Bottom line is that if they feel they need hardware upgrades for MS Office odds are they will need them for OpenOffice. OS requirements asside.
Bottom line is they don't have to use OpenOffice to use OpenDocument. That the whole point
of the exercise. It's not a power grab by OOo as MS would have us belive - it's a way
to make sure everyone has a choice of office software, and that they can choose freely.
AbiWord can handle OpenDoc and it
is nowhere near as fat as OOo.
Heck, it even runs on Windows if you insist on a proprietory OS
But if it were me, and if I play CIO for a moment, I'd make DANG sure I get it right before converting millions of documents.
But surely, if you need to absolutely sure it's going to work out, then you need an infinite amount of time to evaluate the new format. I can see that appealing to Microsoft, but it sounds like a recipe for inertia and stagnation to me.
If I were to play CIO for a moment, I guess I'd be looking to evaluate the format until I felt confident that
p(bt(MS)) > p(bt(OD))
which is to say the probability of Bad Things resulting from OpenDocument was less than that of Bad Things resulting from retaining MS Office.
That way we might get to see a decision in finite time and still feel confident that the Right Thing has been done.
Of course, you'd really want to take into consideration
p(gt(OD)) - p(gt(MS))
which should be positive inidicating that the probability of Good Things resulting from adopting OpenDocument is greater than it would be if MS Office were retained.
In fact, ideally you'd want to minimax the two, looking for the maximum chance of good versus the minimum harm. If your probabilities come out positive overall, then you can proceed with the switch to OpenDocument. It's as close to DANG sure as you're going to get in the real world.
You know, I just had this wild thought. You don't suppose they already thought of this in Boston? I mean what are the odds...
Access databases do all sorts of utility work in corporate and gov't entities.
Jolly good. Luckily both groups are free to continue their usage of Access should they so choose.
No one has made Windows illegal, nothing will stop you from using the software of your choice.
All the Massachusetts Decision means is that if you want to send documents to the MA state govt, you'll need to use software that understands OpenDocument. Since the software in question is already available, (and free to boot), I can't see this being much of an imposition on anyone.
I'm sure Suzy the business analyst will just jump all over that. You'd have her learn Linux, I'm sure; then learn PostgreSQL, then how to program with Perl/Tk? Right.
Umm, no, sorry. OpenOffice works on Windows too. Perhaps you missed that in the larger discussion? Perhaps it's worth repeating: OpenOffice works on Windows too. Obviously I think Linux is a better solution, and the barrier to entry for informix or mysql or PostgreSQL is lower than you might think. But the easy solution, on either platform is to use OpenOffice. Did I mention that OpenOffice works on Windows too? Just checking.
It's got this Access workalike called Base, which would suit Suzy down to the ground. Well assuming she's OK with Access. A few folks have suggested that Suzy prob'ly uses spreadsheets, and I'd go with that myself.
But the most important thing is: How often do yu have to exchange databases with the government via email? I'd guess that if you do, you probably work for the NSA in which case arrangements have already been made.
If not, at the risk of getting repetetive, OpenOffice works on Windows too. Thank you for your time.
Fair comment guv, I stand corrected. It's still far from clear that MS Office is superior overall though. (I know you didn't claim this).
If you can write this line with a straight face, you have a future with Walmart in PR.
There was an element of irony there. Perhaps that didn't come across.
Seriously, the corporate trolls here use this same argument every time a corporation does something its customers dislike. What I care about is that they can't just invoke the Holy Free Market to jsutify pissing people off, and then expect anti-competitive government intervention whanever the free market goes against them. Which what it seems Microsoft is doing here.
Sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander, as they say.
Nick I am not going to participate in your Usenetesque style of response. Remove the fluffy "Let's be charitable here" irony and your posting is thin air.
You don't like my debating style? Fair enough, I'm not particularly impressed with yours either. The post to which I first responded was long on hyperbole and short on facts. If you make an assertion in a public forum you should be prepared to support it. If you don't provide that support, you can expect to be challenged on your assertions. It's not up to the challenger to supply facts either: "what facts?" and "sez who?" are, suitably paraphrased, valid criticism in the most stringent academic review. Both Arkanes and I asked you to state the facts upon which you based your argument. If you can't cope with that without taking it personally, then I doubt you're going to enjoy The Slashdot Experience very much. Just a bit of friendly advice.
Getting back to style, you dismissed mine as fluff and air, but still dodged answering a number of the questions I raised. For example you implied that Open Document would result in someone charging the general public, as opposed to MS who only charge you customers. I invited you to explain who you thought would do the charging, how they would implement the charge, and how this differed from the (double!) charge to the public if MA required citizens to purchase MS Office for their state transactions. Since you find the benefit of the doubt so offensive, I will assume that you have dodged these questions because you are unable to answer them in a satisfactory manner. However, these issues are not thin air and you do your position no credit by dodging them.
