Taiwan Says Farewell to Microsoft Software
Roy Schestowitz
scoop)
http://www.networkmirror.com/WIvlnzSmk4AL8Dza/www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index%2Ecfm%3FNewsID%3D5162%26inkc%3D0%2Ehtml
"Taiwan's parliament has voted to end its dependence on Microsoft
software...
..Japan's Fair Trade Commission has also investigated Microsoft, and the
Chinese government has expressed its support for wider adoption of Linux,
both as an alternative to Windows and as a way to support the development
of local software companies."
B Gruff
> The following will show up in Slashdot shortly (below is a mirror of the
> scoop)
>
>http://www.networkmirror.com/WIvlnzSmk4AL8Dza/www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index%2Ecfm%3FNewsID%3D5162%26inkc%3D0%2Ehtml
billwg
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:dqg5gn$2nm9$3...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
Pretty limp product, that Open Office! In order to get even a
government agency in Taiwan to try it, they have to hold a gun to their
own civil servant's head! It's going to be awful tough to do that in
the US of A!
Great recommendation - "Use Open Office or you're going to jail!
Gordon
>
> Pretty limp product, that Open Office!
You've obviously never used it, have you? The current version 2 is the
equal, if not better than, MS Office XP. And I know many people and
organisations who did NOT upgrade to MS Office 2003 because the additional
functionality (bloat?) did not justify the cost. I can do ANYTHING in Open
office 2 that you can do in MS Office 2002 if you ignore Outlook.
In fact OO 2 does things that MS Office even in 2003 does not - like export
directly to PDF.
Your comment is probably driven by the fact that you haven't tried Linux
either, yet you rubbish that as well.
What a DORK you are.
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Ubuntu 5.10
gordonDOTburgessparkerATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
to email me replace the obvious!
Blood Money
billwg wrote:
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
> news:dqg5gn$2nm9$3...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
> > The following will show up in Slashdot shortly (below is a mirror of
> > the
> > scoop)
> >
> > http://www.networkmirror.com/WIvlnzSmk4AL8Dza/www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index%2Ecfm%3FNewsID%3D5162%26inkc%3D0%2Ehtml
> >
> > "Taiwan's parliament has voted to end its dependence on Microsoft
> > software...
> >
> > ..Japan's Fair Trade Commission has also investigated Microsoft, and
> > the
> > Chinese government has expressed its support for wider adoption of
> > Linux,
> > both as an alternative to Windows and as a way to support the
> > development
> > of local software companies."
>
> Pretty limp
Even though you are intimately familiar with things that are limp, we
don't agree with you.
Rick
Can you write or utter a single word without lying?
--
Rick
billwg
"Gordon" <gor...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:o-udnayWQPO...@eclipse.net.uk...
> billwg scribbled this:
>
>>
>> Pretty limp product, that Open Office!
>
> You've obviously never used it, have you?
No need to try it, gordo. I have the MS Office, supplied by my
company, and I hardly use that very much except for Outlook to connect
to the Exchange server for mail. But when I do, it is the Sharepoint
stuff that we use for document control or the Excel forms that we use
for most of the employee admin functions. The problem with OO in that
role is that I don't think it has an Outlook equivalent and it doesn't
work with the VBA extensions that we use for our Excel forms. I don't
think it can connect to Sharepoint either. Do you have any idea if that
is so?
Even so, I think that the fact that people think they have to pass laws
and force people to use OO is evidence enough that it is not very
popular with the consumers. If it were, they would use it anyway,
whether there was a law or not. Why do you think you need a law to get
people to switch? Don't you really think that is kind of lame?
billwg
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.16....@nomail.com...
tab
>Pretty limp product, that Open Office!
Actually, we use Open Office in a law office in the
good ole USA. And in Ohio, in litigation,
you have to TRADE FILES with other
lawyers. I have gotten a lot of INFECTED
files. It is like all the litigation firm's CPU all
have sex with each other, spreading viruses.
People are scrared of change. People don't
want to learn new stuff, esp. in Government
Offices.
That is the issue.
Rick
I am not surprised that the morally bankrupt (that's you) can't see their
own lies.
... "they have to hold a gun to their own civil servant's head!) is a lie.
--
Rick
Rick
>
> "Gordon" <gor...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:o-udnayWQPO...@eclipse.net.uk...
>> billwg scribbled this:
>>
>>
>>> Pretty limp product, that Open Office!
>>
>> You've obviously never used it, have you?
>
> No need to try it, gordo. I have the MS Office, supplied by my company,
Did your company provide you with your own license to use at home?
> and I hardly use that very much except for Outlook to connect to the
> Exchange server for mail.
I can use evolution, or the web interface.
> But when I do, it is the Sharepoint stuff that
> we use for document control or the Excel forms that we use for most of the
> employee admin functions. The problem with OO in that role is that I
> don't think it has an Outlook equivalent
Evolution or the web ...
> and it doesn't work with the VBA
> extensions that we use for our Excel forms.
Of course not. That is proprietary Microsoft lock-in software.
> I don't think it can connect
> to Sharepoint either. Do you have any idea if that is so?
Don't know.
>
> Even so, I think that the fact that people think they have to pass laws
> and force people to use OO is evidence enough that it is not very popular
> with the consumers.
Or maybe the free market can't compete with the results of microsoft's
illegally maintained monopoly.
> If it were, they would use it anyway, whether there
> was a law or not. Why do you think you need a law to get people to
> switch?
See above.
> Don't you really think that is kind of lame?
Yes, I do. But then, if the DOJ hadn't caved, Microsoft might have been
split up and, overnight, become much less powerful.
--
Rick
billwg
"tab" <trental...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137425195.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
their product, so they resort to a plan to drive them! Good marketing
requires that customers be led to using one's product by means of
consumer education. The dweebs don't want to go to the trouble and
insist that everyone be made to agree with their opinions.
B Gruff
> Even so, I think that the fact that people think they have to pass laws
> and force people to use OO is evidence enough that it is not very
> popular with the consumers. If it were, they would use it anyway,
> whether there was a law or not. Why do you think you need a law to get
> people to switch? Don't you really think that is kind of lame?
As I understood it, this was a law to STOP something (microsoft) being used.
Now presumably, your argument switches to that also being a lame thing to
do, when "the consumer" has "decided" to use it?
Hmmm... non-smokeless (coal) fuel in the UK....
....leaded petroleum.....
....heroin.......
....smoking in public places....
.... how lame do you want to make your argument, baa-lamb?
B Gruff
> The issue is that the OSS advocates cannot seem to lead consumers to
> their product, so they resort to a plan to drive them! Good marketing
> requires that customers be led to using one's product by means of
> consumer education. The dweebs don't want to go to the trouble and
> insist that everyone be made to agree with their opinions.
Did you ever work in the tobacco industry, baa-lamb?
Bruce Scott TOK
>Pretty limp product, that Open Office! In order to get even a
>government agency in Taiwan to try it, they have to hold a gun to their
>own civil servant's head! It's going to be awful tough to do that in
>the US of A!
>
>Great recommendation - "Use Open Office or you're going to jail!
Nothing to do with the original post of course.
Also, no knowledge of anything running under Linux.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Rick
Hears another one...
Where is Open Office mentioned in the article?
--
Rick
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
billwg wrote:
>>> Pretty limp product, that Open Office!
