Where people use OpenOffice
Tim Smith
A while back, the FSF asked the OpenOffice.org Community Council to stop
listing non-free OpenOffice extensions in the OO extension library. The
Community Council declined, and the FSF has run off to make their own
extension library and to try to convince OO users to change their
configuration to use that library.
The OO community council posted an interesting response to that,
available here:
<http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=announce&msgNo=417>
It includes this interesting observation:
It is a fact that the vast majority of our users currently run
OpenOffice.org on a proprietary operating system, alongside other
proprietary software. We respect their choice, and believe the best
way to influence them to change is by delivering high quality FOSS
software that meets their needs.
So much for the claims of some "advocates" that the fact that most OO
downloads are for Windows means nothing because Linux distributions ship
with OO and so Linux users aren't counted in the download stats.
According to the OO people themselves, the vast majority of *users* are
on proprietary operating systems.
--
--Tim Smith
Hadron
I don't think any "advocate" was stupid enough to deny that were they?
I was told that Windows using companies sponsor about 95% of ongoing OO
work. We Linux users should be grateful, not bitter about their
contributions.
7
pounding the sock Tim Smith wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft
Appil Traffic Light Department of Marketing:
> A while back, the FSF asked the OpenOffice.org Community Council to stop
> listing non-free OpenOffice extensions in the OO extension library. The
> Community Council declined, and the FSF has run off to make their own
> extension library and to try to convince OO users to change their
> configuration to use that library.
>
> The OO community council posted an interesting response to that,
> available here:
>
> <http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=announce&msgNo=417>
>
> It includes this interesting observation:
>
> It is a fact that the vast majority of our users currently run
> OpenOffice.org on a proprietary operating system,
Thats simply wrong and mis-information at best.
The majority of Freedom OS owners run Open Office
on Freedom OSes like Linux. The majority of proprietary OS owners run Open
Office on proprietary operating system. The majority of the Freedom OS
owners for example do not turn to proprietary OSen to run their Open Office.
So the majority of Open Office owners who also own a freedom OS will
also use it on the freedom OS. You should be clear about that.
Megabyte
Actually I think this is good news for FOSS. If someone running a
proprietary OS begins to run OpenOffice, Firefox\Chrome and Thunderbird
their eventual switch to Linux will be that much easier.
Moshe
> Actually I think this is good news for FOSS. If someone running a
> proprietary OS begins to run OpenOffice, Firefox\Chrome and Thunderbird
> their eventual switch to Linux will be that much easier.
Huh?
Megabyte
Given the number of people running OO, if the majority run it on a
proprietary OS this means they have taken the first step in moving
towards FOSS, and away from the proprietary alternative MS Office. Once
you are using FOSS applications, the switch to a FOSS OS is that much
easier.
Chris Ahlstrom
> So much for the claims of some "advocates" that the fact that most OO
> downloads are for Windows means nothing because Linux distributions ship
> with OO and so Linux users aren't counted in the download stats.
> According to the OO people themselves, the vast majority of *users* are
> on proprietary operating systems.
Wonder who would claim that? Windows and Mac, the 2 proprietary OS's,
account for about 95+% percent of the users. At least 20 times as many.
While I believe a higher percentage of Linux users use OO than those on the
closed platforms, it is sure not a factor of 20 higher.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
chrisv
> Tim Smith quacked:
>>
>> So much for the claims of some "advocates" that the fact that most OO
>> downloads are for Windows means nothing because Linux distributions ship
>> with OO and so Linux users aren't counted in the download stats.
>> According to the OO people themselves, the vast majority of *users* are
>> on proprietary operating systems.
>
>Wonder who would claim that? Windows and Mac, the 2 proprietary OS's,
>account for about 95+% percent of the users. At least 20 times as many.
Yeah, Timmy, prove who made a claim of "means nothing". Just for
once, don't be a total failure.
>While I believe a higher percentage of Linux users use OO than those on the
>closed platforms, it is sure not a factor of 20 higher.
"No one here actually uses OOffice." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron
Quark
Gregory Shearman
> Tim Smith ululated:
>
>> So much for the claims of some "advocates" that the fact that most OO
>> downloads are for Windows means nothing because Linux distributions ship
>> with OO and so Linux users aren't counted in the download stats.
>> According to the OO people themselves, the vast majority of *users* are
>> on proprietary operating systems.
>
> Wonder who would claim that? Windows and Mac, the 2 proprietary OS's,
> account for about 95+% percent of the users. At least 20 times as many.
>
> While I believe a higher percentage of Linux users use OO than those on the
> closed platforms, it is sure not a factor of 20 higher.
How would they measure it? My version of OO comes from my mirror, not
from OpenOffice. My guess is the vast majority of downloads *direct*
from OpenOffice repository are from proprietary systems. I'd suggest
that nearly *all* downloads from Linux users will come from distro
mirrors and aren't counted.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Terry Porter
Let the Wintrolls *believe* they have the greater install base, they can
parade like gaily coloured Peacocks with flags and banners proclaiming
Windows market share superiority to all.
In reality, things are vastly different, you know it, and I know it.
Who cares what the wintrolls think ?
--
This quadcore running Gnu/Linux Archlinux 2009.08 X86_64 and posting via
Pan.
Get your Free copy NOW! www.archlinux.org/
Ezekiel
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
news:hv8iio$v5r$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Tim Smith ululated:
>
>> So much for the claims of some "advocates" that the fact that most OO
>> downloads are for Windows means nothing because Linux distributions ship
>> with OO and so Linux users aren't counted in the download stats.
>> According to the OO people themselves, the vast majority of *users* are
>> on proprietary operating systems.
>
> Wonder who would claim that? Windows and Mac, the 2 proprietary OS's,
> account for about 95+% percent of the users. At least 20 times as many.
Every play chess??? The game with the little horsey's and castles where
someone sets a trap for the other player to fall into. (Read - Do you really
think that Tim would post this without having something to back it up with?)
Who would say something this stupid - it would take a complete idiot. See
Terry's response below for one such example:
<quote>
Let the Wintrolls *believe* they have the greater install base, they can
parade like gaily coloured Peacocks with flags and banners proclaiming
Windows market share superiority to all.
In reality, things are vastly different, you know it, and I know it.
</quote>
Yeah.... the people who develop OpenOffice have no idea what the install
base for their product is. Thank goodness that telnet porter is here to set
the record straight.
> While I believe a higher percentage of Linux users use OO than those on
> the
> closed platforms, it is sure not a factor of 20 higher.
Telnet porter disagrees with you.
Gregory Shearman
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:39:59 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> On 2010-06-15, Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>>
>> How would they measure it? My version of OO comes from my mirror, not
>> from OpenOffice. My guess is the vast majority of downloads *direct*
>> from OpenOffice repository are from proprietary systems. I'd suggest
>> that nearly *all* downloads from Linux users will come from distro
>> mirrors and aren't counted.
>
> Let the Wintrolls *believe* they have the greater install base, they can
> parade like gaily coloured Peacocks with flags and banners proclaiming
> Windows market share superiority to all.
I don't even use Openoffice. I just have it available for my users (eg
My wife and any of our friends). For my letter writing needs I use
LaTex. Spreadsheets? I've used Calc and I've used Gnumeric and I've also
used KSpread. I really don't care.
> In reality, things are vastly different, you know it, and I know it.
I doubt anyone really knows the reality of the situation.
> Who cares what the wintrolls think ?
Not me. I've got almost all of them in my bozobin.
jebblue
> On 10-06-15 11:16 AM, Tim Smith wrote:
>> A while back, the FSF asked the OpenOffice.org Community Council to
>> stop listing non-free OpenOffice extensions in the OO extension
>>
>> The OO community council posted an interesting response to that,
>> available here:
>>
>> <http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=announce&msgNo=417>
>>
>> So much for the claims of some "advocates" that the fact that most OO
>> downloads are for Windows means nothing because Linux distributions
>> ship with OO and so Linux users aren't counted in the download stats.
>> According to the OO people themselves, the vast majority of *users* are
>> on proprietary operating systems.
>>
>>
> Actually I think this is good news for FOSS. If someone running a
> proprietary OS begins to run OpenOffice, Firefox\Chrome and Thunderbird
> their eventual switch to Linux will be that much easier.
That's how it worked for me. It took me from 1994 to 2007 in ever
increasing jumps but Ubuntu 7.04 for our home was the one.
Tim makes an interesting observation too. I've tried every major
distribution over the years and never had to download OO directly
from their web site once ... if memory serves me correctly.
