No, it won't. Evolution is a very popular Linux/UNIX program and it doesn't follow the UNIX philosophy of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). It has calendar, e-mail and other functions built in.
Sometimes benefits outweight philosophical debates when it comes to software.
Thing is, Mail + iCal + Address Book + Stickies isn't really any clunkier that using Outlook. I think it's less clunky, since you aren't relegated to a single window. Come to think of it, the drag&drop interaction between iCal and Mail is much easier than the "wizard" interface Outlook uses to send calendar items.
Just FYI: I use Outlook for EVERYTHING at work, and it's a piece of shite. I would much rather be using the OS X apps.
Munich changeover? They are migrating towards Linux, not necessarily OpenOffice, although that may be a by-product of it. But I never mentioned Munich; I said Brazil, India, Singapore, Israel, France.
Why are you trying to enforce Munich into this debate when it has nothing to do with OpenOffice directly?
Oh well now I'm convinced. The Scottish are deciding to migrate from one proprietary suite to another. That is exactly what we're talking about here: StarOffice.
Munich changeover? They are migrating towards Linux, not necessarily OpenOffice, although that may be a by-product of it. But I never mentioned Munich; I said Brazil, India, Singapore, Israel, France.
Why are you trying to enforce Munich into this debate when it has nothing to do with OpenOffice directly?
Oh well now I'm convinced. The Scottish are deciding to migrate from one proprietary suite to another. That is exactly what we're talking about here: StarOffice.
Well that's awesome, but it does nothing to counter the facts about Brazil, India and others.
I guess News.com (a well-known pro-Microsoft group) is 'self-serving' too when it comes to OpenOffice.org
Gene, I like a good debate, but you can't try to be the only one in it to decide what will and won't appear. You can't complain that you mentioned some areas, or governments, or programs, and that we can only discuss them as examples. I don't care that you just brought them in as examples, there are others just as important.
Also, you mentioned Linux yourself, so I can't use it as well?
Now you seem to be using Linux examples also, should I discard them because you complained about my use of them?
By the way, all of your examples are almost 50 -50, giving reasons why others wouldn't be doing this as much as giving reasons why they might be.
China, India, and others are moving towards open source, not because of superiority, but because they want their countries to control their own industries. China, in particular, still has that old dictatorial mistrust of software or information that comes from outside. Something that goes far back into their history. The other reason cited is one I gave earlier, that you derided, the use of unlicensed goods. Even the government was (and is) doing it. India has much of the same situation. They have forbidden imports of many goods, or imposed vast import taxes upon them to try to keep them out.
Only one state in India seems to be doing this on any scale anyway, at this time. And even China is buying large quantities of MS's goods.
Well that's great but, I wasn't talking about Outlook.
Maybe not, but the discussion started with Outlook, the topic is about MS Office and iApps, and I'm not terribly interested in reading the pages upon pages of tit-for-tat drivel regarding some sort of user-interface jihad. My point is that the iApps are an enterprise-class solution, which is right in line with the discussion of the bulk of this thread.
Technically, you should be using a seperate RSS app. Safari is not the best RSS app out there...it's a jack of all trade and it shows. Apple would have done better making a standalone RSS app that has more features and allow people to choose whether they want to use it or a 3rd party one.
I have one site I use for the web...AppleInsider. Should HTML rendering be integrated into the Finder? By your logic, it would be a waste to use Safari for only one site, right?
Your two cases are cases where the monoloth approach is bad. Sorry if I have to bring you back to reality like that. People that have Outlook Express *and* their favorite seperate newsreader have to cope with the fact that Outlook Express has redundant features that not only waste HD space but also memory and CPU in some instances. Same with Safari...why Apple didn't build a seperate RSS client is beyond me.
Let me bring you back to reality. What you said:
Quote:
In *every* possible case *ever* recorded, it has been proven that a modular approach is the best approach
I just showed two cases where the monilith approach is best for me (I would not use or have seperate RSS or newgroup reader on my HD, so no redundancy in this case AND I don´t/wouldn´t use newsgroups/RSS if it isn´t/wasn´t in other apps). So you are wrong.
Look, I am FOR the "individual apps for individual tasks" philosophy and I have criticised iTunes for exactly that reason. But don´t make categorical statements, they are just dumb.
I just showed two cases where the monilith approach is best for me (I would not use or have seperate RSS or newgroup reader on my HD, so no redundancy in this case AND I don´t/wouldn´t use newsgroups/RSS if it isn´t/wasn´t in other apps). So you are wrong.
Look, I am FOR the "individual apps for individual tasks" philosophy and I have criticised iTunes for exactly that reason. But don´t make categorical statements, they are just dumb.
It might be best for you but it's not for the global population. So *you*, my good man, are wrong.
