Peter Köhlmann espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Jim Richardson espoused:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:40:22 +0100,
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> ____/ chrisv on Friday 28 September 2007 14:54 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>But if it's not exactly like Windows, then it's behind right? Some
>>>>>>reviewers will give high score to those who mimic mistakes, e.g.
>>>>>>Xandros, Linspire...
>>>>>
>>>>> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now. Works
>>>>> for him...
>>>>
>>>> It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open source.
>>>> It's aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're back were we
>>>> started -- another Windows.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How is someone using Linspire "locked in"?
>>>
>>
>> Didn't they sign some kind of limited cross-licensing deal with
>> Microsoft,
>
> So what? This amounts to "lock in" exactly how?

I don't know exactly, which is why I was asking the question. If you
don't know the answer, why did you respond?

>
>> whilst not quite admitting what it was the customer was
>> really getting?
>>
>
> Might it be a linux distro? With source code?

Roy was just saying that they try to impose some restrictions on usage
which they should not be doing.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

Roy Schestowitz espoused:
> ____/ chrisv on Friday 28 September 2007 18:40 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>>____/ chrisv on Friday 28 September 2007 14:54 : \____
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>But if it's not exactly like Windows, then it's behind right? Some
>>>>>reviewers will give high score to those who mimic mistakes, e.g. Xandros,
>>>>>Linspire...
>>>>
>>>> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now. Works
>>>> for him...
>>>
>>>It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open source. It's
>>>aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're back were we started --
>>>another Windows.
>>
>> He's not locked in. He could switch tomorrow to another distro, if he
>> wanted to.
>
> Okay, you do have a point here, so while my comparison to OS X stands,
> the "lock-in" part of an analogy does not translate well. However, do bear in
> mind that Linspire put shackles on Linux _as a whole_, so in that sense, it
> punishes the (Linspire) Linux user no matter where s/he goes.
>

Ah, so few people really understand how lock-in works. Let's try again:

Lock-in is an economic exit barrier. If you've paid several £1000s for
software on Microsoft and want to move to OSX, then there's a very good
chance you'll have to spend the same money again. Thus you have an exit
barrier of several thousands.

Sometimes, the exit-barrier can be through secret formats and protocols,
though. If all you data is saved in an Apple secret format, then the
exit barrier is equivalent to doing all your work again, or paying in
some way for a tool to try to unpick the problem.

In both cases, you are *locked-in*.

Moreover, this is the point which nobody seems to grasp, which is that
*everything* has a degree of lock-in; the reason to use open-source is
to minimise the exit barrier, it can never be zero. Economists know the
"opportunity cost" argument all too well.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

"Non scrivetemi" espoused:
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> >> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now. Works
>> >> for him...
>> >
>> >It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open source. It's
>> >aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're back were we started --
>> >another Windows.
>>
>> He's not locked in. He could switch tomorrow to another distro, if he
>> wanted to.
>
> That's sorta like saying you're not locked into Windows because you can
> switch to OSX/Linux/BSD.
>
> Bad driving is bad driving even if it's not Micro$oft at the wheel.
>

I quite agree. I don't know if you saw my other posting, but I was
highlighting that lock-in is about an exit barrier. That might be the
cost of replacing packages you've already bought, or the cost of
replacing hardware, or the cost of redoing work which is stuck in
proprietary formats, or the cost of paying for tools to unpick those
proprietary formats, and so on.

The point being that there is always lock-in, it's a question of how
large the exit barrier is.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:20:25 +0100,
Mark Kent wrote:
> Jim Richardson espoused:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:40:22 +0100,
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> ____/ chrisv on Friday 28 September 2007 14:54 : \____
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>But if it's not exactly like Windows, then it's behind right? Some reviewers
>>>>>will give high score to those who mimic mistakes, e.g. Xandros, Linspire...
>>>>
>>>> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now. Works
>>>> for him...
>>>
>>> It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open source. It's
>>> aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're back were we started --
>>> another Windows.
>>>
>>
>>
>> How is someone using Linspire "locked in"?
>>
>
> Didn't they sign some kind of limited cross-licensing deal with
> Microsoft, whilst not quite admitting what it was the customer was
> really getting?
>

Doesn't answer the question of how someone using Linspire is somehow
"locked in".