I will conceed that you did furnish a list of points whereby Microsoft supports disabilities. For this I thank you - it would have saved some time if you'd done this in the first place, but better late than never. However, I have to say that a lot of those features are either offered by the operating system, or duplicated by them. You must surely be aware of this at this stage in the debate, but nothing in the Massachusetts descision stops anyone from using Windows. Apart from that, nhaines already said everything I wanted to.
That said, I'd still be interested to know if there are any MS Office features not replicated in the OS that I should consider. Which brings me to my next point:
Now. Can you name me a SINGLE option in OpenOffice.org which is not provided by the operating system and is useful to people with disabilities?
Now. Can you tell me why this is important? "Do not reinvent the wheel" is an important principle of software development. If the OS does supply these features, why is that not sufficent? Why should it be the job of the office software? Especially since MS have done such a fine job of demonstrating that the job is better done at OS level?
And, lest we forget, the main point once again: nothing in the MA descision stops anyone using Windows.
If the state ONLY saves documents in that format from this point forward, then they will be unable to take advantage of any newly developed tech, be it standard or proprietary. ie, if Massachusetts 'locked in" on wax cylinders for playing sounds, it would make it hard to get my CD, cassette tape or futuristic crystal cube device into the state's procurement process.
Dude, the standard has a steering committee. It can evolve the standard to cope with new tech.
Heck, Microsoft is even on the committee.
If your argument had merit, then the format used by Word97 would lock everyone out from using OfficeXP. Silly, isn't it?
We shouldn't let the desire to see Microsoft impaled blind us to the reality of government types who abrogate their responsibility, and instead say "whoops, can't use that, we standardized on the other one back in ought six".
The only people keeping Microsoft from joining in are Microsoft. It's an Open Standard. Say it with me: "Open Standard". I knew you could.
I can't get excited when the underlying myopia is so technology unfriendly.
I would't get too excited, either. Once Microsoft get over their current hissy fit, maybe throw a few chairs around, I expect their myopia will fade and they'll agree to support what's looking like an emerging world standard.
Once corporate IT gets involved, everything takes 6 months and costs 5x more.
Yeah, I know that feeling. I once wrote a clientside Perl/Tk interface to an Oracle DB and was told not to tell IT, since they'd make everyone stop using it.
But really, this is all a bit of a red herring.
I mean, how often does Joe Citizen have to mail an access database to the MA state govt? There's nothing to stop anyone to carrying on with Windows (if that be their preference) nro from using the database of their choice. I'd recommend looking at OpenOffice.org's Base personally, but you don't have to use it and you can still use Access.
So much as Access may have it's userbase, and loudly as MS may choose to shout "Foul!" this isn't about MS or about Access. It's about using Open Formats.
Which means that the only ones keeping Microsoft out are Microsoft.
How did you ever manage to cram so many fallacies and distortions into a single sentence? For example:
...charges it to end users only and not on the general public...
As opposed to whom, pray tell?
And while we're at it, how does the public get charged, precisely?
Funding targetted for OSS development tends to come from corporations, or by private fundraising rather than the taxation you suggest. Perhaps you were not aware of this.
Of course if MA adopt a Microsoft controlled format, then the general public will end up paying, whether they wish to or no, particularly if MS move to the subscription model they've been threatening. In fact the public will pay twice - once for their own software, and again for the that used by the MA state goverment.
Then we have
... and has come up with a better product...
Let's be charitable here and assume you meant to add "... for disabed users..." at this point. Maybe you meant us to infer it from the context? Personally, I read it more as a an assetion that Office95 was better than OOo 2.0, but that would be a stupid thing to say, unsupported as it is and contrary to the experience of many of us who have indeed used both.
In fact, it's far from clear that MS Office is the superior product at all, since your point is supported with little more than hyperbole. Still, if MS offer superior support for the disabled, then hooray for Microsoft. I'm sure they will continue to enjoy strong support from that sector of the marketplace - just as soon as they get off their high horse and support the OpenDocument format that is. Otherwise, I'm sure some other vendor will be only too willing to meet their needs. That's what capitalism is all about, after all.
... 10 years ago"
As far as I can remember in 1995 MS Word has about the same support for disabilities as did Vi and Nroff.
Windows did a little better, with high contrast colour schemes and large fonts for the visually impaired, but that's not an Office feature and nothing in the proposal stops anyone using Windows.
Still, I'll admit it wasn't a matter that much concerned me at the time.
Perhaps you'd care to refresh my memory?
Not to mention the fact that in the Linux world, nothing comes close to Access as a [programmable] frontend.
Execpt that this isn't about Linux vs. Windows remarkable as that may seem. It's about Open Standards vs Vendor Lock in. Windows users can use OpenDocument as well.
And then there's always OpenOffice Base which is reckoned to be a pretty good Access workalike - an aknowledged weaness of OOo 1.x, now addressed in 2.0.
When you need to add business logic to a database, Access does a pretty good job.
