Ummm.. The reason why I wigged out was in RESPONSE to the asshole who posted the crap below.
Moderators - please pay attention to the parent comments before passing judgment. My response to this crap was certainly not flamebait - it was me bitching about THIS seriously screwed up post...
""Fred's Worried Blues" by "Mississippi Fred Mcdowell"
Hey baby, what you got on your mind? Tell me baby, what you got on your mind? Lord, tell me, honey, what you got on your mind?
Lord, my head don't hurt, baby, just my black insides. Lord, my head don't hurt me, darlin', baby, just my black insides.
Please, turn me over. Let me lay on that other side. Lord, please turn me over. Let me lay on that other side.
I want you to write my mother, lord, tell her to pray for me. Lord, write my mother, lord, tell her to pray for me. Lord, have the good lord forgive me for my sins.
(slide solo while Fred daydreams about raping white women)"
"The problems you face with various versions of Word would face you in five years time with open office if at that time the latest version of openoffice has features that aren't currently supported and we all hope that there are some of those."
Not proven either way, but if you look at the XML spec, unsupported future features would simply be ignored by an older version - basic document compatibility should be stable. That's been a design goal of the OOo project. MS's goal seems to be breaking compatiblity for these two reasons: 1) Eliminate competition. 2) Make upgrades a mandatory thing.
There is evidence that a well-organized open source project can still maintain compatibility for years. Look at 'X': It's compatible to a fault!
The other non-issue here is that why wouldn't we USE a newer version in the future? It's not like it costs anything.:)
I hope it's yes also, but consider this: Why wouldn't it?
Microsoft has every reason in the world to insure that you will run into difficulties if you're not using the latest and greatest. I don't see this same motivation with OpenOffice.org.
Either way, there will be a way, it's just how much you want to put up with I suppose.:)
Yes, I'm very familiar with the converters, but my ultimate point here is this: Why go through this crap when you don't have to? Standardizing on an open format eliminates the need for a converter AND it solves the international issues.
Look, we're a secondary school. Some of the younger students are completely clueless about this stuff and get frustrated easily. Can they be taught? Sure. Will they retain it? Dunno. Most of the students here aren't Slashdot readers. Most just want to do their assignments and move on. More often than not, staff resources get stretched even further to deal with issues like this.
Hey, it's too bad those conversion programs won't actually convert their documents to something more useful (as in open), eh? Can you say, 'Lock-in'?" And now we hear the the much-vaunted XML format will be for those 'preferred' customers only? Color me shocked. Yeah, the companies that get XML ability are those MS are terrified to lose contracts with to software like StarOffice. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though.
Just because some of you out there are willing to be led around by MS and their licensing tactics doesn't mean we have to be. We studied our needs and made the appropriate decision. EVERY organization should be considering open source when appropriate to do so. To do otherwise makes you a 'good little' Microserf. You do a disservice to your company/org/edu, when you take the easy way out and simply sign on the dotted line everytime MS has a new license 'agreement' to bend you over with. Unless you're some huge corporation which demands things like XML, there's no 'agreement' other than you 'agree' to be their bitch. No two ways about it. How much control does your org want over the software they use and how they use it? Shouldn't that be as much of a factor as 'Ooooohh.. Office 2003. NEW TEMPLATES!'
And just for the record, three years ago I was a trainer on MS networking product. I've worked with MS and Citrix for years before that. I'm more than familiar with the advantages of using MS in an enterprise (we're certainly not all Linux at my.org!) but I'm no longer in a corporate situation..Org's rely on donations to stay alive. Looking for alternatives is something I do all the time. My interest in Linux happened because it offers an alternative - something I'm not frightened to explore. I'm not a zealot as your 'good little' comment suggests, but I'm certainly open to what does the job with the least amount of hassle / cost.
"any MS office prog can save in the format appropriate to an earlier version..."...as long as you HAVE it. That's my point! Only endless upgrades will ensure this kind of compatibility unless you can standardize on a more open standard.
Also, you'd be surprised how many people have a difficult time understanding why their.doc here doesn't work with their.doc at home. Doesn't make much sense to me either - how the hell can you tell? Why should it matter?
