On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:50:33 -0000, Mark Elkins
<markelkins...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Shame I couldn't be there. Just thought I'd add my two pence now though.
OpenOffice/LibreOffice
Discussed OpenOffice in that may have issues with finer points of
formatting. This could be an issue when trying to convince organizations
to install Linux on the desktop.
Are the differences between OpenOffice and Microsoft Office bigger than
Microsoft Office 2000 and 2003 and 2007.
Not convinced, I've seen "compatable" document break in differing versions
of MS office. Convincing certain people of this seems to be an almost
impossible task.
Only issue in install was instructions, which said right click one ofthe
folders and then would automatically get Terminal up.
This sounds like a desktop environment setup issue to me. This is one of
the reasons I dislike Linux based installation instructions giving
"step-by-step" advice. One of the beauties of the Linux desktop is being
able to customise your experience. Developers should not be relying on a
user having a completely "Ubuntu/Gnome" centric desktop experience.
At this stage I am not sure, I just don't do it this way. Does the
graphical aptitude allow you to select a local package for installation? I
think the yum based systems do.
It would be my opinion we should be teaching new users to stick to opening
the package management tools and installing through them. Instilling a
fear of "other" installation procedures. This allows the built in security
and dependency mechanisms of the package manage to do their work.
Suggested UK Government fork its own version of OpenOffice to assist in
moving to Linux Desktop.
Given the expense of most government IT projects, big bad idea. In
principle though, a team of reasonably paid dedicated developers used to
an open source attitude (pushing and pulling from other projects etc.)
might not be such a bad idea.
I think it would be worth such a team sticking close to LibreOffice with
customisations and developments that the government need, being pushed
back where possible/allowed.
Also discussed OSI licences. Seems to me that having two Microsoft OSI
approved licences could be seen as licence prolification. Also discussed
whether or not some OSI and FSF licences which allowed to turn code into
closed source did in fact contradict the ethos of FOSS.
Didn't this used to be called "BSD v GPL"?
Share and do what you want or share and continue sharing. Personally I am
a BSD/ISC license fan. This effectively says my code is free for you to do
what you like with as long as you leave my name on the code. If you want
to wrap my code into your proprietary closed bundle then go ahead.
The justification I was given for this years ago is the F/OSS community
hasn't _lost_ anything by this closing of code. The kind of company that
is likely to produce closed code is going to avoid GPL and just
re-implement. Possibly worse, they will just break the GPL guidelines.
What has happened though is the "whole world" has gained from that closed
product using good OSS code. So we've gained better software and not lost
anything.
It is then up to you and market forces to decide if you want to deal with
companies that produce closed code.
Well, this one is one of the great religious debates and I dare say it
could go on forever. Just seems to me alot of people see closing F/OSS
code as "stealing", something I strongly disagree with.
--
Robert Bronsdon
--
Next meeting: Blandford Forum, Wednesday 2011-03-02 20:00
Meets, Mailing list, IRC, LinkedIn, ... http://dorset.lug.org.uk/
How to Report Bugs Effectively: http://goo.gl/4Xue