The statements aren't categorical. For the betterment of society, we have to accomodate it...not just a single person or a few people that have particular needs. That's why things have to be modular.
You still haven't answered my question about my dilemma of only having one site to look at on the web...should I be using some other program that has HTML rendering as a secondary feature or Safari or Firefox which focus on HTML rendering? Answer me that before you answer anything else.
Gene, I like a good debate, but you can't try to be the only one in it to decide what will and won't appear. You can't complain that you mentioned some areas, or governments, or programs, and that we can only discuss them as examples. I don't care that you just brought them in as examples, there are others just as important.
Only if they are relevant to the debate: OO. Munich is not relevant because it's dealing with other issues. Linux is not OO and vice-versa.And even if it were relevant, that still proves my point: governments are moving towards open source.
Quote:
Also, you mentioned Linux yourself, so I can't use it as well?
I mentioned OO being the only viable alternative in Linux as far as office suites go (KOffice is good to, but it needs some more features). So, logically, if China is using primarily Linux, then we can safely assume that they are either using OO or KOffice. Is that much true?
Quote:
Now you seem to be using Linux examples also, should I discard them because you complained about my use of them?
You need to read the links I posted to *see* that there is a section about OO in all of them, just not at the headline.
Quote:
By the way, all of your examples are almost 50 -50, giving reasons why others wouldn't be doing this as much as giving reasons why they might be.
This doesn't make any sense, as those articles clearly talk about people moving towards OO/open source, not from it.
Quote:
China, India, and others are moving towards open source, not because of superiority, but because they want their countries to control their own industries.
So now they are moving ha? 'Cause up to now you were arguing that their deployment of open source (read OO+Linux) is limited and for testing purposes only.
Quote:
China, in particular, still has that old dictatorial mistrust of software or information that comes from outside. Something that goes far back into their history.
Which does nothing to add to your argument that they're not *using* OO as much as they are trying OO. Don't spin it into philosophical areas please.
Quote:
The other reason cited is one I gave earlier, that you derided, the use of unlicensed goods. Even the government was (and is) doing it. India has much of the same situation. They have forbidden imports of many goods, or imposed vast import taxes upon them to try to keep them out.
So now you admit that China and India are using OO, right? You could have said so in the beginning. It would save us quite some time.
Quote:
Only one state in India seems to be doing this on any scale anyway, at this time. And even China is buying large quantities of MS's goods.
Not only one state, but the INDIAN GOVERNMENT. That includes all states, as they do have a federal government. They are distributing it into 2 different languages: Tamil and Hindi (the official language of India).
As for China, the argument here is not that they're not buying MS goods, but that they are using OO on their government computers.
And so far you have done nothing to prove otherwise. That being said, let's just end this argument because, as we see, you started talking about political-philosophical reasons for India and China to use open source while at the same time saying that they don't.
It might be best for you but it's not for the global population. So *you*, my good man, are wrong.
OK, fair enough. That's an argument I can accept as being logical. But tell me this: why is it not good for the general population, and why are multi-purpose apps some of the most popular apps out there? (Outlook, iTunes, etc.)
[B]Only if they are relevant to the debate: OO. Munich is not relevant because it's dealing with other issues. Linux is not OO and vice-versa.And even if it were relevant, that still proves my point: governments are moving towards open source.
I mentioned OO being the only viable alternative in Linux as far as office suites go (KOffice is good to, but it needs some more features). So, logically, if China is using primarily Linux, then we can safely assume that they are either using OO or KOffice. Is that much true?
You seem to be substituting China for Munich. You want to assume that China, which is using Linux in some areas will be going to OO because of it. but not Munich?
I'm not trying to be totally one sided. I don't try to ignore facts. Their program is having problems, but if it does go through, they will likely be using OO along with the Linux. No?
Quote:
You need to read the links I posted to *see* that there is a section about OO in all of them, just not at the headline.
Yes, within the Linux discussion, as an aside. As in my Munich article.
Quote:
This doesn't make any sense, as those articles clearly talk about people moving towards OO/open source, not from it.
Partly. Or are testing to see if it will work.
Quote:
So now they are moving ha? 'Cause up to now you were arguing that their deployment of open source (read OO+Linux) is limited and for testing purposes only.
I never said that no one was moving. you change what is being said. The articles don't say that everyone is moving. In some cases just a department or two is moving. In some cases they are testing. In some cases they are dristributing the software without knowing how much of it will be used.
Quote:
Which does nothing to add to your argument that they're not *using* OO as much as they are trying OO. Don't spin it into philosophical areas please.
Again, I never said that no one was using it, or moving over. Just that you are wrong about your sweeping assumptions.
And the reasons for doing so are important.
