Re: [discuss] Still Immoral to Support Microsoft
On 6/10/07, Johnny Andersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It would be interesting to see a list of what exactly has been stolen from Microsoft... What would be the point of stealing defective and buggy software? Microsoft's legal claims are bogus - but they own many politicians and part of the government. One example being Thomas Barnett, who is now an assistant attorney general, following being a top antitrust partner at a law firm that represented Microsoft in several antitrust disputes. Pretty cute - a mercenary lawyer for Microsoft now works in the "Justice" Department. They should rename it the "Injustice Department", when Microsoft lawyers are working there - supposedly for the public interest! What's your angle Johnny? You need to learn to connect the dots! Open your eyes and see the truth! Or... is some of Microsoft's dirty money in your pockets too? RM - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Still Immoral to Support Microsoft
On 6/7/07, John Boyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: To Roger Markus: Problem is that right now with no voice dictation that works in Linux, there is not much choice for those who have arthritis or some other disability but to use Windows XP and Dragon Naturally Speaking or even Via Voice. :-( Good point. I overstated my case a bit! I still think that Microsoft is an immoral organization, but there's nothing immoral about doing what you have to do - using what you have to use, when there is no choice. Let's work towards protecting the choice of OpenOffice though, which is a viable (better in my opinion) option to MS-Word for nearly all situations. RM - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Still Immoral to Support Microsoft
Microsoft is publicly threatening the free world - disingenuously saying that: "... free and open-source software violates more than 230 of Microsoft's patents. The Linux kernel violates 42 Microsoft patents, while its user interface and other design elements infringe on a further 65. Open Office.org infringes on 45, along with 83 more in other free and open-source programs." This after stealing for the past 12 years! Everything from generic terms that they have no bloody business pretending to "own" (windows, office, word, excel, outlook, money, front page, etc. etc. all general terms equally owned by any user of the English language), to concepts (Apple's GUI), etc. Enough already! Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. The corporate equivalent of a convicted felon and repeat offender. It's time to boycott them and do everything possible to eradicate this cancer from the world! It's immoral to use Microsoft and it's time to stand up and oppose these tyrants! RM Microsoft takes on the free world: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2007/05/14/microsoft_takes_on_the_free_world.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Immoral to Support Microsoft
Microsoft if publicly threatening the free world - disingenuously saying that: "... free and open-source software violates more than 230 of Microsoft's patents. The Linux kernel violates 42 Microsoft patents, while its user interface and other design elements infringe on a further 65. Open Office.org infringes on 45, along with 83 more in other free and open-source programs." This after stealing for the past 12 years! Everything from generic terms that they have no bloody business pretending to "own" (windows, office, word, excel, outlook, money, front page, etc. etc. all general terms equally owned by any user of the English language), to concepts (Apple's GUI), etc. Enough already! Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. The corporate equivalent of a convicted felon and repeat offender. It's time to boycott them and do everything possible to eradicate this cancer from the world! It's immoral to use Microsoft and it's time to stand up and oppose these tyrants! RM Microsoft takes on the free world: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2007/05/14/microsoft_takes_on_the_free_world.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Microsoft Office 2007
On 4/6/07, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Let's examine the facts here, shall we? This from Microsoft-Chad? "Facts"? From Microsoft-Chad? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! How much did they pay you to sell your soul to the devil Chad? RM
Re: [discuss] Re: Microsoft Office 2007
On 4/4/07, Lars D. Noodén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, André Wyrwa wrote: > Both links are far away from being usability reviews. You won't find any true usability reviews. Nor is it likely that you will find any reviews, period. The days of a real product shootout are over a decade past. Recall that MS started a policy of prohibiting criticims in its licenses starting around the time it started pushing FrontPage. > Nor do they "place it well below OpenOffice.org". Connect the dots. Exactly - the one thing Microsoft does do very well is pour massive amounts of money into its army of lawyers and PR people, who flood the media with disinformation on the one hand, and ruthlessly attack any honest information about their shoddy products on the other. RM
Re: [discuss] Microsoft Office 2007
On 4/3/07, Muhammad Fahd Waseem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello. I am Muhammad Fahd Waseem, and I am a very experienced home user, as well as a student of computer studies. I have used OpenOffice.org ever since it was launched, and I always thought of it as a better product than the otherwise prevalent Microsoft Office series. Version 2 was what should have been a nail in the Microsoft coffin in terms of office suites, but then along came Office 2007. Bloated features are one thing - long-term usability and file compatibility are another, not to mention that it's immoral to use products from an immoral company like Microsoft. Are you an immoral man? RM
[discuss] Our "Friendly" Competition
What's the latest update on Europe forcing Microsoft to obey the law? RM Microsoft held mock EU trial, source says Reuters Published on ZDNet News: March 28, 2006, 12:41 PM PT In a sign of how meticulously Microsoft is planning its antitrust battle against the European Commission next month, it hired three former EU judges to stage a mock trial, a source close to the situation said. The software giant has appealed against a March 2004 ruling by a European court that it abused the dominance of its Windows operating system. Microsoft was told to change the way it runs its business to make it easier for smaller rivals to compete. The mock trial was held in January in New York and one of the judges was a former Belgian justice minister, Melchior Wathelet, the source said on Tuesday. Wathelet worked for the European Court of Justice, Europe's highest court. The names of the other former judges were not known. In the 2004 ruling, the EU's second most important court fined Microsoft half a billion euros ($613 million). It also told the Redmond, Wash. software maker to provide rivals with protocols, making it easier for those competitors to build software that runs as smoothly on Windows as Microsoft's own server software. Microsoft would not confirm or deny that it had hired the former judges. "As is typical for an important case, we have our counsel present our case to a variety of different lawyers in private practice. We have found this helps ensure that the highly technical material is presented clearly," it said in a statement. The Commission made no comment. The European courts also declined to comment. The software giant is also facing a daily fine of up to 2 million euros ($2.4 million) for what the Commission says is Microsoft's foot-dragging over implementing the remedies dictated by the original court decision. On Thursday and Friday, it has a last chance to stop the Commission from levying the daily fines in a two-day closed hearing by independent arbitrators in Brussels. (c) 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
[discuss] MS in SCO Hot Water?