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG/hDrd90bcYOAWPYRAgnfAKCbWUzSIhWM0+NMOUTf8PmPdWNpWwC g62Jq
/2snukGn7bQ7KBcpx6oBY78=
=2tO8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
As practiced by computer science, the study of programming is an unholy
mixture of mathematics, literary criticism, and folklore.
-- B. A. Sheil, 1981

Jim Richardson espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:20:25 +0100,
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> Jim Richardson espoused:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:40:22 +0100,
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> ____/ chrisv on Friday 28 September 2007 14:54 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>But if it's not exactly like Windows, then it's behind right? Some reviewers
>>>>>>will give high score to those who mimic mistakes, e.g. Xandros, Linspire...
>>>>>
>>>>> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now. Works
>>>>> for him...
>>>>
>>>> It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open source. It's
>>>> aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're back were we started --
>>>> another Windows.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How is someone using Linspire "locked in"?
>>>
>>
>> Didn't they sign some kind of limited cross-licensing deal with
>> Microsoft, whilst not quite admitting what it was the customer was
>> really getting?
>>
>
> Doesn't answer the question of how someone using Linspire is somehow
> "locked in".
>

I agree, but I thought it could be related.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 29 September 2007 09:31 : \____

> "Non scrivetemi" espoused:
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> >> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now. Works
>>> >> for him...
>>> >
>>> >It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open source.
>>> >It's aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're back were we
>>> >started -- another Windows.
>>>
>>> He's not locked in. He could switch tomorrow to another distro, if he
>>> wanted to.
>>
>> That's sorta like saying you're not locked into Windows because you can
>> switch to OSX/Linux/BSD.
>>
>> Bad driving is bad driving even if it's not Micro$oft at the wheel.
>>
>
> I quite agree. I don't know if you saw my other posting, but I was
> highlighting that lock-in is about an exit barrier. That might be the
> cost of replacing packages you've already bought, or the cost of
> replacing hardware, or the cost of redoing work which is stuck in
> proprietary formats, or the cost of paying for tools to unpick those
> proprietary formats, and so on.
>
> The point being that there is always lock-in, it's a question of how
> large the exit barrier is.

Linspire supports OOXML (translators). If that's not a lockin, I don't know
what is. It also enabled Microsoft to pretend that OOXML is supported by other
companies, which fills our world with even /more/ vendor lockin. Let's not
even go into Linspire's proprietary codecs...

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | Holey (sic) Cow! Longhorn is full of holes...
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 27.0%us, 4.9%sy, 1.0%ni, 61.9%id, 4.7%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:21:01 +0100,
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 29 September 2007 09:31 : \____
>
>> "Non scrivetemi" espoused:
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now. Works
>>>> >> for him...
>>>> >
>>>> >It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open source.
>>>> >It's aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're back were we
>>>> >started -- another Windows.
>>>>
>>>> He's not locked in. He could switch tomorrow to another distro, if he
>>>> wanted to.
>>>
>>> That's sorta like saying you're not locked into Windows because you can
>>> switch to OSX/Linux/BSD.
>>>
>>> Bad driving is bad driving even if it's not Micro$oft at the wheel.
>>>
>>
>> I quite agree. I don't know if you saw my other posting, but I was
>> highlighting that lock-in is about an exit barrier. That might be the
>> cost of replacing packages you've already bought, or the cost of
>> replacing hardware, or the cost of redoing work which is stuck in
>> proprietary formats, or the cost of paying for tools to unpick those
>> proprietary formats, and so on.
>>
>> The point being that there is always lock-in, it's a question of how
>> large the exit barrier is.
>
> Linspire supports OOXML (translators). If that's not a lockin, I don't know
> what is. It also enabled Microsoft to pretend that OOXML is supported by other
> companies, which fills our world with even /more/ vendor lockin. Let's not
> even go into Linspire's proprietary codecs...
>

So when there's an ooxml translator for OOorg, that means any Linux
distro with OOorg is "locking in" their users?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQFG/qvcd90bcYOAWPYRAprTAJ9yRRKn219XImitZnofy4a6LIXOsAC YgR4v
F0Scgv6BKk8Y+ooDIG7bNw==
=28I9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.)

