Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> \____
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that mean you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are locked it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locked-in to a point, the question being the height of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exit barrier, ie., how much will it cost.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim seems unable to process this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term is meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is equally meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minimised, or it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me in my day job) amount to millions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to exit from than others?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imbecile
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about
>>>>>>>>>>>> thee than me?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> barriers" with regards to an "import filter" which actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enables to bypass those very "barriers"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me
>>>>>>>>>>>> try to explain it a different way:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to
>>>>>>>>>>> understand? You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to
>>>>>>>>>>> bypass the questions
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues -
>>>>>>>>>> presumably you do not understand the situation or the explanation?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You explained shit. Your "explanations" are simply utterly
>>>>>>>>> balderdash. Gobshite. Unadultered garbage
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you do not understand the situation, or the explanation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than
>>>>>>>>>>> DFS in your dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got
>>>>>>>>>>> worse. You don't have that explanation for your cretinous acts
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>< snip lunatic rant >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a
>>>>>>>>>> lot of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely
>>>>>>>>>> delete it
>>>>>>>>>> and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> seem worth the effort to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You put a lot of effort in mis-explaining the issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Come on, tell us: How is an import-filter going to "lock you in".
>>>>>>>>> Be precise. And stop this lunatic rubbish of the "exit costs".
>>>>>>>>> It has nothing to do with a filter which allows you to do *more*
>>>>>>>>> than without it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've already done that, Peter, and clearly, you realised that I had,
>>>>>>>> which is why you deleted it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Idiot
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And i mean it. You *are* an idiot. Not a tiny little bit better than
>>>>>>> linux-sux or DFS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I said above, perhaps you should look in the mirror when hurling
>>>>>> some of these insults.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to discuss my explanation, I'll be happy to, but deleting
>>>>>> it and then claiming it to be wrong without any justification is
>>>>>> precisely what I'd expect from linux-sux or DFS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If not, why are you wasting bandwidth?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you /had/ explained how an additional filter is going to lock-in
>>>>> people, I would have noticed. Instead you blather about "exist costs"
>>>>> even when none exist. Extremely dishonest way to argue.
>>>>
>>>> Exit costs exist on everything, Peter. This is trivial business
>>>> economics.
>>>
>>> Good. Feel free to explain the exit cost of that filter, then
>>>
>>
>> I did, Peter, and you deleted it.
>
> No, you did not. I deleted irrelevant idiocy which has nothing to do
> with "lock-in".
Lock-in is an exit barrier, Peter. It's how it works. No amount of
abusive responses will change that.
> That was just your lame attempt to do a "Snot". You still failed to explain
> how a filter will lock people in.
I explained it, you deleted it. Truth was too hard to handle, I
presume?
>
> And stop this disnonest idiocy about "exit costs". They simply don't apply
> for that filter, as it enables users to do the "exit" without *any* costs
I explained this, you deleted it.
>
> But you are too dishonest to admit that, as it would tumble your imbecile
> arguments
If you really believed that, you wouldn't have deleted it.
>>
>>>> If you don't understand this, then you won't understand lock-in and how
>>>> it works, and therefore will never understand how non-free filters cause
>>>> lock-in.
>>>
>>> And you still fail to show *why* that filter will serve as a lock-in
>>>
>>>> Is this, perhaps, because your own business model is based on lock-in,
>>>> and you are feeling threatened?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No
>>
>> Sounds like it to me.
>>
>
> What it sounds like to you is equally irrelevant.
I think you're feeling threatened.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|