That is currently the most practical option, but don't you think it is odd that the law forces everyone to take a step back technologically because they can't deal with the legal mess they have built. I'd say that is a poster child for what is wrong with bureaucracy.
I also think they don't have as much power as it seems, since a lot of music only sells in any quantity in one special region.
That actually does not help at all. Just think. If Apple loses they have to charge the same amount and allow purchases from any country. That means they have to license every song from every country. That means Latvia gets to bargain with Apple about how much money they get if Apple wants to sell a hit song in Spain that no one in Latvia has ever even heard of. Latvia is not out anything if the deal does not go through, since they don't lose any sales, but Apple is screwed if it does not got through since then they can't sell the most popular songs to the region they are popular in. Basically, this ruling would ruin the online music industry completely in Europe.
The EU is a single market; by law, there should be no restriction upon buying goods from different countries that are in the EU.
There is no restriction on buying goods. But this is not a material good it is a license to intellectual property. You can buy a license for a copy of music from France in England, unfortunately it is useless in England since in England the rights to the music are owned by a completely different person. The problem is consumers don't understand copyrights and the fact that copyrights are per country and copyright owners have refused to make the agreements they were ordered to to make this simple for them.
In the long term, prices will settle to an average, because the EU shares a common market.
Wrong! It is not the same product in each country even if it seems the same to consumers. This is because the laws in Europe grant copyrights to different organizations in each country. In each country the rights are owned by a cartel. This lawsuit, if successful, will just allow any cartel to hold all of Europe hostage.
This lawsuit isn't misdirected; the music industry is forcing Apple to illegally create trade restrictions in the EU.
Sue the music licensing organizations, not Apple. Apple is just complying with each country's laws which makes the copyright for a song cost a different price and have different restrictions in each country.
If the EU allows this, then more companies will jump on the bandwagon and the EU's single market will start to fragment.
Then maybe they should enforce the order they already issued to mandate cross country licensing. Suing the people who purchased from the people who are ignoring your edict and causing problems is not going to do any good. It just forces Apple to either not sell in Europe or raise prices. The market will not even it out, since in order to comply with the ruling they need the buy in from every EU member's copyright holders, and some of them are not about to miss a chance to funnel money from wealthier parts of Europe to themselves.
It's a win for the customers in the long run.
Demand will go down if they charge to much and prices will have to go down. That is if they are interested in selling to the Europeans.
If it is anything like the U.S. the record industry does not want to sell online, which means there will be fewer choices for the consumer. In the EU with the current laws it is, in fact, much much worse. Suppose the EU rules that Apple has to charge the same price in every country. Any one country's version of the RIAA could then hold all of Europe hostage and prevent all online sales simply by charging too much. Alternately they could agree to sell but only at 3 times that price of everyone else and Apple will have to choose between not selling in Europe, Selling at an outrageously high prices (3 times CD prices), or charging only slightly more, but paying that one country a lot more and overcharging in all other countries. Imagine every time you buy a record in Germany a significant part of the money goes to the Slovakians who are scamming the whole continent. (That was only an example I have nothing against Slovakia)
You are still thinking in terms of supply and demand. That does not work when dealing with a cartel who has a monopoly in any given country. Capitalism has already failed at that point as the supply is monopolized.
the point is that you're welcome to order from Amazon.de if they're cheaper than Amazon.co.uk (though I doubt that will be the case). The complaint is that you can't do the equivalent trick and buy music from iTunes Germany, not iTunes UK.
The laws in the U.S. and every EU country I am aware of treat intellectual property licenses different that material goods. For example, I can buy a book in Germany and bring it to another country to read. I cannot license the rights to print a copy of a book from the german publisher then print a copy in france and sell it there. The reason for that is that different companies own the right to make a copy (copyright) in each country. The EU ordered all the organizations that own copyrights on music to arrange pan-european licensing to avoid confusing consumers with this difference. So far they have ignored the order.
Oh, and yes, I can burn the files to CD... as data. But I can't do a damn thing with them. I still need to be at my internet enabled PC so it can check for authorization any time I want to watch them.
I figured I'd give iTunes a try having read that their DRM isn't nearly as draconian. Well, it's basically the same issues though not to the same extent. And the sound quality sucks.
