You people are wasting your time worrying or discussing about videos like this. There's not much debate whether or not the video is loaded with crap. Time discussing this video is better used developing some videos explaining usage of LibO, explaining whose fault is it that other office suites have trouble interoperating with closed-source document formats, or encouraging new users to give it a try.
Of these three topics I suggested, speaking about whose fault it is would be the one I'd least reccomend, by the way, as the common user does not care about these things enough yet. -Thiago On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:43 PM, AG <[email protected]>wrote: > On 16/10/10 20:41, M. Fioretti wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 17:26:10 PM +0100, Zaphod Feeblejocks ( >> [email protected]) wrote: >> >> >>> Greetings, friends. >>> >>> Have a look at: >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP0MM5sZbUc&feature=player_embedded >>> >>> Looks like Microsoft are getting scared - why else would they go to the >>> hassle of FUDding OOo? >>> >>> >> Zaphod, >> >> that one is not a meeting about MS Office or OOo. Is a video about >> drug addiction and should be considered as such. See how and why at >> >> >> http://stop.zona-m.net/digiworld/microsoft-video-proves-microsoft-office-cocaine-and-has-dealers-inside-schools >> >> Marco >> >> >> > > > Marco > > The inner addictive substance procurement and dissemination courtesy of M$ > is a matter of debate, but the essence of their video is that M$ sets the > stage and others are invited to come and play. Given that due to their > lucrative PC-retailer agreements, M$ might be forgiven for thinking that > their's is the only show in town. > > But this video attacks OSS as well as OOo specifically, and as such falls > under the general FUD tactic that M$ has been perpetrating for years against > GNU/Linux and, to a lesser degree, *BSD. Basically, goes the mythology, if > one doesn't use M$ one's computer using experience is compromised and > inferior. > > At no point will M$ ever spark up and admit that its code-base is not only > buggy but inherently insecure, that its products are astonishingly > over-priced and poorly supported, that it traps users into a lock-down > system of compulsory upgrades under the superficial guise of "improvements", > that it externalises all of its own failings onto third party developers who > have to find creative ways of working within the stranglehold of M$ API > policies. No wonder any M$installation neccessitates any number of > ancillary CDs of drivers, licensing for third party vendors and the like. > > Anytime I have ever had to install a M$ system, I am reminded of the bliss > and sense of liberation I experience when installing a GNU/Linux or a *BSD > system. How straight forward it all is, and how easy, relative to the > alleged M$ standard. > > I don't mean this to be a rant, and yet feel compelled to just pick up on > the idea of addiction - it is rather more like a hostage situation than an > addiction ... it is some Redmond prick with a gun at your head than a line > of white powder at the end of a rolled up dollar bill. > > AG > > > -- > E-mail to > [email protected]<discuss%[email protected]>for > instructions on how to unsubscribe > List archives are available at > http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ > All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > > -- E-mail to [email protected] for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