That's debatable; at best it's a matter of preference. Personally, I'd use a proper database (Oracle, PostgreSQL, Ingres, or Informix by choice) and add the front end using Perl/Tk. Or if you insist on using windows, use ODBC and the developement environment of your choice.
But right at the moment the argument is about who you can buy your office software from if you want to talk to MA government offices. Is it going to be Microsoft, or is it going to be everyone in the world plus Microsoft too (if they decide to stop sulking)?
True enough, and part of the writer's craft is to introduce that new stuff in such a way as to make it seem like it was there all the time. The reaction you want is "Oh of course!" not "WTF!" Too many WTF moments among too many readers and you're probably not doing it right.
Personally, I didn't didn't have a problem with the evolution of the Roland's world. The first one seemed to mix elements of gunslingers, high fantasy and post-apocalypse. I had more trouble with the fact that the narrative kept returning to New York, but even that was foreshadowed in a way by the use of "Hey Jude".
At the end of the day, my only real gripe is with the cosmology of Roland's world. It's been (necessarily) cobbled together out of elements of all King's books. I don't think it fits very well, and I have some niggles with Roland's time loop, the one-way nature of time in the "real world". Then there are questions as to who filled King's role in the cosmos before his birth and who will take up the role after he dies (since it's unreasonable to assume the multiverse will die with the writer). And speaking of the the writing himself into the story aspect, I can't stop thinking that Grant Morrison did it better in Animal Man.
That said, they are all minor quibbles, and I rather enjoyed the books. I can't see me shelling out for the comics, but that's mainly cause I kicked that habit a few years back.
Generally when a government "gives up" power, it's because the power has turned into a liability. The dissolusion of the British Empire was because, for what having an empire got them, it was also a political headache - both from foreign powers, and from the english population.
You can be as mean sprited about it as you like. We were still the first empire in history to do the right thing and stand down with needing to be overthrown. I think we deserve credit for that, personally.
Wandering back on topic..
You want to fix copyright law? I'm not talking about just the DMCA, I'm talking about copyright law in general.
mmm... and I assume you're talking to slashdot in general, since my point was that fixing the DMCA (specifically, since that is the piece fof legilation where we have a shinging opportunity at this current time. Just because we have a chance to change the DMCA doesn't mean we can't continue to work for copyright reform afterwards.
Of course, neither do most of you, which is why the DMCA is here to stay.
the music industry is in a situation where its power is likely to decrease over the next five or ten years rather than increase
Indeed. The RIAA are in an untennable position since their power depends on the control of a channel that has been torn wide open. Even if they succeed in bottling up the current musical back catalogue, new music is going to increasingly find it's own channels.
Still, we should remember that there are more combatants in this dustup than just the music labels. There's also film studios, software houses, publishers, and every tuppeny-hapenny wannabe monopolist who thinks they can use the DMCA to lock out potential competition.
Ignoring the troll, if I might be so bold, the original point was that no one ever gives up power voluntarily. Characterise it as you will, the disolution of the Empire stands as an eloquent counter to this assertion.
It should also be noted here that the people making the descision are not the ones who benefit from the injustice in question - another reason to make the effort and write.
That sounds like you're demanding that for 25% of the funding you get 100% of the vote.
Or, being a bit more charitable, maybe you intended that the nations who fund the other
75% get to join in, at least so long as there are no US interests involved?
It's funny. The soviets always used to accuse the UN of being a pawn of American Imperialism.
Now the USSR is gone, the likes of yourself are complaining because the UN isn't a tool
of US imperialism. The only way this discussion could get any more surreal is if someone chimes
in to tell me how all of this is in the name of Democracy.
This will be my last post on the subject as I feel that you, sir, are mainly interested in picking nits.
You reckon? You posted a fairly jocular comment. I tried to reply in the same tone, while
taking the time to explain why the similarities with perl are in fact deeper than they
might first appear, having not only the runtime environment aspect of MSH, but also the
application area (scripting) and large chunks of syntax. If that, sir, is your idea
of nitpicking then I'd be curious to know what just in your book constitutes constructive
discourse.
Second thoughts? Just forget it; life's too short. Have a nice day, and thanks for your input.
So, what you're really interested in is the object streaming rather than
the.NET integration. And presumably you'd want an ls program that
spit out a stream of File objects, each with attributes for name, path,
modification time, permissions and so forth. Interesting...
Presumably the file objects default to printing their name if they wind up
in a void context. It's be a pain to have to write something like
Mind you, I can see all those method names getting to be a pain real
fast anyway. That's what makes me think of it as a scripting language
more than a command line one: that sort of thing is fine in a script,
but not much fun if you have to type it every time. Decent alias and
history mechanisms would help there, but that's not an aspect of Monad
that's received much attention.
I wonder how you'd do "ls -l"
I wonder how you'd do "ls -l | grep foo | sort -n | uniq"
to me piping objects instead of text streams seems incredibly more powerful.
