Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft as a Company => Topic started by: Refalm on 1 September 2005, 14:40
-
Financial Times / 1 september 2005 01:58
Massachusetts set to switch off Microsoft
The state of Massachusetts has laid out a plan to switch all its workers away from Microsoft's Word, Excel and other desktop software applications, delivering what would be one of the most significant setbacks to the software company's battle against open source software in its home market.
(...)
The switch to open formats like these was needed to ensure that the state could guarantee that citizens could open and read electronic documents in the future, according to the state - something that was not possible using closed formats.
(...)
”I think it would be pretty risky for the state of Massachusetts to go in a direction like this without a clear look at the costs first,” said Alan Yates, general manager of the Office division at Microsoft.
The proposal, which is open for comment until the end of next week before it takes effect, would represent a big boost for open source software like Open Office, which is created by volunteer programmers and made available free of charge.
(...)
Read more (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/80033a76-1a71-11da-b7f5-00000e2511c8.html) (advertisement supported)
-
now all hilarity will ensue when the state of washington does this.
-
I think this is a wise move.
-
”I think it would be pretty risky for the state of Massachusetts to go in a direction like this without a clear look at the costs first,” said Alan Yates, general manager of the Office division at Microsoft.
Let's look at the clear costs:
Microsoft Office Basic Edition 2003 (Full Product)
$141.99
vs.
OpenOffice.org (...) office suite (...) the product is free to download, use, and distribute.
There are numerous companies that will give cheap training in any software packet, including OpenOffice.org.
So even with training, a company saves on costs.
That $142 for Microsoft Office 2003 is actually for home users, a company payes a price per year to legally use Office in the entire building.
-
Yes but currently training in OpenOffice will be more expensive, however I feel this will change.
-
Blue states rock!
-
Wow. I bow down to Massachussets and the wise Yankee who said:
The switch to open formats like these was needed to ensure that the state could guarantee that citizens could open and read electronic documents in the future, according to the state - something that was not possible using closed formats.
-
[OFFTOPIC]I live right below massachusets[/OFFTOPIC]
-
[OFFTOPIC]I live right below massachusets[/OFFTOPIC]
Yeah, so do people in Florida and Argentina. Way to get specific.
-
Wow they finaly did it.
Here in Bulgaria the govs are still banging theyr heads over, should they use the free product or M$(illegal copyes anyway)
---
Bulgaria is in Europe , Next to "The Black Sea",No realy it is a post soviet country:)
-
look on a map, its called rhode island :-P
-
You're telling a guy with a geography degree who makes maps for a living to look at a map to find Rhode Island? That's very sweet of you, really.
-
I live below China.
-
The most communist country in the world, right? ;)
-
I live below China.
Topologically speaking, you live above Mexico as well. Interesting, ain't it?
-
fuck it i live in an apartment, above some people
-
That's logical. ;)
-
now all hilarity will ensue when the state of washington does this.
I wish. Unfortunately, Bill Gates owns Washington. Seattle easily ranks with Washington, D.C. and Houston, Texas as one of America's most corrupt cities, and it rules Washington State with an iron fist. So any attempts to switch over to open source would probably result in bloodshed.
Besides, the people in Washington State are really, really, almost unbelievably stupid. How stupid? When Pat Robertson (the Christian loon who recently said Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be assassinated) ran for President, he carried just one state - Washington. And Western Washington's liberals are just as stupid.
-
I see your point DavidB but I think the term, bloodshed, is a little over the top.
-
I see your point DavidB but I think the term, bloodshed, is a little over the top.
They usually prefer to destroy people economically, legally or psychologically - all of which can be as bad as bloodshed. So "bloodshed" is hardly over the top, figuratively speaking or not.
-
Actually, if you shoot someone, you can hurt them psychologically, if they survive, that is. :)
-
I guess you have a point. I think however the threat of Microosft is a little exaggerated, competition is working, slowly, but working.
-
I guess you have a point. I think however the threat of Microosft is a little exaggerated, competition is working, slowly, but working.