You can't burn you itunes to cd, fast forward them, or play them without an internet connection? Next time try using "burn to cd" menu selection, the fast forward button, and err I have no idea why you would have a problem playing them without an internet connection it works for me.
Apple are being taken to the European Court because they prevent UK downloaders from using the French and German iTunes sites and getting cheaper downloads.
Yeah, except that to do so would violate the law in each of those countries, or require Apple to raise prices to the highest countries royalty rates. Great deal, everyone pays more. The EU also directed the music licensing organizations of all European countries to agree to licensing across Europe, so far they have completely refused to comply.
a person from one EU must be able to buy something from another EU state as if they were living there - no discrimination can be made on grounds of nationality
So here is the problem. As the law stands in the EU, a license to music in France is not the same thing as a license to music in Britain. Both have different prices and restrictions. If this lawsuit wins against Apple they will have to charge people in France a higher price so that it is the same as the license cost in Britain. Tell me again how this is a win for anyone?
I've seen this same issue brought up here before. You have to remember Apple wants to charge the lowest possible price for music. They just use it as a way of selling ipods, and don't make any money off of it. Your argument makes it sound like Apple execs are sitting around and figuring out which countries they can gouge the most. In truth they just want to sell the music as cheaply as they can without losing money so that people will buy more ipods.
The standardization of licensing across Europe would be great, but there is not really anything Apple can do to make it happen. This lawsuit is completely misdirected.
First, Open Source is a completely different movement from GNU and the Free Software movement.
GNU, OSI, and many other organizations are all part of the open source movement. Open source is just having open and readable source for your software. Some of it is owned, copyrighted by someone, and not free or re-distributable but still open source.
The reason I specified GNU as the subset of open source that I was discussing is because that is a subset that necessarily has no authority figure as the code is re-distributable and anyone can fork it. There is no reason to overcomplicate my statement.
Whatever happened to "every hole has a peice to fit it, some peices require different tasks to get them. Some require money, others require some code". It's no wonder MS is calling people communists, it's exactly the same pathetic ideals which no one wishs to adapt to the world.
There are plenty of pragmatists here who use both open and closed source software for a variety of uses. We are just not as vocal as people who get all worked up about either of the aforementioned points of view. For example, I'm writing this right now using Mac OS X. It is a mix of open source and closed source software. It also has a built in spell checking service that all native programs can apply to text. Perhaps that is why I did not misspell the words "piece" and "wishes" as you did. Maybe you are not using the best tool for the job of posting on Slashdot?
An Open Source project is being killed because the highest authority in Open Source OS namely Mr. Linus, decided not to use it and now the rest of the community is cheering it. Way to go guys.
WTF are you talking about? First open source (GNU) has no authority. It can't be killed either. This article is about RMS commenting on why it is good that Linus has moved away from a closed source software package he was relying upon after they arbitrarily yanked the free license they gave him over something (completely legal) that someone else was doing. So again I ask, WTF are you talking about?
I'll give you Microsoft is worse, but I'm sure Apple would be the same way if it were the bigger company.
You seem to be forgetting something. Apple was a near monopoly. They owned the PC market for several years and did not try to lock-in their customers or use that position to move into other markets. That is not to say that they would not do so at some point in the future given the chance, but it is by no means a foregone conclusion.
If you have a one year old PB G4,or a PowerBook G4 or at all, it says so on the computer.
You may be right, or they may just have an old ibook g3 which just says "ibook" on it, or even an 4 year old powerbook. I've never seen emacs crash, but I don't use it much. Anyone?
I realize you have some kind of vision of how everything should be in every specific situation, as many online thinkers do, but we really do have good reasons for our descisions - only thing we could do and don't is invading the students privacy by checking out exactly what they have installed. We don't believe in that, and that, I think is worth more than what software is used.
I hope you know what you are doing. If they are installing pirated software on your machines, you are most likely liable. Also, how do you know they are installing them if you don't invade their privacy as you put it?
The same can be said for different MS Word versions. I've seen that happen a number of times.
What does that even mean? You trying to use anecdotes to make some kind of case for OOo (or rather, against MS Office)?
