No subject

>From suter  Thu Oct  4 17:20:28 2001
Return-Path: <mdlishum at zerlargal.humbug.org.au>
Received: from diadora.client.uq.net.au (IDENT:root at diadora-2 [10.0.1.2])
	by zwitterion.humbug.org.au (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -1) with ESMTP id f947KR8C025322
	for <suter at zwitterion.humbug.org.au>; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:20:27 +1000
Received: from zerlargal.humbug.org.au (zerlargal.humbug.org.au [210.215.3.29])
	by diadora.client.uq.net.au (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -1) with ESMTP id f947KQEQ032059
	for <suter at zwitterion.humbug.org.au>; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:20:27 +1000
Received: from mdlishum by zerlargal.humbug.org.au with local (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 15p2bZ-000Lo5-00
	for general-outgoing at lists.humbug.org.au; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:07:37 +1000
Received: from [144.135.25.138] (helo=mta06ps.bigpond.com)
	by zerlargal.humbug.org.au with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 15p2bX-000Lo0-00
	for general at lists.humbug.org.au; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:07:35 +1000
Received: from albatross ([144.135.25.81]) by
          mta06ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP
          id GKO6KT00.5O9 for <general at lists.humbug.org.au>; Thu, 4 Oct
          2001 17:10:05 +1000 
Received: from CPE-203-45-144-128.qld.bigpond.net.au ([203.45.144.128]) by psmam05.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9j 8410/6052387); 04 Oct 2001 17:10:05
From: "Hilton Travis" <QuarkAudioVisual at email.com>
To: <general at lists.humbug.org.au>
Subject: RE: [H-GEN] The Gates Retirement Fund
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:04:21 +1000
Organization: Quark AudioVisual
Message-ID: <00dc01c14ca2$cd9a50e0$0131a8c0 at albatross>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
In-Reply-To: <OFE4C29B13.8B30C469-ON4A256ADB.001498E2 at westsig.com.au>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general at lists.humbug.org.au
X-Loop: general at lists.humbug.org.au
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:general at lists.humbug.org.au>
List-Subscribe: <mailto: general-request at lists.humbug.org.au?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: semi-serious discussions about Humbug and Unix-related topics <general at lists.humbug.org.au>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto: general-request at lists.humbug.org.au?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://archive.humbug.org.au/humbug-general/>
Sender: "lists.humbug.org.au Mailing List Manager" <mdlishum at zerlargal.humbug.org.au>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 8199
Lines: 168

[ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and  ]
[ Unix-related topics.  Please observe the list's charter.           ]
[ Worthwhile understanding: http://www.humbug.org.au/netiquette.html ]

Hi Ben, All and Sundry,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-general at lists.humbug.org.au 
> [mailto:owner-general at lists.humbug.org.au] On Behalf Of 
> ben.carlyle at invensys.com
> Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2001 14:12
> To: general at lists.humbug.org.au
> Subject: Re: [H-GEN] The Gates Retirement Fund
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> Your story of software theft? I doubt the media would look on 
> that kind of activity any more favourably than local law
> enforcement agencies or Microsoft themselves.
> 
> I haven't commented so far on this thread, because I am a 
> software villan. I have paid money to Microsoft because I
> have used Microsoft products and at times have found them
> enitrely indispensible. It is both a moral and a legal
> choice to pay for the software I use, or at least to 
> use a license that someone else has paid for in the past
> is not currently using.
> 
> I believe this thread is about something more than avoiding 
> payment to the evil one for software that you find
> indispensible. It's your obligation to pay for such software.
> The thread is about finding ways to replace tainted software
> with clean software, which is a much harder thing to do than
> to steal the tainted software.

Correct.  Sometimes there is just no real alternative to a
Microsoft-based system.  This is getting better, but there is still a
way to go.

> I can only speak as a hypocrite on this subject. I use 
> Microsoft products in the office, mainly because it is the
> corporate standard and I can't avoid it. Corporate policy
> dictates that we use Lotus notes on windows platforms.
> Corporate policy dictates that we submit our timesheets in 
> excel format. It's a big corporation, and these policy 
> decisions have been made by people with a much better
> strategic view and plan than I could come up with so I'm not
> in a position to protest.

I use Microsoft products more often than not.  I'd *like* to be able to
use Linux-based systems in place of the MS-based systems I am running,
but in most cases I personally have, it is not possible.  I am in the
process of learning php so we can replace our IIS/SQL Server installs
with Apache/PhP installs (on either Linux or Windows servers).  I cannot
replace my video editing machine with a Linux box - there are drivers
for my editing card (A Pinnacle DV500) and Broadcast 2000 looks useful,
but it is not in the same league as Premiere 6.01 (which is a sad, sad
state of affairs on a Windows-based OS - works wonderfully on a Mac
tho).