Oh, I'm sure. There's an sample implementation of the Schwartzian transform
in the Perl manual pages that illustrates the point nicely. On the other hand,
a chainsaw is vastly more powerful than a pair of nail scissors. All the same
I bet I know which you'd choose to trim your nails.
"Powerful" isn't always the same thing as "suitable". Or even as "convenient".
MSH is going to become the standard Windows shell, and all utilities
from now on will be written to support its advanced features, while any
unix program will still have to target the lowest common denominator.
You could put it that way. Or you could just as easily say that, Monad
is going to be remain dependant on the.NET framework and Microsoft
core classes, while bash continues to enjoy a mature toolset and the
flexibility of a text based stream architecure.
Don't get me wrong - this could turn out to be best thing since sliced
bread, and I'm certainly going to give it a whirl, at least while work
requires an.NET environment. But I'm not going to get too excited
based on little more than marketing hype.
Heh, actually, rather Java by way of.NET. No cigar for you.Heh, actually, rather Java by way of.NET. No cigar for you.
You haven't been following developments with Perl 6 and Parrot, else you wouldn't say that. Yes, Monad uses.NET intermediate code, and yes.NET was stole^H^H^H^H^Hinspired by Java.
On the other hand, Perl isn't that far off. It already runs in its own interediate code. With Perl 6 there is goign to be a full blown Java-esque virtual machine to go with it. There's one called Parrot that's being developed specially for Perl to becaue the JVM isnt happy (IIRC) with loosely typed languages. On the other hand Larry Wall has also said Perl 6 might end up using the JVM or even (shock horror!).NET.
Add to that the fact that Monad as a language seems to borrow a lot of Perl constructs,
(like the $_ variable for instance), and I think the case is pretty compelling.
But you can keep the cigar - I gave up smoking ages ago:D
The original argument was about shell scripts. If you encounter malformed
data, there's no guarantee cut's going to cut it (ha ha) either.
That very much depends on the cause. If the deformation is consistent
and systemic, that is to say that all data from the source in question is
deformed in the same manner, then cut may well be your easiest solution.
Besides, we're getting hung up over one little utility here. It's not
exactly important if MSH 1.0 doesn't ship with the kitchen sink, as long
as the interfaces it defines are powerful.
Oh agreed, agreed. The original poster chose a deliberately trivial case
to try and elevate MSH at Bash's expense. But as someone else in this
discussion pointed out, the power of pipes on *nix isn't the pipe so
much as the wide array of small efficient pipefitting commands that have
evolved over time. It remains to be seen if MSH can match that (which
was what I was getting at originally) and until I have better info,
I will continue to play the sceptic.
Incidentally, I *do* have a problem with that. I would love to see the
same features in standard unix shells, because I'm not going to switch
to Windows just because of this, and I could seriously use MSH.
Heh. I know the feeling. I've got a paying gig with a.NET shop. I'm
considering using Monad because it looks less painful than the
alternatives available for that benighted platform.
That said, I may be able to help you out. Check out beanshell - it's a
java based command line shell with autoboxing. It's got the full power
of all your favourite Java class libraries backing it up and should
be broadly equivalent to Monad on a Linux box. Or else take a look at
Shell.pm for Perl. It turns Perl into an interactive shell with all the
power that implies. Personally, I'd tend towards
beanshell; it's pretty cool.
What can't you do, anyway? I've yet to find a problem I couldn't solve
using Bash, Perl and/or Gawk. And maybe a command line SQL interpreter.
I always assumed that Sir Tim's pet project took off because it was free (both sense of the word) and had a low barrier to entry. The time was right as well, of course, but those are the factors I see as being most important. There may well have been better proposals out there. I haven't heard of them, but that don't mean they ain't there.
So, that said: did you have a specific proposal, or are you just enjoying being a crotchety old fart?
That looks plausible. It reinforces me in thinking that MSH is just Perl dressed up in a butterfly suit, but yeah, I reckon that'd work. t's not even significantly worse when it comes to typing it on the command line
You may have misunderstood my objection. I have no idea if Microsoft are
offering something like cut. But that's missing the point, because your
scenario should never occur under MSH.
There's a big difference between should never and will
never however. You may have to cope with malformed data, text
streams from the WWW, archaic media, inputs from legacy screen scraping
applications. Sometimes the ability to slice text up by column is
useful. We don't use cut much on Linux either as it happens.
Sure, you *can* still pipe raw text from one app to another, but it's
not correct behaviour for programs written for MSH
You may have misunderstood my objection. I have no idea if Microsoft are offering something like cut. But that's missing the point, because your scenario should never occur under MSH.
There's a big difference between should never and will never however. You may have to cope with malformed data, text streams from the WWW, archaic media, inputs from legacy screen scraping applications. Sometimes the ability to slice text up by column is useful. We don't use cut much on Linux either as it happens.
