Contradiction
Tim Smith
Note that some self-proclaimed open source advocates make all of the
following claims:
1. Any claims by Microsoft that most Linux distribution infringe
Microsoft patents is just FUD, and there is nothing to worry about.
2. OpenOffice reads and write old Microsoft formats flawlessly. They
achieved this by reverse-engineering the formats.
3. It is not safe for open source projects to use the documentation
Microsoft recently released on their old formats, because the license
for that does not give a patent license except for non-commercial use.
Since most open source licenses allow commercial use, you could run into
serious patent trouble implementing these old formats from those
specifications.
Think about that a moment, while also contemplating this interesting
fact:
Whether or not something infringes a patent depends only on what
that thing does and how it does it. It does *NOT* depend on how
the implementor of that thing acquired their knowledge of how to
implement it.
This means that if #3 is right, than OpenOffice infringes MS patents,
and #1 is wrong. Conversely, if #1 is right, then #3 must be wrong.
--
--Tim Smith
Moshe Goldfarb
The only thing I can say is that my daughter's law school essay written in
OO and saved as DOC was a disaster when read by Office XP.
It was a good thing I tested this before she sent it.
This was a very simple doc BTW..
After this experience I would not trust OO to generate a shopping list.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Matt
> The only thing I can say is that my daughter's law school essay written in
> OO and saved as DOC was a disaster when read by Office XP.
>
> It was a good thing I tested this before she sent it.
> This was a very simple doc BTW..
>
> After this experience I would not trust OO to generate a shopping list.
All the more reason to get away from Office lockin ASAP.
Really it's like a dope pusher telling a user he'll never get clean.
RonB
> This means that if #3 is right, than OpenOffice infringes MS patents,
> and #1 is wrong. Conversely, if #1 is right, then #3 must be wrong.
Or #4, you're full of shit.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Gregory Shearman
When microsoft actually release information on what patents are infringed
then we can have a real discussion on the issue.
Are you suggesting that microsoft is trying to obstruct connectivity between
different OSs?
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
William Poaster
> Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> This means that if #3 is right, than OpenOffice infringes MS patents,
>> and #1 is wrong. Conversely, if #1 is right, then #3 must be wrong.
>
> Or #4, you're full of shit.
>
Seconded.
--
Free-BSD 7.0, PC-BSD 1.4
Linux systems: PCLOS 2007, Mandrake One 2008.1,
Fedora 8, Kubuntu 7.10.
-- On 64bit systems --
Rick
I don't trust you. I have used OO.o for a few years and I haven't had
problems going from OO.o to Office. Yes, I have had problems going from
MS Office to OO.o.
Maybe, just maybe, if she had written her essay in Office 2000, or some
other version MS Office, she would have had the same problems.
--
Rick
Richard Rasker
#4, "reality check": as long as the patent holder doesn't specify *which*
patents are or might be infringed, #1 applies. So far, the Masters of FUD,
Vaporware and Empty Promises haven't done this, and I seriously doubt if
they ever will -- they appear intent on protracting this stupid game of
bluff poker as long as possible.
Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl/
Tony Drudge
"William Poaster" <w...@leafnode.amd64.eu> wrote in message
news:uj6l95-...@leafnode.archimedes.eu...
> RonB wrote:
>
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> This means that if #3 is right, than OpenOffice infringes MS patents,
>>> and #1 is wrong. Conversely, if #1 is right, then #3 must be wrong.
>>
>> Or #4, you're full of shit.
>>
> Seconded.
Another "me too" post from the village idiot backing up the WronG idiot.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Peter Köhlmann
That would mean that flatfish actually has that imaginary daughter he has
been pblubbering about several times in his different "incarnations"
No self respecting woman would let filth like flatfish come nearer to her
than rifle shooting distance. Flatfish needs to pay triple even for hookers
--
Avoid reality at all costs.
Tony Drudge
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:fq8tn3$vip$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
Another fine advocacy post from "anti-aliasing expert", "DVD burning
expert", "swapfile expert" and "newsreader link" expert Peter Koalmann.
Matt
> #4, "reality check": as long as the patent holder doesn't specify *which*
> patents are or might be infringed, #1 applies. So far, the Masters of FUD,
> Vaporware and Empty Promises haven't done this, and I seriously doubt if
> they ever will -- they appear intent on protracting this stupid game of
> bluff poker as long as possible.
>
> Richard Rasker
And we know how well that's worked out for SCO.
Jerry McBride
Jerry McBride
What's the magic with .doc files anyway? I laugh and giggle when different
versions of Microsoft Office can't exchange .doc files without problems.
Most of the business that I know that are still saddled with msft office,
are using .rtf. It's the most common of all document formats.
--
Jerry McBride (jmcb...@mail-on.us)
Linonut
> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> The only thing I can say is that my daughter's law school essay written in
>> OO and saved as DOC was a disaster when read by Office XP.
I believe, based on my experience with documents that are even a little
more complex than an essay, that what you said is /bullshit/.
I don't believe it for a minute.
Not even if OOo used a font that did not exist on the XP machine.
>> It was a good thing I tested this before she sent it.
>> This was a very simple doc BTW..
>>
>> After this experience I would not trust OO to generate a shopping list.
Bullshit.
You are simply lying your ass off on this one.
Furthermore, I've taken to doing all of my slideshows using OO Impress,
and then saving them as XLS for distribution.
This works flawlessly.
> All the more reason to get away from Office lockin ASAP.
>
> Really it's like a dope pusher telling a user he'll never get clean.
The down side to plonking lying assholes such as "Moshe" is that they
can then make perfectly false claims with no one to counter them.
It was pretty funny the other day, though. Someone send me a short doc
for a meeting. I loaded it into OO and printed it. Partway through,
the font changed in a subtle, but noticeable, way. I wondered if the
OO handling of this doc was broken. No. The author had cut and paste
some text from a web site, and it used a variation on the main font,
which wasn't present on my system.
