Corel Sues U.S. Department of Labour

Duh by diehard · 1999-12-17 22:36 · Score: 0

Isn't this getting a little extreme? It's getting hard for anybody to get anything done without getting sued.

--
Diehard

Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 14:37 · Score: 0

No kidding. Why bother writing good code when you can turn out any piece of shit you want then sue the government when they don't use it.

pathetic by browser_war_pow · 1999-12-17 22:40 · Score: 1

I can't wait till abisuite is ready for prime time! It will be the first *good* office suite to target: Linux, xBSD, Windows, MacOS and BeOS simultaneously! So no matter what I am using I can run it. Now that is a killer app considering how good AbiWord is already. What will happen when abisuite becomes the dominant government suite? Microsoft and Corel sue because they can't make a buck since Abi is free?

Re:pathetic by um...+Lucas · 1999-12-17 23:23 · Score: 2

Well, if you think that's good, what about StarPortal, whenever that appears? A java based office suite seems much cooler to me than one which actually needs to be ported/recompiled for each additional platform.

Go Sun!
Re:pathetic by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 23:33 · Score: 0

But the problem is that these suites are all targetting *Linux, where * has the value of "x86 Redhat". Sigh. They don't think about *all* Linuces (Slackware and Debian, for example), and they don't think about all chipsets.
Re:pathetic by Foogle · 1999-12-17 23:34 · Score: 2

Ha ha ha

Abisuite? The dominant goverment suite? It'll never happen buddy, don't kid yourself. Right now Abisuite is just about in dead last place among all the suites in terms of usability. Abiword's not bad, but its typesetting is horrible and its functionality is still in need of a lot of improvement (how many menu items still say "Needs to be Finished" when you click on them?).

Star Office is in a much better position for multi-platform usage, but I don't think we'll be seeing the end of MS Office any time soon, so keep your pants on.

-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:pathetic by Foogle · 1999-12-17 23:48 · Score: 2

Yeah, and they don't think about all OSes either... Damn them. Why can't they all just write they're software in ANSI C. Then we'd all be able to use it.

Unless the software in question is written in a multiplatform language like Java, no company can be expected to support Every possible platform... it's just a matter of spreading oneself too thin. So they pick one or two platforms and go with them.

Why can't the support Debian/Slackware? We'll their software will probably work on Debian/Slackware but if they had to go out and test their software under each and every Linux distro it would take forever and the suite would never be released. That's why. It's not a problem, it's just logistics.

-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:pathetic by mmontour · 1999-12-17 23:50 · Score: 1

Ever try Corel Office for Java? It was, shall we say, less than useful. I like Java for little things, but for big apps like office suites I think you really *want* to recompile for each platform just to have a chance of using some optimization rather than writing for a lowest-common-denominator virtual machine.

Portable code is your friend - "Write once, { ./configure ; make ; make install } anywhere" (tm & patent pending).
Re:pathetic by um...+Lucas · 1999-12-18 00:00 · Score: 2

Well, it's been a couple years. Theres now Java2, plus we all have machines that are twice as fast, so the software that crawled then could be usable now. As sun grows the JVM, we will see richer and richer apps coming our way.
Re:pathetic by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:46 · Score: 0

Yep.

Just download the JVM source from Sun, then { ./configure ; make ; make install }.

What? You say the source isn't available to download?!?!

Call out the Crusading White Knights!!
Re:pathetic by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 04:51 · Score: 0

Why can't the support Debian/Slackware? We'll their software will probably work on Debian/Slackware but if they had to go out and test their software under each and every Linux distro it would take forever and the suite would never be released. That's why. It's not a problem, it's just logistics.
No, it is a problem. There are releases of everything, kernel, glibc, whatever. Just develop, install and test in on a clean machine. If it does not work on XXX then it might, finally, force distributors not to mess it all up.
If some package does not run on some other system although all the binaries are the same version, then this is a problem.

Canada by raskolnik · 1999-12-17 22:41 · Score: 3

That's it, I'm moving to Canada, where this shit doesn't....oh, they did it there too?...crap...
"You should never have your best trousers on when you turn

--

"You should never have your best trousers on when you turn out to fight for freedom and truth."
-Henrik Ib

Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 23:19 · Score: 0

Try Mexico, it hasn't happened there, yet!
Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 23:35 · Score: 0

the key word being 'yet'
Re:Canada by Relforn · 1999-12-18 03:48 · Score: 1

There isn't anywhere near the excess of law school graduates in Mexico as there is up north.
Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 06:27 · Score: 0

They have computers in Mexico?

Cdn Gov. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 22:42 · Score: 0

They offerred it for free as far as I can remember and still they refused to go with it (now it was either the Cdn military or Ottawa area schools).

Well, corel will have no problems giving away wp in Mexico now that Mexican schools are switching to linux.

nil*

Re:Cdn Gov. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 04:05 · Score: 0

What the hell is this "desktop" crap, AGAIN? My desktop runs Unix. Always has. Always will. Stop using euphemisms. When you mean "computers used by people who don't understand computers", say that.
Re:Cdn Gov. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 05:01 · Score: 0

When you mean "computers used by people who can't administer them because a cabal of hackers threw it all together after a little chat they had on Usenet" say that.
Re:Cdn Gov. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 05:17 · Score: 0

If you can't look after your own computer, you either hire someone who can, or else you go back to TV for entertainment.
Re:Cdn Gov. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 14:43 · Score: 0

What a totally arrogant thing to say. Most people have no problem with Windows, contrary to whats posted on slashdot every day. Why should they go through the pain and headache of using Unix/Linux when they can use Windows or a Mac and actually use their computer without being a computer geek?
Re:Cdn Gov. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 21:41 · Score: 0

Most people are complete idiots who should get themselves out of the gene pool. So what? The "most people" argument is for idiot. Most people can't read, so we shouldn't print books anymore--right?

Get it right by Yoda+Hussein · 1999-12-17 22:42 · Score: 1

if they are suing the US department of Labor, would it be spelled "Labor"... not "Labour" =)

Re:Get it right by tpck · 1999-12-17 22:55 · Score: 1

Whoops, sorry! :) Old Canadian habit of mine. :)
Re:Get it right by BMIComp · 1999-12-17 23:06 · Score: 1

Its a variant of labor... chiefly british
dictionary entry.
Re:Get it right by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 23:15 · Score: 0

> if they are suing the US department of Labor, would it be spelled "Labor"... not "Labour"

Well the Globe and Mail is a Canadian newspaper,
so Labor is spelt as Labour. It's a subtle point
but since we're talking about namespace issues,
scoping is important. If the article said "US department of Labour" instead of US department
of Labour, you'd have a legitimate point.
Re:Get it right by Foogle · 1999-12-17 23:29 · Score: 1

Yeah, I think he knew that. I think we all knew that. But the point is that if it's the "US Department of" then it's spelled "Labor" not "Labour"

-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Get it right by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 23:30 · Score: 0

In the US, when speaking of the Labour Party in Oz, we use the "u", because it's their party, after all. I should think that the Canadians would likewise omit the "u" when discussing our department.
Re:Get it right by Malc · 1999-12-17 23:55 · Score: 1

What an irrelevant discussion! Who cares if the person spelt the word "Labo[u]r" in a manner that was correct for them? A simple mistake: it's the meaning that's important. There are plenty of Americans who do just the same the other way round, and unlike this person are completely ignorant of the fact.

Talk about splitting hairs! /. is an international forum - a lot do not speak American English as their primary language (some even choose to avoid and speak other variations in preference.)

It was a fool who moderated the original comment of this thread as interesting. We've had enough of these pointless national differences discussions on /., most of them degenerate into nationalistic bigotry.
Re:Get it right by Tom+Christiansen · 1999-12-18 00:24 · Score: 2

Some people say we hackerscholars spell things inconsistently. This is not so! I herein relate advice revealed during communal reverie with our past lives...
CAIUS IULIUS CAESAR: I long ago lost patience with my colony's colonies' inability to spell licence and defence as Cicero and I wrote. But equally beneath contempt lie the Britannici themselves, a band of delinquent dandies given over to the peculiar perversions of their powdered Gallic conquerors and accompanying meretrices and connubials, who after two millennia of syncopated instruction still cannot properly write color, labor, or valor in the fashion we their noble forefathers proscribed and inscribed. A pox on both their orthographies!
ALEXANDER OF MAKEDONIA: The miscegenation of Greeks and Barbarians has surely found foetid fruit in those two races of which you, my spiritual grand-nephew and semperfidelitous catamite, have just so eloquently written. The one race seems unable to faithfully write analyse or paralyse in the manner that I myself wrote, while the other reveals their equal incompetence with respect to the just renderings of parenthesize, hypothesize, isochronize, or apotheosize -- as Aristotle duly taught me.
CAPTAIN JAMES COOK: I say there, book learning is for books, not Men! A Man must endeavour to seek out his Destiny. Let none cry Foul that the bold Name of my valiant Ship, the proud Endeavour, should find itself remembered in the writings even of the westernmost Colonies and in the names of their Heavenly Vessels.

So you see, it's really not our fault. We just do what the voices tell us to do. :-)
Re:Get it right by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 02:15 · Score: 0

you really need to get some pussy. You have way too much time on your hands.
Re:Get it right by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 02:35 · Score: 0

Maybe they confused it with Mexico's first president, Manual Labor.
Re:Get it right by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 04:21 · Score: 0

The Globe & Mail did get it right. Here's the first paragraph of the article. Notice the american spelling of labor and canadian spelling of favour.

Ottawa -- Corel Corp. is suing the U.S. Department of Labor for allegedly tilting a bidding process in favour of Microsoft Corp., fresh off the Ottawa software maker's successful lawsuit against the Canadian government.
Re:Get it right by M@T · 1999-12-18 18:56 · Score: 1

In the US, when speaking of the Labour Party in Oz, we use the "u", because it's their party, after all. I should think that the Canadians would likewise omit the "u" when discussing our department.

Not in my country matey... if you were to check, the Australian Labor Party drops the "u" from their name, due to the influence of the American labour/labor movement in the early 1900s - Australians still spell it "labour" in common English, as do the Canadians, I assume, from this absurd thread.

"Colour" or "color"... does it matter as long as the point is made clearly?

M@T

--
'sapientia potestas est'
Re:Get it right by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 22:13 · Score: 0

Wow! That's remarkable. Your party changed its name like that? I am amazed.

Read the article, for God sake.... by Patman · 1999-12-17 22:43 · Score: 5

I don't know if the poster of this article bothered reading the link, but the summary is not accurate. Corel is suing the Department of Labor because they believe that DOL made it easier for MS to win the contract then Corel. This is significantly different then what the summary posts, which basically states that COrel is suing because they are sore losers. In this case, Corel may or may not have a case - the court system will figure it out. If it's true, DOL should be smacked - especially because a large portion of their machines had WOrdPerfect licenses already. I hate money wasters.

Re:Read the article, for God sake.... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 22:56 · Score: 2

Interestingly enough, the article states: "In the Canadian case, Corel argued that Revenue Canada's May, 1998, tender for new office software was inherently stacked in favour of Microsoft because all other bidders were required to provide estimated costs for converting the department's Microsoft software and for training staff. The department had already been using Microsoft products." Holy hell in a handbasket, Batman! If the Canadians were already using Microsoft, why shouldn't the costs for converting to a new software be taken into account?
Re:Read the article, for God sake.... by tpck · 1999-12-17 22:59 · Score: 2

You're right, I probably could have put that a better way. My apologies.
Re:Read the article, for God sake.... by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 1999-12-17 23:24 · Score: 1

I seem to remember that Corel were pointing out (then) that new levels of MS Software were not necessarily compatible with existing levels. This meant that the cost of conversion (which was held to be zero with MS) applied to the MS Software as much as anyone.

The $9.9 Million that Corel got were not worth the lawsuit. They could not be said to have won that case.

--
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Re:Read the article, for God sake.... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 00:56 · Score: 0

The $9.9 million they got were considerably more than the cost of the lawsuit, and it also sent an important message: the government can't go on believing they can favor MS without having given competitors equal opportunity to win the contracts.
Re:Read the article, for God sake.... by Raul+Acevedo · 1999-12-18 01:35 · Score: 3

You didn't finish reading the article. The very next paragraph says:
Corel also complained it couldn't provide conversion costs because the department wasn't supplying enough information.
That implies the problem isn't really the requirement to provide upgrade estimates, but that the department was slack in providing enough information to make the estimates.
----------

--
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
Re:Read the article, for God sake.... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 06:16 · Score: 0

"Putting it a different way" is a far cry from misinterpreting the whole thing.
Re:Read the article, for God sake.... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 14:44 · Score: 0

Now you expect Slashdot to post news articles without also including a biased or outright wrong commentary added? Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

From Corel's own website... by notsosilentbob · 1999-12-17 22:43 · Score: 4

www.corel.com/news

Not much more detail, but some:

"Corel has taken this step to ensure that the United States Government follows its own rules for open and fair procurement," said Marcia Mills, Corel's Corporate Counsel. "This is not a matter particular to Corel, nor are we targetting our competitors -- the Department of Labor's decision adversely affects all software vendors and suppliers to the government."

Re:From Corel's own website... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 23:15 · Score: 0

Argh!!! watch you?re apostrophes - windows? lame smartquotes "feature" does horrible things to them.
Re:From Corel's own website... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 23:27 · Score: 0

You're using MS-ASCII for Slashdot postings! Please stop that nonsense. Embrace, extend, and extinguish has no place on an open source advocacy forum, saver perhaps to attract flames.
Re:From Corel's own website... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 23:39 · Score: 0

I think poor jkorpela has been slashdotted. Anybody got a mirror?
Re:From Corel's own website... by notsosilentbob · 1999-12-18 00:20 · Score: 1

Good grief, I AM NOT!

I used Netscape on my Macintosh G3 to both copy and paste the text. I don't use MS-Anything!

Sheesh.

p.s. my post looks fine in Netscape on my Mac. What are you using to read this?
Re:From Corel's own website... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:17 · Score: 0

I work for the USDA. Our particular part of the department allows the employees to use whatever office suite they like. Most use Microsft Office because it is already installed on most computers. Plus Microsoft dominates the market. Who wants to relearn another business application just because it is politically correct. I mean how many people use Star Office? Maybe 1%? I would rather use software that everybody uses. Most employees rather spend their time doing their work instead of wasting it learning Star Office.
Re:From Corel's own website... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:20 · Score: 0

None of my friends use `office suites', but I assure you that the troff-vs-latex battles are furious. :-)
Re:From Corel's own website... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:58 · Score: 0

You must work in education.

Clue: stop playing with the equipment you won't let the Undergrads use and go prepare some lesson plans.
Re:From Corel's own website... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 04:08 · Score: 0

CompSci undergraduates at university use Unix. "IT pro-fesh-un-uhlz" at techbiz schools are used by Microsoft.
Got it?
Re:From Corel's own website... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 05:05 · Score: 0

Actually, CompSci grad students at univerity futz around with eunichs when they're being paid to tutor undergrads.

Suing by Eon78 · 1999-12-17 22:45 · Score: 2

It seems to me that the US (& maybe Canadian) law systems should be changed. I live in the Netherlands, and each time I read a story in the newspapers about someone suing someone else about the most rediculous things (and then winning even more rediculous amounts of money) it is always in the US... It looks more like the US law system is for providing lawyers a large salary than doing justice to those that deserve it. Anyway, my 2 cents... -- Eon.

Re:Suing by Atomic+Frog · 1999-12-18 00:42 · Score: 1

Frivolous lawsuits seem to be a problem in the US, but not here in Canada. But this is not the same situation.

READ THE FRIGGIN' STORY!
Corel is suing because the US gov't department decided they would run with Microsoft Office without first putting the contract to tender and open to fair competition. Same thing happened in Canada and they won.

Look at it this way, if the government were to build, say, and Advanced Tactical Fighter, do you think anyone would let them get away with awarding the contract to Lockheed without first having a competition with Northrop? I don't think so!
Re:Suing by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 00:59 · Score: 0

If the government in the Netherlands had done what Corel alledge that the US DoL has done, then it would be open for lawsuits under EU law, and would likely lose.
Actually, the EU has VERY strict rules for ensuring that all competing parties are given equal opportunity to bid on government contracts.
Re:Suing by Eon78 · 1999-12-18 04:26 · Score: 1

I should have stressed in my writing that my point goes in general. Corel could have a point, but to me it comes as the next story in a long line on /. about companies suing each other.
It looks like the lawsuites are getting bigger and come more often...

We are going to the point that even large companies can go broke when someone sues them. Maybe the judges should ask themself whether or not it is right to grant some of the extremly large ammounts of money to the prosecutor.

Note: this is what I see in the US in general, it's not specifically about the Corel case...
--
Eon.

Huh? by antizeus · 1999-12-17 22:46 · Score: 1

Corel said yesterday that it and other software makers were blocked earlier this year from bidding fairly for a lucrative contract with the U.S. department because it standardized its software on Microsoft's office automation suite[...]

Huh? What exactly does this mean? I wish the press were more clear in laying down the facts. My first impression (despite my dislike for Microsoft) was that Corel was being a crybaby, so I read the article to get some more facts, but the facts (e.g. the mechanism of the government's alleged misdeed) weren't clearly spelled out. So instead of being mad at Microsoft or Corel, I'm now mad at whatever news organization provided the article (I didn't bother to find out whose web site hosts the article -- I just skipped down to the content, ignoring the rest).