Yes I am. Word does not reliably open Word documents from different versions. It is impractical to expect all Word users to have the same version due to the expense. Thus the argument that was made that OpenOffice does not reliably open Word documents applies equally to Word (thus nullifying it). Further, it is possible to standardize on OpenOffice (since it is free and freely distributable) and thus eliminate this problem within an organization.
Only if the rest of the world standardizes together with us. The problem is communicating with the rest of the world
I have had no more problems with OpenOffice reading Word files than I have had with Word reading Word files. In any case, we always send PDFs to all our customers since it does not require the extreme file scrubbing that Word files do and so that we know that the file will be readable and look the same to both parties.
OOo is claimed by many to be a full and compatible replacement and that is simply not true.
I have never claimed that. I have claimed that it is as compatible as Word is for most people and is about as likely to correctly open a Word file. I usually add that if people regularly send you lots of macros (and you use them) then OpenOffice is not for you (and you should review your security policies).
Documents from any office suite are really crappy for sending around and aren't really handled by version control either. Only reason to use office suites are for external communication and presentations.
Both of these statements are wrong. First, newer versions of OpenOffice use an XML format and CVS handles the versioning just fine, including merges. The reason to use office suites is for documents that need to be edited and written by multiple people, hopefully within a single organization. Published formats (HTML, PDF) are good for sending to customers, the press, etc.
You game on linux. Instead of OS X? Because? OS X has 10 times the number of gaming offerings that linux does. You really sound like a troll, but maybe you are just misguided. Here at work I use a powerbook, as does about half the company. We write software to run on the really expensive special purpose servers we sell. What exactly is it that you do on x86 hardware that you can't do from your mac?
No, it is prejudgement, as you are incapable of quantifying your assertion.
Not true U.S. citizens average 1.3 kiloprejudi whilst Canadians only average.22 kiloprejudi. Europeans all together average only.37 kiloprejudi. I think the statistics are pretty clear.
Since switching primarily to OS X it is easy to forget that this is an issue for people. I mean I often see reviews with this listed as a criteria but it is not one that concerns me at all. That is because I usually open an application once a month or so, and just leave it that way. Having real multitasking and good memory management makes it pointless to actually quit applications unless they are poorly written and unstable. I reboot my laptop when I install an update that requires it, and usually that is it. I guess games are an exception, especially ones that capture the entire display. Really though, shut down your editor? I mean you might as well close all those terminal windows too.:)
I've seen it tried. It didn't really work out, mainly because more than half the students promptly pirated MS Office instead.
Who gives students access to install programs?!? Are you still on Win98 or something?
To those who say that formatting shouldn't matter - it does. We are not talking about just being readable, but papers and mateial that should look a certain way, if only because the student wants it to look that way. And we are not talking advanced stuff either... a simple image can be enough to throw it off.
The same can be said for different MS Word versions. I've seen that happen a number of times. At least with OpenOffice you can standardize on one version since it is cross-platform and free to upgrade.
On the plus side, we don't use doc as the internal format, we use HTML or in worst case PDF instead, which makes the situation a bit brighter.:)
Both of those are useful publishing formats, but not very useful for sending editable documents around. I have trouble imagining such an environment.
me the dummy parant doesn't have to go take courses in how to use Linux - because I know how to use Windows from Work
You sure are a dummy. OpenOffice runs on Windows as well as Linux. Nobody proposed replacing Windows, just Word with a free alternative that is a real standard (you know writes to a standard format decided by an industry council, proscribed for use throughout the EU and implemented by multiple word processor programs.)
Basically Word has very minimal advantages for a school and certainly none to offset the cost in such a financially strapped environment.
would assume that schools can also put on each computer a $50.00 version - not this "hundreds of dollars" crap everyone is spouting.
OK $50 per student for Word plus how many dollars for a student version of Windows that will run the latest version of Word? You know what? I doesn't matter. $50 per student plus a like amount for some students at home is still a large amount of money more than FREE!
Spend the money on teachers or books, not on software licensing for software that is not needed.
The real question is why would you want to switch a school to OO.o?
Money, thousands of dollars that could go to books, more teachers, etc.
If a company is hiring high school graduates for jobs requiring computer literacy, they usually want students with Microsoft Word experience.
Which 90% of the students will get at home. Adding OpenOffice to their resume will move them to the top 10% of high school grads that know 2 word processors:)
Don't let your zeal for OSS hurt the kids job search!
