Jim Richardson espoused:
> -----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.

It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
day job) amount to millions.

Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
from than others?

--
| 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 wrote:

> Jim Richardson espoused:
>> -----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.
>
> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
> day job) amount to millions.
>
> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
> from than others?
>

By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an imbecile

You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers" with
regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass those
very "barriers"
--
Avoid reality at all costs.

Peter Köhlmann espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Jim Richardson espoused:
>>> -----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.
>>
>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
>> day job) amount to millions.
>>
>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
>> from than others?
>>
>
> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an imbecile

And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee than
me?

>
> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers" with
> regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass those
> very "barriers"

I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try to
explain it a different way:

1. Everything has an exit barrier. If nothing else, just the
opportunity cost alone (the oft-used how much is your time worth
argument).

2. Exit barriers can be artificially raised by the exploitation of
technological barriers. Technological barriers come in several forms,
and can be additive:

2.1 Proprietary protocols
2.2 Proprietary file formats
2.3 Proprietary, binary-only applications or modules
2.4 Restrictive licensing (eg., non-GPL-compliant)

They are all nasty. In this example, we're discussing the use of (2.3)
in order to try to solve problems caused by (2.2). Unfortunately, this
causes a particular type of lock-in, as follows:

3.1 Particular glibc version
3.2 Particular kernel version (because of libc issues)
3.3 Particular processor type
3.4 Particular hardware stack

Or, we might be discussing the use of (2.4) to resolve the problems
caused by (2.2). The results could well be much the same, but are
likely to include essentially the same set, as shown immediately above.

So, in order to minimise the lock-in, the proper route is to have
"import filters" which are subject to no licensing restrictions
whatsoever, and be distributed in a GPL-compliant form. I think it
unlikely that both these conditions are being met.

--
| 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 wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
>>>> -----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.
>>>
>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
>>> day job) amount to millions.
>>>
>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
>>> from than others?
>>>
>>
>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an imbecile
>
> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee than
> me?
>
>>
>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers" with
>> regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass those
>> very "barriers"
>
> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try to
> explain it a different way:
>

What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to understand?
You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass the questions

MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS in your
dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You don't have that
explanation for your cretinous acts

< snip lunatic rant >
--
Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.

Peter Köhlmann espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
>>>>> -----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.
>>>>
>>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
>>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
>>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
>>>> day job) amount to millions.
>>>>
>>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
>>>> from than others?
>>>>
>>>
>>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an imbecile
>>
>> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee than
>> me?
>>
>>>
>>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers" with
>>> regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass those
>>> very "barriers"
>>
>> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try to
>> explain it a different way:
>>
>
> What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to understand?
> You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass the questions

I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues - presumably
you do not understand the situation or the explanation?

>
> MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS in your
> dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You don't have that
> explanation for your cretinous acts
>
>< snip lunatic rant >

I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a lot
of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely delete it
and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't seem
worth the effort to me.

--
| 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 Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:20:45 +0100,
Mark Kent wrote:
> Jim Richardson espoused:
>> -----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.
>
> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
> day job) amount to millions.
>

No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
Linpire locks in it's users. When asked to explain how Linspire locks in
it's users, he pointed to Linspire's OOorg support of OOXML.

> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
> from than others?
>

Not relevent to the issue at hand.


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

iD8DBQFHAX9Sd90bcYOAWPYRAq0gAJsEkhTCZVlO9xS6fgo4Bl zbTYMBkACfcISb
tYXObJc/QxCq1k24FCka9T4=
=cMbt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you
--Benjamin Franklin

____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 00:14 : \____

> No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
> Linpire locks in it's users.

I neither said this nor did I contend. Now, that's just a case of bending the
whole discussion.

Linspire assists Microsoft's attempts to lock in users.

--
~~ Best of wishes

The folks on the Ubuntu CD cover need to apt-get shirt, not sudo fsck.
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
03:05:03 up 22 days, 1:11, 5 users, load average: 3.30, 2.40, 2.03
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

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

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:06:43 +0100,
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 00:14 : \____
>
>> No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
>> Linpire locks in it's users.
>
> I neither said this nor did I contend. Now, that's just a case of bending the
> whole discussion.
>
> Linspire assists Microsoft's attempts to lock in users.
>

How? by offering a way for former windows users to extract their data
and save it in open formats?