Regarding: IBM issues subpoenas for tech giants' SCO dealings By Graeme Wearden, ZDNet (UK) Published on ZDNet News: February 22, 2006, 7:22 AM PT http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6041947.html As the article states: "The long-running legal battle over claims that IBM's version of Linux violates SCO Group's intellectual property took another twist on Tuesday when IBM sent subpoenas to four other tech players. Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Sun Microsystems and BayStar Capital must hand over details of their involvement with SCO, according to the subpoenas, which were filed in U.S. District Court in Utah, where the case between IBM and SCO is being heard. There's something odd in the amount of money MS dumped onto SCO: "In early 2003, Microsoft started paying SCO what eventually grew to $16.6 million for a Unix license, according to regulatory filings. Only longtime Unix fan Sun previously paid close to that, with a $9.3 million license deal. Microsoft provided a second, though indirect, boost in August or September of 2003, when it referred SCO to BayStar, a fund that arranged a $50 million investment. Just connect the dots. RM
[discuss] Re: Sooner or Later
Could it be that Microsoft will be forced to act within the law and in a moral and proper way? Maybe we will be moving forward at last and away from a new dark age! Once file system compatibility (arguably the largest issue for OpenOffice.org) is on a level and fair field, things will improve vastly. RM Ref. 1 Reg Developer » Code » Microsoft/.Net Microsoft runs out of EC time Three strikes and you're out By Mark Ballard Published Thursday 9th February 2006 13:17 GMT Microsoft is facing fines from the European Commission after failing to get an extension on a deadline it had been set by the competition police. The Competition Directorate had already extended, from December 15, a deadline for Microsoft to comply with the terms of a previous ruling, Reuters said. The software firm, which had already paid $593m in fines to the EC, now faces further charges of $2.4m a day unless it complies with a previous anti-trust ruling. The EC had told Microsoft to help other software firms understand its operating system so they could write server software as easily as it could itself. It appeared from the EC ruling that Microsoft was doing what it could to further tighten the hold it had on the market for operating systems. But the commission found that Microsoft was still delivering up shoddy information to other server software vendors and cried foul. Microsoft complained that it did not get a fair opportunity to make a defence. However, the commission insisted it had opportunity enough. ---
Re: [discuss] RE: very disappointed to see "easter-egg" in a free-software
On 2/8/06, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It should draw a good crowd. > > I'm up for it. Getting a bit long in the tooth now but I used to be a > dab hand at arm wrestling. Have to be right handed though cos me left > shoulder is knackered :-) > Funny, but a better solution would be to design in some kind of anti-virus software in the mailing list that could recognize the very nasty virus ch*d - (ever notice that is a four-letter word?). The anti-ch*d anti-virus would have to be clever enough to catch that very nasty bug as it mutated into new addresses, etc. It's worth a try though - no point in letting that nasty non-human infection ch*d into every topic! RM
[discuss] Re: Sooner or Later
It is reported that the US Department of Homeland Security is spending $1.24 million to "hunt for security bugs in open-source software" >From a "spin" standpoint, you have to wonder why the government is spending $1.24 million to "hunt for security bugs in open-source software", a phrase that conjures up images of security bugs just waiting to be discovered, while a different spin could have been to "assess the level of security of open-source software", a phase conjuring up a more accurate picture of something that is secure, but "how secure"? Given that much of the US government is for sale to the highest bidder, is it too paranoid to wonder if Microsoft has dumped a vast pile of cash into corrupt government officials hands to get them to attack Linux and OpenOffice.org? How better to do this than to come up with "evidence" through a "study" claiming that open source software is dangerous? RM Ref. 1 http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=2394 blogs Between the Lines January 11, 2006 What if Microsoft is right? (about open source insecurities) Posted by David Berlind @ 9:21 am Over the last few years, particularly as server-based deployments have eaten away at the software giant's bottom line, Microsoft has routinely derided open source software as being less secure than its own closed-source proprietary offerings. Microsoft executives used to routinely take security-related pot shots at Linux and more recently (a little less than a year ago), the company funded a study (the findings of which were presented at last year's RSA conference under dubious conditions) that backed up Microsoft's long standing assertions that Linux is riskier than Windows. Even when vendors leave the methodologies behind such studies up to the researchers, I take them with a grain of salt. That's because the vendor controls whether the study gets published or not. In other words, if the results don't favor the vendor(s) who commission the studies, those studies almost never see the light of day. Now, with its increasing reliance on open source software, the US Government (Dept. of Homeland Security) wants to get to the bottom of the burning question, according to News.com: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is extending the scope of its protection to open-source softwareâ¦Through its Science and Technology Directorate, the department has given $1.24 million in funding to Stanford University, Coverity and Symantec to hunt for security bugs in open-source software and to improve Coverity's commercial tool for source code analysisâ¦.The list of open-source projects that Stanford and Coverity plan to check for security bugs includes Apache, BIND, Ethereal, KDE, Linux, Firefox, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSSL and MySQLâ¦. No matter how this news is sliced, it isn't good for providers of commercial alternatives to these open source products. Nor is the timing. If there are security problems (as Microsoft has long asserted), this program is certain to root many of them out to a point that, from a security perspective, the aforementioned open source projects would be on par with their closed-source counterparts (if they're not there alreadyâ¦. which many believe they are) or even worse, improve them beyond the securability of those closed-source counterparts. OK. So, what can $1.24 million really get you. 10 bug fixes? 20? 100? Even so, what could be worse for competitors to open source than the US government taking measures to make open source even better. Not only that, but the move comes at a time when Microsoft â" which itself has taken a beating on the security front â" is looking to improve its own security image, relatively speaking.
