____/ 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 and you are not asking the right one. 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.
--
~~ Best of wishes
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|