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

iD8DBQFHAc/Kd90bcYOAWPYRAsvTAJ4w63EUKDqs0gc3xj0cy2BKMSfPpgCeN Y3o
/LruLoD5kUdHGNmt9pnA0Eo=
=7LPJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Have you ever noticed that at trade shows
Microsoft is always the one giving away stress balls?

____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 05:57 : \____

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:06:43 +0100,
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 00:14 : \____
>>
>>> No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
>>> Linpire locks in it's users.
>>
>> I neither said this nor did I contend. Now, that's just a case of bending
>> the whole discussion.
>>
>> Linspire assists Microsoft's attempts to lock in users.
>>
>
> How? by offering a way for former windows users to extract their data
> and save it in open formats?

Office 2007 wasn't even out yet when the Novell deal was signed. Microsoft was
required to (and reluctantly prepared to) implement ODF support for Microsoft
Office. Instead, it bribed companies to get the upper arm.

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | Disclaimer: no SCO code used to generate this post
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

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

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:52:52 +0100,
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 05:57 : \____
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:06:43 +0100,
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 00:14 : \____
>>>
>>>> No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
>>>> Linpire locks in it's users.
>>>
>>> I neither said this nor did I contend. Now, that's just a case of bending
>>> the whole discussion.
>>>
>>> Linspire assists Microsoft's attempts to lock in users.
>>>
>>
>> How? by offering a way for former windows users to extract their data
>> and save it in open formats?
>
> Office 2007 wasn't even out yet when the Novell deal was signed. Microsoft was
> required to (and reluctantly prepared to) implement ODF support for Microsoft
> Office. Instead, it bribed companies to get the upper arm.
>

Again you fail to answer the question that was asked.

You claimed that Linspire assists Microsofts attempts to lock in users.

How?

Don't respond with something about Novell or SuSE, that's a different
company and distro. Please answer the question you have been
asked.

How does Linspire assist Microsoft in locking in users?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHAePCd90bcYOAWPYRAnD/AKDYv1lDLriYeKQoB/cQ/aaGtbEetQCfUnDj
R1s383auqiBoXouYf1deGME=
=VcYV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Nothing says "loser" like "nymshifter".
--chrisv on C.O.L.A

Peter Köhlmann espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
>>>>>>> -----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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
>>>>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
>>>>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
>>>>>> day job) amount to millions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
>>>>>> from than others?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an imbecile
>>>>
>>>> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee than
>>>> me?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers"
>>>>> with regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass
>>>>> those very "barriers"
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try to
>>>> explain it a different way:
>>>>
>>>
>>> What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to understand?
>>> You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass the questions
>>
>> I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues - presumably
>> you do not understand the situation or the explanation?
>>
>
> You explained ****. Your "explanations" are simply utterly balderdash.
> Gob****e. Unadultered garbage

So you do not understand the situation, or the explanation?

>
>>>
>>> MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS in
>>> your dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You don't
>>> have that explanation for your cretinous acts
>>>
>>>< snip lunatic rant >
>>
>> I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a lot
>> of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely delete it
>> and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't seem
>> worth the effort to me.
>>
>
> You put a lot of effort in mis-explaining the issue.
>
> Come on, tell us: How is an import-filter going to "lock you in".
> Be precise. And stop this lunatic rubbish of the "exit costs".
> It has nothing to do with a filter which allows you to do *more* than
> without it

I've already done that, Peter, and clearly, you realised that I had,
which is why you deleted it.

--
| 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 Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:20:45 +0100,
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> Jim Richardson espoused:
>>> -----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.
>>
>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
>> day job) amount to millions.
>>
>
> No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
> Linpire locks in it's users. When asked to explain how Linspire locks in
> it's users, he pointed to Linspire's OOorg support of OOXML.

And is that support available on all platforms, open-source, without
claims of intellectual property, with source-code available, respecting
all of the freedoms of the GPL?

>
>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
>> from than others?
>>
>
> Not relevent to the issue at hand.
>

It *is* the issue at hand. That you fail to recognise this illustrates
why you fail to grasp the explanation.

