many links to great resources on OOXML
|
| Author | Content | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| tuxchick Jul 01, 2009 9:48 PM EST |
Glyn Moody is going to duke it out with a MS rep over the whole OOXML fiasco. The reader comments are chock-full of great references and advice for anyone interested in this, or who might need to approach it in the same way. There is even good general advice for recognizing and countering MS propagandizing and turfing:
|
||||||
| moopst Jul 02, 2009 2:15 PM EST |
That would be a good rhetorical strategy if your arguments are burdened by damming facts: 1: Try to sound reasonable in hopes that a zealot will go all shrill and winey, if they do be nice sounding and dismiss them as a zealot. 2: If their argument is sound and fact based try to change the subject. |
||||||
| hkwint Jul 02, 2009 7:26 PM EST |
It's a bit strange why the discussion isn't about the 'cost' of proprietary Microsoft solution vs. open source solution though. Many fine case studies are available, and the EU has set up a project where municipalities can ask questions about OSOSS and cooperate and such. Then why would the borough ask Microsoft to do the research (probably unfamiliarity with OSOR.EU project - preceeded by IDABC) or be interested in OOXML? I'd ask myself. Microsoft has one (or two) case study (the one of this borough) where a municipality still chooses for Microsoft, while at the same time OSOR has tens of case studies with municipalities choosing open source. Most of the OSOR case studies though are about freedom / anti-lock in, and not about costs. Anyway, I tried to help Mr. Moody and I'm eager to find out where all of this leads to. |
||||||
| gus3 Jul 02, 2009 7:55 PM EST |
Any OS needing anti-virus before it leaves the factory is, by definition, defective. Any OS having ancestors that lacked real privilege systems is, by definition, insecure. These are my first "talking points" when discussing the merits and drawbacks of operating systems. The rest tends to pale in comparison, or relate back to them. |
||||||
| tracyanne Jul 02, 2009 8:18 PM EST |
The fact of the matter is that Windows is a Legacy Operating System, It owes far too much to the past. A recent encounter with Windows 2008 Server, drove home the point to me that Windows servers are really little more than glorified desktop computers. When you understand this it become clear why the LSE systems failed under load. | ||||||
| jdixon Jul 02, 2009 8:47 PM EST |
> When you understand this it become clear why the LSE systems failed under load. The didn't just fail under load. They never even came close to achieving the promised performance. |
||||||
| hkwint Jul 02, 2009 9:18 PM EST |
Not when it comes to Newham, they were only interested in cost, and 'new features'. How does this sound to you:
The one who did the open source part of the competitive trial also sounds kinda lame to me:
Doesn't sound like they did a fair trial to me. Munich did. They found out using open source software was only a small amount more expensive than the proprietary solution in a term of the first five years, and after that open source would become cheaper. Considering Newham had a frame of reference of ten years... Anyway, I added some more valuable links to Moody's list, at least I hope. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!