Too little, too late as far as I'm concerned. Too limited, too. Will the Linux community hold Bill Gates accountable for his shameful exploitation of public education or his real estate crimes? Frankly, the geek community is out to lunch.
Microsoft is about far more than software.
-
Well unfortunatly, nothing can really be done other than that, and it isn't too late yet. Microsoft has done some terrible things, however that is in the past and it is the future that needs to be worried about.
-
Well unfortunatly, nothing can really be done other than that, and it isn't too late yet. Microsoft has done some terrible things, however that is in the past and it is the future that needs to be worried about.
Uh, no - Microsoft's crimes are hardly in the past; they're ongoing. And we won'thave much of a future if society doesn't learn the importance of holding people accountable for their actions. Murderers, rapists and burglars go to jail, so why shouldn't Bill Gates be hauled to the carpet, too?
That's why I began speaking out against Microsoft, because the geek community is so out to lunch. They really don't have a clue about anything outside their operating systems.
-
He has been hauled to the carpet. There have been trails against Microsoft and things have been done to help flush the monopoly, that also, is ongoing.
-
It takes an awful lot to change public opinion, and for the last ten years, the public's opinion has been MIA. The problem is that they have no opinion, they just "know" what they're told. Unfortunate problem is they're told things by morons. Where did these morons get their info? They got it from "business". And ya know, for some reason, business finds it in their best interest to spend a shitton of money on shitty software every year.
Spending too much money + Relearning software every year = Good
Spending no money + Relearning once = Bad
But then, check out this equation that someone managed to shove down their throats...
Spend $75,000 + $20,000 support contract + $45,000 lost due to software failures = Low "Total Cost Of Ownership"
Spend $0 + $0 support contract + $5,000 lost due to software failures = High "Total Cost Of Ownership"
I'm sorry. I can't see it. They can, though. It makes perfect sense to their middle-management brains, and that's what you have to combat. I don't see how you can, though. Best you can do is try for one person at a time. There's no way that you can change the opinion of 200 million sheep, aside from one at a time.
-
We still use MS Office 97 at work, but I suppose we'll be forced to upgrade sooner or later.
This is very good news, but I wonder why they chose OO over Star Office, is it because they don't require the support?
Why do companies use Star Office anyway? Is it just for the support or are they other advantages too, like extra features maybe?
-
He has been hauled to the carpet. There have been trails against Microsoft and things have been done to help flush the monopoly, that also, is ongoing.
Oh, please - Bill Gates has never been hauled to the carpet. He's a received a series of slaps on the wrists. Typical punishment consists of forcing Microsoft to give consumers vouchers for discounts on software made by - guess who? - Microsoft. What a farce.
-
I found this freaky site a few days ago.
http://exodus2006.com/3code.htm
-
I found this freaky site a few days ago.
http://exodus2006.com/3code.htm
Yeah right, do a javascript:document.lastModified on the New Orleans page.
Also:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041124024701/http://exodus2006.com/3code.htm
Even better, check the Google cache:
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:9EmG_XzoIa4J:exodus2006.com/3code.htm+&hl=nl&client=opera
The New Orleans page was added on 4 september 2005.
-
You know, strictly speaking Massachusetts isn't switching from Microsoft to OpenOffice. Massachusetts is switching to the OpenDoc standard. Although OpenOffice developed OpenDoc, anyone can implement it into their word processors, including Corel (Wordperfect) and Microsoft.
However, Microsoft refuses to support OpenDoc, even after Massachusetts made this announcement.
So, in essence, Massachusetts isn't rejecting Microsoft, Microsoft is rejecting Massachusetts, unless Massachusetts plays by MS' rules.
-
I think if Microsoft were to use OpenDoc they would be to lazy to play by OpenDoc's rules. They would just butcher the format and add features that isn't compatible with other software. They would attempt to hijack the standard.
-
I think if Microsoft were to use OpenDoc they would be to lazy to play by OpenDoc's rules. They would just butcher the format and add features that isn't compatible with other software. They would attempt to hijack the standard.
