spiderbaby1958
07-04-2003, 04:07 PM
http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/segment.jhtml?wfId=1319129
Here's a link to a great audio story about XML and Open Office that explains a lot of basic stuff about the Open Office Movement that I previously hadn't understood. The best part of the story was a guy from MS talking about how they weren't taking part in the Open Office Standard because "we want to focus on innovation." This is the kind of lie that is so transparent that you not only know they're lying, you know they know you know they're lying, and a lie that transparent always has a sort of subtext of "SCREW YOU". Obviously, it would be easy for Microsoft to offer its users the option of saving their documents in a Open Standard format, along with whatever "innovative" manner of formatting text the want to offer (Hey it's text...writing, for christ's sake! How innovative does it need to be, anyway?) And, obviously, that would be good for their users, since it would allow them to share files from other systems. But this guy knows that we know that he can't say "We want you to translate all your documents into a language we own, cause that way we'll have you by the balls forever."
Translating your documents and storing them in a language that somebody else owns? The more you think about it, the more absurd it seems-- but many of us have been doing it for years, without really managing to figure out the implications. The question has a lot to do with why some governments in places where MS lobbyists cannot penetrate are making Open source documentation of government records required by law. Companies that want to have an overseas presence are going to need an open standard, and in the end, I think Microsoft will have to give it to them, if they want their customers to use Windows Office.
It's worth noting that Open Office for Windows is available free at openoffice.org, so Windows Users already have a choice. When I tried to run this early version of Open Office on my Linux Box-- which after all, has only 64 MB RAM-- it ran pretty slow-- but I'll gladly put up with that inconvenience now rather than the inconvenience of trying to haggle with Microsoft 20 years from now (if there IS a microsoft 20 years from now) over the cost of access to my own correspondence. Today I downloaded Open Office for Windows,-- and tomorrow I shall uninstall the copy of Microsoft Office 2000 that came with the second-hand computer that serves as my Windows box. One more brick in the wall comes down!
Here's a link to a great audio story about XML and Open Office that explains a lot of basic stuff about the Open Office Movement that I previously hadn't understood. The best part of the story was a guy from MS talking about how they weren't taking part in the Open Office Standard because "we want to focus on innovation." This is the kind of lie that is so transparent that you not only know they're lying, you know they know you know they're lying, and a lie that transparent always has a sort of subtext of "SCREW YOU". Obviously, it would be easy for Microsoft to offer its users the option of saving their documents in a Open Standard format, along with whatever "innovative" manner of formatting text the want to offer (Hey it's text...writing, for christ's sake! How innovative does it need to be, anyway?) And, obviously, that would be good for their users, since it would allow them to share files from other systems. But this guy knows that we know that he can't say "We want you to translate all your documents into a language we own, cause that way we'll have you by the balls forever."
Translating your documents and storing them in a language that somebody else owns? The more you think about it, the more absurd it seems-- but many of us have been doing it for years, without really managing to figure out the implications. The question has a lot to do with why some governments in places where MS lobbyists cannot penetrate are making Open source documentation of government records required by law. Companies that want to have an overseas presence are going to need an open standard, and in the end, I think Microsoft will have to give it to them, if they want their customers to use Windows Office.
It's worth noting that Open Office for Windows is available free at openoffice.org, so Windows Users already have a choice. When I tried to run this early version of Open Office on my Linux Box-- which after all, has only 64 MB RAM-- it ran pretty slow-- but I'll gladly put up with that inconvenience now rather than the inconvenience of trying to haggle with Microsoft 20 years from now (if there IS a microsoft 20 years from now) over the cost of access to my own correspondence. Today I downloaded Open Office for Windows,-- and tomorrow I shall uninstall the copy of Microsoft Office 2000 that came with the second-hand computer that serves as my Windows box. One more brick in the wall comes down!