Even funnier, I found the font on the net, from a Russian website, and
it was a Cyrillic variation on Times New Roman.
--
It's not manufacturers trying to rip anybody off or anything like that.
There's nobody getting rich writing software that I know of.
-- Bill Gates, Interview with Dennis Bathory-Kitsz in 80 Microcomputing (1980)
Linonut
> No self respecting woman would let filth like flatfish come nearer to her
> than rifle shooting distance. Flatfish needs to pay triple even for hookers
Hookers? As in fishing hooks? I didn't know flatty was into S&M.
--
Bill Gates is a monocle and a Persian cat away from being the villain in a
James Bond movie.
-- Dennis Miller (attributed)
Hadron
> * Matt peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> The only thing I can say is that my daughter's law school essay written in
>>> OO and saved as DOC was a disaster when read by Office XP.
>
> I believe, based on my experience with documents that are even a little
> more complex than an essay, that what you said is /bullshit/.
>
> I don't believe it for a minute.
>
> Not even if OOo used a font that did not exist on the XP machine.
>
>>> It was a good thing I tested this before she sent it.
>>> This was a very simple doc BTW..
>>>
>>> After this experience I would not trust OO to generate a shopping list.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> You are simply lying your ass off on this one.
>
> Furthermore, I've taken to doing all of my slideshows using OO Impress,
> and then saving them as XLS for distribution.
>
> This works flawlessly.
You are a liar. Pure and simple. There are loads of inter-operability
issues between OO and Office and you know it.
Doug Mentohl
> 1. Any claims by Microsoft that most Linux distribution infringe Microsoft patents is just FUD, and there is nothing to worry about.
Since MS is making the claim, it is up to MS to prove the case, not the
other way around. Of course MS don't really want to go into court only
to have their claims debunked, as this would tend to dilute their
warchest of software patents.
"Linux potentially infringes 153 patents"
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93899/index.html
The mere existence of Open Source potentially threatens the whole
House.of.Cards, isn't that the real story, Tim ;)
Peter Köhlmann
Which are exactly?
You always claim "a load of", "many" etc etc, yet fail each and every time
to provide a single example.
Because your "arguments" would fall flatly on their ugly faces
--
This problem was sponsored by Microsoft
Hadron
For some reason it appears google is banned in Germany. It figures.
--
Murphy was an optimist.
Richard Rasker
Funny you should say this. Just this afternoon, I received a price list for
some electronics materials -- in Microsoft's DOC format. When opened with
OO.o, it only showed the expected information. So far, nothing wrong. And
oh, the document opened just fine, with tables, margins and pictures and
all.
But when I opened it with a simple text editor, I not only found three full
names of employees, and information about two printers plus several network
storage paths, but also some edited and "deleted" text, among which pricing
information and dates, and some other details I'm pretty sure this company
didn't intend to share with its customers.
And when I told them about what I found, they were unpleasantly surprised
indeed. They said they'd seriously consider my advice to stop using
the .doc format for communication with their customers, and use PDF
instead.
Peter Köhlmann
For some reason you where unable to come with even a single example. And
would instead have us on a chase after non-existant problems.
Face it, liar Hadron Quark, if you are unable to come up with even very
simple examples, one can only conclude that you are making things up again.
Your continous claims of problems, without *ever* providing examples, simply
puts you squarely into the liars corner
--
It's not about, 'Where do you want to go today?' It's more like,
'Where am I allowed to go today?'
Hadron
What happened when you opened a OO native doc with a simple text editor
you lying shill?
> names of employees, and information about two printers plus several network
> storage paths, but also some edited and "deleted" text, among which pricing
> information and dates, and some other details I'm pretty sure this company
> didn't intend to share with its customers.
You are such a sleuth! So they left in their amendment history? l33t
that you are!
> And when I told them about what I found, they were unpleasantly surprised
> indeed. They said they'd seriously consider my advice to stop using
> the .doc format for communication with their customers, and use PDF
> instead.
PDF is the invention of the devil. Slow. Resource hungry. Crap.
Hadron
Why would I report all my problems here? There are established feedback
paths for such. And I do regularly contribute in a few projects one of
which I did bother to link for you. Do you? No? Of course not. You are a
self confessed windows programmer who users windows to make money. So
not only are you a liar, you are a foul hypocrite too!
ray
I see; could you give us the particulars of your law degree, and date and
state where you passed the bar?
Hadron
Why don't you post your full name a phone number and bank account
details Ray? I thought you had more common sense than asking something
dumb like that.
Peter Köhlmann
Nothing interesting.
OO native is saved in zip-format, if you had any idea what you are talking
about. So you would have to unpack it first.
But then, you don't have any idea at all about OO
Oh, and BTW, Word is infamous for its ability to retain older versions of
the document. Many people are not aware of that and os unwilligly give away
earlier stages of the doc
That you would someone call a liar for mentioning such a wellknown fact
speaks volumes of your intents, "true linux advocate" Hadron Quark
>> names of employees, and information about two printers plus several
>> network storage paths, but also some edited and "deleted" text, among
>> which pricing information and dates, and some other details I'm pretty
>> sure this company didn't intend to share with its customers.
>
> You are such a sleuth! So they left in their amendment history? l33t
> that you are!
Why did you call him a liar then?
>> And when I told them about what I found, they were unpleasantly surprised
>> indeed. They said they'd seriously consider my advice to stop using
>> the .doc format for communication with their customers, and use PDF
>> instead.
>
> PDF is the invention of the devil. Slow. Resource hungry. Crap.
Naturally. After all, it does not come from MS
--
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, For thou art crunchy, and good
with ketchup!
Peter Köhlmann
You don't need to "punblish" all of them. Just some, which can be reproduced
> There are established feedback paths for such.