[discuss] Sooner or Later
Microsoft continues to acquire patents for things which have no business being patented. The article below from John Oates at the Register mentions Linux and open source, without specifically naming OpenOffice, but - make no mistake - we are in the same boat as Linux. If Linux is destroyed, so to will be OpenOffice. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/11/microsoft_wins_patent_case/ Re: The US Patent Office has upheld Microsoft's claim of patent rights over its File Allocation Table. The decision reverses two earlier judgements and potentially allows Microsoft to go after open-source developers who use the technology. FAT controls how computers store information to hard drives and other storage devices such as Flash cards. The US Patent and Trademark Office ruled that the file system is "novel and non-obvious" and, therefore, deserving of a patent. The decision is important because it could mean Microsoft could force open-source distributors to pay it a royalty or remove the software from their products. Open-source software must, by definition, be patent-free. Concerns over patents within some Linux distributions have been blamed for hindering wider adoption of the operating system. Florian Mueller, founder of nosoftwarepatents.com, said the decision gave Microsoft the weapons to attack Linux. Mueller said: "This is now a situation in which Microsoft could cause major problems to Linux vendors and users. Microsoft may not want to do that yet for other considerations, but the USPTO's decision gives Microsoft the strategic option to do so at a time of its choosing. Also, the USPTO and even the European Patent Office continue to grant new patents to Microsoft daily, and some of them may be equally dangerous to open source as the FAT patents. "The example of the FAT patents shows that all those patent quality initiatives and patent pledges have no significant value to open-source developers, vendors and users if Microsoft ever wants to go for Linux's throat." The US patent agency is either corrupt and/or imbecilic. Unfortunately the rot at the top is spreading. Either we stop the rot or it will rot us. The irony of course is that even if the rot "wins", it will lose, because - being a parasite - it cannot live without something to feed upon. Let's put it out of its misery sooner rather than later. We could live with or without Microsoft, but they can't live with us - or so they think, correctly perhaps. They have built up their mighty empire through theft of others' ideas and through regularly breaking the law. They are an illegal bunch of scoundrels. Apparently they realize that they cannot win a fair and open fight and so ever more dirty do they become. To save open source, only the force of honest law and people with backbone and courage can... must... force them to stop ravaging and destroying the computer industry and the freedom of the Internet. I'm ranting and raving? You bet. The stakes are high and ranting after your dreams and livelihood have been destroyed is too bloody late! Now is the time to have some backbone and stand up. While I'm on the subject, here's a call for the Microsoft supporters to get off of this list. You cannot support both Microsoft and OpenOffice. If you support Microsoft, you are for the destruction of OpenOffice and do not belong in this group. Many of us are stuck using Microsoft's illegal software through having no choice - but that is no excuse to raise your voices in support of an illegal tyrant! RM
[discuss] JSNTM
An interesting on-line discussion about how to free yourself of Microsoft, which brings up OpenOffice - is at the following link. You may need to register to see it, but it's free I think. RM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/12/07/DI2005120701789.html?referrer=email Friday, Dec. 16 11am ET Just Say No to Microsoft How to Ditch Microsoft and Why It's Not as Hard as You Think Tony Bove Author Friday, December 16, 2005; 11:00 AM Bove traces the company's rise from tiny startup to monopolistic juggernaut, maintaining that the company's practices have discouraged innovation, stunted competition, and helped foster an environment ripe for viruses, bugs and hackers. Tony Bove edits the Inside Report on New Media newsletter and writes for magazines including Computer Currents, Nextworld, the Chicago Tribune Sunday Technology section, and NewMedia. He co-founded and edited Desktop Publishing/Publish magazine and has written 20 books on computing, desktop publishing and multimedia. Tony Bove: Chances are, you already use Microsoft software. And you think you have little or no choice but to use it. But you can get off this unsafe habit and even save a few bucks in the process. You can live in the Microsoft-dominated world, work with others who use Microsoft software, participate in Microsoft-based networks and even share Microsoft-related resources, all without having to suffer like a typical Microsoft user. "Just Say No to Microsoft" tells you how to get out of the way of the Microsoft juggernaut and avoid getting sucked into the monoculture of virus attacks and bad software. It also shows you how to work successfully with computers and people who are still hooked on Microsoft software -- even to convince them that you, too, are using Microsoft products -- without ever coming into direct contact with the stuff. www.tonybove.com.
[discuss] Robin Miller at Washington Post
Old news, but for anyone who missed it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/12/07/DI2005120701796.html Transcript OpenOffice.org Robin Miller Author Friday, December 16, 2005; 12:00 PM Author Robin Miller was online Friday, Dec. 16th to discuss the OpenOffice.org suite of office productivity software and his new book "Point and Click: OpenOffice.org." Miller introduces readers to OpenOffice.org 2.0, an alternative to Microsoft Office's perceived hassles, upgrades and cost. OpenOffice.org 2.0 runs through Windows or Linux and offers word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, drawing and databases. What's more, it's free. In his new book, Miller provides software and instruction for the basics of OpenOffice.org, as well as Firefox and Thunderbird. Robin 'Roblimo' Miller is editor in chief for Open Source Technology Group (OSTG). He has written extensively about computers and the Internet for OSTG's sites as well as for Time New Media, Online Journalism Review and the Washington Post, among other sites and publications. He is the author of "The Online Rules of Successful Companies," and "Point and Click: Linux." A transcript of the discussion follows. Robin Miller: Aloha from Florida. I'm Robin Miller, better known as 'Roblimo' to Slashdot readers and other Internet junkies. My mission today is to blatantly promote my latest book, 'Point & Click OpenOffice.org!' from Prentice Hall, available through virtually every English-language bookseller on this planet. I wrote this book for ordinary people -- people like me and my Florida neighbors -- instead of for geeky computer experts. It's an easy-to-digest introduction to the free OpenOffice.org office suite, which is in some ways not quite as good as Microsoft Office and in many ways is better. OpenOffice.org (which I'll call OOo from now on) is free. It's also easy to use even if you've never used full-strength office software before. You know all those ads you see where it says, "Must submit resume (or manuscript or whatever) in Microsoft .doc format?" OOo lets you do that *without* spending money to buy Microsoft Office. It also has a pretty good drawing and image processing utility built in, which MS Office doesn't. Not shabby considering the price, eh? :) As far as my book: It includes Windows and Linux versions of OOo, and tells you where to download the Mac version. After that, you'll find plenty of pictures that make learning easy. PLUS, in the back of the book there's a CD with about 75 minute worth of videos that will step you through most common OOo actions, one at a time
[discuss] Well-well-well...