____/ Jim Richardson on Saturday 29 September 2007 20:47 : \____

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:21:01 +0100,
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 29 September 2007 09:31 : \____
>>
>>> "Non scrivetemi" espoused:
>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now. Works
>>>>> >> for him...
>>>>> >
>>>>> >It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open source.
>>>>> >It's aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're back were we
>>>>> >started -- another Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's not locked in. He could switch tomorrow to another distro, if he
>>>>> wanted to.
>>>>
>>>> That's sorta like saying you're not locked into Windows because you can
>>>> switch to OSX/Linux/BSD.
>>>>
>>>> Bad driving is bad driving even if it's not Micro$oft at the wheel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I quite agree. I don't know if you saw my other posting, but I was
>>> highlighting that lock-in is about an exit barrier. That might be the
>>> cost of replacing packages you've already bought, or the cost of
>>> replacing hardware, or the cost of redoing work which is stuck in
>>> proprietary formats, or the cost of paying for tools to unpick those
>>> proprietary formats, and so on.
>>>
>>> The point being that there is always lock-in, it's a question of how
>>> large the exit barrier is.
>>
>> Linspire supports OOXML (translators). If that's not a lockin, I don't know
>> what is. It also enabled Microsoft to pretend that OOXML is supported by
>> other companies, which fills our world with even /more/ vendor lockin. Let's
>> not even go into Linspire's proprietary codecs...
>>
>
> So when there's an ooxml translator for OOorg, that means any Linux
> distro with OOorg is "locking in" their users?

ODF is an international standard supported by a large variety of office suites.

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | GPL - Global Programmer's Law
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
run-level 2 2007-09-10 01:53 last=
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:48:21 +0100,
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ Jim Richardson on Saturday 29 September 2007 20:47 : \____
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:21:01 +0100,
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 29 September 2007 09:31 : \____
>>>
>>>> "Non scrivetemi" espoused:
>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> >> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now. Works
>>>>>> >> for him...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open source.
>>>>>> >It's aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're back were we
>>>>>> >started -- another Windows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's not locked in. He could switch tomorrow to another distro, if he
>>>>>> wanted to.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's sorta like saying you're not locked into Windows because you can
>>>>> switch to OSX/Linux/BSD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bad driving is bad driving even if it's not Micro$oft at the wheel.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I quite agree. I don't know if you saw my other posting, but I was
>>>> highlighting that lock-in is about an exit barrier. That might be the
>>>> cost of replacing packages you've already bought, or the cost of
>>>> replacing hardware, or the cost of redoing work which is stuck in
>>>> proprietary formats, or the cost of paying for tools to unpick those
>>>> proprietary formats, and so on.
>>>>
>>>> The point being that there is always lock-in, it's a question of how
>>>> large the exit barrier is.
>>>
>>> Linspire supports OOXML (translators). If that's not a lockin, I don't know
>>> what is. It also enabled Microsoft to pretend that OOXML is supported by
>>> other companies, which fills our world with even /more/ vendor lockin. Let's
>>> not even go into Linspire's proprietary codecs...
>>>
>>
>> So when there's an ooxml translator for OOorg, that means any Linux
>> distro with OOorg is "locking in" their users?
>
> ODF is an international standard supported by a large variety of
> office suites.
>

Total non-sequitur. How does supporting ooxml mean a distro is "locking
in their users" When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does
that mean you are locked it?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG/wtRd90bcYOAWPYRAorkAJ98ltnmEdr7+URJlHQ3LNmZAs7YWgC fSexN
fcJCwnehcC45T9TGvwKDo6w=
=dcvE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done