Finally, OO, for the rare time I need more than an basic text editor
does a good job. I do have to create presentations and OO works great.
Another good one, getting better, is Symphony.
--
// This is my opinion.
Terry Porter
> On 2010-06-15, Terry Porter <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:39:59 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-06-15, Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> How would they measure it? My version of OO comes from my mirror, not
>>> from OpenOffice. My guess is the vast majority of downloads *direct*
>>> from OpenOffice repository are from proprietary systems. I'd suggest
>>> that nearly *all* downloads from Linux users will come from distro
>>> mirrors and aren't counted.
>>
>> Let the Wintrolls *believe* they have the greater install base, they
>> can parade like gaily coloured Peacocks with flags and banners
>> proclaiming Windows market share superiority to all.
>
> I don't even use Openoffice.
Same here. I'm a LaTeX lifer myself.
> I just have it available for my users (eg
> My wife and any of our friends). For my letter writing needs I use
> LaTex. Spreadsheets? I've used Calc and I've used Gnumeric and I've also
> used KSpread. I really don't care.
Same here, tho I'll often write a Perl program for any daily repeditive
and boring tasks.
>
>> In reality, things are vastly different, you know it, and I know it.
>
> I doubt anyone really knows the reality of the situation.
I think we can estimate the situation a bit better than the wintrolls,
who have no idea how Linux distros work, (Gentoo for instance), and they
cannot comprehend that the vast majority of our software comes from the
package repos, which are not 'counted' the same way that downloads from
the package creator are.
>
>> Who cares what the wintrolls think ?
>
> Not me. I've got almost all of them in my bozobin.
Same here. I have *all* of them in my bozo bin as none of them can rise
above the 'more boring than watching grass grow' level for me.
Chris Ahlstrom
Link repeated:
http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=announce&msgNo=417
It is a fact that the vast majority of our users currently run
OpenOffice.org on a proprietary operating system, alongside other
proprietary software.
That guy could make that statement only from the results of a statistically
valid survey, or by counting downloads, *if* downloads from their sites were
the only way of getting OO. He doesn't say how he gets his "fact". Nor
does he make any attempt to consider installs via distro package managers.
"Four out of five dentists surveyed..."
But what about the non-dentists?
To take this guy's statement and run with it is simply trolling.
--
Lemma: All horses are the same color.
Proof (by induction):
Case n = 1: In a set with only one horse, it is obvious that all
horses in that set are the same color.
Case n = k: Suppose you have a set of k+1 horses. Pull one of these
horses out of the set, so that you have k horses. Suppose that all
of these horses are the same color. Now put back the horse that you
took out, and pull out a different one. Suppose that all of the k
horses now in the set are the same color. Then the set of k+1 horses
are all the same color. We have k true => k+1 true; therefore all
horses are the same color.
Theorem: All horses have an infinite number of legs.
Proof (by intimidation):
Everyone would agree that all horses have an even number of legs. It
is also well-known that horses have forelegs in front and two legs in
back. 4 + 2 = 6 legs, which is certainly an odd number of legs for a
horse to have! Now the only number that is both even and odd is
infinity; therefore all horses have an infinite number of legs.
However, suppose that there is a horse somewhere that does not have an
infinite number of legs. Well, that would be a horse of a different
color; and by the Lemma, it doesn't exist.
Ezekiel
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
news:hvaagj$ekq$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> To take this guy's statement and run with it is simply trolling.
His first words... "It is a *fact* that ...." So once again the COLA
"advocates" think they know more about the makeup of OpenOffice users than
OpenOffice themselves.
Since he describes this as a being a *fact* it's reasonable to assume that
he may actually know what he's talking about. Much more so than any
"advocate" here who has yet to provide any reason why he's wrong and they're
right.
Chris Ahlstrom
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
> news:hv8iio$v5r$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Tim Smith ululated:
>>
>>> So much for the claims of some "advocates" that the fact that most OO
>>> downloads are for Windows means nothing because Linux distributions ship
>>> with OO and so Linux users aren't counted in the download stats.
>>> According to the OO people themselves, the vast majority of *users* are
>>> on proprietary operating systems.
>>
>> Wonder who would claim that? Windows and Mac, the 2 proprietary OS's,
>> account for about 95+% percent of the users. At least 20 times as many.
>
> Every play chess??? The game with the little horsey's and castles where
> someone sets a trap for the other player to fall into. (Read - Do you really
> think that Tim would post this without having something to back it up with?)
Whatever. If you want to award Timmy Teh Troll points for noting that
"some advocates" said something ill-advised, go for it.
> Who would say something this stupid - it would take a complete idiot. See
> Terry's response below for one such example:
>
> <quote>
> Let the Wintrolls *believe* they have the greater install base, they can
> parade like gaily coloured Peacocks with flags and banners proclaiming
> Windows market share superiority to all.
> In reality, things are vastly different, you know it, and I know it.
> </quote>
>
> Yeah.... the people who develop OpenOffice have no idea what the install
> base for their product is. Thank goodness that telnet porter is here to set
> the record straight.
Unless all installs of OO phone home, these guys actually *don't* know the
characteristics of all of the OO users.
>> While I believe a higher percentage of Linux users use OO than those on
>> the closed platforms, it is sure not a factor of 20 higher.
>
> Telnet porter disagrees with you.
Who's Telnet? Terry made that statement, and, without these numbers, my
inclination is to think he is wrong, just based on percentages:
Linux Windows
Users (%) 1-5% ? 85-90% ?
Users of OO (%) ? ?
I do think a Linux user is more likely to use OO, simply because
MSO is not really a choice for them (without extra work).
Not one person in the original link or in this thread has provided
any kind of hard number.
However, Terry is definitely correct about this behavior:
> [Wintrolls] can parade like gaily coloured Peacocks with flags and banners
> proclaiming Windows market share superiority to all.
Are you part of Timmy's parade? :-D
--
Entropy requires no maintenance.
-- Markoff Chaney
Ezekiel
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
news:hvab2r$ekq$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ezekiel ululated:
>
>
>> Who would say something this stupid - it would take a complete idiot. See
>> Terry's response below for one such example:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Let the Wintrolls *believe* they have the greater install base, they can
>> parade like gaily coloured Peacocks with flags and banners proclaiming
>> Windows market share superiority to all.
>> In reality, things are vastly different, you know it, and I know it.
>> </quote>
>>
>> Yeah.... the people who develop OpenOffice have no idea what the install
>> base for their product is. Thank goodness that telnet porter is here to
>> set
>> the record straight.
>
> Unless all installs of OO phone home, these guys actually *don't* know the
> characteristics of all of the OO users.
You can't be serious. Sunday night's NBA playoff game between the Celtics
and the Lakers had a viewing audience of 15.72 million viewers. Are you
claiming that each of these viewers had to somehow phone-in or register or
that each of these viewers had to be counted? Hint... OpenOffice does not
have to know the characteristic of *every* individual user to get accurate
usage data.
>>> While I believe a higher percentage of Linux users use OO than those on
>>> the closed platforms, it is sure not a factor of 20 higher.
>>
>> Telnet porter disagrees with you.
>
> Who's Telnet? Terry made that statement, and, without these numbers, my
> inclination is to think he is wrong, just based on percentages:
>
> Linux Windows
>
> Users (%) 1-5% ? 85-90% ?
> Users of OO (%) ? ?
>
> I do think a Linux user is more likely to use OO, simply because
> MSO is not really a choice for them (without extra work).
I don't think that anyone is going to argue otherwise.
> Not one person in the original link or in this thread has provided
> any kind of hard number.
The hard "number" is the person at OpenOffice saying that "It is a *fact*
that the VAST MAJORITY...." Vast majority means just that - the number is
not even close.
> However, Terry is definitely correct about this behavior:
>
>> [Wintrolls] can parade like gaily coloured Peacocks with flags and
>> banners
>> proclaiming Windows market share superiority to all.
>
> Are you part of Timmy's parade? :-D
As opposed to Telnet's bizzaro parade where his netbook magically runs for
2x as long as the manufacturer claims (and still has 50% battery left) and
where XP doesn't support WPA and where there's more Linux users running
OpenOffice than Windows users. Given a choice I know which parade I'd
rather take part in.
Chris Ahlstrom
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
> news:hvaagj$ekq$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> To take this guy's statement and run with it is simply trolling.
>
> His first words... "It is a *fact* that ...." So once again the COLA
> "advocates" think they know more about the makeup of OpenOffice users than
> OpenOffice themselves.