I know you may find this hard to grasp but high schools are not training centers for low-paying jobs. They are supposed to be about generally educating people not training them to use a tool for a job later on. The money that goes to MS Word licenses could be spent on much more enriching things.
We have documents that are hundreds of pages of custom work
You have those in Word? My condolences. We switched word processors because at around 200 pages with a dozen or so graphics files would not reliable save and reopen. Word is a steaming pile of crap when it comes to long documents.
In any case, they shouldn't have to worry about anything but the most basic Word compatibility for an education environment. Compatibility should actually be better since all the students can have a free copy of OpenOffice to take home and use on all platforms. Word on the other hand comes in so many versions none of which are completely compatible and you can't expect students to shell out a hundred bucks for a newer copy.
There are disadvantages to using proprietary programs only available at great cost from a single vendor.
Assuming that people who think like you are the only ones capable of determining right and wrong is very prejudiced and close-minded.
Except that while I might be right or wrong, I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything because of my beliefs, while people who want to pass legislation against homosexuality are trying to do just that, make moral decisions for others (something you may have notices Jesus specifically mentions a few times as an immoral thing.)
You have got to be kidding me. Logically that doesn't demonstrate anything. But I bet it sounded cool in you head, right?
Well cooler than "cool in you head." Not go read the previous threads so that you can understand what I was talking about.
homosexuality, beastiality and pedophilia all come down to having sex with something that is not natural
Try reading sometime. You will quickly learn that animals have homosexual relations in many different species. It sounds pretty "natural" to me.
People also consent to be shot in the head and fed poison from time to time too.
If someone wants to shoot themselves in the head, or have a friend do it, or eat poison, who are you to force them not to? Are you god to tell others what is right and wrong? No. You're not. So butt out any worry about your own actions.
he could actually earnestly believe that it is wrong
What makes you think these two things are mutually exclusive? Lots of gay people think that homosexuality is wrong. Statistically, most become catholics and continue to have sex with members of the same sex and feel guilty about it.
I need to keep reminding myself that you are right and just about everyone else is wrong.
No just remind yourself that you don't know what is right and wrong and that you are fallible. Then leave everyone else alone to do what they think is right.
I agree that being black is not a choice but being homosexual is. If it isn't a choice, then it must be a mutation in the current generation, because it wouldn't get passed on!
Have you ever actually talked to a gay person about being gay? Try it some time. They are real people. Now just for shit and grins, why don't you try to choose not be attracted to people of the opposite sex? Genetically speaking homosexuality provides an advantage in adverse conditions with strong familial bonds. It provides two extra adults to raise, protect, and provide for children (usually children of siblings who have ~25% of the same genetic make-up possibly including any recessives that make one predisposed to being homosexual.
The previous poster had a point? I thought they just wanted to force me and everyone else to adhere to particular precepts of their religion while completely violating others themselves.
Make your choice and defend it: are gay marriages good for society as a whole or bad? Be precise in your definitions and show evidence one way or the other to demonstrate your assertions.
That is an irrelevant point. Is drinking good or bad for society? Are cheeseburgers good or bad for society? Is the jewish faith good or bad for society?
Answer: everyone must decide for themselves and legislators had better have overwhelming and compelling reasons to pass law banning homosexuality or any of the above. I'm pro-choice about nearly everything simply because I'm willing to take personal responsibility for my decisions. I'll decide what is right and wrong and good and bad for society and myself. Excess laws are welcomed by people who want someone else to decide for them, or want to decide for everyone else. That is damnably unamerican.
Genetically speaking homosexuality is an advantage in harsh environments with strong familial units and in overpopulated environments. They are an advantage in the first because (assuming homosexuality is a recessive genetic predisposition) it brings two extra able adults to protect and care for children, while still passing on the trait through the recessives in the homosexual person's siblings. In an overpopulated society (like the one we live in now) anything that reduces the population growth benefits society.
Slashdot Mirror
Then we will just have to keep on buying CD's.
That is currently the most practical option, but don't you think it is odd that the law forces everyone to take a step back technologically because they can't deal with the legal mess they have built. I'd say that is a poster child for what is wrong with bureaucracy.