Hmm... Chad and Rod pouring Microsoft propaganda into the list again! (See: "Norwegian article on school software licensing") Why are we not surprised? Chad - get a life and/or quit working for Microsoft. Rod - open your eyes and see the light of day! Microsoft is an illegal corporation that has caused massive damage to the computer industry. If they are not stopped, or at least held in check, then OpenOffice is doomed. Is that your goal? To see OpenOffice destroyed? You will likely huff and puff and profess your substantial contributions to OpenOffice - but in writing propaganda for Microsoft, your actions are clearly towards the destruction of OpenOffice. Please refrain from doing this... or maybe you can join a "Go Microsoft" list and write Microsoft propaganda that is well received by a sheep readership. RM
Re: [discuss] Norwegian article on school software licensing
On 12/16/05, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Office of Fair Trading has left the case open. They say they are not > saying MS is clear, just that the cost of pursuing the case is not worth > the gain given the current extent of the take up of MSSA in UK schools. > In principle I beleive that Microsoft schools Agreement is illegal under > uropean Law and certainly the OFT has not said otherwise. It might be > worth someone in Norway starting a similar action with the Norwegian OFT > if there is such a thing. Microsoft submitted 30,000 pages of evidence > in the UK case so if nothing else it causes them some inconvenience. > Or were those 30,000 pages specifically produced to bury the opposition in a deep snow drift? I wonder... is there any sort of law against dumping huge volumes of sophistic nonsense onto the opposing (understaffed) side, knowing that they don't have the resources to process it all. 30,000 pages of content is one thing - but since Microsoft is legally and morally in the wrong, those 30,000 pages can't have any real quality content RM
Re: [discuss] Norwegian article on school software licensing
On 12/15/05, Martin Hauge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A correction: This kind of licence-agreements were stopped in USA 11 years > ago ( 1994 Microsoft Consent Decree) , in Norway it is still legal. > So this outrageous situation of charging people for something that they're not even using is illegal in the USA - Microsoft's home country - but they're continuing to do it other countries where there is some legal loophole? Microsoft obviously has the same morals as organized crime. It doesn't matter how - just make people pay! RM
Re: [discuss] Norwegian article on school software licensing
On 12/15/05, Martin Hauge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The bad news for OOo is that if a school want to save some licence costs > bylet some classrooms run OOo, the school still have to pay > Microsoft-licenses - also for the OOO-PCs. In other words, the schools have > to pay Microsoft-licences also for Linux- and OOo PCs. Let me get this straight - Microsoft has the gall to charge schools for computers that are not using Microsoft? That is really obscene! That's not only illegal, it's immoral! How do these Microsoft thugs sleep at night? RM
Re: [discuss] Re: "Reason's Why" Part-4 (of 4)
On 12/13/05, Chuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How about posting this on alt.destroy.microsoft? I fail to see the > relevance of Microsoft bashing on an email list that has nothing to do > with Microsoft. For the record this is the "Open Office General" email > list. Discussions not directly related to OOo should be taken elsewhere. > Say - Chuck - have you ever criticized you pal Chad for his off-topic pro-Microsoft rants? That's where this got off-topic in the first place! The issue of having a moderator (not me) to keep it all on-topic was generated by the likes of Chad and... you too? I want to discuss OpenOffice - and resent the interference in doing so by the Microsoft zealots! Thus the calls for moderation - to keep the Microsoft propaganda out of a list in which it does not belong! RM
Re: [discuss] Re: "Call For Moderation"
On 12/13/05, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > + 100!!! > -10,000! HaHa! Chad in favor of what is destructive to OpenOffice... why am I not surprised? RM
Re: [discuss] Re: "Reason's Why" Part-4 (of 4)
On 12/13/05, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In general IT adoption is largely dependent on confidence, not the > quality of the technology. Boosting confidence in our product and > under-mining confidence in competing products is just standard stuff. Ok > some people might get a little over-zealous but then again some people > also delude themselves that they can be both pro MSO and Pro OOo. I'd > like to see a MS employee go to Steve Ballmer and say "Hey Steve, we > ought to be objective about OOo and not say anything that might be a bit > biased, its really rather cool and does things our product can't. Give > them a break and let's not expose any of their shortcomings, after all > you got to hand it to those guys they really are doing a good job" > > Its bad enough having a 360 million dollar budget working against us > without our own people not having the first clue about market realities. > Precisely!!! And this is part of what I had in mind when calling for moderation on this list. Aside from the fact that a lot of disinformation is getting onto the list, fire-fighting is interfering with constructive work. Best to keep the arsonists out of the magazine in the depths of the ship. RM
Re: [discuss] "Reason's Why" Part-1 (of 3)
On 12/12/05, Lars D. Noodén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Ian Lynch wrote: > > ... Countering a $360m a year propaganda machine for MSO is not that > > simple with no marketing budget. [snip] > > ...Undermine confidence in the opposition, boost confidence in your > > product. Let's just do it, but do it with apparent objectivity ;-). > > It would be interesting to set up an invite-only wiki and document as many > useful facts as possible for a few months and then polish it down into a > book. There would be no way to divide the profits fairly so proceeds > ought to be donated somewhere. > An excellent idea! Microsoft works very hard to not only pump massive amounts of propaganda into the media, but also to erase any news of their darker side from the public record. Their misdeeds and crimes should be recorded and republished. There is no way OpenOffice can survive if the illegal monster Microsoft isn't held in check. RM
Re: [discuss] "Call For Moderation"
On 12/11/05, CPHennessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nice idea, but are you willing to be the moderator and to give the > appropriate > amount of time each day ( at least 1 hour) to do this ? > Shouldn't someone at Sun do that? RM
Re: [discuss] "Call For Moderation"
On 12/11/05, Michael Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm agin it as well. My reasons are that linux and FOSS are about > freedom. Not just free software, but freedom of speech. One of the basic > rights in theory of the free world. That's ironic if you're living in the US - where the media is mainly ultra-right and most of the "news" you get is propaganda! You're worried about the right to read Micorsoft PR, but not worried about the loss of a free press where it really matters? This is an example of censorship and censoring needs to be monitored > itself. I see you have a sense of humor! Paul might be censored because he top posted. Hell, i could be censored > because i bottom posted after someone else top posted. That's a simplistic and idiotic way of looking at it. A good moderator would not block messages for frivolous reasons. Re: "Those that can, do; those that can't, teach." Are you doing either? RM
[discuss] "Call For Moderation"