--
-- $SIGNATURE

When is Apple, linux.... etc going to sue ? by Bart+van+der+Ouderaa · 1999-12-17 22:46 · Score: 1

Hmmmm, almost had the same idea in uni.
As a mac user being taught and having to use only Win stuff feels like discrimination. Same goes for linux.

If you don't have your favorite tools at hand ( an OS could be discribed the same way), or you can't use them because of the setup, creates a disadvantage compared to the win jockeys who conform.

That ain't fair!
I won't even mention the fact that they had alot more PC stuff on offering compared to the mac stuff in the uni shop....
Although, I now have a more diverse background.

Re:When is Apple, linux.... etc going to sue ? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 00:19 · Score: 0

Why in the HELL would a business (gov. or not) want to provide multiple platform choices to people they employ? TCO is right out the window at that point. Have you ever worked in a large company?
Re:When is Apple, linux.... etc going to sue ? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 02:56 · Score: 0

If that company or agency offers multiple platforms for its employees, it can cut training costs. If the new employee is comfortable on a Mac, why should s/he be forced to learn Windows (or worse: *NIX -- here come the flames!). I'd hope that a large company would have the manpower to handle 2 or even three platforms. Now for a smaller company, maybe...

Also, what if some of the software the company uses is only available on one platform, and another package is only available on another platform? I used to work for a company that ran Mac's with Virtual PC so we could run AutoCAD 14 and something else on the Mac(the techie was nuts, BTW). Totally dumb. AutoCAD is much faster on a PC, and everything else I needed to run was available for WIN32. Only a few people needed Mac's but it was a small company and the techie (only one, and he's nuts, remember?) had enough other stuff to deal with.
Re:When is Apple, linux.... etc going to sue ? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:06 · Score: 0

What is this "*NIX" crap? Is your U key broken?
Re:When is Apple, linux.... etc going to sue ? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 05:04 · Score: 0

UNIX is a TM so it is quite common to write *nix ... let me guess, youre a Linux only user ...
Re:When is Apple, linux.... etc going to sue ? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 05:12 · Score: 0

"UNIX" is a trademark, used as an adjective. And when's the last time you saw someone on slashdot worry about trademarks?
"Unix", on the other hand, used in that case and as a noun, is a whole different beast. It's a culture, a mythos, something much more important than warring standards czars bickering about whether an O/S without the Unix branding would still smell as suite.
Read Stephenson.
Meanwhile, avoid the U is lamerspeak.
Re:When is Apple, linux.... etc going to sue ? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 14:53 · Score: 0

Discrimination? Because you aren't being taught on some fringe OS? Grow up and join the real world, life isn't always fair and if you choose to buck the system and choose NOT to learn what 90% of the rest of the public is using it's YOUR fault that you're un-educated. Don't blame someone else because you choose to limit yourself to the fringe.

I'm gonna tell my mommy by Calimus · 1999-12-17 22:49 · Score: 2

How can you sue someone over their what they like? It seams to me that the courts have become somewhat of an over protective mother for companies to go tattle-tale on other companies.

Being that in most cases it can be a major undertaking to switch from one prodect to the other. With having to remove the current software, then install the new software, train all the people on the new software and then convert all the data over to the new software format. It can cost a company much more then the products worth if theres not a massive difference between the two softwares.

I'm not a large fan of MS by any means but I always go by the saying "If it's not broke, then don't fix it" and if the US Dept of Labor is comfortable with a product they already use, or the feel that MS has an advantage, then thats their right as a consumer.

Just my $0.02

--
Trying to be different, just like everyone else.

Re:I'm gonna tell my mommy by Anomalous_Coward · 1999-12-17 23:46 · Score: 1

I'm not a large fan of MS by any means but I always go by the saying "If it's not broke, then don't fix it" and if the US Dept of Labor is comfortable with a product they already use, or the feel that MS has an advantage, then thats their right as a consumer.
Uh, go read the article again. They already had many licenses for WP. *AND* the US Gov. is not a consumer in my book. They are an end-user of the US Consumer's (i.e. Taxpayer) money. They should be making EVERY resonable effort to get the most for MY money. A fair and equitable bid process is essential for that to happen.
Re:I'm gonna tell my mommy by lahosken · 1999-12-18 00:18 · Score: 2

> How can you sue someone over what they like?

I agree. Me, I like bribery. I like it a lot. As I become more responsible for purchasing decisions at my current organization, I hope that we can foster an environment in which more of these decisions can be made through bribery.

While some might say that the US Department of Labor, as a branch of government, should make purchasing decisions based upon product quality and price, I think it's time that government takes a lesson from industry. I'll tell you how we make these decisions in industry. These decisions are made on the basis of "gifts". You open-source people understand the "gift culture", right? If MicroSoft sales agents are willing to give me a gift, perhaps a night on the town in the company of women of loose morals, I think that's a good thing. I will give them a gift: I will add clauses to the Product Selection Guidelines: "There must be an animatronic paperclip constantly bouncing in the lower-right hand corner."

As a result of this, everyone is happy:
I am happy--I have received a gift worth thousands of dollars.
MicroSoft is happy--they will receive a contract worth millions of dollars.
My organization is happy--they have a set of Product Selection Guidelines which will make the purchasing decision a snap--because there is only one product on the market that matches those guidelines.

Everyone gets what they like. (Except, maybe, the poor shmoes who actually have to use the software.) Those Corel people are just a bunch of spoilsports.
Re:I'm gonna tell my mommy by Skim123 · 1999-12-18 00:46 · Score: 1

How can you sue someone over their what they like?
It seems to me that the court system is telling the government that they have to use the cheapest solution, not the best. It seems if the Labor Department is using Office and is happy with the performance and cost, why should they be forced to switch?
I guess Corel will do whatever it takes to stay in business. ;-) (evil grin)

--
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Re:I'm gonna tell my mommy by humanerror · 1999-12-18 00:53 · Score: 4

I'm not a large fan of MS by any means but I always go by the saying "If it's not broke, then don't fix it" and if the US Dept of Labor is comfortable with a product they already use, or the feel that MS has an advantage, then thats their right as a consumer.

The US DoL is NOT the consumer in this case... I am, along with every other American citizen and legal alien working in the US whose money was taken by the government by threat of force (ie: tax dollars). It is NOT their right to squander what they have stolen from us. If I have to give up 40% of my earnings to support an unnecessary bureaucracy, I damn well want that money to be stewarded in the most efficient manner possible.

They have a set of rules in place which they do not follow as a matter of course. When I was in the military, I saw this first hand. My mother has been in government service for 24 years, and I have heard the inside scoop on how government procurement works in the civil sector. This case really is not so much about Corel's bruised ego and the M$ monster as it is about bringing to light, and to court, some basic facts that most people just accept as business as usual.

An object in motion will tend to remain in motion until acted upon by an outside force. A government corrupt will remain corrupt as long as it is allowed to do so.

--

--
"We're an apex predator with the fecundity of a base level herbivore... We're a virus with shoes..." RazorJAK
Re:I'm gonna tell my mommy by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 04:05 · Score: 0

You really think you're doing the "poor shmoes" a favor by inflicting WordPerfect on them?

WordPerfect? The third party hand-me-down software that gets passed from losing company to losing company like a rotten potato?
Re:I'm gonna tell my mommy by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 04:09 · Score: 0

Ok, Bill, you can stop posting to slashdot now.

Ugh by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 22:52 · Score: 0

Will somebody moderate this crap down?

A clear message to micros~1 by Money__ · 1999-12-17 22:55 · Score: 3

While I would disagree that Corel is perhaps reaching a little to far over the border in this case, I would agree with their motives.

Trying to get a purchasing body to adhear to it's own rules of fairness is best solved in the courts, and I think Corel will do well in the case.

On the PR side of this issue, this should send a clear signal to all purchasing agents across the big and small companies alike and ask/force them to ask "are we giving the other choices a fair look?".

The more people start thinking this way (even if they're being forced to by a $10M suit) the more people will look at competing productivity apps in a better light, and competing OSs on a better light . .

This kind of thinking is good for open source, and gives quality software a chance to be judged on it's performance.

Re:A clear message to micros~1 by Gurlia · 1999-12-17 23:58 · Score: 1

While I tend to agree with you because the software *I* like (ie. open source software) happens to be on the protagonist side of this argument, there are other issues to consider... one being the freedom of choice of the buyer. I mean, if we're really looking at freedom of choice, aren't we also allowing for the possibility that people might actually want MS products? Why should we condemn them because they made the "wrong" choice, just because we think our choice is the "right" choice?

Everyone has a right to choose -- after all, isn't that the freedom of choice we're all fighting for here? How far can we go with Corel's attitude here? Are we saying, in the name of "fairness" that every company must be forced to consider options other than the one they chose in their freedom to choose, just because they must also be "fair" to competing products? What if a company decides to use Linux and Linux only -- are we saying then that they are "unfair" to other products like MS, Sun or whatever else out there?

Of course, you might say that the other options have better quality and thus merit consideration -- but remember that you can take the horse to the water but you can't make it drink. If people want to choose the "lousier" alternative, who are we to stop them? After all, that is their freedom to choose.

(Flame-shield: I'm not criticizing Corel. Just pointing out that the argument works both ways.)

--
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
Re:A clear message to micros~1 by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 00:31 · Score: 0

Are we saying, in the name of "fairness" that every company must be forced to consider options...

Perhaps you didn't realize it, but this discussion has nothing to do with "companies", since the Department of Labor is a branch of government. Any corporation, like any individual, can use any software they want to, regardless of their internal purchasing guidelines.

There aren't any guidelines that control the DOL's purchases; there are, however, laws and regulations which can NOT be ignored. Or rather, they can, but then they get sued.
Re:A clear message to micros~1 by Znork · 1999-12-18 04:58 · Score: 1

In the case of government agencies, preferential treatment of certain vendors sounds very much like a waste of taxpayer money. Tax funded agencies should always consider all options, and buy that which suits their needs at the lowest cost. Preferably without any knowledge of which vendor is making the different offers.
Re:A clear message to micros~1 by dillon_rinker · 1999-12-18 07:50 · Score: 2

...this should send a clear signal to all purchasing agents across the big and small companies...

This will do nothing of the sort. Companies, big and small, have the legal right to buy any software for any reason. Vendors cannot sue them for failing to follow their internal purchasing guidelines. Corel, as a vendor, can sue the DOL only because the government's purchasing guidelines the force of law, and DOL is liable if they fail to obey the law.

Oh Come on. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 22:55 · Score: 0

I'm gonna sue Andover.net for not using my web server called CrapServe2000. Yea... sure it only does static pages and crashes alot and only runs on DOS 3.3 but still. You MUST use my software or I will sue you.

Ps, I don't mind settlings say for... a free t-shirt or a hat or something. Otherwise I must go through with my suit for 8.9 billion-trillion-gazillion dollars.

Ok. This is getting silly. by soulhuntre · 1999-12-17 22:57 · Score: 4

This article's summary and the implicationsof it are downright misleading.

We have all heard over and over that /. is not a conventional news organization. Fine, I can understand that. However, that should be a reason to grant it lattitude on what topics it covers - not on the accuracy of the post.

But as a technical person I have a hard time excusing completely inaccurate information.

This is about posting a rumor and having it turn out wrong - that's fine. This is about postign a story with a summary that abolutely 100% is not in line with the article it is linked too.

It is currently so bad that there is no point in trusting the summaries.

Ken

--
--> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!

Re:Ok. This is getting silly. by tpck · 1999-12-17 23:04 · Score: 2

Mmm, my fault. I didn't intend to mislead. I see your point tho. Sorry.
Re:Ok. This is getting silly. by Error27 · 1999-12-18 00:12 · Score: 1

this is the summarry:

tpck writes "Corel is suing the U.S. Department of Labour for favoring Microsoft's Office software over Corel's own WordPerfect. They have already successfully sued the Canadian government for similar discrimination and won $9.9 million. "

This is the first paragraph of the article:

Ottawa -- Corel Corp. is suing the U.S. Department
of Labor for allegedly tilting a bidding process in favour of Microsoft Corp., fresh off the Ottawa software maker's successful lawsuit against the Canadian government.

To me it looks like a fairly decent summary.
Re:Ok. This is getting silly. by RedX · 1999-12-18 00:21 · Score: 1

It's not entirely your fault, considering one of the reasons that user-submitted stories need editor's approval before being posted is so that the stories can be checked for accuracy. I'd like to think that Hemos and the rest of the /. gang actually read the articles that they are posting about, since we already know most of us lowly /. readers normally don't bother.
Re:Ok. This is getting silly. by tpck · 1999-12-18 00:56 · Score: 1

I actually did read the article, so I feel sort of foolish. :) I just misspoke.

For once, I favor the plaintiff! by timothy · 1999-12-17 22:57 · Score: 5

It's a dillemma that all government spending creates: how do you pick the suppliers who will provide your (toilets / cafeteria service / word processor) *fairly*?

To my mind, in the end there are only more fair and less fair ways for govt. agencies to choose suppliers, no truly fair ones.

Why? Because unlike a private company (which can buy MS software all they want, for all I care, and more power to 'em, if that's what makes sense), government agencies are also simultaneously supposed to be stewarding the tax dollars of the taxpayers whose money allows them to function. Care to buy a toilet seat marked up by the Pentagon? Probably not -- because that 'stewardship' function often gets lost in the mix, since accountability is low / anonymity hight / consequences indirect / proof elusive.

The Labor Dept. may have sound, thought-out reasons why they want MS products: they've probably come up with a middle- or long-term scenario which says that preserving existing compatibilities is the most economical solution for them. No analysis of that kind is untainted by the assumption set of those who create it, of course -- all I'm saying is that it's likely that their analysis people say "For the reasons X, Y and Z, we need to stick with Word and Excel, therefore with Microsoft." Possibly very shortsighted, but then concrete reasons are often more persuasive than statements about principle and potential. Also, if I can *prove* (on paper, anyhow) that my answer will save you $500 a year, while your solution merely provides the *potential* to save $5,000 a year ...

Arguments like "Shouldn't we be using open file formats like XML for all documents, so that the choice of application vendors becomes a fluid and mutable one?!" I bet don't get real far in the DOL.

And consider how strange it is that one arm of the US Fed. govt. is trying to chop up (or at least demote) Microsoft, while another says "Yep, these are the guys whose software we like!" Computer companies (hard and software) love Govt. sales, at least once the elaborate bidding and qualification process is over, because they know that once in the door, govt. bodies tend to re-order rather than switch vendors at the drop of a hat. Think Morton-Thiokol.

Shades of the two French senators ... perhaps Messrs. Graham and Rudman would like to introduce a bill requiring that Free / free solutions be included in cost analyses for all Federal government computer purchases ...

timothy

p.s. I think the Dept. of Labor should be jettisoned, anyhow. This here's just one more reason.

--
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5

Re:For once, I favor the plaintiff! by jeremy+f · 1999-12-18 00:33 · Score: 2

{...}
Why? Because unlike a private company (which can buy MS software all they want, for all I care, and more power to 'em, if that's what makes sense), government agencies are also simultaneously supposed to be stewarding the tax dollars of the taxpayers whose money allows them to function
{...}

There's one thing I want to mention. You're in favor of Corel, however, if you're a US citizen, then you realize that if Corel wins & the DOL loses, the money won from the lawsuit is going to be coming out of our pockets. The DOL IS a Government agency, where do you think they get their money?

Even if the US Government is wasting their money by spending [our] money superfluously (like they haven't ever done that in the past ;-) ), if they lose the lawsuit, we'll feel the pain from their loss -- we'll be footing the bill :-(
Re:For once, I favor the plaintiff! by red@wetcoast.ca · 1999-12-18 04:59 · Score: 1

>all I'm saying is that it's likely that their
>analysis people say "For the reasons X, Y and Z,
>we need to stick with Word and Excel, therefore
>with Microsoft."

You did read the article, didn't you?

>even though a majority of the department's 20,000
>work stations already had licences for Corel's
>WordPerfect software

They're converting to MS, not sticking with it (the majority of their computers, anyhow)

Now I don't know how the US DOL 'tilted' the bidding process - the article was kind of short on details, but this isn't really a case of the gov't re-ordering.

--
"When correctly viewed, everything is lewd
I could tell you things about Peter Pan
Or the Wizard of Oz...
Re:For once, I favor the plaintiff! by elbobo · 1999-12-18 07:48 · Score: 1

Actually I believe the article states Corel is not going for damages, but is hoping for an injuction. Or something. Legal terms generally shoot way over my head, but it sounds like they're just pressing for this deal to be redone under a more level and honest process, rather than to get back the money they lost on the deal.

Still, I could be reading it all wrong. So sue me :)

Government Procurement by overshoot · 1999-12-17 22:58 · Score: 4

FWIW, I've been there a few times. In theory, Government RFQs are supposed to set out the needed characteristics; the order is required by law to go to the lowest bidder complying with the requirements. In theory this prevents corruption by leveling the playing field. In practice, bureaucrats get around it by writing the requirements to exactly match the (preselected) product.

For instance, I once saw an RFQ that specified the exact length of the power cord plus or minus a quarter inch. Amazingly, that was the length of IBM's cord, but not one commercially available. All of the other bidders had to have custom cords made (at extra cost.) The same pattern was repeated all through the RFQ.

In Corel's case, what appears to have happened was that the Labor Department insisted on several of Word's quirkier features (e.g., macro language) which almost nobody uses. Instant disqualification for everyone but Microsoft.