>>
>> You've obviously never used it, have you?
>
> No need to try it, gordo.
And yet you feel qualified to comment on its quality? You're pathetic.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDy9rGd1ZThqotgfgRAqp2AKC0pbIACruMNns4dRol9kR6OIyj8ACgqFJo
TWb7YaJE8I0ZXyN7x7plY9U=
=mzaZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
"Microsoft Wheel. Now with 8 sides for a smoother ride."
-- The Ghost in the Machine, in COLA
billwg
>
>>
>> "Gordon" <gor...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> news:o-udnayWQPO...@eclipse.net.uk...
>>> billwg scribbled this:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pretty limp product, that Open Office!
>>>
>>> You've obviously never used it, have you?
>>
>> No need to try it, gordo. I have the MS Office, supplied by my
>> company,
>
> Did your company provide you with your own license to use at home?
>
>> and I hardly use that very much except for Outlook to connect to the
>> Exchange server for mail.
>
> I can use evolution, or the web interface.
>
>> But when I do, it is the Sharepoint stuff that
>> we use for document control or the Excel forms that we use for most
>> of the
>> employee admin functions. The problem with OO in that role is that I
>> don't think it has an Outlook equivalent
>
> Evolution or the web ...
>
Is that part of OO?
>> and it doesn't work with the VBA
>> extensions that we use for our Excel forms.
>
> Of course not. That is proprietary Microsoft lock-in software.
>
That sort of makes OO useless doesn't it? Who would change from MS
Office, that works, to OO, which doesn't, regardless of how much can be
saved?
>> I don't think it can connect
>> to Sharepoint either. Do you have any idea if that is so?
>
> Don't know.
>
>>
>> Even so, I think that the fact that people think they have to pass
>> laws
>> and force people to use OO is evidence enough that it is not very
>> popular
>> with the consumers.
>
> Or maybe the free market can't compete with the results of microsoft's
> illegally maintained monopoly.
>
Apparently not, rick! LOL!!! The monopoly product is useful and the
free product sucks, according to your explanation, so there is a
reasonable cause for that, eh?
>> If it were, they would use it anyway, whether there
>> was a law or not. Why do you think you need a law to get people to
>> switch?
>
> See above.
>
Yes, do that.
>> Don't you really think that is kind of lame?
>
> Yes, I do. But then, if the DOJ hadn't caved, Microsoft might have
> been
> split up and, overnight, become much less powerful.
>
Well, too bad about the laws, rick! Maybe you know better than the
judges!
billwg
"B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4320k2F...@individual.net...
> On Monday 16 January 2006 15:13 billwg wrote:
>
>> Even so, I think that the fact that people think they have to pass
>> laws
>> and force people to use OO is evidence enough that it is not very
>> popular with the consumers. If it were, they would use it anyway,
>> whether there was a law or not. Why do you think you need a law to
>> get
>> people to switch? Don't you really think that is kind of lame?
>
> As I understood it, this was a law to STOP something (microsoft) being
> used.
>
> Now presumably, your argument switches to that also being a lame thing
> to
> do, when "the consumer" has "decided" to use it?
>
using it, since it hasn't existed for all time, goat! Now, having
started using Office beneficially, they don't seem to want to stop or
switch to some other brand either. It would seem to me that if the
alternative was so wonderful, people would want to switch, but that is
obviously not the case.
> Hmmm... non-smokeless (coal) fuel in the UK....
> ....leaded petroleum.....
> ....heroin.......
> ....smoking in public places....
>
> .... how lame do you want to make your argument, baa-lamb?
How much coal do you burn, goat? I haven't seen that done since about
1949 over here. They never had to pass a law against it, though, they
just showed how much nicer it was to use natural gas or electric power.
No-lead vs lead was a real battle in its day, though.
As to lame, I think that your trying to equate MS Office to illegal
drugs and such is lame.
billwg
"Peter Jensen" <use...@pekajemaps.homeip.net> wrote in message
news:43cbdac8$0$84017$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> billwg wrote:
>
>>>> Pretty limp product, that Open Office!
>>>
>>> You've obviously never used it, have you?
>>
>> No need to try it, gordo.
>
> And yet you feel qualified to comment on its quality? You're
> pathetic.
>
a tactic seems to point out that OO is not very desirable. Else the
action would not be necessary. Do you think you have to eat an entire
egg to determine if it is rotten?
billwg
However using the force and authority of government to dictate a result
is a similar sort of thing. What happens to anyone who might resist?
Are they beaten and thrown into prison? Do they ultimately agree to use
OO?
billwg
B Gruff
> How much coal do you burn, goat? I haven't seen that done since about
> 1949 over here.
It was burned (in domestic fires and boilers) in considerable quantities
here until maybe the early 60s. It was a major contribution to deaths in
the infamous smogs, which were so bad that the government of the day hushed
up the matter by fixing the statistics.
The situation was rectified by something called "The Clean Air Act".
It is now illegal to burn it in a smoke-free zone.
> They never had to pass a law against it, though, they
> just showed how much nicer it was to use natural gas or electric power.
OK - here they did pass a law.
> No-lead vs lead was a real battle in its day, though.
It was a battle here too, in spite of statistics which showed that kids
growing up in the proximity of the huge motorway interchange in Birmingham
were suffering brain damage through the accumulation of lead.
At the time, there was resistance from the oil companies and the car
manufacturers. It couldn't be done, it was economically not viable, and
few pumps existed to distribute lead-free because there was no demand (a
bit like they say of Linux, in fact!)
The turn-around was dramatic when it came.
First, the government of the day announced that it would increase the tax on
leaded petrol to price it at 5p per gallon more than unleaded. It also
pledged that for 10 years, whatever happened in budgets or to oil prices,
that differential would be retained.
Within weeks, every filling station in my vicinity was having new
underground tanks installed, and it became difficult to get a car serviced
because of people booking in to have timing adjusted and engines tuned.
I think we passed the 80% point within a year.
Government intervention *can* work - even with oil companies:-)
Similarly we had a problem with seat belts.
"They didn't save lives, you were better off not strapped in so as to be
thrown clear(!), it was interfering with personal liberty", etc.
The law was first passed making it illegal to sell a new car without belts.
Then belts had to be fitted to all cars.
Then belts had to be *worn* in a moving car.
Death toll fell from 8,000+ to 5,000 a year, in spite of an increase in the
number of vehicles on the road. Most customers didn't choose, they were
told.
> As to lame, I think that your trying to equate MS Office to illegal
> drugs and such is lame.
If that's your opinion, fine, but let me leave you with a quote:-
"Although about three million computers get sold every year in China, people
don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as
they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of
addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the
next decade."
This is from the July 20 1998 edition of "Fortune Magazine".
So who are we to argue with the "drug-pushing" interpretation of Microsoft's
business tactics?
B Gruff
Oh yes - I used to get a job at the local factory in the Summer vacs, while
at school and university.
Two free packs a week to take home at age 16, plus as many as you could
smoke in breaks and over lunch, as I recall. Marked, and an offence to
re-sell (personal use only)........ I wonder if it was part of their
"Education budget"?:-)
B Gruff
> Well that was clearly a figure of speech, rick! Quit being so coy!
> However using the force and authority of government to dictate a result
> is a similar sort of thing. What happens to anyone who might resist?
> Are they beaten and thrown into prison?
