Re: Linux on the desktop

--===============45299055951687206==
Content-type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-wJqR3VMRlD23DcR8kb8T"


--=-wJqR3VMRlD23DcR8kb8T
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 06:01, Daniel C. von Asmuth wrote:
> Thus quoth Pablo Vieira op Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 08:05:35PM +0100:
> > Here are my two cents: the problem is the lack of standards.
>=20
> No, there are plenty of standards in existence of all sorts.
>=20
> > Who is defining the standards? The ISO? Really? Aren't the standards th=
e
> > .doc, .xls, etc. formats? Isn't the standard handling ActiveX, ASP, and
> > don't know how many other Microsoft internet business applications meth=
ods?
> > Every time I've tried to switch to Linux I've seen myself unable to *us=
e*
> > the internet properly. I already said that in some other post, but if t=
he
> > W3C or whoever else wants to convince Microsoft to do things according =
to
> > their so-called standards I wish them good luck. All I know is I can su=
rf
> > the whole internet with IE but I can't with Mozilla (or any other Linux
> > browser). End of the story.
>=20
> The W3C is one organisation with diverse members that defines some standa=
rds.
> What Microsoft does is rarely setting standards. They merely are the mark=
et
> leader. If OpenOffice is unable to load a Microsoft document, it is not
> because the developers are not trying hard to emulate Microsoft's stuff.=20
>=20
> What many Windows users would like is for Microsoft to create an open=20
> standard that defines the Win32 (and now Win64) API, and then adhere to i=
t.=20
> (as opposed to having multiple Windows versions that implement different
> versions that almost match their documentation for the Win32 API.
>=20
> Then again Linux has a pragmatic way of not quite following formal standa=
rds.
> (or we would all be using OSI networking instead of the Open Source TCP/I=
P
> protocol suite).

Actually, TCP/IP is defined by IETF standards, whereas OSI was defined
by ISO standards.  ISO lost because they didn't consider implementation
when they wrote their standards and they created a "standard" without a
minimum interoperable requirement (that's why the US GOSIP profile was
created).  In contrast, the IETF standards were designed so that they
could be efficiently implemented and so that different implementations
were interoperable if they met the standards.

> > PS: I do think there's plenty of improvement to do regarding word
> > processors, but that's another story.
>=20
> The demise of the FrameMaker DTP package on Linux is an important reason =
for
> starting this thread.=20
>=20
> Kind regards,
>=20
>=20
> Daniel von Asmuth
--=20
    Lawrence MacIntyre     865.574.8696     [email protected]
               Oak Ridge National Laboratory
High Performance Information Infrastructure Technology Group


--=-wJqR3VMRlD23DcR8kb8T
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/1cxWCNjP8rawCW4RAjZqAJ9980ZK6O5mno+vntPqg2LV72VUXACeKFGY
hNJmQX34z38zlF0eRYu1gW4=
=vc2f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-wJqR3VMRlD23DcR8kb8T--

--===============45299055951687206==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
annoyances mailing list
[email protected]
http://michelangelo.renaissoft.com/mailman/listinfo/annoyances

--===============45299055951687206==--