Yes? Fine. So you really did make up those "many issues"
> And I do regularly contribute in a few projects one of
> which I did bother to link for you.
Which, even *if* it were true, have what exactly to do with the "loads of
inter-operability issues" you claimed exist?
> Do you? No? Of course not. You are a
> self confessed windows programmer who users windows to make money. So
> not only are you a liar, you are a foul hypocrite too!
Waffling like usual.
Provide some examples of those "loads of inter-operability issues"
Face it, liar Hadron Quark, you have now posted several messages just to
bypass your giving any examples. The reason is obvious: You can't
--
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' -
they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.
Hadron
Peter Köhlmann has now claimed there are NO inter-operability issues
between OO and Office. If you have any problems, please email him for
advice and abuse.
Hadron
The point moron, is that the info is still in there.
>
> Oh, and BTW, Word is infamous for its ability to retain older versions of
> the document. Many people are not aware of that and os unwilligly give away
> earlier stages of the doc
> That you would someone call a liar for mentioning such a wellknown fact
> speaks volumes of your intents, "true linux advocate" Hadron Quark
>
>>> names of employees, and information about two printers plus several
>>> network storage paths, but also some edited and "deleted" text, among
>>> which pricing information and dates, and some other details I'm pretty
>>> sure this company didn't intend to share with its customers.
>>
>> You are such a sleuth! So they left in their amendment history? l33t
>> that you are!
>
> Why did you call him a liar then?
Because I want to be more like you!
>
>>> And when I told them about what I found, they were unpleasantly surprised
>>> indeed. They said they'd seriously consider my advice to stop using
>>> the .doc format for communication with their customers, and use PDF
>>> instead.
>>
>> PDF is the invention of the devil. Slow. Resource hungry. Crap.
>
> Naturally. After all, it does not come from MS
Huh? I like and use loads of non MS SW. Emacs for example. But being a
Windows Shill you would have no idea about real OSS and contributing
back.
You are a fraud.
Peter Köhlmann
Err, no, I haven't.
I asked *you* what those are, because you claimed there are loads of them.
As I have yet to run into any of those many problems, you seem to be the
expert here.
Yet you consistently fail to provide even *one* example, much less "loads"
of them
> If you have any problems, please email him for advice and abuse.
Better yet, email Hadron Quark.
After all, *he* knows about "loads" of problems
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
If it starts working, we'll fix it. Pronto.
Hadron
Yes you have.
> I asked *you* what those are, because you claimed there are loads of
> them.
There are. See google.
> As I have yet to run into any of those many problems, you seem to be the
> expert here.
Yes, but you use Windows and Office most probably.
> Yet you consistently fail to provide even *one* example, much less "loads"
> of them
Why should I repeat whats out there and so easy to find?
>
>> If you have any problems, please email him for advice and abuse.
>
> Better yet, email Hadron Quark.
> After all, *he* knows about "loads" of problems
As I said, google is that way --------->
Peter Köhlmann
Nope. I asked you what they are. Several times by now. You consistently
failed to provide even *one* example. Strange, as you claim that there
are "loads" of them
>> I asked *you* what those are, because you claimed there are loads of
>> them.
>
> There are. See google.
In short, you are claiming now that you are unable to use google yourself?
See how your dumb argument works? Hint: It does not
>> As I have yet to run into any of those many problems, you seem to be the
>> expert here.
>
> Yes, but you use Windows and Office most probably.
Nope. But you still waffle around the "loads of issues"
>> Yet you consistently fail to provide even *one* example, much less
>> "loads" of them
>
> Why should I repeat whats out there and so easy to find?
>
If it is so easy to find, why don't you do us all a favour and provide some?
After all, it is *your* claim
>>> If you have any problems, please email him for advice and abuse.
>>
>> Better yet, email Hadron Quark.
>> After all, *he* knows about "loads" of problems
>
> As I said, google is that way --------->
It never worked that way, liar Hadron Quark.
--
Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?
Hadron
And you clearly do not believe so. Point proven.
>
>>> I asked *you* what those are, because you claimed there are loads of
>>> them.
>>
>> There are. See google.
>
> In short, you are claiming now that you are unable to use google yourself?
> See how your dumb argument works? Hint: It does not
Why would I want to google up issues for you? If you have a real issue
go look yourself. Are you mad?
>
>>> As I have yet to run into any of those many problems, you seem to be the
>>> expert here.
>>
>> Yes, but you use Windows and Office most probably.
>
> Nope. But you still waffle around the "loads of issues"
So you deny you use Windows?
>
>>> Yet you consistently fail to provide even *one* example, much less
>>> "loads" of them
>>
>> Why should I repeat whats out there and so easy to find?
>>
> If it is so easy to find, why don't you do us all a favour and provide some?
> After all, it is *your* claim
Google holds lots of info. A lot of stuff about you and anti-aliasing
too, but people can damn well dig it up themselves if they are
interested. I am not your google monkey.
>
>>>> If you have any problems, please email him for advice and abuse.
>>>
>>> Better yet, email Hadron Quark.
>>> After all, *he* knows about "loads" of problems
>>
>> As I said, google is that way --------->
>
> It never worked that way, liar Hadron Quark.
It always has. And always will, Windows boy.
Moshe Goldfarb
> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> The only thing I can say is that my daughter's law school essay written in
>> OO and saved as DOC was a disaster when read by Office XP.
>>
>> It was a good thing I tested this before she sent it.
>> This was a very simple doc BTW..
>>
>> After this experience I would not trust OO to generate a shopping list.
>
> All the more reason to get away from Office lockin ASAP.
>
> Really it's like a dope pusher telling a user he'll never get clean.
If everyone were using OO I would use OO too.
I have no axe to grind in the OOXML vs ODF wars.
I'm for ODF if it matters.
