| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com)Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com)Posted Oct 1, 2003 9:46 UTC (Wed) by leandro (subscriber, #1460)In reply to: Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) by erat Parent article: Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com)
> I'm pro-choice but that doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion. From a pro-life standpoint, babies get killed either way, so that would be no better than plain sophistry. > the FOSS world needs to stop focusing on the competition so much and go back to promoting of the fruits of its labor We do, it is MS who makes this stuff necessary by their proprietary lock-in of our prospective users.
(Log in to post comments)
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Oct 1, 2003 11:50 UTC (Wed) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] I have absolutely no desire to enter a discussion about pro-choice/pro-life issues. Perhaps I should have used as examples the various helmet laws that are scattered across the US. All of the responsible motorcyclists that I know have no problem wearing a helmet but they don't appreciate it being mandated by law. In this case, opposition to helmet laws does not imply an endorsement of riding without a helmet. As for MS and its "...proprietary lock-in of our prospective users..." . All it takes is a mandate or two from the CTO and Office file formats can be changed to a more "friendly" default (Office 95 file formats seem to be supported very well by non-MS office suites), Word can be forbidden as an email editor, etc., and all of it can happen without spending any $$ on new software or swapping out any OSes. If a CTO doesn't do that, it's his/her fault that the company is being "locked in".
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Jan 6, 2004 13:41 UTC (Tue) by leandro (subscriber, #1460) [Link] > I have absolutely no desire to enter a discussion about pro-choice/pro-life issues. That's not what I was doing. I was pointing out that from your opponents' standpoint, the very definition of the word bein used in the issue changes, and this would falsify your position to them. That is, a more precise word or expression must be used. > All it takes is a mandate or two from the CTO and Office file formats can be changed to a more "friendly" default (Office 95 file formats seem to be supported very well by non-MS office suites), Word can be forbidden as an email editor, etc. Not so easy, even if what you propose would be better than the current situation. For one, file formats are not so easy as that. MS Office (and other suites) keeps warning the users they may loose something in converting to other formats... and anyway, which would be the more friendly default you propose? MS XML formats aren't much better documented than the current binary formats, and the capability to generate and read them isn't widespread. Non-MS Office suites compatibility isn't perfect, and MS by underdocumenting and changes makes sure it will hardly ever be. For another, file formats are just part of the issue. There are protocols that MS has purposefully broken (like MS Exchange IMAP or MS ActiveDirectory's Kerberos) and (or) kept undocumented (MS SMB and CIFS, MS AD Kerberos again), and APIs that are never fully nor correctly documented, and keep changing to boot, without ever being fully standardized (MS W32, MS .Net).
|
|
||||||||||||