Nar - they just get fined 2 million Euro a day, don't they?:-)
B Gruff
>> You've obviously never used it, have you?
>
> No need to try it, gordo.
Isn't that a bit of a conversation-stopper?
Peter Hayes
You have to sample the egg to determine if you like eggs. Up to now eggs
have been largely off the menu, but now people are going to be offered
eggs and, surprise surprise, they're going to like them.
--
Peter
billwg
> Where is Open Office mentioned in the article?
>
thanks to the availability of open-source equivalents."
Do you want to claim that OO is not one of the "open source equivalents"
referenced?
Rick
>
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.01.16....@nomail.com...
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:13:53 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Gordon" <gor...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>>> news:o-udnayWQPO...@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>> billwg scribbled this:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Pretty limp product, that Open Office!
>>>>
>>>> You've obviously never used it, have you?
>>>
>>> No need to try it, gordo. I have the MS Office, supplied by my
>>> company,
>>
>> Did your company provide you with your own license to use at home?
>>
> Yes, rick. Doesn't your company do the same?
No. I work for a school district. I do, however have a school provided
laptop. Is that the same thing to you?
>
>>> and I hardly use that very much except for Outlook to connect to the
>>> Exchange server for mail.
>>
>> I can use evolution, or the web interface.
>>
>>> But when I do, it is the Sharepoint stuff that we use for document
>>> control or the Excel forms that we use for most of the
>>> employee admin functions. The problem with OO in that role is that I
>>> don't think it has an Outlook equivalent
>>
>> Evolution or the web ...
>>
> Is that part of OO?
No. Why does Evolution have to be part of OO.o in order to connect to your
Exchange server?
>
>>> and it doesn't work with the VBA
>>> extensions that we use for our Excel forms.
>>
>> Of course not. That is proprietary Microsoft lock-in software.
>>
> That sort of makes OO useless doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
> Who would change from MS
> Office, that works, to OO, which doesn't, regardless of how much can be
> saved?
Your premise is flawed... intentionally. You are lying again. OO.o does
indeed work.
>>> I don't think it can connect
>>> to Sharepoint either. Do you have any idea if that is so?
>>
>> Don't know.
>>
>>
>>> Even so, I think that the fact that people think they have to pass laws
>>> and force people to use OO is evidence enough that it is not very
>>> popular
>>> with the consumers.
>>
>> Or maybe the free market can't compete with the results of microsoft's
>> illegally maintained monopoly.
>>
> Apparently not, rick! LOL!!!
Look!!! LOL!!! A LOL!! Braying!! LOL!!! ASS!!! LOL!!!! LOL!!!
> The monopoly product is useful and the free
> product sucks, according to your explanation, so there is a reasonable
> cause for that, eh?
You are again lying. Why do you do that?
>
>>> If it were, they would use it anyway, whether there was a law or not.
>>> Why do you think you need a law to get people to switch?
>>
>> See above.
>>
> Yes, do that.
>
>>> Don't you really think that is kind of lame?
>>
>> Yes, I do. But then, if the DOJ hadn't caved, Microsoft might have been
>> split up and, overnight, become much less powerful.
>>
> Well, too bad about the laws, rick! Maybe you know better than the
> judges!
Idiot. The DOJ caved.
--
Rick
Rick
You may now shown where the government has forced anyone to use OO.o.
--
Rick
chrisv
>I am merely pointing out that the government forcing people to use OO as
>a tactic seems to point out that OO is not very desirable. Else the
>action would not be necessary.
I am merely pointing out that Micro$haft using dirty tricks to force
OEM's to use it's software seems to point out that Winwoes is not very
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
billwg wrote:
>>> No need to try it, gordo.
>>
>> And yet you feel qualified to comment on its quality? You're
>> pathetic.
>
> I am merely pointing out that the government forcing people to use OO
> as a tactic seems to point out that OO is not very desirable.
You obviously don't factor in the human element. Most people don't
particularly like changes, so naturally they're going to resist it (a
bit like you're doing here). Perhaps you should also consider *why* the
government is forcing that change in the first place.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDzAWsd1ZThqotgfgRAoNpAKDNl/e6dqSw6Z4LkCd+P1HanK/GUACeLzsC
on0b6qvAhxVyRxTVZA1i5yI=
=jFIR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
"No OS is immune to stupidity, but at least in Linux you have to
actually make an effort to be stupid." -- Philip Callan in COLA
Thom Bakar
>
> billwg wrote:
>
>>>> Pretty limp product, that Open Office!
>>>
>>> You've obviously never used it, have you?
>>
>> No need to try it, gordo.
>
> And yet you feel qualified to comment on its quality? You're
> pathetic.
Sinister Faggot, GayClot, Mark Kunt and assorted fucktards, including
yourself, comment on the quality of Microsoft products, without ever using
them.
You fail to reproach them, as you have billwg.
--
linux makes you stupid, gay, and a dissembling arsehole like PeDjAkOV.
B Gruff
>
> Sinister Faggot, GayClot, Mark Kunt and assorted fucktards, including
> yourself, comment on the quality of Microsoft products, without ever using
> them.
Nonesense!
Rick
They probably suffer whatever punishment is in the law.
> Do they ultimately agree to use OO?
Hopefully. But if they do, they ... agreed. They weren't forced, as you
have lied about.
--
Rick
Rick
You said Open Office specifically. You said people were being forced to
use OO.o specifically. Now show where in that article OO.o was
specifically mentioned.
--
Rick
Colin Day
And you'd *want* to continue a conversation with billwg?
Colin Day
billwg
>
> "Although about three million computers get sold every year in China,
> people
> don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as
> they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get
> sort of
> addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in
> the
> next decade."
>
> This is from the July 20 1998 edition of "Fortune Magazine".
>
> So who are we to argue with the "drug-pushing" interpretation of
> Microsoft's
> business tactics?
>
pretences. Windows provides a new user with enough functionality in a
simplified enough form to allow them to obtain beneficial use of a
computer. A lot of the relative merits depend on what the user is
exposed to first and for almost everyone on the earth, that is DOS,
Windows, or Windows on DOS. Linux was a day late and a dollar short, as
the expression goes, and so the vast majority of computer users have an
initial familiarity with Windows and are going to prefer it as long as
nothing else interferes with the attitudes behind that decision.
It is a requirement on the linux advocates to make up for their
tardiness and lack of organization by doing something to cause the
general public to take notice and come to some understanding of linux
and so be able to make a future choice. Linux has no effective way to
do this, however. It is too expensive for the linux interests to
advertise and it is far too slow for them to merely evangelize. That,
of course, spells DOOM!
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
He can't. Because he lied about it. Par for the course for him.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDzA22d90bcYOAWPYRAj5CAJwIEN4r6fHF2ZaKjQ1/Ew7FKsVCHgCfZWSM
c9o1rpDkOy8JIL8xfPkYpS0=
=IsVw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
It is recommended that you keep your head attached to your spine at all times.
B Gruff
Fair point:-)
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:1v0os1lb8u4hs5gth...@4ax.com...
do you explain how MS has managed to do that same thing, all without any
army or navy? LOL!!!