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."

Re:Government Procurement by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 00:22 · Score: 0

I believe your post is very on-target except for the part where you call macro languages a quikey feature that nobody uses. Are you on drugs?
Re:Government Procurement by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 00:25 · Score: 0

macro language? Nobody uses? ahhahaaha Not only is VBA across the entire suite kick ass, it may be licensed and integrated at a very small cost.
Re:Government Procurement by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 00:34 · Score: 0

Please don't insult us with your VB propagandita. We who are born to hack use Lisp, Scheme, Perl, and Python to do our jobs. BASIC is beneath us.
Re:Government Procurement by Camel+Pilot · 1999-12-18 02:23 · Score: 1

Well, I think it is possible to write Word/Excell etc macros in Perlscript.
Re:Government Procurement by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 02:45 · Score: 0

Gee, and it was the "small cost" of its distribution license fee that first drove me to Linux for a commercial project I was developing in Office with VBA.

By the way, VBA isn't the Office macro language. The macro language is seperate and other from VBA. I ignore the macro language and go straight to VBA code.
Re:Government Procurement by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 04:23 · Score: 0

Yep, and you're eager to make sure that your level of "expertise" is required wherever possible, eh?

Sounds like you wish you were in a labor union, to me.
Re:Government Procurement by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 06:00 · Score: 0

Hasn't Corel already licenced VBA?
Re:Government Procurement by dillon_rinker · 1999-12-18 08:31 · Score: 2

several of Word's quirkier features (e.g., macro language) which almost nobody uses

You picked a bad example here. Many companies use Word's macro language. Many companies like the ability to create custom features that MS will never put into Word. Many companies would see their productivity go down if they lost some of the custom features they've created and trained their employees to use. I wouldn't consider Word's macro language one of its "quirkier features" since for some of MS's customers, it is a major selling point. Especially the customers who write macro viruses...
Re:Government Procurement by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 15:00 · Score: 0

And how do you use those languages to take a spreadsheet, update the data from a database, create graphs, export the graphs to gifs, copy the gifs to your web server and then clean up the spreadsheet? It's easy to do all that with Excel and VBA, not any clueless computer user but anyone with moderate experience and minor programming knowledge could do it.

Right and left hand contradict by Bitscape · 1999-12-17 22:58 · Score: 4

If the government wants to curb Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior, the first, and most obvious, measure to take would be to refrain from encouraging these practices by patronizing the monster. It is hypocracy to for the DOJ to put Microsoft on trial, while another branch rewards the very behavior that is to be stemmed.

Perhaps what is needed is a boycott by all government institutions of companies under investigation for antitrust violations. At the very least, they shouldn't be making exclusive deals with them.

Of course, implementing and enforcing consistancy of moral purpose with such an enormous bureaucracy is probably asking too much anyway.

In Microsoft's case, it's especially easy to suspect foul play, due to the inferior nature of their products. Why would any halfway intelligent entity sign away their productivity if some shady deal making weren't going on under the table? But then again, this is the government we're talking about.

Ugggh. The corruption just makes me sick.

Re:Right and left hand contradict by Rinikusu · 1999-12-18 03:49 · Score: 2

In Microsoft's case, it's especially easy to /suspect foul play, due to the inferior nature of their products. /

Pure FUD. MS makes quite a few QUALITY applications. The OS has issues, but Office97 was the best money I ever spent on software and Money99 has a better "feel" than Quicken, to me. You're just toeing up to the "party line" here. If the issue is WP vs. Word, I'll take Word everytime. I've had the "pleasure" of using both, I prefer Word (even though I started on WP). Plus I get the thrill of knowing that whenever I use Word that I'm using something Richard Stallman can't figure out. (see Linux Magazine interview)

/Why would any
halfway intelligent entity sign away their productivity if some shady deal making weren't going on under the table? /

Office increases productivity at my job. I don't know *what* you're talking about.

/But then
again, this is the government we're talking about. /

Agreed. The same government that found Microsoft guilty of monopoly. You can make your own inferences from that.

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Re:Right and left hand contradict by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:51 · Score: 0

So what? Stallman couldn't figure out Perl, either.
Re:Right and left hand contradict by gsfprez · 1999-12-18 07:35 · Score: 1

I assure you that everything that has to do with the DOJ case concerning Microsoft was done on 100% on Microsoft 95, 98, NT, Office, and Exchange.

The US Govt. has all but said "well, we want MS as a monopoly and screw the rules".

I can't think of a single new unclassified project, group, standard, technology, or policy that doesn't mandate the use of MS products... especially in the DoD.

--
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Re:Right and left hand contradict by Ozric · 1999-12-18 12:51 · Score: 1

At my work I spend alot of time fixing Office 97 problems. Most of them require a reboot because of BAD OS design. So lost work from Office 97 adds up rather quickly. Yea what a great productivity tool it is. NOT!
Re:Right and left hand contradict by Rinikusu · 1999-12-20 00:54 · Score: 1

Then stop using Office97. Start manually filing all your forms from now on, go back to typewriters, and make those big foamboard presentations of the past. I don't know what problems *you* have with Office97, I just know that I know how to use what I need to get the job done and then I get to go home and watch TV.

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Re:Right and left hand contradict by Rinikusu · 1999-12-20 00:57 · Score: 1

// Most of them require a reboot because of BAD OS design

If you go back and reread my post, I mentioned that the OS has it's issues. The applications, however, are generally very well done. Office97 has never given me a crash qua Office97 (at least that I could tell), however I can't say the same for Win95. This is NOT an OS critique, but an *application* critique.

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Re:Right and left hand contradict by Ozric · 1999-12-23 05:53 · Score: 1

So you say that a crash every once in awhile is OK. Well I DO NOT. I supose you like cars that stop running when you use the blinkers too.

Great Troll! by Electric+Eye · 1999-12-17 22:59 · Score: 0

I know this Natalie Prtman, petrified & naked stuff has gotten old, but that link is goddamn funny.... heeheehee.... Gave me a great laugh to start of the day... Now, on to my term paper... = /

Almost from Corel's own website... by SEWilco · 1999-12-17 23:00 · Score: 1

The quoted item does not have the proprietary characters in the Corel press release. For example, "Labor's" has an apostrophe in it rather than a proprietary character as in "Labor?s".

American or Canadian Dollars? by Kobes · 1999-12-17 23:04 · Score: 2

Is that American or Canadian?

If it's Canadian, they have created quite a precedent - the American DoL may be forced to settle for $2 or $3 US!

Minnesota... A bit too close for my taste. =)

--
Providing Thetan's(TM) safe-haven for over 18 years!

Innocent Until Guilty by Kobes · 1999-12-17 23:12 · Score: 1

The problem with mandatory boycotts if it is under investigation for antitrust, is that we begin assuming that you are guilty until proved innocent.

Also, this creates an even larger opening for corruption. Senator J. Doe of Minnesota, who receives funding from ABC Software, Inc. decides he will request investigation of BCD Software, Inc. which makes a rival product - and all this right at the time that the Department of Tomfoolery has decided to upgrade their widget-making software. With this new investigation, the DoT will be barred from purchasing the software from BCD. Hence, they lose a large contract, all because of political motivations - and you have to admit this curbs any kind of competition.

The last thing we need now is mandatory courses of action. Besides, what if the M$ (gasp) product is better than Corel WP?

I hereby declare a Jihad on personal opinion - we must all conform!

--
Providing Thetan's(TM) safe-haven for over 18 years!

Re:Innocent Until Guilty by Bitscape · 1999-12-17 23:28 · Score: 1

The problem with mandatory boycotts if it is under investigation for antitrust, is that we begin assuming that you are guilty until proved innocent.

True. Perhaps just a boycott of companies that have been found at fault by a judge. This would implicate Microsoft under the FoF, would it not? Of course, the deals in question probably took place before the FoF came out.
Besides, what if the M$ (gasp) product is better than Corel WP?

Given that, according to the article, most of the workstations had already licensed WordPerfect, it would seem that the people actually using the software thought differently. Otherwise, they would have installed Microsoft software in the first place, right?
Re:Innocent Until Guilty by Relforn · 1999-12-18 04:29 · Score: 1

As is the case in most WordPefect places I have encountered, there was probably a self-important WordPerfect guru who nobody could stand. A mid-40's lady with bright orange hair who uses too much perfume, but she knows that control-alt-leftshift-rightshift- is the keystroke sequence you need to accomplish that little thing that's required for your document.

Probably 40 other people in the deparment celebrated over lunch together when Word was installed on their machines. I can hear the chorus of "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" in my mind now....
Re:Innocent Until Guilty by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 04:35 · Score: 1

Sounds like some emacs queens that I know.

Just another frivolous lawsuit by briancarnell · 1999-12-17 23:12 · Score: 0

What I said.

Re:Just another frivolous lawsuit by Robert+Wilde · 1999-12-17 23:32 · Score: 1

It's not a frivolous lawsuit. When the DOL doesn't allow an open a fair bidding process - there is nothing wrong with using the courts to remedy the situation. For heaven's sake, your tax dollars are being used to pay for this software.

This is a case where some bureaucrat decided on his own, without justifying the decision, that MS software should be used, regardless of the cost, and changed the bid specs so that only MS could submit a "compliant" bid.
Re:Just another frivolous lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 05:18 · Score: 0

For heaven's sake, your tax dollars are being used to pay for this software.

Well, right now my tax dollars are being used to pay yet again more fricking lawyers!

[Since already OT] Why "Labour" Isn't /. a US site by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 23:29 · Score: 1

What the FSCK(1) is with the stupid Brit spelling? Slashdot is an American site, isn't it? Don't they know that there is a dangerous shortage of "U"s in the world. The genius, Noah Webster, had the brilliant foresight to see this waste of precious Us and did something to halt their senseless slaughter. Words that don't need nor pronounce the Us had them revoked (color, flavor, labor, etc.). And what's with the "re"s on words like center and meter and theater? Are we FRENCH? No! Death to the French! Turn those "re"s around to domonstrate your proud dislike of French influence upon the English language. De(d) to (p)e Gauls and (p)eir cyngs who wra3t haevoc upon (p)e En3lish lan3ua3e!

This is not 'l33t sp33k. The (p) = the thorn character [voiced th sound], 3 = yogh [gh sound], ae = asc [short a], and (d) = the eth [unvoiced th sound] character in the above.

Can't be done. (slightly off-topic) by Arctic+Fox · 1999-12-17 23:35 · Score: 1

As long as lawyers are in control of the Judiciary, they will always be open to "help" their buddies.
It's also looks to me like a conflict of interest when the Clintons and most of Congress are lawyers!
Opportunistic lawyers are feeding off of the American's desire for more money with less work. There haven't been revolutionary changes in the legal system here in 200 years. All that changed are more laws which can used by lawyers to fill their pockets.
How do we change the legal system? Not easily. But i'd like to see a)informed juries. (a jury is 12 people who are too dumb to get off jury duty). b)Punative damage settlements go to level government in which the case is tried. c)Lawyers only get a fixed fee. (something no less than $100,000) d) Plaintiff gets realistic damages. ($12 million for spill coffee because you are a f*cking idiot is not realistic, a kick in the ass would be) e) Loser pays for all legal costs incurred, not the taxpayer.)

Re:Can't be done. (slightly off-topic) by Arctic+Fox · 1999-12-17 23:36 · Score: 1

whoops... "(something no less than $100,000)" should read, "(something no more than $100,000)"
Re:Can't be done. (slightly off-topic) by mangu · 1999-12-17 23:42 · Score: 2

Perhaps this too: a frivolous case may be thrown off by the judge, and the lawyer punished by a fine, without hearing the jury. A case, after being thrown off, could still be appealed to a superior court, however. In this case, the lower court judge could be punished for wrongly considering a case "frivolous".
Re:Can't be done. (slightly off-topic) by Analog · 1999-12-18 00:23 · Score: 2
I agree with everything you've said here. I recently had a conversation with a law student about these issues; I've tried to talk to lawyers about them, but they're never willing ('you haven't been to law school, you wouldn't understand').
According to her, they teach the following at her school:
- Laws must be written vaguely, otherwise they will have unintended consequences that cannot be addressed(!?)
- The 'average' American must not be allowed to participate in the political system (ie, run for Congress) because they are incapable of understanding the issues involved with creating laws that run the country
- The rights enumerated in the Constitution were never meant to apply to the general populace, but to an 'educated' superset (she got upset when I began calling it an 'elite class') that would then make all decisions on behalf of the people
Given that this is what these people are learning (and since it makes them part of the 'elite', I'm sure they're all more than willing to buy in), it's no wonder things are as screwed up as they are.
Re:Can't be done. (slightly off-topic) by Tom+Christiansen · 1999-12-18 00:27 · Score: 1

They may have had a point, considering that we do not have an educated populace, and that media manipulation does more to affect a vote than reasoned examination of the issues does. :-(
Re:Can't be done. (slightly off-topic) by TPx · 1999-12-18 02:17 · Score: 1

Cool. Nazis in the US. Nice place.

What's next? The uneducated masses have no real right to live, anyway?
Re:Can't be done. (slightly off-topic) by kdeboy · 1999-12-18 07:51 · Score: 1

That is because government and the media encourage people to be stupid. The government's reason is probably that stupid people are easier to control. As for the media, I guess they just like thinking they are smarter than everyone else. I guess that is why both media and government (almost) always appeal to emotion instead of reason. Anyone that doesn't want a more and more leftist government is called an "anti-government extremist." If you don't like the way things are, vote Libertarian.
Re:Can't be done. (slightly off-topic) by arachno · 1999-12-18 15:28 · Score: 1

You would do well to be less cynical about the Jury system if you did not believe as you apparently do that those that do not evade it are 'stupid' - as opposed to principled. Coming from the UK, I am shocked at the widespread belief in the US even among people who seem otherwise ethical and moral that one has no public obligation to serve on a jury. All I can do is wish that if you ever are on trial that you are not tried by an unrepresentative jury composed of the stupid and the jobless.

Nope by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 23:36 · Score: 0

Well the Globe and Mail is a Canadian newspaper, so Labor is spelt as Labour. It's a subtle point but since we're talking about namespace issues, scoping is important. If the article said "US department of Labour" instead of US department of Labour, you'd have a legitimate point.

You're not even close to correct.

The article doesspell it "Labor" rather than "Labour" because, Canadian or not, the Globe and Mail knows enough to spell the name of an organization the way the organization spells it. Quotation marks have nothing to do with it and would, in fact, be incorrect here.

Re:[Since already OT] Why "Labour" Isn't /. a US s by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 23:38 · Score: 0

The "u" is a mistake the French made when borrowing from Latin. The English just copied the French without thinking. The Americans are being truer to the Latin roots than the gallicisms seen in Britspeak.

PTO does the same thing by Internet+Dog · 1999-12-17 23:46 · Score: 2

I got the following reasoning for PTO changing to MS Office from a PTO patent examiner in a bar one night. My experience leads me to believe that this the following was at least partially true regarding the PTO. Above the PTO level is speculation on my part.

The Patent and Trademark Office has 6000+ examiners using WordPerfect. Since the Director's office of the agency uses MS Office (they switched to MS Office so it would be easier to communicate with the Secretary of Commerce office, which uses MS Office (they switched because the White House uses MS Office)) the head of the agency set a policy that all of the PTO would be switched to MS Office to help facilitate communications. Trouble is, the PTO had invested a bunch of money in building up very complex macros in WordPerfect. These macros were used in millions of documents that examiners write in response to patent applications.

So if the reason the White House switched to MS Office is because Al Gore, the technology guru of the White House, is buddies with Bill Gates then can we safely say that the trickle down of MS Office to all agencies, regardless of value to the Nation, is the result of a politician's favoritism for a high profile megalomaniac.

I've got to run now, so this is kind of crudely written.

Re:PTO does the same thing by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 00:28 · Score: 0

Or perhaps WP just sucks compared to Word? Remember when they didn't even think a GUI version of a word processor (theirs) would be successful? Microsoft swept up due to poor mgmt and a "behind the times" product.

Re:Natalie Port-man by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 23:46 · Score: 0

HOORAY! more posts like this please.

Worse than that! ***US*** dept of "labour"????? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 23:46 · Score: 0

Sinde it is the UNITED STATES dept of labor, having the u in there is unquestionably wrong!

Re:Worse than that! ***US*** dept of "labour"????? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 05:14 · Score: 0

Sinde it is the UNITED STATES dept of labor, having the u in there is unquestionably wrong!
Sue them.
You wrote since wrong though, so you might have to settle that out of court.

I work there - pretty damned funny. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 23:49 · Score: 3

A bit of background. These huge monolithic government departments (ie. US DOL) usually have a central office then many bureaus under them. For example, US DOL has the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA), etc. that are usually in separate buildings, separate WANs, etc.

I work for one of the larger agencies and REALLY have to laugh. Main US DOL has been using Wordperfect for years and the agency I work for has always been a Micro$oft shop. We've been begging them for years to standardize on a single standard for document interchange, and now that they've come to the darkside like us and abandoned Wordperfect, they're getting sued.

Pretty funny stuff.

Guess you have to work there...

Re:I work there - pretty damned funny. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 05:12 · Score: 1

Blame the moronic attitude that interchanging word processor formats is a Good Thing. I'm really sick of getting one page memos in stupid virus ridden Word format. There is nothing wrong with ASCII for conveying information. I'm using it right now and you're reading it. I work at a medium sized university and I must say that the claim that even Word documents are somehow interchangable is a fantasy. People using Macs have trouble reading Word files created on a PC, even when both are running similar versions of Word.