Quote:
So now you admit that China and India are using OO, right? You could have said so in the beginning. It would save us quite some time.
Gene, I love ya, but you're hopeless! You generalize my statements too much.
Quote:
Not only one state, but the INDIAN GOVERNMENT. That includes all states, as they do have a federal government. They are distributing it into 2 different languages: Tamil and Hindi (the official language of India).
From the article you provided:
"The Indian national government and the majority of state authorities have a neutral policy around open source. Kerala is thought to be one of the few states to have a policy that formally promotes open source."
So, while I agree it is around in various places in India, as it is here too, Kerala is the only place which is actively moving in a serious way, and even that will only be partial.
Quote:
As for China, the argument here is not that they're not buying MS goods, but that they are using OO on their government computers.
And so far you have done nothing to prove otherwise. That being said, let's just end this argument because, as we see, you started talking about political-philosophical reasons for India and China to use open source while at the same time saying that they don't.
That, my friend, is an untenable position.
Except that you don't actually pay attention to what is being said. If you can prove that I said that it isn't being used, tried out, or in the process of being used, I would be grateful.
Companies, governments, and individuals are simply not reporting more than a miniscule takeup of OO. If you can show that to be different, that would be fine.
I showed you how 'miniscule' doesn't really fit the numbers I gave you, but you choose to ignore them, first saying they come from those who write the software, then saying that they're limited, then claiming that China and India use it because they don't trust others, then... you get the drill.
Just openly say that OO is being used by various governments in the world, either for testing or not, and be done with it. Spinning things into endless arguments about philosophical reasons doesn't contribute anything to the debate here.
Just the fact that the French Gendermerie uses OO in 60,000 of their desktops should topple any argument you have about iWork being the #1 competitor to Office, which was the original claim I was refuting. Without even going into detail about Brazil, it's postal service, India, China or even Israel and Singapore.
But you can choose to ignore that as well. They're not really using them anyway, right? They just install it on 60,000 desktops and play around with it in their lunch break.
I showed you how 'miniscule' doesn't really fit the numbers I gave you, but you choose to ignore them, first saying they come from those who write the software, then saying that they're limited, then claiming that China and India use it because they don't trust others, then... you get the drill.
Just openly say that OO is being used by various governments in the world, either for testing or not, and be done with it. Spinning things into endless arguments about philosophical reasons doesn't contribute anything to the debate here.
Just the fact that the French Gendermerie uses OO in 60,000 of their desktops should topple any argument you have about iWork being the #1 competitor to Office, which was the original claim I was refuting. Without even going into detail about Brazil, it's postal service, India, China or even Israel and Singapore.
But you can choose to ignore that as well. They're not really using them anyway, right? They just install it on 60,000 desktops and play around with it in their lunch break.
Gene, you keep on saying that I've said things that I never said. Find where I said that. I never said that it wasn't being used. You say I said that.
Also find a comment that you seem to think I made about iWork. I never said that either. you're mistaking my remarks with that of others. I said that if Apple put iWork into all of its machines, as it did with Appleworks,then it would have higher numbers. Appleworks is also very popular in the K-12 grades in schools in many places. On PC's too. We have had about 100 thousand licenses for it here in NYC alone. There must be tens of millions of copies out there.
Here is EXACTLY what I said about iWork:
"These numbers just reflect the retail versions. If Apple installed the full version of iWork on all of its machines, the way it used to, with Appleworks, then the numbers would be higher, if these installs were counted, and because more people would be buying a new copy as an upgrade than do now.
But, let's be reasonable. iWork is not a substitute for Office. It seems to be a substitute for Appleworks. And it isn't there yet."
You're right, they're not...that's why the ones that have a clue really try to stay away from multi-purpose apps like Entourage or Outlook Express and other such garbage.
But as an example, someone that uses Entourage may also need Address Book for the other apps that actually integrate well with Address Book. If that person isn't frustrated by the fact that Entourage has its own proprietary contact database, then that person is a better person than I.
Kim.. settle down. Actually, you are wrong. I suspect this is your philosphy but most people like multi-purpose programs. Imagine if apple really took your position then mail.app would not be able to display pictures and graphics but instead would start up a seperate graphic program whenver someone sent you email with graphics. Also, mail.app would start up safari everytime somone sent you email with html. Imagine how annonying that would become after a while. Even programs you think are single purpose are really not. You are basically arguing about how integrated a program should be. Some people like their programs very integrated, some like them integrated as little as possible. I suspect the majority of people like multipurpose programs. I know i do and everyone i know does also. Who wants to continually start different programs to perform different tasks if it can all be done in one app?.