____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 03:34 : \____

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:48:21 +0100,
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Saturday 29 September 2007 20:47 : \____
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:21:01 +0100,
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 29 September 2007 09:31 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> "Non scrivetemi" espoused:
>>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now.
>>>>>>> >> Works for him...
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open source.
>>>>>>> >It's aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're back were we
>>>>>>> >started -- another Windows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He's not locked in. He could switch tomorrow to another distro, if he
>>>>>>> wanted to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's sorta like saying you're not locked into Windows because you can
>>>>>> switch to OSX/Linux/BSD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bad driving is bad driving even if it's not Micro$oft at the wheel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I quite agree. I don't know if you saw my other posting, but I was
>>>>> highlighting that lock-in is about an exit barrier. That might be the
>>>>> cost of replacing packages you've already bought, or the cost of
>>>>> replacing hardware, or the cost of redoing work which is stuck in
>>>>> proprietary formats, or the cost of paying for tools to unpick those
>>>>> proprietary formats, and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point being that there is always lock-in, it's a question of how
>>>>> large the exit barrier is.
>>>>
>>>> Linspire supports OOXML (translators). If that's not a lockin, I don't
>>>> know what is. It also enabled Microsoft to pretend that OOXML is supported
>>>> by other companies, which fills our world with even /more/ vendor lockin.
>>>> Let's not even go into Linspire's proprietary codecs...
>>>>
>>>
>>> So when there's an ooxml translator for OOorg, that means any Linux
>>> distro with OOorg is "locking in" their users?
>>
>> ODF is an international standard supported by a large variety of
>> office suites.
>>
>
> Total non-sequitur. How does supporting ooxml mean a distro is "locking
> in their users" When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does
> that mean you are locked it?

There are two ways to look at this:

1. A distro that supports OOXML (or proprietary codecs for that matter
inhibits it.

2. Support for OOXML has assisted attempts to make OOXML, which is
vendor dependent and patent-encumbered, more widespread.

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | INQredible Hacktivism
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 141 total, 2 running, 138 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 04:57:48 +0100,
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 03:34 : \____
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:48:21 +0100,
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Saturday 29 September 2007 20:47 : \____
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:21:01 +0100,
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 29 September 2007 09:31 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Non scrivetemi" espoused:
>>>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now.
>>>>>>>> >> Works for him...
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open source.
>>>>>>>> >It's aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're back were we
>>>>>>>> >started -- another Windows.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He's not locked in. He could switch tomorrow to another distro, if he
>>>>>>>> wanted to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's sorta like saying you're not locked into Windows because you can
>>>>>>> switch to OSX/Linux/BSD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bad driving is bad driving even if it's not Micro$oft at the wheel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I quite agree. I don't know if you saw my other posting, but I was
>>>>>> highlighting that lock-in is about an exit barrier. That might be the
>>>>>> cost of replacing packages you've already bought, or the cost of
>>>>>> replacing hardware, or the cost of redoing work which is stuck in
>>>>>> proprietary formats, or the cost of paying for tools to unpick those
>>>>>> proprietary formats, and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point being that there is always lock-in, it's a question of how
>>>>>> large the exit barrier is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Linspire supports OOXML (translators). If that's not a lockin, I don't
>>>>> know what is. It also enabled Microsoft to pretend that OOXML is supported
>>>>> by other companies, which fills our world with even /more/ vendor lockin.
>>>>> Let's not even go into Linspire's proprietary codecs...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So when there's an ooxml translator for OOorg, that means any Linux
>>>> distro with OOorg is "locking in" their users?
>>>
>>> ODF is an international standard supported by a large variety of
>>> office suites.
>>>
>>
>> Total non-sequitur. How does supporting ooxml mean a distro is "locking
>> in their users" When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does
>> that mean you are locked it?
>
> There are two ways to look at this:
>
> 1. A distro that supports OOXML (or proprietary codecs for that matter
> inhibits it.
>
> 2. Support for OOXML has assisted attempts to make OOXML, which is
> vendor dependent and patent-encumbered, more widespread.
>