Well, that is their modus operandi for killing competition, isn't it? That or embedding something in the operating system.
-
Yeah right, do a javascript:document.lastModified on the New Orleans page.
Also:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041124024701/http://exodus2006.com/3code.htm
Even better, check the Google cache:
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:9EmG_XzoIa4J:exodus2006.com/3code.htm+&hl=nl&client=opera
The New Orleans page was added on 4 september 2005.
Thanks for clearing that one up. :thumbup:
-
Thanks for clearing that one up. :thumbup:
Oh, did you see his Terri Schiavo page here (http://exodus2006.com/fab/terri.htm)? javascript:document.lastModified yields Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:11:58 GMT. In advance? Is it legal to shoot these kinds of people yet?
-
Shooting people is bad. Hanging them by their fucking necks with their own mouse cord is okay, though.
-
They won't be able to update the comet one, because by then we'll be dead. :D
-
Good thing Mac OSX has PDF support built in.
:macos:
-
Heh, Linux has that too I believe. ;)
-
I wanted to ask: How's PDF from the free-software PoV? Is it proprietary, as I think [adobe], is it open, is it considered a standard?
-
I wanted to ask: How's PDF from the free-software PoV? Is it proprietary, as I think [adobe], is it open, is it considered a standard?
Closed, but an industry standard.
Creation with OSS is ok - OOo has PDF export and you can go from ps -> PDF sort of.
Plenty of apps to open them, and of course the closed Acrobad Reader.
-
Acrobad Reader.
Ag, Freudian slip.
-
Closed, but an industry standard.
Creation with OSS is ok - OOo has PDF export and you can go from ps -> PDF sort of.
Plenty of apps to open them, and of course the closed Acrobad Reader.
I'm not so sure about that. Can you really classify a document format as closed or open source? The PDF (and while we're at it, PostScript) specification is available for anyone to read. However, the act of writing PDFs with the spec is not allowed, unless you agree to Adobe licensing rules. The rules for PDF are a bit more strict than PostScript, but I think most of the rules involve shoutouts to Adobe.
Interesting question, if anyone has anything else to share on this idea, I would like to hear it.
-
Closed, but an industry standard.
Creation with OSS is ok - OOo has PDF export and you can go from ps -> PDF sort of.
Plenty of apps to open them, and of course the closed Acrobad Reader.
Doesn't the same apply to MS Office file formats?
-
Doesn't the same apply to MS Office file formats?
I think it does, but Microsoft won't release the complete specification, while Adobe has released the complete specification for PDF. So some Office functionality and compatibility has to be guessed at, and they usually guess wrong. That's why I use rtf for word processor docs, because rtf is the same in any program.
-
Closed, but an industry standard.
Incorrect.
The PDF specification is completely published and anyone can use it (read the licence). Adobe retains control over the specification. Thus you or I can't change it, but we can write our own software that uses it. Adobe even allows you to use sample code in the spec.
PDF is an open standard because all details are visible and everyone can use it: no royalties, no stupid patent encumberances that MS is fond of, just an open standard.
I researched this when I was writing my web page.
-
Perhaps some clarification is needeed here, the PDF spec is readily available at Adobe's website.
What I meant was that Adobe created and own PDF and that the format was not the result of any industry body/group/committee/thinktank.
-
Doesn't the same apply to MS Office file formats?
No, Microsoft are notorious for making it difficult to interoperate with their formats.
However, AFAIK, they are moving towards an XML basis for their new Office suite. This (hopefully) means that their formats will be less obfuscated and we can all enjoy better compatibility between our Office program and the guy's in Head Office.
FYI, OOo uses a compresses XML format for their file formats.
I think that if they work it right, the affinity for XML and .NET etc. in Microsoftworld can work in favour of the open competitiors.
-
The PDF model of openness, for me, is the ideal one.
There can be a collaboration. but only one company controls the spec. So there will always be one pdf format that can be used. ever.
No forking, no "Is this the right kind of PDF", no excuses.
I like openness when it isn't used as a crutch for laziness.
