Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ 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.
>
> This question is rhetorical
No, it is extremely simple.
Does OO with OOXML "lock-in" the users?
> and you are not asking the right one.
Ah yes. So you are defining now which questions are "right" and "valid" and
can be asked. Naturally you will step down from the lofty heights you are
in only to answer "right" and "valid" questions beforehand deemed "worthy"
> I believe I never suggested this and I don't know how it came to you
> cornering me with an implicit accusation that I consider OOo a lock-in.
>
It is very simple: You did, and now you refuse an answer
You dance around an answer exactly like Snot when cornered and can't even
post a simple "yes" or "no"
--
If you're right 90% of the time, why quibble about the remaining 3%?
|
|
