[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Monday 11 December 2006 10:06, Neil Williams wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:02:30 +0000 > > Tom Potts <tompotts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Why? > > Because subconsciously we have all been pushing the M$ agenda all the > > time. We have not been saying, as I believe we should have been: > > 'Well Word really is history. In a day of the internet and reasonable > > monitors it really is antediluvian to think of documents in terms of A4 > > paper. > > As a computer user you should really be thinking in terms of how to > > manage your data and not climbing on every bandwagon of style and colour > > schemes that some maniac in the design department comes up with.' > > Almost true but the wonders of Web 2.0 really haven't fired the > imagination of the bulk of computer users, especially Office users. For > many diverse reasons, companies want to keep their Office documents > local. > > > And then we should be putting putting forward a case for a really useful > > alternative to the M$ 'Its the same rubbish but in green this time' that > > patently doesn't work but bleeds individuals and companies dry and has > > left computing in the 1980's. > > I think we all agree that M$ is probably the most un-innovative company > > ever. So why do we waste our lives trying to promote a replacement for > > what, by our own definition, must be a heap of guano? > > Because however bad Windows is, there is a need for a system to replace > it as-is. I see Web 2.0 and these fancy ideas of doing everything > inside a browser as very far fetched. Most people want data to be > local. It can be local - but as every COMPANY I have worked for has been trying to use methods to prevent this and regain control of their data. But for a single user remember that the client and server can be on the same machine. > What's more, most people want to be able to move that data > around between local devices - like their Palm, iPAQ or iPod. I never > did like the idea of entrusting my data to a remote server - and I have > very little data in this kind of program! 99% of my 'data' is > C/Perl/shell code and is therefore hosted on a range of CVS/SVN servers > and mirrored and cached by a dozen search engines. I don't need backups > of that data. I should be used to the convenience of remote storage, > used to the habit of distributing data - but I'm not. It's acceptable > and necessary for the data that is currently stored that way but the > authentication and data entry methods - in particular the data removal > methods - are simply not acceptable for other kinds of data. > > I would never use GnuCash across a local network connection, let alone > the internet. I wouldn't even use webmail in preference to a local > email client - no matter how flaky the client. On the odd occasions > that I may use a spreadsheet or word processor, I fail to understand > why it is preferable to have that data elsewhere when my printer is > right next to me. See above - you should have the power over YOUR data - your employer should have the power over THEIR data. > > Documents are still paper based - the paperless office is a pipe dream. > We can't even decide on A4 vs Letter so how on earth are web based > documents going to work? This e-mail works - ok the formatting aint brilliant but it works - you can read it on the computer. I can format something in word that you cant read on the computer. FLOSS is all about letting people do what they want - why should you say to me that I have to use letter when I've got a browser that I can shrink to three or four words wide and still read a non-over-the top formatted HTML document. You don't HAVE to decide between A4 and Letter - neither are relevant. Like I said its a M$ mindset that needs to be dumped. Like I said - we have to start considering moving out of the 80's mindset. My last job was making sure a local council web site was making sure the web site was accessible. That means the site should be usable by the blind or deaf. When you do that you realise that since you have to ditch the concept of paper you concentrate on getting the ideas that the paper would contain across. The three week meetings deciding on corporate style stand out for their futility. A 'document' is there to (one would hope) disseminate some information. Its the information that is important. And thats before you get round to consider management and ownership of data. Consider XML - computer to computer communication that should be human readable? Thats oxyMoronic! My main worry is the massive repetition of effort. If you have central company DB which stores all you document data then you can search it easily. If you have the traditional MS approach then you have to ask every PC to search their word documents for the data. Oh and the sales people never log in in case their porn is found so you never know whose done what. The M$ approach is basically - never organise and we'll keep selling you more and more powerfull versions of software to not organise on. 25 years ago I could write programs with hundreds of thousands of variables and see when each one was used or modified. The average office cant even tell who has seen one of a couple of hundred documents and done anything about it. Thats M$ for you - I have a computer on my desk thats 3000 times more powerful than one from 25 years ago and I cant use it to do anything I couldn't do 25 years ago when it comes to documents - apart from make them 'prettier'. And FLOSS is blindly following. A lot of time and effort has been spent on that and its time we remembered that computing is data and semantics! Formatting for humans should be the last stage in processing not the first. Tom te tom te tom. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html