"Moog" <efcmoog@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:65l12cF2ggq65U2@mid.individual.net...

 

> 87.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

86.7%, you transposed a couple of digits. -)

 

"

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:24:07 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

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

> news:T5qdnfFNBvYuj2nanZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@supernews.com...

>

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

>> retraining.

>

> So what.. why do you think constant updates are a good thing? Ubuntu's

> rolling six month releases are one of the stupidest ideas yet.

 

.... in your opinion.

 

It is interesting that you think there should be no software updates.

>

>>>>>>> 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?

>

> You said you hate M$, I can't trust you after that. You made your bed,

> you lie on it.

 

You're not being able to trust me is your business. And I have a very

nice bed.

>

>>>>> 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.

>

> In fact.

 

.... in your opinion.

 

--

Rick

chrisv wrote:

> dennis@home wrote:

>

>>"chrisv" wrote:

>>>

>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

>>>>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.

>>

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

>>So now go away and learn something useful.

>

> I'll give you that you referenced a document that appears to support

> your case. However, I remain deeply suspicious - I have a feeling

> that those who would accept that M$ is "open" with their document

> formats would be good candidates to sell bridges to.

 

This disclaimer comes with the supposed "open" document:

 

[...]

 

The information contained in this document represents the point-in-time view

of Microsoft Corporation on the issues discussed as of the date of

publication. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions,

it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft,

and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information presented

after the date of authoring.

 

[...]

 

So, Microsoft will "respond to changing market conditions" by "innovating"

their file formats to once again make them unreadable by their competitors.

 

The document is useless except to provide support for legacy formats.

New formats will be as unreadable as ever, and require reverse engineering.

 

--

Regards,

 

Gregory.

Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

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

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

>

>

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

>> particular can read proprietary Word files from various versions

>> without difficulty.

>

> I would hope so.. the formats have been public knowledge for ages.

>

> Now M$ even state they won't try and stop you (conditions apply).

 

If (conditions apply) the formats are not open.

 

Microsoft have been forced to provide a snapshot. The next Word release will

once again have changes requiring competitors to reverse engineer to ensure

even a modicum of compatibility.

 

Microsoft continues to stifle rapid communication across the world for the

sake of their own profits.

 

--

Regards,

 

Gregory.

Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

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

> news:MO3Jj.28763$r76.7016@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

>> * caver1 peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>

>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> 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.

>>

>> dennis never heard of *.docx, apparently.

>

> You don't understand what you say.

>

> Have you put the fixes on M$ office so it works?

> Obviously not!

> Do you keep your OSS up to date? Why?

>

>

 

 

 

Even with the fixes in 2007, and OO, Formating doesn't always stay the

same in 2003 or OO, Graphs come out quite different.

caver1

* dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

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

> news:MO3Jj.28763$r76.7016@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

>>>

>>> 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.

>>

>> dennis never heard of *.docx, apparently.

>

> You don't understand what you say.

>

> Have you put the fixes on M$ office so it works?

 

I only use it at work, and it is an old version (Office XP).

> Obviously not!

 

I'm not in charge of the budget. We can't even get an upgrade to Visual

Studio.

 

If there is a free plugin that works with Office XP, well, cool. I'll

look for it when someone sends us a docx.

 

Otherwise, I get annoyed at the gratuitous interface or menu changes

that occur from version to version of Word. Annoying.

> Do you keep your OSS up to date?

 

Yes.

> Why?

 

It is free and easy.

 

--

There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant

number of users want fixed.

-- Bill Gates, Focus Magazine No. 43 (23 October 1995)

dennis@home illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:

>

>

> "Moog" <efcmoog@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:65l12cF2ggq65U2@mid.individual.net...

>

>

>> 87.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

>

> 86.7%, you transposed a couple of digits. -)

 

Heh

 

--

Moog

 

"If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the

mashed potatoes"

In article <C419A377.B1E6A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

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

> T5qdnfBNBvaQrWnanZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@supernews.com on 4/2/08 6:17 PM:

>

> >>> 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?

>

> A lot of people likely have *others do it for them.

 

At that point, they could have had a Mac.

 

--

What is done in the heat of battle is (normatively) judged

by different standards than what is leisurely planned in

comfortable conference rooms.