-
Please provide an example of where you think openness has been used as an excuse for laziness.
-
XFree86, vi, emacs.
And, in general, the "fix it yourself" mentality that seems to permiate a lot of projects, and GNU advocates.
-
Good point skyman8081.
Another point that the GNU bum club fail to see is that if three companies all had significant market share and their products were all proprietary all of their file formats would be open since they'd all want to make it as easy as possible for someone to switch to their product. I believe that if it wasn't for Microsoft we wouldn't have the blind hate for all things CLO$
-
XFree86, vi, emacs.
And, in general, the "fix it yourself" mentality that seems to permiate a lot of projects, and GNU advocates.
Please expand on this. What exactly have the developers done that makes you think they are lazy?
-
XFree86, vi, emacs.
To me, that's just a list of programs. Please explain how these programs' "openness" makes them lazy?
Oh, and XFree86 sucks. Xorg rocks.
vi is closed. vim is open.
And GNU Emacs kicks-fucking-ass.
-
Good point skyman8081.
Another point that the GNU bum club fail to see is that if three companies all had significant market share and their products were all proprietary all of their file formats would be open since they'd all want to make it as easy as possible for someone to switch to their product.
How do you know?
And such a scenario will NEVER EVER happen.
Heck, it's more likely that free software does take over the market (which is very unlikely) before that scenario occurs, IMO.
And which would you prefer?
I believe that if it wasn't for Microsoft we wouldn't have the blind hate for all things CLO$
-
How do you know?
Good point but I suppose I'll never know.
Think about it for a second, there are three companies, each have their own office suit, now each company wants to make it as easy as possible for people to choose their product, if their program can read their competitor's file it makes it much easier, if their format can be read by other non-competing programs then it encourages other developers to write software compatable with their program. Adobe wouldn't have made shuch a sucess of Acrobat if they hadn't made their format open, MS have only been able to keep their office formats closed and still be a sucess because they already have the main matket share.
And such a scenario will NEVER EVER happen.
I can't predict the future, no one can so it's pointless to argue about this, but I'd make the same prediction.
Heck, it's more likely that free software does take over the market (which is very unlikely) before that scenario occurs, IMO.
Well this probably won't happen either but I also agree only because Linux has a higher share than Mac OS and there is no third competitor.
And which would you prefer?
I don't know, free software sounds good but I'm not convinced it'll be good quality, I'd rather have good proprietry software rather than cheap and nasty free shit, which is why I've chosen Opera over Firefox.
I doubt it.
If Microsoft weren't in power I bet you no one would really care about open vs closed source. When was the last time anyone gave a shit about whether a car company released the blue prints for their latest car? Has anyone really been discouraged from buying a TV just because the evil company hasn't given them the schematics? Anyway this debate is pointless since we're talking about a hyporthectical situation that doesn't exist.
Microsoft doesn't come into the equation, at least for me.
Oh yes it does, there's your bank and all the other businesses you rely on that use MS product, not to mention the rest of the economy you also depend on. :p
It's about right and wrong.
That depends on you point of view, so far the only company to cause any harm by means of proprietary software is Microsoft, for this reason I'm anit-MS but not anti-proprietary software. I do encourage sharing and I don't take the moral high ground an accuse anyone who chooses not to share of being evil.
-
I thought you two argument whores left your baggage in the Linux zone.
-
:confused:
-
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9566
starting at about the 15th post.
The way you two go at it makes it impossible for anyone else to contribute, and accomplishes nothing. I really really really do want to know what problems Skyman has with XFree86 - he hasn't told me via IM yet. So don't destroy this thread with your shouting matches.
-
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9566
starting at about the 15th post.
The way you two go at it makes it impossible for anyone else to contribute, and accomplishes nothing.
So fucking what?
I've sick of this bullshit arguement used over and over, "open source beats proprietary because millions of people contribute with bug fixes blah blah blah". Most people don't contribute fuck all useful, look at how small, compact and feature packed Opera is, look at how bloated and featureless Firefox is, notice how a critical bug that should've been fixed 2 years ago in Firefox remains, where are the millions of people writing a bug fix now them?