Has anyone besides me had to deal with removing a Windows Word virus that breaks on MacOS Word from a Mac? WAKE UP!
Re:I work there - pretty damned funny. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 05:16 · Score: 0

Well said!
Remember that what ASCII *means*. And remember what Tim Berners-Lee said.
Re:I work there - pretty damned funny. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 14:40 · Score: 0

Care to spread a little more FUD sphincter boy? Virus ridden Word format? Get real, there are some macro virii around but how many have you actually gotten? I'd venture to guess that 99.99% of computer users have never seen a Word macro virus.
I'm sick of Unix bigots who seem to think that ASCII is all anyone needs or wants. Maybe you love the command line and straight ASCII text files but most people don't.
Re:I work there - pretty damned funny. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 17:39 · Score: 0

can we say, "Melissa"? I thought you could! there is no reason for word macros to execute system calls, it is a completelly unacceptable security risk, One which I doubt the majority of "Linux Bigots" nor I doubt, even the majority of windows users would willingly take
Re:I work there - pretty damned funny. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 22:05 · Score: 0

Virii is not a word. The plural is "viruses". Learn English.
Re:I work there - pretty damned funny. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 22:08 · Score: 0

Ah, a Microsoft fool exposes himself in public again. Let the fun begin.
Unix programmers certainly aren't limited to ASCII. But we know it is the most standard code for information interchange available. Of course, that's why it's called what it is.
We're quite capable of using typesetting languages like troff or latex if we want to, or HTML if we're forced to. And we even know how to send postscript around, but we aren't fond of it, because it's closed-source documentation.
And our systems text or markups still don't require illegal, proprietary characters. Get a clue, script kiddie.

Anybody Remember Enable? by quonsar · 1999-12-17 23:56 · Score: 4

Probably off-topic, but this reminded me for some reason of Enable. Enable was a powerful integrated office suite that ran on DOS and UNIX under X. Word processing, spreadsheet with charting capabilities, database, and communication components, all programmable via macros and a built-in 'report language' that reached into every component. Powerful stuff in its time. I think it was 1987 or so when my employer at the time bought version 1. The last I heard of them was a telephone conversation I had with one of thier sales reps in 1993 or so. She told me (with a certain excitement) that they had just signed a deal with Microsoft in which they agreed not to develop Enable for Windows. In return, MS would not port its office apps to X and compete against them in thier biggest market - the feds. Enable was selling tons of its product at the time to the federal government. A couple of years later Enable Software Inc. had completely disappeared. I recently found out that the former employer I mentioned is still running some applications we developed with Enable back in 1987! In MS-DOS windows under Win95! Does anybody know the rest of the story of what happened to Enable?

====== "Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16

--

Sacred cows make the best burgers.

Re:Anybody Remember Enable? by frank249 · 1999-12-18 00:36 · Score: 1

I used enable and remember it fondly. Their 3 D charting was miles ahead of anyone else at the time. They went the way of some other great programs like PC Tools, Harvard Graphics, X Tree Gold, etc. All crushed illegaly by Microsoft. Back to Corel. All they want is a chance to bid. They still might not get the contract but they should at least have a chance.

--
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
Re:Anybody Remember Enable? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 02:56 · Score: 0

I live about 10 miles from the former Enable HQ. Several of my friends worked tech support there.

Basically Enable, without a Windows product, just plain belly up and died.

To be fair, they made some real mistakes along the way, and Enable 3 was apparently a real turkey, but...they made an integrated suite, which under DOS was really nice. Under Windows such a product is redundant.

Enable ended its days, as I recall, cutting a deal with Lotus wherein Lotus payed Enable for every customer they advised *not* to purchase Enable or an Enable upgrade and recommened Lotus.

Really a sad way to die.
Re:Anybody Remember Enable? by DaveHowe · 1999-12-18 08:04 · Score: 2

In return, MS would not port its office apps to X and compete against them in thier biggest market - the feds
Hmm. the exact terms of this could be interesting - what does it specify - MS doesn't port OFFICE to X at all, MS doesn't compete with Enable in the Federal market, or some strange combination?
--

--
-=DaveHowe=-
Re:Anybody Remember Enable? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 15:08 · Score: 0

"Basically Enable, without a Windows product, just plain belly up and died. "
So they made a fataly stupid business decision. It's not Microsofts fault when another company does stupid things.

Anyone know which contract? by SEWilco · 1999-12-17 23:58 · Score: 1

Anyone find more info about the contract? I searched through the obvious places and couldn't identify it. Searching for "Microsoft" comes up with a lot of procurement announcements, but adding "Department of Labor" produces zero...but it could be listed under the subdivisions.

Canadian case by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-17 23:58 · Score: 1

As I recall, Corel successfully sued the Canadian gov't because the gov't specified that, while anyone could submit a bid, if the bidder wasn't submitting one based on M$ products, they had to cover re-training costs for staff. Naturally, Corel thought this was unfairly prejudiced against them, and the courts agreed.

Personally, though, as both Word and WordPerfect have graphical environments, I don't see a heck of a lot of difference in using one or the other. More advanced users may disagree, however.

Re:Canadian case by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 00:12 · Score: 0

Basic letter writing is the same. However, macros, forms, mail merges, templates, etc.. have minor to major differences. Plus, many companies have standardized on Visual Basic for simple utility development. I believe that some retraining cost should be included in the quotation. But it should work both ways: Microsoft should include retraining costs for Word Perfect offices.

All about the benjaminGs? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 00:00 · Score: 0

This article is from the department of "It's all about the benjaminGs.

Am I missing a joke, or was that just a typo?

sue em all by shazam* · 1999-12-18 00:02 · Score: 1

Well, I'm Canadian, but it occurs to me, if you are an american taxpayer, maybe you should sue the US government for wasting your tax dollars by not using Linux and Star Office.
Any idea how much the choice to run windows on all of the US government's computers must be costing?

Just here to stir up trouble.

Re:sue em all by toast0 · 1999-12-18 01:21 · Score: 1

well the idea is not the cost of the component, but the total cost of ownership for doing the job that is needed, but thats not really the point of the lawsuit.

the point of the lawsuit is that the DoL has a legally established method for determining what software to use, and did not apply that method.

If you want a really inexpensive office suite look at this: http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/joelzahn/Office2000/ index.html

(but then theres the TCO which would be rather high because of the costs of editing and transmiting documents)

--
Need a Catering Connection

UHhhh by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 00:16 · Score: 1

Corel's reasoning seems rather flawed to me. While I'd hate to see the government spend $500.00 on a wrench when they could buy a similarly functional wrench for $5.00, software is a whole different beast. Like it or not, we all realize you pretty much have to be MSOffice compatible in order to exchange documents with outsiders. Now, most suites, including COREL's, have the ability to export to Office, but usually the results are mixed (at best).

When it comes to software you can't just say cheaper is always better..There are so many other factors. By Corel's own reasoning, the DOL should be using AbiWord, KOffice or hell even emacs or vi. They are all free, saving us taxpayers those millions of dollars.

Re:UHhhh by the+eric+conspiracy · 1999-12-18 02:50 · Score: 1

Like it or not, we all realize you pretty much have to be MSOffice compatible in order to exchange documents with outsiders.

WHY????

People will submit stuff to the government in whatever format the government asks for, be it LaTeX, XML, PDF, or Klingon. In fact Klingon is probably a lot easier to understand than the format used to electronically file income taxes in the US. If I was able to submit my taxes as an Excel spreadsheet as an email attachment, that would be one thing. But NoooOOOOooo, it's a bizarre format and special protocols requiring custom software all the way.

As a US citizen I strongly object to the US Government adopting a standard that is controlled by ONE COMPANY, one that has been proven to be a monopoly in a court of law. This will in fact have a real cost to taxpayers because the government is no longer able to obtain real competitive bids (as in this particular suit!).

As far as I am concerned Corel is doing the US taxpayers a great service. I hope they win and win big.
Re:UHhhh by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:08 · Score: 0

If you want a document from me, you'd jolly better better grok troff or latex. Otherwise, you can go blow, cause that's all you get, buster. Never push a wizard.
Re:UHhhh by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 04:43 · Score: 0

We don't need to push. You'll stumble off the cliff on your own.

Stuff this in your ASR-33 and smoke it.

Yeah but... by bittersLG · 1999-12-18 00:20 · Score: 2

Its true, every day hundreds of organizations make huge donations to MS, just because its a safe bet. I wonder how many IT managers really bother to take a look at the competition to MS Office before "standardizing", and weigh the cost benifits between packages. I used to work for the Goverment in an IT capcity. I could'nt sole source a $60 video card without detailed justification as to why I wanted a particular brand/model, but for some reason, there was absolutley no problem with ordering 1000 seats of a particular office automation package at $300 a pop. Perhaps law suits will force the goverment and industry IT departments to start using what was once common sense...seek out the right tool for the job at the most economical price point. I see too many IT staff walking around these days in a MS daze. At some point these people stopped looking outside the box. Any manager who makes a decision on standardized software without investigating all of the options is not doing thier job. Indeed, doing so while working for the goverment is also illegal.

just my $.02

Bart

Re:Yeah but... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 00:25 · Score: 0

A manager's primary job is to Cover His Ass. If he buys Corel WordPerfect, and then Corel is gobbled up and spit out by RedHat, or otherwise has a dramatic failure, he has potentially wasted millions of dollars on software that won't be supported. The likelyhood of this happening with Microsoft is virtually nil. So, maybe the managers you speak of aren't stupid, they are just Covering Their Asses.
Re:Yeah but... by Phrogman · 1999-12-18 00:57 · Score: 2

There was an old saying: "No one ever got fired for choosing IBM" - meaning that at the time IBM was considered so rock solid a company that its products *were* the standard, and regardless of cost no boss would challenge that sort of recommendation.

Well, I think that after a decade of propaganda in favour of MS products, exposure in University to same, etc, everyone naturally accepts (present company excepted in most cases I am sure) that MS products are entirely acceptable without a challenge.

The worst thing is the fact that in some cases they seem to have had licenses for WordPerfect and *still* switched to MS office.

From the cost perspective, we ought to insist, as citizens that offices consider a combination of some form of Linux plus Star Office - or at least the later on Windows since their systems probably already have it installed. SO is at least completely free and MS document compatible as far as I know. Since its free it ought to save the Government *millions* of dollars and at the same time not require them to also purchase hardware upgrades. The savings would be astronomical.

The only problem with switching government employees over to Linux would be the additional retraining costs for the new OS - which would not be trivial I am sure. Linux is *still* not as easy to use on the desktop as MS Win95/98 - although great strides are being taken.

My .06 cents (Cdn)

--
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Re:Yeah but... by Pont · 1999-12-18 02:20 · Score: 1

Linux usability is just fine for a setting such as a government office. For one thing, Star Office tries really hard to make the user feel like they are using windows (yuck). There's even a Start menu!

Secondly, in a corporate or government setting, each individual user does not need to administer their own machine. Training someone to use linux is a lot cheaper than training someone to administer linux. On the other hand, every user does need to know how to administer their windows machine, although it's alot easier to 'admin' a 9x box than a linux box, but this also gives IT the headache and lost time of restoring someone's fubared 9x machine. I would say that it's much easier to use linux than use + administer correctly any windows.

The same goes for most uses of NT I've seen, since the first thing people do is give their normal username Administrator equivalence or just plain log in as Administrator 100% of the time.

So the company decides what software people need access to, with a suitable means of handling requests for new software. Workers are more productive without all the stupid AOL Instant Mess and Frootloops Screensaver 2000 anyhow.

ON-TOPIC (surprise, surprise): A challenge! by Serf · 1999-12-18 00:20 · Score: 3

Can I do a song, but stay on-topic?
Let's see....

Got it!

(to the tune of the Beastie Boys' "Girls", though that's not too hard to figure out....)

------------

Word!
All they want to use is Word!
They just agreed to all use Word!
Because last year they all used Word!

Corel don't think it's fair
The DOL has one vendor 'stead of a pair
And they counted conversion costs
To make a choice that cost Corel lots....

Now some of you say:
"How could they really choose this way?
They must have been led far astray:
It was MS they chose to pay
When they were investigated by the DOJ!
It not like that just started in May!
And the DOL did alread[a]y,
have a Corel license or two, eh?

And by the way,
Proprietary formats aren't ok,
The DOL should have gone to XML today.
If they had done that then I bet they
Would have more choices than Office 2K.
But RFQ's are broken anyway,
'cause bureaucrats, they like to stay
With things the way they are today.

So they use MS products to our dismay."

Word!
It's big and bloated!
Word!
It owns the market!
Word!
We hate its EULA!
Word!
Don't get me started!

Word!
All they want to use is Word!
Come Y2K time they'll use Word!
They should try something besides Word!
Word! (x12)

------------

Yee. I spent way too much time on that.

Shameless Self Promotion:
The original "Natalie man" is here.

Re:Signing with Ms . . . by Money__ · 1999-12-18 00:24 · Score: 2

She told me (with a certain excitement) that they had just signed a deal with Microsoft in which they agreed not to develop Enable for Windows. In return, MS would not port its office apps to X and compete against them in thier biggest market - the feds.

It's like signing a deal with Yugo not to make a Yugo that goes 180MPH. Yugo's don't do 180MPH just like Ms doesn't do X. Ms doesn't/hasn't/has no interest in making anything to X.

If this is indeed true, I would have to say that this was a very poor choice on the part of Enable.

I wonder if the DOJ is aware of this company and it's expierience with Ms.

A correction! by Serf · 1999-12-18 00:25 · Score: 1

Eek, got my facts wrong (I think), so here's a fix that I'm pretty sure (not entirely sure) is correct, though I don't think it works so well in the song....

(Plus, this is also the only direct reference... The 2nd "ay" stanza is indirectly broken in lots of places too. But I'm not gonna fix it. Anyone that has as little of a life as I do is welcome to, though.)

(to replace lines 3&4 from 2nd stanza)

------------

Or that Canada counted conversion costs
To make a choice that cost Corel lots

------------

RFQ for Melissa? by Ungrounded+Lightning · 1999-12-18 00:25 · Score: 3

... what appears to have happened was that the Labor Department insisted on several of Word's quirkier features (e.g., macro language) which almost nobody uses.

Looks like the Department of Labor thinks susceptability to macro virus attacks is a feature

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

What? The DOL's side makes perfect sense. by Uart · 1999-12-18 00:26 · Score: 3

Would the persident of the US ride in a Japanese car? No. Would the US military start giving all of its defence contracts to Russian companies? So why would any other US agency/department use software made by a CANADIAN company??? It doesn't make sense. unless there is no, i repeat, no American company to make something that the US GOV'T needs, they will always buy American. And why not?

--

Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!

Re:What? The DOL's side makes perfect sense. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 00:51 · Score: 0

And why not? Because it goes contrary to the laws of international trade such as those contained in NAFTA and the WTO. I can think of no good reason not to let any contract go to the most qualified bidder (the right combination of quality and cost). EVERY decision should be made on that basis, otherwise it is nationalistic and detrimental to both sides.
Re:What? The DOL's side makes perfect sense. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 01:10 · Score: 0

Yah right, except that in Canada, Corel makes a big noise about how Wordperfect is from a Canadian company and we should "Buy Canadian!". But when marketing to the Americans, Wordperfect is hyped as a "Made in USA!" product ( which it is ).
Re:What? The DOL's side makes perfect sense. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 01:21 · Score: 0

I hate to burst your little bubble but Word Perfect was started in the good ol USA by a company in Utah. (still part of the USA last time I checked) Do some net research and you will find that the path that lead it to being currently owned by the Canadian company had an awful lot to do with Microsofts "marketing" tactics. (being very facetious here when I say marketing) Word Perfect is as much an american product as any of the crap Microsoft puts out.
Re:What? The DOL's side makes perfect sense. by the+eric+conspiracy · 1999-12-18 02:33 · Score: 1

Well, the president of Canada used to and may still ride around in a Toyota Camry.

The US Military buys a lot of parts from Japan and Europe for a variety of reasons.

The only real restrictions these days are strategic; that is the military may decide to buy from a US customer because it wants to be sure the US has the capability to make something in time of war - and not get cut off from a vital part.

I believe in the case of Canada they are treated as if they were the same as US sourcing for military strategic reasons; that is nobody can envision a situation that wouild result in the US military not being able to get parts from Canada.

unless there is no, i repeat, no American company to make something that the US GOV'T needs, they will always buy American. And why not?

The reason why not is economic efficiency. The US makes certain things more efficiently than other countries, and visa versa. If you just buy American, then you end up with a lower standard of living (or higher taxes in the case of the government) than if you buy from the most efficient producer.
Re:What? The DOL's side makes perfect sense. by mdvkng · 1999-12-18 03:18 · Score: 1

> It doesn't make sense. unless there is no, i repeat, no American company to make something that
> the US GOV'T needs, they will always buy American. And why not?

Hmmm, we have here a Protectionist it seems.

Without going into a discussion of the benefits of open trade at a global level, we can safely look at the Canada-US arrangement as a single case. Go look at it. Good one eh? Wanna criticize it? Go ahead, try. It seems to work.

Now, the US military makes use of a fairly large amount of Canadian made nuclear material. An example is the Tritium used for nuclear triggers on H-Bombs. Now, if you weren't allowed to buy anything from Canada, who would the Canadians sell their goodies to? I'm sure they'd find many willing buyers.