There is a solution to the recent problem of the list having gone off the tracks. There should be a moderator, with all incoming mail read by this moderator and either passed, held or deleted. Offensive language, name-calling, and most importantly, Microsoft propaganda should be deleted. The Microsoft trolls will cry "censorship", but it's not - it's filtering. Filter out the Microsoft disinformation and the list can take on meaning once again. This will result in a delay of up to 24 hours for some messages, but it's a small price to pay to rid us of Microsoft PR-spin on the list. As it stands, the list is regularly hijacked by MS trolls. The slightest criticism of illegal Microsoft or support for Open Source competitors to Microsoft send the attack dogs into a frenzy. Let's put up a fence and keep them out! Remember, we're not dealing with friendly or legal people here! Possibly the biggest single threat to Microsoft's monopoly is OpenOffice - given their track record, do you honestly think they would ignore this list? RM
[discuss] "Reason's Why" Part-1 (of 3)
"Reason's Why" There have been some requests for information regarding the illegal nature of Microsoft's nefarious operations. Just providing links isn't enough - these sources of information are sometimes shut down for one reason or another, so it's important to quote the relevant bits before the information vanishes. Legally, we shouldn't be quoting entire articles, but quoting them in part and pointing out where they can be seen in full falls within proper and fair usage of on-line material. Unlike the professional spinners that Microsoft employs to pump propaganda about their defective products into the media, I'm trying to make a living in this Microsoft-damaged world and can't devote the time to this that it deserves, but here are just a few quotes in basically random order: From: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1998/01/burstein.html Overseas Invasion - by Rachel Burstein - January/February 1998 Like Coke, Nike, and the tobacco industry before it, Microsoft now has to hook new consumers abroad. But the company has discovered a way to bully foreign companies into buying Microsoft -- and only Microsoft. In 1995 Antel, the national telephone company of Uruguay, was caught pirating $100,000 worth of unlicensed software programs from Microsoft, Novell, and Symantec. Antel was nabbed by the Business Software Alliance, a trade association that partly acts as a global bounty hunter for the software industry. The BSA's lawyers in Uruguay quickly filed suit. But instead of waiting for a ruling on the case, the BSA abruptly dropped the suit in the fall of 1997. The BSA receives funding from most of the top software companies but appears to be most heavily funded by Microsoft. And, according to Antel's information technology manager, Ricardo Tascenho, the company settled the matter by signing a "special agreement" with Microsoft to replace all of its software with Microsoft products. The BSA's lawyer in Uruguay, Eduardo DeFreitas, supports Tascenho's story: "Microsoft told me to stop working on the case because they would write an agreement with Antel." DeFreitas says Microsoft's Uruguay manager, Tomas Blatt, instructed him to drop the suit so that Microsoft could "work out a deal for the future." Blatt refused to answer questions about the settlement, claiming, "I don't have any information about the Antel case You should call BSA in Uruguay—Eduardo DeFreitas." Antel's situation suggests that when the BSA cracks down on piracy overseas, it's Bill Gates who turns out to be the pirate. Representatives from rival firms complain that Microsoft is abusing its power within the BSA to speed its global dominance. Unfortunately, the BSA does seem to be operating like henchmen for Microsoft and not doing what they are supposed to do. Not surprisingly, the criminals and henchmen involved - Microsoft and BSA - say it isn't true. Some examples outside of Uruguay were also mentioned: Felipe Yungman, Novell's manager of security for Argentina, says he and another staffer at Novell discovered, while pursuing their own investigation for the company, that the BSA was setting up sweetheart deals for Microsoft. "Companies or government offices had to, as a condition [that the BSA] forgive them of piracy, replace Novell products with Microsoft products," he says. Yungman would not divulge the names of the companies he believes were bullied by Microsoft, saying that he is trying to convince them to come forward. "Most of the companies don't want to get involved," he explains. "They think they need Microsoft. You cannot oblige them to testify." Mario Tucci, Novell's country manager for Latin America, supports Yungman's allegations. "If you call BSA, you will reach Microsoft," he says. "They shield Microsoft's actions with the BSA name. It's bad for us and [for] the software industry." The article goes on to detail the nefarious nature of the BSA-Microsoft connection - go to the link above the quotes for a look at the entire article. RM
[discuss] "Reason's Why" Part-2 (of 4)
I was unable to find the following on the Internet - it may have been taken off. Asking around, an acquaintance had it on file, and here is a small part of it: Microsoft and Novell: A Misstep? - by Stephen H. Wildstrom (Business Week Online, 11/09/04) Novell announced it would file a new private antitrust action charging that Microsoft illegally restrained trade in the market for office-productivity software between 1994 and 1996. At the time, Novell owned word-processing software Word Perfect and Quattro Pro spreadsheet, programs that competed with Microsoft Office. Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) has taken another huge step in what has become a US$3 billion-plus campaign to rid itself of the legal fallout of its 2002 settlement of an antitrust Latest News about antitrust case brought by the U.S. government. Gates & Co. agreed on November 11 to pay Novell (Nasdaq: NOVL) $536 million to resolve claims regarding Novell's NetWare networking Relevant Products/Services from Sprint -- With Sprint, business is beautiful. software. That's a drop in the bucket for Microsoft, which had $37 billion in annual revenue last year. But over the long haul, the price of the latest deal, which settles a private antitrust suit brought by Novell and a complaint by the Computer & Communications Industry Association, could be more significant than the dollar cost of the settlement. Earlier Microsoft paid a total of nearly $1.5 billion to settle cases brought by Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: SUNW) and Time Warner's AOL (NYSE: AOL) unit, and has reserved $1 billion to settle state class-action suits. $536 million to Novell and $1.5 billion to Sun Microsystems. Like the article says, that's only "a drop in the bucket for Microsoft", but still, it's worth thinking about - what is that $1,536,000,000 buying? More details are in the article - if you can find it! RM
[discuss] "Reason's Why" Part-4 (of 4)
And now onto the money that was taken from Sterling Ball's company Ernie Ball, and the trouble caused them by illegal Microsoft and their BSA henchmen. The full article is here: http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html Rockin' on without Microsoft - by David Becker (Staff Writer, CNET News.com- August 20, 2003) Sterling Ball, a jovial, plain-talking businessman, is CEO of Ernie Ball, the world's leading maker of premium guitar strings endorsed by generations of artists ranging from the likes of Eric Clapton to the dudes from Metallica. But since jettisoning all of Microsoft products three years ago, Ernie Ball has also gained notoriety as a company that dumped most of its proprietary software--and still lived to tell the tale. In 2000, the Business Software Alliance conducted a raid and subsequent audit at the San Luis Obispo, Calif.