>
> Since he describes this as a being a *fact* it's reasonable to assume that
> he may actually know what he's talking about. Much more so than any
> "advocate" here who has yet to provide any reason why he's wrong and they're
> right.
Not to compare the fellow with one of the worst trolls here, but that troll
is well known to pull a FACT out of his ass and yell "It is a FACT" when it
is in fact boolshit.
This fellow's "fact" is left unexplained, and the potential flaws in it have
already been reviewed. He's probably right, but using the word "fact"
expresses a certainty that is not justified without some background
information.
Finally, even if true, Timmy's use of this FACT is trolling.
--
If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.
Chris Ahlstrom
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
> news:hvab2r$ekq$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ezekiel ululated:
>>
>>> Who would say something this stupid - it would take a complete idiot. See
>>> Terry's response below for one such example:
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> Let the Wintrolls *believe* they have the greater install base, they can
>>> parade like gaily coloured Peacocks with flags and banners proclaiming
>>> Windows market share superiority to all.
>>> In reality, things are vastly different, you know it, and I know it.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> Yeah.... the people who develop OpenOffice have no idea what the install
>>> base for their product is. Thank goodness that telnet porter is here to
>>> set
>>> the record straight.
>>
>> Unless all installs of OO phone home, these guys actually *don't* know the
>> characteristics of all of the OO users.
>
> You can't be serious.
Of *course* I'm serious.
> Sunday night's NBA playoff game between the Celtics
> and the Lakers had a viewing audience of 15.72 million viewers. Are you
> claiming that each of these viewers had to somehow phone-in or register or
> that each of these viewers had to be counted? Hint... OpenOffice does not
> have to know the characteristic of *every* individual user to get accurate
> usage data.
No, but they need to have collected information on every major population of
OpenOffice user.
Did they collect this information on download-from-distro Linux users?
Maybe, but we don't know.
>> I do think a Linux user is more likely to use OO, simply because
>> MSO is not really a choice for them (without extra work).
>
> I don't think that anyone is going to argue otherwise.
>
>> Not one person in the original link or in this thread has provided
>> any kind of hard number.
>
> The hard "number" is the person at OpenOffice saying that "It is a *fact*
> that the VAST MAJORITY...." Vast majority means just that - the number is
> not even close.
"Vast majority" is not only not a number here, we cannot be sure that it
truly is vast. We can guess that it is, but we could be wrong.
>> Are you part of Timmy's parade? :-D
>
> As opposed to Telnet's bizzaro parade where his netbook magically runs for
> 2x as long as the manufacturer claims (and still has 50% battery left) and
> where XP doesn't support WPA and where there's more Linux users running
> OpenOffice than Windows users. Given a choice I know which parade I'd
> rather take part in.
I'll walk with Terry, right or wrong, because he's a good person. He gets
too excitable about Linux versus Windows, but that's not so bad compared to
some of the truly vile stuff thrown around here.
--
Johnson's First Law:
When any mechanical contrivance fails, it will do so at the
most inconvenient possible time.
Ezekiel
> Ezekiel ululated:
>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>> news:hvab2r$ekq$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Ezekiel ululated:
>>>
>>>> Who would say something this stupid - it would take a complete idiot.
>>>> See
>>>> Terry's response below for one such example:
>>>>
>>>> <quote>
>>>> Let the Wintrolls *believe* they have the greater install base, they
>>>> can
>>>> parade like gaily coloured Peacocks with flags and banners proclaiming
>>>> Windows market share superiority to all.
>>>> In reality, things are vastly different, you know it, and I know it.
>>>> </quote>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah.... the people who develop OpenOffice have no idea what the
>>>> install
>>>> base for their product is. Thank goodness that telnet porter is here to
>>>> set
>>>> the record straight.
>>>
>>> Unless all installs of OO phone home, these guys actually *don't* know
>>> the
>>> characteristics of all of the OO users.
>>
>> You can't be serious.
>
> Of *course* I'm serious.
It's statistical sampling - just like below.
>> Sunday night's NBA playoff game between the Celtics
>> and the Lakers had a viewing audience of 15.72 million viewers. Are you
>> claiming that each of these viewers had to somehow phone-in or register
>> or
>> that each of these viewers had to be counted? Hint... OpenOffice does
>> not
>> have to know the characteristic of *every* individual user to get
>> accurate
>> usage data.
>
> No, but they need to have collected information on every major population
> of
> OpenOffice user.
>
> Did they collect this information on download-from-distro Linux users?
Let's use the NBA viewers as an example. The number is pretty exact (15.72
million) so how exactly did they get that so accurate? This number would be
at least equal to, if not more difficult to get than how many people use
OpenOffice.
> Maybe, but we don't know.
Given the source (not some anonymous blog) I think that you have to give the
benefit of the doubt to the person making the statement.
<quote>
Charles-H. Schulz has been contributing to Free and Open Source Software
since the beginning of the century and is a member of the OpenDocument
Technical and Adoption Committees at the OASIS Consortium. He is a founding
partner of Ars Aperta, a French consultancy firm delivering strategic
insights and assistance in the fields of Open Standards and Free and Open
Source Software. Charles-H. Schulz is presently the lead of the
Native-Language Confederation of the OpenOffice.org project, coordinating
the project and community development of OpenOffice.org worldwide.
</quote>
Unless you think that he decided to randomly pull this out of his ass I
would say that there's some factual basis behind this number. If you don't
believe the guy or want more info, try emailing him.
Side note - you'd think that OPEN-Office would have this stats and stuff
like this openly available somewhere. Maybe it is - I just can't find it.
>>> Are you part of Timmy's parade? :-D
>>
>> As opposed to Telnet's bizzaro parade where his netbook magically runs
>> for
>> 2x as long as the manufacturer claims (and still has 50% battery left)
>> and
>> where XP doesn't support WPA and where there's more Linux users running
>> OpenOffice than Windows users. Given a choice I know which parade I'd
>> rather take part in.
>
> I'll walk with Terry, right or wrong, because he's a good person. He gets
> too excitable about Linux versus Windows, but that's not so bad compared
> to
> some of the truly vile stuff thrown around here.
I'll agree with that last sentece provided that (not naming specific
names) - this includes stuff that's thrown around by both sides.
Moshe
See the COLA minions circling the wagons in order to
protect mother Linux, FOSS as well as attempt to
re-write history.
It's hysterical how they can't deal with any negative
Linux publicity no matter how factual.
Like I've said before, Linus himself could be telling
them something about Linux kernel design and if it
didn't fit their agenda they would try to discredit him
as well.
Moshe
They believe anything as long as it is what they want to
hear.
The James Westwood experiment proved that.
Ezekiel
"Moshe" <goldee_l...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1erms66fkd3g3.1ec84g33sewrg$.dlg@40tude.net...
What I don't understand is why they (or anyone) would view this as "negatice
Linux publicity."
Exactly why is it so difficult to fathom that OpenOffice would have more
Windows+Mac users than Linux users?
Moshe
Because these Linux lunatics can't have a FOSS program
that is more popular with proprietary systems than with
Linux itself.
It goes back to "choice".
Choice in the Linux community means your choice fits
their agenda.
Advocacy means you LIE for LIEnux.
It's all very, very cult like and very, very sick.
They would rather believe the hit stats from some idiot
like Terry Porter than those from a source within the
company and who is involved with the product.
It's really ludicrous.
Richard Rasker
>
> A while back, the FSF asked the OpenOffice.org Community Council to stop
> listing non-free OpenOffice extensions in the OO extension library. The
> Community Council declined, and the FSF has run off to make their own
> extension library and to try to convince OO users to change their
> configuration to use that library.
>
> The OO community council posted an interesting response to that,
> available here:
>
> <http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=announce&msgNo=417>
>
> It includes this interesting observation:
>
> It is a fact that the vast majority of our users currently run
> OpenOffice.org on a proprietary operating system, alongside other
> proprietary software. We respect their choice, and believe the best
> way to influence them to change is by delivering high quality FOSS
> software that meets their needs.
>
> So much for the claims of some "advocates" that the fact that most OO
> downloads are for Windows means nothing because Linux distributions ship
> with OO and so Linux users aren't counted in the download stats.
> According to the OO people themselves, the vast majority of *users* are
> on proprietary operating systems.
This is one of those rare occasions where an intended troll registers
negative on my troll-o-meter -- as this is actually quite positive for
FOSS.
