I have a strong overall negative attitude about Jonathon's whole "fear
and threat" tone. But I can overcome it. The best course to achieve any
useful results is to confine ourselves to the facts.
Jonathon, can you provide a short explanation of "a11y" and "section
508"? What do these regulations govern, who do they govern, who do they
protect, to what extent? In other words, what's your point?
jonathon wrote:
Matt wrote:
Not true! As I said elsewhere, besides OOo, there are other major
apps that, when installed, allow the user to not install certain
features
Such programs can be described as "dysfunctional when installed" and
distributed by advocates of false and misleading advertising, who
sense of morality, and ethics, is completely, utterly, and absolutely
non-existent.
1. For the vast majority of users, OOo is perfectly functional without
JRE. I've used it for years, it's been a tremendously valuable tool for
me, I've never used or needed any of the features which require the JRE.
I personally appreciate the choice of whether to bundle JRE or not.
2. By no stretch of my imagination can I justify calling a program
"unethical" when the download site makes it very clear that the program
is available in different versions with different features and
capabilities. By no stretch of my imagination can I justify calling a
program "unethical" if it informs the user when a required component is
missing, informs the user of the remedy, and performs no action without
the user's express consent.
doing it this way is to keep the initial download size of our product
as small as possible.
Download size is irrelevant.
To who? Jonathon, please clarify: Are you saying that download size is
irrelevant to compliance with a11y and section 508, or are you claiming
that download size is truly irrelevant to the end user performing the
download?
If the latter, you are wrong.
As it is, an HR attorney can give corporate 100 000 reasons to not
use OOo.
???? What does all that have to do with making the installation of a
particular feature of an app optional?
Without the JRE installed, OOo is dysfunctional.
This is false. OOo has certain functionality with the JRE, and different
functionality without the JRE. So long as the potential user is informed
of the difference in functionality, it should be up to the user to
decide whether the program satisfies his requirements.
And, what is "section 508"? I had
That law defines the ally standards that federal, state, and local
government agencies and bodies have bide by. Without the JRE, OOo fails
that standard. With it, it is a toss up as to whether or not it
complies with that standard. I'd suggest that it fails that standard,
but other people claim otherwise. Both sides can point to a number of
things with OOo that support their conclusion.
This sounds like the regulations themselves are flawed if it cannot even
be determined whether a product is or is not in compliance.
you were talking about with "a11y", which seems to have nothing at all
to do with the topic at hand.
With the default distribution including the JRE, a non-winnable lawsuit
because a marginal lawsuit. It might seem like a little thing to you,
but when somebody is looking at the costs of adopting OOo, that
difference can be as much as $10^6 in legal fees.
And when it comes down to the bottom line, that $10^6 in legal fees
will mean that Microsoft is selected, because the potential cost of
OOo is significantly less than that of Microsoft Office.
First, the statement "the potential cost of OOo is significantly less
than that of Microsoft Office" appears to contradict Jonathon's other
previous statements. I suspect this is a typo, but I would appreciate
confirmation. It might seem like a little thing to you, Jonathon, but we
can't reach any useful conclusion if we misunderstand each other.
(As an aside, I think the statement is actually true as written,
nevertheless I think it is not what the author intended to say.)
Second, let's be clear about this "cost of adopting OOo": Jonathon is
not talking about purchase price, but rather about legal fees which a
potential adopter of OOo could face. But it's already been stated that
the alternative product, Microsoft Office, incorporates the same
"dysfunctional when installed" characteristic.
So Jonathon, can you explain how Microsoft's product satisfies or is
exempt from the same regulations?
Otherwise (that is, the competing product does not satisfy and is not
exempt from the same regulations), it would seem that the legal risk is
the same to adopt and use either product, and there could not be any
difference of *legal* financial burden. Then the only *difference* in
financial burden would be the purchase price. Am I missing something?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