I also think they don't have as much power as it seems, since a lot of music only sells in any quantity in one special region.
That actually does not help at all. Just think. If Apple loses they have to charge the same amount and allow purchases from any country. That means they have to license every song from every country. That means Latvia gets to bargain with Apple about how much money they get if Apple wants to sell a hit song in Spain that no one in Latvia has ever even heard of. Latvia is not out anything if the deal does not go through, since they don't lose any sales, but Apple is screwed if it does not got through since then they can't sell the most popular songs to the region they are popular in. Basically, this ruling would ruin the online music industry completely in Europe.
The EU is a single market; by law, there should be no restriction upon buying goods from different countries that are in the EU.
There is no restriction on buying goods. But this is not a material good it is a license to intellectual property. You can buy a license for a copy of music from France in England, unfortunately it is useless in England since in England the rights to the music are owned by a completely different person. The problem is consumers don't understand copyrights and the fact that copyrights are per country and copyright owners have refused to make the agreements they were ordered to to make this simple for them.
In the long term, prices will settle to an average, because the EU shares a common market.
Wrong! It is not the same product in each country even if it seems the same to consumers. This is because the laws in Europe grant copyrights to different organizations in each country. In each country the rights are owned by a cartel. This lawsuit, if successful, will just allow any cartel to hold all of Europe hostage.
This lawsuit isn't misdirected; the music industry is forcing Apple to illegally create trade restrictions in the EU.
Sue the music licensing organizations, not Apple. Apple is just complying with each country's laws which makes the copyright for a song cost a different price and have different restrictions in each country.
If the EU allows this, then more companies will jump on the bandwagon and the EU's single market will start to fragment.
Then maybe they should enforce the order they already issued to mandate cross country licensing. Suing the people who purchased from the people who are ignoring your edict and causing problems is not going to do any good. It just forces Apple to either not sell in Europe or raise prices. The market will not even it out, since in order to comply with the ruling they need the buy in from every EU member's copyright holders, and some of them are not about to miss a chance to funnel money from wealthier parts of Europe to themselves.
It's a win for the customers in the long run. Demand will go down if they charge to much and prices will have to go down. That is if they are interested in selling to the Europeans.
If it is anything like the U.S. the record industry does not want to sell online, which means there will be fewer choices for the consumer. In the EU with the current laws it is, in fact, much much worse. Suppose the EU rules that Apple has to charge the same price in every country. Any one country's version of the RIAA could then hold all of Europe hostage and prevent all online sales simply by charging too much. Alternately they could agree to sell but only at 3 times that price of everyone else and Apple will have to choose between not selling in Europe, Selling at an outrageously high prices (3 times CD prices), or charging only slightly more, but paying that one country a lot more and overcharging in all other countries. Imagine every time you buy a record in Germany a significant part of the money goes to the Slovakians who are scamming the whole continent. (That was only an example I have nothing against Slovakia)
You are still thinking in terms of supply and demand. That does not work when dealing with a cartel who has a monopoly in any given country. Capitalism has already failed at that point as the supply is monopolized.
the point is that you're welcome to order from Amazon.de if they're cheaper than Amazon.co.uk (though I doubt that will be the case). The complaint is that you can't do the equivalent trick and buy music from iTunes Germany, not iTunes UK.
The laws in the U.S. and every EU country I am aware of treat intellectual property licenses different that material goods. For example, I can buy a book in Germany and bring it to another country to read. I cannot license the rights to print a copy of a book from the german publisher then print a copy in france and sell it there. The reason for that is that different companies own the right to make a copy (copyright) in each country. The EU ordered all the organizations that own copyrights on music to arrange pan-european licensing to avoid confusing consumers with this difference. So far they have ignored the order.
Oh, and yes, I can burn the files to CD... as data. But I can't do a damn thing with them. I still need to be at my internet enabled PC so it can check for authorization any time I want to watch them. I figured I'd give iTunes a try having read that their DRM isn't nearly as draconian. Well, it's basically the same issues though not to the same extent. And the sound quality sucks.
You can't burn you itunes to cd, fast forward them, or play them without an internet connection? Next time try using "burn to cd" menu selection, the fast forward button, and err I have no idea why you would have a problem playing them without an internet connection it works for me.