Let's peg the number of Linux-based OO.o users at an optimistic 2% of all
computer users. If "the vast majority" of OO.o users run a proprietary OS,
then that would mean that the total proportion of OO.o users would be at
the very least 6% of all computer users world wide (2% on Linux, and double
that figure on Windows/Mac). Not bad for what Wintrolls claim is an
inferior piece of hobbyware that no-one except Linux loonies would put up
with.
Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl
Hadron
If you think for one minute that 6% of PC users run OO than you even
crazier than I initially assumed when it comes to numbers.
Ezekiel
"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hvarcu$2pp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I don't think it's 6% of "PC users" but rather 6% of PC's that have an
Office Suite installed.
No matter which way you slice-it if you're the maker of an expensive
proprietary office suite and the *free* alternative is only taking away 6%
of your buisiness then that's pretty damn good.
Moshe
Maybe in EU but not here in USA.
OO is nowhere to be found here.
For the record, I don't feel it is hobby ware at all.
It's a very good program and it will satisfy the needs
of probably 90 percent of users most of whom don't even
scratch the surface of MS Office.
In a business environment running heavy scripts, or
complex documents that need to shared with others who
will probably be using MSOffice, (law offices etc) I
would be nervous. But that's not the majority of people.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Unless you think that he decided to randomly pull this out of his ass I
> would say that there's some factual basis behind this number. If you don't
> believe the guy or want more info, try emailing him.
I agree. Just being pedantic.
> Side note - you'd think that OPEN-Office would have this stats and stuff
> like this openly available somewhere. Maybe it is - I just can't find it.
>>
>> I'll walk with Terry, right or wrong, because he's a good person. He
>> gets too excitable about Linux versus Windows, but that's not so bad
>> compared to some of the truly vile stuff thrown around here.
>
> I'll agree with that last sentece provided that (not naming specific
> names) - this includes stuff that's thrown around by both sides.
Yeah, both sides do some bad things. Even I do some bad things here at
times, though usually to get a good laugh (even if I am the only one
laughing).
--
New customers only.
Ezekiel
> Ezekiel ululated:
>
>>> I'll walk with Terry, right or wrong, because he's a good person. He
>>> gets too excitable about Linux versus Windows, but that's not so bad
>>> compared to some of the truly vile stuff thrown around here.
>>
>> I'll agree with that last sentece provided that (not naming specific
>> names) - this includes stuff that's thrown around by both sides.
>
> Yeah, both sides do some bad things. Even I do some bad things here at
> times, though usually to get a good laugh (even if I am the only one
> laughing).
"Even I do some bad things here..." - Of course. Who else did you think I
was referring to when I didn't name any specific names? <g>
Ezekiel
I work in a geek environment and there's a very small number of people who
use it. Oddly enough when the subject gets brought up once every few months
on the "misc" mailing-list at work the recommendations aren't all that
stellar. This is a very small sample (just my own personal one here at work)
but it's the only one I have.
> For the record, I don't feel it is hobby ware at all.
> It's a very good program and it will satisfy the needs
> of probably 90 percent of users most of whom don't even
> scratch the surface of MS Office.
I have it installed in most of my Linux VM's and also on my Linux HDD that I
boot from once in a while. It basically works very well for me and it's
really useful if you want to do something like export the document as a PDF.
I have had issues with importing docs - they import okay but it seems like I
need to tweak the formatting more often than not.
> In a business environment running heavy scripts, or
> complex documents that need to shared with others who
> will probably be using MSOffice, (law offices etc) I
> would be nervous. But that's not the majority of people.
I happen to run Office-2008(?) on most of the Windows machines at home. Just
before Xmas I bought a 3-pack "home and student" version for about $59 with
free shipping. That's under $20 a copy and my kids use it at college and I
have way too many docs/spreadsheets from over the years with various Macro's
that I wrote and want to preserve.
Moshe
> I happen to run Office-2008(?) on most of the Windows machines at home. Just
> before Xmas I bought a 3-pack "home and student" version for about $59 with
> free shipping. That's under $20 a copy and my kids use it at college and I
> have way too many docs/spreadsheets from over the years with various Macro's
> that I wrote and want to preserve.
And that is one reason why OO is nowhere to be seen in
USA, for the most part.
The Linux "advocates" like to quote list price for
MSOffice while ignoring the fact that most people don't
pay anywhere near that.
College's also often subsidize the price further so it's
even lower for enrolled students or in some cases
alumni.
Eddie Eagle
Eddie Eagle
>
> I'll walk with Terry, right or wrong, because he's a good person. He
> gets too excitable about Linux versus Windows
You'll always be an invertebrate.
Chris Ahlstrom
Every mstherfscker but me!
--
I can't drive 55.
I'm looking forward to not being able to drive 65, either.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> I think we can estimate the situation a bit better than the wintrolls,
>> who have no idea how Linux distros work, (Gentoo for instance), and they
>> cannot comprehend that the vast majority of our software comes from the
>> package repos, which are not 'counted' the same way that downloads from
>> the package creator are.
>
> That's not true at all.
Depends...
> http://popcon.debian.org/FAQ
> http://popcon.debian.org/
... On how popular the activating of the "popularity-contest" is.
I never activate it, myself.
Still, the relative trends might be interesting. It looks like 64-bit
Debian GNU/Linux has slowly closed the gap with the i386 version, so today
about 1/2 the people (not including Quack, apparently) use the 64-bit
version.
Sig note: Is that what Kirk said just be beaming an alien to dust with his
phaser?
--
We fight only when there is no other choice. We prefer the ways of
peaceful contact.
-- Kirk, "Spectre of the Gun", stardate 4385.3
Chris Ahlstrom
Like hell. I've put up with a lot of crap thanks to this newsgroup.
(You're just one more tiny poo.)
--
What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no
longer believe you.
-- Nietzsche
Eddie Eagle
> What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no
> longer believe you.
> -- Nietzsche
You have become what you are, Chris.
Eddie Eagle
> Eddie Eagle ululated:
>
>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>>> I think we can estimate the situation a bit better than the wintrolls,
>>> who have no idea how Linux distros work, (Gentoo for instance), and
>>> they cannot comprehend that the vast majority of our software comes
>>> from the package repos, which are not 'counted' the same way that
>>> downloads from the package creator are.
>>
>> That's not true at all.
>
> Depends...
>
>> http://popcon.debian.org/FAQ
>> http://popcon.debian.org/
>
> ... On how popular the activating of the "popularity-contest" is.
>
> I never activate it, myself.
I do, maybe 50% of the time.
>
> Still, the relative trends might be interesting. It looks like 64-bit
> Debian GNU/Linux has slowly closed the gap with the i386 version, so
> today about 1/2 the people (not including Quack, apparently) use the
> 64-bit version.
Hadron clearly knows of some unusual issues with Debian installer and
Lenny. I've seen at least two of the same issues, which is why I use 64-
bit Squeeze on my T410.
Once again, grow a spine and quit repeating the lies of the arsehole
German Koalmann and others.
Hadron
> Eddie Eagle ululated:
>
>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>>> I think we can estimate the situation a bit better than the wintrolls,
>>> who have no idea how Linux distros work, (Gentoo for instance), and they
>>> cannot comprehend that the vast majority of our software comes from the
>>> package repos, which are not 'counted' the same way that downloads from
>>> the package creator are.
>>
>> That's not true at all.
>
> Depends...
>
>> http://popcon.debian.org/FAQ
>> http://popcon.debian.org/
>
> ... On how popular the activating of the "popularity-contest" is.
>
> I never activate it, myself.
>
> Still, the relative trends might be interesting. It looks like 64-bit
> Debian GNU/Linux has slowly closed the gap with the i386 version, so today
> about 1/2 the people (not including Quack, apparently) use the 64-bit
> version.
Why would I use 64 bit? When I installed 32 bit the 64 bit was
crap. Pure and simple. It used more memory and was slower.
I understand 64 bit is far better now, but I dont need it. Why?
Tim Smith
Terry Porter <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> Let the Wintrolls *believe* they have the greater install base, they can
> parade like gaily coloured Peacocks with flags and banners proclaiming
> Windows market share superiority to all.
>
So OpenOffice.org are wintrolls now?
Between Terry here, and Willy Poaster declaring that Ubuntu Server is
unstable and not suitable for use as a serious server OS, popular free
software is sure taking a beating from its "advocates" lately.
--
--Tim Smith
Moshe
wrote:
> Eddie Eagle ululated:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> I'll walk with Terry, right or wrong, because he's a good person. He
>>> gets too excitable about Linux versus Windows
>>
>> You'll always be an invertebrate.
>
> Like hell. I've put up with a lot of crap thanks to this newsgroup.
