Hadron wrote:

> 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.

>

No, that you're suggesting it is "free" because no one wants it. It's "free"

because it's licensed under the GPL. Don't get it?

 

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

Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote in

news:fsuvjo$3tp$1@registered.motzarella.org:

>>>> 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.

 

Maybe a different scenario, but the same theories apply. If my regression

testing shows complete compatibility with options and performance of the

previous design, existing users should be able to incorporate the new

design into their existing systems with little, if any at all, effort.

 

We're also talking complete new designs here that replace 15 year old

equipment. A complete new hardware/software platform to do a specific

job.

 

We can agree to disagree.

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

news:NYadnZAloY73FW7anZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@supernews.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.

>

> 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.

 

Yes and moving from those to OO saves nothing but does require retraining

costs/time. Its not as though they are going out and spending cash on office

as they already have it.

>>>> 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.

 

But can I trust what you say when you have already stated that you hate M$

and that alone is enough to use OO.

It may be totally unsuitable but you would still recommend it to get back at

M$.

>>

>> 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.

 

In fact, in this case.

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

news:47f38974$0$1096$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

 

> 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.

 

It is compatible.

If you think it isn't then I suggest you try it before you pass judgment.

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:cq27v39ibt41n15932p7mq6bibtg43akff@4ax.com...

> 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).

 

Its an office suit, they have to try and add value somewhere.

>

> 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.

>

 

M$ file formats are open in case you didn't know. Anyone can use them for

non profit.. if you want to make a profit from them then buy M$ office,

otherwise wait for OO to support them properly. It is only a matter of time

unless the OO writers decide not to support the published M$ formats. If OO

doesn't support the formats you can't say M$ didn't tell them what they are.

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

news:RMmdnXi_XcpDDG7anZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@supernews.com...

 

> 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?

 

I can't see why you need a WP at all, what's wrong with vi, nroff, etc.

That should be good enough for you to write a few letters to mum.

>

>> 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.

 

Time vs. cash interesting choice, not yours or mine to make.

>

>>

>>> 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.

 

There was a lot of paid for stuff like uniplex too.

You probably don't remember the days when there were real computers.

dennis@home wrote:

>"chrisv" wrote:

>>

>> 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).

>

>Its an office suit, they have to try and add value somewhere.

 

Huh? They "need to" perform "office functions". What's your point?

>> 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.

>

>M$ file formats are open in case you didn't know.

 

No, they are not "open". What kind of an idiot are you?

 

If M$ were to "open" their document formats, competitors could easily

create similar products that really "nail" the compatibility with M$

Office. Right now, there's enough uncertainty regarding compatibility

that most companies will not switch.

>(snip brain-damaged idiocy)

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv

<chrisv@nospam.invalid>

wrote

on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:33:13 -0500

<jcn7v35oh345pvsm7bglnmfifk1jt0sdcr@4ax.com>:

> dennis@home wrote:

>

>>"chrisv" wrote:

>>>

>>> 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).

>>

>>Its an office suit, they have to try and add value somewhere.

>

> Huh? They "need to" perform "office functions". What's your point?

 

And these are...?

 

My opinion on "office functions" is that most of them could

probably be met with Emacs or VI, TeX, and a text-only

spreadsheet, though there are a large number of issues

regarding fonts, highlighting, coloration, and charts.

 

Since most offices are Web-based a knowledge of HTML

might be helpful as well, and HTML does support

(TeX, for its part, supports tables as well I forget the

precise syntax). A little Perl glue and voila.

 

OK, so that's horribly kludgy compared to firing up a tool

that does all of these "office functions" automagically,

but I do wonder how necessary OpenOffice -- and Microsoft

Office -- really are.

>

>>> 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.

>>

>>M$ file formats are open in case you didn't know.

>

> No, they are not "open". What kind of an idiot are you?

 

OOXML was approved. No doubt the pointy-haired boss types

will rejoice at being able to tick off an "open format"

checkbox on an approval form. The more intelligent types will

ask some interesting questions first.

>

> If M$ were to "open" their document formats, competitors could easily

> create similar products that really "nail" the compatibility with M$

> Office. Right now, there's enough uncertainty regarding compatibility

> that most companies will not switch.

 

Indeed.

>

>>(snip brain-damaged idiocy)

>

 

--

#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

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:jcn7v35oh345pvsm7bglnmfifk1jt0sdcr@4ax.com...

> dennis@home wrote:

>

>>"chrisv" wrote:

>>>

>>> 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).

>>

>>Its an office suit, they have to try and add value somewhere.

>

> Huh? They "need to" perform "office functions". What's your point?

>

>>> 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.

>>

>>M$ file formats are open in case you didn't know.

>

> No, they are not "open". What kind of an idiot are you?

