____/ [H]omer on Thursday 22 November 2007 07:55 : \____
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
>> You know, with Google Pack, Windows users can get StarOffice for free
>> now. I don't know why Linux is left out in the cold in that respect.
>> Chris DiBona wouldn't tell me, but then again, there's no Google
>> Pack for Linux.
>
> Last time I checked, nearly all of the software in that "pack" was
> available as separate packages for GNU/Linux anyway. The Windows
> exclusive (WOW!) software, includes the obligatory anti-virus and
> anti-spyware (of course), a toolbar thingie for that IE browser that
> nobody uses any more, and the equally obligatory screensaver (we all
> know how those "productive" Windows types love playing with *those*,
> don't we? Well ... in between virus scans, registry fixes, BSODs,
> reboots, and defragging of course.
>
> As for StarOffice, the only difference between that and OOo (AFAICT) is
> a bunch of templates and clip-art. Big whoop.
>
> http://www.sun.com/software/star/openoffice/docs/SO_Comparison_OOo.pdf
>
> Closer inspection reveals that OOo is actually ahead in terms of
> supported languages and platforms. There are a number of StarOffice
> "features" for which the OOo equivalents are merely listed as "Community
> Developed" - i.e. "equal or better". That's the bit they don't want you
> to know. Given that StarOffice is actually based on OOo, and *not* vice
> versa, and that it is Free (and free), frankly I don't understand why
> anyone would bother with StarOffice at all.
>
> I seem to recall a rather lame excuse (seen online somewhere) from years
> ago, where someone was claiming that their company could not use free
> (cost) software, since there needed to be a non-zero value invoice for
> all "assets" used by the company, for the purpose of auditing and tax
> accounting. Whether or not that was a load of bollocks, I don't know,
> but I also seem to recall Sun using that as an excuse for beginning to
> charge a nominal fee for StarOffice, where it was previously (for a
> time) free. My memory's a bit hazy on the subject, but that's the gist.
>
> If true, I think it's hilarious (and quite scary) that companies may not
> be allowed to have so-called "free assets". It seems quite perverted.
Fedora in Russia. You know how that story goss... I can't recall if that made
Slashdot last year.
Madness.
Defense procurement ill-suited for open source
,----[ Quote ]
| In order to fully take advantage of open-source software, Defense Department
| agencies may need to rethink how they do procurement, said Fritz Schulz, who
| works in the chief technology office of the Defense Information Systems
| Agency.
`----
http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/45376-1.html
Expensive =good.
Cheap? Bad!!! Says the prick at the top....
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Ping this IP, see if it responds the second time"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