And as I believe I did mention international compatibility is a MUST. With fully 30% of our students coming here from other nations, this 'feature' isn't an option.
Which brings up the next point.
Me: "Standardizing everyone (teachers, parents, students) on OpenOffice.org was the smartest thing we've ever done. Document compatibility was major factor in that decision."
You: "I mean seriously. Substitiute anything for OpenOffice.org and the thing still makes sense and is just as valid."
Sure. And with endless gobs of cash, I could buy a copy of MS Office XP for every parent, student, and faculty member. I thought I had made the point about money being a factor, but let me make this clear here: MONEY IS A FACTOR.
Because of various incompatiblities, we HAVE to standardize here or else chaos ensues (the state in which I found this network originally). We can't afford the amount of licenses that this would come to, certainly not at MS's prices.
Open/StarOffice offered us the means to that end. Are you critical of this decision because you have a bias towards OOo? I'm not sure I fully understand why you're arguing here.
The hell it isn't. Ever try to open an older works document in 'X' version of MS Office?
How about support of international versions? Can a Japanese student use their version of Office 97 to write an English document, printable in our labs? Dunno. Sometimes.
How about opening say, a Word 97/2000/XP doc in Office 95? Oh, right, that doesn't work either.
Schools aren't like your average corporation. We can't always afford to go out and get the latest and greatest. I also have to question WHY we'd even bother doing so and I wish our public schools would seriously consider this question as well - our tax dollars can be better spent. To be honest, Office 97 was all we ever really needed functionality-wise.
Then there's what happens when a student goes home and works on a paper. Who knows WHAT format it'll come back in. The biggest problem for us has been when an upgrade cycle comes around and some of my students (or parents) end up with it (came with their brand new PC).
Last year I posed a question to the teachers: Why not use Open/StarOffice? This has (for the most part), solved our compatibility issues. As I work for an international school, we have students with every version of MS Office, Works, Wordperfect, hell, even NOTEPAD!
Standardizing everyone (teachers, parents, students) on OpenOffice.org was the smartest thing we've ever done. Document compatibility was major factor in that decision.
Yeah... Totally not usable. Damn shame we converted to it last year at our school.
Aside from the bonus that every student, teacher and parent gets a free copy, and with the money we saved we were able to further improve our IT; I suppose it was a really dumb idea...
NOT!
Yes, it's a bit clunky, and yes you should have a reasonably up to date system to run this (for performance reasons), but with the money we saved last year alone we replaced our entire lab.
Every version (now at 1.0.3!) has been an improvement and we are happy with our choice. NEXT UP: On to Linux!
One area that might be covered might have to do with filtering practices and the Internet.
- Who controls the filtering, and what is filtered?
- Is it ethical for companies to monitor email / IM / etc. If so, who should be responsible for it? How are they themselves monitored to prevent abuse?
- While the answer to filter / not filter may be clearer in a corporation that owns the connection, what about libraries, schools, and even gov'ts? A recent example would be Pennsylvania's attempt to filter child porn. Why is this a good / bad idea?
"We haven't yet devolved to the point where we need Hooked On Phonics for written language. Or have we?"
No, but I thought that we still had enough evolution in us to realize the sometimes it's the thought conveyed, not the WAY it's conveyed that matters most. Did you understand the original poster? I thought it was fairly clear the first time.
I don't disagree with anyone who says that OSS programmers should be able to pick and choose what they do - no matter how futile it may be for anyone else.
I think the article points out the uselessness of having 380+ text editors for instance. Maybe you don't code for average users (this isn't Windows after all), but I wonder how many code this stuff out there thinking it will be the next MS Word.
I think there's room on both sides, but I have another suggestion to the flailing userbase out there. How about PAYING for some of this stuff? Yes, it's OSS, but there's time being spent here. If you want a feature bad enough, why not send the guy 50 Euros?
