* Jim Richardson peremptorily fired off this memo:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:16:59 +0100,
> Hadron <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>
>>>> The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
>>>> "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
>>>> format.
>>>
>>> Where's the 'need' for that? You want to have access to all features of
>>> those old documents? Keep an old copy of the proprietary operating
>>> system and proprietary Word processor around.
>>
>> LOL. I am not sure if it is stupidity or naivety on your part. Did it
>> never cross your mind that you need to access the contents on an
>> uptodate OS? For *obvious* reasons I won't even bother to go into.
>
> makes no sense. We are discussing document formats, not the OS. Are you
> saying that the MS document formats rely on the OS for something?
Not to mention that he completely ignored the assumption in my statement,
which was that the contents are old, and access might require a legacy
application on a legacy version of the OS.
And I even hint at the possibility that an up-to-date OS may not allow
the legacy application to run.
>>> What's that you say? You're worried about those items eventually being
>>> unusable? Scan or convert the legacy document to PDF, already an ISO
>>> standard, and readable by open-source software.
>>
>> Snigger. Clueless. Why would they want to do anything of the sort?
>
> So they can avoid lock in. Which is pretty much the whole frigging point
> to a multiple vendor format.
Jim, you are arguing with a clown.
Try arguing with me for a change <grin>.
--
One change always leaves the way open for the establishment of others.
-- Niccolo Machiavelli
|
|