Also i like outlook express.. actually, i like it better than apple mail.app. I suspect many people do not consider multi-purpose apps garbage. Sounds like you are a man with a philosphy in search of converts. You should take a poll to find out how many people agree with your position. To start you off.. i oppose your position.
Kim.. settle down. Actually, you are wrong. I suspect this is your philosphy but most people like multi-purpose programs. Imagine if apple really took your position then mail.app would not be able to display pictures and graphics but instead would start up a seperate graphic program whenver someone sent you email with graphics. Also, mail.app would start up safari everytime somone sent you email with html. Imagine how annonying that would become after a while.
It basically does. It utilises the technology from other programs to do both those functions, eg Web Kit for html. Apple seems to have the underlying principle that you design one thing to do a function then let whatever needs to share it.
To take a different example Address book is an essential part of many apps but why make each use a separate one in their multi-functional environments, it's stupid and time consuming. By having it as a single app that integrates you can have a far more simplified and clear interface for when you need to work with addresses than in an excessively multi-functional app that is trying to be a dozen things at once while still retaining the ability to use the information where needed. It's a much more elegant solution I find.
Imagine if apple really took your position then mail.app would not be able to display pictures and graphics but instead would start up a seperate graphic program whenver someone sent you email with graphics. Also, mail.app would start up safari everytime somone sent you email with html.
If you are going to argue the point...please don't use such ridiculous examples. I mean these are just plain silly.
If you are going to argue the point...please don't use such ridiculous examples. I mean these are just plain silly.
Aah, such an intelligent response. Call someone point ridiculous without pointing out why. Yeah, you have me convinced. Now run along and play with your toys.
Aah, such an intelligent response. Call someone point ridiculous without pointing out why. Yeah, you have me convinced. Now run along and play with your toys.
Well, it should be obvious. But if it isn't, I'll indulge...
Suggesting that because an email application displays graphics in an email message is really not a valid argument that the email program is a "multi-function" application. It is still single function in the sense that it is displaying the contents of an email message (text, formatted or not, images, etc.) No matter how far you torture or stretch the definition of "multi-function" it doesn't stand up to the "giggle test".
I'd argue that iTunes showing videos (as someone else weakly used in this or another thread) is only a marginally better example of "multi-function" application design. And I am being generous.
What is meant here is something like Outlook which supports (in a tightly integrated fashion) the following major user functions/tasks:
- email
- todo list
- calendar/scheduling
- notes/stickies
- file management
- contact management
- journaling
(and probably more that I don't even know about)
Or perhaps the popular "works" application (Apple or Microsoft):
- word processing
- drawing
- presentation
- painting
- spreadsheet
- database
All tightly integrated as a single application.
There are a multitude of arguments against the integrated approach (and certainly some arguments in favor of it). Chief among these might be:
- ability (theoretically anyway) to utilize "best of breed" for each function. Plug and play at the high level function. Use the best calendar, address book, email application and let them all integrate with one another using (hopefully) open standards and well-defined APIs.
- ability for some application function to be leveraged and used by more than the application it is integrated with (e.g., the word processor using the address book application for mail merging, Delicious Library using both the address book and calendar application, etc.)
- allowing each application to have a user interface (and preferences interface...Outlook it utterly pathetic in this regard) that are optimized for its primary function (e.g., calendar, address book, etc.)
These are not certainly ironclad reasons, but a good start at least. In fact these three are good enough for me.
Additionally, there is actually a whole other underlying application/service/data/API architecture philosophy at play here. One which (it appears) Apple has (mostly) embraced (and have since they were NeXT), which involves underlying data stores, service APIs for access to the data, and a so-called "thin UI" on top of it all...which all enables other client applications (e.g., Mail, iCal, Delicious Library, Address Book widget, etc.) to utilize Address Book (for example) services/data without even launching the "application".
Comments
Originally posted by Gene Clean
No, it won't. Evolution is a very popular Linux/UNIX program and it doesn't follow the UNIX philosophy of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). It has calendar, e-mail and other functions built in.
Sometimes benefits outweight philosophical debates when it comes to software.
Thing is, Mail + iCal + Address Book + Stickies isn't really any clunkier that using Outlook. I think it's less clunky, since you aren't relegated to a single window. Come to think of it, the drag&drop interaction between iCal and Mail is much easier than the "wizard" interface Outlook uses to send calendar items.
Just FYI: I use Outlook for EVERYTHING at work, and it's a piece of shite. I would much rather be using the OS X apps.
Originally posted by melgross
An interesting article about the Munich changeover.
http://www.computerworld.com/softwar...104425,00.html
Munich changeover? They are migrating towards Linux, not necessarily OpenOffice, although that may be a by-product of it. But I never mentioned Munich; I said Brazil, India, Singapore, Israel, France.
