This is interoperability? - Linux

This is a discussion on This is interoperability? - Linux ; > -- --Tim Smith...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: This is interoperability?

  1. This is interoperability?


    >




    --
    --Tim Smith

  2. Re: This is interoperability?

    On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:00:49 -0700, Tim Smith
    wrote:

    >
    >>

    >
    >


    No need for interop, nobody uses that crap Microsoft Office has 100%
    of the market.

  3. Re: This is interoperability?

    On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:25:04 +0200, OK wrote:

    > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:00:49 -0700, Tim Smith
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> <http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/For...DF-supporting-

    applications.aspx>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > No need for interop, nobody uses that crap Microsoft Office has 100% of
    > the market.


    That crap Microsoft Office does not have 100% of the "market".

    --
    Rick

  4. Re: This is interoperability?


    "Rick" wrote in message
    newstKdnS8uSI3S54nVnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@supernews.com...
    > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:25:04 +0200, OK wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:00:49 -0700, Tim Smith
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>> <http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/For...DF-supporting-

    > applications.aspx>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> No need for interop, nobody uses that crap Microsoft Office has 100% of
    >> the market.

    >
    > That crap Microsoft Office does not have 100% of the "market".


    You're right. MS Office only has 98% of the market.


    > --
    > Rick



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  5. Re: This is interoperability?

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >>

    >
    >


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument

    OpenDocument 1.2 is currently being written by the ODF TC. It will
    include additional accessibility features, metadata enhancements,
    spreadsheet formula specification based on the OpenFormula work (ODF
    1.0 did not specify spreadsheet formulae in detail, leaving
    many aspects implementation-defined) as well as any errata
    submitted by the public. Originally OpenDocument 1.2 was expected by
    October 2007 but now is expected to become an OASIS standard around
    September 2008 and a new ISO/SEC version by summer of 2009.

    Sounds like a better deal to me.

    That is, putting off something that could not be implemented
    satisfactorily while a decent solution is in progress and being
    systematically and thoughtfully readied for standardization. Something
    reminiscent of C++ standardization.

    A much better deal than ramming (through the Fast-Track) a specification
    that allows for multiple and overly-complex representations of the same
    formula with no chance for an reorganization of the formats, so that
    Microsoft would have plenty of time to put out a version of Office 2008
    that did conform to its own standard, A standard written with no though
    whatsoever to interoperability with the products of other vendors or
    compliance with established vendor-neutral standards.

    Microsoft -- We love interoperability, as long as it is within our own
    products.

    Microsoft -- We standardize Churn.

    --
    In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things
    happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I
    think religious principles are quite valid.
    -- Bill Gates, PBS interview with David Frost (November 1995)

  6. Re: This is interoperability?

    * Rick peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:25:04 +0200, OK wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:00:49 -0700, Tim Smith
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>> <http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/For...DF-supporting-

    > applications.aspx>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> No need for interop, nobody uses that crap Microsoft Office has 100% of
    >> the market.

    >
    > That crap Microsoft Office does not have 100% of the "market".


    You can't trust anything OK say, that is manifest.

    Funny story. I see a Microsoft 2007 Student/Home Office edition on
    sale. A price break on the normal $140 price. I ask my wife, who
    would buy this product when there a perfectly good alternative for it
    that you can get for free.

    She says she'd buy it. Why? She had /no/ answer. None at all.
    She's never even touched OpenOffice, so she wasn't making her decision
    by any rational process that I could determine.

    --
    If you think your teacher is tough, wait until you get a boss. He doesn't
    have tenure.
    -- Bill Gates

  7. Re: This is interoperability?


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:RZ%Qj.67503$Er2.50799@bignews6.bellsouth.net. ..
    >* Rick peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:25:04 +0200, OK wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:00:49 -0700, Tim Smith
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> <http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/For...DF-supporting-

    >> applications.aspx>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> No need for interop, nobody uses that crap Microsoft Office has 100% of
    >>> the market.

    >>
    >> That crap Microsoft Office does not have 100% of the "market".

    >
    > You can't trust anything OK say, that is manifest.
    >
    > Funny story. I see a Microsoft 2007 Student/Home Office edition on
    > sale. A price break on the normal $140 price. I ask my wife, who
    > would buy this product when there a perfectly good alternative for it
    > that you can get for free.
    >
    > She says she'd buy it. Why? She had /no/ answer. None at all.
    > She's never even touched OpenOffice, so she wasn't making her decision
    > by any rational process that I could determine.