No.
You've created your own nightmare due to your constantly
sucking up.
Think for yourself.
Actually try reading the articles you suck up to.
Take a look at the SPAMMERS website, especially the IRC
channel and observe how paranoid some of his followers
are.
Realistically consider his motives.
Just my suggestions and yes I have left you alone
because I do believe you are not happy playing the
attack game.
I'm not either.
Go back to the way you used to be and post and nobody
will have any ammo to toss your way.
Hadron
Yup. The so called "Advocates" have pretty much damned Ubuntu as a
usable system. And they still appear to be confused as to what "stable"
means when in used with Debian.
I am more interested in what Dumb Willy Poaster hopes to achive hanging
out in the Ubuntu group. All he does is screw up and call people
windroids or nOObs. I dont think I ever saw a more useless poster in all
the years I have used Usenet.
Moshe
Things around here are going down the crapper for sure.
Like I said, if Linus stood on a soapbox and told them
he screwed up the kernel they would try and discredit
him.
It's nuts.
I wouldn't trust Willy Poaster to flush a toilet
properly.
He would probably screw it up.
Marti van Lin
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Eddie Eagle ululated:
>>
>>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we can estimate the situation a bit better than the wintrolls,
>>>> who have no idea how Linux distros work, (Gentoo for instance), and
>>>> they cannot comprehend that the vast majority of our software comes
>>>> from the package repos, which are not 'counted' the same way that
>>>> downloads from the package creator are.
>>>
>>> That's not true at all.
>>
>> Depends...
>>
>>> http://popcon.debian.org/FAQ
>>> http://popcon.debian.org/
>>
>> ... On how popular the activating of the "popularity-contest" is.
>>
>> I never activate it, myself.
>
> I do, maybe 50% of the time.
50% of the time?
You ether participate in the "popularity-contest" or not, you stupid POS!
>
>>
>> Still, the relative trends might be interesting. It looks like 64-bit
>> Debian GNU/Linux has slowly closed the gap with the i386 version, so
>> today about 1/2 the people (not including Quack, apparently) use the
>> 64-bit version.
>
> Hadron clearly knows of some unusual issues with Debian installer and
> Lenny. I've seen at least two of the same issues, which is why I use 64-
> bit Squeeze on my T410.
OMG a sock puppet praising its main troll identity.
You miserably #fail Q00k!
> Once again, grow a spine and quit repeating the lies of the arsehole
> German Koalmann and others.
What Koalmann, Karmic Koalmann or WTF are you blubbering about "Hadron"
da Q00k?
You are waisting my precious bandwidth F00L.
FOAD!
--
|_|0|_| Marti T. van Lin
|-|_|0| Registered GNU/Linux user 513040
|0|0|0| http://www.soundclick.com/martivanlin
Moshe
Terry Porter is an idiot in search of a village.
Problem is, no village will take him.
Willy Poaster isn't qualified to boil water.
He would screw it up.
Eddie Eagle
> Op 16-06-10 20:01, Eddie Eagle wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Eddie Eagle ululated:
>>>
>>>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think we can estimate the situation a bit better than the
>>>>> wintrolls, who have no idea how Linux distros work, (Gentoo for
>>>>> instance), and they cannot comprehend that the vast majority of our
>>>>> software comes from the package repos, which are not 'counted' the
>>>>> same way that downloads from the package creator are.
>>>>
>>>> That's not true at all.
>>>
>>> Depends...
>>>
>>>> http://popcon.debian.org/FAQ
>>>> http://popcon.debian.org/
>>>
>>> ... On how popular the activating of the "popularity-contest" is.
>>>
>>> I never activate it, myself.
>>
>> I do, maybe 50% of the time.
>
> 50% of the time?
>
> You ether participate in the "popularity-contest" or not, you stupid
> POS!
I'll opt in 50% of the time when Debian installer gives the option. The
other 50% of the time I don't.
Do you understand now, pikje?
Message-ID: <fchmm0$gse$1...@news.albasani.net>
"At least Gerard fucked my brains out. Which you silly sissies can't
accomplish"
Thanks for sharing, Smarti. Run along and don't forget to floss the corn
and peanuts from your teeth!
Chris Ahlstrom
Profound, "Eddie". Are you the attorney in the sig below?
--
A blind rabbit was hopping through the woods, tripping over logs and crashing
into trees. At the same time, a blind snake was slithering through the same
forest, with identical results. They chanced to collide head-on in a clearing.
"Please excuse me, sir, I'm blind and I bumped into you accidentally,"
apologized the rabbit.
"That's quite all right," replied the snake, "I have the same
problem!"
"All my life I've been wondering what I am," said the rabbit, "Do
you think you could help me find out?"
"I'll try," said the snake. He gently coiled himself around the
rabbit. "Well, you're covered with soft fur, you have a little fluffy tail
and long ears. You're... hmmm... you're probably a bunny rabbit!"
"Great!" said the rabbit. "Thanks, I really owe you one!"
"Well," replied the snake, "I don't know what I am, either. Do you
suppose you could try and tell me?"
The rabbit ran his paws all over the snake. "Well, you're low, cold
and slimey..." And, as he ran one paw underneath the snake, "and you have
no balls. You must be an attorney!"
Richard Rasker
So Microsoft is still at its drug dealer tactics. And oh, Microsoft put a
stop to lower-priced upgrades:
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/06/16/office_2010_no_upgrade/
And the comments section contains the perfect example of how effective
this "deal cheap at schools" is:
Think of the children #
Posted Wednesday 16th June 2010 11:08 GMT
FAIL
My children go to a Technology College (AKA Comprehensive School)
Much of their homework has to be downloaded from the school servers and
the completed work submitted back to the servers.
Of course with the ****** schemes, the schools get the latest software
from Microsoft almost immediately and freely. The teachers then save the
homework in the latest proprietary format which the children cannot read
and then get a fail !!!!
This is the ONLY reason we have a Windows PC in the house and it is loaded
with the Student version of Office 2007. - Even then the teachers
sometimes use programs that are not in Office e.g. Publisher - The number
of times I've had to go to have words with teachers over this, you would
think that they would learn!
Anyway, the school will update to the latest Office, and all the parents
will have to update their copies. Except that there is no upgrade and we
will have to pay full (student) price again. I'm thinking of claiming back
the money from the LEA - anybody have experience of this?
I have no experience getting anything back from Microsoft except headaches.
But I /do/ have experience in how sneaky their new "default format" pushes
people towards upgrades they don't actually need at all.
I'm involved in a largish medical vision project, and I already received a
few .docx files from other participants which I cannot open properly.
Several other participants (with older versions of Microsoft Office) also
complained about this -- they didn't know that they needed to install a
compatibility pack, or didn't know how to do it.
So, suppose I didn't want to go head-to-head with the people sending .docx
files around, and decided I really should get MS Office. How much would it
cost me? Well, once you're using software in your business, pricing isn't
all that lenient any more. A license for Microsoft Office Standard (the
very cheapest business option) would set me back some €500 ($600). Per
seat, this is no less than *thirty* *times* the amount you paid ($20,
remember?) And oh, the cheapest Home and Student version I could find
around here is on sale for a little over €100 ($120) -- still twice the
amount you paid. No wonder that OpenOffice is rather more popular here in
Europe than in the US.
Anyway, back to those .docx files that got sent around in our project group.
When I asked the person responsible to resend those in a commonly used
format, she answered that in her opinion, .docx "was becoming quite
common". Sigh. But OK she really can't help it. MS Office 2007 saves
documents in .docx by default, without asking. And when people open and
save .doc files, these are also saved in .docx, with (IIRC) just a small
notification, where clicking "Yes" means that their old .doc files are
converted to .docx. And so the world gets .docx shoved down its throat, to
the greater glory and sales figures of Microsoft Office.
Luckily, I'm the one in charge of the IT infrastructure and IT standards in
this project :-) So I proposed that for a maximum of compatibility and a
minimum of hassle, read-only documents are to be offered in PDF format.
This doesn't just prevent any office suite compatibility problems, but also
makes for a much better look of the thing: in my opinion, it's very
unprofessional to open e.g. a report someone sent me, and to see a blinking
cursor, table and image outlines, section stuff etcetera. So any of
Microsoft's formats is out of the question for read-only documents.
Only if documents are supposed to be edited by someone else, they should be
offered in .doc format, not .docx. For the same reasons, spreadsheets
should be offered in .xls format, and presentations in .ppt. Any documents
in these formats must be kept as simple and "flat" as possible, without
embedded objects, VB macros or other Microsoft-centric crap.