>

> If M$ were to "open" their document formats, competitors could easily

> create similar products that really "nail" the compatibility with M$

> Office. Right now, there's enough uncertainty regarding compatibility

> that most companies will not switch.

>

>>(snip brain-damaged idiocy)

>

 

You are wrong.. they are open, you can download the spec if you want.

So now go away and learn something useful.

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message

news:2p5dc5-2fp.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv

> <chrisv@nospam.invalid>

> wrote

> on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:33:13 -0500

> <jcn7v35oh345pvsm7bglnmfifk1jt0sdcr@4ax.com>:

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>>"chrisv" wrote:

>>>>

>>>> 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).

>>>

>>>Its an office suit, they have to try and add value somewhere.

>>

>> Huh? They "need to" perform "office functions". What's your point?

>

> And these are...?

>

> My opinion on "office functions" is that most of them could

> probably be met with Emacs or VI, TeX, and a text-only

> spreadsheet, though there are a large number of issues

> regarding fonts, highlighting, coloration, and charts.

>

> Since most offices are Web-based a knowledge of HTML

> might be helpful as well, and HTML does support

> (TeX, for its part, supports tables as well I forget the

> precise syntax). A little Perl glue and voila.

>

> OK, so that's horribly kludgy compared to firing up a tool

> that does all of these "office functions" automagically,

> but I do wonder how necessary OpenOffice -- and Microsoft

> Office -- really are.

>

>>

>>>> 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.

>>>

>>>M$ file formats are open in case you didn't know.

>>

>> No, they are not "open". What kind of an idiot are you?

>

> OOXML was approved. No doubt the pointy-haired boss types

> will rejoice at being able to tick off an "open format"

> checkbox on an approval form. The more intelligent types will

> ask some interesting questions first.

 

Maybe they will click on this and read the specification rather than show

that they don't know what they are talking about?

 

http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/B/E/0BE8BDD7-E5E8-422A-ABFD-4342ED7AD886/Word97-2007BinaryFileFormat(doc)Specification.pdf

 

Of course they could look for the other formats if they wanted to.

>

>>

>> If M$ were to "open" their document formats, competitors could easily

>> create similar products that really "nail" the compatibility with M$

>> Office. Right now, there's enough uncertainty regarding compatibility

>> that most companies will not switch.

>

> Indeed.

 

Well what a shame.. that's what they have done.

 

You linux advocate types don't actually know much do you?

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

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

> news:47f38974$0$1096$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>

>

>> 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.

>

> It is compatible.

> If you think it isn't then I suggest you try it before you pass judgment.

 

 

 

Obviously you don't know because it ain't. There are the same problems

between 2007 and 2003 as there is between 2007 and OO, in a business

environment. This I know as a fact and first hand.

caver1

caver1

caver1 wrote:

> dennis@home wrote:

>

>>

>>

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

>> news:47f38974$0$1096$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>>

>>

>>> 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.

>>

>>

>> It is compatible.

>> If you think it isn't then I suggest you try it before you pass judgment.

>

>

>

>

> Obviously you don't know because it ain't. There are the same problems

> between 2007 and 2003 as there is between 2007 and OO, in a business

> environment. This I know as a fact and first hand.

> caver1

> caver1

 

There is a update patch to fix the compat problem between office 07 & 03.

Frank

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

> news:cq27v39ibt41n15932p7mq6bibtg43akff@4ax.com...

>> 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).

>

> Its an office suit, they have to try and add value somewhere.

>

>>

>> 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.

>>

>

> M$ file formats are open in case you didn't know. Anyone can use them

> for non profit.. if you want to make a profit from them then buy M$

> office, otherwise wait for OO to support them properly. It is only a

> matter of time unless the OO writers decide not to support the published

> M$ formats. If OO doesn't support the formats you can't say M$ didn't

> tell them what they are.

 

 

OO does support the new formats, with an add on. If I want to use office

at home for personal use, then from what you are saying I can load it

and use it without buying it. HAVE YOU TALKED TO MS LATELY?

caver1

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

news:47f3fd5f$0$22804$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>

>> "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

>> news:cq27v39ibt41n15932p7mq6bibtg43akff@4ax.com...

>>> 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).

>>

>> Its an office suit, they have to try and add value somewhere.

>>

>>>

>>> 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.

>>>

>>

>> M$ file formats are open in case you didn't know. Anyone can use them for

>> non profit.. if you want to make a profit from them then buy M$ office,

>> otherwise wait for OO to support them properly. It is only a matter of

>> time unless the OO writers decide not to support the published M$

>> formats. If OO doesn't support the formats you can't say M$ didn't tell

>> them what they are.