Apple are being taken to the European Court because they prevent UK downloaders from using the French and German iTunes sites and getting cheaper downloads.
Yeah, except that to do so would violate the law in each of those countries, or require Apple to raise prices to the highest countries royalty rates. Great deal, everyone pays more. The EU also directed the music licensing organizations of all European countries to agree to licensing across Europe, so far they have completely refused to comply.
a person from one EU must be able to buy something from another EU state as if they were living there - no discrimination can be made on grounds of nationality
So here is the problem. As the law stands in the EU, a license to music in France is not the same thing as a license to music in Britain. Both have different prices and restrictions. If this lawsuit wins against Apple they will have to charge people in France a higher price so that it is the same as the license cost in Britain. Tell me again how this is a win for anyone?
I've seen this same issue brought up here before. You have to remember Apple wants to charge the lowest possible price for music. They just use it as a way of selling ipods, and don't make any money off of it. Your argument makes it sound like Apple execs are sitting around and figuring out which countries they can gouge the most. In truth they just want to sell the music as cheaply as they can without losing money so that people will buy more ipods.
The standardization of licensing across Europe would be great, but there is not really anything Apple can do to make it happen. This lawsuit is completely misdirected.
First, Open Source is a completely different movement from GNU and the Free Software movement.
GNU, OSI, and many other organizations are all part of the open source movement. Open source is just having open and readable source for your software. Some of it is owned, copyrighted by someone, and not free or re-distributable but still open source.
The reason I specified GNU as the subset of open source that I was discussing is because that is a subset that necessarily has no authority figure as the code is re-distributable and anyone can fork it. There is no reason to overcomplicate my statement.
Whatever happened to "every hole has a peice to fit it, some peices require different tasks to get them. Some require money, others require some code". It's no wonder MS is calling people communists, it's exactly the same pathetic ideals which no one wishs to adapt to the world.
There are plenty of pragmatists here who use both open and closed source software for a variety of uses. We are just not as vocal as people who get all worked up about either of the aforementioned points of view. For example, I'm writing this right now using Mac OS X. It is a mix of open source and closed source software. It also has a built in spell checking service that all native programs can apply to text. Perhaps that is why I did not misspell the words "piece" and "wishes" as you did. Maybe you are not using the best tool for the job of posting on Slashdot?
An Open Source project is being killed because the highest authority in Open Source OS namely Mr. Linus, decided not to use it and now the rest of the community is cheering it. Way to go guys.
WTF are you talking about? First open source (GNU) has no authority. It can't be killed either. This article is about RMS commenting on why it is good that Linus has moved away from a closed source software package he was relying upon after they arbitrarily yanked the free license they gave him over something (completely legal) that someone else was doing. So again I ask, WTF are you talking about?
I'll give you Microsoft is worse, but I'm sure Apple would be the same way if it were the bigger company.
You seem to be forgetting something. Apple was a near monopoly. They owned the PC market for several years and did not try to lock-in their customers or use that position to move into other markets. That is not to say that they would not do so at some point in the future given the chance, but it is by no means a foregone conclusion.
If you have a one year old PB G4,or a PowerBook G4 or at all, it says so on the computer.
You may be right, or they may just have an old ibook g3 which just says "ibook" on it, or even an 4 year old powerbook. I've never seen emacs crash, but I don't use it much. Anyone?
I realize you have some kind of vision of how everything should be in every specific situation, as many online thinkers do, but we really do have good reasons for our descisions - only thing we could do and don't is invading the students privacy by checking out exactly what they have installed. We don't believe in that, and that, I think is worth more than what software is used.
I hope you know what you are doing. If they are installing pirated software on your machines, you are most likely liable. Also, how do you know they are installing them if you don't invade their privacy as you put it?
The same can be said for different MS Word versions. I've seen that happen a number of times. What does that even mean? You trying to use anecdotes to make some kind of case for OOo (or rather, against MS Office)?
Yes I am. Word does not reliably open Word documents from different versions. It is impractical to expect all Word users to have the same version due to the expense. Thus the argument that was made that OpenOffice does not reliably open Word documents applies equally to Word (thus nullifying it). Further, it is possible to standardize on OpenOffice (since it is free and freely distributable) and thus eliminate this problem within an organization.