I did this recently with a guy who wrote an awesome little filter for Exchange (ORFILTER). I wanted a feature and he put it in there. I asked him to put up a Paypal link and I sent him some beer and pizza money (I've never sent Euros before).:)
Now here's the kicker: I sent him the money from my BUSINESS since this is where it was needed. We looked at a 50 Euro expense as miniscule compared to the $2000+ packages this has helped us replace.
Anyway, maybe more cohesion in projects would happen if there was some reward associated with the project as well.
And *I* meant that Hussain's regime should have complied first before all this mess started.
I suppose if you have to play the race card, I'll bite. By 'Arabs', I mean the vast majority of sentiment we're seeing in almost every Arab nation besides Kuwait. Think of it more as a cultural issue than a racial one - that's how I mean it.
When I refer to 'evil', I'm referring to the fact that this blind ideology is the real issue. Death to Americans and Israelis. Don't believe me? If you can get to it, check out a few of the articles on www.arabnews.com. THAT's the kind of slant I'm talking about - one that is obviously shared almost universally over there.
"But Iraqis are in a desperate fight against superiour invaders. They cannot just walk out into the field and wait for the bombs to drop on them."
Then they SHOULDN'T! They've been warned enough, God knows. Ah yes, this is the same justification the Palestinians use I believe. Do you know what would happen if the Pals used a chemical agent and kill 100,000 Israelis? Al Jeezeera would say is that the Arab hero that perpetrated his 'honorable' act was shot through the back of the head by the evil security forces. Real objective.
By 'nice', I suppose I meant at least the minimum civility in war. The truth is, these folks use our goodwill and merciful natures against us. Sending children to the front lines armed with AK-47's doesn't sound very morally justified, whatever the reason.
What separates us from them is that we don't discriminately go in and start carpet bombing EVEN THOUGH WE COULD. Where is the praise of restraint? Too bad Hussain doesn't share this view of the preciousness of life. Arabs seem to love restraint as long as it means the other side dies.
And when Israel finally stands up and defends itself against this kind of aggression, they are castigated. You fear leaders like Blair, Sharon and Bush because they won't lie over and die for you in the name of 'peace'.
Speaking of which, if bloodshed was really to be avoided, why didn't your man Hussain admit his weapons after 12 years of inspections? Isn't THAT illegal?
Seriously, I think some of you out there will continue searching for the 'truth' regardless of it's proximity to you.
Stockpiling weapons in schools and hospitals is bad enough - the chemical suits should give a further clue. Clearly, we're not dealing with nice people here. Why is it so hard to understand the intentions of the current Iraqi leadership? Why would they lie about this stuff so strenuously? And what will all of you say when the WMD is found (and it will be eventually). What? That WE planted it? Thought that's what you'd say.
Drop your politics and open your eyes. This intellectual dishonesty stuff it really irritating.
Apple has a problem. Well, a couple problems. But the biggest one is reliability of their processor manufacturers.
The 970 is NOT going to be cheap. It is designed for IBM and their servers, everything else last. There is a reason Jobs isn't talking much about 970 - it's not a done deal. Can IBM be trusted to keep up the clock speed and improvements? Well, to the extent that it might help IBM's business. This doesn't actually translate into assist Apple with theirs.
AMD has shown themselves to be competitive (at least in the past six years or so), and that's far better than what either PPC manufacturer has done for Apple in the same time period.
X86-64 would be a brilliant move. Done like the X-box, Apple could have the best of both worlds here.
ITANIUM?!! No, I don't think so John. The Itanium gets it's raw horsepower from all the cache it has. I just can't see this thing as a viable desktop processor. Hell, even as a server chip it looks dubious compared to the upcoming competition.
Slashdot Mirror
Conversely, would anyone like to opt this guy in for some snail spam? :)
Ummm.. The reason why I wigged out was in RESPONSE to the asshole who posted the crap below.
Moderators - please pay attention to the parent comments before passing judgment. My response to this crap was certainly not flamebait - it was me bitching about THIS seriously screwed up post...
""Fred's Worried Blues" by "Mississippi Fred Mcdowell"
Hey baby, what you got on your mind?
Tell me baby, what you got on your mind?
Lord, tell me, honey, what you got on your mind?
