duty products sufficient for the vast majority of

> users).

 

Should standard cars and bicycles be free too you tight fisted f@ck up?

 

The reason OO is "free" is because hardly any one wants it.

 

--

revision 1.17.2.7

date: 2001/05/31 21:32:44 author: branden state: Exp lines: +1 -1

ARRRRGH!! GOT THE G** D*** SENSE OF A F******* TEST BACKWARDS!

Hadron wrote:

> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> writes:

>

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>> How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?

>> That's a non-sequitur. There's always "a choice" of word processors

>> and such. Word processors and spreadsheets are a very mature

>> technology, and should be very inexpensive if not free (at least for

>> light- or medium-duty products sufficient for the vast majority of

>> users).

>

> Should standard cars and bicycles be free too you tight fisted f@ck up?

>

> The reason OO is "free" is because hardly any one wants it.

>

That's a lie, and you know it.

 

--

Rick

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick

<none@nomail.com>

wrote

on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:16:02 -0400

<0qGdnaeDQ9i_CG7anZ2dnUVZ_ufinZ2d@supernews.com>:

> Hadron wrote:

>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> writes:

>>

>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>> How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?

>>> That's a non-sequitur. There's always "a choice" of word processors

>>> and such. Word processors and spreadsheets are a very mature

>>> technology, and should be very inexpensive if not free (at least for

>>> light- or medium-duty products sufficient for the vast majority of

>>> users).

>>

>> Should standard cars and bicycles be free too you tight fisted f@ck up?

>>

>> The reason OO is "free" is because hardly any one wants it.

>>

> That's a lie, and you know it.

>

 

There are a number of factors here, not the least of which

might be a major upheaval in the software business model,

which was already underway even before Linux became along.

 

Briefly put, one does not pay for the software, but for

services rendered -- in most cases, maintenance and repair.

 

There are also other costs. Microsoft's TCO campaign,

tainted as it is, does point out some other issues, not

the least of which is how much IT work needs to be done to

keep a hardware/software combination in good working order.

Of course Microsoft claims that Windows is the cheapest

in terms of total TCO, a claim that is hotly (and AFAICT

correctly) disputed.

 

And of course the price of an item is what one is willing

to pay for it -- and that payment may be in money, or in

barter, or in services of one's own.

 

And then there's the hidden costs. Microsoft Windows

is "free" because of the preload. Microsoft gets paid

anyway, regardless of whether the machine is bought

and put into service, bought and the OS overwiped with

freeware, or sits somewhere deep in a warehouse, unsold.

(Of course storing a lot of such machines will get a

company such as Dell, HP, or Acer into financial trouble

what's the point of producing machines if no one buys them?

Where's the profit?)

 

There's other various secondary issues third parties

will happily step into the breach in the case of Windows

deficiences, such as viruses, multiple workspaces, and

little utility "widgets". McAfee, F-secure, and Symantec

readily come to mind. Utilities and checkers abound.

An entire infrastructure has woven its tendrils around

Windows' deficiencies.

 

And of course there's personal considerations. We *know*

Windows will crash we compensate. The user uses the tool,

and doing so, changes himself by learning how the tool

works and where the tool fails.

 

An entire infrastructure will probably grow around Linux's

deficiencies, given half a chance...though the deficiencies

may be harder to quantify, mostly because Linux is less

well-known, or those that know of Linux have already found

their own solutions.

 

So how free is OO really? How free is Microsoft Office?

 

How free are you and I, from these insidious

market manipulations?

 

--

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net

If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.

 

--

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hadron wrote:

> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> writes:

>

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>>How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?

>>

>> That's a non-sequitur. There's always "a choice" of word processors

>> and such. Word processors and spreadsheets are a very mature

>> technology, and should be very inexpensive if not free (at least for

>> light- or medium-duty products sufficient for the vast majority of

>> users).

>

> Should standard cars and bicycles be free too you tight fisted f@ck up?

>

> The reason OO is "free" is because hardly any one wants it.

>

Oh, so it has nothing to do with being licensed under the GPL, Mr. non-COLA

Linux Advocate? You are one sick puppy.

 

Cheers.

 

--

The world can't afford the rich.

 

alt.os.linux.ubuntu - where the lunatic Hadron is a "Linux advocate"

 

Francis (Frank) adds a new "gadget" to his Vista box ...

Download it here: http://tinyurl.com/2hnof6

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

pfOdnUY1yIcL_G7anZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com on 4/2/08 3:36 AM:

> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:51:56 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>

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

>> news:eKednfwLpeNVW2_anZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@supernews.com...

>>

>>

>>>> How many are planning to move to Open Office?

>>>

>>> Who knows? Any positive number is a good number.

>>

>> Why is it?

>

> Almost anything that lessens business for Microsoft is a good thing.

> Yeah, that's the anti-MS bias in me.

 

At least you admit you are biased. That is a step in the right direction.

 

 

--

When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.

When God changes your mind, that's faith.

When facts change your mind, that's science.

NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

> Hadron wrote:

>

>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> writes:

>>

>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>>How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?

>>>

>>> That's a non-sequitur. There's always "a choice" of word processors

>>> and such. Word processors and spreadsheets are a very mature

>>> technology, and should be very inexpensive if not free (at least for

>>> light- or medium-duty products sufficient for the vast majority of

>>> users).

>>

>> Should standard cars and bicycles be free too you tight fisted f@ck up?

>>

>> The reason OO is "free" is because hardly any one wants it.

>>

> Oh, so it has nothing to do with being licensed under the GPL, Mr. non-COLA

> Linux Advocate? You are one sick puppy.

>

> Cheers.

 

What part of my post confuses you? The fact is that hardly anyone wants

it. Almost no one (% wise) uses it. This is a fact.

 

--

Being overloaded is the sign of a true Debian maintainer.

-- JHM on #Debian