You stupid losers cannot come to grips with the laws of market dynamics,
it seems. Nobody with means seems to want your homespun stuff. You
maybe can make a trade with the third world unfortunates who are stuck
with whatever charity offers, but that is hardly business. MS could
only "force" anything on OEMs if the buying public were demanding MS
products in lieu of any ersatz stuff like linux. If the public wanted
linux, MS would be powerless to stop them from supplying it. For that
matter, if the public demanded TRS-DOS, it would have been supplied.
But they want Windows and no amount of name-calling is going to change
the numbers on the scoreboard! LOL!!!
billwg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> billwg wrote:
>
>>>> No need to try it, gordo.
>>>
>>> And yet you feel qualified to comment on its quality? You're
>>> pathetic.
>>
>> I am merely pointing out that the government forcing people to use OO
>> as a tactic seems to point out that OO is not very desirable.
>
> You obviously don't factor in the human element. Most people don't
> particularly like changes, so naturally they're going to resist it (a
> bit like you're doing here). Perhaps you should also consider *why*
> the
> government is forcing that change in the first place.
>
and the linux advocates need the laws changed to force people to change?
Meaning that there is no good enough reason to change to linux? Yep.
billwg
>
> Hopefully. But if they do, they ... agreed. They weren't forced, as
> you
> have lied about.
>
deal and a good profit to use Windows, Microsoft is guilty of using
unethical force on the OEM. If the government passes a law to require
people to use the OSS products in lieu of the MS stuff they have been
using, that is "agreement"? You are one screwed pooch, rick! LOL!!! I
think you actually believe that!
billwg
billwg
billwg
> laptop. Is that the same thing to you?
>
road. We all have personal Enterprise MSDN licenses to cover any use of
just about everything MS sells.
>> Is that part of OO?
>
> No. Why does Evolution have to be part of OO.o in order to connect to
> your
> Exchange server?
>
It has to be a part of whatever replaces MS Office.
>>
>>>> and it doesn't work with the VBA
>>>> extensions that we use for our Excel forms.
>>>
>>> Of course not. That is proprietary Microsoft lock-in software.
>>>
>> That sort of makes OO useless doesn't it?
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
>> Who would change from MS
>> Office, that works, to OO, which doesn't, regardless of how much can
>> be
>> saved?
>
> Your premise is flawed... intentionally. You are lying again. OO.o
> does
> indeed work.
>
Not for DOC and XLS forms using VBA, rick.
>>>> Don't you really think that is kind of lame?
>>>
>>> Yes, I do. But then, if the DOJ hadn't caved, Microsoft might have
>>> been
>>> split up and, overnight, become much less powerful.
>>>
>> Well, too bad about the laws, rick! Maybe you know better than the
>> judges!
>
> Idiot. The DOJ caved.
>
The DOJ was whipped, rick, as in "I fought the law and law won!" You
dislike MS because you claim they are "convicted illegal monopolists,
etc." and then when it is pointed out that is not true you say they
should have been. Do you see anything circular in that?
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
Jim Richardson wrote:
>> You said Open Office specifically. You said people were being forced
>> to use OO.o specifically. Now show where in that article OO.o was
>> specifically mentioned.
>
> He can't. Because he lied about it. Par for the course for him.
Ah, I should have known. I made the assumption that he would not lie
about something so easily disproved. Guess that serves me right for
taking anything these trolls spout at face value. From now on I'll do
the math myself, if one of them claims that 2+2=4 ... :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDzCCvd1ZThqotgfgRAtBPAJ4kZ/n4P0kvSvDcN216L/mUS9l30ACeLJZ2
Fz1gHXZF5X/aat5a3x1CpEM=
=vrUa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
This is your fortune.
Rick
>
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.01.16....@nomail.com...
>>
>> No. I work for a school district. I do, however have a school provided
>> laptop. Is that the same thing to you?
>>
> Well, I have a laptop (Dell Latitude 610), but I only use it on the road.
> We all have personal Enterprise MSDN licenses to cover any use of just
> about everything MS sells.
>
>>> Is that part of OO?
>>
>> No. Why does Evolution have to be part of OO.o in order to connect to
>> your
>> Exchange server?
>>
> It has to be a part of whatever replaces MS Office.
Well, OO.o can do that, it seems.
>
>
>>>>> and it doesn't work with the VBA
>>>>> extensions that we use for our Excel forms.
>>>>
>>>> Of course not. That is proprietary Microsoft lock-in software.
>>>>
>>> That sort of makes OO useless doesn't it?
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>>> Who would change from MS
>>> Office, that works, to OO, which doesn't, regardless of how much can be
>>> saved?
>>
>> Your premise is flawed... intentionally. You are lying again. OO.o does
>> indeed work.
>>
> Not for DOC and XLS forms using VBA, rick.
So what?
>
>>>>> Don't you really think that is kind of lame?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I do. But then, if the DOJ hadn't caved, Microsoft might have
>>>> been
>>>> split up and, overnight, become much less powerful.
>>>>
>>> Well, too bad about the laws, rick! Maybe you know better than the
>>> judges!
>>
>> Idiot. The DOJ caved.
>>
> The DOJ was whipped, rick, as in "I fought the law and law won!" You
> dislike MS because you claim they are "convicted illegal monopolists,
> etc."
.. that is a very small part of why I hate microsoft.
> and then when it is pointed out that is not true you say they should
> have been. Do you see anything circular in that?
I see your dishonesty. I have pointed out to you, with direct quotes and
URLs, that Microsoft has been found by the US District and Appeals Courts
to have repeatedly broken the Sherman Act.
--
Rick
Rick
>
> "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1v0os1lb8u4hs5gth...@4ax.com...
>> Proven liar billwg wrote:
>>
>>>I am merely pointing out that the government forcing people to use OO as
>>>a tactic seems to point out that OO is not very desirable. Else the
>>>action would not be necessary.
>>
>> I am merely pointing out that Micro$haft using dirty tricks to force
>> OEM's to use it's software seems to point out that Winwoes is not very
>> desirable. Else the action would not be necessary.
>>
> Well, the Taiwanese Congress passing a law is one thing, chris, but how do
> you explain how MS has managed to do that same thing, all without any army
> or navy? LOL!!!
Illegal ..LOL!!! Activity LOL!!... LOL!!! LOL !!!!
--
Rick
Rick
2 million here.. 2 million there... pretty soon you're into serious money.
--
Rick
Rick
>
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.01.16....@nomail.com...
>>
>>> Do they ultimately agree to use OO?
>>
>> Hopefully. But if they do, they ... agreed. They weren't forced, as you
>> have lied about.
>>
> Lets see here, this seems amazing! If Microsoft offers an OEM a good deal
> and a good profit to use Windows, Microsoft is guilty of using unethical
> force on the OEM.
You are lying again.
> If the government passes a law to require people to use
> the OSS products in lieu of the MS stuff they have been using, that is
> "agreement"?
I takes government influence to try to fix the marketplace Microsoft
illegally manipulated.
>You are one screwed pooch, rick!
You are a lying ass.
> LOL!!!
oops.. my mistake... a lying, braying ass.
> I think you actually believe that!
Yes, I do.
--
Rick
Mark Kent
B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> espoused:
> On Monday 16 January 2006 19:29 billwg wrote:
>
>> Well that was clearly a figure of speech, rick! Quit being so coy!
>> However using the force and authority of government to dictate a result
>> is a similar sort of thing. What happens to anyone who might resist?
>> Are they beaten and thrown into prison?