Sure, you *can* still pipe raw text from one app to another, but it's not correct behavior for programs written for MSH
Which probably the difference between Bash and Monad in a (pardon the term) Nutshell. Because bash is designed as a glue language with a toolkit aimed enabling compatibility with other data sources. From your description of Monad however, it seems determined to restrict the user to a Microsoft environment. Certainly that would fit with MS strategy to date.
incidentally, I don't have a problem with the assertion that Monad is a more powerful scripting environment than bash - proper comparison is, IMHO, with perl. Bash is optimised for command line use first and foremost, whereas Monad seems to be written mainly for scripting. I know there's all the hype about it being a new command line shell, but I suspect a lot of that will turn out to be marketing hype. There's a command shell module for perl as well. I've never heard of anyone using it for day to day use though - Perl is optimised for scripting. From what I've seen, I think that'll turn out the case for Monad too.
Incidentally, I don't have a problem with Monad being more powerful
than bash; Perl or Python would be a better basis for comparison.
Bash is optimised for command line use first and foremost,
whereas Monad seems to be written mainly for scripting. I
know there's all the hype about it being a new command line shell, but
I suspect a lot of that will turn out to be marketing hype. There's a
command shell module for Perl as well. I've never heard of anyone using
it for day to day use though - Perl is optimised for scripting. From
what I've seen, I think that'll turn out the case for Monad too.
Slashdot Mirror
At the risk of betraying my ignorange - how can I look and see for myself? What do I have to do?
Bottom line is they don't have to use OpenOffice to use OpenDocument. That the whole point of the exercise. It's not a power grab by OOo as MS would have us belive - it's a way to make sure everyone has a choice of office software, and that they can choose freely.
AbiWord can handle OpenDoc and it is nowhere near as fat as OOo.
Heck, it even runs on Windows if you insist on a proprietory OS
But surely, if you need to absolutely sure it's going to work out, then you need an infinite amount of time to evaluate the new format. I can see that appealing to Microsoft, but it sounds like a recipe for inertia and stagnation to me.
If I were to play CIO for a moment, I guess I'd be looking to evaluate the format until I felt confident that
which is to say the probability of Bad Things resulting from OpenDocument was less than that of Bad Things resulting from retaining MS Office.That way we might get to see a decision in finite time and still feel confident that the Right Thing has been done.
Of course, you'd really want to take into consideration
which should be positive inidicating that the probability of Good Things resulting from adopting OpenDocument is greater than it would be if MS Office were retained.In fact, ideally you'd want to minimax the two, looking for the maximum chance of good versus the minimum harm. If your probabilities come out positive overall, then you can proceed with the switch to OpenDocument. It's as close to DANG sure as you're going to get in the real world.
You know, I just had this wild thought. You don't suppose they already thought of this in Boston? I mean what are the odds ...
Jolly good. Luckily both groups are free to continue their usage of Access should they so choose. No one has made Windows illegal, nothing will stop you from using the software of your choice.
All the Massachusetts Decision means is that if you want to send documents to the MA state govt, you'll need to use software that understands OpenDocument. Since the software in question is already available, (and free to boot), I can't see this being much of an imposition on anyone.
Can you?
It's not the challenge I took issue with, but rather the unsupported counter-assertion.
You both failed to come up with facts...
Your question was somewhat loaded and I queried the way you framed it. You've evaded a few issues yourself for that matter.
Jolly good - I expect we both have better things to do with our time. Have a nice time :)
Umm, no, sorry. OpenOffice works on Windows too. Perhaps you missed that in the larger discussion? Perhaps it's worth repeating: OpenOffice works on Windows too. Obviously I think Linux is a better solution, and the barrier to entry for informix or mysql or PostgreSQL is lower than you might think. But the easy solution, on either platform is to use OpenOffice. Did I mention that OpenOffice works on Windows too? Just checking.
It's got this Access workalike called Base, which would suit Suzy down to the ground. Well assuming she's OK with Access. A few folks have suggested that Suzy prob'ly uses spreadsheets, and I'd go with that myself.
But the most important thing is: How often do yu have to exchange databases with the government via email? I'd guess that if you do, you probably work for the NSA in which case arrangements have already been made.
If not, at the risk of getting repetetive, OpenOffice works on Windows too. Thank you for your time.
Fair comment guv, I stand corrected. It's still far from clear that MS Office is superior overall though. (I know you didn't claim this).
If you can write this line with a straight face, you have a future with Walmart in PR.
There was an element of irony there. Perhaps that didn't come across.
Seriously, the corporate trolls here use this same argument every time a corporation does something its customers dislike. What I care about is that they can't just invoke the Holy Free Market to jsutify pissing people off, and then expect anti-competitive government intervention whanever the free market goes against them. Which what it seems Microsoft is doing here.
Sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander, as they say.