I have a number of clients who are looking at StarOffice to replace
their Microsoft Office installations when they *need* to upgrade.  Due
to Microsoft's current licensing practices (the new ones whereby they
have removed Product Upgrades and require users to buy full versions or
a corporate license for **lotsa** money to get the new versions as they
are released), there are a lot of people who are going to stick with
Office 2000 on the desktop.  When StarOffice 6.0 arrives, it should be
able to slot in to where MS Office now is.  I'm downloading the beta as
I type this message.

I also cannot replace the Mac at the office with a Linux solution - we
use Photoshop like it is air, and also Microsoft Office on it - there is
apparently no StarOffice for Mac OSX???????

> In the home I have a wife who is studying and Microsoft Office 
> applications are an exremely imporant part of the course she 
> is involved in. I use licenses donated by people who have
> moved onto newer versions of the Microsoft products in
> question, but the money has still been sent to Microsoft by
> someone. When this software is required on my machine and
> fulfils everything we need to do with the machine, it's not 
> even worth having a home UNIX installation.

Actually, if a person upgrades from Version A to Version B of a
Microsoft product, the upgrade license is ONLY valid if the original
full packaged product license is held as well.  For example, if I owned
a full version of Windows 3.11, I could purchase an upgrade to Windows
95, and the upgrade license would require me to keep my copy of Windows
3.11.  I could not use this on another machine at the same time I am
using Windows 95, however a dual-boot install on the one machine is
fine.  As for the Windows 98 upgrade.  As for the Windows Millennium
upgrade.  As for the Windows XP upgrade.  I **must** have the original
full license and any required intermediate upgrade license to have a
valid Windows XP Upgrade license (if Win XP has Windows 3.11 as a
qualifying product, then I can sell the Win95, 98 and ME upgrades, but
the person who buys them needs to have a qualifying full product if they
are to have a valid Upgrade license).

> All my software development occurs via my work laptop, which
> runs exclusively on free software. Business policies come
> into play here too, requiring that I use various Sun
> compilers and other proprietary development tools. Most of
> the work done by my laptop is to act as a glorified Xterm,
> which is a disappointing achievement on my part in terms 
> of free software implementation.

I'd like to have my laptop as a Linux machine too, but unfortunately
integration with the rest of the office tends to rule this out.  :-(

> Views are changing in the business, of course. Linux
> servers are popping up for various purposes that linux has
> proven it's self in, but our system administrator wants
> packaged solutions rather than tools that can build
> solutions to problems that have already been solved by other 
> vendors. He wants to be able to put a RedHat cd into the
> drive and build a machine in less than half a day to do
> whatever he requires. He wants RAID and journalling
> filesystems, and due to the fact that many of the
> technoligies he wants are new to linux the out-of-the box
> installations don't always provide them.

MS Windows 2000 Servers sure don't provide this either.

> My boss has been looking very seriously at alternatives for
> the Microsoft Office suites installed on every windows
> machine in the office. Each suite is not in use most of the
> time, but the license arrangements are per-user not
> per-machine so he has few recourses to reduce the cost
> within the Microsoft framework. Because of corporate
> decisions on file formats it's very difficult to break this
> mould. Until another set of formats is adopted as the
> coporate standard (which would also impact heavily on our
> customs who require access to many of our documents) it's
> really a sign of lunacy to attempt to use anything but the
> microsoft products. It's not worth the secretarial time that
> would be spent reformatting each document to put into the
> final Microsoft-based format.

It looks like the new Star Office 6.0 will help in this regard.  I am
hoping to be able to remove Microsoft Office 2000 and replace it with
Star Office 6.0 on my main machines to force myself to get used to it.
If it is good enough, I'll recommend this to all my clients, where
appropriate.

> On a corporate scale it's a very difficult thing to break
> the mould. This has a strong affect on business within the
> corporation, and due to the wide use of Microsoft
> applications it applies heavily to education and thus to
> individuals even outside this structure. Without a clear
> alternative to what really is a feature-rich Microsoft
> business product, the entire industry will continue to be a
> difficult nut to crack. Free alternatives will only survive
> in niches not under the influcence of this global phenomenon.

However, with its new Licensing policies, Microsoft is sure helping its
competitors' products gain another chance.  Star Office especially.
Linux on the desktop not so much, but no doubt this will get there too.
To some degree.


Regards,
Hilton Travis


--
* This is list (humbug) general handled by majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au .
* Postings to this list are only accepted from subscribed addresses of
* lists 'general' or 'general-post'.