I'd prefer you simply answer the question,

When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean you
are locked it?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG/ypad90bcYOAWPYRAkYmAKC728GONSJD3SOnZdO0TAdzzPIjTQC eOf1C
fXlaxIUiOZcWckQwfgTu9Lg=
=401e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"A language, is a dialect, with an army, and a navy"

____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 04:57:48 +0100,
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 03:34 : \____
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:48:21 +0100,
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Saturday 29 September 2007 20:47 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:21:01 +0100,
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 29 September 2007 09:31 : \____
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Non scrivetemi" espoused:
>>>>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now.
>>>>>>>>> >> Works for him...
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open
>>>>>>>>> >source. It's aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're
>>>>>>>>> >back were we started -- another Windows.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He's not locked in. He could switch tomorrow to another distro, if
>>>>>>>>> he wanted to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's sorta like saying you're not locked into Windows because you
>>>>>>>> can switch to OSX/Linux/BSD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bad driving is bad driving even if it's not Micro$oft at the wheel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I quite agree. I don't know if you saw my other posting, but I was
>>>>>>> highlighting that lock-in is about an exit barrier. That might be the
>>>>>>> cost of replacing packages you've already bought, or the cost of
>>>>>>> replacing hardware, or the cost of redoing work which is stuck in
>>>>>>> proprietary formats, or the cost of paying for tools to unpick those
>>>>>>> proprietary formats, and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The point being that there is always lock-in, it's a question of how
>>>>>>> large the exit barrier is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linspire supports OOXML (translators). If that's not a lockin, I don't
>>>>>> know what is. It also enabled Microsoft to pretend that OOXML is
>>>>>> supported by other companies, which fills our world with even /more/
>>>>>> vendor lockin. Let's not even go into Linspire's proprietary codecs...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So when there's an ooxml translator for OOorg, that means any Linux
>>>>> distro with OOorg is "locking in" their users?
>>>>
>>>> ODF is an international standard supported by a large variety of
>>>> office suites.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Total non-sequitur. How does supporting ooxml mean a distro is "locking
>>> in their users" When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does
>>> that mean you are locked it?
>>
>> There are two ways to look at this:
>>
>> 1. A distro that supports OOXML (or proprietary codecs for that
>> matter
>> inhibits it.
>>
>> 2. Support for OOXML has assisted attempts to make OOXML, which is
>> vendor dependent and patent-encumbered, more widespread.
>>
>
> I'd prefer you simply answer the question,
>
> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean you
> are locked it?

No.

This question is rhetorical and you are not asking the right one. I believe I
never suggested this and I don't know how it came to you cornering me with an
implicit accusation that I consider OOo a lock-in.

--
~~ Best of wishes

http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 04:57:48 +0100,
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 03:34 : \____
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:48:21 +0100,
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Saturday 29 September 2007 20:47 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:21:01 +0100,
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 29 September 2007 09:31 : \____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Non scrivetemi"
>>>>>>>> espoused:
>>>>>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now.
>>>>>>>>>> >> Works for him...
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open
>>>>>>>>>> >source. It's aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're
>>>>>>>>>> >back were we started -- another Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He's not locked in. He could switch tomorrow to another distro,
>>>>>>>>>> if he wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's sorta like saying you're not locked into Windows because
>>>>>>>>> you can switch to OSX/Linux/BSD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bad driving is bad driving even if it's not Micro$oft at the
>>>>>>>>> wheel.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I quite agree. I don't know if you saw my other posting, but I was
>>>>>>>> highlighting that lock-in is about an exit barrier. That might be
>>>>>>>> the cost of replacing packages you've already bought, or the cost
>>>>>>>> of replacing hardware, or the cost of redoing work which is stuck
>>>>>>>> in proprietary formats, or the cost of paying for tools to unpick
>>>>>>>> those proprietary formats, and so on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point being that there is always lock-in, it's a question of
>>>>>>>> how large the exit barrier is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linspire supports OOXML (translators). If that's not a lockin, I
>>>>>>> don't know what is. It also enabled Microsoft to pretend that OOXML
>>>>>>> is supported by other companies, which fills our world with even
>>>>>>> /more/ vendor lockin. Let's not even go into Linspire's proprietary
>>>>>>> codecs...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So when there's an ooxml translator for OOorg, that means any Linux
>>>>>> distro with OOorg is "locking in" their users?
>>>>>
>>>>> ODF is an international standard supported by a large variety of
>>>>> office suites.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Total non-sequitur. How does supporting ooxml mean a distro is "locking
>>>> in their users" When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does
>>>> that mean you are locked it?
>>>
>>> There are two ways to look at this:
>>>
>>> 1. A distro that supports OOXML (or proprietary codecs for that
>>> matter
>>> inhibits it.
>>>
>>> 2. Support for OOXML has assisted attempts to make OOXML, which
>>> is
>>> vendor dependent and patent-encumbered, more widespread.
>>>
>>
>> I'd prefer you simply answer the question,
>>
>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean you
>> are locked it?
>
> No.
>
> This question is rhetorical

