5 ms·

There is a lot of hyperbole, idealism and straight out lies around this story, from both sides unfortunately. All idealism aside, it is important to acknowledg

by bipson 9y ago

There is a lot of hyperbole, idealism and straight out lies around this story, from both sides unfortunately. All idealism aside, it is important to acknowledge that there were (always will be?) issues with documents made in MS Office sent by e.g. other departments or by citizens. After all, the workers are supposed to handle applications and such. The departments were promised free Linux based software solutions made from scratch to cover their workflows. This has actually nothing to do with Linux itself, but it seems that software never fulfilled the requirements. It appears that Microsoft spent quite some time and money to convince the decision bodys and the workers that none of this problems would have happened with MS Windows. All idealism aside, if you are going to partially stick to handling MS Office documents, there is no way Linux will be satisfactory.

buovjaga 9y ago
Can you give some examples of straight out lies from the Linux camp?
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  everything will be cheaper and better (not neccearily from any officially involved, but you could hear it from the advocates on many forums and can still hear it. The german Heise forum for example is very bad for this, unfortunately)
  - bipson 9y ago
    Sigh <strikethrough> You're statement is the kind of thing I was stabbing at with my critique: a hidden (shallow) argument, that going with LiMux is worse than going with MS, and it would have been wiser and cheaper to stick with MS in the first place? Why can't such a thing (arguably a complex matter) be discussed in a mature way, without unfounded arguments that are just re-iterated anecdotal wisdom, and mostly stabs at the other guys? This is not a we vs. them thing! And you should stop believing everything you're being told by the guys in your group. </strikethrough> I was taking this the wrong way. Nevertheless, we should stop arguing with the idealists and their idealistic, unfounded arguments, basically taking the discussion down to a unsolvable level. Let's discuss objective (measurable or at least verifyable) arguments instead.
    - hutzlibu 9y ago
      "Let's discuss objective (measurable or at least verifyable) arguments instead." Agreed. And I think, if this would have done from the beginning, especially from the linux crowd, then maybe they would still have Limux or are on their way of having a stable variant, yet. I mean with all that money, it definitely should have been possible to adjust LibreOffice in the needed way by now. But so there were wrong expectations and then disappointment.
- bipson 9y ago
  Well, that everything will be and work the same. Particularly regarding interoperability with existing workflows (MS Office), this is either a lie or incompetence.
  - buovjaga 9y ago
    I was hoping for references and not vague assumptions that there were such claims. If you really have some quotes, as you mention even "particularly regarding interoperability", just refer to them. If you look at the history, you see they did a study comparing going with MS vs. open solutions already before 2003: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux So where are the lies in that timeline?

by bipson 9y ago

buovjaga 9y ago

Can you give some examples of straight out lies from the Linux camp?

hutzlibu 9y ago
everything will be cheaper and better (not neccearily from any officially involved, but you could hear it from the advocates on many forums and can still hear it. The german Heise forum for example is very bad for this, unfortunately)
- bipson 9y ago
  Sigh <strikethrough> You're statement is the kind of thing I was stabbing at with my critique: a hidden (shallow) argument, that going with LiMux is worse than going with MS, and it would have been wiser and cheaper to stick with MS in the first place? Why can't such a thing (arguably a complex matter) be discussed in a mature way, without unfounded arguments that are just re-iterated anecdotal wisdom, and mostly stabs at the other guys? This is not a we vs. them thing! And you should stop believing everything you're being told by the guys in your group. </strikethrough> I was taking this the wrong way. Nevertheless, we should stop arguing with the idealists and their idealistic, unfounded arguments, basically taking the discussion down to a unsolvable level. Let's discuss objective (measurable or at least verifyable) arguments instead.
  - hutzlibu 9y ago
    "Let's discuss objective (measurable or at least verifyable) arguments instead." Agreed. And I think, if this would have done from the beginning, especially from the linux crowd, then maybe they would still have Limux or are on their way of having a stable variant, yet. I mean with all that money, it definitely should have been possible to adjust LibreOffice in the needed way by now. But so there were wrong expectations and then disappointment.
bipson 9y ago
Well, that everything will be and work the same. Particularly regarding interoperability with existing workflows (MS Office), this is either a lie or incompetence.
- buovjaga 9y ago
  I was hoping for references and not vague assumptions that there were such claims. If you really have some quotes, as you mention even "particularly regarding interoperability", just refer to them. If you look at the history, you see they did a study comparing going with MS vs. open solutions already before 2003: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux So where are the lies in that timeline?