Only if the rest of the world standardizes together with us. The problem is communicating with the rest of the world
I have had no more problems with OpenOffice reading Word files than I have had with Word reading Word files. In any case, we always send PDFs to all our customers since it does not require the extreme file scrubbing that Word files do and so that we know that the file will be readable and look the same to both parties.
OOo is claimed by many to be a full and compatible replacement and that is simply not true.
I have never claimed that. I have claimed that it is as compatible as Word is for most people and is about as likely to correctly open a Word file. I usually add that if people regularly send you lots of macros (and you use them) then OpenOffice is not for you (and you should review your security policies).
Documents from any office suite are really crappy for sending around and aren't really handled by version control either. Only reason to use office suites are for external communication and presentations.
Both of these statements are wrong. First, newer versions of OpenOffice use an XML format and CVS handles the versioning just fine, including merges. The reason to use office suites is for documents that need to be edited and written by multiple people, hopefully within a single organization. Published formats (HTML, PDF) are good for sending to customers, the press, etc.
I have to game on windows or linux.
???
You game on linux. Instead of OS X? Because? OS X has 10 times the number of gaming offerings that linux does. You really sound like a troll, but maybe you are just misguided. Here at work I use a powerbook, as does about half the company. We write software to run on the really expensive special purpose servers we sell. What exactly is it that you do on x86 hardware that you can't do from your mac?
No, it is prejudgement, as you are incapable of quantifying your assertion.
Not true U.S. citizens average 1.3 kiloprejudi whilst Canadians only average .22 kiloprejudi. Europeans all together average only .37 kiloprejudi. I think the statistics are pretty clear.
P.S. you're an idiot.
I'm not impressed with Open Office's load times.
Since switching primarily to OS X it is easy to forget that this is an issue for people. I mean I often see reviews with this listed as a criteria but it is not one that concerns me at all. That is because I usually open an application once a month or so, and just leave it that way. Having real multitasking and good memory management makes it pointless to actually quit applications unless they are poorly written and unstable. I reboot my laptop when I install an update that requires it, and usually that is it. I guess games are an exception, especially ones that capture the entire display. Really though, shut down your editor? I mean you might as well close all those terminal windows too. :)
I've seen it tried. It didn't really work out, mainly because more than half the students promptly pirated MS Office instead.
Who gives students access to install programs?!? Are you still on Win98 or something?
To those who say that formatting shouldn't matter - it does. We are not talking about just being readable, but papers and mateial that should look a certain way, if only because the student wants it to look that way. And we are not talking advanced stuff either... a simple image can be enough to throw it off.
The same can be said for different MS Word versions. I've seen that happen a number of times. At least with OpenOffice you can standardize on one version since it is cross-platform and free to upgrade.
On the plus side, we don't use doc as the internal format, we use HTML or in worst case PDF instead, which makes the situation a bit brighter. :)
Both of those are useful publishing formats, but not very useful for sending editable documents around. I have trouble imagining such an environment.
The U.S. didn't become the world's sole superpower with uneducated citizens.
Yes, now how did that happen?
And there are more racists in Europe.
Err, glad to hear it?
As for 'prejudice', your statement will speak for itself.
I live in the U.S. so it is judgment, not prejudgement.
Get fucked and die.
Thanks I plan to do both, in my own time.
me the dummy parant doesn't have to go take courses in how to use Linux - because I know how to use Windows from Work
You sure are a dummy. OpenOffice runs on Windows as well as Linux. Nobody proposed replacing Windows, just Word with a free alternative that is a real standard (you know writes to a standard format decided by an industry council, proscribed for use throughout the EU and implemented by multiple word processor programs.)
Basically Word has very minimal advantages for a school and certainly none to offset the cost in such a financially strapped environment.
would assume that schools can also put on each computer a $50.00 version - not this "hundreds of dollars" crap everyone is spouting.
OK $50 per student for Word plus how many dollars for a student version of Windows that will run the latest version of Word? You know what? I doesn't matter. $50 per student plus a like amount for some students at home is still a large amount of money more than FREE!
Spend the money on teachers or books, not on software licensing for software that is not needed.
The real question is why would you want to switch a school to OO.o?
Money, thousands of dollars that could go to books, more teachers, etc.