Lord, my head don't hurt, baby, just my black insides.
Lord, my head don't hurt me, darlin', baby, just my black insides.
Please, turn me over. Let me lay on that other side.
Lord, please turn me over. Let me lay on that other side.
I want you to write my mother, lord, tell her to pray for me.
Lord, write my mother, lord, tell her to pray for me.
Lord, have the good lord forgive me for my sins.
(slide solo while Fred daydreams about raping white women)"
A Small Question:
What the fuck does this have anything to do with tablet PC's, Microsoft, Linux, or indeed, ANYTHING Slashdot oriented?
Goddamnit, if I had any points I would SO troll your ass. Anyone else out there want to give this a push?
"The problems you face with various versions of Word would face you in five years time with open office if at that time the latest version of openoffice has features that aren't currently supported and we all hope that there are some of those."
:)
Not proven either way, but if you look at the XML spec, unsupported future features would simply be ignored by an older version - basic document compatibility should be stable. That's been a design goal of the OOo project. MS's goal seems to be breaking compatiblity for these two reasons: 1) Eliminate competition. 2) Make upgrades a mandatory thing.
There is evidence that a well-organized open source project can still maintain compatibility for years. Look at 'X': It's compatible to a fault!
The other non-issue here is that why wouldn't we USE a newer version in the future? It's not like it costs anything.
I hope it's yes also, but consider this: Why wouldn't it?
:)
Microsoft has every reason in the world to insure that you will run into difficulties if you're not using the latest and greatest. I don't see this same motivation with OpenOffice.org.
Either way, there will be a way, it's just how much you want to put up with I suppose.
Yes, I'm very familiar with the converters, but my ultimate point here is this: Why go through this crap when you don't have to? Standardizing on an open format eliminates the need for a converter AND it solves the international issues.
.org!) but I'm no longer in a corporate situation. .Org's rely on donations to stay alive. Looking for alternatives is something I do all the time. My interest in Linux happened because it offers an alternative - something I'm not frightened to explore. I'm not a zealot as your 'good little' comment suggests, but I'm certainly open to what does the job with the least amount of hassle / cost.
Look, we're a secondary school. Some of the younger students are completely clueless about this stuff and get frustrated easily. Can they be taught? Sure. Will they retain it? Dunno. Most of the students here aren't Slashdot readers. Most just want to do their assignments and move on. More often than not, staff resources get stretched even further to deal with issues like this.
Hey, it's too bad those conversion programs won't actually convert their documents to something more useful (as in open), eh? Can you say, 'Lock-in'?" And now we hear the the much-vaunted XML format will be for those 'preferred' customers only? Color me shocked. Yeah, the companies that get XML ability are those MS are terrified to lose contracts with to software like StarOffice. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though.
Just because some of you out there are willing to be led around by MS and their licensing tactics doesn't mean we have to be. We studied our needs and made the appropriate decision. EVERY organization should be considering open source when appropriate to do so. To do otherwise makes you a 'good little' Microserf. You do a disservice to your company/org/edu, when you take the easy way out and simply sign on the dotted line everytime MS has a new license 'agreement' to bend you over with. Unless you're some huge corporation which demands things like XML, there's no 'agreement' other than you 'agree' to be their bitch. No two ways about it. How much control does your org want over the software they use and how they use it? Shouldn't that be as much of a factor as 'Ooooohh.. Office 2003. NEW TEMPLATES!'
And just for the record, three years ago I was a trainer on MS networking product. I've worked with MS and Citrix for years before that. I'm more than familiar with the advantages of using MS in an enterprise (we're certainly not all Linux at my
"any MS office prog can save in the format appropriate to an earlier version..." ...as long as you HAVE it. That's my point! Only endless upgrades will ensure this kind of compatibility unless you can standardize on a more open standard.
.doc here doesn't work with their .doc at home. Doesn't make much sense to me either - how the hell can you tell? Why should it matter?
Also, you'd be surprised how many people have a difficult time understanding why their
And as I believe I did mention international compatibility is a MUST. With fully 30% of our students coming here from other nations, this 'feature' isn't an option.
