On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Brian Mathis wrote: > On 10/18/07, centos at 911networks.com <centos at 911networks.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:45:56 -0600 > > Frank Cox <theatre at sasktel.net> wrote: > > > > ... > > > Perhaps it would help if you pointed out to them that the Open > > > Document Format is an ISO standard for document storage and > > > exchange, and suggest that they use that instead. > > ... > > > > Here is the basic problem with Linux! Over 1 million office 2007 > > users and they have to change their software because it does not > > conform to the "standard". > > > > Since Windows is about 90% of all the computers we have to adapt > > to them. > > > > From my headers you can see that I am an everyday user of Linux, I > > also have a couple of CentOS boxes. > > I smell smoke. > > Couldn't agree more! The point of computer systems are to get work > done, not to uphold some idealistic point of view. Obviously, this > being the CentOS list, we all enjoy the benefits of open source, and > also support it. However, one of the main tenants of open source is > freedom. I always find it interesting that many in the community take > "freedom" to mean "do whatever you want as long as it's the same way I > do it". Freedom does not mean that people for free accomodate things to *your* advantage (in case you need DOCX support). Freedom means you are free to implement and contribute it. It means you can make a change if you want to. If you have the problem that you do not want to implement or contribute anything, then yes, you have to abide by the rules from people that do. I don't know what you expected from the freedom of Open Source, but it sure as hell does not mean that you can demand anything from people that have a diferent ideology than you. I don't call that freedom, I call that arrogance. Sorry for the strong words, but you needed that. > The market chooses what the standards are, even in OSS. The market > has spoken on MS Word and that is reality. It would be nice if you > could alter reality the same way you can alter your comfy little > universe inside the computer, but you can't. Thinking otherwise > lowers you to the same level as MS, that is, "if you don't want to use > our format and our software, then go home." The market did not choose for DOCX. The market is subverted into DOCX. If anything, the market chose for MS Word 95 maybe (it was more convenient because it integrated better with MS Windows and you got a lower price if you bought both) and are sucked into Microsoft's upgrade path (that mostly benefits Microsoft, not the market). I guess you know what the downsides of monopolies are ? That customers have no choice, that prices are too high and the monopolists have a free play. It means there is no free market, no competition. Open Office, since recently creates a free market, a free market that undermines Microsoft monopoly because apparently the only way to break a monopoly is by the justice system, and the US justice system failed the public and the free market. So don't bring your false rethoric on this list. Microsoft did not earn this position, they bought out the system illegaly. And even when we have to live with the current situation, at least the ideologists are doing something about it. (creating alternatives instead of helping a monopolist) What have you done lately ? -- -- dag wieers, dag at centos.org, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]