-based company that turned up a few dozen unlicensed copies of programs. (As relates the event: "We've never been sued, never had any problems paying our bills. And one day I got a call that there were armed marshals at my door talking about software license compliance...I thought I was OK; I buy computers with licensed software. But my lawyer told me it could be pretty bad.") Ball settled for $65,000, plus $35,000 in legal fees. But by then, the BSA, a trade group that helps enforce copyrights and licensing provisions for major business software makers, had put the company on the evening news and featured it in regional ads warning other businesses to monitor their software licenses. Humiliated by the experience, Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft products out of his business within six months. "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly." And what were the nature of the "unlicensed copies" that caused Ball and his company so much trouble? Ball states: "We pass our old computers down. The guys in engineering need a new PC, so they get one and we pass theirs on to somebody doing clerical work. Well, if you don't wipe the hard drive on that PC, that's a violation. Even if they can tell a piece of software isn't being used, it's still a violation if it's on that hard drive." - I wonder... how many people realize that if they buy a new computer with Microsoft on it, use it for a couple of years and then give it to their little brother when they go off to college with another new computer, that their little brother is breaking the law unless he deletes everything on the hard drive, destroys any disks containing the Microsoft OS that came with the computer and goes out and spends several hundreds dollars repurchasing the same software that came on the computer in the first place. This is really obscene! It's comparable to buying a book and then being required by law to burn the book after reading so no one else can read it! It's insane! Would typical Microsoft users go on supporting that company if armed BSA henchmen came pounding on their doors demanding to see every computer in the house and fined everyone who was not the original user of that machine? Why aren't there more cases of people fighting Microsoft's illegal tactics? When Ball was asked if he had wanted to settle, he replied: Never, never. That's the difference between the way an employee and an owner thinks. They attacked my family's name and came into my community and made us look bad. There was never an instance of me wanting to give in. I would have loved to have fought it. But when (the BSA) went to Congress to get their powers, part of what they got is that I automatically have to pay their legal fees from day one. That's why nobody's ever challenged them--they can't afford it. My attorney said it was going to cost our side a quarter million dollars to fight them, and since you're paying their side, too, figure at least half a million. It's not worth it. You pay the fine and get on with your business. What most people do is get terrified and pay their license and continue to pay their licenses. And they do that no matter what the license program turns into. The rest of the article is in the form of an interview and it makes for interesting reading. See the whole thing at the link above. So - evidence put on the screen, we can turn to the question of "Why bother?". Believe me - I would much rather have done something else with the time I've spent putting this letter together, but if we don't watch our backs and keep vigilant, we'll end up being just more road kill for Microsoft. The most productive software I use that enables me to earn a living with my computer does not come from Microsoft. Indeed, the biggest time and money wasters over the years have consistently come from Microsoft. I'm not even talking about the financial aspect here - I don't mind buying good software sold at a reasonable price and I often do,
[discuss] "Reason's Why" Part-3 (of 4)
And now we move on to Netscape, the full text located here: http://www.tbtf.com/resource/netscape-letter.html The text is of a letter sent to Joel Klein of the Justice Department Microsoft Illegal Conduct and Ramifications for Consent Decree This letter is intended to supplement and clarify our earlier communications with the Department concerning conduct by Microsoft that violates both the existing Consent Decree as well as the substantive antitrust laws. The Internet software industry currently exhibits great innovation, with the development of an astonishing number of new products and technologies that promise to transform the way that computers are used. These new products and technologies are being developed by a wide array of companies, from new start-ups to more established software firms. Many of the smaller Internet software vendors (including companies that make Internet software tools and servers), however, now face the threat of elimination from the market by reason of Microsoft's illegal conduct. While Netscape has greater resources to fight back against Microsoft's predation, both in the marketplace and through means such as this letter, many of these smaller Internet software vendors have made it clear that they have insufficient resources to fight back against Microsoft's illegal conduct in the market. Netscape was better able to fight predation by Microsoft, but still they were unfairly destroyed by Microsoft's anti-free market tactics nevertheless. Netscape did us all a huge favor in making Mozilla open source though. We users should be grateful for that long-sighted action. The letter goes on to note: Much of Microsoft's conduct appears to violate both the letter and spirit of the existing Consent Decree entered in United States v. Microsoft. Indeed, Microsoft's behavior is, if anything, more anticompetitive and pernicious than the conduct addressed specifically in the Decree. In engaging in this far-reaching anticompetitive behavior, Microsoft hurts consumers and restricts consumer choice. I am one of those hurt consumers - from all the hassles of having to deal with defective Microsoft products to being overcharged by them for Internet service. Back when Bill Gates was in court and saying "Well, yes, our competitors complain, but our customers are happy!", I wanted to jump into the courtroom and give testimony from at least one very dissatisfied user! - Anyone interested in how Microsoft destroyed Netscape (the AOL-owned version today is basically the name only), would do themselves a favor to go to the link above and read the entire letter, but here are a couple more examples of foul Microsoft deeds: The net effect is this. Every OEM automatically gets the Microsoft browser on the Windows desktop provided by Microsoft, whether desired by the OEM or not. If the OEM wants to give the consumer a fair and even choice of browsers by placing competitors' browser icons in a comparable place on the desktop, Netscape has been informed that the OEM must pay $3 more for Windows 95 than an OEM that takes the Windows bundle as is and agrees to make the competitors' browsers far less accessible and useful to customers. Some OEMs have gone so far as to indicate that the Microsoft Windows discount really buys exclusivity. For example, Hitachi has refused to bundle Netscape Navigator with its laptop computer because it says that it is prohibited from carrying the product under its license with Microsoft. Indeed, Hitachi now has gone even further, and informed another company that it cannot carry its software because that product includes Netscape Navigator and therefore is prohibited by the Microsoft license. The potential magnitude of Microsoft's secret tax on the OEM channel -- all for the purpose of restricting consumer choice -- is truly breathtaking. If estimates are correct that Windows 95 is selling at a rate of 40 million copies or more a year. it will cost OEMs more than $10 million to offer their customers non-Microsoft Internet software on an equal footing with that of Microsoft. And Microsoft has made sure that customers will never learn about these under-the-table deals. Microsoft muzzles all of the OEMs with "non-disclosure" terms that place them in an entirely untenable position: they have been induced with secret payments, and ostensibly cannot tell anyone, including their customers, about them. [snip, snip, snip] The reason for Microsoft's conduct - Obviously, Microsoft has so little confidence in the success of its products in a fair comparison with those of other software vendors that it has resorted to undisclosed, under-the-table payments and other forms of coercion to impose its products on consumers. When this form of organized crime is pointed out to some people, they sometimes say "Organized crime? Where is the blood and where are the dead bodies?" Most organized crime does not involve blood - it involves ruined lives, rui
Re: [discuss] Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/9/05, Randomthots <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jonathon makes them sound like goons with guns and brass knuckles. It's > frustrating and often sad and tragic, but it's not the mafia. And it's not > illegal or criminal. > The larger part of organized crime does *not* involve brass knuckles. Maybe you've been watching too many movies? Truth - in fact - is vastly stranger than fiction. Spinning is great, but however blind the non-thinking may be, the truth will not go away. RM
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/9/05, Henrik Sundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think you need to be working for MS just to dislike false > accusations. I think Chad was very precise in his question. And > genuinely interested in finding the truth too. > So, Henrik Sundberg (and Rod??), you're obviously good friends with Chad - are you two (three?) working in the same office (or are you in fact the same person)? That would be a great job actually, sitting in an office and being paid to pump Microsoft-propaganda into computer discussion groups. (Not fun to sell your soul downriver, but the actual task of just sitting there and writing for pay sounds fun.) Most of us have to squeeze in writing time when we're not working, so it's hard to keep up with the professional PR attacks Hmm... where are Chad's replies in the last 20 hours or so? Are you sitting in for him/her, or are you him/her? RM
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/9/05, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/8/05, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 10:41 +, Jonathon Blake wrote: > > > > > That was _one_ of the reasons they were charged with anti-trust > > violations. > > > xan > > http://www.tbtf.com/resource/netscape-letter.html > > It makes me wonder, have you [snip] ever been convicted of any > crime? have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Well, Chad, old chap. Now we know you're guilty! One of the surest signs of deep and defenseless guilt is saying "But someone else is also guilty!" So - how much does Microsoft pay you to pump their spin into this list? Are you being paid by the same people who pay that druggie Rush? Say - everyone - here's another call to ban this Microsoft PR spinner from this list. He (or is it she?) doesn't belong here. Every intelligent person on the list wants him off - why is he still here? TM
Re: [discuss] Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/6/05, Sven Aerts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How's the law suits against MS and the illegal sending of HD info ? > In what countries in Asia governments are forbidding to use MS in > governmental application? > How fast in Linux evolving? Do you know how to use Google? Give it a try! It's great for researching things! What do you have against open software? Do you understand English? I'm obviously all for open software. How about you? Do you support that illegal company Microsoft? You shouldn't! RM
Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/5/05, Andrew Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "John W. Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:4393C60B.4090405 > @attglobal.net: > > > Rubbish. Microsoft is on top because Bill Gates was a trust fund baby, > > and because he and his gang use the methods of organized crime. "Nice > > website you got here. It would be a shame if anything happened to it." > > ON a mailing list filled with silly exaggerations, this is, I think, the > single most ridiculous remark I have ever read. > Really? You don't read much then, do you! I don't suppose that you are actually (gasp!) using one of the horrible programs from Microsoft yourself? Shame on you! RM
Re: [discuss] Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/5/05, Randomthots <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Roger Markus wrote:
> > Same here. There's the moral issue as well of not supporting the
> illegal
> > organization Microsoft that is damaging to the computer industry as a
> > whole. Buying their products only strengthens the monster. If they
> were an
> > honest company it would be a different story, but they are foul and
> should
> > be opposed for that reason alone, never mind how rotten their software
> is!
Interesting. I agree with you, Roger, about the moral issue. FWIW, I've
> never purchased a boxed MS product, but the three computers that I've
> purchased in the last 12 years have all had MS stuff pre-installed. So I
> figure I've fed them a little but not a lot ;). But I think you're dead
> wrong about their software being rotten; it generally works well and
> gets the job done.
>
So - Rod - you're a politician then! Cool moves my friend!
1) Compliment your opponent ("Interesting") and make them feel at ease by
saying that you agree with them ("I agree with you").
2) Use their first name (oftentimes this is step #1) to show surface
friendliness and underlying superiority - as in a superior talking in a
friendly way to a wayward underling.
3) Ease into the attack by criticizing a point the opponent made - not the
substance mind you, but a detail that clouds the real issue. Some call it
smoke-screening.
4) Launch the most potent attack at the end - while the opponent still
thinks they're taking part in a rational discussion and is not prepared for
the sudden thrust of the knife.
Good show Rod! You would fit right in within the worst jungles! (Probably
you're already there. What's the body count so far?)
Oh - by the way. I'm not "dead-wrong" (dated expression - can't you do any
better?) about Microsoft software being really lousy and that many people
use it the same way they buy designer clothes - not because they know what
they're doing, but because it's what they perceive to be the "correct" thing
to do to please those in power and to show their friends that they're one of
them. It's a reason - a pathetic reason - but a reason nevertheless.
That's what the "shiny boxes" part was about Rod, not actual boxes sitting
in your hands, but shiny boxes that you may have seen on store shelves,
advertising, etc
RM
Re: [discuss] Re: Email vital for Desktop Linux adoption, prime role available for OOo
On 12/3/05, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 09:58 -0600, Randomthots wrote: > > > If I'm not actively concerned about cross-platform and/or > > cross-application compatibility, then XML is mostly meaningless to me. > > But anyone an use that argument about any feature of MSO 2003. I don't > need it so its no improvement over OOo. This was your basic argument. > OOo was no improvement over MSO XXX - I just gave you a couple of > examples of why it is. This whole MS thing just underlines the power of advertising. People like shiny boxes and slick advertising - it makes them feel like they've climbed on "The Success Train". > What concerns me is the attitude that certain features of upper-tier > > software shouldn't even be on the radar for the future. > > I think making the code more efficient would be a better use of > resources than re-inventing E-mail clients. I agree. Incidentally, Mozilla seems to be completely ignored in discussions about FireFox and ThunderBird, but Mozilla's e-mail client works better than anything I've used on either side of the fence. It requires slightly more thinking than Outlook, but it causes less trouble and produces e-mail looking just as good if you do it right. > > Being cross-platform is incredibly important for open-source migration. > > That's the beauty of OOo, Mozilla, Gimp, etc. If, over time, one-by-one, > > you adopt these open-source apps on Windows, eventually you can get to > > the point where you realize you don't really need Windows. > > I got to that point 3 years ago - well actually I still use Windows > occasionally for some very specific things but I won't be buying any > more Windows software which is all that really matters. Same here. There's the moral issue as well of not supporting the illegal organization Microsoft that is damaging to the computer industry as a whole. Buying their products only strengthens the monster. If they were an honest company it would be a different story, but they are foul and should be opposed for that reason alone, never mind how rotten their software is! RM
Re: [discuss] Online only apps
On 11/21/05, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Roger Markus wrote: > > Do give yourself an overlap period to get used to Linux. Once you're up > to > > speed with it, you'll never want to touch a Lose-W machine again, but > there > > > use the Lose-W box less and less, but don't attempt a "Bang!" one day > > swtich-over, it's not realistic. Anyway, good luck with it and I'll be > glad > > to offer advice regarding it if I can. > > What he said - don't try to go "bang". On the other hand, note that > *ALL* Linux distros install a boot loader, which enables you to boot > *either* Linux or Windows. > > Then, too, there's wine to run at least some Windows software, and you > can read from Windows partitions. > Right. And - come to think of it - I was remembering some of the difficulties I had about five years ago... Linux is *much* easier to use now than it was then. So... as long as you're prepared to readjust to a few things, a sudden change might not be a problem. One caution is regarding some application software. I still have some map software and ACDSee (v4.0) that I use on an *off-line* W-Lose box. Of course there's GQView & Gimp, but for working with large batches of photos speedily, I still haven't found something to replace ACDSee 4.0 (I have 7.0, but don't like it as much). If - on the other hand - your computer needs are covered with OpenOffice, FireFox, Mozilla, etc., then Linux is ready to be (painlessly) used pretty much right away. With SuSE, updates to FireFox, OpenOffice, Mozilla, etc. are part of the regular system updates, so that's much *easier* than a certain company thinking people love to hate. RM
Re: [discuss] Online only apps
On 11/20/05, John Boyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > To Discuss and Daniel Carrera: Your suggestions are being followed by me > as fast as I can. I need one KVM switch so I can use my monitor for both > Win and Linux, until I get my Linux under control, I mean knowledge > control. I bought a 64 bit AMD and a new computer and have had SuSe 9.2 > Pro installed. Before I can use it I have to get a UPS-backup battery > for it and with the switch and my new router, I should be in business by > the end of next week! Then, as I can convert something from WinXP I will > do so and eliminate it from the WinXP menu. :-) > Do give yourself an overlap period to get used to Linux. Once you're up to speed with it, you'll never want to touch a Lose-W machine again, but there are a number of things that you'll likely have to get used to. My own switchover took a little while due to some applications I use that were written only for Lose-W machines. With time, you'll find yourself wanting to use the Lose-W box less and less, but don't attempt a "Bang!" one day swtich-over, it's not realistic. Anyway, good luck with it and I'll be glad to offer advice regarding it if I can. RM
Re: [discuss] Re: re: Massachussetts registered voters
On 11/20/05, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, but I did notice this is the 100th post on the thread > > maybe time to kill it. It started on Oct 26 > No - it's still relevant and the issue is not in the past yet. RM
Re: [discuss] Why?
On 11/15/05, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that a lot of this is much ado about nothing. And as much as > anyone > likes being the center of attention, I think all the > Chad-bashing/Chad-defending noise is far more than anything I ever caused on > my own. A suggestion. Try saying things in a less dogmatic way, and then whatever you say will be either agreed with or disagreed with. Actually your comment "much ado about nothing" is contradictory, as the way you often get going, it sounds like you're on the war path and not just expressing your opinion, which is no more valid than others on the list, although you act as though it's much more. This is a list about OpenOffice.org, not me. Can we drop all this > and get back to the task at hand? Right. And please be civil in future posts to prevent the kind of trouble that you have often caused. I mean, really, this whole thread should have taken place on Social@, if at > all. After all, social@ was created to give me a "time out room" to make as > much noise as I want, and not bother the big people while they do the > important work. Or so the impression was to me at the time. Created just for you? Wow! I didn't realize that! And the "big people"? See? There you go again with unpleasant sarcasm! The "big" poeple? The problem here all along is that you seem to think you're the biggest fish in the poind. Look in the mirror to find the man who needs to downsize his attitude. To answer the OP's question about why I seem to defend MS first and OOo as > an afterthought, I don't think that's what I do. But the impression may be > there because I think most people on this list already know the virtues of > OpenOffice.org, and don't need me to tell them about it. A lot of people > on > this list are Linux-only or close enough to it, that the majority of their > info about MS comes from Slash-dot, Groklaw, and other "Fair and Balanced" > unbiased news sources like that. Oops! Out in the parking lot again! (Never mind left field!) We have been pointing out real-world personal experiences to you time after time again. You ignore the turth and pound away at lies - thus we wonder *why* you do that! And one of the problems I have with Slashdot is that people just read the > comments, and never actually go to the orginial article. HaHaHa! Well, at least you have a sense of humor! It takes one to describe one's own folly as though it were others! Pay attention to reality and stop - to use your term - "OT posts" out in left field or the parking lot. Anyway, my point is people don't need me to defend or even promote OOo on > these lists. Everyone who reads these lists (discuss, marketing, social, > etc.) their pretty much sold on OOo anyway. It would be pointless for me to > cheerlead them into using OOo, since they already do. No - don't "cheerlead", but stick to reality! You know, the truth! The reason *large numbers* of people take exception to much of what you've said is because it's utter nonsense and in violation of common sense and documented truth! Reality is good! Truth is good! Have a look! Open your eyes! Gravity? Yes, it really *does* exist, even if you're opinion is contrary to that fact! (Sorry for the sarcaasm, I'll try to avoid that in future!) Okay! Enough enough enough. Let's get back to discussion of the product, but please,stick to facts and reality and avoid propaganda! RM
Re: [discuss] Why?
On 11/13/05, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you are referring to my statements that you don't need *any* Microsoft > software to use MSO file formats - I don't see how thats an attack. For > Pete's sake - OpenOffice.org (the program who's list were on) - opens the > bloody formats! It reads them, edits them, saves them, creates them. OOo > is > crossplatfrom, so with *JUST* OOo and other OSes, anyone in the world can > open, read, edit, save, and create MSO files without MS Software. I don't > see how in the world that could be an attack for me saying that. MSO > compatiblity is one of the main features that makes OOo valuable. It seemed (seems) to me that you have been more interested in pounding away at a narrow view and ignoring many facts pointed out to you regarding the wider picture. Given the record that Microsoft has and looking up the road towards what many of us see coming, you might consider that - while Microsoft may not be a pack of demons from h***, nor are they a team of angels descended from heaven. Again - why do you support Microsoft first and foremost and OpenOffice as an afterthought? RM
[discuss] Why?
Chad - You have sworn that you're not on Microsoft's payroll, so why... *why* are you always in the position of being an attack dog for that illegal company? It's very strange. I guess you're not on their payroll, but you might as well be! As unrelenting PR attacks, your text is great for Microsoft, but as a quest for the truth, what you write is pure nonsense! You should be kicked out of the group! RM