No, it is extremely simple.
Does OO with OOXML "lock-in" the users?

> and you are not asking the right one.

Ah yes. So you are defining now which questions are "right" and "valid" and
can be asked. Naturally you will step down from the lofty heights you are
in only to answer "right" and "valid" questions beforehand deemed "worthy"

> I believe I never suggested this and I don't know how it came to you
> cornering me with an implicit accusation that I consider OOo a lock-in.
>

It is very simple: You did, and now you refuse an answer

You dance around an answer exactly like Snot when cornered and can't even
post a simple "yes" or "no"
--
If you're right 90% of the time, why quibble about the remaining 3%?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:56:10 +0100,
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 04:57:48 +0100,
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 03:34 : \____
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:48:21 +0100,
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Saturday 29 September 2007 20:47 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:21:01 +0100,
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 29 September 2007 09:31 : \____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Non scrivetemi" espoused:
>>>>>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now.
>>>>>>>>>> >> Works for him...
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open
>>>>>>>>>> >source. It's aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're
>>>>>>>>>> >back were we started -- another Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He's not locked in. He could switch tomorrow to another distro, if
>>>>>>>>>> he wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's sorta like saying you're not locked into Windows because you
>>>>>>>>> can switch to OSX/Linux/BSD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bad driving is bad driving even if it's not Micro$oft at the wheel.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I quite agree. I don't know if you saw my other posting, but I was
>>>>>>>> highlighting that lock-in is about an exit barrier. That might be the
>>>>>>>> cost of replacing packages you've already bought, or the cost of
>>>>>>>> replacing hardware, or the cost of redoing work which is stuck in
>>>>>>>> proprietary formats, or the cost of paying for tools to unpick those
>>>>>>>> proprietary formats, and so on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point being that there is always lock-in, it's a question of how
>>>>>>>> large the exit barrier is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linspire supports OOXML (translators). If that's not a lockin, I don't
>>>>>>> know what is. It also enabled Microsoft to pretend that OOXML is
>>>>>>> supported by other companies, which fills our world with even /more/
>>>>>>> vendor lockin. Let's not even go into Linspire's proprietary codecs...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So when there's an ooxml translator for OOorg, that means any Linux
>>>>>> distro with OOorg is "locking in" their users?
>>>>>
>>>>> ODF is an international standard supported by a large variety of
>>>>> office suites.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Total non-sequitur. How does supporting ooxml mean a distro is "locking
>>>> in their users" When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does
>>>> that mean you are locked it?
>>>
>>> There are two ways to look at this:
>>>
>>> 1. A distro that supports OOXML (or proprietary codecs for that
>>> matter
>>> inhibits it.
>>>
>>> 2. Support for OOXML has assisted attempts to make OOXML, which is
>>> vendor dependent and patent-encumbered, more widespread.
>>>
>>
>> I'd prefer you simply answer the question,
>>
>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean you
>> are locked it?
>
> No.
>
> This question is rhetorical and you are not asking the right one. I believe I
> never suggested this and I don't know how it came to you cornering me with an
> implicit accusation that I consider OOo a lock-in.
>


I was asking you to explain your claim that Linspire was locking it's
users in, in responce, you stated that Linspire supported an OOXML
translator for OOorg, I then asked if you considered any distro that
supported an OOXML translator for OOorg to be "locking in" it's users?