Why are you trying to enforce Munich into this debate when it has nothing to do with OpenOffice directly?
On the other hand:
http://www.computerworld.com/governm...103892,00.html
Oh well now I'm convinced. The Scottish are deciding to migrate from one proprietary suite to another. That is exactly what we're talking about here: StarOffice.
http://www.computerworld.com/governm...100253,00.html
Well that's awesome, but it does nothing to counter the facts about Brazil, India and others.
1. http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5128730.html
2. http://news.com.com/China+Local+soft...tag=st.ref.goo
3. http://news.com.com/One+citys+move+t...tag=st.ref.goo
4. http://news.com.com/India+Speaking+y...tag=st.ref.goo
I guess News.com (a well-known pro-Microsoft group) is 'self-serving' too when it comes to OpenOffice.org
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Just FYI: I use Outlook for EVERYTHING at work, and it's a piece of shite. I would much rather be using the OS X apps.
Well that's great but, I wasn't talking about Outlook.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Munich changeover? They are migrating towards Linux, not necessarily OpenOffice, although that may be a by-product of it. But I never mentioned Munich; I said Brazil, India, Singapore, Israel, France.
Why are you trying to enforce Munich into this debate when it has nothing to do with OpenOffice directly?
Oh well now I'm convinced. The Scottish are deciding to migrate from one proprietary suite to another. That is exactly what we're talking about here: StarOffice.
Well that's awesome, but it does nothing to counter the facts about Brazil, India and others.
1. http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5128730.html
2. http://news.com.com/China+Local+soft...tag=st.ref.goo
3. http://news.com.com/One+citys+move+t...tag=st.ref.goo
4. http://news.com.com/India+Speaking+y...tag=st.ref.goo
I guess News.com (a well-known pro-Microsoft group) is 'self-serving' too when it comes to OpenOffice.org
Gene, I like a good debate, but you can't try to be the only one in it to decide what will and won't appear. You can't complain that you mentioned some areas, or governments, or programs, and that we can only discuss them as examples. I don't care that you just brought them in as examples, there are others just as important.
Also, you mentioned Linux yourself, so I can't use it as well?
Now you seem to be using Linux examples also, should I discard them because you complained about my use of them?
By the way, all of your examples are almost 50 -50, giving reasons why others wouldn't be doing this as much as giving reasons why they might be.
China, India, and others are moving towards open source, not because of superiority, but because they want their countries to control their own industries. China, in particular, still has that old dictatorial mistrust of software or information that comes from outside. Something that goes far back into their history. The other reason cited is one I gave earlier, that you derided, the use of unlicensed goods. Even the government was (and is) doing it. India has much of the same situation. They have forbidden imports of many goods, or imposed vast import taxes upon them to try to keep them out.
Only one state in India seems to be doing this on any scale anyway, at this time. And even China is buying large quantities of MS's goods.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Well that's great but, I wasn't talking about Outlook.
Maybe not, but the discussion started with Outlook, the topic is about MS Office and iApps, and I'm not terribly interested in reading the pages upon pages of tit-for-tat drivel regarding some sort of user-interface jihad. My point is that the iApps are an enterprise-class solution, which is right in line with the discussion of the bulk of this thread.
Perhaps I erred in quoting you. My apologies.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Technically, you should be using a seperate RSS app. Safari is not the best RSS app out there...it's a jack of all trade and it shows. Apple would have done better making a standalone RSS app that has more features and allow people to choose whether they want to use it or a 3rd party one.
I have one site I use for the web...AppleInsider. Should HTML rendering be integrated into the Finder? By your logic, it would be a waste to use Safari for only one site, right?
Your two cases are cases where the monoloth approach is bad. Sorry if I have to bring you back to reality like that. People that have Outlook Express *and* their favorite seperate newsreader have to cope with the fact that Outlook Express has redundant features that not only waste HD space but also memory and CPU in some instances. Same with Safari...why Apple didn't build a seperate RSS client is beyond me.
Let me bring you back to reality. What you said:
In *every* possible case *ever* recorded, it has been proven that a modular approach is the best approach
I just showed two cases where the monilith approach is best for me (I would not use or have seperate RSS or newgroup reader on my HD, so no redundancy in this case AND I don´t/wouldn´t use newsgroups/RSS if it isn´t/wasn´t in other apps). So you are wrong.
Look, I am FOR the "individual apps for individual tasks" philosophy and I have criticised iTunes for exactly that reason. But don´t make categorical statements, they are just dumb.
Originally posted by Anders
Let me bring you back to reality. What you said:
I just showed two cases where the monilith approach is best for me (I would not use or have seperate RSS or newgroup reader on my HD, so no redundancy in this case AND I don´t/wouldn´t use newsgroups/RSS if it isn´t/wasn´t in other apps). So you are wrong.