    Probably just human instinct to avoid crap. It's the same thing as people
    avoiding viscious dogs because 'they just know' the dog is crazy or
    avoiding spoiled dairy products.


    > --
    > If you think your teacher is tough, wait until you get a boss. He doesn't
    > have tenure.
    > -- Bill Gates



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  8. Re: This is interoperability?

    Linonut writes:

    > * Rick peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:25:04 +0200, OK wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:00:49 -0700, Tim Smith
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> <http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/For...DF-supporting-

    >> applications.aspx>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> No need for interop, nobody uses that crap Microsoft Office has 100% of
    >>> the market.

    >>
    >> That crap Microsoft Office does not have 100% of the "market".

    >
    > You can't trust anything OK say, that is manifest.
    >
    > Funny story. I see a Microsoft 2007 Student/Home Office edition on
    > sale. A price break on the normal $140 price. I ask my wife, who
    > would buy this product when there a perfectly good alternative for it
    > that you can get for free.
    >
    > She says she'd buy it. Why? She had /no/ answer. None at all.
    > She's never even touched OpenOffice, so she wasn't making her decision
    > by any rational process that I could determine.


    Its a perfectly rational reasoning for a consumer : she doesn't know
    anyone who uses it and its free. There must be a catch. And there
    is. It's a buggy heap of junk for anything but the most minimal "needs".

  9. Re: This is interoperability?

    On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:20:32 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Linonut" wrote in message
    > news:RZ%Qj.67503$Er2.50799@bignews6.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>* Rick peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:25:04 +0200, OK wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:00:49 -0700, Tim Smith
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> <http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/For...DF-supporting-
    >>> applications.aspx>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> No need for interop, nobody uses that crap Microsoft Office has 100%
    >>>> of the market.
    >>>
    >>> That crap Microsoft Office does not have 100% of the "market".

    >>
    >> You can't trust anything OK say, that is manifest.
    >>
    >> Funny story. I see a Microsoft 2007 Student/Home Office edition on
    >> sale. A price break on the normal $140 price. I ask my wife, who
    >> would buy this product when there a perfectly good alternative for it
    >> that you can get for free.
    >>
    >> She says she'd buy it. Why? She had /no/ answer. None at all. She's
    >> never even touched OpenOffice, so she wasn't making her decision by any
    >> rational process that I could determine.

    >
    > Probably just human instinct to avoid crap.


    I guess that's why people avoid you.

    > It's the same thing as
    > people avoiding viscious dogs because 'they just know' the dog is crazy
    > or avoiding spoiled dairy products.
    >


    I guess you are an idiot.

    --
    Rick

  10. Re: This is interoperability?

    On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:30:06 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Linonut writes:
    >
    >> * Rick peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:25:04 +0200, OK wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:00:49 -0700, Tim Smith
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> <http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/For...DF-supporting-
    >>> applications.aspx>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> No need for interop, nobody uses that crap Microsoft Office has 100%
    >>>> of the market.
    >>>
    >>> That crap Microsoft Office does not have 100% of the "market".

    >>
    >> You can't trust anything OK say, that is manifest.
    >>
    >> Funny story. I see a Microsoft 2007 Student/Home Office edition on
    >> sale. A price break on the normal $140 price. I ask my wife, who
    >> would buy this product when there a perfectly good alternative for it
    >> that you can get for free.
    >>
    >> She says she'd buy it. Why? She had /no/ answer. None at all. She's
    >> never even touched OpenOffice, so she wasn't making her decision by any
    >> rational process that I could determine.

    >
    > Its a perfectly rational reasoning for a consumer : she doesn't know
    > anyone who uses it


    Herd mentality.

    > and its free. There must be a catch. And there is.
    > It's a buggy heap of junk for anything but the most minimal "needs".


    And you are a blatant liar.



