I remember having watched a special episode of Mythbusters a few days ago where they also made experiments with small airplanes in different flying formations. They tried the classic birds' V formation, an extended version of that or straight line formations. It was actually impressive how strongly fuel consumption and manoeuvrability were affected by some seemingly small variations of the formations.
I for one will be keeping my documents in a *standard* format...ODF. So will I.
A must admit, I did not follow the discussion in detail and all the time, but did OOXML gain a special power to ban ODF in some way by the... (well, most people seem to call it) "purchase" of this ISO standard? Maybe the combination of ISO and M$ sounds great and safe for certain large enterprises when they evaluate new products which their 5000 employees will have to use for the next five years.
But why should ODF become uninteresting for the "normal" users? And ODF does not need a 80% market share of the "document handling business" in the enterprises to survive properly in the average household, does it? (Is the main danger public institutions switching to OOXML-only altogether in a short time while there won't be (really) free reader tools available? This is the only kind of force I can imagine right now to impress John Doe.) Please tell me whether I'm too naïve or short-sighted at the moment. Most comments here just sounds to me like the apocalypse is near and everyone not wanting to be an outsider will have to use OOXML tools from now on and prod ODF down the cliff.
Man, I don't want to lose my "ODF(->PDF)" routine which I could even explain to my parents...
Uh... Is there something I missed in the last weeks/months? No, I'm not implying that I heard exactly the opposite, but it sounds like there are serious security holes in the old Kerio firewall although I was always convinved it's still one of the better free ones out there. And I really must have missed the news then...
Up to now, I was sticking to Kerio on Windows. Especially because of its rather powerful options to filter single applications, addresses, ports and plenty of other manually configurable stuff instead of a placebo firewall which provides a "Yes, I'll save you from all Evil"- and a "Take care of yourself"-Button (at maximum with a Beginner-Amateur-BetterAmateur switch). Those are worthless.
Come on, tell me people! Why is Kerio considered bad these days? (
Is it some development because of all those new fancy IT technologies popping out everywhere whose names - or better descriptions - most people can remember even worse than the acronym?
Or is the reason one very popular character trait of the Common Geek, the laziness (or cleverness, seen from the other side;))? I mean, normally the CG types quite a lot, and so tries to save time and energy by leaving away most of the vowels and some consonants. Furthermore, CGs also tend to spice up life by not just code everything straightforward, but use some fancy personal obfuscator mode (FPOM) to personalize code and give it the "special touch". Think of "enhanced" Perl code or loops with more code in the condition part than in the normal body in general... BUT obfuscation or making things intentionally more complex sounds actually like an insult in that context although - when asked by a superior - the CG will defend that style as saving time and the company's money. So, did laziness and hmmm... the coolness factor contribute to the acronyms' success?
Slashdot Mirror
I remember having watched a special episode of Mythbusters a few days ago where they also made experiments with small airplanes in different flying formations. They tried the classic birds' V formation, an extended version of that or straight line formations. It was actually impressive how strongly fuel consumption and manoeuvrability were affected by some seemingly small variations of the formations.
Here is a small clip:
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/extended-v-minimyth.htm
A must admit, I did not follow the discussion in detail and all the time, but did OOXML gain a special power to ban ODF in some way by the... (well, most people seem to call it) "purchase" of this ISO standard? Maybe the combination of ISO and M$ sounds great and safe for certain large enterprises when they evaluate new products which their 5000 employees will have to use for the next five years.
But why should ODF become uninteresting for the "normal" users? And ODF does not need a 80% market share of the "document handling business" in the enterprises to survive properly in the average household, does it? (Is the main danger public institutions switching to OOXML-only altogether in a short time while there won't be (really) free reader tools available? This is the only kind of force I can imagine right now to impress John Doe.) Please tell me whether I'm too naïve or short-sighted at the moment. Most comments here just sounds to me like the apocalypse is near and everyone not wanting to be an outsider will have to use OOXML tools from now on and prod ODF down the cliff.
Man, I don't want to lose my "ODF(->PDF)" routine which I could even explain to my parents...
Uh... Is there something I missed in the last weeks/months? No, I'm not implying that I heard exactly the opposite, but it sounds like there are serious security holes in the old Kerio firewall although I was always convinved it's still one of the better free ones out there. And I really must have missed the news then...
Up to now, I was sticking to Kerio on Windows. Especially because of its rather powerful options to filter single applications, addresses, ports and plenty of other manually configurable stuff instead of a placebo firewall which provides a "Yes, I'll save you from all Evil"- and a "Take care of yourself"-Button (at maximum with a Beginner-Amateur-BetterAmateur switch). Those are worthless.
Come on, tell me people! Why is Kerio considered bad these days? (
Is it some development because of all those new fancy IT technologies popping out everywhere whose names - or better descriptions - most people can remember even worse than the acronym?
;))? I mean, normally the CG types quite a lot, and so tries to save time and energy by leaving away most of the vowels and some consonants. Furthermore, CGs also tend to spice up life by not just code everything straightforward, but use some fancy personal obfuscator mode (FPOM) to personalize code and give it the "special touch". Think of "enhanced" Perl code or loops with more code in the condition part than in the normal body in general... BUT obfuscation or making things intentionally more complex sounds actually like an insult in that context although - when asked by a superior - the CG will defend that style as saving time and the company's money. So, did laziness and hmmm... the coolness factor contribute to the acronyms' success?
Or is the reason one very popular character trait of the Common Geek, the laziness (or cleverness, seen from the other side