Look, I am FOR the "individual apps for individual tasks" philosophy and I have criticised iTunes for exactly that reason. But don´t make categorical statements, they are just dumb.
It might be best for you but it's not for the global population. So *you*, my good man, are wrong.
The statements aren't categorical. For the betterment of society, we have to accomodate it...not just a single person or a few people that have particular needs. That's why things have to be modular.
You still haven't answered my question about my dilemma of only having one site to look at on the web...should I be using some other program that has HTML rendering as a secondary feature or Safari or Firefox which focus on HTML rendering? Answer me that before you answer anything else.
Originally posted by melgross
Gene, I like a good debate, but you can't try to be the only one in it to decide what will and won't appear. You can't complain that you mentioned some areas, or governments, or programs, and that we can only discuss them as examples. I don't care that you just brought them in as examples, there are others just as important.
Only if they are relevant to the debate: OO. Munich is not relevant because it's dealing with other issues. Linux is not OO and vice-versa.And even if it were relevant, that still proves my point: governments are moving towards open source.
Also, you mentioned Linux yourself, so I can't use it as well?
I mentioned OO being the only viable alternative in Linux as far as office suites go (KOffice is good to, but it needs some more features). So, logically, if China is using primarily Linux, then we can safely assume that they are either using OO or KOffice. Is that much true?
Now you seem to be using Linux examples also, should I discard them because you complained about my use of them?
You need to read the links I posted to *see* that there is a section about OO in all of them, just not at the headline.
By the way, all of your examples are almost 50 -50, giving reasons why others wouldn't be doing this as much as giving reasons why they might be.
This doesn't make any sense, as those articles clearly talk about people moving towards OO/open source, not from it.
China, India, and others are moving towards open source, not because of superiority, but because they want their countries to control their own industries.
So now they are moving ha? 'Cause up to now you were arguing that their deployment of open source (read OO+Linux) is limited and for testing purposes only.
China, in particular, still has that old dictatorial mistrust of software or information that comes from outside. Something that goes far back into their history.
Which does nothing to add to your argument that they're not *using* OO as much as they are trying OO. Don't spin it into philosophical areas please.
The other reason cited is one I gave earlier, that you derided, the use of unlicensed goods. Even the government was (and is) doing it. India has much of the same situation. They have forbidden imports of many goods, or imposed vast import taxes upon them to try to keep them out.
So now you admit that China and India are using OO, right? You could have said so in the beginning. It would save us quite some time.
Only one state in India seems to be doing this on any scale anyway, at this time. And even China is buying large quantities of MS's goods.
Not only one state, but the INDIAN GOVERNMENT. That includes all states, as they do have a federal government. They are distributing it into 2 different languages: Tamil and Hindi (the official language of India).
As for China, the argument here is not that they're not buying MS goods, but that they are using OO on their government computers.
And so far you have done nothing to prove otherwise. That being said, let's just end this argument because, as we see, you started talking about political-philosophical reasons for India and China to use open source while at the same time saying that they don't.
That, my friend, is an untenable position.
Thanks for the debate though.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
It might be best for you but it's not for the global population. So *you*, my good man, are wrong.
OK, fair enough. That's an argument I can accept as being logical. But tell me this: why is it not good for the general population, and why are multi-purpose apps some of the most popular apps out there? (Outlook, iTunes, etc.)
Originally posted by kim kap sol
It might be best for you but it's not for the global population. So *you*, my good man, are wrong.
The statements aren't categorical.
So thisis not a categorical statement:
In *every* possible case *ever* recorded,
If that is your opinion then we have nothing to discuss
Originally posted by Gene Clean
[B]Only if they are relevant to the debate: OO. Munich is not relevant because it's dealing with other issues. Linux is not OO and vice-versa.And even if it were relevant, that still proves my point: governments are moving towards open source.
I mentioned OO being the only viable alternative in Linux as far as office suites go (KOffice is good to, but it needs some more features). So, logically, if China is using primarily Linux, then we can safely assume that they are either using OO or KOffice. Is that much true?
You seem to be substituting China for Munich. You want to assume that China, which is using Linux in some areas will be going to OO because of it. but not Munich?
I'm not trying to be totally one sided. I don't try to ignore facts. Their program is having problems, but if it does go through, they will likely be using OO along with the Linux. No?
You need to read the links I posted to *see* that there is a section about OO in all of them, just not at the headline.
Yes, within the Linux discussion, as an aside. As in my Munich article.
This doesn't make any sense, as those articles clearly talk about people moving towards OO/open source, not from it.
Partly. Or are testing to see if it will work.