No, the existing arrangment works better than most of the alternatives. So don't bitch about the smaller effects.

Oh yeah, think before slagging free and open commerce. It sounds real weird coming from an American. ;-)

-M
Re:What? The DOL's side makes perfect sense. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:24 · Score: 0

..."president of Canada"? Nice try. Bet you think he lives in Vancouver and commutes to Ottawa for work??

Idiots. They're everywere.
Re:What? The DOL's side makes perfect sense. by Uart · 1999-12-18 04:01 · Score: 1

um ok

but... NOT ANYMORE! Chryslers are now German cars, and Wordperfect is Canadian Software, thems the breaks...

--

Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Re:What? The DOL's side makes perfect sense. by Uart · 1999-12-18 04:04 · Score: 1

unless there is no, i repeat, no American company to make something that the US GOV'T needs

nuff said... The US couldn't obtain enough from america...

--

Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Re:What? The DOL's side makes perfect sense. by mdvkng · 1999-12-18 04:31 · Score: 1

See the related thread saying how Canada is basically a US protectorate. It seems we're both right.

-M
Re:What? The DOL's side makes perfect sense. by mdvkng · 1999-12-18 04:42 · Score: 1

... and Volvo and Ferrari are really Ford. Oy!
Re:What? The DOL's side makes perfect sense. by Uart · 1999-12-21 11:04 · Score: 2

only volvo cars.. the truck business is still independant

--

Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!

Correction #2! by Serf · 1999-12-18 00:32 · Score: 1

Eeeeek... Not another one.

Before "They should try something besides Word!":
"On MS systems they'll use Word!"

Didn't include enough lines there.

Re:What? american weapons use overseas parts? by Money__ · 1999-12-18 00:35 · Score: 2

unless there is no, i repeat, no American company to make something that the US GOV'T needs, they will always buy American.

At the risk of bursting your bubble:That is simply not true.
I sell to the our US Gov. every day, and I sell a Japaneese product, and I have amaerican made competitors. You see, Our product is just clearly better, and the US Gov knows that.
The fact that Corel is Canadian has no bearing whatsoever on this.

quirky features? HELLO!? by Pfhreakaz0id · 1999-12-18 00:42 · Score: 3

Geez. Do you know how many organizations have custom software to work with word & vba? That is not, I assure you, a "trivial feature" for many folks. If they have already written said software the cost of rewriting it in wordperfect's macro language would be substantial.

This is ridiculous. If this suit were against anyone but microsoft, you guys would be howling at what a stupid lawsuit this is.

--
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE

Re:quirky features? HELLO!? by gsfprez · 1999-12-18 07:33 · Score: 1

um... i work in a government office... and i ASSURE YOU...

macros are completely fucking trivial. most of these people wouldn't even notice if they all got StarOffice since they'd ask the same amount of stupid questions. Moving to StarOffice wouldn't increase or decrease the number of questions, it would just cost taxpayers a whole hellouva lot less.

--
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Re:quirky features? HELLO!? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 15:03 · Score: 0

Considering how fucked up most governments are, esp the US gov, we'll consider the source when listening to YOUR opinion.
Macros are not completely trivial and only a compelete fucking moron would think so. All those people who currently use MS Office would certainly notice a difference switching to StarOffice because StarOffice is a buggy, feature poor science project that's worth what it costs - nothing.
Re:quirky features? HELLO!? by Pfhreakaz0id · 1999-12-18 21:39 · Score: 2

You've got to be kidding. I checked out Star Office, and let me tell you, comparing it to M$ Office is a joke.

--
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Re:quirky features? HELLO!? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 22:27 · Score: 0

The point is that you can get the job done without using product from *icro*oft. You can use StarOffice. You can use Applix. You can use Abiword. You can use troff. You can use latex.
The point is we shouldn't permit a government-sanctioned monopoly in non-protocol-ified closed-source products.
Governments should support open protocols, not specific vendors.
Re:quirky features? HELLO!? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 23:14 · Score: 0

Let's not be forgetting that Word Perfect is also a `non-protocol-ified closed-source' product, as you put it.

Slashdot usually does better by Skim123 · 1999-12-18 00:43 · Score: 1

My first impression (despite my dislike for Microsoft) was that Corel was being a crybaby, so I read the article to get some more facts, but the facts (e.g. the mechanism of the government's alleged misdeed) weren't clearly spelled out. So instead of being mad at Microsoft or Corel, I'm now mad at whatever news organization provided the article

Usually we are told what to do and who to hate in a much more concise format. Hmmm... perhaps we'll have to think for ourselves this time?

--

I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

Re:Slashdot usually does better by HackLore · 1999-12-18 03:50 · Score: 1

touché

It has to happen a couple of times by / · 1999-12-18 00:47 · Score: 3

Bureaucrats do have to be held accountable somehow. Even if the money does ultimately come out of taxpayers' pockets, the fact that the department lost such a suit will look bad on someone's resume and will be taken into account for internal promotions. If we take an argument similar to yours to an extreme, one could be seen as advocating not paying victims of WW2 Japanese internment camps because the money came out of taxpayers' pockets.

Anything that makes comanies or government agencies think twice before blindly buying Microsoft crap might be worth doing. The fact that taxpayers will be shafted no matter what shouldn't come as any surprise.

--
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes

mirror by / · 1999-12-18 00:52 · Score: 2

H ere you go.

--
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes

Then you run out of suppliers... by Ungrounded+Lightning · 1999-12-18 00:56 · Score: 2

Perhaps just a boycott of companies that have been found at fault by a judge.

Then suppose some department of Squeaky Clean Software screws up (or the government does), and gets a fine, leaving CorruptSoft (which are scum but haven't been convicted) as the only remaining supplier?

And once Feet Of Clay software has had their hand slapped and can't sell to the government market, what incentive do they have not to go sour?

The suggestion seems like the current criminal justice system, where people who don't have consciences and thus can only learn to be "good" through enlightened self-interest are locked out of most of the rewards of being law-abiding, and thus have no incentive to reform.

Yes, if they behave improperly when obtaining contracts, it would certainly be a good idea to watch them carefully when they bid on future contracts.

But if you intend to punish them by locking them out of contracts, temporarily or permanently, as a punishment for an earlier misbehavior, they have to know before deciding to commit that misbehavior that if caught they may recieve that punishment. Otherwise there's no incentive for them to play nice.

Ex-post-facto isn't unconstitutional just because it's unfair. It's also unconsitutional because it doesn't work.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

Antitrust? by / · 1999-12-18 00:58 · Score: 2

Sounds like yet another example of Microsoft entering into anticompetitive with other companies to divide up markets into areas where they won't compete, leaving customers to foot higher bills. Or was MSOffice not big enough in 1993 to qualify as a monopoly?....

--
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes

Catamite? by / · 1999-12-18 01:01 · Score: 1

Your nephew's a catamite? How naughty! I'd suggest spanking him, but that might be counter productive.

--
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes

Corel sues US over MS by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 01:03 · Score: 3

I have used both Corel and MS products. Both are good products and get the job done when one needs a word processing/spreadsheet software. I happen to prefer Corel over Office and that has nothing to do with my feeling concerning Microsofts monopoly in the market. (I believe they do have a illegal monopoly by the way) I think the suit that Corel is bringing against the US government is justified and points out a far larger problem that we Linux users (and other alternative OS') have to start pointing out to the general non-techie public. In the past I have participated in various government bids and in general the winner of the bid is usually the company who can provide the best service/product for the lowest price. If anyone bothers to check pricing for these 2 products (Corel and MS) it is easy to see that the Corel Word Perfect suite is far less costly than the package that MS sells. This lawsuit is only concerned with one incident. The same scenario is repeated over and over across the United States from the federal level to the smallest town in the country. A vast majority of taxpayer funded organizations are opting into the (in my opinion) very over priced MS Office suites. This is costing all of us an incredible amount of tax money that is funneling directly into Microsofts coffers. I find this situation incredible! By all rights our appointed public officials should using the lowest priced solutions available to them. Their personal software preferences should not be a factor when they make the decision to spend tax dollars on software solutions for their agency. Instead it should be a decision based on what gets the job done at the lowest cost to taxpayers. Their jobs are to save us the taxpayer money as they do their services for the taxpayer. Corel IS a lower priced solution to the job and I believe they are justified in pursuing a suit in this situation. I also believe that we as taxpayers are justified in demanding that our government/public agencys seek out the lowest priced solutions and that should include Linux as an operating system for use in all our agencys. It is certainly a LOT cheaper than MS WIndows and NT by a long shot.

Re:Corel sues US over MS by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 15:19 · Score: 0

"I think the suit that Corel is bringing against the US government is justified and points out a far larger problem that we Linux users (and other alternative OS') have to start pointing out to the general non-techie public. "
That being that you are whining cry babies who want everybody else to support your choice of using a backward fringe OS rather than try to work with what the vast majority of others are using. When is the typical Linux zealot going to realize that the cost of software means next to nothing in the overall cost of training/using/supporting the software? Your typical /. zealot also seems to think that NT costs thousands of dollars, afterall it was posted on /. so it must be true. NT4 Workstations street price is less than $70. If you're a large corp or government agency doing a large purchase you can bet that your cost is going to be far less than that. Have you looked at what Redhat is charging for support? Support from RH costs far more than support from Microsoft. If the government switchs to Linux they should be sued for changing to a product that lacks features that are common to what the rest of the industry is using thus decreasing our governments ability to effectivly do it's job.
Re:Corel sues US over MS by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-19 03:21 · Score: 0

What does whining cry babies have to do with Corel vs US lawsuits let alone anything else? How is saving taxpayers money becoming a zealot. Count me a zealot then if it means lower taxes. NT server does cost users thousands of dollars and that is what all the comparisons I have seen are regarding. I work for a firm that sells both NT and Linux solutions and I can garantee you that NT IS FAR MORE EXPENSIVE than Linux by a long shot. Microsoft pushes NT Server over Workstation for network solutions. Workstation is meant to be a single user client even though you can use it as a server solution. Microsoft also demands that you license each user and copy of their software at an additional cost. No Linux distribution that I know of asks for that. You can use your copy on as many systems as you would like paying only once for the initial copy. Furthermore you can download a free copy of all distributions off the internet if you would like to forego the cost of a packaged distribution from one of the many companys selling Linux. Show me where I can do that on the net with any of Microsofts versions of operating systems from any period of time in their history. As to support costs every company out there charges for support costs and some more than others. What does the price of support have to do with Corels lawsuit over discrimnatory bidding practices by the US government? As for "features that are common to what the rest of the industry is using" Microsoft has long made a practice of trying to control and change the standards that the "rest of the industry" uses by their monopoly on the desktop. The true standards that the rest of the industry uses are not supported by Microsoft because they fear losing the dominant hold on the market they now have. You are an idiot trying to continue the MS fud tradition and I hope you continue using your chosen operating system as it slides into obscurity.

Concerned by Duxup · 1999-12-18 01:03 · Score: 2

I agree that if Corel wasn't provided the correct information to compete in the Canadian case that they indeed were an a an unfair disadvantage. However I'm concerned by this case.

The article states that:
"Corel said yesterday that it and other software makers were blocked earlier this year from bidding fairly for a lucrative contract with the U.S. department because it standardized its software on Microsoft's office automation suite, even though a majority of the department's 20,000 work stations already had licences for Corel's WordPerfect software."

If they were rejected from the chance to even bid on providing their software because they didn't fit the mold of "Microsoft's office automation suite." I can understand they're case. Such a situation would make it very difficult, if not impossible for anyone to compete in such a situation and indeed is unfair.

If they were given a chance, and simply rejected because they didn't have similar automation features or the tools that that the Gov. wanted I'm concerned what kind of president that this could set.

If my company were a government agency and chose an office suite (regardless of what suite) and told the losing companies "I'm sorry but we liked (insert any feature here) that none of your software had that so we're going with X." Would that be unfair? Or is that basically how the free market works? Could any Gov, agency (or maybe even private companies) be sued because they chose a product because it had (or they wanted) a feature that another doesn't?

Often when I debate the quality different pieces of software or even Operating Systems, they discuss the features and culpabilities of the software that other software does not have. I think the differences between the such software and Operating Systems is what drives developers to make they're software better, and in the end helps us all.

In the end it's hard to say if Corel was able to compete fairly with MS and I'm sure that will be the focal point of the case.

IMHO

Bzzt, wrong by tilly · 1999-12-18 01:04 · Score: 3

The US and Canada have a treaty known as NAFTA. Under that treaty preferential behaviour for US companies against Canadian bidders is not allowed.

In any case the Corel case would make it easier for smaller American companies to compete against other American companies as well. The nationality of Corel is a non-issue in this case. (As you would have known had you read the article.)

Regards,
Ben

--
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht

Re:Bzzt, wrong by Uart · 1999-12-18 03:58 · Score: 1

right but the DOL isn't a company... Its a government agency...

--

Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!

Very good by Ricardo+Casals · 1999-12-18 01:11 · Score: 1

Alright, pretty cool!

--
yeah ... i'm going to have to go ahead and not put a .sig here, alright?

So - If they go MS - let them by talldark · 1999-12-18 01:14 · Score: 1

Personally - I think - if they want to go MS and standardise - its for the better - no more converting between docs and no seperate training. If the want to go MS - let them - Its a free country and they can choose what they want to use.

i wish sun would do this. by small_dick · 1999-12-18 01:16 · Score: 1

with star office. i mean, it the next step to stopping the microsoft onslaught, forcing the people who say "we'll just use MS" to consider other packages.

as much as i'm against frivolous lawsuits, microsoft has bs'd the globe to the point where there is no choice but lawsuits to return sanity to the industry.

--

Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.

Decisions made by people or laws? by homunq · 1999-12-18 01:20 · Score: 4

How would you react if this story were "Packard-Bell sues over government purchase of IBMs"? In order to have IBM come in with the low bid, the government would have to do some serious fiddling of the requirements (which is what is alleged in this case). And (in a simpler world where these were the only two vendors) they darn well SHOULD fiddle the requirements - it shouldn't have to take a two-year multimillion-dollar double-blind study to prove that Packard-Bells are worthless.

(An even more realistic example would be "MS sues government for buying Palms over WinCE". From the feature tally, WinCE seems superior - until you actually try to use that junk. But I wanted to leave MS out of the issue.)

Anywhere but the government, people can buy whatever they want for whatever reason they want. And mostly, it works out pretty well. Sure, if you buy 7Up over generic lemon-lime because of their catchy "Image is nothing" campaign, you've wasted some money - but at least you aren't wasting your time trying to justify every subjective decision in terms of objective criteria.

Government purchasing rules are there for one reason - to prevent corruption. It's not that you need all those complicated RFQ processes to figure out the best, cheapest, easiest solution; the rest of the world does fine without them. It's just that when you let bureaucrats spend a lot of money that isn't theirs, you'd better have somebody to keep an eye on them - and unfortunately, we chose lawyers for the guard job.

Is this a case of out-and-out corruption? Probably not (although the previous post which mentions Al Gore has an interesting allegation). If it isn't corruption, it's just that some bureaucrat had a subjective preference for Microsoft and rigged the bid process to favor it. Much as I think they made the wrong decision in this case, I have to support their right to do that. Otherwise, our government would be eternally burdened with the equivalent of Packard-Bells and WinCE machines.

My verdict: just another silly lawsuit.

--
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3

hi moderator by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 01:22 · Score: 0

this post really isnt "insightful" to anyone who's read the article rather than just the (always wrong) slashdot writeup on it...

please do so before going buck-wild with your points next time, thanx

be honest by serialk · 1999-12-18 01:30 · Score: 1

if you are submitting articles onto here make sure you summarize them correctly and read _all_ of it, because for people who dont read the direct articles on here, you definitely confuse them and they have the wrong impression.

also, if you start making comments about topics make sure you know about them or else you sound pretty ignorant when you know nothing about them and very uninformed.

two words by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 01:36 · Score: 1

$64,000 hammers.

Re:two words by Stonehand · 1999-12-18 03:12 · Score: 1

And why:

Equal assignment of overhead.

--
Only the dead have seen the end of war.

Pass the LART, please... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 01:37 · Score: 0

How about I give you and grits boy a swift kick in the ass?

hemos and spelling... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 01:37 · Score: 0

...is like hemos and grammar or hemos and fact-checking. if you want both, look elsewhere.

Re:hemos and spelling... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 04:41 · Score: 0

What you say makes some sense.

How do I get rid of hemos?

DOD HAS DECLARED MICROSOFT THE STANDARD by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 01:38 · Score: 5

I'm amazed the US DOD hasn't been sued for it's "IT-21" standard yet. Under IT-21, Microsoft products (NT, Exchange, Office) have been declared DOD STANDARDS! Not preferred products, not winning bidders -- "STANDARDS." Individual commands are generally prohibited from purchasing any competing products. No bidding is conducted at all, unless it's about which VAR will provide support, etc. While DOJ is attacking the monopoly, DOL and DOD are helping to maintain it. I've watched this from inside the USN for three years and continue to be amazed that companies like Corel or Sun haven't gone to court with DOD already.

Re:DOD HAS DECLARED MICROSOFT THE STANDARD by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:18 · Score: 0

Wow, so much for American national security! Someone should be shot for that. Yes, I am completely serious.
Re:DOD HAS DECLARED MICROSOFT THE STANDARD by overshoot · 1999-12-18 03:34 · Score: 4

Interesting -- have they simply delegated the setting of DOD standards to Microsoft? When MS changes their file formats (for instance) do the old documents become noncompliant, or is the new software noncompliant, or does some O-5 somewhere draft a program to convert to the new standard, or what?