>
> Nar - they just get fined 2 million Euro a day, don't they?:-)
>
Until they decide to abide by the law, like the rest of us do.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Such a fine first dream!
But they laughed at me; they said
I had made it up.
Mark Kent
Peter Jensen <use...@pekajemaps.homeip.net> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> billwg wrote:
>
>>>> No need to try it, gordo.
>>>
>>> And yet you feel qualified to comment on its quality? You're
>>> pathetic.
>>
>> I am merely pointing out that the government forcing people to use OO
>> as a tactic seems to point out that OO is not very desirable.
>
> You obviously don't factor in the human element. Most people don't
> particularly like changes, so naturally they're going to resist it (a
> bit like you're doing here). Perhaps you should also consider *why* the
> government is forcing that change in the first place.
>
The premise is wrong anyway, as lolbill!!!!!!!!!!! knows!. The!
requirement! is! that! free! formats! are! used! One! of! the! many!
ways! of! getting! free! formats! is! to! use! open! office! lol!!!
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Ginger snap.
Mark Kent
I don't know about the people the troll mentioned (although I can see
that one of them has a name quite like mine), but I would point out that
I've been using Microsoft products since back in the days of
single-board computers, and sadly, am still having to do so on a Windows
2k machine where I have to use Outlook, amongst other things. I've
still got a very early Microsoft compiler downstairs for a Z80
development system, which is still functional, and runs cp/m.
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
billwg wrote:
>> You obviously don't factor in the human element. Most people don't
>> particularly like changes, so naturally they're going to resist it (a
>> bit like you're doing here). Perhaps you should also consider *why*
>> the government is forcing that change in the first place.
>
> So the people resist change if there is no good enough reason to
> change and the linux advocates need the laws changed to force people
> to change?
That is your (completely baseless) inference. The fact is that people
resist superior technology all the time, because they just don't like it
when things change. Hell, people resisted indoor plumbing for a time!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDzClcd1ZThqotgfgRAqWMAJ95k/vHmgQsUcpOXI4Cgh3QXP3h1gCgiyAK
OzeRvY8yR2ffFPHROrqmRdA=
=/IUn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
Any thread which begins on a serious subject will become frivolous, and
any thread which begins on a frivolous subject will become serious.
-- Rillion's Second Law
Mark Kent
>
>> How much coal do you burn, goat? I haven't seen that done since about
>> 1949 over here.
>
> It was burned (in domestic fires and boilers) in considerable quantities
> here until maybe the early 60s. It was a major contribution to deaths in
> the infamous smogs, which were so bad that the government of the day hushed
> up the matter by fixing the statistics.
> The situation was rectified by something called "The Clean Air Act".
> It is now illegal to burn it in a smoke-free zone.
Yes, yes, and yes. Recall it all well. Now you have to burn anthracite
in London, lived in Greenwich for ages!, it's a pig to light, but very
warm once its burning. Caused all kinds of problems with victorian
houses and damp, though, as they ventilate /in/ through the enormous
sash windows (mine were over 10' high), and up and out through the
chimneys. Central heating typically doesn't ventilate properly in
victorian piles.
>
>> They never had to pass a law against it, though, they
>> just showed how much nicer it was to use natural gas or electric power.
>
> OK - here they did pass a law.
Yes indeedy. A good thing too.
>
>> No-lead vs lead was a real battle in its day, though.
>
> It was a battle here too, in spite of statistics which showed that kids
> growing up in the proximity of the huge motorway interchange in Birmingham
> were suffering brain damage through the accumulation of lead.
>
> At the time, there was resistance from the oil companies and the car
> manufacturers. It couldn't be done, it was economically not viable, and
> few pumps existed to distribute lead-free because there was no demand (a
> bit like they say of Linux, in fact!)
>
> The turn-around was dramatic when it came.
> First, the government of the day announced that it would increase the tax on
> leaded petrol to price it at 5p per gallon more than unleaded. It also
> pledged that for 10 years, whatever happened in budgets or to oil prices,
> that differential would be retained.
>
> Within weeks, every filling station in my vicinity was having new
> underground tanks installed, and it became difficult to get a car serviced
> because of people booking in to have timing adjusted and engines tuned.
> I think we passed the 80% point within a year.
>
> Government intervention *can* work - even with oil companies:-)
Yes, it worked well. I believe that they did a similar thing in the US,
/however/ it was done on the basis of vehicle emissions, so the consumer
was unaware of it. The yank government is quite happy to manipulate
markets when it chooses to, and is quite happy that the populous is not
aware of it.
>
> Similarly we had a problem with seat belts.
> "They didn't save lives, you were better off not strapped in so as to be
> thrown clear(!), it was interfering with personal liberty", etc.
> The law was first passed making it illegal to sell a new car without belts.
> Then belts had to be fitted to all cars.
> Then belts had to be *worn* in a moving car.
> Death toll fell from 8,000+ to 5,000 a year, in spite of an increase in the
> number of vehicles on the road. Most customers didn't choose, they were
> told.
Because "it'll never happen to me". There was always the pub story of
'my mate who avoided an accident by lying down on the seat'. Just like
my mate who uprated his carburetors but didn't change his insurance...
>
>> As to lame, I think that your trying to equate MS Office to illegal
>> drugs and such is lame.
>
> If that's your opinion, fine, but let me leave you with a quote:-
>
> "Although about three million computers get sold every year in China, people
> don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as
> they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of
> addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the
> next decade."
>
> This is from the July 20 1998 edition of "Fortune Magazine".
>
> So who are we to argue with the "drug-pushing" interpretation of Microsoft's
> business tactics?
>
... we want them to steal ours ... no wonder Microsoft don't like free
software. If there's no theft, then there's no way of collecting
sometime in the future, and the MS business model kind of dies.
William Poaster
weary, came a tapping at my door when B Gruff posted this, & nothing
more...
Who're you replying to? Another idiot wintroll?
--
The majority of wintrolls DO know the
difference between their ass & their elbows,
because they cannot talk out of their elbows.
B Gruff
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> billwg wrote:
>
>>> You obviously don't factor in the human element. Most people don't
>>> particularly like changes, so naturally they're going to resist it (a
>>> bit like you're doing here). Perhaps you should also consider *why*
>>> the government is forcing that change in the first place.
>>
>> So the people resist change if there is no good enough reason to
>> change and the linux advocates need the laws changed to force people
>> to change?
>
> That is your (completely baseless) inference. The fact is that people
> resist superior technology all the time, because they just don't like it
> when things change. Hell, people resisted indoor plumbing for a time!
One can only wish that baa-lamb's mother had resisted - for a *very* long
time........
... as it is, we can only hope that There will Never Be Another (such) Ewe!
B Gruff
>>
> Not for DOC and XLS forms using VBA, rick.
Interesting comment. Those very two formats are to be phased out of UK
schools by 2008.....:-)
Sinister Midget
> Once upon a Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:01:33 +0000 dreary, as I laboured tired &
> weary, came a tapping at my door when B Gruff posted this, & nothing
> more...
>
>> On Monday 16 January 2006 20:52 Thom Bakar wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Sinister Faggot, GayClot, Mark Kunt and assorted fucktards, including
>>> yourself, comment on the quality of Microsoft products, without ever
>>> using them.
>>
>> Nonesense!
>
> Who're you replying to? Another idiot wintroll?
Probably a K-Tard by the looks of things. Not "another" Windiot.