I really really really do want to know what problems Skyman has with XFree86 - he hasn't told me via IM yet.
I don't know about his opinion, but UNIX in general lacks a standard DDE between applications and standard widget's ect. something which MAC OS and Windows both have.
So don't destroy this thread with your shouting matches.
Oh excuse me for having an opinion. :rolleyes:
-
I thought you two argument whores left your baggage in the Linux zone.
Sorry, I've just got back from the pub so I was a bit pissed but I've sobered up a bit now, I agree this debate really does belong here (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9566&goto=lastpost).
-
Anyway this debate is pointless since we're talking about a hyporthectical situation that doesn't exist.
Agreed.
Oh yes it does, there's your bank and all the other businesses you rely on that use MS product, not to mention the rest of the economy you also depend on. :p
If Microsoft never existed, I'd still dislike non-free software and use free software so long as I can.
That depends on you point of view, so far the only company to cause any harm by means of proprietary software is Microsoft, for this reason I'm anit-MS but not anti-proprietary software. I do encourage sharing and I don't take the moral high ground an accuse anyone who chooses not to share of being evil.
Well I'm anti-Microsoft and anti-non-free software.
I'll use free software so long as it's not too huge (and I mean huge) of an inconvenience (and sofar, it isn't).
I said "It's about right and wrong.", and what I probably should've said is "For me at least, it's about right and wrong.".
You always bring up Firefox and Opera, and it's getting very annoying. Sure, there might be areas where non-free software is better than the free alternatives, and there are also areas where free software kickes the balls of non-free software (most notably, apache).
-
Agreed.
If Microsoft never existed, I'd still dislike non-free software and use free software so long as I can.
How can you be so certain as Microsoft do exist? You can't agrue this point and neither can I, so let's drop it.
Well I'm anti-Microsoft and anti-non-free software.
I'll use free software so long as it's not too huge (and I mean huge) of an inconvenience (and sofar, it isn't).
So far you've been very lucky then.
I said "It's about right and wrong.", and what I probably should've said is "For me at least, it's about right and wrong.".
You're entitled to your opinion.
You always bring up Firefox and Opera, and it's getting very annoying. Sure, there might be areas where non-free software is better than the free alternatives, and there are also areas where free software kickes the balls of non-free software (most notably, apache).
Yes but that doesn't mean it's generally better overall.
-
You always bring up Firefox and Opera.
Okay, Photoshop and the GIMP. Cinelerra and AVID Media Composer. iTunes and xmms. GAIM and Trillian. Audacity and Sound Forge.
Open Source is great, as long as you are a programmer.
-
Okay, Photoshop and the GIMP. Cinelerra and AVID Media Composer. iTunes and xmms. GAIM and Trillian. Audacity and Sound Forge.
Free software: 5
Non-free software: 0.
(I'm joking)
What about Linux, GCC, Emacs, Xorg, GNOME and apache?
Like I said:
Sure, there might be areas where non-free software is better than the free alternatives, and there are also areas where free software kickes the balls of non-free software.
Open Source is great, as long as you are a programmer.
It helps (alot), but you don't have to be a programmer to use apache, Linux, GCC et cetera.
-
What about Linux, GCC, Emacs, Xorg, GNOME and apache?
AIX, Borland, vi, Aqua, et. al.
We can prattle on with anecdotal evidence all day. We won't get anywhere. Not until there are some serious studies done on the average quality of Open source vs proprietary software.*
Open source is a fucking religion, get over it.
________________
* Not that it matters, even if a formal study is done, unless it come back with glowing praise for open source, it will be decried and villified as "bought" by $propreitarySoftwareVendor.
-
AIX, Borland, vi, Aqua, et. al.
We can prattle on with anecdotal evidence all day. We won't get anywhere. Not until there are some serious studies done on the average quality of Open source vs proprietary software.*
Open source is a fucking religion, get over it.
