JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2009-03-31, DFS <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:18:23 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> ____/ Gordon on Saturday 28 March 2009 22:11 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that the one which comes only with OOXML? So that data is held
>>>>>> hostage? Jeremy Allison wrote about this over a year ago in ZDNet
>>>>>> (about his daughter).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well no, you CAN do a "save as" and you CAN set the default document
>>>>> type to .doc instead of .docx, but only if you realise that you need
>>>>> to... Thank goodness OO3 can read OOXML files...
>>>>
>>>> Here is the article I had in mind:
>>>>
>>>> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-152101.html
>>>
>>> Damn, that's just... scummy.
>>
>>
>> Leave it to a Linux weenie to whine about creating production work in a
>> trial version of software
>
> If you can't do REAL work in a trial version of software than
> WHAT'S THE POINT really? How can you reall put something through
> it's paces and full verify it if you can't do REAL work with it?
Tsk tsk tsk ... please keep up with modern times! To be successful in
today's world, you don't actually have to produce tangible results. Just
the suggestion of "value" or "results" suffice to earn a decent living.
Just look at the way banks and large corporations have multiplied
their "value" many times over in recent years, and awarded their managers
well-earned bonuses for this "hard work". Or look at Microsoft: they're the
reason why the word "vapourware" was invented in the first place.
So simply tell your boss that you "tested the trial version, and that
everything is OK now." And that should be the end of it.
Which reminds me of this one:
Three shipwrecked scientists -- an engineer, a philosopher, and an
economist -- ended up on a desert island shore. They managed to salvage
lots of tin cans with food and drink, but are stuck without a tin opener.
The engineer immediately sets to work with sticks, bits rock and seashells,
to produce a working tin can opener. The philosopher starts pondering the
problem, and reaches the conclusion that there must be a solution. The
economist, however, simply solves the problem: "Let's assume that we have a
tin opener!"
If there would have been a Microsoft honcho among those shipwrecked, I guess
he would have first sued the others for infringing on his "intellectual
property", i.e. the concept of opening tin cans by means of puncturing the
container, and removing the horizontal top part of said container. He then
would have come up with a contraption featuring lots of pretty seashells
and a fair amount of levers and pushbuttons, yet incapable of reliably
opening tin cans -- or totally squashing them in the process; and when the
others would start complaining, he'd tell them to "Hold out for the next
version, that'll be even better!"
Eventually, after quite a few casualties from starvation, he'd "borrow" the
working design from the now dead engineer, and proudly show his
"innovation" to the rest of the survivors -- who nevertheless have to pay
him one can every time they want another one opened, of course. After all,
they can never own the Microsoft Tin Can Opener, or use it freely; they may
merely license a limited use of its functionality.
Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl
|
|