Which brings up the next point.
Me: "Standardizing everyone (teachers, parents, students) on OpenOffice.org was the smartest thing we've ever done. Document compatibility was major factor in that decision."
You: "I mean seriously. Substitiute anything for OpenOffice.org and the thing still makes sense and is just as valid."
Sure. And with endless gobs of cash, I could buy a copy of MS Office XP for every parent, student, and faculty member. I thought I had made the point about money being a factor, but let me make this clear here: MONEY IS A FACTOR.
Because of various incompatiblities, we HAVE to standardize here or else chaos ensues (the state in which I found this network originally). We can't afford the amount of licenses that this would come to, certainly not at MS's prices.
Open/StarOffice offered us the means to that end. Are you critical of this decision because you have a bias towards OOo? I'm not sure I fully understand why you're arguing here.
"This just isn't true."
The hell it isn't. Ever try to open an older works document in 'X' version of MS Office?
How about support of international versions? Can a Japanese student use their version of Office 97 to write an English document, printable in our labs? Dunno. Sometimes.
How about opening say, a Word 97/2000/XP doc in Office 95? Oh, right, that doesn't work either.
Schools aren't like your average corporation. We can't always afford to go out and get the latest and greatest. I also have to question WHY we'd even bother doing so and I wish our public schools would seriously consider this question as well - our tax dollars can be better spent. To be honest, Office 97 was all we ever really needed functionality-wise.
Then there's what happens when a student goes home and works on a paper. Who knows WHAT format it'll come back in. The biggest problem for us has been when an upgrade cycle comes around and some of my students (or parents) end up with it (came with their brand new PC).
Last year I posed a question to the teachers: Why not use Open/StarOffice? This has (for the most part), solved our compatibility issues. As I work for an international school, we have students with every version of MS Office, Works, Wordperfect, hell, even NOTEPAD!
Standardizing everyone (teachers, parents, students) on OpenOffice.org was the smartest thing we've ever done. Document compatibility was major factor in that decision.
In Soviet Russia, gas liquifies YOU! ;)
Yeah... Totally not usable. Damn shame we converted to it last year at our school.
Aside from the bonus that every student, teacher and parent gets a free copy, and with the money we saved we were able to further improve our IT; I suppose it was a really dumb idea...
NOT!
Yes, it's a bit clunky, and yes you should have a reasonably up to date system to run this (for performance reasons), but with the money we saved last year alone we replaced our entire lab.
Every version (now at 1.0.3!) has been an improvement and we are happy with our choice. NEXT UP: On to Linux!
I thought it read:
;)
"Is 'ActiveX' moral?"
One area that might be covered might have to do with filtering practices and the Internet.
- Who controls the filtering, and what is filtered?
- Is it ethical for companies to monitor email / IM / etc. If so, who should be responsible for it? How are they themselves monitored to prevent abuse?
- While the answer to filter / not filter may be clearer in a corporation that owns the connection, what about libraries, schools, and even gov'ts? A recent example would be Pennsylvania's attempt to filter child porn. Why is this a good / bad idea?
"We haven't yet devolved to the point where we need Hooked On Phonics for written language. Or have we?"
No, but I thought that we still had enough evolution in us to realize the sometimes it's the thought conveyed, not the WAY it's conveyed that matters most. Did you understand the original poster? I thought it was fairly clear the first time.
I don't disagree with anyone who says that OSS programmers should be able to pick and choose what they do - no matter how futile it may be for anyone else.
:)
I think the article points out the uselessness of having 380+ text editors for instance. Maybe you don't code for average users (this isn't Windows after all), but I wonder how many code this stuff out there thinking it will be the next MS Word.
I think there's room on both sides, but I have another suggestion to the flailing userbase out there. How about PAYING for some of this stuff? Yes, it's OSS, but there's time being spent here. If you want a feature bad enough, why not send the guy 50 Euros?
I did this recently with a guy who wrote an awesome little filter for Exchange (ORFILTER). I wanted a feature and he put it in there. I asked him to put up a Paypal link and I sent him some beer and pizza money (I've never sent Euros before).