Another KFed nym from a single (almost typed 'simple' which would have
been wholly appropriate) Windiot.
--
Sober: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
William Poaster
weary, came a tapping at my door when B Gruff posted this, & nothing
more...
> On Monday 16 January 2006 23:16 Peter Jensen wrote:
Or maybe "Billwig, don't be an asshole, don't be a fool with your life..."
The Ghost In The Machine
<no...@nomail.com>
wrote
on Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:59:59 GMT
<pan.2006.01.16....@nomail.com>:
730 million euro a year is about $885M. If they're
really lucky they can deduct about $354M in US taxes because of
the additional cost of doing business in Europe.
(Yeah, that'll go over *real* well. Not.)
$885M is only 6.9% of net income available to common stock ($12.87B),
according to Yahoo! Finance.
This might be construed as a scratch on the wrist. It won't
help their reputation, though.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Rick
What else can you do to their reputation?
--
Rick
B Gruff
> 730 million euro a year is about $885M. If they're
> really lucky they can deduct about $354M in US taxes because of
> the additional cost of doing business in Europe.
>
> (Yeah, that'll go over real well. Not.)
>
> $885M is only 6.9% of net income available to common stock ($12.87B),
> according to Yahoo! Finance.
>
> This might be construed as a scratch on the wrist. It won't
> help their reputation, though.
Yep - all very true.
This is, however, just in the E.U., and for just one offence....?:-)
Linønut
> That is your (completely baseless) inference. The fact is that people
> resist superior technology all the time, because they just don't like it
> when things change. Hell, people resisted indoor plumbing for a time!
The lack of Linux uptake amongst the consumer-level populace (as opposed
to amongst the tech literati) has almost nothing to do with resistance.
Consumers are not resisting Linux. They basically don't even have the
opportunity to resist Linux, for the most part. And, when they do learn
of Linux, they still don't resist it. They simply stick with what came
on the machine they bought.
That's where Gates won. He muscled out everything else, and only a few
years was needed to get people to not miss having other alternatives.
And, for some of the consumers who manage to navigate the Microsoft
vendor lock-in gauntlet and get to try Linux, they find it too
different, and give up. Hell, I'd had a couple of different periods
where I used a UNIX, so I knew the very basics, and it still took me a
couple of weeks to get used to it.
And, with 80% profit margins, Microsoft can afford to keep Windows the
only consumer-level vendor option for many more years.
As long as the U.S. continues to allow it to happen.
--
I love the smell of code compiling in the morning. It smells like... Freedom.
ukuntu
>
> "B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:432d0qF...@individual.net...
>>
>> "Although about three million computers get sold every year in China,
>> people
>> don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as
>> they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get
>> sort of
>> addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in
>> the
>> next decade."
>>
>> This is from the July 20 1998 edition of "Fortune Magazine".
>>
>> So who are we to argue with the "drug-pushing" interpretation of
>> Microsoft's
>> business tactics?
>>
> Well, goat, I think you can see the difference in spite of your
> pretences. Windows provides a new user with enough functionality in a
> simplified enough form to allow them to obtain beneficial use of a
> computer.
So does Linux; so no difference there.
> A lot of the relative merits depend on what the user is
> exposed to first and for almost everyone on the earth, that is DOS,
> Windows, or Windows on DOS.
'everyone'? Most people under the age of about 30 wouldn't have the
slightest idea about DOS, and anybody who hasn't used a PC before would
have no more idea about how to use Windows than they would MacOS or Linux.
> Linux was a day late and a dollar short, as
> the expression goes, and so the vast majority of computer users have an
> initial familiarity with Windows and are going to prefer it as long as
> nothing else interferes with the attitudes behind that decision.
That's the 'vast majority of computer users' who already have a PC and who's
PC came with Windows pre-installed,set up and ready to go for them.
[..]
--
<Signature removed for cosmetic reasons>
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:15:50 +0000,
B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Monday 16 January 2006 19:24 billwg wrote:
>
>> How much coal do you burn, goat? I haven't seen that done since about
>> 1949 over here.
>
> It was burned (in domestic fires and boilers) in considerable quantities
> here until maybe the early 60s. It was a major contribution to deaths in
> the infamous smogs, which were so bad that the government of the day hushed
> up the matter by fixing the statistics.
> The situation was rectified by something called "The Clean Air Act".
> It is now illegal to burn it in a smoke-free zone.
>
One of my "jobs" as a kid, was stoking the coal fired furnace in the
mornings. IIRC, we converted over to oil fired sometime in the late mid 70's
This was in Norfolk, England.
>> They never had to pass a law against it, though, they
>> just showed how much nicer it was to use natural gas or electric power.
>
> OK - here they did pass a law.
Most states here in the US have some kind of clean air act, restricting
or eliminating smoke producing fires at some times, and places.
>
>> No-lead vs lead was a real battle in its day, though.
>
> It was a battle here too, in spite of statistics which showed that kids
> growing up in the proximity of the huge motorway interchange in Birmingham
> were suffering brain damage through the accumulation of lead.
>
nah, that's just brummies in general :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDzFkwd90bcYOAWPYRAtQRAJ40V7UUHygAE7DnYoid66fxCcn8ZQCgolf8
SDXjx7c739BcMeDMfr4zcQc=
=ZmBY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
What this world needs is a good five-dollar plasma weapon.
Gordon
>>
> That sort of makes OO useless doesn't it? Who would change from MS
> Office, that works, to OO, which doesn't, regardless of how much can be
> saved?
Once again, OO *DOES* work - it does everything a normal user
needs.....give some EXAMPLES of how it doesn't work....
Of course you can't because you have never used it, have you?
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Ubuntu 5.10
gordonDOTburgessparkerATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
to email me replace the obvious!
Mark Kent
For the very reasons our troll indicate.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.
Mark Kent
ukuntu <kicky.k...@bing.bong.bang> espoused:
Come to that, for anyone over the age of about 40, the chances are that
their first experience would've been a Z80 machine (one of the many), an
Amiga, Atari or a VT220+ attached to a Vax.
>
>> Linux was a day late and a dollar short, as
>> the expression goes, and so the vast majority of computer users have an
>> initial familiarity with Windows and are going to prefer it as long as
>> nothing else interferes with the attitudes behind that decision.
>
> That's the 'vast majority of computer users' who already have a PC and who's
> PC came with Windows pre-installed,set up and ready to go for them.
>
> [..]
>
There's a self-selecting grouping...
Tim Smith
Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> The following will show up in Slashdot shortly (below is a mirror of the
> scoop)
>
> http://www.networkmirror.com/WIvlnzSmk4AL8Dza/www.techworld.com/opsys/news/ind
> ex%2Ecfm%3FNewsID%3D5162%26inkc%3D0%2Ehtml
>
> "Taiwan's parliament has voted to end its dependence on Microsoft
> software...
The part you ...'ed out is rather significanct:
"Taiwan's parliament has voted to end its dependence on Microsoft
software, demanding that the government reduce purchases from the
software giant by 25 percent this year."
That's pretty far from saying farewell.
--
--Tim Smith
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:18:02 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>
>>>
>> That sort of makes OO useless doesn't it? Who would change from MS
>> Office, that works, to OO, which doesn't, regardless of how much can be
>> saved?