My problem with the topic is the idiots like Roy Schestowitz who are
spewing false information all over the place.
Roy had his chance to debate a delegate who right now is representing his
country in the matter and Roy ran like a chicken.
People like Schestowitz are dangerous to open source and Linux because they
are the poster children for just about every Linux stereotype.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Peter Köhlmann
Nothing proven. I have not yet encountered one of those problems. That is
not the same as claiming that they don't exist.
Yet *you* keep up claiming there exist "loads of them"
And consistently fail at even naming one
>>
>>>> I asked *you* what those are, because you claimed there are loads of
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> There are. See google.
>>
>> In short, you are claiming now that you are unable to use google
>> yourself? See how your dumb argument works? Hint: It does not
>
> Why would I want to google up issues for you? If you have a real issue
> go look yourself. Are you mad?
Well, I have already said I have not yet had any issues. Why would I google
for issues I don't have?
>>
>>>> As I have yet to run into any of those many problems, you seem to be
>>>> the expert here.
>>>
>>> Yes, but you use Windows and Office most probably.
>>
>> Nope. But you still waffle around the "loads of issues"
>
> So you deny you use Windows?
Yes. I run windows to compile and test windows apps. That is all I "use" it
for. I don't even write them on windows
If *that* is using windows, be my guest. But you are looking really reaching
then
BTW: How about providing some of those "issues" you are trying to avoid so
hard, as you seem unable to come up with even one?
>>
>>>> Yet you consistently fail to provide even *one* example, much less
>>>> "loads" of them
>>>
>>> Why should I repeat whats out there and so easy to find?
>>>
>> If it is so easy to find, why don't you do us all a favour and provide
>> some? After all, it is *your* claim
>
> Google holds lots of info.
Yes. And you seem to know the key words resulting in "loads of issues"
> A lot of stuff about you and anti-aliasing
> too, but people can damn well dig it up themselves if they are
> interested. I am not your google monkey.
No. You are just the cola liar
>>
>>>>> If you have any problems, please email him for advice and abuse.
>>>>
>>>> Better yet, email Hadron Quark.
>>>> After all, *he* knows about "loads" of problems
>>>
>>> As I said, google is that way --------->
>>
>> It never worked that way, liar Hadron Quark.
>
> It always has. And always will, Windows boy.
Way to avoid providing some "issues". You know, the ones you claim exist
in "loads"
--
Your conscience never stops you from doing anything. It just stops you
from enjoying it.
Hadron
> Nothing proven. I have not yet encountered one of those problems. That
> is
Nobody cares what you have come across. You are a Windows users. Maybe
the OO issues only occur on Linux?
But there are well documented issues.
I suggest you take a pill and go and check google.
Moshe Goldfarb
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:28:47 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:02:43 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Note that some self-proclaimed open source advocates make all of the
>>> following claims:
>>>
>>> 1. Any claims by Microsoft that most Linux distribution infringe
>>> Microsoft patents is just FUD, and there is nothing to worry about.
>>>
>>> 2. OpenOffice reads and write old Microsoft formats flawlessly. They
>>> achieved this by reverse-engineering the formats.
>>>
>>> 3. It is not safe for open source projects to use the documentation
>>> Microsoft recently released on their old formats, because the license
>>> for that does not give a patent license except for non-commercial use.
>>> Since most open source licenses allow commercial use, you could run
>>> into serious patent trouble implementing these old formats from those
>>> specifications.
>>>
>>> Think about that a moment, while also contemplating this interesting
>>> fact:
>>>
>>> Whether or not something infringes a patent depends only on what
>>> that thing does and how it does it. It does *NOT* depend on how the
>>> implementor of that thing acquired their knowledge of how to
>>> implement it.
>>>
>>> This means that if #3 is right, than OpenOffice infringes MS patents,
>>> and #1 is wrong. Conversely, if #1 is right, then #3 must be wrong.
>>
>> The only thing I can say is that my daughter's law school essay written
>> in OO and saved as DOC was a disaster when read by Office XP.
>>
>> It was a good thing I tested this before she sent it. This was a very
>> simple doc BTW..
>>
>> After this experience I would not trust OO to generate a shopping list.
>
> I don't trust you. I have used OO.o for a few years and I haven't had
> problems going from OO.o to Office. Yes, I have had problems going from
> MS Office to OO.o.
Of course you haven't.
Linux users rarely admit they have problems with Linux.
Hey, I like OO and for many it's a good choice.
However I got to see first hand how a very simple doc was mangled when
saved as Word DCO with OO and opened with MS Word.
The margins, formatting and bold and simple foot notes was way off and
while the document was readable it looked like it had been written by an 8
year old .
This was an essay for admittance into Law School BTW..
I learned my lesson and will not trust OO at all in the future.
> Maybe, just maybe, if she had written her essay in Office 2000, or some
> other version MS Office, she would have had the same problems.
It's possible, but doubtful.
Especially for such a simple document.
Possibly for complex documents you might be correct, but this is a basic
essay.
Nothing fancy at all except the formatting.
Peter Köhlmann
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> writes:
>
>> Nothing proven. I have not yet encountered one of those problems. That
>> is
>
> Nobody cares what you have come across.
Wrong. I do care. As I have not yet had any issue *you* claim exists in
spades, I ask you to provide examples.
> You are a Windows users.
Nope. And I don't have OO for windows. Why would I?
> Maybe the OO issues only occur on Linux?
You tell us. You seem to be the expert, having found "loads of issues"
> But there are well documented issues.
Yes. So you keep telling us. And still fail to name even one
> I suggest you take a pill and go and check google.
Why would I google for issues I don't have, "true linux advocate", "kernel
hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist", "CUPS
guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger professional", "newsreader
magician", "hardware maven", "time coordinator", "email sage" and "OSS
culling committee chairman" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard,
aka Damian O'Leary?
--
Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!