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
Re:DOD HAS DECLARED MICROSOFT THE STANDARD by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:36 · Score: 0

Wow, now we know where the American defence budget goes!
Re:DOD HAS DECLARED MICROSOFT THE STANDARD by gsfprez · 1999-12-18 07:29 · Score: 1

on the Air Force side of the house, we call it Joint Technical Architecture - JTA.

JTA is basically a list of Microsoft products that you must buy if you're going to start anything new.

What's even worse is the new messageing system for all of DoD... Defense Messaging System (DMS). Its replacing AUTODIN because its not Y2K compliant.

DMS is a hacked version of Microsoft Exchange Server and Client (yes, that's pre-Outlook) that does X-400. Now, the funny thing is that the DMS version of Exchange is not the same as the COTS version of Exchange... and so even if you have an exchange server, you still have to buy Exchange DMS Server and Exchange DMS Client.

What's really comical is that, because of DMS, all the AF bases switched off of perfectly fine UNIX servers, perfectly good Sun boxes, perfectly good email clients... and forced everyone to buy big heavy NT machines.

But that's only the tip of the Fraud Waste and Abuse...

See, to get a "jump" on the future, many many many bases went to Digital Alpha NT servers!!!
Set the "Way-Back" machine to mid 2000... there are going to be tons and tons (literally) of Alpha servers being thrown out to pasture since there's no more NT on Alpha.. no more DMS on Alpha..

and all that heavy iron will be sitting next to the completely useable, but horribly unused Sun SparcStations in some extra office... collecting dust.

What a waste of your tax money.

ps: my thanks to all of you for paying me to fuck you over for you!
pps: it wasn't my idea.... i'm getting beaten up twork for using StarOffice.

--
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Re:DOD HAS DECLARED MICROSOFT THE STANDARD by I_redwolf · 1999-12-18 07:54 · Score: 2

That's not true. The standards that you are talking of and the standards that the DOD(etc) are talking of have two different meanings. The standard that they are talking of is a BASIC standard what can be installed without any reference to superior officers or the DOD itself. Basically its just a way of getting something to use in the event that there is nothing else. You won't have to petition your commander to install the standard crap. However you really need to check out your local DOD installation army/navy whatever may have you. The navy might use NT for automatic stuff on their ships but alot of the servers used are *NIX systems. They take a little bit more effort to deploy and that's why things like Linux/Unix in general need to be petitioned to be used. In fact the ARNG just switched their janus system over to Linux. You might want to check some of that stuff out.
Re:DOD HAS DECLARED MICROSOFT THE STANDARD by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 15:21 · Score: 0

Shut up you loser. NT is as secure as it's admin, just like *nix.
Re:DOD HAS DECLARED MICROSOFT THE STANDARD by BenLutgens · 1999-12-18 21:03 · Score: 1

The fraud waste and abuse was one reason I finally decided to get out of the military. I too had to baby sit a bunch of NT boxes. What's worse is that before they bought any hardware / software they didn't bother to consult someone that knew anything about IT shit. THey overpaid for gateways and dells and god knows what else. What in gods name does a workstation that is only gonna do data entry need a 32 meg video card and SB64 sound card with altec lansing speakers. save your cash on that stuff and get good procs and alot of memory. I just didn't get it.

--
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
Re:DOD HAS DECLARED MICROSOFT THE STANDARD by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 22:18 · Score: 0

I don't see why you claim *T is as secure as *nix. *nix has a couple decades of reminement. It's also open to inspection by billions of eyes, and *T is not. In fact, *T has had historically many, many, many more expensive security bugs than *nix has.
Re:DOD HAS DECLARED MICROSOFT THE STANDARD by mpe · 1999-12-19 00:57 · Score: 1

I'm amazed the US DOD hasn't been sued for it's "IT-21" standard yet. Under IT-21, Microsoft products (NT, Exchange, Office) have been declared DOD STANDARDS! Not preferred products, not winning bidders -- "STANDARDS.

Presumably the reason for the attempt (which made little sense from an engineering POV) to run a warship using NT.

Canada _IS_ part of the US by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 02:24 · Score: 1

Hello!? If you haven't noticed already, canada is our 51st state. They were admitted into the union yesterday. No big woop, everyone thought they were the 51st state anyway.

Re:Canada _IS_ part of the US by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 02:49 · Score: 0

Yesterday I had some moderation points. Too bad I don't have them again. This idiot deserves
-2435569.
Re:Canada _IS_ part of the US by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:11 · Score: 0

Actually, if Québec secedes (where is Canada's Abraham Lincoln when we need him?), then this will trigger the end of Canada. The First Nations will secede from Québec, and the Maritimes might become an American protectorate. Stranger things have happened.
One of these days Ontario will figure out that there best best is to secede first. :-)
Re:Canada _IS_ part of the US by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:19 · Score: 0

And those of us in Western Canada (and the Territories -- I'm not forgetting you) just sit back, scratch our heads, and wonder about the rest of you to the South and East.

We already know that we're not really part of Canada, so why secede? But that's another issue altogether...
Re:Canada _IS_ part of the US by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:32 · Score: 0

That's right. Don't Washington and BC have some special treaty, or was that with Alaska?
Re:Canada _IS_ part of the US by mdvkng · 1999-12-18 03:34 · Score: 1

> and the Maritimes might become an American protectorate.

Eh? Like the whole damn country isn't already a US protectorate? I assume you've heard of NORAD, the DEW Line, the history of the former Canadian Nuclear Arsenal (acquired on the insistent and persistent "advice" of the US) and the curious fact that Canada's once proud military has withered into a shadow of a joke under the Protective Umbrella of the US military.

Canada's sovereignty is limited. Face it. It's a fairly obvious reality.

-M
Re:Canada _IS_ part of the US by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:41 · Score: 0

Better a US protectorate than a UK one.
Hey, tell you what. I've got a deal: How about if NAFTA and the EU both exchange their biggest pains in the posterior. The EU can have Québec, and NAFTA can have England.
That way the English won't have to complain about miles and pints, since 275 Americans can't be wrong. And the québecois can stop complaining about how nobody respects them warez-d00dz-style French. :-)
Is that like a clean solution to the afflictions of two continents (plus an island), or what? :-)
Re:Canada _IS_ part of the US by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:47 · Score: 0

Are you kidding? TV5 (cinq) actually *subtitles* the Kaybecker films!
Re:Canada _IS_ part of the US by Uart · 1999-12-18 04:11 · Score: 1

I'll sell Alaska back to you Canadians if you contribute to my Campaign for the American Presidency....

And I'll Blow up quebec unless they contribute more than the rest of you, in which case, i'll blow up the rest of canada.

You gotta love the American Political System...

The only place in the world where foreiners can contribute to and corrupt an american canidate.

--

Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Re:Canada _IS_ part of the US by mdvkng · 1999-12-18 04:28 · Score: 1

> Better a US protectorate than a UK one.

Indeed, we swapped the latter for the former.

> The EU can have Québec, and NAFTA can have England.

What? We get 58,000,000 Anglais for 6,000,000 Kwebeckers? What a trade! Kwebeck would love it, since they'd think it means they're 10 times more valuable than les Anglais.

Of course it could also mean that they're 10 time the pain. Hmmmm.

-M
Re:Canada _IS_ part of the US by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 05:23 · Score: 0

You must have missed all the cases where US forces (governmental and commercial) have contributed to and corrupted foreign politicians.

Often enough not with money, just prime ammunition.
Re:Canada _IS_ part of the US by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 11:41 · Score: 0

Alaska was purchased from Russia, not Canada. But I'm sure we'd love to have it.

Come on people. If you're going to make fun of us Canucks (everyone knows we deserve it -- seen our navy lately?) , at least get the facts right.

It looks a lot better than regular ASCII by Zico · 1999-12-18 02:29 · Score: 0

Sorry, but you're fighting a losing battle, so I'd recommend updating your code and fonts and getting used to it. Using ASCII quotation marks for both left and right double quotes is enough of an eyesore -- the absolute worst is the horrid kludge of using two backticks to represent a left double quote. It's all right for fixed-width files, but when you're trying to display something as it would appear in a book or newspaper, you folks really need to get with the times -- because the rest of the world isn't going back to the ugly and typographically incorrect way that you prefer. At least come up with an alternative that looks good, and one day people might adopt it.

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@com

Re:It looks a lot better than regular ASCII by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:00 · Score: 0

You are infuckingsane. That MS-ASCII shit is not legal in the HTML that /. is using. Do you really not understand?
Re:It looks a lot better than regular ASCII by notsosilentbob · 1999-12-18 04:19 · Score: 1

Then let /. strip them out.

Do you really expect everyone who copies text from an html page on the net to dump it into an
editor that they know specifically does not render the weird characters so that they can then hand strip the chars out?! That's silly.

Look -- I simply copied and pasted text from the Corel site using Netscape. It didn't show up looking weird in Netscape when I previewed my post.

I feel that I did due diligence, using a major browser to preview my post.

So just get over this already.
Re:It looks a lot better than regular ASCII by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 04:31 · Score: 0

Have you noticed the recent lamer post filters that slashdot has been using? Your illegal and evil $Bill-ware should be bounced until you do it right. If you don't know proper HTML, set your posting to plain old text, and we'll strip you to seven bits, too, just to show you who's boss. :-)
This isn't something for us to get over. You're the one making illegal posts. Cut it the hell out. Please get a real operating system.
Re:It looks a lot better than regular ASCII by notsosilentbob · 1999-12-18 05:11 · Score: 1

Since when is Netscape on a Mac is a MS product?

More importantly, please show me the /. rules section stating that you can only use Linux to read/post here. I have no love for MS products, but it's everyone's right to use it if they want to.

Last - I do post as plain text. I had to turn it off this once to post the the link to the corel site.

You know, this is really sad -- there is so much pent up anger and venom in the general /. crowd. I really seems to me that your average poster here has no self restraint from insulting and rude remarks coming straight out of the gate.
Re:It looks a lot better than regular ASCII by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 08:58 · Score: 0

We Mac and Windows users can see the quotes just fine in either Netscape or IE. Since *you're* the one bitching about the appearance of the posts, I'll kindly suggest that maybe you're the one who need the OS upgrade.
Re:It looks a lot better than regular ASCII by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 09:44 · Score: 0

You can take your extend-and-embrace bull and stick it up Bill Gates's butt. This is exactly the problem. You are in abject violation of the standard. Prepare to die.
Re:It looks a lot better than regular ASCII by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 10:14 · Score: 0

that twould be from all the spoiled little brats who had daddy buy them all their computing equipment....

grow up, our little heathens, and maybe you too will finally learn that hubris really doesn't get you anywhere except nowhere.
Re:It looks a lot better than regular ASCII by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 14:48 · Score: 0

Right on brother! Who cares if ONLY 95% of the general computer using public can read it, that fringe 5% needs to be supported no matter what the cost!
Get off your knees in front of Linus drone.
Re:It looks a lot better than regular ASCII by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 21:40 · Score: 0

95% of everything is crap -- recursively. 95% of the public watch TV. 95% of the public can't program their own computer.
'Nuff said.

Quiet, you by Zico · 1999-12-18 02:33 · Score: 0

Didn't you know that Tom's better than the rest of us?

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

It's Just Being Canadian, eh! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 02:41 · Score: 0

Just like colour (color), favourite (favorite) and our beer is better too, eh!

could i sue? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 02:42 · Score: 0

i programmed a word processor and the government didn't standardize with MY word processor. i am gonna sue.

It *is* pretty irrelevant, but... by Zico · 1999-12-18 02:46 · Score: 1

Slashdot's parent company now has a market cap of 840 million dollars. I don't think it's asking too much to hope that they hire at least one person to do some basic spell-, grammar-, and fact-checking of Slashdot articles.

Then again, seeing how the article summary was misleading and not representative of the article to which it linked, I guess the "Labor" thing is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Sheesh...

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

P.S. I saw Tpck's apology for the misleading article, and we all make mistakes, so I'm not looking for a public tar and feathering or anything. Unfortunately however, it's just the latest in a long string of recent Slashdot gaffes.

There's a reason for this by Zico · 1999-12-18 02:58 · Score: 1

Other government agencies recognize the DoJ's case against Microsoft as being the bullshit that it is. Do you also think that government employees will stop watching MTV as well? Gawd, it'll be nice getting the lawsuit-happy Democrats out of the White House and the Department of Justice in 2001.

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

This Happens All the Time by Ticker · 1999-12-18 03:07 · Score: 4

As someone who used to own a business and had the misfortunate of having to reply to RFPs on the small chance that we might have been that supplier PRESELECTED before the bid process began, I know that this happens all the time. It's not right.

Both governments, NGOs, and private business seem to often distort their RFPs for a supplier already chosen. You won't believe how often I saw RFPs that were very obviously titled towards a specific bidder.

Imagine being required to "show familiarity with the aims and objectives of the organization". When one of the bidders has worked with them in the past, they obviously have a definate advantage! I can mention countless other ones, but this having been several years ago, I forget most of the specific details.

Often government and NGOs send out RFPs only because they are REQUIRED to do so by either laws or internal policies. Most of the time, by the time the project requirements are made, they already are leaning towards a specific supplier.

I understand where Corel's lawyers are coming from here.

Disclaimer I'm biased; I now work for Corel. I don't always agree with our legal department (no one agrees with everyone all of the time), but in this case because of my own experiences I wholeheartedly agree.

Re:[Since already OT] Why "Labour" Isn't /. a US s by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:10 · Score: 0

What's more, if you look at a recent Oxford English Dictionary, you'll find that they now give 'color' and its ilk prefered status.

Labor it is, even if you *are* a Brit.

Re:[Since already OT] Why "Labour" Isn't /. a US s by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:14 · Score: 0

There is no English God but Oxford, and Burchfield is his prophet.

Re:[Since already OT] Why "Labour" Isn't /. a US s by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:21 · Score: 0

Maybe it's a sign that the millennium is at hand, if the Engish have finally kicked those Norman U's out of their language. I should have imagined that they would have waited until 2166 though. :-)

N0pe! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:24 · Score: 0

N0, 1n f@ct @ll th3 v0wls r br0kn. plz snd $$!

Yep! S*re is! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:32 · Score: 0

S*cks to be me!

Re:[Since already OT] Why "Labour" Isn't /. a US s by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:34 · Score: 0

No, I think you mean 2066, one thousand years after the Battle of Hastings. Hm... or is that 2067? :-)

Re:idiot hemos by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 03:55 · Score: 0

Quality isn't important. Didn't you read your scripture lesson? Release early, release often. The peer-review process has to be given a chance. So here we are, engaging in the peer review process.

Don't just criticize the article. Submit your patches for review.

etc., etc., etc.

This is really, seriously, distorted by Froomkin · 1999-12-18 04:20 · Score: 3

Speaking as a law professor, and sometime teacher of constitutional law, I think either

your friend goes to one h*ll of a lousy school, or
(more likely) she was pulling your leg, or
I'd start worrying about her grades.

According to her, they teach the following at her school:
Laws must be written vaguely, otherwise they will have unintended consequences that cannot be addressed(!?)

It's certainly true that there is a relationship between specificity and the inability to address unexpected consequences. But it's trivially obvious that there are many times when specificity is to be preferred. In the US, also, if a law is too vague it may be "void for vagueness" or even (in an extreme case) held to violate the constitutional non-delegation doctrine under which Congress may not make standardless delegations of power to the executive.

The 'average' American must not be allowed to participate in the political system (ie, run for Congress) because they are incapable of understanding the issues involved with creating laws that run the country

This is simply nonsensense. I honestly don't think I know a single person in law teaching who believes this. I find it hard to imagine anyone saying this to a class without becoming the subject of (deserved) derision.

The rights enumerated in the Constitution were never meant to apply to the general populace, but to an 'educated' superset (she got upset when I began calling it an 'elite class') that would then make all decisions on behalf of the people

There is maybe half a grain of truth here, but very distorted. It's true that at the time of the Framing, only white males could vote, and that a small number of states still had a (relatively low) property requirement for the franchise. The property rules lasted only a few years; giving women and non-whites the vote took much longer. But it's absurd to say that only elite men were expected to vote or have rights. Leaving aside the rather significant issues of blacks and Native Americans, it is very clear (in principle, and sometimes in practice) that the rights in the constitution, including the bill of rights, were for all.

It's less clear that political power was originally intended to be democratized. Only the House was a really democratic body; Senators were selected by state legislatures, and the President by an Electoral College - both measures designed to avoid having too much control by the unwashed. The dominant political theory of the day was more republican than democratic - rule should not be by direct democracy for fear of rule by the mob, by "passion". Hence the compromise of SOME highly democratic power in the House, including the ciritical power to initiate taxation (because tax without consent of the governed was wrong), but not what they thought of as too much.

Of course, all that was a long time ago, and the extent to which we should consider ourselves bound by the less than perfectly democratic intentions of a bunch of what some call "dead rich white guys" is controversial, especially in light of the large number of relevant constitutional amendments that make our system far more (formally) democratic today.

A. Michael Froomkin,
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA

--

I have a blog.

Re:Duh, there is no dept of labour by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 04:30 · Score: 0

The United States has a dept of Labor, but I've never heard of the dept of labour... you know where the queen can stick her english...