Now here's the kicker: I sent him the money from my BUSINESS since this is where it was needed. We looked at a 50 Euro expense as miniscule compared to the $2000+ packages this has helped us replace.
Anyway, maybe more cohesion in projects would happen if there was some reward associated with the project as well.
Actually, now that her site is working again, it says that she indeed used 'Paint'. She even designed the Solitare cards in Paint. Unreal.
...We wouldn't want our various versions of Linux to actually agree on ONE standard for package management, after all! :P
Wouldn't it be interesting to learn that she designed the Windows 3.1 icons on Mac Paint? :)
And *I* meant that Hussain's regime should have complied first before all this mess started.
I suppose if you have to play the race card, I'll bite. By 'Arabs', I mean the vast majority of sentiment we're seeing in almost every Arab nation besides Kuwait. Think of it more as a cultural issue than a racial one - that's how I mean it.
When I refer to 'evil', I'm referring to the fact that this blind ideology is the real issue. Death to Americans and Israelis. Don't believe me? If you can get to it, check out a few of the articles on www.arabnews.com. THAT's the kind of slant I'm talking about - one that is obviously shared almost universally over there.
"But Iraqis are in a desperate fight against superiour invaders. They cannot just walk out into the field and wait for the bombs to drop on them."
Then they SHOULDN'T! They've been warned enough, God knows. Ah yes, this is the same justification the Palestinians use I believe. Do you know what would happen if the Pals used a chemical agent and kill 100,000 Israelis? Al Jeezeera would say is that the Arab hero that perpetrated his 'honorable' act was shot through the back of the head by the evil security forces. Real objective.
By 'nice', I suppose I meant at least the minimum civility in war. The truth is, these folks use our goodwill and merciful natures against us. Sending children to the front lines armed with AK-47's doesn't sound very morally justified, whatever the reason.
What separates us from them is that we don't discriminately go in and start carpet bombing EVEN THOUGH WE COULD. Where is the praise of restraint? Too bad Hussain doesn't share this view of the preciousness of life. Arabs seem to love restraint as long as it means the other side dies.
And when Israel finally stands up and defends itself against this kind of aggression, they are castigated. You fear leaders like Blair, Sharon and Bush because they won't lie over and die for you in the name of 'peace'.
Speaking of which, if bloodshed was really to be avoided, why didn't your man Hussain admit his weapons after 12 years of inspections? Isn't THAT illegal?
Seriously, I think some of you out there will continue searching for the 'truth' regardless of it's proximity to you.
Stockpiling weapons in schools and hospitals is bad enough - the chemical suits should give a further clue. Clearly, we're not dealing with nice people here. Why is it so hard to understand the intentions of the current Iraqi leadership? Why would they lie about this stuff so strenuously? And what will all of you say when the WMD is found (and it will be eventually). What? That WE planted it? Thought that's what you'd say.
Drop your politics and open your eyes. This intellectual dishonesty stuff it really irritating.
You know, I don't think Keebler's and Nabisco should be forced into licensing cookie technology. There's gotta be some prior art here somewhere!
Apple has a problem. Well, a couple problems. But the biggest one is reliability of their processor manufacturers.
The 970 is NOT going to be cheap. It is designed for IBM and their servers, everything else last. There is a reason Jobs isn't talking much about 970 - it's not a done deal. Can IBM be trusted to keep up the clock speed and improvements? Well, to the extent that it might help IBM's business. This doesn't actually translate into assist Apple with theirs.
AMD has shown themselves to be competitive (at least in the past six years or so), and that's far better than what either PPC manufacturer has done for Apple in the same time period.
X86-64 would be a brilliant move. Done like the X-box, Apple could have the best of both worlds here.
ITANIUM?!! No, I don't think so John. The Itanium gets it's raw horsepower from all the cache it has. I just can't see this thing as a viable desktop processor. Hell, even as a server chip it looks dubious compared to the upcoming competition.
My bet, if anything, would be on the Opteron.
...?
Profit!
...and Happy Birthday RMS!