You don't like my debating style? Fair enough, I'm not particularly impressed with yours either. The post to which I first responded was long on hyperbole and short on facts. If you make an assertion in a public forum you should be prepared to support it. If you don't provide that support, you can expect to be challenged on your assertions. It's not up to the challenger to supply facts either: "what facts?" and "sez who?" are, suitably paraphrased, valid criticism in the most stringent academic review. Both Arkanes and I asked you to state the facts upon which you based your argument. If you can't cope with that without taking it personally, then I doubt you're going to enjoy The Slashdot Experience very much. Just a bit of friendly advice.
Getting back to style, you dismissed mine as fluff and air, but still dodged answering a number of the questions I raised. For example you implied that Open Document would result in someone charging the general public, as opposed to MS who only charge you customers. I invited you to explain who you thought would do the charging, how they would implement the charge, and how this differed from the (double!) charge to the public if MA required citizens to purchase MS Office for their state transactions. Since you find the benefit of the doubt so offensive, I will assume that you have dodged these questions because you are unable to answer them in a satisfactory manner. However, these issues are not thin air and you do your position no credit by dodging them.
I will conceed that you did furnish a list of points whereby Microsoft supports disabilities. For this I thank you - it would have saved some time if you'd done this in the first place, but better late than never. However, I have to say that a lot of those features are either offered by the operating system, or duplicated by them. You must surely be aware of this at this stage in the debate, but nothing in the Massachusetts descision stops anyone from using Windows. Apart from that, nhaines already said everything I wanted to.
That said, I'd still be interested to know if there are any MS Office features not replicated in the OS that I should consider. Which brings me to my next point:
Now. Can you name me a SINGLE option in OpenOffice.org which is not provided by the operating system and is useful to people with disabilities?
Now. Can you tell me why this is important? "Do not reinvent the wheel" is an important principle of software development. If the OS does supply these features, why is that not sufficent? Why should it be the job of the office software? Especially since MS have done such a fine job of demonstrating that the job is better done at OS level?
And, lest we forget, the main point once again: nothing in the MA descision stops anyone using Windows.
Dude, the standard has a steering committee. It can evolve the standard to cope with new tech. Heck, Microsoft is even on the committee.
If your argument had merit, then the format used by Word97 would lock everyone out from using OfficeXP. Silly, isn't it?
We shouldn't let the desire to see Microsoft impaled blind us to the reality of government types who abrogate their responsibility, and instead say "whoops, can't use that, we standardized on the other one back in ought six".
The only people keeping Microsoft from joining in are Microsoft. It's an Open Standard. Say it with me: "Open Standard". I knew you could.
I can't get excited when the underlying myopia is so technology unfriendly.
I would't get too excited, either. Once Microsoft get over their current hissy fit, maybe throw a few chairs around, I expect their myopia will fade and they'll agree to support what's looking like an emerging world standard.
Just like they could have done all the time.
Yeah, I know that feeling. I once wrote a clientside Perl/Tk interface to an Oracle DB and was told not to tell IT, since they'd make everyone stop using it.
But really, this is all a bit of a red herring. I mean, how often does Joe Citizen have to mail an access database to the MA state govt? There's nothing to stop anyone to carrying on with Windows (if that be their preference) nro from using the database of their choice. I'd recommend looking at OpenOffice.org's Base personally, but you don't have to use it and you can still use Access.
So much as Access may have it's userbase, and loudly as MS may choose to shout "Foul!" this isn't about MS or about Access. It's about using Open Formats.
Which means that the only ones keeping Microsoft out are Microsoft.
As opposed to whom, pray tell? And while we're at it, how does the public get charged, precisely? Funding targetted for OSS development tends to come from corporations, or by private fundraising rather than the taxation you suggest. Perhaps you were not aware of this.
Of course if MA adopt a Microsoft controlled format, then the general public will end up paying, whether they wish to or no, particularly if MS move to the subscription model they've been threatening. In fact the public will pay twice - once for their own software, and again for the that used by the MA state goverment.
Then we have
Let's be charitable here and assume you meant to add "... for disabed users ..." at this point. Maybe you meant us to infer it from the context? Personally, I read it more as a an assetion that Office95 was better than OOo 2.0, but that would be a stupid thing to say, unsupported as it is and contrary to the experience of many of us who have indeed used both.
In fact, it's far from clear that MS Office is the superior product at all, since your point is supported with little more than hyperbole. Still, if MS offer superior support for the disabled, then hooray for Microsoft. I'm sure they will continue to enjoy strong support from that sector of the marketplace - just as soon as they get off their high horse and support the OpenDocument format that is. Otherwise, I'm sure some other vendor will be only too willing to meet their needs. That's what capitalism is all about, after all.
As far as I can remember in 1995 MS Word has about the same support for disabilities as did Vi and Nroff. Windows did a little better, with high contrast colour schemes and large fonts for the visually impaired, but that's not an Office feature and nothing in the proposal stops anyone using Windows.
Still, I'll admit it wasn't a matter that much concerned me at the time. Perhaps you'd care to refresh my memory?
