From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 20 11:22:00 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66CF71065672 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:22:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx02.qsc.de (mx02.qsc.de [213.148.130.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1762A8FC0C for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:21:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r55.edvax.de (port-92-195-180-180.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.180.180]) by mx02.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED571E0F7; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:21:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from r55.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r55.edvax.de (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id p5KBLwd2001636; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:21:58 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:21:58 +0200 From: Polytropon To: FreeBSD Message-Id: <20110620132158.08bc64f7.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20110619123451.4a392bec@scorpio> References: <4DFCDE25.2050203@rawbw.com> <20110618180326.GA21890@orange.esperance-linux.co.uk> <4DFD01B9.5010807@rawbw.com> <20110618212315.GB21890@orange.esperance-linux.co.uk> <20110619072518.2115dffb@scorpio> <20110619112248.7c879c1f@scorpio> <20110619154949.GA84264@guilt.hydra> <20110619123451.4a392bec@scorpio> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jerry Subject: Re: Any working SIP-phone on FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:22:00 -0000 On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 12:34:51 -0400, Jerry wrote: > Would you care to elaborate on that statement? Is your prejudice based > on the fact that there is nothing in the open-source community that can > even begin to match the robustness and ease of use of MS Office, [...] Are you refering to the surprising fact of incobpatibilites between different versions, and betweeen same versions of different architectures (32/64 bit)? :-) As it has been mentioned, "next year" problems has never been a field where users could rely on MICROS~1 products. It's traditionally been the users of open source programs that had to do the "magic" to import + export defective "Office" files. And outside MICROS~1 land, their "Office" files are not very much appreciated. > Unlike your appraisal of the situation, I find that users use office > suites, in this case MS Office because it offers the end user what they > want. I've already heared so many users complaining about the "Ribbon" UI and seen them transitioning their infrastructures to more "old-fashioned" interfaces like of OpenOffice. Users had a hard time learning menues (although they would never admit), and now something different? Something that requires you learning and recognizing pictures instead of words? Pictures that dynamically change location and size? Depending on window size and what the cursor is currently pointing on? "No Sir, I don't like it." is a common statement. > Specifically, an all-in-one application that integrates > seamlessly into their home or work environment without the need of > additional software. The egg-laying wool-milk sow, a one size fits all program, has proven in history that it's nothing more than a big pile of problems that claims to be able to do everything, but in the end, fails at simple things. Modularity is the key. Open standards are the future. History teaches exactly that. The fact that home consumers and corporate "big-thinkers" don't want to realize this doesn't make any difference. In the end, they will all pay, on one or another kind. > Microsoft's decision to offer MS Office in several flavors was a wise > investment. The MS Office Home and Student 2010 can be purchased for > $79 from many distributors. I know over a dozen users who have > installed this very suite on their home PCs simple because the > price+value exceeds anything available anywhere else. You can legally download and install OpenOffice for $0.00 and even exchange files with older versions of that program, even with StarOffice. Can you do that with "MS Office"? Surely not. And your files are in a documented and standardized XML format. This means they can be opened in the future, unlike the strange and secret memory-dump formats (that sounds SO wrong) that older "Office" programs did use. Open software usually is of high value that is in NO relation to its price (for the end user, which is zero), simply because it has to be on par with the "big ones", and in many cases, it is _better_ than the "big ones", because its developers don't think in quarterly terms and in how much units they will sell. They don't have to. They have a better motivation. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...