>

>

> OO does support the new formats, with an add on. If I want to use office

> at home for personal use, then from what you are saying I can load it and

> use it without buying it. HAVE YOU TALKED TO MS LATELY?

 

I didn't say that, you read it wrong, try again, you don't want to be the

only one to get it wrong.

> caver1

Hadron wrote:

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

> who you were.

 

Find the funny part.

--

Regards,

[tv]

 

....Zen Master at Wendy's: "Make me one with everything."

 

Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company

Good to the last supper

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:55:41 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> 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.

 

The fact is, very few people know about it.

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

 

Quite true, However, if vendors could be convinced to start bundling it,

the % would increase.

 

 

 

 

 

--

Rick

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, dennis@home

<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net>

wrote

on Wed, 2 Apr 2008 21:54:56 +0100

<ft0rrj$u9m$1@news.datemas.de>:

>

>

> "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

> news:jcn7v35oh345pvsm7bglnmfifk1jt0sdcr@4ax.com...

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>>"chrisv" wrote:

>>>>

>>>> 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).

>>>

>>>Its an office suit, they have to try and add value somewhere.

>>

>> Huh? They "need to" perform "office functions". What's your point?

>>

>>>> 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.

>>>

>>>M$ file formats are open in case you didn't know.

>>

>> No, they are not "open". What kind of an idiot are you?

>>

>> If M$ were to "open" their document formats, competitors could easily

>> create similar products that really "nail" the compatibility with M$

>> Office. Right now, there's enough uncertainty regarding compatibility

>> that most companies will not switch.

>>

>>>(snip brain-damaged idiocy)

>>

>

> You are wrong.. they are open, you can download the spec if you want.

> So now go away and learn something useful.

>

 

They've also been hacked six ways from Sunday, as well -- OO in

particular can read proprietary Word files from various versions

without difficulty.

 

--

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net

Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone

to fix your Windows problems?

 

--

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

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:39:08 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

> news:cq27v39ibt41n15932p7mq6bibtg43akff@4ax.com...

>> 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).

>

> Its an office suit, they have to try and add value somewhere.

>

>

>> 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.

>>

>>

> M$ file formats are open in case you didn't know. Anyone can use them

> for non profit.. if you want to make a profit from them then buy M$

> office, otherwise wait for OO to support them properly. It is only a

> matter of time unless the OO writers decide not to support the published

> M$ formats. If OO doesn't support the formats you can't say M$ didn't

> tell them what they are.

 

Microsoft didn't tell them what they are.

 

--

Rick

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:48:23 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

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

> news:RMmdnXi_XcpDDG7anZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@supernews.com...

>

>

>> 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?

>

> I can't see why you need a WP at all, what's wrong with vi, nroff, etc.

> That should be good enough for you to write a few letters to mum.

 

I can see you're clueless.

>

>

>>> 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 Offiec. 0$ for Open Office.

>

> Time vs. cash interesting choice, not yours or mine to make.

 

What time is that? At a corporate level, maybe not mine to make, true.

>>

>>>> 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.

>

> There was a lot of paid for stuff like uniplex too. You probably don't

> remember the days when there were real computers.

 

You're probably wrong.

 

--

Rick

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:31:31 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

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

> news:NYadnZAloY73FW7anZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@supernews.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.

>>

>> 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.

>

> Yes and moving from those to OO saves nothing but does require

> retraining costs/time. Its not as though they are going out and spending

> cash on office as they already have it.

 

So, no updates for you. Ever. Then you don't have to worry about any

retraining.

 

>

>>>>> 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.

>

> But can I trust what you say when you have already stated that you hate

> M$ and that alone is enough to use OO.

 

I said I hate Microsoft, and any movement to other software is good.

There's a difference.

> It may be totally unsuitable but you would still recommend it to get

> back at M$.

 

Are you making a mistake, or outright lying?

>

>

>>> 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.

>

> In fact, in this case.

 

.... in your opinion.

 

--

Rick

Rick wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:55:41 +0200, Hadron wrote:

>

>> 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.

>

> The fact is, very few people know about it.

>

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

>

> Quite true, However, if vendors could be convinced to start bundling

> it, the % would increase.

 

That would only increase the % of people who had it, not the % of people who

actually use it.

 

 

 

--

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

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:21:27 -0800, Julie wrote:

> Rick wrote:

>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:55:41 +0200, Hadron wrote:

>>

>>> 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.

>>

>> The fact is, very few people know about it.

>>

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

>>

>> Quite true, However, if vendors could be convinced to start bundling

>> it, the % would increase.

>

> That would only increase the % of people who had it, not the % of people who

> actually use it.

 

Yea, like the Eee pc which comes loaded with Linux.

Most people are dumping Linux and installing Windows.

The new versions will come with Windows as well.