________________
* Not that it matters, even if a formal study is done, unless it come back with glowing praise for open source, it will be decried and villified as "bought" by $propreitarySoftwareVendor.
I should've brought this up before, but...
http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html (http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html)
That's a long, intensive paper.
If you have any doubts about it's conclusions (quoted here), do youself a favor and read the full paper:
OSS/FS has significant market share (http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html#market_share) in many markets, is often the most reliable software (http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html#reliability), and in many cases has the best performance (http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html#performance). OSS/FS scales (http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html#scaleability), both in problem size and project size. OSS/FS software often has far better security (http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html#security), perhaps due to the possibility of worldwide review. Total cost of ownership (http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html#tco) for OSS/FS is often far less than proprietary software, especially as the number of platforms increases. These statements are not merely opinions; these effects can be shown quantitatively, using a wide variety of measures. This doesn
-
There was a metric fuck-ton of Cherry-picking in that study.
Yes, there are SOME cases where open source applications are better than proprietary counterparts. But you still have not proved to me that by virtue of being open source, an application will be INHERENTLY better than it's proprietary conterpart.
-
There was a metric fuck-ton of Cherry-picking in that study.
Yes, there are SOME cases where open source applications are better than proprietary counterparts. But you still have not proved to me that by virtue of being open source, an application will be INHERENTLY better than it's proprietary conterpart.
I'm not trying to do that.
You brought up this discussion (post #50, you said that free software dev's are lazy or some other shit).
You still haven't elaborated on that, even though both myself and worker201 asked you to.
After that, I stated:
You [Aloone_Jonez] always bring up Firefox and Opera, and it's getting very annoying. Sure, there might be areas where non-free software is better than the free alternatives, and there are also areas where free software kickes the balls of non-free software (most notably, apache).
(which is a bit like what you just said: "Yes, there are SOME cases where open source applications are better than proprietary counterparts.") to which you replied:
Okay, Photoshop and the GIMP. Cinelerra and AVID Media Composer. iTunes and xmms. GAIM and Trillian. Audacity and Sound Forge.
(By that, were you suggesting that non-free software is inherently better than free software?)
EDIT: My point: I'm not trying to prove to you that free software is inherently better than non-free software.
And I don't even know what you're trying to prove.
-
No. Stop building strawmen.
I am saying that in my personal experience, there is a tendency for proprietary software to be of a higher quality than open source programs.
What is so hard about that. That my experience isn't true?
-
I am saying that in my personal experience, there is a tendency for proprietary software to be of a higher quality than open source programs.
First time I heard that.
What is so hard about that. That my experience isn't true?
I'm not complaining.
I added a few sentences to my last post (in this thread), to make it's point clear.
-
Care to answer my and worker201's question about the laziness of free software developers now skyman?
-
Okay, Photoshop and the GIMP. Cinelerra and AVID Media Composer. iTunes and xmms. GAIM and Trillian. Audacity and Sound Forge.
Most of that stuff is software that's harder to develop. Image editors, video editors, audio editors...tough stuff. The early versions of those proprietary ones sucked as well. And of those, Cinelerra is the only one I would say really sucks.
As for the rest...iTunes and xmms have different priorities...and I don't find iTunes to be that great a program anyway. My dad, not computer savvy, likes Winamp much more than iTunes. I'd like it more to compare xmms and Winamp.
Gaim and Trillian...funny, I've used both and find Gaim much better.
-
iTunes and xmms have different priorities...and I don't find iTunes to be that great a program anyway. My dad, not computer savvy, likes Winamp much more than iTunes. I'd like it more to compare xmms and Winamp.
Well said. Of course Winamp wins hands down for skins. But xmms is a small fast awesome program.
Btw, if anyone thinks anyone is being somehow hurt for using open source, they are wrong. People who choose open source do so for personal reasons. I kinda like reporting errors to [email protected] when my command-line video encoder goes splat. Does that make me wrong in some way? NO. Open source software has its purposes, its benefits, and its proponents.
-
Open source isn't bad, just terribly inconvenient for me.