[huskerlug] Re: Open Office?
- From: Gabe Ives <gabe@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: huskerlug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:15:41 -0600
Hexadecimal wrote:
> I'm not "hooked" on anything. I've tried OpenOffice...
>
But not many have tried OpenOffice, let alone even know about it. Why?
Because there is no need to. Why look for something new when Microsoft
Office does everything they want, and it's practically free (for them).
It's not about bullying the individuals, like students, faculty/staff,
or even employees in private corporations, it's about bullying the
organizations into conforming to what Microsoft thinks is right. And
whatever makes them money is right in their eyes. Even Bill Gates has
stated Microsoft's #1 goal isn't to make software, it's to make money,
as that is the goal of ALL corporations, in fact they'd be breaking the
law if they don't try to do what they can to maximize shareholders
wealth (within the law). You even learn this as a fundamental fact in
business school. The difference between "good" corporations, and "bad"
corporations are some try to move beyond what is legal or have a
different take on what is legal and what isn't. Microsoft I'm sure
still think they did nothing wrong at all, and are/were within the
limits of the law.
I'm not trying to turn this into a anti-Microsoft thread, but facts are
facts. Price aside I'd agree that Microsoft Office (though I do have to
disagree about Microsoft Office 2007, which I dislike with a passion,
for usability and aesthetic reasons) is a better product than
OpenOffice. Would I pay for it, no, I'd rather spend my money on other
things, and given there are other alternatives I know about that do
about the same and are free, why not use the free alternatives). But
not a lot of people know they can get a Microsoft Office replacement for
free (for 95% of people, I'm sure 5% *need* Microsoft Office for some
feature that isn't part of alternatives like OpenOffice). Does
Microsoft want it to be widely known there are free alternatives to
their Office? Of course not, why would they, so they try their best to
keep their products first on the shelf (or in this case first on the
computers). All businesses would want the same, the only thing that
should be decided is what is within the limits of the law. Microsoft
being a monopoly with billions in the bank get to sway the limits to
their favor as they see fit, many times even stepping over what is
considered the line, and resulting in an occasional slap on the wrist.
This is what drove me to Linux and Open Source in general, not that
Linux necessarily is superior (though I have my arguments there, though
do recommend Windows to people that I know would never be able to figure
out Linux, or know they don't like learning curves). At one time I'd
might even have been considered a Microsoft fanboy, it was Microsoft
verse Apple, and I hated pre-OS X Macs so I loved Microsoft products, it
wasn't until I was introduced to Linux in 1995 that I saw there were
(cheap) alternatives to Microsoft and Apple products (there were of
course Unix workstations and the like, but at the time I could only
dream of having one). And while I preferred the Linux way of doing
things (aka Open Source), it wasn't until Microsoft starting adding
things like Product Activation (and adding artificial restrictions),
that I started being what one might consider anti-Microsoft, before that
I might have been considered "OS agnostic".
This is a Microsoft World, and Microsoft wants to keep it that way. I,
and I'm sure most on this mailing list, would prefer for it not to be a
Microsoft World. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for them, but it
would be nice not to have one company with as much power as they have
over not just this country, but most of the developed world. And the
argument goes, that the only way for them to not have that power is to
get enough people to use alternatives to their powerhouse monopoly
products, those being Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. Take away
their monopoly and you take away their power that they have been known
to abuse.
Not trying to preach that is what everyone should do, but maybe others
will also understand why some are against Microsoft products whether
they are good products or not. It's not about the products, it's more
about taking Microsoft's monopoly power away (which being a monopoly
isn't inherently illegal, only if the power that comes from it gets abused).
And about how this is related to Linux, Linux just isn't an
"alternative" to Microsoft Windows, it's a whole different way of
thinking. That many probably won't get, ever, so many times I don't
even try to explain it, I just reference how Linux and Windows are
similar and how they are different. It's hard to separate the politics
(with things like DRM being forced on us and such, and software patents
being legal as examples) when talking about Linux and Open Source (at
least on a technical level). Linux users and advocates aren't the ones
making it political, it's Microsoft (and big media companies) that are
pushing their agendas, Linux users just want to be able to use Linux and
be productive with it.
Gabe
----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
Other related posts:
