Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 04:57:48 +0100,
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 03:34 : \____
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:48:21 +0100,
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Saturday 29 September 2007 20:47 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:21:01 +0100,
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 29 September 2007 09:31 : \____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Non scrivetemi" <nonscrivetemi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now.
>>>>>>>>>> >> Works for him...
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open
>>>>>>>>>> >source. It's aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're
>>>>>>>>>> >back were we started -- another Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He's not locked in. He could switch tomorrow to another distro, if
>>>>>>>>>> he wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's sorta like saying you're not locked into Windows because you
>>>>>>>>> can switch to OSX/Linux/BSD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bad driving is bad driving even if it's not Micro$oft at the wheel.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I quite agree. I don't know if you saw my other posting, but I was
>>>>>>>> highlighting that lock-in is about an exit barrier. That might be the
>>>>>>>> cost of replacing packages you've already bought, or the cost of
>>>>>>>> replacing hardware, or the cost of redoing work which is stuck in
>>>>>>>> proprietary formats, or the cost of paying for tools to unpick those
>>>>>>>> proprietary formats, and so on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point being that there is always lock-in, it's a question of how
>>>>>>>> large the exit barrier is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linspire supports OOXML (translators). If that's not a lockin, I don't
>>>>>>> know what is. It also enabled Microsoft to pretend that OOXML is
>>>>>>> supported by other companies, which fills our world with even /more/
>>>>>>> vendor lockin. Let's not even go into Linspire's proprietary codecs...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So when there's an ooxml translator for OOorg, that means any Linux
>>>>>> distro with OOorg is "locking in" their users?
>>>>>
>>>>> ODF is an international standard supported by a large variety of
>>>>> office suites.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Total non-sequitur. How does supporting ooxml mean a distro is "locking
>>>> in their users" When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does
>>>> that mean you are locked it?
>>>
>>> There are two ways to look at this:
>>>
>>> 1. A distro that supports OOXML (or proprietary codecs for that
>>> matter
>>> inhibits it.
>>>
>>> 2. Support for OOXML has assisted attempts to make OOXML, which is
>>> vendor dependent and patent-encumbered, more widespread.
>>>
>>
>> I'd prefer you simply answer the question,
>>
>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean you
>> are locked it?
>
> No.
Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always locked-in to a
point, the question being the height of the exit barrier, ie., how much
will it cost.
Jim seems unable to process this.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