This proposal for using PDF by default and Microsoft's old, universally
supported formats for anything that needs editing, met with general
approval.
So there you have it, all you Microsoft minions: a perfectly reasonable
compromise, for the time being based on Microsoft's and Adobe's de facto
standards, to ensure a maximum of compatibility all around. OK, personally,
I'd rather use ODF, but that wouldn't make things any easier for all those
people who are locked in their Microsoft cages.
Moshe
The only thing Marti understands is how his now dead,
dysfunctional male lover used to fsck his brains out.
The only problem is the guy forgot to put them (Marti's
brains) back.
Eddie Eagle
>
> 5
Message-ID: <hgrtqd$lei$1...@news.albasani.net>
"I have Windows 7 RC1 build 7100 installed on my laptop and a illegal
version of WinXP Pro SP3 on my desktop and I can confirm that it takes
ages before I am able to start a program under the Crapware(tm). Which
is not the case under Ubuntu 9.10 (laptop) nor Fedora 12 (desktop)."
Why do you use an illegal version of Windows XP?
Does welfare not pay well enough for you to purchase Windows 7 or Windows
XP?
Get flossing your teeth Smarti.
Moshe
Spot on!
Marti is one of COLA's hypocrites.
He is a pirate.
So is HPT=High Plains Thumper = Wendy Toiletwater =
George Hostler.
HPT belongs to a pirate club that can get you Maya for
$25.00 should you desire.
He posted, unknowingly, a private link to COLA once.
The only way he would know that was if he was a member.
These COLA Linux zealots are mostly a bunch of crazy
hypocrites.
Gregory Shearman
> Ezekiel ululated:
>
> Not to compare the fellow with one of the worst trolls here, but that troll
> is well known to pull a FACT out of his ass and yell "It is a FACT" when it
> is in fact boolshit.
>
> This fellow's "fact" is left unexplained, and the potential flaws in it have
> already been reviewed. He's probably right, but using the word "fact"
> expresses a certainty that is not justified without some background
> information.
>
> Finally, even if true, Timmy's use of this FACT is trolling.
So, this clown from OpenOffice counts my downloads of openoffice source
code from the Swinburne University Gentoo Mirror (Yes, Gentoo compiles
Openoffice on my machine)? How does this clown get the info? Does
Swinburne send them an update every time someone downloads openoffice
source from their mirror? I think not.
I suspect that there's a bias in their FACT.. caused by the method used
by proprietary software users to collect their openoffice binaries.
Linux users collect their software from repositories and I'm fairly sure
that there's no accounting method in place to provide information to
this openoffice clown about how many Linux users download openoffice.
Are there more proprietary software user downloads of openoffice than
Linux? If *really* true then alls well, as far as I'm concerned. I don't
like openoffice.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Moshe
> On 2010-06-16, Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>> Ezekiel ululated:
>>
>> Not to compare the fellow with one of the worst trolls here, but that troll
>> is well known to pull a FACT out of his ass and yell "It is a FACT" when it
>> is in fact boolshit.
>>
>> This fellow's "fact" is left unexplained, and the potential flaws in it have
>> already been reviewed. He's probably right, but using the word "fact"
>> expresses a certainty that is not justified without some background
>> information.
>>
>> Finally, even if true, Timmy's use of this FACT is trolling.
>
> So, this clown from OpenOffice counts my downloads of openoffice
You;re an idiot Gregory Shearman.
Had the same guy posted that Linux downloads make up the
majority, you would be patting him on the back.
You are a typical Linux zealot who can't accept the
truth.
You can't even bring yourself to agree with a person who
works for the company and has far more access to factual
data than you, a nobody Linux zealot, does.
It's really sick.
Next you will be arguing with GM over their reports of
how many cars they sold.
And of course you know better than they do.
Gregory Shearman
> In article <O96dnaRAZ9hGjoXR...@netspace.net.au>,
> Terry Porter <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>> Let the Wintrolls *believe* they have the greater install base, they can
>> parade like gaily coloured Peacocks with flags and banners proclaiming
>> Windows market share superiority to all.
>>
>> In reality, things are vastly different, you know it, and I know it.
>
> So OpenOffice.org are wintrolls now?
Fuck off Tim.
The Openoffice clown, as far as I'm aware, would have NO idea how many
downloads are made from distro mirrors. Do you think the mirrors send
back information to openoffice about downloads? Perhaps you can provide
evidence?
The Openoffice clown made the statement because he was ONLY looking at
downloads from the openoffice official repository which understandably,
contains the windows and other proprietary binaries. Why would Linux
users download from there, rather than their distro mirrors?
Chris Ahlstrom
> Luckily, I'm the one in charge of the IT infrastructure and IT standards in
> this project :-) So I proposed that for a maximum of compatibility and a
> minimum of hassle, read-only documents are to be offered in PDF format.
> This doesn't just prevent any office suite compatibility problems, but also
> makes for a much better look of the thing: in my opinion, it's very
> unprofessional to open e.g. a report someone sent me, and to see a blinking
> cursor, table and image outlines, section stuff etcetera. So any of
> Microsoft's formats is out of the question for read-only documents.
>
> Only if documents are supposed to be edited by someone else, they should be
> offered in .doc format, not .docx. For the same reasons, spreadsheets
> should be offered in .xls format, and presentations in .ppt. Any documents
> in these formats must be kept as simple and "flat" as possible, without
> embedded objects, VB macros or other Microsoft-centric crap.
>
> This proposal for using PDF by default and Microsoft's old, universally
> supported formats for anything that needs editing, met with general
> approval.
> So there you have it, all you Microsoft minions: a perfectly reasonable
> compromise, for the time being based on Microsoft's and Adobe's de facto
> standards, to ensure a maximum of compatibility all around. OK, personally,
> I'd rather use ODF, but that wouldn't make things any easier for all those
> people who are locked in their Microsoft cages.
This whole scenario is pretty common where I work.
One note, though... OpenOffice will let you view the "x" document formats
reasonably well.
--
A "critic" is a man who creates nothing and thereby feels qualified to
judge the work of creative men. There is logic in this; he is unbiased
-- he hates all creative people equally.
-- Robert Heinlein
Moshe
> On 2010-06-16, Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> In article <O96dnaRAZ9hGjoXR...@netspace.net.au>,
>> Terry Porter <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>>> Let the Wintrolls *believe* they have the greater install base, they can
>>> parade like gaily coloured Peacocks with flags and banners proclaiming
>>> Windows market share superiority to all.
>>>
>>> In reality, things are vastly different, you know it, and I know it.
>>
>> So OpenOffice.org are wintrolls now?
>
> Fuck off Tim.
>
> The Openoffice clown, as far as I'm aware, would have NO idea how many
> downloads are made from distro mirrors.
See the Linux zealot come apart at the seams when
confronted with facts.
Good show there Gregory Shearman!
Excellent!
Keep it up.
Folks, this is what the real Linux community is about.
Say something negative against Linux/foss and even if
you work for the company and thus have access to the
real data, you will be attacked.
That's what Linux is all about.
Tim Smith
Moshe <goldee_l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2010 23:36:59 GMT, Eddie Eagle wrote:
>
> > Marti van Lin wrote:
> > Message-ID: <hgrtqd$lei$1...@news.albasani.net>
> > "I have Windows 7 RC1 build 7100 installed on my laptop and a illegal
> > version of WinXP Pro SP3 on my desktop and I can confirm that it takes
> > ages before I am able to start a program under the Crapware(tm). Which
> > is not the case under Ubuntu 9.10 (laptop) nor Fedora 12 (desktop)."
> >
> >
> >
> > Why do you use an illegal version of Windows XP?
> >
> > Does welfare not pay well enough for you to purchase Windows 7 or Windows
> > XP?
> >
> >
> > Get flossing your teeth Smarti.
>
> Spot on!
>
> Marti is one of COLA's hypocrites.
> He is a pirate.
Of course, as Marti says, you are just attacking him because he's so
intelligent:
Deamonfc is extremely intelligent. Most GNU/Linux advocates are,
that's why we get attacked all the time.
<http://twitter.com/ml2mst/status/1680371205>
As for him having an illegal copy of Windows, it certainly is no
surprise considering his admiration of people who steal. The person
he is praising in the above tweet was bragging on IRC about how he
ran up large medical bills and then refused to pay them, and how he
was able to hide his assets so that even if the hospital sued him they
would not find anything.
--
--Tim Smith
Moshe
Amazing isn't it?