Moshe Goldfarb
So you hacked around a file like the typical Linux geek and found some
trash.
It sounds like you've been googling to me because this problem of
hidden/deleted text etc has been around for eons.
What makes you think sending in PDF is any comfort that the doc can be
read?
I get the "This document may have features that cannot be read by this
version of Adobe..blah blah blah " all the time."
Look, I like OO but I don't trust it.
I used to trust it but now I don't anymore.
Moshe Goldfarb
And incompatible with itself depending upon version.
Moshe Goldfarb
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> writes:
>
>> Nothing interesting.
>> OO native is saved in zip-format, if you had any idea what you are talking
>> about. So you would have to unpack it first.
>> But then, you don't have any idea at all about OO
>
> The point moron, is that the info is still in there.
Peter often misses the point of a discussion.
I think he has tunnel vision.
>>
>> Oh, and BTW, Word is infamous for its ability to retain older versions of
>> the document. Many people are not aware of that and os unwilligly give away
>> earlier stages of the doc
>> That you would someone call a liar for mentioning such a wellknown fact
>> speaks volumes of your intents, "true linux advocate" Hadron Quark
>>
>>>> names of employees, and information about two printers plus several
>>>> network storage paths, but also some edited and "deleted" text, among
>>>> which pricing information and dates, and some other details I'm pretty
>>>> sure this company didn't intend to share with its customers.
>>>
>>> You are such a sleuth! So they left in their amendment history? l33t
>>> that you are!
>>
>> Why did you call him a liar then?
>
> Because I want to be more like you!
Haha!
By Peter's logic his own wife must be an idiot because she is a Windows
user.
I wonder if she knows that?
>
>> Naturally. After all, it does not come from MS
>
> Huh? I like and use loads of non MS SW. Emacs for example. But being a
> Windows Shill you would have no idea about real OSS and contributing
> back.
>
> You are a fraud.
Peter certainly is useless as tits on a bull.
Moshe Goldfarb
> * Matt peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> The only thing I can say is that my daughter's law school essay written in
>>> OO and saved as DOC was a disaster when read by Office XP.
>
> I believe, based on my experience with documents that are even a little
> more complex than an essay, that what you said is /bullshit/.
>
> I don't believe it for a minute.
>
> Not even if OOo used a font that did not exist on the XP machine.
>
>>> It was a good thing I tested this before she sent it.
>>> This was a very simple doc BTW..
>>>
>>> After this experience I would not trust OO to generate a shopping list.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> You are simply lying your ass off on this one.
>
> Furthermore, I've taken to doing all of my slideshows using OO Impress,
> and then saving them as XLS for distribution.
>
> This works flawlessly.
>
>> All the more reason to get away from Office lockin ASAP.
>>
>> Really it's like a dope pusher telling a user he'll never get clean.
>
> The down side to plonking lying assholes such as "Moshe" is that they
> can then make perfectly false claims with no one to counter them.
>
> It was pretty funny the other day, though. Someone send me a short doc
> for a meeting. I loaded it into OO and printed it. Partway through,
> the font changed in a subtle, but noticeable, way. I wondered if the
> OO handling of this doc was broken. No. The author had cut and paste
> some text from a web site, and it used a variation on the main font,
> which wasn't present on my system.
>
> Even funnier, I found the font on the net, from a Russian website, and
> it was a Cyrillic variation on Times New Roman.
Do you think I care what you think?
I don't.
This was a simple doc and it looked like crap when opened with MS Word
despite being saved in doc format by OO.
Tell me, if OO does such a great job of saving documents, why does it issue
a warning about formatting or features of the doc not being useable if
saved in this format, in this case *.doc.
That should be clue #1 and in fact that is exactly what prompted me to
double check by loading into Word.
I would post a screen shot but it's useless because you will claim it's
been doctored so why bother.
Suffice to say the formatting, bold header and footers were hosed and
badly.
Mostly they continued on the next line, as if the spacing were off or
something.
Tim Smith
wrote:
> I see; could you give us the particulars of your law degree, and date and
> state where you passed the bar?
University of Washington School of Law. No degree from there, as I
never got around to finishing a paper for a seminar I took, so am 2
credits short (I had decided by then to go back to programming).
Why do you ask?
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Jerry McBride <jmcb...@mail-on.us> wrote:
>
> Patents? What patents? Show me a list....
Ask Roy. It's him and his friends that are simultaneously claiming that
there is and there isn't a patent problem.
--
--Tim Smith
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:33:10 +0100,
Your lack of reading comprehension strikes again! way to go Hadron!
For extra points, please point out the bit where Richard talks about
opening an OO native doc with a simple text editor.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHyGoud90bcYOAWPYRAh5FAJ46fq+XlN2xe7NnB8GwUVbypHlQNgCfQcn3
MoN3joceTjNF7+GsX7wAgY0=
=BiOV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Fornication, n.:
Term used by people who don't have anybody to screw with.
Tim Smith
Jerry McBride <jmcb...@mail-on.us> wrote:
> What's the magic with .doc files anyway? I laugh and giggle when different
> versions of Microsoft Office can't exchange .doc files without problems.
> Most of the business that I know that are still saddled with msft office,
> are using .rtf. It's the most common of all document formats.
Note that .rtf is well-documented, and it is widely used, and is free to
implement, commercially and in open source software.
That raises the question of why we need either OOXML *or* ODF. Why not
just use .rtf for everything?
--
--Tim Smith
The Ghost In The Machine
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com>
wrote
on Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:00:27 -0800
<reply_in_group-019...@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>:
How well does .rtf do spreadsheets?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/brain: Permission denied
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Richard Rasker
Nothing, except producing a load of binary stuff. Unzipping it gave me a lot
of information including some meta-information, but nothing I didn't
willingly put in there myself. No "deleted" information, no names, no
system information.
> you lying shill?