--
| 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 wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
>>>>>>>> -----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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the
>>>>>>> concept.
>>>>>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in
>>>>>>> my day job) amount to millions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to
>>>>>>> exit from than others?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an imbecile
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee
>>>>> than me?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers"
>>>>>> with regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass
>>>>>> those very "barriers"
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try to
>>>>> explain it a different way:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to understand?
>>>> You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass the questions
>>>
>>> I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues - presumably
>>> you do not understand the situation or the explanation?
>>>
>>
>> You explained ****. Your "explanations" are simply utterly balderdash.
>> Gob****e. Unadultered garbage
>
> So you do not understand the situation, or the explanation?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS in
>>>> your dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You don't
>>>> have that explanation for your cretinous acts
>>>>
>>>>< snip lunatic rant >
>>>
>>> I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a lot
>>> of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely delete it
>>> and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't seem
>>> worth the effort to me.
>>>
>>
>> You put a lot of effort in mis-explaining the issue.
>>
>> Come on, tell us: How is an import-filter going to "lock you in".
>> Be precise. And stop this lunatic rubbish of the "exit costs".
>> It has nothing to do with a filter which allows you to do *more* than
>> without it
>
> I've already done that, Peter, and clearly, you realised that I had,
> which is why you deleted it.
>

Idiot

And i mean it. You *are* an idiot. Not a tiny little bit better than
linux-sux or DFS
--
You're genuinely bogus.

In article <7s59t4-gtf.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
Mark Kent wrote:
> > No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
> > Linpire locks in it's users. When asked to explain how Linspire locks in
> > it's users, he pointed to Linspire's OOorg support of OOXML.
>
> And is that support available on all platforms, open-source, without
> claims of intellectual property, with source-code available, respecting
> all of the freedoms of the GPL?

Since nearly everything in most Linux distributions is under claims of
intellectual property, throwing "without claims of intellectual
property" in there is bogus.

> >> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
> >> from than others?
> >>
> >
> > Not relevent to the issue at hand.
> >
>
> It *is* the issue at hand. That you fail to recognise this illustrates
> why you fail to grasp the explanation.

The exit cost is near zero. If at any time you decide you don't want to
use OOXML, just save your document in ODF.


--
--Tim Smith

Peter Köhlmann espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
>>>>>>>>> -----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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the
>>>>>>>> concept.
>>>>>>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in
>>>>>>>> my day job) amount to millions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to
>>>>>>>> exit from than others?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an imbecile
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee
>>>>>> than me?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers"
>>>>>>> with regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass
>>>>>>> those very "barriers"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try to
>>>>>> explain it a different way:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to understand?
>>>>> You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass the questions
>>>>
>>>> I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues - presumably
>>>> you do not understand the situation or the explanation?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You explained ****. Your "explanations" are simply utterly balderdash.
>>> Gob****e. Unadultered garbage
>>
>> So you do not understand the situation, or the explanation?
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS in
>>>>> your dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You don't
>>>>> have that explanation for your cretinous acts
>>>>>
>>>>>< snip lunatic rant >
>>>>
>>>> I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a lot
>>>> of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely delete it
>>>> and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't seem
>>>> worth the effort to me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You put a lot of effort in mis-explaining the issue.
>>>
>>> Come on, tell us: How is an import-filter going to "lock you in".
>>> Be precise. And stop this lunatic rubbish of the "exit costs".
>>> It has nothing to do with a filter which allows you to do *more* than
>>> without it
>>
>> I've already done that, Peter, and clearly, you realised that I had,
>> which is why you deleted it.
>>
>
> Idiot
>
> And i mean it. You *are* an idiot. Not a tiny little bit better than
> linux-sux or DFS

As I said above, perhaps you should look in the mirror when hurling some
of these insults.

If you want to discuss my explanation, I'll be happy to, but deleting it
and then claiming it to be wrong without any justification is precisely
what I'd expect from linux-sux or DFS.

If not, why are you wasting bandwidth?