Government use of most M$ should be illegal. by dltaylor · 1999-12-18 04:38 · Score: 1

Since most government systems are performing routine office tasks, why is isn't already illegal for them to use any M$ product? Linux and FreeBSD are essentially free; that takes care of nearly all of the M$-WinX licenses. The Linux-compatible office software is cheaper (when free won't do) than M$. An RFQ should simply read "word processing software", and Applix, Corel, StarOffice, etc. should be able to meet/beat M$ prices. Additionally, the OS and some of the tools will run on systems currently using M$DOS or Windows 3.1, so that the hardware upgrades needed to use the M$ products aren't required either.

Does anyone know whether any of our US legislators or executive officers would like to really save the country some money (rather than just getting more press coverage)? If so, let's let them onto this M$ rip-off.

Re:Government use of most M$ should be illegal. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 05:31 · Score: 0

Indeed.

I represent the Dixon Pencil company and also the Fort Howard paper company.

I see no reason why government agencies should be using these wasteful expensive products when paper, pencils, and pneumatic tubes (to transport the memos around) work just fine.\

Forget the linux disaster you seem to be so fond of. We know what the real angle is: you want the contracts to administer the whole mess.

If you want a job pumping the bellows that drives the pneumatic tube network, just say so. Otherwise, bug out.
Re:Government use of most M$ should be illegal. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 05:34 · Score: 0

It costs unconscionably less to administer a network of 1,000 boxes running some kind of freenix than it does 1,000 of them running Microsoft.
Re:Government use of most M$ should be illegal. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 15:24 · Score: 0

Prove it. There have been many studies, yes done by Microsoft, that prove otherwise. Where is your proof that going with Linsux is cheaper?
Re:Government use of most M$ should be illegal. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 21:34 · Score: 0

First of all, you don't have to pay 1000 licences of anything with a Freenix system. Not the base O/S. Not networking licences. Not word processing work. Not printing, or web stuff, or firewalls. Nothing.
Second of all, the cost in human staff is far less, and this counts. That's because it takes far fewer sysadmins to manage Unix. Why? Because on Unix, you can do great automation of tasks, and because you have complete remote access. You don't have to go into somebody's office to fix something, or to install something. You never have to reboot the Unix system. You can dial in from home. You can write scripts to do automated work for you for everything under the sun.

Re:Duh, there is no dept of labour by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 04:43 · Score: 0

You mean Eng... ah, youre never going to learn it anyway.

Re:Ok. This is getting silly. [very OT] by jflynn · 1999-12-18 04:48 · Score: 2

Ken, if you're thinking of slashdot as information you already have the wrong idea. It's not information, it's data. There is an important difference between the two.

Even the slant given by how the article's poster saw it is data. You may not agree, you may find media that doesn't agree, but you will never find any way to invalidate the fact that the poster had that reaction to the article. It's data. Think of it as a pre-pended comment.

You are correct that there is no point in trusting the summaries -- *whether* they are accurate or not. They are *always* someone's idea of what was important in an article and that's all they are.

If slashdot isn't feeding you regurgitated information in the way you desire, you'll need to find a site that will. Otherwise, dust off those brain cells and come to your own conclusions, as, in fact, it appears you have.

I guess schools are leading people to think that you are supposed to go to the info superstore and buy colorfully packaged bundles of truth. Sorry, not in this lifetime. All media should carry the warning "DANGER: chew before swallowing."

We need a permanently open slashdot feedback article for comments such as this thread.

US Federal purchasing procedure... by itachi · 1999-12-18 04:52 · Score: 2

Lots of people who have commented thus far don't seem to get what Corel is suing over. Personal preference is not an issue in large scale government purchasing like this. It's all done with bidding. Not a question of whether the purchasers like the stupid little dancing paperclip or anything like that. Govt. contracts are awarded by bids. The department of foo puts out a request for bids (several types, all the same idea), companies write back with proposal saying that they can provide X goods and or services to meet the bid, it will take Y amount of time, and cost Z dollars. The government says oh, that bid is reasonable and cheap. Then they give a contract to the winning bidder. Now, since both Corel and MS had working products when the bidding was done, it should come down to cheap and fast. Of course, if the bidding process is cheap and a contractor is picked from a hat, they can pretty much set their price. And that is A Bad Thing. Corel's claim is that there was no bidding process, but if there had been, they would have been able to win the contract by having the lowest bidding price. The suit makes plenty of sense, and as a US taxpayer, I want very much for the federal govt. to use the bidding system to keep costs low.

itachi

Re:US Federal purchasing procedure... by MikeBabcock · 1999-12-18 13:40 · Score: 2

Here's hoping your post gets up-moderated ...

... I agree with you thoroughly that those who've posted thus far are basically ignorant of the issues involved (do Slashdotters read the links anymore before posting?).

The bidding process needs to remain fair; and if we don't like the bidding system, then we need another -open- system. it is, after all, your tax money (as you pointed out).

Personally, I'm not very happy about how the Canadian government uses Lotus in most offices when Corel is down the street from the capital buildings practically ...

... ah well. ;-)

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:US Federal purchasing procedure... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 15:20 · Score: 0

I have several friends who do business with the State (Hawaii) government. Typically, the State will invite bids not for Office software, but for "Microsoft Office." Corel, IBM, or providers of their software products are not given any chance at all. This is definitely inappropriate, but nobody was making any noise until Corel filed this law suit. Of course we don't like litigations, but sometimes we just do have any choice.

You're thinking of the wrong company by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 04:53 · Score: 0

Sun bought Star Office in order to use it (by embracing and extending it, no less). You're thinking of Caldera. They're the ones who bought DR-DOS purely as a vehicle to sue Microsoft.

OS discrimination by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 04:56 · Score: 0

If Corel can make a lawsuit claiming discrimination in the 'favoring' of a word processor, can't we make the same lawsuit claiming discrimination in the favoring of Windows?.

Doesn't the US government have to allow for individual choice and allow for a multi-cultural environment?
If so, Then why is a single Desktop OS tolerated?

How the real world works! by Last+Warrior · 1999-12-18 05:06 · Score: 1

I stand corrected.. I didnt think the trickle down theory worked. I guess the starving engineers in the microsoft labs will be able to feed thier pet lawyers. :)

On another note, you cannot mandate preference. If you prefer one produt over another regardless of the price or performance, you are entitled to make that choice.

When switching from one platform over another in a large organization, you have to take into account many facets.

1. stability of the vendor

2. compatibility with the whole of the organization.

3. price/performance

4. costs associated with training and migration.

Thens the breaks boys and girls. The stability of the product has less to do with the final decision than any other factor. Not tomention that even though Office is a bloated behemoth, It still basically kicks ass.

Last Warrior

SGML by Money__ · 1999-12-18 05:43 · Score: 2

This Corel case has a lot to do with compatibility between documents and the tools used to create and link them.
On the interest of public service, I've taken a moment to lookup some informative links on a document standard that is not only wide spread, but should be included in any government RFQ.
A Google search on SGML
And also, this SGML buyers guide is interesting
A gentle introduction to SGML on the W3.org site.
The SGML/XML Web Page @ Oasis-open.org
SGML tool @ SGMLtools.org (the download page is interesting)
SGML Editing and Composition @ infotek.no is interesting.
not to mention the sgmlsource.com
a What and Why page on SGML @ ex.ac.uk

Re:SGML by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 06:15 · Score: 0

Also, Consumer Word Processors that support SGML

A recommendation by Brian+Knotts · 1999-12-18 05:46 · Score: 1

Some may see this as off-topic, but I think given the error in the topic name, it is not terribly so.

I have a serious recommendation for Rob & the gang. Go to the local college bookstore, and pick up several copies of The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual, Norm Goldstein, ed. Keep one copy at each editor's workstation. FedEx a copy to editors who work from remote locations.

Had it been consulted, it would have prevented this error, and many other recent errors. I highly recommend it.

Um... by Booker · 1999-12-18 05:51 · Score: 2

You could say the same thing about any open source project when it was first getting off the ground.

A free unix? Don't kid yourself, buddy.
A free desktop? It'll never happen.
Free SMB networking? No way, too hard.

It's ludicrous to point at something that's under development, complain about it's shortcomings, then extrapolate that "it'll never happen."

----

Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 06:09 · Score: 0

What's a "desktop"?
Re:Um... by Foogle · 1999-12-18 09:02 · Score: 2

That's hardly the same thing. I didn't say that a free office suite would never take over. I just said that it wouldn't be AbiSuite :)

-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

No way! by Brian+Knotts · 1999-12-18 05:56 · Score: 1

Canada is the home of Molson, Purveyor of Piss-Water to the Northern Masses. Portland, Oregon is the home of fine brews. We have more breweries per capita than any other city in the world (according to the people who put on the Brewing Festival).

But there are some decent micro-brews in Victoria, I will admit.

WordPerfect 2000 includes VBA by MatriXOracle · 1999-12-18 06:22 · Score: 1

Corel licensed VBA for WordPerfect Office 2000, and also kept compatability with the older WP scripting language. So I don't think the scripting language was the problem unless this bidding process was tendered before WP2K was released.

Who moderated this down? by MatriXOracle · 1999-12-18 06:26 · Score: 1

This is one of the funniest posts I've read all day!

Was this moderated down by some guy worried that this might offend Canadians? I'm Canadian, this doesn't offend me at all, and I don't think it would offend very many others either. We all know that our dollar is complete crap.

Actually it isn't by MatriXOracle · 1999-12-18 06:31 · Score: 1

Corel closed the WordPerfect offices in Utah last year... now everybody working on this product either works in Ottawa (for main development) or Dublin (for international translations).

Uh....no by MatriXOracle · 1999-12-18 06:39 · Score: 1

For one thing, the leader of the Canadian government is called the Prime Minister... and for another thing, he rides around in a U.S.-built Buick Roadmaster. The armor might have been put on in Canada, but I'm not sure.

The reason the U.S. military can't get parts from Canada is that we don't have any parts... because the Canadian military has been neglected to the point that it's now a complete joke.

Still, the US Government definitely buys stuff that is made in Canada. For example, all those Ford Crown Vics used for cop cars? Canadian. Bullet/bomb-proof glass from ACE/Clear Defense? Canadian. Chevy Camaros? (you know the gov't has a few of those)... Canadian. I could go on.. but you get the point.

Re:Uh....no by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 07:01 · Score: 0

Just ignore your military so that Uncle Sam will pay for you to have the best!

Re:[Since already OT] Why "Labour" Isn't /. a US s by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 06:40 · Score: 0

i can't believe this got a funny rating.. its not... its pathetic

so what, slashdot is a yanky site... what is stopping people from submitting in their own english language?

please, you yanks, get off your high horse, americans are not the only ones speaking English, there are other countries as well... who spell in UK english...

like it or lump it, that is the *REAL* world

Re:[Since already OT] Why "Labour" Isn't /. a US s by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 06:59 · Score: 0

I'm sorry, sweetikins, but there are more native speakers of American English than all other forms put together. And if you check any scholarly work by Commonwealth writers, you'll find that Standard American English is in no fashion considered "wrong".

DOL is screwed by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 07:08 · Score: 0

That about says it all.

If Corel could pull that kind of crap here ( Canada) and win! then the US government is toast given the fact that stupid lawsuits are many orders of maginutde more common in the US. Hell you guys pioneered this kind of lawyering and the worst part is in most cases people win.

This is not meant to start some Canada-US bashing just an observation.

The fact of tyhe matter is that the consumer should ultimately have the right to decide what they want to buy.

If I was looking for a car and Lada offered me a free one, or Hyundai an old Steller I think I'd still opt to buy a VW Jetta or a Honda instead. Should I be sued for not being fair?

Re:DOL is screwed by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 07:12 · Score: 0

Your logic is flawed. It's typical for Canadian courts to give precedence to Canadian companies.

CAN$ == Crap, my aren't you generous.... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 07:08 · Score: 0

Thats a pretty high rating of our currency... we could probably sell the paper for more money in the states

Complain to those in charge, not here. by psychonaut · 1999-12-18 07:12 · Score: 1

It is currently so bad that there is no point in trusting the summaries.

Amen, brother. It seems that the proportion of downright incorrect summaries has been growing steadily lately -- do Malda & Co. simply post anything that strikes their fancy without bothering to read it first? Honestly, how long can clicking a link and reading through an article actually take?

Fortunately, now that Slashdot is owned by Andover.Net, there is a solution -- e-mail Andover.Net to complain about the careless reporting. Tell them you think it's ridiculous that a site that styles itself as a news centre is so lazy as to never verify the stories it runs. Hell, name names if you'd like -- CmdrTaco, Hemos, et alia are employees just like everyone else, and are easily replaced. Perhaps if the current Slashdot crew can't scrape together a few threads of journalistic integrity, Andover.Net will find some people who can.

Regards,

Re:Complain to those in charge, not here. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 07:17 · Score: 0

Don't forget the horrid spelling mistakes we see in so many of the main-page articles.

Re:Non-standard "standards" by Andy+Social · 1999-12-18 07:32 · Score: 1

First, I'd like to say that I'm not in agreement that we need to make a holy war out of "smartquotes".

The ASCII standard, of which HTML is a superset, does not include a "reverse quote" or "reverse double-quote" option. Most of the fonts that existed in the days that ASCII was created had quote marks that were completely vertical, so there was no danger of having quote marks that looked backward.

I'd certainly think that a reverse quote would be a good addition to the ASCII standard, but it is not a standard.

I'm currently reading this on Netscape via Linux, and the question marks in many posts are distracting, but not nearly as much as the absolutely amazing number of posts from people who think that they actually MATTER a bit.

In summary, use ASCII please, but if you don't, who f**ing cares? Can't we all just grow up a little?

--
Illegitimi non carborundum

Conversion hurdles by Andy+Social · 1999-12-18 07:42 · Score: 1

IMHO, most people don't care what program they use, and most don't use half the features of a given program anyway.

One of the good things about Windows' prevalence (who said monopoly?) is that it has given us a GUI convention that people have grown used to. I'm not saying that the convention is the best of all those possible, but it's been established as a de facto standard for a while now.

What this means is that almost any new program available on Windows, MacOS, and X has a similar configuration. Right-click (Unix had it first) is a context-menu, the first option on a menu is File, followed by Edit and so on. With this standardization (forced on programmers years ago but still a standard), we now have the ability to more easily change programs with little learning curve.

If you used WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS, you remember the enormous keyboard overlay you needed to remember what all the keys did. Now, we all know to use CTRL-B for bold and CTRL-X for cut. We expect the ALT key to activate the menu bar, and we expect the mouse to highlight text when the button is held down. All of these are good things, and they make computer use much simpler than in the 8088 days.

The final result of all this GUI-zation of the computer is that I can put someone in front of a computer with StarOffice, WordPerfect, or Word and they would understand how to make, edit, and save a file almost instantly. Virtually zero learning curve for most people on most programs.

The exceptions for this are the programs that are for a niche market, and thus have no other programs of import to standardize with. AutoCAD, TrueSpace, SQL (and friends) all come to mind as programs with unique interfaces.

But, I could give someone a pre-configured machine with StarOffice and they'd be able to read and write the files they needed, edit them, save them, and convert them to HTML without retraining.

--
Illegitimi non carborundum

Re:Conversion hurdles by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 08:11 · Score: 0

You're slightly mistaken. A Unix programmer unblemished by Microsoft would find StarOffice as daunting as can be. Trust me on this.
Re:Conversion hurdles by Andy+Social · 1999-12-18 08:53 · Score: 1

Touche!
Naturally, I make the great assumption that nearly everyone has been using a GUI-based system for at least five years.
I think this is a natural assumption, given the 1984 release of the Mac, and the 1992 rise of Windows 3.1 to prominence.
I would hesitate to marginalize anyone, since I am responding to you via Lynx myself, but has this Unix Programmer truly never seen Netscape or any other GUI-based program?

My opinions are as worthless as anyone else's; feel free to ignore them.

--
Illegitimi non carborundum
Re:Conversion hurdles by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 09:47 · Score: 0

It's funny that consider Netscape a "GUI-based" program. But yes, it's the weirdest piece of frustrating crap I've ever seen. I use it only under duress.

Re:Non-standard "standards" by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 08:13 · Score: 0

Slashdot forbids BLINK tags, and it should forbid MS-HTML as well.

the DOL's perspective by mykmelez · 1999-12-18 08:38 · Score: 2

I have mixed feelings about this, because although I sympathize with Corel, I know all too well what it's like to have to go through a public agency procurement process.

Bidding or no (orders under a certain amount didn't require public bidding), that process is so difficult people would do almost anything to avoid it. I never saw anyone profiting from steering a purchase towards a particular vendor, but I did see (and experience) two quite common phenomenon:

1. people with way too much work to do and not enough time to do it taking the easy way out, choosing the product whose vendor was most available, who they had prior experience with, or who put on the best show;

2. people who did their own research to find the best product (including criteria of applicability and price) for whom the procurement process was just an impediment to completing their work.

Consider how you'd feel if the operating system, new server, or desktop machines you spent time deciding on were rejected in favor of some other product through a process you couldn't control? Can you rationalize all criteria you use when deciding what to buy?

For instance, I often purchased computers from a certain company with competitive prices on the strength of their tech support and the ease of their online ordering process. It saved me a lot of time, and that translates into money saved by my organization, but thank God I didn't have to bid it out or the paperwork alone would have evaporated all savings.