Ah yes, the eternal Wintroll's ace. Well done, that man.
>> names of employees, and information about two printers plus several
>> network storage paths, but also some edited and "deleted" text, among
>> which pricing information and dates, and some other details I'm pretty
>> sure this company didn't intend to share with its customers.
>
> You are such a sleuth! So they left in their amendment history? l33t
> that you are!
Indeed, it's one of the great advantages of Linux. Once initiated in its
arcane rites, you learn to wield the Ultimate Tool for Control over
Everything: the Text Editor. With this Ultimate Tool, all is revealed that
is hidden, giving you power vastly beyond a mere mortal Windows user's
capabilities.
>> And when I told them about what I found, they were unpleasantly surprised
>> indeed. They said they'd seriously consider my advice to stop using
>> the .doc format for communication with their customers, and use PDF
>> instead.
>
> PDF is the invention of the devil. Slow. Resource hungry. Crap.
Sorry, but that award has already been taken by Windows Vista.
PDF may not be perfect, but for sending read-only information out into the
world, it's vastly superior to any editable format such as .doc or
even .odt.
Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl/
Tim Smith
The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> > Jerry McBride <jmcb...@mail-on.us> wrote:
> >> What's the magic with .doc files anyway? I laugh and giggle when different
> >> versions of Microsoft Office can't exchange .doc files without problems.
> >> Most of the business that I know that are still saddled with msft office,
> >> are using .rtf. It's the most common of all document formats.
> >
> > Note that .rtf is well-documented, and it is widely used, and is free to
> > implement, commercially and in open source software.
> >
> > That raises the question of why we need either OOXML *or* ODF. Why not
> > just use .rtf for everything?
> >
>
> How well does .rtf do spreadsheets?
As well as .doc or .odt does! :-)
--
--Tim Smith
Matt
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:59:49 GMT, Matt wrote:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> The only thing I can say is that my daughter's law school essay written in
>>> OO and saved as DOC was a disaster when read by Office XP.
>>>
>>> It was a good thing I tested this before she sent it.
>>> This was a very simple doc BTW..
>>>
>>> After this experience I would not trust OO to generate a shopping list.
>> All the more reason to get away from Office lockin ASAP.
>>
>> Really it's like a dope pusher telling a user he'll never get clean.
>
> If everyone were using OO I would use OO too.
> I have no axe to grind in the OOXML vs ODF wars.
> I'm for ODF if it matters.
I tend to agree with you that there are still some big problems with OO.
If something like the following ODF mandate goes through in Europe,
the major bugs in OO will disappear within a year:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2008/tc20080227_967982.htm?campaign_id=yhoo
(((((
> February 27, 2008, 8:24PM EST
> The EU's New Heat on Microsoft
> On top of fines and new inquiries, Microsoft is in danger of EU governments effectively banning its software to create documents
> by Jennifer L. Schenker
> The European Commission and its member states have been mulling a mandate that all government documents be created in the Open Document Format (ODF), an open source competitor to the proprietary format used in Microsoft Word.
)))))
IT people everywhere are going to see that it just makes sense, and
there will be such mandates, I expect within a year or two. US cities
and states will lag a bit. The US Feds will be some of the last to get
on board, but that is just the way reform usually happens in a Federal
system.
Mark Kent
> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:02:43 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Note that some self-proclaimed open source advocates make all of the
>>> following claims:
>>>
>>> 1. Any claims by Microsoft that most Linux distribution infringe
>>> Microsoft patents is just FUD, and there is nothing to worry about.
>>>
>>> 2. OpenOffice reads and write old Microsoft formats flawlessly. They
>>> achieved this by reverse-engineering the formats.
>>>
>>> 3. It is not safe for open source projects to use the documentation
>>> Microsoft recently released on their old formats, because the license
>>> for that does not give a patent license except for non-commercial use.
>>> Since most open source licenses allow commercial use, you could run into
>>> serious patent trouble implementing these old formats from those
>>> specifications.
>>>
>>> Think about that a moment, while also contemplating this interesting
>>> fact:
>>>
>>> Whether or not something infringes a patent depends only on what
>>> that thing does and how it does it. It does *NOT* depend on how
>>> the implementor of that thing acquired their knowledge of how to
>>> implement it.
>>>
>>> This means that if #3 is right, than OpenOffice infringes MS patents,
>>> and #1 is wrong. Conversely, if #1 is right, then #3 must be wrong.
>>
>> in OO and saved as DOC was a disaster when read by Office XP.
>>
>> It was a good thing I tested this before she sent it.
>> This was a very simple doc BTW..
>>
>> After this experience I would not trust OO to generate a shopping list.
>
> some electronics materials -- in Microsoft's DOC format. When opened with
> OO.o, it only showed the expected information. So far, nothing wrong. And
> oh, the document opened just fine, with tables, margins and pictures and
> all.
>
> But when I opened it with a simple text editor, I not only found three full
> storage paths, but also some edited and "deleted" text, among which pricing
> information and dates, and some other details I'm pretty sure this company
> didn't intend to share with its customers.
> indeed. They said they'd seriously consider my advice to stop using
> the .doc format for communication with their customers, and use PDF
> instead.
>
I don't think that the risks of using .Doc have really been grasped by
very many people. It's probably something that we should find out more
about, perhaps get some articles up about it. After all, the OOXML
effort is about trying to standardise a format which is known for
exposing critical corporate data in unexpected and invisible ways.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
Tim Smith
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> about, perhaps get some articles up about it. After all, the OOXML
> effort is about trying to standardise a format which is known for
> exposing critical corporate data in unexpected and invisible ways.
You've confused formats and programs. You've also confused .doc (not
OOXML) and .docx (OOXML).