>
> Once again, OO *DOES* work - it does everything a normal user
> needs.....give some EXAMPLES of how it doesn't work....
> Of course you can't because you have never used it, have you?
OO doesn't work very well in a mixed office/oo environment. A good example
is document review. A "master" copy of the document is made, and copies
are sent to various individuals, each make annotations or changes, and then
the changes are re-combined back into a single document. This feature
works ok either in office, or OO, but not when you try to do reivew of
Office documents in OO or vice versa. key information gets lost in the
translation of document format.
Another example is when two people are working on the same document and
sending it back and forth to each other. The conversion process losses
certain bits of formatting, so one user can make a change, only to have it
lost when the document comes back to them because the translation lost it.
Rick
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:14:40 +0000, Gordon wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:18:02 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> That sort of makes OO useless doesn't it? Who would change from MS
>>> Office, that works, to OO, which doesn't, regardless of how much can be
>>> saved?
>>
>> Once again, OO *DOES* work - it does everything a normal user
>> needs.....give some EXAMPLES of how it doesn't work.... Of course you
>> can't because you have never used it, have you?
>
> OO doesn't work very well in a mixed office/oo environment. A good
> example is document review. A "master" copy of the document is made, and
> copies are sent to various individuals, each make annotations or changes,
> and then the changes are re-combined back into a single document. This
> feature works ok either in office, or OO, but not when you try to do
> reivew of Office documents in OO or vice versa. key information gets lost
> in the translation of document format.
Office doesn't work very well in a mixed office/oo environment...
>
> Another example is when two people are working on the same document and
> sending it back and forth to each other. The conversion process losses
> certain bits of formatting, so one user can make a change, only to have it
> lost when the document comes back to them because the translation lost it.
The fix MS Office. Have them add OpenDoc.
--
Rick
Linønut
> OO doesn't work very well in a mixed office/oo environment. A good example
> is document review. A "master" copy of the document is made, and copies
> are sent to various individuals, each make annotations or changes, and then
> the changes are re-combined back into a single document. This feature
> works ok either in office, or OO, but not when you try to do reivew of
> Office documents in OO or vice versa. key information gets lost in the
> translation of document format.
What you say would apply to MS Word as well. It doesn't work well in a
mixed environment, either. In fact, it is even worse, because it can't
even read OpenOffice documents.
The simplest solution is to simply dump Word and go with OO. Don't even
try to use Word.
You're better off doing that anyway, as Word can get Funky on you.
> Another example is when two people are working on the same document and
> sending it back and forth to each other. The conversion process losses
> certain bits of formatting, so one user can make a change, only to have it
> lost when the document comes back to them because the translation lost it.
No shit, Sherlock.
Linønut
> The part you ...'ed out is rather significanct:
>
> "Taiwan's parliament has voted to end its dependence on Microsoft
> software, demanding that the government reduce purchases from the
> software giant by 25 percent this year."
>
> That's pretty far from saying farewell.
Yeah, Taiwan is still on the door step, waving goodbye, not quite ready
to step down (oh so agonizingly slowly) down the porch steps.
billwg
"ukuntu" <kicky.k...@bing.bong.bang> wrote in message
news:evYyf.1145$mf2....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>> Linux was a day late and a dollar short, as
>> the expression goes, and so the vast majority of computer users have
>> an
>> initial familiarity with Windows and are going to prefer it as long
>> as
>> nothing else interferes with the attitudes behind that decision.
>
> That's the 'vast majority of computer users' who already have a PC and
> who's
> PC came with Windows pre-installed,set up and ready to go for them.
>
Well the computer users who do not use computers are up for grabs. I
cannot disagree with that! So who do you think will grab the most of
them down the road and why?
billwg
"Mark Kent" <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8dlu93-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>
> Come to that, for anyone over the age of about 40, the chances are
> that
> their first experience would've been a Z80 machine (one of the many),
> an
> Amiga, Atari or a VT220+ attached to a Vax.
>
experience with any of those machines regardless of age. The typical 40
year old computer user was not a computer user until age 30 or later.
Peter Köhlmann
You have those numbers from where exactly? Might it be dark and smelly
there, and one can typically find your head in that place?
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
It could be worse, but it'll take time.
billwg
"Peter Jensen" <use...@pekajemaps.homeip.net> wrote in message
news:43cc2961$0$84041$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>
> billwg wrote:
>
>>> You obviously don't factor in the human element. Most people don't
>>> particularly like changes, so naturally they're going to resist it
>>> (a
>>> bit like you're doing here). Perhaps you should also consider *why*
>>> the government is forcing that change in the first place.
>>
>> So the people resist change if there is no good enough reason to
>> change and the linux advocates need the laws changed to force people
>> to change?
>
> That is your (completely baseless) inference. The fact is that people
> resist superior technology all the time, because they just don't like
> it
> when things change. Hell, people resisted indoor plumbing for a time!
>
if you have ever been exposed to the alternatives! LOL!!!
My inference is not baseless at all, it is the obvious descendant of
your statment. If you want to assert the notion that people will not
change for the better once they come to an understanding of the
alternatives, you are welcome to that stance. The proven notion is that
people will change to what they perceive as better. The perception is
complex and involves more than a psuedo-techno pedants unsupport
statement, though.
billwg
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.17...@nomail.com...
>
> What else can you do to their reputation?
>
survey? LOL!!!
billwg
is still in the courts with no date set AFAIK. When MS wins the appeal,
the EU has to give it all back with interest. That will be a sight!
LOL!!!
chrisv
>"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:pan.2006.01.17...@nomail.com...
>>
>> What else can you do to their reputation?
>>
>MS is one of the ten most admired companies, rick!
In a poll of greedy scum. LOL!!!
chrisv
(Outhouse-mangled quotes fixed)
>"chrisv" wrote:
>>
>> Proven liar billwg wrote:
>>>
>>>I am merely pointing out that the government forcing people to use OO
>>>as a tactic seems to point out that OO is not very desirable. Else the
>>>action would not be necessary.
>>
>> I am merely pointing out that Micro$haft using dirty tricks to force
>> OEM's to use it's software seems to point out that Winwoes is not very
>> desirable. Else the action would not be necessary.
>
>(snip claptrap)
You needn't work so hard to prove that you're a dumbsh*t, billwg. We
already know! LOL!!!
chrisv
>Or maybe "Billwig, don't be an asshole, don't be a fool with your life..."
LOL Too late.
Bob Hauck
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:14:40 +0000, Gordon wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:18:02 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>> That sort of makes OO useless doesn't it? Who would change from MS
>>> Office, that works, to OO, which doesn't, regardless of how much can be
>>> saved?
>>
>> Once again, OO *DOES* work - it does everything a normal user
>> needs.....give some EXAMPLES of how it doesn't work....
>
> OO doesn't work very well in a mixed office/oo environment.
Which one isn't working well? MS or OO? OO at least attempts to
interoprate with MS, despite the obstacles deliberately placed by MS,
which makes it the superior product by some measures.
> Another example is when two people are working on the same document and
> sending it back and forth to each other. The conversion process losses
> certain bits of formatting ...
Yes, information is lost when MS Office refuses to read OO documents at
all, even badly, and you have to convert everything to its preferred
format, which is poorly documented and proprietary.
What you're saying is that non-MS software works poorly in an office
dominated by MS, largely because of Microsoft's intransigence. I'd have
to agree with that.
But that wasn't the question. The assertion was that OO "doesn't work"
on it's own merits. You haven't adressed that at all. You've asserted
that MS doesn't like to interoperate, which we all knew already.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the reality-based community.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Gordon
> You are a one-trick pony, clark! LOL!!! Very few people have any
> experience with any of those machines regardless of age. The typical 40
> year old computer user was not a computer user until age 30 or later.
How do you fathom that one? the IBM PC came out in 1984. That's 22 years
ago. I was using them in business and I'm 50. So 40 year-olds will have
been using computers since their twenties.
Quote a lot of businesses were using Amstrads at that time - CP/M!
billwg
"Gordon" <gor...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.17....@localhost.localdomain...
>So 40 year-olds will have
> been using computers since their twenties.
Not all of them, gordo. Only a handful who had access to one 22 years
ago. Pay attention and think a little! LOL!!!
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:5ptps1d7qr9bl1b7r...@4ax.com...
and have all the money. If you insist on calling them names, they are
unlikely to put anything in your tin cup! LOL!!! Beggars have to be
polite, you know? LOL!!!
Gordon
>
> "Gordon" <gor...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.01.17....@localhost.localdomain...
>
>>So 40 year-olds will have
>> been using computers since their twenties.
>
> Not all of them, gordo. Only a handful who had access to one 22 years
> ago.
Well perhaps that was the case in the third-world country you are
obviously living in. In 1986 a large proportion of businesses in the UK
HAD personal computers. I KNOW - I WAS THERE.
So stop drivelling your ignorant patronising rubbish and YOU pay
attention. or as I suspect, do you have the attention span of a moronic
gnat?
Roy Schestowitz
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> The part you ...'ed out is rather significanct:
>>
>> "Taiwan's parliament has voted to end its dependence on Microsoft
>> software, demanding that the government reduce purchases from the
>> software giant by 25 percent this year."
>>
>> That's pretty far from saying farewell.
>
> Yeah, Taiwan is still on the door step, waving goodbye, not quite ready
> to step down (oh so agonizingly slowly) down the porch steps.
It is a staged migration, but I agree that I excluded that fragment for a
reason. Look at Paris and Munich, for example. Their migrations are pro-
gressive too. You cannot discard people's MS-dependent skills overnight,
or over a year. Licence purchases and people's jobs cannot handle it ei-
ther. An O/S and accompanying software is not a pair of socks. A strategic
choice is what counts nonetheless. Also note the phrasing: "Taiwan's par-
liament has voted to end its dependence on Microsoft". What follows is a
practical first step towards the final goal. Every journey begins with a
single footstep.
Roy
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
do you explain how MS has managed to do that same thing, all without any
army or navy? LOL!!!
You stupid losers cannot come to grips with the laws of market dynamics,
it seems. Nobody with means seems to want your homespun stuff. You
maybe can make a trade with the third world unfortunates who are stuck
with whatever charity offers, but that is hardly business. MS could
only "force" anything on OEMs if the buying public were demanding MS
products in lieu of any ersatz stuff like linux. If the public wanted
linux, MS would be powerless to stop them from supplying it. For that
matter, if the public demanded TRS-DOS, it would have been supplied.
But they want Windows and no amount of name-calling is going to change
the numbers on the scoreboard! LOL!!!
Linønut
> You are a one-trick pony, clark! LOL!!! Very few people have any
> experience with any of those machines regardless of age. The typical 40
> year old computer user was not a computer user until age 30 or later.
Bullshit. I'm 48. My first computer usage?
Age 17, roughly. PDP-8, using BASIC and assembler. Our high-school had
courses in computing taught using that machine. Been using computers
almost continuously since then.
How the hell old are you, to be so ignorant?
Linønut
> "Gordon" <gor...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
Laff-boy, you are full of crap.
The Ghost In The Machine
<chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote
on Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:55:15 -0600
<5ptps1d7qr9bl1b7r...@4ax.com>:
Actually, they ranked third. I guess we *can* trust them
-- to completely mangle the intent of a piece of software,
if nothing else. :-)
(One does wonder.)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
WhoTurnedOffTheLights
> On Monday 16 January 2006 13:01 Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> The following will show up in Slashdot shortly (below is a mirror of the
>> scoop)
>>
>>http://www.networkmirror.com/WIvlnzSmk4AL8Dza/www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index%2Ecfm%3FNewsID%3D5162%26inkc%3D0%2Ehtml
>
Pretty funny stuff.
chrisv
(Outhouse-mangled quotes fixed)
chrisv
Dumbsh*t. Even hear of the C64? TI99? Sinclair? Atari? TRS-80?
Apple II?
I guess if only "a handful" had computers 22 years ago, then the above
computers sold only single a single unit each! LOL!!!
billwg
"Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
news:r76dnTVkB_S...@comcast.com...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> You are a one-trick pony, clark! LOL!!! Very few people have any
>> experience with any of those machines regardless of age. The typical
>> 40
>> year old computer user was not a computer user until age 30 or later.
>
> Bullshit. I'm 48. My first computer usage?
>
> Age 17, roughly. PDP-8, using BASIC and assembler. Our high-school
> had
> courses in computing taught using that machine. Been using computers
> almost continuously since then.
>
> How the hell old are you, to be so ignorant?
>
stats here the other day showing that, in 1981, there were some 1.4
million "home computers" around. Now the population of the US of A was
some 250 million at that time, so only one in 200 or so had a computer
of their own to use and pick your own number as to how many of those 200
were 15 or older. So they were not computer users at that time, there
were not enough computers.
Over the past 25 years, Intel and Microsoft have worked together to
provide access on a personal level to almost everyone living in a modern
nation, but that process was not in place at the beginning. It has
taken a couple of decades to develop and is only now reaching a
universal presence. During that time, the business risks were being
taken by the leaders like Microsoft and today they reap the benefits of
their early vision. Johnny-come-lately's like linux are never going to
replace that time-forged association no matter how smug the advocate.
chrisv
>After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> You are a one-trick pony, clark! LOL!!! Very few people have any
>> experience with any of those machines regardless of age. The typical 40
>> year old computer user was not a computer user until age 30 or later.
>
>Bullshit. I'm 48. My first computer usage?
>
>Age 17, roughly. PDP-8, using BASIC and assembler. Our high-school had
>courses in computing taught using that machine. Been using computers
>almost continuously since then.
Yep, many of use had access to computers long before "personal
computers" became available, via modem. I had loads of fun on a
110-baud TeleType. This was 30 years ago.
>How the hell old are you, to be so ignorant?
Either ignorant, or just lying again. You can never be sure with
filth like billwg...
Gordon
> billwg wrote:
>
>>
>> "Mark Kent" <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:8dlu93-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>> Come to that, for anyone over the age of about 40, the chances are
>>> that
>>> their first experience would've been a Z80 machine (one of the many),
>>> an
>>> Amiga, Atari or a VT220+ attached to a Vax.
>>>
>> You are a one-trick pony, clark! LOL!!! Very few people have any
>> experience with any of those machines regardless of age. The typical 40
>> year old computer user was not a computer user until age 30 or later.
>
> You have those numbers from where exactly? Might it be dark and smelly
> there, and one can typically find your head in that place?
You notice he's completely ignored my post about the usage of PCs in
businesses in the UK in 1986 - he just can't take the truth, can he?