Science is socialist in nature? Entrenched interests seems like another way of saying vested interests and there are plenty of those that aren't paid for by government. The government (socialist) ones are just a bit easier to pick.
It seems like a big leap to quote one newspaper report which in turn quotes a government sponsored scientist and refers to a paper that is not yet published to a position of no government funding for basic research.
Of course market driven forces are so good at delivering long term sustainable results...anyone care for some Lehman Brothers shares?
Ungrounded Lightning sentiment is precisely what this little exercise seems to be about. As other have noted, the Open Document Foundation isn't ODF. The likelyhood of them being agents from dark side whose aim is to increase uncertainty in the public about the viability of ODF is pretty high. Certainly for 2 guys without a garage but a substantial public profile and no other real claim to fame, they fit the bill.
Headlines like the Computerworld one are priceless in the media world and producing the reaction of fear and a sense of defeat in the minds of your opponents is the prize.
Evaluating a competitor to Word/Office with a view to budget savings is an excellent idea! Of course there is plenty of FUD around Total Operating Costs, so you would have to expect to see someone quantify (in dollar terms) the cost of abandoning Word/Office and use that to justify the retention of the incumbent.
It is instructive to see that M$ now routinely give street customers the educational price on Office. They are reportedly selling OS's on a very cheap per-seat basis to China. Given the cash position of Microsoft, it can afford to match "almost" free in order to maintain market share for the short term. So in a hypothetical situation where a large corporate client starts comparing OO with M$ Office, you can reasonably expect that the M$ sales team will do everything to protect their patch, including FUD and financial discounts.
Adopting ODF as an international open standard has substantial merit. Governments and large corporations need standards to ensure interoperability. Having a defacto standard is no real substitute, Microsoft's recent efforts around office document standards is significant because it demonstrates an awareness of the power of a standard and the threat it might pose to a non-standard player. Conflicting and competing standards will possible undermine the authority of the concept of a standard.
Open Office is a vehicle that supports ODF, if M$ Office supported ODF fully and if ODF was the agreed worldwide standard for office documents then a potential customer would be able to choose and the playing field would be level. Which is why M$ will never be a willing party to such a situation. Competition in a so-called free enterprise economy is abhorrent to a monopolist.
As anwyn points out, freedom is never without a cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Science is socialist in nature? Entrenched interests seems like another way of saying vested interests and there are plenty of those that aren't paid for by government. The government (socialist) ones are just a bit easier to pick. It seems like a big leap to quote one newspaper report which in turn quotes a government sponsored scientist and refers to a paper that is not yet published to a position of no government funding for basic research. Of course market driven forces are so good at delivering long term sustainable results...anyone care for some Lehman Brothers shares?
Ungrounded Lightning sentiment is precisely what this little exercise seems to be about. As other have noted, the Open Document Foundation isn't ODF. The likelyhood of them being agents from dark side whose aim is to increase uncertainty in the public about the viability of ODF is pretty high. Certainly for 2 guys without a garage but a substantial public profile and no other real claim to fame, they fit the bill.
Headlines like the Computerworld one are priceless in the media world and producing the reaction of fear and a sense of defeat in the minds of your opponents is the prize.
Evaluating a competitor to Word/Office with a view to budget savings is an excellent idea! Of course there is plenty of FUD around Total Operating Costs, so you would have to expect to see someone quantify (in dollar terms) the cost of abandoning Word/Office and use that to justify the retention of the incumbent. It is instructive to see that M$ now routinely give street customers the educational price on Office. They are reportedly selling OS's on a very cheap per-seat basis to China. Given the cash position of Microsoft, it can afford to match "almost" free in order to maintain market share for the short term. So in a hypothetical situation where a large corporate client starts comparing OO with M$ Office, you can reasonably expect that the M$ sales team will do everything to protect their patch, including FUD and financial discounts. Adopting ODF as an international open standard has substantial merit. Governments and large corporations need standards to ensure interoperability. Having a defacto standard is no real substitute, Microsoft's recent efforts around office document standards is significant because it demonstrates an awareness of the power of a standard and the threat it might pose to a non-standard player. Conflicting and competing standards will possible undermine the authority of the concept of a standard. Open Office is a vehicle that supports ODF, if M$ Office supported ODF fully and if ODF was the agreed worldwide standard for office documents then a potential customer would be able to choose and the playing field would be level. Which is why M$ will never be a willing party to such a situation. Competition in a so-called free enterprise economy is abhorrent to a monopolist. As anwyn points out, freedom is never without a cost.
Oh yes! Strike a blow for the greater grammatical good by all means, however resorting to vulgarity serves only to undermine your most noble cause.