First off, like many of the commentors said, show me the files that they actually used to do this little test.
James wrote: > Charlie Seaman wrote: >> Harold Fuchs wrote: >>> A little off topic .... >>> >>> I unfortunately found this: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=480 >>> >>> Be interested in your thoughts. >>> >> Are the negatives pointed out in the article worth the difference in >> cost and the long term disadvantages to society as a whole of using >> Microsoft products? I don't think so. >> > Having been an open sourde user since Star Office 5.1 emerged, long > before OO1.0, I have to say the advantages of not being locked into the > upgrade merry-go-round of M$ has been such an enabling experience. I > still have an older version of M$ but it is rarely used and with the > emergence of yet another M$ will likely go the way of my old, and dear > friend, Tandy Scripsit cira 1980. I actually wrote a 250 page user > manual using that 7 page in memory word processor and using features of > the then screaming OS known as LDOS, screaming on a 48k 1.2mhz machine. > I printed the entire manual in one print cycle with many calls. I will > always be thankful that there are so many dedicated developers putting > forth, on their own time, the effort it takes to create the open source > software packages we have been able to enjoy. To compare a free package > to a pay & pay & pay one is about as unfair a comparison as one can > find. For me open source will win every time. Thanks guys for all your > help to everyone & even on behalf of those who need the open source > world just to have something to complain about. IE remained unchanged > for years until Firefox began nipping at its heals. Nothing spurs > development like M$ seeing competition emerging from the forest. > > James --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