I'm not saying it's right. In fact it's particularly insidious in the not-quite-the-same-but-related-headaches procurement of employees (the hiring process), where even well-meaning people can perpetuate ingrained discrminatory practices (i.e. old boy's network).

However, the DOL is unlikely to be in a nefarious plot to rid the world of Microsoft alternatives. They probably just decided it was their best option under whatever circumstances they were dealing with, and then they did what it took to make it happen.

Seems Like Corel.... by joecosco · 1999-12-18 08:42 · Score: 1

To me it seems as if Corel does everything, except actually work on their software. Just something I noticed.

Re:Seems Like Corel.... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 15:27 · Score: 0

Haven't you heard? In the US you don't have to actually work to make it rich, just take a no risk shot at the lawsuit lottery. You also don't have to have any common sense, if you feel you've been wronged - doesn't matter that no one else agrees with you - just go ahead and sue.

Re:idiot hemos by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 09:11 · Score: 0

good point. just wish he'd try and get it "righter" first time i guess

We are the borg. You WILL become one with us. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 09:23 · Score: 0

The Great Melting Pot. The Borg collective. Different names. Same thing.

this is crap by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 09:50 · Score: 0

It'd be like a grocery store suing people for not shopping there.

Re:[Since already OT] Why "Labour" Isn't /. a US s by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 09:53 · Score: 0

Never said it was wrong, just that there is more than one accepted spelling. Someone should not be jumped on because they spell it differently.

Computing would be pathetic by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 10:03 · Score: 0

If we could not even get the alphabet right. Office97 does not do Office2000 and Office for win95 does not do Office97. What is all this I hear about too many Linux distros now?

Re:Computing would be pathetic by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 14:36 · Score: 0

Well said totally uninformed opinion. Guess what clueless Slasdot Linux zealot, Office 2000 didn't change the file format it saves in the same format as Office 97. p Oh now, my 5 year old Office 95 software is slightly incompatible with a much newer version! How dare Microsoft actually upgrade something with a new version. You Linux jerks are really dumb sometimes.
Re:Computing would be pathetic by _Lewellyn · 1999-12-19 07:32 · Score: 1

I take it that you haven't had to coordinate a presentation between PowerPoint 97 and 2000. Even if you save in '97 format, it's incompatible. In some cases, the file won't even open! What's wrong with slight incompatibilities? Interoperability. At least WordPerfect will save in older formats just fine. (Yes, I _know_ that you lose a bit of the feature set, but at least it generally remains usable...)

I can't believe I just responded to an AC's post... I need sleep. ;)

--
My off-the-wall opinions are just that: mine. (Replace uppercase with correct symbols to get real email addy.)

What? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 10:25 · Score: 0

Perhaps I didn't understand this fully. Corel is suing the goverment for favoring Microsoft products?

Offtopic: Re: Nonsensense by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 10:26 · Score: 0

This is a great new construction you've got here...can it be used w/o attribution, etc? No kidding, not a flame...does anyone recall a few years back when a poetry entry in an east coast contest consisted of a single word--"lighght"--and won? Nonsensense...it's everything you want to say...

Re: Fed and X by Andy+Social · 1999-12-18 10:48 · Score: 1

At least in my little portion of the government (a huge bloated behemoth if ever there was one), we use Solaris machines for our truly mission-critical work, but Windows has still crushed many other things.

Our truly mission-critical classified LAN is now based on NT, a thought nobody would even have countenanced a mere 3 years ago. In fact, the NSA wouldn't let us connect to them until just a few months ago, due to NT's horrid security problems. They basically re-wrote major portions of the NT kernel just for the intel community.

My point here is that if the federal government was the major market for Enable on X, then MS did what it hoped to with that deal: killed Enable.

It's interesting to see the deals MS made before it had any clout, then marketed the hell out of themselves so those deals became company-killers years later. Very crafty company.

--
Illegitimi non carborundum

Please tell me if this is pathetic by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 11:15 · Score: 0

Being a very pro-Microsoft person I would like someone else opinion on this subject. Could someone that is not at all pro-Microsoft tell me if this is truly the most desparate thing you have ever seen? Did Microsoft screw up in making a product that is so good that everyone uses it? It sounds more and more to me like these companies (Corel and others like them) are admitting that Microsofts product is better than theirs and this is the only way they can fight them (legal stuff).

Re:Please tell me if this is pathetic by frank249 · 1999-12-18 23:06 · Score: 1

Check out the PC Magazine customer satisfation surveys. M$ Office may be the most used but they always get poor satisfaction ratings. WordPerfect on the other hand has very high satisfaction surveys. It has already been documented in the JOJ trial that Microsoft used its illegal monopoly position and control of the windows OS to take control of the corporate market. Corel has maintained a lead in the retail market where the users choose for themselves rather than having some corporate drone force it on them. An interesting developement is that starting next year Corel will be able to offer their Corel Linux OS with a full suite of applications. given a fair competition, Corel will always beat M$ on price and performance. It is the start of a brave new world. Cheers, Frank

--
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

All those different file formats are for... by Codifex+Maximus · 1999-12-18 11:19 · Score: 2

driving the requirement to UPGRADE. With the side benefit, to the originating company, of remaining incompatible with the competition.

It's as plain as the glasses on Bill Gates face.

--
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.

Microsoft is by tilly · 1999-12-18 11:33 · Score: 2

I was talking about Microsoft vs Corel bidding for the DOL's services. Preferential treatment for Microsoft because of its nationality is not allowed.

Cheers,
Ben

--
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht

Better some now, and visibly! by timothy · 1999-12-18 12:12 · Score: 2

I'd say better for the DOL or other government agency get a few visible slaps for waste than the long term effects of looking at the world in as static a way as they seem to at present. Bureacracy means "tyranny of the desks" (or at least I once heard a smart person say so), and any three-letter government acronym I expect to live up to that idea. But I'd rather an agency be sued and embarrased into somewhat better habits than figure that it's OK to tolerate sloppy, wasteful, myopic spending and other habits. I think even in the medium term, a judgment against the DOL would save far more than the judgement itself would cost.

Don't know, and welcome corrections, but that's my guess.

timothy

--
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5

Re:Writing Specs by acomj · 1999-12-18 12:22 · Score: 1

As a formal civil engineer who had to write specs, we found that often companies would send you a "sample spec" along with their product literature..

They would always speciy the one thing about they're product that was unique hoping you'd cut and paste their spec in. We always wrote our own specs , but one could see how if pressed for time you could spec a single product when it should be bid.

(ie computer, x86 compatiable, black case, with a "start" button in lower left corner.)

Re: Gotta love pure speculation by MikeBabcock · 1999-12-18 13:50 · Score: 2

... gotta love pure speculation:

Other government agencies recognize the DoJ's case against Microsoft as being the bullshit that it is.

Maybe, just maybe, to be completely unbiased, government agencies are supposed to ignore whether or not a company is on trial.

Even better: maybe, just maybe, until a trial is over, the party is innocent (anyone remember that part?)

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)

I'm going to... by Graymalkin · 1999-12-18 14:24 · Score: 3

sue the US government for not using GraymalkinOffice 99. The midget programming army in my employ toiled endless midget-hours to produce this fine office suite. It does everything for you automatically. Need a report typed up? It will do it without you needed to even be there. Spreadsheets? Presentations? National debt consolodation? It's all done for you. How can anyone DARE think of using anythung but a 100% midget produced product? I mean come on man, you've gone completely sideways if you think our product doesn't whip Microsoft in the bum. Corel doesn't know what is going on, they ought to be suing Microsoft for daring to compete. Is GraymalkiSoft next? Time for the squirrel lawyer legions to hope into action.

--
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.

I Have Been Wondering by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 14:43 · Score: 0

The City of Honolulu has been considering "standardizing" on Microsoft Office without giving other vendors any chance to argue their cases. I believe this is a free country, and really don't know why one company should be given absolute preference. Microsoft Office may be the best product (personally, I think WordPerfect is far superior, all things considered, even without taking into account the substantial cost difference), as a tax payer, we need justifications. Corel's law suit is something I have been expecting, and I am glad that Corel finally is taking the action. In other words, if Corel wins, we, as tax payers, will definitely by using a better product at a lower cost. If Corel loses, then we know our government was right, and justified, in binding itself on Microsoft product.

Re:I Have Been Wondering by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 22:03 · Score: 0

As a taxpayer, you have the complete right to an open competitive bid.

We Should not Condone "no bid" process by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 15:22 · Score: 0

I have several friends who do business with the State (Hawaii) government. Typically, the State will invite bids not for Office software, but for "Microsoft Office." Corel, IBM, or providers of their software products are not given any chance at all. This is definitely inappropriate, but nobody was making any noise until Corel filed this law suit. Of course we don't like litigations, but sometimes we just do have any choice.

Students Love MS Word by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 15:51 · Score: 0

Students really love Microsoft Word, because when the school computer got invaded by a macro virus, the computer will stop functioning, and they may get a day or two off.

Re:Students Love MS Word by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 21:29 · Score: 0

Unix doesn't get viruses, so they should use Unix.

Re:Netscape not GUI? by Andy+Social · 1999-12-18 21:04 · Score: 1

Do you perceive Netscape as NOT requiring a GUI then? Is there some command-line version of the graphical web browser that I'm missing?

I honestly didn't think it was an odd phrase.

--
Illegitimi non carborundum

Thank you for pointing out the actual issue by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 21:09 · Score: 0

that is at the center of the dispute. Gov't acquisition should be more scrutinized, not less as some idiots posting on this story would have it. I have no opinion whether Corel WordPerfect would win that open competition or maybe MS Office. But the decision should be made according to the rules already in place and Corel is right to protest the violation of those rules. That's how the legal system is supposed to work: if there is oversight or corruption on the part of gov't agency then private party lawsuits are the last recourse against injuries and illegality. (My personal opinion is that StarOffice would be hard to underbid in a fair fight --and it should piss off US taxpayers that millions and millions of their money is wasted on MS when the expense is completely avoidable.)

Re:Netscape not GUI? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-18 21:27 · Score: 0

Having a FILE menu doesn't make something graphical. Using a mouse doesn't make something graphical. But these are the two criteria most people seem to focus on.

Re:Netscape not GUI? by Andy+Social · 1999-12-18 23:49 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but isn't the entire WIMP metaphor what we (normal computer geeks) use to define a GUI?

Look at Netscape. Is there a single version of Netscape that is NOT run from a GUI? I don't think I understand your point. Is there some other definition of GUI that you would prefer the rest of us use from now on?

(And, log in for cryin' out loud! How am I to know one AC from another?)

--
Illegitimi non carborundum

Re:MOST People by Andy+Social · 1999-12-18 23:58 · Score: 1

I re-read my original post, and I have to say one thing: I repeatedly used the word "MOST" in my note.

Because I know some people use VMS on a 15-year-old Vax (I do at work) and don't use anything else, but MOST people understand the GUI metaphor that Microsoft developed from the one that Apple stole from Xerox. SO, again: Most people would have no problem learning most programs with very little extra time.

--
Illegitimi non carborundum

Re:Netscape not GUI? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-19 00:05 · Score: 0

Graphical means graphics. Textual means texts.

A mouse and menus do not a GUI program make. Just a bad one (often).

Re:Netscape not GUI? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-19 00:07 · Score: 0

The only "graphical" part of Netscape it its ability to display inline pictures.

Amen, brother! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-19 07:27 · Score: 0

You've hit the nail on the head. It seems that the majority of posts on this article are from under-informed over-reactors who have an unwarranted hatred of Corel for other resons.

I've been an IT manager type in the Air Force for several years and Corel is absolutely right: the deck is stacked heavily in favor of Microsoft, and it has been since way before there was any "standard" for office software. Every time I have procured a non-Microsoft product I have had to go to the mat to defend my choice. Microsoft is truly a default choice.

Each base has a central office which provides "technical solutions" to unit requests. E.g., I say my unit needs a word processor, and they buy Microsoft Word (or something else which meets my requirements, theoretically). The problem is that the people who make these "technical solutions" are idiots. Really. Most can barely power on a computer and most have no idea any other software companies besides Microsoft even exist. Thus in the early '90s, when Microsoft Office wasn't nearly the best office suite, one of these idiots decided for the entire Air Force that MS Office would be a "standard." And friends, don't underestimate the role this played in Microsoft's becoming the behemoth it is today. Few have any idea how much money the government throws away, and it spends MILLIONS on Microsoft software. Still worse, the Air Force has standardized on Microsoft for *everything*. Ever wonder what idiot would pay the ridiculous licensing fees Microsoft wants for large NT networks? Well look no further than Uncle Sam! The Air Force, at least, has migrated to Windows NT for all it's base level networks. Talk about downtime!

As for the costs of converting to new software, that argument is totally baseless in the case of the Air Force. The Air Force migrates to new software platforms regularly. In my experience it's happened on a large scale about four times in ten years. And they rarely train the users (the training they do provide is a joke). I've seen less than about 5 instances (out of hundreds) where users had such an advanced understanding of the software they were using that migrating to a different product would cost more than a day's retraining. The vast majority of users just don't use 95% of the functionality provided by the huundreds of dollars of software installed on their computers. And there's no systems analysis of any kind. The Air Force just buys as many computers as it can with the money available and throws these machines at the end users. It's pretty much left up to the end users to figure out what the hell to do with the brand new $3,000 typewriters they get every couple of years.

And as for file format conversion costs, this is the most laughable argument of all! File format costs have been incurred in the hundreds of millions precisely because the Air Force standardized on Microsoft software and blindly buys new computers each year with newer versions installed. It usually happens like this: headquarters gets a new version of Word, and the bases still have older versions. All of a sudden, Word 6 users can't read e-mail attachments from Word 95 users, who can't read e-mail attachments from Word 97 users. The solution: the Air Force spends millions of dollars to buy entire unneeded Microsoft Office suites for everyone. The taxpayers oughta start a revolt!

My point here is that the government is in bed with Microsoft and everyone else loses in this arrangement - the taxpayers, the end users, and software companies like Corel. I'm glad to see a software company finally call the government to task for its shoddy practices.

Obviously I'm posting anonymously 'cuz I don't want to get in trouble. My sentence is up in a few months and I'm so disgusted with some of the stuff I've seen that I just may join one of those watchdog groups that constantly points out waste in the government and in the military!

But it is not their Money. by yadda+yoda+yadda · 1999-12-19 20:56 · Score: 1

If someone wants to buy product X with their own money, they should not have to answer to anybody.

However they are purchasing on behalf of the U.S. govt. and thus they *do* have to answer to the govt.

Once one of our customers was in the situation that they were selling a product to the NZ govt. The product was at the same price as a foreign company, and the governments internal report found that our product was higher quality.

However the councillor responsible for the purchase decided to take the foreign product. He then took his family on a tax-payer funded business trip to inspect the manufacture.

It doesn't seem unreasonable that a government official should have to follow some purchasing guidelines. Not that it would necesarily mean that the decision would be different, but at least it would give the losing party a warm fuzzy feeling to know that they did not lose due to some under-the-counter deal.

--
We use GNU/SunOS. :)

"File format barrier to entry" by Noel · 1999-12-20 02:48 · Score: 1

This brings up an issue that's uncannily similar to the "applications barrier to entry" that Judge Jackson identified in DOJ vs MS. Maybe it's time to clone the terminology and start talking about the "file format barrier to entry" as well.

As Judge Jackson noted, a proprietary operating system API prevents competing applications from gaining a foothold in the overall market. Similarly, proprietary file formats prevent competing applications from gaining a foothold in the business market. The more files you have in a certain product's format, the more it will cost you to migrate to a competing application.

Migration from an installed application to a competing application will always mean additional file conversion cost, which can vary from negligible to astronomical depending on how many existing files you have, how complex they are, and difficult it is to convert the files to the new format. Since this conversion cost exists, businesses must include it in the overall cost of moving from an installed application to a competing application. In order to compete with an installed application, the new application must either allow trivially simple conversion of old files, provide a significantly lower purchase price, or provide added-value features that the installed application can not match.

I have no issue with the latter two of these three requirements. In order to succeed in a competitive evaluation, a product must offer better features or a lower cost. But the first requirement does concern me. It allows the vendor with the installed application to raise a barrier to competition. If the installed application uses a complex, proprietary file format that changes frequently, then it will be difficult for competitors to provide simple conversion for existing files, so the competitors will be forced either to spend more money reverse-engineering the file format or to reduce the purchase cost of their product beyond simple competitive pricing before they can offset this cost of conversion.

The big problem here is that the file format barrier to entry can easily be manipulated by the vendor of the installed software to make it extremely difficult for competitors to enter into any market where access to and exchange of previously-created files is important.

Of course, I'm preaching to the choir, here...but it may be time for the choir to start holding public concerts. The general public is now starting to be aware of the tactics identified in DOJ vs MS. Let's leverage this awareness by showing them how proprietary file formats are also detrimental to competition.

Re:Netscape not GUI? by Andy+Social · 1999-12-20 06:24 · Score: 1

Excuse me? Do I not see little icons when I install Netscape (I turn the buggers off)? Do I not see a little swoopy N when loading web pages? Do I NOT need to be running a GUI to use Netscape in the first place?

Please, rather than making one-sentence non sequiturs, please tell me what your point is! Obviously it is not one that is obvious to me, so if you actually want an intelligent discussion, SPEAK!

--
Illegitimi non carborundum

Slashdot Mirror

Corel Sues U.S. Department of Labour

328 comments