    --
    Rick

  11. Re: This is interoperability?

    "Rick" stated in post
    ptKdnSUuSI2mPonVnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@supernews.com on 4/27/08 9:00 AM:

    > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:30:06 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Linonut writes:
    >>
    >>> * Rick peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:25:04 +0200, OK wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:00:49 -0700, Tim Smith
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> <http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/For...DF-supporting-
    >>>> applications.aspx>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No need for interop, nobody uses that crap Microsoft Office has 100%
    >>>>> of the market.
    >>>>
    >>>> That crap Microsoft Office does not have 100% of the "market".
    >>>
    >>> You can't trust anything OK say, that is manifest.
    >>>
    >>> Funny story. I see a Microsoft 2007 Student/Home Office edition on
    >>> sale. A price break on the normal $140 price. I ask my wife, who
    >>> would buy this product when there a perfectly good alternative for it
    >>> that you can get for free.
    >>>
    >>> She says she'd buy it. Why? She had /no/ answer. None at all. She's
    >>> never even touched OpenOffice, so she wasn't making her decision by any
    >>> rational process that I could determine.

    >>
    >> Its a perfectly rational reasoning for a consumer : she doesn't know
    >> anyone who uses it

    >
    > Herd mentality.


    Your mantra is funny... well, funny that you are so obsessed with it.

    >> and its free. There must be a catch. And there is.
    >> It's a buggy heap of junk for anything but the most minimal "needs".

    >
    > And you are a blatant liar.
    >
    >




    --
    Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
    conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.


  12. Re: This is interoperability?

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:
    > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    > >> <http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/For...applications.a
    > >> spx>

    > >
    > >

    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
    >
    > OpenDocument 1.2 is currently being written by the ODF TC. It will
    > include additional accessibility features, metadata enhancements,
    > spreadsheet formula specification based on the OpenFormula work (ODF
    > 1.0 did not specify spreadsheet formulae in detail, leaving
    > many aspects implementation-defined) as well as any errata
    > submitted by the public. Originally OpenDocument 1.2 was expected by
    > October 2007 but now is expected to become an OASIS standard around
    > September 2008 and a new ISO/SEC version by summer of 2009.
    >
    > Sounds like a better deal to me.
    >
    > That is, putting off something that could not be implemented
    > satisfactorily while a decent solution is in progress and being
    > systematically and thoughtfully readied for standardization. Something
    > reminiscent of C++ standardization.


    Spreadsheets could not be implemented satisfactorily in 2006!? Really?

    How come ODF was allowed to blow off spreadsheets (among many other
    things) for a later version, but that anti-OOXML crowd insisted that
    every possible detail be fully covered in the first version? Why the
    double standard (no pun intended)?

    > A much better deal than ramming (through the Fast-Track) a specification
    > that allows for multiple and overly-complex representations of the same
    > formula with no chance for an reorganization of the formats, so that
    > Microsoft would have plenty of time to put out a version of Office 2008
    > that did conform to its own standard, A standard written with no though
    > whatsoever to interoperability with the products of other vendors or
    > compliance with established vendor-neutral standards.


    Can you give a couple examples of multiple and overly-complex
    representations of the same formula in OOXML, and show how ODF 1.2
    handles them?

    --
    --Tim Smith

  13. Re: This is interoperability?

    On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:55:07 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html

    www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html

    It was my understanding that paid trolling was a violation of the
    supernews user agreement. Maybe something has changed. It was also
    my understanding that their interface didn't have a /dev/null filter.

    Maybe that has also changed.

    Ruben

    --
    http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
    http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software

    So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998

    http://fairuse.nylxs.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002

    "Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"

    "The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society."

    "> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
    You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt. I guess you missed that one."

    Copyright for the Digital Millennium


  14. Re: This is interoperability?

    On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:59:04 -0400, Ruben wrote:

    > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:55:07 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html

    > www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
    >
    > It was my understanding that paid trolling was a violation of the
    > supernews user agreement. Maybe something has changed. It was also
    > my understanding that their interface didn't have a /dev/null filter.
    >
    > Maybe that has also changed.


    It is my understanding that you're an idiot who thinks anyone you disagree
    with must be paid. I mean, come on, how could anyone disagree with YOU?
    They have to be paid, right?

  15. Re: This is interoperability?

    In article ,
    Ruben wrote:
    [idocy snipped]
    [signature that violates usenet standards snipped]

    It's always fun to watch newbies pretend to understand usenet.



    --
    --Tim Smith

  16. Re: This is interoperability?

    On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:50:54 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >
    > It is my understanding that you're an idiot who thinks anyone you disagree
    > with must be paid. I mean, come on, how could anyone disagree with YOU?
    > They have to be paid, right?