So now they are moving ha? 'Cause up to now you were arguing that their deployment of open source (read OO+Linux) is limited and for testing purposes only.
I never said that no one was moving. you change what is being said. The articles don't say that everyone is moving. In some cases just a department or two is moving. In some cases they are testing. In some cases they are dristributing the software without knowing how much of it will be used.
Which does nothing to add to your argument that they're not *using* OO as much as they are trying OO. Don't spin it into philosophical areas please.
Again, I never said that no one was using it, or moving over. Just that you are wrong about your sweeping assumptions.
And the reasons for doing so are important.
So now you admit that China and India are using OO, right? You could have said so in the beginning. It would save us quite some time.
Gene, I love ya, but you're hopeless! You generalize my statements too much.
Not only one state, but the INDIAN GOVERNMENT. That includes all states, as they do have a federal government. They are distributing it into 2 different languages: Tamil and Hindi (the official language of India).
From the article you provided:
"The Indian national government and the majority of state authorities have a neutral policy around open source. Kerala is thought to be one of the few states to have a policy that formally promotes open source."
So, while I agree it is around in various places in India, as it is here too, Kerala is the only place which is actively moving in a serious way, and even that will only be partial.
As for China, the argument here is not that they're not buying MS goods, but that they are using OO on their government computers.
And so far you have done nothing to prove otherwise. That being said, let's just end this argument because, as we see, you started talking about political-philosophical reasons for India and China to use open source while at the same time saying that they don't.
That, my friend, is an untenable position.
Except that you don't actually pay attention to what is being said. If you can prove that I said that it isn't being used, tried out, or in the process of being used, I would be grateful.
Thanks for the debate though.
Sure, any time.
Companies, governments, and individuals are simply not reporting more than a miniscule takeup of OO. If you can show that to be different, that would be fine.
I showed you how 'miniscule' doesn't really fit the numbers I gave you, but you choose to ignore them, first saying they come from those who write the software, then saying that they're limited, then claiming that China and India use it because they don't trust others, then... you get the drill.
Just openly say that OO is being used by various governments in the world, either for testing or not, and be done with it. Spinning things into endless arguments about philosophical reasons doesn't contribute anything to the debate here.
Just the fact that the French Gendermerie uses OO in 60,000 of their desktops should topple any argument you have about iWork being the #1 competitor to Office, which was the original claim I was refuting. Without even going into detail about Brazil, it's postal service, India, China or even Israel and Singapore.
But you can choose to ignore that as well. They're not really using them anyway, right? They just install it on 60,000 desktops and play around with it in their lunch break.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I showed you how 'miniscule' doesn't really fit the numbers I gave you, but you choose to ignore them, first saying they come from those who write the software, then saying that they're limited, then claiming that China and India use it because they don't trust others, then... you get the drill.
Just openly say that OO is being used by various governments in the world, either for testing or not, and be done with it. Spinning things into endless arguments about philosophical reasons doesn't contribute anything to the debate here.
Just the fact that the French Gendermerie uses OO in 60,000 of their desktops should topple any argument you have about iWork being the #1 competitor to Office, which was the original claim I was refuting. Without even going into detail about Brazil, it's postal service, India, China or even Israel and Singapore.
But you can choose to ignore that as well. They're not really using them anyway, right? They just install it on 60,000 desktops and play around with it in their lunch break.
Gene, you keep on saying that I've said things that I never said. Find where I said that. I never said that it wasn't being used. You say I said that.
Also find a comment that you seem to think I made about iWork. I never said that either. you're mistaking my remarks with that of others. I said that if Apple put iWork into all of its machines, as it did with Appleworks,then it would have higher numbers. Appleworks is also very popular in the K-12 grades in schools in many places. On PC's too. We have had about 100 thousand licenses for it here in NYC alone. There must be tens of millions of copies out there.
Here is EXACTLY what I said about iWork:
"These numbers just reflect the retail versions. If Apple installed the full version of iWork on all of its machines, the way it used to, with Appleworks, then the numbers would be higher, if these installs were counted, and because more people would be buying a new copy as an upgrade than do now.
But, let's be reasonable. iWork is not a substitute for Office. It seems to be a substitute for Appleworks. And it isn't there yet."
Originally posted by Anders
So thisis not a categorical statement:
If that is your opinion then we have nothing to discuss
It's a globally accepted fact. And you're right...we have nothing to discuss anymore.
That would be the sound of this thread going into the toilet. With a vengeance.
The thread title has little to do with the current, er, argument, so would it be possible to take it to PMs, or even perhaps email? Thenk yew.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
You're right, they're not...that's why the ones that have a clue really try to stay away from multi-purpose apps like Entourage or Outlook Express and other such garbage.