--
--Tim Smith
Richard Rasker
> Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> espoused:
>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:02:43 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
[snip .doc]
>> But when I opened it with a simple text editor, I not only found three
>> full names of employees, and information about two printers plus several
>> network storage paths, but also some edited and "deleted" text, among
>> which pricing information and dates, and some other details I'm pretty
>> sure this company didn't intend to share with its customers.
>> And when I told them about what I found, they were unpleasantly surprised
>> indeed. They said they'd seriously consider my advice to stop using
>> the .doc format for communication with their customers, and use PDF
>> instead.
>>
>
> I don't think that the risks of using .Doc have really been grasped by
> very many people. It's probably something that we should find out more
> about, perhaps get some articles up about it.
To be honest, ODF is also quite capable of storing metadata such as names.
My point was that .doc is an unsuitable format for offering or distributing
a final piece of information, but this also goes for .odt. The scope of
unintended information leaks is just smaller with .odt because it won't
preserve deleted/altered text and merely mark it as deleted, in the way MS
Office does this under certain circumstances (with the option "Quick Save",
IIRC).
> After all, the OOXML effort is about trying to standardise a format which
> is known for exposing critical corporate data in unexpected and invisible
> ways.
Nah, the OOXML effort is all about Microsoft screwing a respectable
standards institute into accepting a standard which to the last bit
reflects the cornerstone of their desktop monopoly, flaws and all.
The leaky nature of .doc files is predominantly caused by the application
(MS Office), not so much by the format itself -- although this problem of
course wouldn't exist if the .doc format wouldn't allow saving an undo
histor or only marking "deleted" text as such. I don't expect OOXML or the
application(s) using it to maintain this flaw.
After all, the "quick save" option stems from the time when computers were
hardly fast enough to keep up with Microsoft's increasing bloat. Oops, that
still applies today (Vista, anyone?) ... Anyway, as history shows,
Microsoft will happily sacrifice things I consider essential (such as
security) to make their crap look faster and better.
Tim Smith
Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote:
> My point was that .doc is an unsuitable format for offering or distributing
> a final piece of information, but this also goes for .odt. The scope of
That's a great point, and one that few people get. A word processor
file is for the *author* of the document, not for the general readers of
the document. Word processor files should generally only be distributed
to people who need to edit the document.
Distribution should be in PDF, or Postscript, or HTML, or plain text, or
hard copy.
--
--Tim Smith
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Agreed. Makes the most sense, and has the least likely hood of leaking
info you didn't want leaked.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHyhWtd90bcYOAWPYRAohnAJ43+I2vOg2n0vHVQohTIUxIF2vdfQCfRdEv
4VgjHnfZFZ6BddtEbATkhdw=
=ECPd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
My friends tell me that I refuse to grow up, but I know they're just
jealous because they don't have pajamas with feet.
Mark Kent
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:12:12 -0800,
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> In article <fqbhke$h6e$1...@saturn.z74.net>,
>> Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote:
>>> My point was that .doc is an unsuitable format for offering or distributing
>>> a final piece of information, but this also goes for .odt. The scope of
>>
>> That's a great point, and one that few people get. A word processor
>> file is for the *author* of the document, not for the general readers of
>> the document. Word processor files should generally only be distributed
>> to people who need to edit the document.
>>
>> Distribution should be in PDF, or Postscript, or HTML, or plain text, or
>> hard copy.
>>
>
>
> Agreed. Makes the most sense, and has the least likely hood of leaking
> info you didn't want leaked.
>
However, it prevents cross-corporate working. The assumption in the
above is that you'll only ever more "finished" data between corporates,
however, this is not correct, and becoming less so all the time.
Formats in which cooperation can be achieved are very necessary. In
source code, this is achieved with eg., subversion, and in document
preparation, it should be possible using ODF.
The problems in .doc/OOXML are inherent in the way the application and
the format are tightly coupled. In the case of ODF, they are not
tightly coupled, so the risks are not present.
Mark Kent
Since the .doc format has never been specified as being in any way
separate from the application (unlike odf), then I don't really see that
such a distinction is meaningful, particularly considering the "quick
save" issues, which you mention just here:
> After all, the "quick save" option stems from the time when computers were
> hardly fast enough to keep up with Microsoft's increasing bloat. Oops, that
> still applies today (Vista, anyone?) ... Anyway, as history shows,
> Microsoft will happily sacrifice things I consider essential (such as
> security) to make their crap look faster and better.
>
The "quick save", as I recall, was even more dangerous, but overall, the
format is highly dangerous, and should be avoided. Trying to explain to
non-technical people that ODF is application independent, whereas .doc
(OOXML) is application dependent, and that some problems in OOXML with
regarding to data security might really be the application, but really
it doesn't matter as you can't separate the application from the format
anyway is a very long and complicated way of saying that .doc is the
same as OOXML, and .doc is highly insecure, certainly not a format
businesses should use for exchanging data.
Linonut
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:12:12 -0800,
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> In article <fqbhke$h6e$1...@saturn.z74.net>,
>> Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote:
>>> My point was that .doc is an unsuitable format for offering or distributing
>>> a final piece of information, but this also goes for .odt. The scope of
>>
>> That's a great point, and one that few people get. A word processor
>> file is for the *author* of the document, not for the general readers of
>> the document. Word processor files should generally only be distributed
>> to people who need to edit the document.
>>
>> Distribution should be in PDF, or Postscript, or HTML, or plain text, or
>> hard copy.
>
> Agreed. Makes the most sense, and has the least likely hood of leaking
> info you didn't want leaked.
I agree with all of you!
Unfortunately, Microsoft had the help of millions of customers in this
perversion of document formats.
--
We don't have the user centricity. Until we understand context, which is way
beyond presence -- presence is the most trivial notion, just am I on this
device or not; it doesn't say am I meeting with something, am I focused on
writing something.
-- Bill Gates, .NET Briefing Day Speech (24 July 2002)
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
No, that is *not* the assumption. Which is probably why Tim said
<quote>
Word processor files should generally only be distributed_ to people
who need to edit the document.
</quote>
If the recipient needs to edit it, then use an editable format, if not,
use one like PDF.
> The problems in .doc/OOXML are inherent in the way the application and
> the format are tightly coupled. In the case of ODF, they are not
> tightly coupled, so the risks are not present.
>
.doc sucks, no argument there. Those formats are fragile, fraught with
incompatible bits, and generally, a crappy way to distribute data. I
don't trust MS, and view OOXML with suspicion, but if it meets all the
criteria, *including* openness, I don't care. I worry about poison pills
from MS, and would prefer a format they didn't craft for that reason if
no other. But I am willing to listen to arguments on it's behalf.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHywm0d90bcYOAWPYRAi8eAJwL/qtxXhjAkZ02YBXWRaXvdhxXGwCeIGDB
CP7ZTLmRP8Pb+6nXvz32kyU=
=oaWL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Step by step, day by day, machine by machine, the penguins march forward.
Mark Kent
But that's spin to avoid facing up to the second issue which is about
the lack of security of .doc. When you have a situation where two
people in different organisations both want to work on the same
document, then you have the problem.
>
>
> If the recipient needs to edit it, then use an editable format, if not,
> use one like PDF.
Quite, but things brings us right back to the beginning...
>
>
>> The problems in .doc/OOXML are inherent in the way the application and
>> the format are tightly coupled. In the case of ODF, they are not
>> tightly coupled, so the risks are not present.
>>
>
>
> .doc sucks, no argument there. Those formats are fragile, fraught with
> incompatible bits, and generally, a crappy way to distribute data. I
> don't trust MS, and view OOXML with suspicion, but if it meets all the
> criteria, *including* openness, I don't care. I worry about poison pills
> from MS, and would prefer a format they didn't craft for that reason if
> no other. But I am willing to listen to arguments on it's behalf.
>
I would be willing to listen to arguments to improve the already
existing standard, ODF. I'm not particularly interested in arguments to
add a second standard when there's a perfectly good one already there...
chrisv
>Another
*plonk*
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:27:26 +0000,
No it's not spin. It's a point in favour of something like pdf for read
only usage.
>>
>>
>> If the recipient needs to edit it, then use an editable format, if not,
>> use one like PDF.
>
> Quite, but things brings us right back to the beginning...
>
agreed that .doc is a poor format for such things. I don't see anyone
in this thread claiming otherwise.
>>
>>
>>> The problems in .doc/OOXML are inherent in the way the application and
>>> the format are tightly coupled. In the case of ODF, they are not
>>> tightly coupled, so the risks are not present.
>>>
>>
>>
>> .doc sucks, no argument there. Those formats are fragile, fraught with
>> incompatible bits, and generally, a crappy way to distribute data. I
>> don't trust MS, and view OOXML with suspicion, but if it meets all the
>> criteria, *including* openness, I don't care. I worry about poison pills
>> from MS, and would prefer a format they didn't craft for that reason if
>> no other. But I am willing to listen to arguments on it's behalf.
>>
>
> I would be willing to listen to arguments to improve the already
> existing standard, ODF. I'm not particularly interested in arguments to
> add a second standard when there's a perfectly good one already there...
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHzd60d90bcYOAWPYRAjTjAJ4gdInidtEvt/pjxBUS43ZdJBguPACfWXhG
BtBYtUTKy4Lsd8YqOLKZ584=
=qNMl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
There are entirely too many dumbasses in this world who don't know they
are dumbasses. We have a duty to enlighten them.
William Poaster
> Tony Drudge wrote:
>
>>Another
>
> *plonk*
Another plonker, I assume. I dunno why flatfarce wastes its time, I don't see
its nymshifts & drivel.
Ooops! Now Quack will chime in about "censorship" & "freespeech" to back up his
fellow wintroll. ;-)
--
Free-BSD 7.0, PC-BSD 1.4
Linux systems: PCLOS 2007,Fedora 8, Kubuntu 7.10.
Testing: Mandrake One 2008.1 RC1
-- On 64bit systems --
Peter Köhlmann
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> Tony Drudge wrote:
>>
>>>Another
>>
>> *plonk*
>
> Another plonker, I assume. I dunno why flatfarce wastes its time, I don't
> see its nymshifts & drivel.
No, it was just the teranews nymshifter. Dirt is smarter than that idiot
> Ooops! Now Quack will chime in about "censorship" & "freespeech" to back
> up his fellow wintroll. ;-)
Well, you don't get the "whole group" to read then. So, according to Hadron
Quark, you are not "qualified" to have an opinion then
There are certainly extremely idiotic claims from Hadron Quark. But that one
tops most of them
--
Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.
William Poaster
> William Poaster wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Drudge wrote:
>>>
>>>>Another
>>>
>>> *plonk*
>>
>> Another plonker, I assume. I dunno why flatfarce wastes its time, I don't
>> see its nymshifts & drivel.
>
> No, it was just the teranews nymshifter.
Oh, was it. I stand corrected. :-)
> Dirt is smarter than that idiot.
>> Ooops! Now Quack will chime in about "censorship" & "freespeech" to back
>> up his fellow wintroll. ;-)
>
> Well, you don't get the "whole group" to read then. So, according to Hadron
> Quark, you are not "qualified" to have an opinion then
Um, don't mention "qualified", Quack will haven an infarction! You know how he
hates qualified people....along with "choice" etc.
> There are certainly extremely idiotic claims from Hadron Quark. But that one
> tops most of them
I'm still chuckling at the "Pace" gaff by Dopez99. <grin>
--
Free-BSD 7.0, PC-BSD 1.4
Linux systems: PCLOS 2007,Fedora 8, Kubuntu 7.10.
Testing: Mandrake One 2008.1 Beta2