    Nah

    More people have disagreed with me on the net and in usenet then I can
    can't and for longer then your life span.

    It's the paid trolls on this group which is posing particular targets for
    embarseement and fun.

    Ruben

    --
    http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
    http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software

    So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998

    http://fairuse.nylxs.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002

    "Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"

    "The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society."

    "> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
    You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt. I guess you missed that one."

    Copyright for the Digital Millennium


  17. Re: This is interoperability?

    On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:10:32 -0400, Ruben wrote:

    > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:50:54 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> It is my understanding that you're an idiot who thinks anyone you disagree
    >> with must be paid. I mean, come on, how could anyone disagree with YOU?
    >> They have to be paid, right?

    >
    > Nah
    >
    > More people have disagreed with me on the net and in usenet then I can
    > can't and for longer then your life span.


    Wow, presumptive, aren't you? Considering i've been on usenet for more
    than 20 years myself, i find that hard to believe.

    > It's the paid trolls on this group which is posing particular targets for
    > embarseement and fun.


    *THERE ARE NO PAID TROLLS* in this newsgroup. It makes no sense. COLA is
    a cesspool where only closed minded people frequent, anyone paying someone
    would do far better to pay them to post to newsgroups were they might make
    some headway.

    Anyone that thinks COLA holds any kind of value, is pretty self-absorbed.

  18. Re: This is interoperability?

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > *THERE ARE NO PAID TROLLS* in this newsgroup. *It makes no sense. *COLA is
    > a cesspool where only closed minded people frequent, anyone paying someone
    > would do far better to pay them to post to newsgroups were they might make
    > some headway.
    >
    > Anyone that thinks COLA holds any kind of value, is pretty self-absorbed.


    So all the WinTrolls are just insane? I guess that's what using Vista ME can
    do to you.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  19. Re: This is interoperability?

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >> >> <http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/For...applications.a
    >> >> spx>
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
    >>
    >> OpenDocument 1.2 is currently being written by the ODF TC. It will
    >> include additional accessibility features, metadata enhancements,
    >> spreadsheet formula specification based on the OpenFormula work (ODF
    >> 1.0 did not specify spreadsheet formulae in detail, leaving
    >> many aspects implementation-defined) as well as any errata
    >> submitted by the public. Originally OpenDocument 1.2 was expected by
    >> October 2007 but now is expected to become an OASIS standard around
    >> September 2008 and a new ISO/SEC version by summer of 2009.
    >>
    >> Sounds like a better deal to me.
    >>
    >> That is, putting off something that could not be implemented
    >> satisfactorily while a decent solution is in progress and being
    >> systematically and thoughtfully readied for standardization. Something
    >> reminiscent of C++ standardization.

    >
    > Spreadsheets could not be implemented satisfactorily in 2006!? Really?


    Why Tim, I'm /surprised/ at you! Making so obvious a misquote.

    > Spreadsheets could not be implemented satisfactorily ...


    We're talking about formula interoperability, son. Not spreadsheets.

    You need to tighten up your thought processes a bit.

    > Can you give a couple examples of multiple and overly-complex
    > representations of the same formula in OOXML, and show how ODF 1.2
    > handles them?


    Start here:

    http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/...al_white_paper

    --
    The best way to prepare [to be a programmer] is to write programs, and to
    study great programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to
    the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and fished out listings of
    their operating system.
    -- Bill Gates

  20. Re: This is interoperability?

    * Rick peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:20:32 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>
    >>> She says she'd buy it. Why? She had /no/ answer. None at all. She's
    >>> never even touched OpenOffice, so she wasn't making her decision by any
    >>> rational process that I could determine.

    >>
    >> Probably just human instinct to avoid crap.


    Funny. I just told you that she hadn't tried (or even seen) OpenOffice.

    > I guess that's why people avoid you.
    >
    >> It's the same thing as
    >> people avoiding viscious dogs because 'they just know' the dog is crazy
    >> or avoiding spoiled dairy products.

    >
    > I guess you are an idiot.


    Indeed. A real waste of bandwidth.

    --
    Television is not real life. In real life people actually have to leave the
    coffee shop and go to jobs.
    -- Bill Gates

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast