Chuck wrote:
Ross Johnson wrote:
The article is also further evidence of the market effect that this must
ultimately have as more companies make the switch. If
OpenOffice/Linux/FOSS really does improve the bottom line, then the
market will ultimately force competitors to switch as well.
Ross
Hogwash. When you start a job you are told what software the company
uses and there is no option to use another alternative because you like
it better. This is standard practice. Why should that change just
because it's MS Office? What do you think would happen if an employee
starts a job where the corporate standard is MSO but they decide they
want to install and use OOo instead? I'll tell you. First time around it
would be a warning and the software would be removed. Second time they'd
be in the unemployment line.
Even allowing the option to install MSO in the case cited is bending
over backwards to accomodate the employee and it should be made clear
that it is not supported.
I have worked in a few places, where I was free to install my own
software and have never worked in any place where I couldn't. In fact,
while at IBM Canada a few years ago, while I was part of the team that
built the standard desktops (OS/2 and Windows) for use within IBM
Canada, I didn't use it. I simply built my own OS/2 system, the way I
saw fit (at that time, I was the top OS/2 support person for IBM Canada
employees). In a later position with IBM, while our computers came with
Lotus Smart Suite and MS Office installed, I was allowed to install OO.
At another employer I worked for, OO was standard. Where I am now,
while MS Office is supplied, I run OO, convinced a co-worker to run it
and have got a manager considering it for company wide use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