Execpt that this isn't about Linux vs. Windows remarkable as that may seem. It's about Open Standards vs Vendor Lock in. Windows users can use OpenDocument as well.
And then there's always OpenOffice Base which is reckoned to be a pretty good Access workalike - an aknowledged weaness of OOo 1.x, now addressed in 2.0.
When you need to add business logic to a database, Access does a pretty good job.
That's debatable; at best it's a matter of preference. Personally, I'd use a proper database (Oracle, PostgreSQL, Ingres, or Informix by choice) and add the front end using Perl/Tk. Or if you insist on using windows, use ODBC and the developement environment of your choice.
But right at the moment the argument is about who you can buy your office software from if you want to talk to MA government offices. Is it going to be Microsoft, or is it going to be everyone in the world plus Microsoft too (if they decide to stop sulking)?
Personally, I didn't didn't have a problem with the evolution of the Roland's world. The first one seemed to mix elements of gunslingers, high fantasy and post-apocalypse. I had more trouble with the fact that the narrative kept returning to New York, but even that was foreshadowed in a way by the use of "Hey Jude".
At the end of the day, my only real gripe is with the cosmology of Roland's world. It's been (necessarily) cobbled together out of elements of all King's books. I don't think it fits very well, and I have some niggles with Roland's time loop, the one-way nature of time in the "real world". Then there are questions as to who filled King's role in the cosmos before his birth and who will take up the role after he dies (since it's unreasonable to assume the multiverse will die with the writer). And speaking of the the writing himself into the story aspect, I can't stop thinking that Grant Morrison did it better in Animal Man.
That said, they are all minor quibbles, and I rather enjoyed the books. I can't see me shelling out for the comics, but that's mainly cause I kicked that habit a few years back.
You can be as mean sprited about it as you like. We were still the first empire in history to do the right thing and stand down with needing to be overthrown. I think we deserve credit for that, personally.
Wandering back on topic..
You want to fix copyright law? I'm not talking about just the DMCA, I'm talking about copyright law in general.
mmm... and I assume you're talking to slashdot in general, since my point was that fixing the DMCA (specifically, since that is the piece fof legilation where we have a shinging opportunity at this current time. Just because we have a chance to change the DMCA doesn't mean we can't continue to work for copyright reform afterwards.
Of course, neither do most of you, which is why the DMCA is here to stay.
That rather remains to be seen, doesn't it?
Indeed. The RIAA are in an untennable position since their power depends on the control of a channel that has been torn wide open. Even if they succeed in bottling up the current musical back catalogue, new music is going to increasingly find it's own channels.
Still, we should remember that there are more combatants in this dustup than just the music labels. There's also film studios, software houses, publishers, and every tuppeny-hapenny wannabe monopolist who thinks they can use the DMCA to lock out potential competition.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
That's probably very wise :)
It should also be noted here that the people making the descision are not the ones who benefit from the injustice in question - another reason to make the effort and write.
I believe I speak for everyone in this forum when I say that no one ever speaks for everyone in this forum.
It's funny. The soviets always used to accuse the UN of being a pawn of American Imperialism. Now the USSR is gone, the likes of yourself are complaining because the UN isn't a tool of US imperialism. The only way this discussion could get any more surreal is if someone chimes in to tell me how all of this is in the name of Democracy.
I can hardly wait.
You reckon? You posted a fairly jocular comment. I tried to reply in the same tone, while taking the time to explain why the similarities with perl are in fact deeper than they might first appear, having not only the runtime environment aspect of MSH, but also the application area (scripting) and large chunks of syntax. If that, sir, is your idea of nitpicking then I'd be curious to know what just in your book constitutes constructive discourse.
Second thoughts? Just forget it; life's too short. Have a nice day, and thanks for your input.
Presumably the file objects default to printing their name if they wind up in a void context. It's be a pain to have to write something like
Mind you, I can see all those method names getting to be a pain real fast anyway. That's what makes me think of it as a scripting language more than a command line one: that sort of thing is fine in a script, but not much fun if you have to type it every time. Decent alias and history mechanisms would help there, but that's not an aspect of Monad that's received much attention.I wonder how you'd do "ls -l"
I wonder how you'd do "ls -l | grep foo | sort -n | uniq"
to me piping objects instead of text streams seems incredibly more powerful.
Oh, I'm sure. There's an sample implementation of the Schwartzian transform in the Perl manual pages that illustrates the point nicely. On the other hand, a chainsaw is vastly more powerful than a pair of nail scissors. All the same I bet I know which you'd choose to trim your nails.
"Powerful" isn't always the same thing as "suitable". Or even as "convenient".
MSH is going to become the standard Windows shell, and all utilities from now on will be written to support its advanced features, while any unix program will still have to target the lowest common denominator.
