Haven't been following the thread completely, just read this mail and I thought RGs position has merit.
ppt for instance is no longer a MS only format since OO can read it (Oh joy to be able to make a poster at univ on the lab machine, using the labs MS office s/w and then edit it at home on linux, using OO) I think linux and the OSS culture of inclusion and "we support all formats" is very, very smart. Can win read ext2 or ext3 - with great difficulty (NT I think can, but not the rest), can linux read fat, yes. Can OO read ms excel files, powerpoint and word documents - yes ! Can win run native linux apps - ... not really... can linux run native windows apps - pretty much ! Now that is a smart move. It may be driven by pragmatism, but morally I find nothing wrong with that, it follows the freedom of choice - you can choose not to use linux or OO, but you can still share ! -kg On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Rajarshi Guha wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wednesday 19 March 2003 13:41, Tathagata Banerjee wrote: > > > no, because OOo uses open, free, xml-based formats that can be decoded > > by any other software equipped to do so. none do so at present, but > > hopefully that will change, and i'm talking about the principle of the > > thing. > > Talking about principles is nice, and but when it comes down to action, > principles can get compromised a little. At this point the linux zealots will > jump up and scream that they would die rather than compromise :) > > But we have to face the fact that there are lots of people using non free s/w. > Does that mean we refuse to allow people who use non free software to view > information content produced by the LUG? This seems to me to be sort of a > viscious cycle: unless you're using OSS s/w you cant view OSS info (ie info > produced by a LUG) and unless you're able to view such info, how do you get > to know about OSS s/w? > > Granted the above argument is a little stretched, but I think this would apply > to a person in Calcutta (on dialup) who has read of OSS somewhere, wants to > know a little more, comes to the Cal LUG site and finds out that he cant view > any of the slides. You could say somewhere on the page that he needs to > download OO - but if I were in his position I would go to another site which > allowed me easier access to information rather than going through the hoops > of getting OO > > > to accept only > > open-format files is not the same as to accept only closed-format files. > > the latter erects a barrier of exclusivity; the former invites adoption > > and inclusion. > > It still seems that by only allowing OO slides instead of anything else > excludes people who are using other programs - so in effect you're erecting a > barrier of exclusivity - in terms of program use. You say that it invites > adoption and inclusion but what if a person is not willing to jump on to OSS > s/w? What if a person has paid money for his copy of Powerpoint? Powerpoint > is a very nice peice of software and if I had paid money for it I would use > it rather than throw out my investment and switch to an equivilant OSS s/w > (but thats just me) > > The immediate reply is > > too bad for them. people with such inflexible attitudes will have little > use for our slides. > > But this comment stinks of zealotry! It sounds arrogant and I'm pretty sure > that a OSS newbie when faced with such a comment would feel a little put off. > Of course, its too bad that they use Powerpoint when we have decent open > source stuff available. But the fact is people will still use Powerpoint for > various reasons ranging from laziness to the need for some specific > Powerpoint feature. > > Thus, going by your statement, a user who has always used Windows, but does'nt > know too much about OSS, Linux et al wuld not be given the opportunity to > read material published by a LUG (at least slide presentations). > > > look at what the GPL does. it decreases a user's options by disallowing > > him to make non-free changes to the source-code. IMHO, this is a Good > > Thing. to protect certain essential rights, you need to restrict some > > others. > > True. But then again, the GPL does'nt say that you *have* to use the GPL. If > you choose to use the GPL then you have to follow certain rules. And if I > dont like those rules I dont use the GPL. > > But the PPT vs OO slides issue seems to be different from the GPL example you > have used, in that if you dont use OO you cant use these slides, bad luck - > you have no other choice. Publishing OO slides is thus a Good Thing; > restricting slides to OO is not. > > > compatibility with non-free software is a contingent measure, a > > strategic truce till that form of software becomes obsolete. > > it is merely a working arrangement, not something to be advertised. > > So you assume that non free software will become obsolete. That seems to be > stretching it a little bit and it would be nice to see what opinions people > have, but I digress. > > I dont regard pubishing PPT slides as a form of advertising - its just saying > that 'we handle everything'. Maybe to make things clearer you could say 'we > handle everything, but prefer OSS solutions' > > Actually I think that things would be simplified by placing HTML versions of > the slides on the LUG website - thus avoiding the 'advertising' that you > mention. Then all the 'dirty' work of converting PPT to HTML can be done by > the webmaster in the background, though in my opinion the fact that OSS s/w > is capable of handling the evil formats out there is something to be proud > of! > > - -- > - ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Rajarshi Guha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://jijo.cjb.net> > GPG Fingerprint: 0CCA 8EE2 2EEB 25E2 AB04 06F7 1BB9 E634 9B87 56EE > - ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Entropy requires no maintenance. > -- Markoff Chaney > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQE+ePCVG7nmNJuHVu4RAqjZAKDPmJfLhJY5gBgNHWwU160yXBbTwQCaA0Gf > 2mQjC3Ajm8M8kIy817Wf2lM= > =w5HO > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body > "unsubscribe ilug-cal" and an empty subject line. > FAQ: http://www.ilug-cal.org/node.php?id=3 > -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body "unsubscribe ilug-cal" and an empty subject line. FAQ: http://www.ilug-cal.org/node.php?id=3