 

Face it, average people just don't like Linux and it's applications.

They would rather pay money for Windows and it's software.

 

--

Moshe Goldfarb

Collector of soaps from around the globe.

Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message

news:j0gdc5-9br.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, dennis@home

> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net>

> wrote

> on Wed, 2 Apr 2008 21:54:56 +0100

> <ft0rrj$u9m$1@news.datemas.de>:

>>

>>

>> "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

>> news:jcn7v35oh345pvsm7bglnmfifk1jt0sdcr@4ax.com...

>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>>"chrisv" wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> 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).

>>>>

>>>>Its an office suit, they have to try and add value somewhere.

>>>

>>> Huh? They "need to" perform "office functions". What's your point?

>>>

>>>>> 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.

>>>>

>>>>M$ file formats are open in case you didn't know.

>>>

>>> No, they are not "open". What kind of an idiot are you?

>>>

>>> If M$ were to "open" their document formats, competitors could easily

>>> create similar products that really "nail" the compatibility with M$

>>> Office. Right now, there's enough uncertainty regarding compatibility

>>> that most companies will not switch.

>>>

>>>>(snip brain-damaged idiocy)

>>>

>>

>> You are wrong.. they are open, you can download the spec if you want.

>> So now go away and learn something useful.

>>

>

> They've also been hacked six ways from Sunday, as well -- OO in

> particular can read proprietary Word files from various versions

> without difficulty.

>

> --

> #191, ewill3@earthlink.net

> Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone

> to fix your Windows problems?

>

> --

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

>

 

Open doesn't necessarily mean open. It's not that simple. When a company

offers an interface, or even when it's forced to offer it through

litigation, it doesn't mean it's free. It doesn't even mean it's the same

to everyone. I've negotiated contracts in cases like this and it's very

complicated.

 

First you have to define which interfaces you are talking about. Then you

negotiate how the knowledge is transferred. Just a book? Classes? Phone

contacts? How many? How often, What time zones and work hours? Can the

knowledge be transferred to extended parties? Can the recipient even use

contractors? Details about activity before and after development... and

many many more points.

 

Then we would talk about freezing the interface, and here's where it get

really tricky and expensive. Every time a customer states he is going to

use a particular reference point, you negotiate a freeze date and for how

long. This freezing of this point now ties the hand of our internal

developer and becomes a restriction for him in new code development. A real

pain. Our developers had an open right to change any reference point they

wanted unless there was an internal published freeze on it. The general

rule is, the less restrictions, the faster the coder can do his work. You

also have to negotiate a notice of change and how these are to be

transferred.

 

One of the more interesting part of my job was to visit the company, take a

look at their structure, staffing and experience and generally see if they

had the wherewithal to even try to tackle the job. I'd find holes and

provide advice on how to be successful...or have to advise them that they

are dreaming and would not have a chance to complete a project of the

magnitude they were thinking.

 

When we drop a price on the table, 80% of the potential customers walk out.

 

So the bottom line is, if you pick up a document for free, you get what you

pay for, and with no guarantees it even works, still valid, or that it will

stay valid. If you code to it, the manufacturer can make changes without

any notification to you. You want to be notified? That will could cost you

millions. We got a lot of money for licensing interfaces, providing

support, keeping it frozen and continuing a business relationship. Just a

little insight that goes on behind the curtain.

--

Regards, BobF.

Frank wrote:

> caver1 wrote:

>> Obviously you don't know because it ain't. There are the same problems

>> between 2007 and 2003 as there is between 2007 and OO, in a business

>> environment. This I know as a fact and first hand.

>> caver1

>> caver1

>

> There is a update patch to fix the compat problem between office 07 & 03.

> Frank

 

Thanks! It's available here ...

 

http://tinyurl.com/2cpbev

 

Cheers.

 

--

 

A US president declared war on poverty. Poverty won.

Another US president declared a war on drugs. Drugs won.

This US president declared a war on terror. Terror won.

Next?

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:28:36 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:21:27 -0800, Julie wrote:

>

>> Rick wrote:

>>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:55:41 +0200, Hadron wrote:

>>>

>>>> 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.

>>>

>>> The fact is, very few people know about it.

>>>

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

>>>

>>> Quite true, However, if vendors could be convinced to start bundling

>>> it, the % would increase.

>>

>> That would only increase the % of people who had it, not the % of

>> people who actually use it.

>

> Yea, like the Eee pc which comes loaded with Linux. Most people are

> dumping Linux and installing Windows. The new versions will come with

> Windows as well.

>

> Face it, average people just don't like Linux and it's applications.

> They would rather pay money for Windows and it's software.

 

You're now saying "average people' can wipe the OS from the EEE and then

install Windows with no problems?

 

--

Rick