You could put it that way. Or you could just as easily say that, Monad is going to be remain dependant on the .NET framework and Microsoft
core classes, while bash continues to enjoy a mature toolset and the
flexibility of a text based stream architecure.
Don't get me wrong - this could turn out to be best thing since sliced bread, and I'm certainly going to give it a whirl, at least while work requires an .NET environment. But I'm not going to get too excited
based on little more than marketing hype.
You haven't been following developments with Perl 6 and Parrot, else you wouldn't say that. Yes, Monad uses .NET intermediate code, and yes .NET was stole^H^H^H^H^Hinspired by Java.
On the other hand, Perl isn't that far off. It already runs in its own interediate code. With Perl 6 there is goign to be a full blown Java-esque virtual machine to go with it. There's one called Parrot that's being developed specially for Perl to becaue the JVM isnt happy (IIRC) with loosely typed languages. On the other hand Larry Wall has also said Perl 6 might end up using the JVM or even (shock horror!) .NET.
Add to that the fact that Monad as a language seems to borrow a lot of Perl constructs, (like the $_ variable for instance), and I think the case is pretty compelling.
But you can keep the cigar - I gave up smoking ages ago :D
That very much depends on the cause. If the deformation is consistent and systemic, that is to say that all data from the source in question is deformed in the same manner, then cut may well be your easiest solution.
Besides, we're getting hung up over one little utility here. It's not exactly important if MSH 1.0 doesn't ship with the kitchen sink, as long as the interfaces it defines are powerful.
Oh agreed, agreed. The original poster chose a deliberately trivial case to try and elevate MSH at Bash's expense. But as someone else in this discussion pointed out, the power of pipes on *nix isn't the pipe so much as the wide array of small efficient pipefitting commands that have evolved over time. It remains to be seen if MSH can match that (which was what I was getting at originally) and until I have better info, I will continue to play the sceptic.
Incidentally, I *do* have a problem with that. I would love to see the same features in standard unix shells, because I'm not going to switch to Windows just because of this, and I could seriously use MSH.
Heh. I know the feeling. I've got a paying gig with a .NET shop. I'm
considering using Monad because it looks less painful than the
alternatives available for that benighted platform.
That said, I may be able to help you out. Check out beanshell - it's a java based command line shell with autoboxing. It's got the full power of all your favourite Java class libraries backing it up and should be broadly equivalent to Monad on a Linux box. Or else take a look at Shell.pm for Perl. It turns Perl into an interactive shell with all the power that implies. Personally, I'd tend towards beanshell; it's pretty cool.
What can't you do, anyway? I've yet to find a problem I couldn't solve using Bash, Perl and/or Gawk. And maybe a command line SQL interpreter.
So, that said: did you have a specific proposal, or are you just enjoying being a crotchety old fart?
That looks plausible. It reinforces me in thinking that MSH is just Perl dressed up in a butterfly suit, but yeah, I reckon that'd work. t's not even significantly worse when it comes to typing it on the command line
There's a big difference between should never and will never however. You may have to cope with malformed data, text streams from the WWW, archaic media, inputs from legacy screen scraping applications. Sometimes the ability to slice text up by column is useful. We don't use cut much on Linux either as it happens.
Sure, you *can* still pipe raw text from one app to another, but it's not correct behaviour for programs written for MSH You may have misunderstood my objection. I have no idea if Microsoft are offering something like cut. But that's missing the point, because your scenario should never occur under MSH.
There's a big difference between should never and will never however. You may have to cope with malformed data, text streams from the WWW, archaic media, inputs from legacy screen scraping applications. Sometimes the ability to slice text up by column is useful. We don't use cut much on Linux either as it happens.
Sure, you *can* still pipe raw text from one app to another, but it's not correct behavior for programs written for MSH
Which probably the difference between Bash and Monad in a (pardon the term) Nutshell. Because bash is designed as a glue language with a toolkit aimed enabling compatibility with other data sources. From your description of Monad however, it seems determined to restrict the user to a Microsoft environment. Certainly that would fit with MS strategy to date.
incidentally, I don't have a problem with the assertion that Monad is a more powerful scripting environment than bash - proper comparison is, IMHO, with perl. Bash is optimised for command line use first and foremost, whereas Monad seems to be written mainly for scripting. I know there's all the hype about it being a new command line shell, but I suspect a lot of that will turn out to be marketing hype. There's a command shell module for perl as well. I've never heard of anyone using it for day to day use though - Perl is optimised for scripting. From what I've seen, I think that'll turn out the case for Monad too.
Incidentally, I don't have a problem with Monad being more powerful than bash; Perl or Python would be a better basis for comparison. Bash is optimised for command line use first and foremost, whereas Monad seems to be written mainly for scripting. I know there's all the hype about it being a new command line shell, but I suspect a lot of that will turn out to be marketing hype. There's a command shell module for Perl as well. I've never heard of anyone using it for day to day use though - Perl is optimised for scripting. From what I've seen, I think that'll turn out the case for Monad too.