If you *don't* consider an OOXML translator for OOorg a lock in, why did
you mention it in responce to a question about why you thought Linspire
was locking it's users in?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG/2C9d90bcYOAWPYRAuQCAKCm6XTbTLcDn+w+da2U9k+RlmTAbAC fQaOj
bonxrEg53CF6qaNxAQSeYLs=
=pWCn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Focus on the goal, not the path.

Roy Schestowitz espoused:
> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 04:57:48 +0100,
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 03:34 : \____
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:48:21 +0100,
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Saturday 29 September 2007 20:47 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:21:01 +0100,
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 29 September 2007 09:31 : \____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Non scrivetemi" espoused:
>>>>>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now.
>>>>>>>>>> >> Works for him...
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open
>>>>>>>>>> >source. It's aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're
>>>>>>>>>> >back were we started -- another Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He's not locked in. He could switch tomorrow to another distro, if
>>>>>>>>>> he wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's sorta like saying you're not locked into Windows because you
>>>>>>>>> can switch to OSX/Linux/BSD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bad driving is bad driving even if it's not Micro$oft at the wheel.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I quite agree. I don't know if you saw my other posting, but I was
>>>>>>>> highlighting that lock-in is about an exit barrier. That might be the
>>>>>>>> cost of replacing packages you've already bought, or the cost of
>>>>>>>> replacing hardware, or the cost of redoing work which is stuck in
>>>>>>>> proprietary formats, or the cost of paying for tools to unpick those
>>>>>>>> proprietary formats, and so on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point being that there is always lock-in, it's a question of how
>>>>>>>> large the exit barrier is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linspire supports OOXML (translators). If that's not a lockin, I don't
>>>>>>> know what is. It also enabled Microsoft to pretend that OOXML is
>>>>>>> supported by other companies, which fills our world with even /more/
>>>>>>> vendor lockin. Let's not even go into Linspire's proprietary codecs...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So when there's an ooxml translator for OOorg, that means any Linux
>>>>>> distro with OOorg is "locking in" their users?
>>>>>
>>>>> ODF is an international standard supported by a large variety of
>>>>> office suites.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Total non-sequitur. How does supporting ooxml mean a distro is "locking
>>>> in their users" When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does
>>>> that mean you are locked it?
>>>
>>> There are two ways to look at this:
>>>
>>> 1. A distro that supports OOXML (or proprietary codecs for that
>>> matter
>>> inhibits it.
>>>
>>> 2. Support for OOXML has assisted attempts to make OOXML, which is
>>> vendor dependent and patent-encumbered, more widespread.
>>>
>>
>> I'd prefer you simply answer the question,
>>
>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean you
>> are locked it?
>
> No.

Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always locked-in to a
point, the question being the height of the exit barrier, ie., how much
will it cost.

Jim seems unable to process this.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