If a company is hiring high school graduates for jobs requiring computer literacy, they usually want students with Microsoft Word experience.
Which 90% of the students will get at home. Adding OpenOffice to their resume will move them to the top 10% of high school grads that know 2 word processors :)
Don't let your zeal for OSS hurt the kids job search!
I know you may find this hard to grasp but high schools are not training centers for low-paying jobs. They are supposed to be about generally educating people not training them to use a tool for a job later on. The money that goes to MS Word licenses could be spent on much more enriching things.
We have documents that are hundreds of pages of custom work
You have those in Word? My condolences. We switched word processors because at around 200 pages with a dozen or so graphics files would not reliable save and reopen. Word is a steaming pile of crap when it comes to long documents.
In any case, they shouldn't have to worry about anything but the most basic Word compatibility for an education environment. Compatibility should actually be better since all the students can have a free copy of OpenOffice to take home and use on all platforms. Word on the other hand comes in so many versions none of which are completely compatible and you can't expect students to shell out a hundred bucks for a newer copy.
There are disadvantages to using proprietary programs only available at great cost from a single vendor.
Assuming that people who think like you are the only ones capable of determining right and wrong is very prejudiced and close-minded.
Except that while I might be right or wrong, I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything because of my beliefs, while people who want to pass legislation against homosexuality are trying to do just that, make moral decisions for others (something you may have notices Jesus specifically mentions a few times as an immoral thing.)
You have got to be kidding me. Logically that doesn't demonstrate anything. But I bet it sounded cool in you head, right?
Well cooler than "cool in you head." Not go read the previous threads so that you can understand what I was talking about.
homosexuality, beastiality and pedophilia all come down to having sex with something that is not natural
Try reading sometime. You will quickly learn that animals have homosexual relations in many different species. It sounds pretty "natural" to me.
People also consent to be shot in the head and fed poison from time to time too.
If someone wants to shoot themselves in the head, or have a friend do it, or eat poison, who are you to force them not to? Are you god to tell others what is right and wrong? No. You're not. So butt out any worry about your own actions.
he could actually earnestly believe that it is wrong
What makes you think these two things are mutually exclusive? Lots of gay people think that homosexuality is wrong. Statistically, most become catholics and continue to have sex with members of the same sex and feel guilty about it.
I need to keep reminding myself that you are right and just about everyone else is wrong.
No just remind yourself that you don't know what is right and wrong and that you are fallible. Then leave everyone else alone to do what they think is right.
I agree that being black is not a choice but being homosexual is. If it isn't a choice, then it must be a mutation in the current generation, because it wouldn't get passed on!
Have you ever actually talked to a gay person about being gay? Try it some time. They are real people. Now just for shit and grins, why don't you try to choose not be attracted to people of the opposite sex? Genetically speaking homosexuality provides an advantage in adverse conditions with strong familial bonds. It provides two extra adults to raise, protect, and provide for children (usually children of siblings who have ~25% of the same genetic make-up possibly including any recessives that make one predisposed to being homosexual.
You are (deliberately?) missing the point.
The previous poster had a point? I thought they just wanted to force me and everyone else to adhere to particular precepts of their religion while completely violating others themselves.
Make your choice and defend it: are gay marriages good for society as a whole or bad? Be precise in your definitions and show evidence one way or the other to demonstrate your assertions.
That is an irrelevant point. Is drinking good or bad for society? Are cheeseburgers good or bad for society? Is the jewish faith good or bad for society?
Answer: everyone must decide for themselves and legislators had better have overwhelming and compelling reasons to pass law banning homosexuality or any of the above. I'm pro-choice about nearly everything simply because I'm willing to take personal responsibility for my decisions. I'll decide what is right and wrong and good and bad for society and myself. Excess laws are welcomed by people who want someone else to decide for them, or want to decide for everyone else. That is damnably unamerican.
Genetically speaking homosexuality is an advantage in harsh environments with strong familial units and in overpopulated environments. They are an advantage in the first because (assuming homosexuality is a recessive genetic predisposition) it brings two extra able adults to protect and care for children, while still passing on the trait through the recessives in the homosexual person's siblings. In an overpopulated society (like the one we live in now) anything that reduces the population growth benefits society.