But as an example, someone that uses Entourage may also need Address Book for the other apps that actually integrate well with Address Book. If that person isn't frustrated by the fact that Entourage has its own proprietary contact database, then that person is a better person than I.
Kim.. settle down. Actually, you are wrong. I suspect this is your philosphy but most people like multi-purpose programs. Imagine if apple really took your position then mail.app would not be able to display pictures and graphics but instead would start up a seperate graphic program whenver someone sent you email with graphics. Also, mail.app would start up safari everytime somone sent you email with html. Imagine how annonying that would become after a while. Even programs you think are single purpose are really not. You are basically arguing about how integrated a program should be. Some people like their programs very integrated, some like them integrated as little as possible. I suspect the majority of people like multipurpose programs. I know i do and everyone i know does also. Who wants to continually start different programs to perform different tasks if it can all be done in one app?.
Also i like outlook express.. actually, i like it better than apple mail.app. I suspect many people do not consider multi-purpose apps garbage. Sounds like you are a man with a philosphy in search of converts. You should take a poll to find out how many people agree with your position. To start you off.. i oppose your position.
Originally posted by wnurse
Kim.. settle down. Actually, you are wrong. I suspect this is your philosphy but most people like multi-purpose programs. Imagine if apple really took your position then mail.app would not be able to display pictures and graphics but instead would start up a seperate graphic program whenver someone sent you email with graphics. Also, mail.app would start up safari everytime somone sent you email with html. Imagine how annonying that would become after a while.
It basically does. It utilises the technology from other programs to do both those functions, eg Web Kit for html. Apple seems to have the underlying principle that you design one thing to do a function then let whatever needs to share it.
To take a different example Address book is an essential part of many apps but why make each use a separate one in their multi-functional environments, it's stupid and time consuming. By having it as a single app that integrates you can have a far more simplified and clear interface for when you need to work with addresses than in an excessively multi-functional app that is trying to be a dozen things at once while still retaining the ability to use the information where needed. It's a much more elegant solution I find.
Originally posted by wnurse
Imagine if apple really took your position then mail.app would not be able to display pictures and graphics but instead would start up a seperate graphic program whenver someone sent you email with graphics. Also, mail.app would start up safari everytime somone sent you email with html.
If you are going to argue the point...please don't use such ridiculous examples. I mean these are just plain silly.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
If you are going to argue the point...please don't use such ridiculous examples. I mean these are just plain silly.
Aah, such an intelligent response. Call someone point ridiculous without pointing out why. Yeah, you have me convinced. Now run along and play with your toys.
Originally posted by wnurse
Aah, such an intelligent response. Call someone point ridiculous without pointing out why. Yeah, you have me convinced. Now run along and play with your toys.
Well, it should be obvious. But if it isn't, I'll indulge...
Suggesting that because an email application displays graphics in an email message is really not a valid argument that the email program is a "multi-function" application. It is still single function in the sense that it is displaying the contents of an email message (text, formatted or not, images, etc.) No matter how far you torture or stretch the definition of "multi-function" it doesn't stand up to the "giggle test".
I'd argue that iTunes showing videos (as someone else weakly used in this or another thread) is only a marginally better example of "multi-function" application design. And I am being generous.
What is meant here is something like Outlook which supports (in a tightly integrated fashion) the following major user functions/tasks:
- email
- todo list
- calendar/scheduling
- notes/stickies
- file management
- contact management
- journaling
(and probably more that I don't even know about)
Or perhaps the popular "works" application (Apple or Microsoft):
- word processing
- drawing
- presentation
- painting
- spreadsheet
- database
All tightly integrated as a single application.
There are a multitude of arguments against the integrated approach (and certainly some arguments in favor of it). Chief among these might be:
- ability (theoretically anyway) to utilize "best of breed" for each function. Plug and play at the high level function. Use the best calendar, address book, email application and let them all integrate with one another using (hopefully) open standards and well-defined APIs.
- ability for some application function to be leveraged and used by more than the application it is integrated with (e.g., the word processor using the address book application for mail merging, Delicious Library using both the address book and calendar application, etc.)
- allowing each application to have a user interface (and preferences interface...Outlook it utterly pathetic in this regard) that are optimized for its primary function (e.g., calendar, address book, etc.)
These are not certainly ironclad reasons, but a good start at least. In fact these three are good enough for me.
Additionally, there is actually a whole other underlying application/service/data/API architecture philosophy at play here. One which (it appears) Apple has (mostly) embraced (and have since they were NeXT), which involves underlying data stores, service APIs for access to the data, and a so-called "thin UI" on top of it all...which all enables other client applications (e.g., Mail, iCal, Delicious Library, Address Book widget, etc.) to utilize Address Book (for example) services/data without even launching the "application".