These Linux supporters are sick, really sick.
I see stuff here in COLA and in other Linux cesspits ,
like Roy's site, that would be laughed off the planet in
other groups.
Get ready for Chris Ahlstrom to suck up and defend those
involved.
Tim Smith
Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Between Terry here, and Willy Poaster declaring that Ubuntu Server is
> > unstable and not suitable for use as a serious server OS, popular free
> > software is sure taking a beating from its "advocates" lately.
>
> Yup. The so called "Advocates" have pretty much damned Ubuntu as a
> usable system. And they still appear to be confused as to what "stable"
> means when in used with Debian.
The best is DanC, who told me there are dozens of distributions that are
far more stable than an Ubuntu Server LTS, but can't seem to name any of
them.
Someone else specifically said that Debian is far more stable. I've
asked what exactly he means by stable, but last I checked had no answer.
I've found Ubuntu Server LTS to be like all other Ubuntu releases--there
are a handful of things they screw up that show up right away when you
install the new release (e.g., 10.04, unlike the previous LTS release,
has no support for OpenVZ), but once those are fixed or good workarounds
are known, they are stable long enough to take you to the next LTS
release. If you don't rush to update as soon as a new LTS release is
out, you can avoid almost all of those early problems.
--
--Tim Smith
Hadron
> In article <hvbafu$697$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Between Terry here, and Willy Poaster declaring that Ubuntu Server is
>> > unstable and not suitable for use as a serious server OS, popular free
>> > software is sure taking a beating from its "advocates" lately.
>>
>> Yup. The so called "Advocates" have pretty much damned Ubuntu as a
>> usable system. And they still appear to be confused as to what "stable"
>> means when in used with Debian.
>
> The best is DanC, who told me there are dozens of distributions that are
> far more stable than an Ubuntu Server LTS, but can't seem to name any of
> them.
With Willy agreeing.
>
> Someone else specifically said that Debian is far more stable. I've
> asked what exactly he means by stable, but last I checked had no
> answer.
Fanbois frequently mistake the meaning of "stable" in Debian Stable.
>
> I've found Ubuntu Server LTS to be like all other Ubuntu releases--there
> are a handful of things they screw up that show up right away when you
> install the new release (e.g., 10.04, unlike the previous LTS release,
> has no support for OpenVZ), but once those are fixed or good workarounds
> are known, they are stable long enough to take you to the next LTS
> release. If you don't rush to update as soon as a new LTS release is
> out, you can avoid almost all of those early problems.
Yup.
That said I dont use Ubuntu anymore as I dont like their release policy
or their shoddy QA or their tardiness in porting back upstream to
Debian.
Hadron
Since Linux users are probably less than 1% of users and only a % of
them use OO I think its fair to say it doesn't really matter.
Tattoo Vampire
> That said I dont use Ubuntu anymore as I dont like their release policy
> or their shoddy QA or their tardiness in porting back upstream to
> Debian.
But mostly because you didn't like getting your ass kicked in aolu.
--
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
...Never test for an error you don't know how to handle.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> That said I dont use Ubuntu anymore as I dont like their release policy
>> or their shoddy QA or their tardiness in porting back upstream to
>> Debian.
>
> But mostly because you didn't like getting your ass kicked in aolu.
You made that up. You are a liar.
I decided to pop back and slap the trolls like Poaster around a bit
again. Its funny. The Linux loonies are not popular there anymore. They
have decimated the help group. DanC, JG Miller, Willy Poaster etc are
laughing stocks and pretty much despised. Be sure to catch the thread
where Miller doesnt understand what is meant be gnome launch keys and
then continues to explain to me how to open a file in an emacs
buffer. Hilarious.
Jed is lending a hand there too. His most intelligent and helpful
repsonse to someones request for help to date was
"why bother"
so all is normal there then ....
chrisv
>As for him having an illegal copy of Windows,
Indeed, if you want to use Windwoes, you should pay for it. Feel the
hurt.
chrisv
>Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> Same here. I have *all* of them in my bozo bin as none of them can rise
>> above the 'more boring than watching grass grow' level for me.
>
>Which is why you *constantly* post about tolls, eh?
>
>Fucking hypocrite.
That's an unwarranted attack.
Fscking jerk.
One Shot, One Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:jb9k16piriklphjes...@4ax.com...
chrisv is a liar. chrisv is a stupid piece of shit.
One Shot, One Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
chrisv is a liar. chrisv is a worthless piece of shit.
chrisv
>Yeah, Timmy, prove who made a claim of "means nothing". Just for
>once, don't be a total failure.
(crickets)
DFS
> I'd rather use ODF, but that wouldn't make things any easier for all those
> people who are locked in their Microsoft cages.
Plus you wouldn't get paid.
It never takes a Linux/OSS "advocate" more than a few seconds to accept
money to use/promote/develop for Windows and proprietary software.
Richard Rasker
> On 6/16/2010 5:11 PM, Richard Rasker wrote:
>
>> I'd rather use ODF, but that wouldn't make things any easier for all
>> those people who are locked in their Microsoft cages.
>
>
> Plus you wouldn't get paid.
I get paid quite handsomely, regardless what OS I use/promote/develop for,
thank you very much. And oh, the answer for all three is still "Linux".
I just don't want to shove my preferred OS/format down other people's
throats, quite unlike Microsoft.
Tattoo Vampire
> You made that up. You are a liar.
> You made that up. You are a liar.
> You made that up. You are a liar.
> You made that up. You are a liar.
> You made that up. You are a liar.
Troll Boilerplate Response #1
--
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
...Cats remind us that not everything in Nature has purpose.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/2010 5:11 PM, Richard Rasker wrote:
>>
>>> I'd rather use ODF, but that wouldn't make things any easier for all
>>> those people who are locked in their Microsoft cages.
>>
>>
>> Plus you wouldn't get paid.
>
> I get paid quite handsomely, regardless what OS I use/promote/develop for,
> thank you very much.
Don't thank me - thank Microsoft for giving you the opportunity to make
money with their platform.
> And oh, the answer for all three is still "Linux".
huh?
> I just don't want to shove my preferred OS/format down other people's
> throats, quite unlike Microsoft.
Your entire cola posting history says otherwise.
High Plains Thumper
> Moshe wrote:
>> Megabyte wrote:
>>
>>> Actually I think this is good news for FOSS. If someone running
>>> a proprietary OS begins to run OpenOffice, Firefox\Chrome and
>>> Thunderbird their eventual switch to Linux will be that much
>>> easier.
>>
>> Huh?
Deer in the headlights look, LOL!
> Given the number of people running OO, if the majority run it on a
> proprietary OS this means they have taken the first step in moving
> towards FOSS, and away from the proprietary alternative MS Office.
> Once you are using FOSS applications, the switch to a FOSS OS is that
> much easier.
I think you have a valid point. This is most likely a reason why there
is so much FUD against OpenOffice. However, those who have tried it
have a real life experience with it. Real life experiences outweigh all
the FUD in the world.
DFS: "Microsoft is doomed."
LOL, I think DFS was correct!
--
HPT
Hadron
Didn't he once boast that he only accepts docs in "OS neutral formats" ?
Probably not, but as someone once pissed off Zeke ... "As I recall" ...
LOL
DFS
That was Telnet Terry, telling another lie.
Richard Rasker
> On 6/17/2010 5:45 PM, Richard Rasker wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/16/2010 5:11 PM, Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd rather use ODF, but that wouldn't make things any easier for all
>>>> those people who are locked in their Microsoft cages.
>>>
>>>
>>> Plus you wouldn't get paid.
>>
>> I get paid quite handsomely, regardless what OS I use/promote/develop
>> for, thank you very much.
>
> Don't thank me - thank Microsoft for giving you the opportunity to make
> money with their platform.
In what way do I make money with their platform? I don't even use it! Sure,
I tried to use it recently, but once again turned my back on it after three
weeks.
And if you refer to my choice to stick with .doc, and not allow .docx: you
may have noticed that the overall preferred document format is PDF, which
is as platform neutral as it gets.
>> And oh, the answer for all three is still "Linux".
>
> huh?
I use Linux, I promote Linux, and I develop for Linux. But I won't shove
Linux or FOSS down other people's throats -- even though right now, I'm in
a position to do so. If people want to keep using Windows, I'm not the one
to make their life even more difficult by making them jump through FOSS
hoops. So I'll accept the majority vote and go with the most widely
supported editable format -- which at this time is still .doc.
>> I just don't want to shove my preferred OS/format down other people's
>> throats, quite unlike Microsoft.
>
> Your entire cola posting history says otherwise.
Sure, DFS. with threads like "Today, I recommended Windows", I surely try to
push Linux in places where it doesn't belong. But OK, even for this lame
troll attempt, I'll award you 1 out of 10 for the effort.
Cheerio,
Tim Smith
DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
> >
> > Didn't he once boast that he only accepts docs in "OS neutral formats" ?
>
> That was Telnet Terry, telling another lie.
Don't forget Schestowitz who claims to have turned down a 6 figure job
he was being recruited for because they wanted to see a copy of his
resume in .doc format.
--
--Tim Smith
Moshe
Yea.
That's believable.
They probably took a look at him via Google and ran for
the shredder.
I hope his new employer is checking Roy Schestowitz's
Internet activity very carefully.
Roy isn't smart enough to know it's common place in the
real business world to trap user ID for activity,
especially with new employees.
Roy is used to hiding behind academia.
You are no longer in Kansas Roy..........
Hadron
hahahahha. Please, just for Creepy, can you link that?
Ezekiel
"Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:reply_in_group-4F8...@news.supernews.com...
I don't recall this post (who can read all that drivel) but anyone who's
ever had a job/job-offer can tell you that the hiring company would have
seen your resume long, long before they make you an offer. The offer
happens towards the very end of the hiring process. By then they would have
seen your resume, spoken with your references, interviewed you, etc.
Assuming what you say is accurate - it is a complete and lie and
fabrication. It is ridiculous to think that a company will first offer you
money before they ever saw your resume.
Chris Ahlstrom
I'm curious as to why you take Tim's claims at face value.
--
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.
-- Mark Twain
Ezekiel
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
news:hvigmb$e6d$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
Because he almost always is able to backup is statements with links.
I'm curious as to why so many advocates take Rex's or Schestowitz's
ridiculous claims at face value.
Hadron
Hilarious.
And yet you suck up to and shill people like Spamowitz, chrisv, Willy
Poaster.
Tim has more credibility in a single post than you or Spamowitz can
generate in a thousand of your kiss arse suck up responses.
Moshe
Schestowitz said it.
Chris Ahlstrom
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
> news:hvigmb$e6d$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> I'm curious as to why you take Tim's claims at face value.
>
> Because he almost always is able to backup is statements with links.
So why isn't Tim doing it in this case?
> I'm curious as to why so many advocates take Rex's or Schestowitz's
> ridiculous claims at face value.
Who said they do, where the claims really are ridiculous?
Believe it or not, many of us know quite well when Rex is going off on one
of his confabulations, or when Roy is expressing biases that we don't share.
--
It is better to kiss an avocado than to get in a fight with an aardvark.
Hadron
> Ezekiel stopped playing his vuvuzela long enough to say:
>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>> news:hvigmb$e6d$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> I'm curious as to why you take Tim's claims at face value.
>>
>> Because he almost always is able to backup is statements with links.
>
> So why isn't Tim doing it in this case?
Why should he? You never do. Roy never does.
The point is that Tim can be taken on his word. You can't. Go on -
scream and huff and then someone can provide the link and you can slink
away back under Roy's petticoats.
>
>> I'm curious as to why so many advocates take Rex's or Schestowitz's
>> ridiculous claims at face value.
>
> Who said they do, where the claims really are ridiculous?
The total lack of refute for a start.
>
> Believe it or not, many of us know quite well when Rex is going off on one
> of his confabulations, or when Roy is expressing biases that we don't
> share.
ROTFLM!
Moshe
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> writes:
>
>> Ezekiel stopped playing his vuvuzela long enough to say:
>>
>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hvigmb$e6d$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> I'm curious as to why you take Tim's claims at face value.
>>>
>>> Because he almost always is able to backup is statements with links.
>>
>> So why isn't Tim doing it in this case?
>
> Why should he? You never do. Roy never does.
>
> The point is that Tim can be taken on his word. You can't. Go on -
> scream and huff and then someone can provide the link and you can slink
> away back under Roy's petticoats.
The source is from Openoffice.org for goodness sakes.
What further proof does one need?
>>
>>> I'm curious as to why so many advocates take Rex's or Schestowitz's
>>> ridiculous claims at face value.
>>
>> Who said they do, where the claims really are ridiculous?
>
> The total lack of refute for a start.
Not to mention the sucking up.
>>
>> Believe it or not, many of us know quite well when Rex is going off on one
>> of his confabulations, or when Roy is expressing biases that we don't
>> share.
>
> ROTFLM!
Liarmutt just offered up the ultimate suck up.
Has he no shame?
Tim Smith
Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's somewhere in the IRC logs, probably a couple years ago. Might have
been they wanted him to read a .doc file, rather than asking him for one.
It was definitely six figures and he was being recruited, through.
--
--Tim Smith
Moshe
It happened and I remember calling bull shit at the
time. It was during Schestowitz's "I have a friend"
phase, which he seems to have out grown.
Hahaha!
chrisv
>It's somewhere in the IRC logs, probably a couple years ago. Might have
>been they wanted him to read a .doc file, rather than asking him for one.
>It was definitely six figures and he was being recruited, through
So, feeling that strongly about something and taking a stand is now a
*bad* thing, is it? I see.
chrisv
> trolling fsckwit wrote:
>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote:
>>
>>> I'm curious as to why you take Tim's claims at face value.
>>
>> Because he almost always is able to backup is statements with links.
You are a liar, "Ezekiel". Timmy almost never backs-up statements, in
my experience.
>So why isn't Tim doing it in this case?
>
>> I'm curious as to why so many advocates take Rex's or Schestowitz's
>> ridiculous claims at face value.
What a POS like you claims is "curious", fsckwit, is usually a
dishonestly twisted interpretation of reality.
>Who said they do, where the claims really are ridiculous?
>
>Believe it or not, many of us know quite well when Rex is going off on one
>of his confabulations, or when Roy is expressing biases that we don't share.
This has already been dicussed. The shitty liar "Ezekiel" can't seem
to get it through his thick skull.
Hadron
What part of "they dont offer you a six figure salary before they read
your CV" confuses you?
Hadron
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> trolling fsckwit wrote:
>>
>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm curious as to why you take Tim's claims at face value.
>>>
>>> Because he almost always is able to backup is statements with links.
>
> You are a liar, "Ezekiel". Timmy almost never backs-up statements, in
> my experience.
Because you're an idiot. Your "experience" is posting foul mouthed
tirades. And you are liar.
>
>>So why isn't Tim doing it in this case?
>>
>>> I'm curious as to why so many advocates take Rex's or Schestowitz's
>>> ridiculous claims at face value.
>
> What a POS like you claims is "curious", fsckwit, is usually a
> dishonestly twisted interpretation of reality.
You're insane.
>
>>Who said they do, where the claims really are ridiculous?
>>
>>Believe it or not, many of us know quite well when Rex is going off on one
>>of his confabulations, or when Roy is expressing biases that we don't share.
>
> This has already been dicussed. The shitty liar "Ezekiel" can't seem
> to get it through his thick skull.
Except he didn't lie.
You really are, as DFS christened you, a turd that would be better
flushed away. I cant think of ONE positive post you made.
One Shot, One Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:numu161od9po2fqag...@4ax.com...
chrisv is a piece of shit. chrisv is a scumbag liar.
One Shot, One Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
chrisv is a piece of shit. chrisv is a bald faced liar.
Chris Ahlstrom
Poor "Hadron Senior" did not get the link he wanted from "Hadron Junior".
Those two are *so* cute, like Dad taking his kid out to teach him how to
kick a soccer ball.
--
Things are not as simple as they seems at first.
-- Edward Thorp
chrisv
>chrisv wrote:
>
>> Timmy wrote:
>>
>>>It's somewhere in the IRC logs, probably a couple years ago. Might have
>>>been they wanted him to read a .doc file, rather than asking him for one.
>>>It was definitely six figures and he was being recruited, through
>>
>> So, feeling that strongly about something and taking a stand is now a
>> *bad* thing, is it? I see.
>
>Poor "Hadron Senior" did not get the link he wanted from "Hadron Junior".
What a surprise, eh? Timmy's been on a rampage lately, making claims
without supporting them. All I've heard is crickets, when I've asked
for proof. "It's somewhere in the IRC logs" is just as bad.
>Those two are *so* cute, like Dad taking his kid out to teach him how to
>kick a soccer ball.
But with some added leg-humping.
--
"And of course, this has already been addressed by myself, Tim Smith
and Larry Qualig." - Oliver Wrong