Jim Richardson espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:56:10 +0100,
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 04:57:48 +0100,
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 03:34 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:48:21 +0100,
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Saturday 29 September 2007 20:47 : \____
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:21:01 +0100,
>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 29 September 2007 09:31 : \____
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Non scrivetemi" espoused:
>>>>>>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now.
>>>>>>>>>>> >> Works for him...
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open
>>>>>>>>>>> >source. It's aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're
>>>>>>>>>>> >back were we started -- another Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He's not locked in. He could switch tomorrow to another distro, if
>>>>>>>>>>> he wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's sorta like saying you're not locked into Windows because you
>>>>>>>>>> can switch to OSX/Linux/BSD.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bad driving is bad driving even if it's not Micro$oft at the wheel.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I quite agree. I don't know if you saw my other posting, but I was
>>>>>>>>> highlighting that lock-in is about an exit barrier. That might be the
>>>>>>>>> cost of replacing packages you've already bought, or the cost of
>>>>>>>>> replacing hardware, or the cost of redoing work which is stuck in
>>>>>>>>> proprietary formats, or the cost of paying for tools to unpick those
>>>>>>>>> proprietary formats, and so on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The point being that there is always lock-in, it's a question of how
>>>>>>>>> large the exit barrier is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Linspire supports OOXML (translators). If that's not a lockin, I don't
>>>>>>>> know what is. It also enabled Microsoft to pretend that OOXML is
>>>>>>>> supported by other companies, which fills our world with even /more/
>>>>>>>> vendor lockin. Let's not even go into Linspire's proprietary codecs...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So when there's an ooxml translator for OOorg, that means any Linux
>>>>>>> distro with OOorg is "locking in" their users?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ODF is an international standard supported by a large variety of
>>>>>> office suites.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Total non-sequitur. How does supporting ooxml mean a distro is "locking
>>>>> in their users" When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does
>>>>> that mean you are locked it?
>>>>
>>>> There are two ways to look at this:
>>>>
>>>> 1. A distro that supports OOXML (or proprietary codecs for that
>>>> matter
>>>> inhibits it.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Support for OOXML has assisted attempts to make OOXML, which is
>>>> vendor dependent and patent-encumbered, more widespread.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd prefer you simply answer the question,
>>>
>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean you
>>> are locked it?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> This question is rhetorical and you are not asking the right one. I believe I
>> never suggested this and I don't know how it came to you cornering me with an
>> implicit accusation that I consider OOo a lock-in.
>>
>
>
> I was asking you to explain your claim that Linspire was locking it's
> users in, in responce, you stated that Linspire supported an OOXML
> translator for OOorg, I then asked if you considered any distro that
> supported an OOXML translator for OOorg to be "locking in" it's users?
>

Yes, it is. How high is the exit barrier should be your question.
Obviously, there *is* an exit barrier, but you seem to struggle to grasp
the concept.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

Non scrivetemi wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>
>> >> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now.
>> >> Works for him...
>> >
>> >It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open source.
>> >It's aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're back were we
>> >started -- another Windows.
>>
>> He's not locked in. He could switch tomorrow to another distro, if he
>> wanted to.
>
> That's sorta like saying you're not locked into Windows because you can
> switch to OSX/Linux/BSD.
>
> Bad driving is bad driving even if it's not Micro$oft at the wheel.

No, because he's not using proprietary applications, and his data is not
in proprietary formats.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
Mark Kent wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____

>>
>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean you
>>> are locked it?
>>
>> No.
>
> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always locked-in to a
> point, the question being the height of the exit barrier, ie., how much
> will it cost.
>
> Jim seems unable to process this.
>

if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the term is
meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that, is equally
meaningless.

OOorg supporting a proprietary format doesn't lock you in. If OOorg
*defaulted* to a proprietary format, that could be lock in. But just
supporting a format like .doc? no, that's not locking you in, in fact,
that's something that helps you escape lockin by others.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHAAbXd90bcYOAWPYRArf0AJ9ede2B5BnblKd0tOuiJ8 vVXiY/4gCbBddD
YSy2Hhx5ZGm9bNdXEiOpss4=
=0AZW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Ignore the propaganda, focus on what you see

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:54:37 +0100,
Mark Kent wrote:
> Jim Richardson espoused:

>>
>> I was asking you to explain your claim that Linspire was locking it's
>> users in, in responce, you stated that Linspire supported an OOXML
>> translator for OOorg, I then asked if you considered any distro that
>> supported an OOXML translator for OOorg to be "locking in" it's users?
>>
>
> Yes, it is. How high is the exit barrier should be your question.
> Obviously, there *is* an exit barrier, but you seem to struggle to grasp
> the concept.
>

So when OOorg in your distro can support OOXML you will be "locked in"?

kind of a wierd way of looking at it.

Since OOorg already supports .doc, do you consider "tha" to be locking
you in? if not, why not?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHAAXhd90bcYOAWPYRAkNVAJ0cPALYkM2ufKyl/f9PryfqUzqEmgCgvHdn
fI+OYvs0GJVglA2YvejZ3J0=
=pPvu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If you don't know how to do something, you don't know how to do it with a
computer.