__/ [ ed ] on Thursday 28 September 2006 21:56 \__
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:33:02 +0100
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> __/ [ Peter Hayes ] on Thursday 28 September 2006 09:44 \__
>>
>> > In <1159411371.258591@xxxxxxxxxx> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> >> yttrx wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=143
>> >>>
>> >>> Jesus.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, yttrx, that is disturbing. I do not know of any other
>> >validation > scheme that locks one out without advice on how to
>> >recover. Paying an > additional hundred quid for a roached original
>> >and legally purchased > copy is IMHO, extortion.
>> >
>> > It's either a bug in RC1 or a try on. Take your pick.
>>
>> This is excellent news!!! Only earlier today I thought about all these
>> pirated copies of Office that essentially make Microsoft Office as
>> cheap as OpenOffice (free). I look forward to seeing more of ODF.
>> PowerPoint 2003, by the way, appears to be interchangeable (including
>> common macros) with OpenOffice Impress. That left me impressed!
>
> Ah yes, totally overlooked the that MS could WGA office, I only
> associated WGA with Windows as that's the first letter of the acronym,
> MGA would have led me to think that it covers the whole MS stack.
Office is the more expensive and less essential component. That's an
important factor to remember. While {Linux is not Windows}^TM, the same
_CANNOT_ be said about Microsoft Office and OpenOffice. I would usually
prepare my presentations in TeX or HTML, by the way, but the Supervisor
wanted to edit easily on the laptop. I didn't even see my slides until a
short while before the presentation.
> I think to be honest, most people will put their hands in their pockets
> to pay for the licences, or get their company to pay, but if just 5% of
> those people were to migrate, that'd be totally awesome. OO.org would
> probably get enough by way of contribution to really take up space on
> the bookshelves in the local Waterstones (not that I haven't noticed
> their books already).
I suspect that you underestimate what OpenOffice has got to offer. Don't
forget that any migration to Linux will most likely involve getting on the
OpenOffice bandwagon. And there are Mac users too (with NeoOffice, for those
who cannot live without Aqua and some native Cocoa). Sadly, estimating
OpenOffice use is as hard as it is when it comes to Web browsers (agent
forging) and O/Ses, if not _much_ harder. It is no surprise that
anti-OpenOffice FUD campaign have begun. These were mentioned in C.O.L.A.
some months ago when OpenOffice 2 was released.
> That's a good place to target people through book sales, once the books
> are there where we begin to see physical user base.
I have never been keen on books. Hand-on-experience is best bar none. Guided
tutorials with the software are another method, not to mention on-line books
and crash courses.
> Of course rumours are that the open document format will be junk and
> a total bastardisation of the proper format, my only hope is (I've not
> read the spec) that the spec will include enough mandatory fields to
> make even the most bastardised document perfectly readable and portable.
I have explored the structure by decompressing the ODF/ODP files. It's as
open as it can be. And it's neatly organised, so it encourages reuse,,
indexing, and search. The files can be interpreted even without the (free)
software that assembles all the pertinent pieces together.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Anonymous posters are more frequently disregarded
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 148 total, 1 running, 144 sleeping, 0 stopped, 3 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