--
| 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 wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
>>>>>>>>>> -----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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the
>>>>>>>>> concept.
>>>>>>>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised,
>>>>>>>>> or it
>>>>>>>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me
>>>>>>>>> in my day job) amount to millions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to
>>>>>>>>> exit from than others?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an
>>>>>>>> imbecile
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee
>>>>>>> than me?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers"
>>>>>>>> with regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass
>>>>>>>> those very "barriers"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try
>>>>>>> to explain it a different way:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to understand?
>>>>>> You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass the questions
>>>>>
>>>>> I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues - presumably
>>>>> you do not understand the situation or the explanation?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You explained ****. Your "explanations" are simply utterly balderdash.
>>>> Gob****e. Unadultered garbage
>>>
>>> So you do not understand the situation, or the explanation?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS
>>>>>> in your dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You
>>>>>> don't have that explanation for your cretinous acts
>>>>>>
>>>>>>< snip lunatic rant >
>>>>>
>>>>> I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a lot
>>>>> of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely delete
>>>>> it
>>>>> and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't seem
>>>>> worth the effort to me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You put a lot of effort in mis-explaining the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Come on, tell us: How is an import-filter going to "lock you in".
>>>> Be precise. And stop this lunatic rubbish of the "exit costs".
>>>> It has nothing to do with a filter which allows you to do *more* than
>>>> without it
>>>
>>> I've already done that, Peter, and clearly, you realised that I had,
>>> which is why you deleted it.
>>>
>>
>> Idiot
>>
>> And i mean it. You *are* an idiot. Not a tiny little bit better than
>> linux-sux or DFS
>
> As I said above, perhaps you should look in the mirror when hurling some
> of these insults.
>
> If you want to discuss my explanation, I'll be happy to, but deleting it
> and then claiming it to be wrong without any justification is precisely
> what I'd expect from linux-sux or DFS.
>
> If not, why are you wasting bandwidth?
>

If you /had/ explained how an additional filter is going to lock-in people,
I would have noticed. Instead you blather about "exist costs" even when
none exist. Extremely dishonest way to argue. Snot tought you well

You have chosen the Snot evasion: Claim that you have explained it, even if
you have done nothing of that sort, and then continue your idiotic rant
which has nothing to do with the question asked

You *are* a dishonest twit, Mark. Very much so
And unfortunately, Roy is doing bad as well. He also makes completely nutty
claims and then fails to support them in whichever way.

You both (and especially you, Mark) are not a tiny little shred better than
this wintroll scum infesting the group. You are actually doing linux a
disserve with your dishonesty

If you don't like being called that dishonest asshole you really are, tough
luck for you.
Once I thought of you as a real asset for linux advocacy. Meanwhile I am
convinced that you are no better than Erik Funkenbusch or Hadron Quark
--
If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous.

Peter Köhlmann espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
>>>>>>>>>>> -----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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the
>>>>>>>>>> concept.
>>>>>>>>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised,
>>>>>>>>>> or it
>>>>>>>>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me
>>>>>>>>>> in my day job) amount to millions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to
>>>>>>>>>> exit from than others?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an
>>>>>>>>> imbecile
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee
>>>>>>>> than me?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers"
>>>>>>>>> with regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass
>>>>>>>>> those very "barriers"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try
>>>>>>>> to explain it a different way:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to understand?
>>>>>>> You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass the questions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues - presumably
>>>>>> you do not understand the situation or the explanation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You explained ****. Your "explanations" are simply utterly balderdash.
>>>>> Gob****e. Unadultered garbage
>>>>
>>>> So you do not understand the situation, or the explanation?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS
>>>>>>> in your dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You
>>>>>>> don't have that explanation for your cretinous acts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>< snip lunatic rant >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a lot
>>>>>> of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely delete
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't seem
>>>>>> worth the effort to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You put a lot of effort in mis-explaining the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Come on, tell us: How is an import-filter going to "lock you in".
>>>>> Be precise. And stop this lunatic rubbish of the "exit costs".
>>>>> It has nothing to do with a filter which allows you to do *more* than
>>>>> without it
>>>>
>>>> I've already done that, Peter, and clearly, you realised that I had,
>>>> which is why you deleted it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Idiot
>>>
>>> And i mean it. You *are* an idiot. Not a tiny little bit better than
>>> linux-sux or DFS
>>
>> As I said above, perhaps you should look in the mirror when hurling some
>> of these insults.
>>
>> If you want to discuss my explanation, I'll be happy to, but deleting it
>> and then claiming it to be wrong without any justification is precisely
>> what I'd expect from linux-sux or DFS.
>>
>> If not, why are you wasting bandwidth?
>>
>
> If you /had/ explained how an additional filter is going to lock-in people,
> I would have noticed. Instead you blather about "exist costs" even when
> none exist. Extremely dishonest way to argue.

Exit costs exist on everything, Peter. This is trivial business
economics.

If you don't understand this, then you won't understand lock-in and how
it works, and therefore will never understand how non-free filters cause
lock-in.

Is this, perhaps, because your own business model is based on lock-in,
and you are feeling threatened?

--
| 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 wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
>>>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the
>>>>>>>>>>> concept.
>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised,
>>>>>>>>>>> or it
>>>>>>>>>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me
>>>>>>>>>>> in my day job) amount to millions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive
>>>>>>>>>>> to exit from than others?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an
>>>>>>>>>> imbecile
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about
>>>>>>>>> thee than me?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit
>>>>>>>>>> barriers" with regards to an "import filter" which actually
>>>>>>>>>> enables to bypass those very "barriers"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try
>>>>>>>>> to explain it a different way:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to
>>>>>>>> understand? You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass
>>>>>>>> the questions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues -
>>>>>>> presumably you do not understand the situation or the explanation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You explained ****. Your "explanations" are simply utterly
>>>>>> balderdash. Gob****e. Unadultered garbage
>>>>>
>>>>> So you do not understand the situation, or the explanation?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS
>>>>>>>> in your dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You
>>>>>>>> don't have that explanation for your cretinous acts
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>< snip lunatic rant >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a
>>>>>>> lot of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely
>>>>>>> delete it
>>>>>>> and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't
>>>>>>> seem worth the effort to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You put a lot of effort in mis-explaining the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Come on, tell us: How is an import-filter going to "lock you in".
>>>>>> Be precise. And stop this lunatic rubbish of the "exit costs".
>>>>>> It has nothing to do with a filter which allows you to do *more* than
>>>>>> without it
>>>>>
>>>>> I've already done that, Peter, and clearly, you realised that I had,
>>>>> which is why you deleted it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Idiot
>>>>
>>>> And i mean it. You *are* an idiot. Not a tiny little bit better than
>>>> linux-sux or DFS
>>>
>>> As I said above, perhaps you should look in the mirror when hurling some
>>> of these insults.
>>>
>>> If you want to discuss my explanation, I'll be happy to, but deleting it
>>> and then claiming it to be wrong without any justification is precisely
>>> what I'd expect from linux-sux or DFS.
>>>
>>> If not, why are you wasting bandwidth?
>>>
>>
>> If you /had/ explained how an additional filter is going to lock-in
>> people, I would have noticed. Instead you blather about "exist costs"
>> even when none exist. Extremely dishonest way to argue.
>
> Exit costs exist on everything, Peter. This is trivial business
> economics.

Good. Feel free to explain the exit cost of that filter, then

> If you don't understand this, then you won't understand lock-in and how
> it works, and therefore will never understand how non-free filters cause
> lock-in.

And you still fail to show *why* that filter will serve as a lock-in

> Is this, perhaps, because your own business model is based on lock-in,
> and you are feeling threatened?
>

No
--
Avoid reality at all costs.

____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 07:22 : \____

> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:52:52 +0100,
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 05:57 : \____
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:06:43 +0100,
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 00:14 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
>>>>> Linpire locks in it's users.
>>>>
>>>> I neither said this nor did I contend. Now, that's just a case of bending
>>>> the whole discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Linspire assists Microsoft's attempts to lock in users.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How? by offering a way for former windows users to extract their data
>>> and save it in open formats?
>>
>> Office 2007 wasn't even out yet when the Novell deal was signed. Microsoft
>> was required to (and reluctantly prepared to) implement ODF support for
>> Microsoft
>> Office. Instead, it bribed companies to get the upper arm.
>>
>
> Again you fail to answer the question that was asked.
>
> You claimed that Linspire assists Microsofts attempts to lock in users.
>
> How?
>
> Don't respond with something about Novell or SuSE, that's a different
> company and distro. Please answer the question you have been
> asked.

"Assist" has the wrong tense. Linspire assisted Microsoft when it signed a deal
that says it would support OOXML 'translators'.

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | #00ff00 Day - Basket Case
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 176 total, 1 running, 174 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine