I'm pretty sure that most of you would refuse an email correspondence
based on proprietary formats, e.g. MS-Word attachments.
Some would even go to the point of deleting or bouncing such messages or
reply in tune with RMS's 'We Can Put an End to Word Attachments'
campaign :
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html>.
But what if your professional career, and eventually your life, should
depend on it?
What if you are going to apply for a wonderful job, a job dealing with
installing and maintaining Linux boxes, and the potential employer
demand
that the whole correspondence be managed in stupid word files?
What if you are desperate and willing to compromise, you fire
your shiny FOSS word processor and the file won't even load properly?
So? What to do? Borrowing somebody's PC? Dual boot? Give up?
I have started asking questions.
On Mon, 08 May 2006 20:23:50 +0200, "Ottavio Caruso" said:
> Dears Sirs,
>
> I am interested in applying for your vacancy COMPUTER
> TECHNICIAN/REF.[blah...]. You require that I download a document in
> ms-word format, then manipulate it and send it back to you by email.
> Unfortunately I have problems opening this document on my computer that
> runs a version of Linux.
>
> In Abiword, it looks all messed up and garbled. I'm sure I can find some
> trick to reformat it but then most likely it won't display properly on
> your computers.
>
> The only solution would be for me to borrow somebody else's PC, however
> I feel this is a diminution of my Linux skills, which are one of the
> requisites you ask for this job.
>
> A better solution would have been rich text format or html, which are
> more portable than MS-Word.
>
> I'd be glad if I had your opinion about it, so that I know if there is
> a work around or if I had better give up.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Ottavio Caruso
No answers expected, none received
Ottavio Caruso
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail
Your mail to 'linux' with the subject
Mail System Error - Returned Mail
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
Message has a suspicious header
Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel
this posting, please visit the following URL:
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/confirm/linux/742f9c74036a80cc213dd85dcc6ba…
Shane, a thoughtful and interesting post - thank you.
I work at a Fortune 500 company which is a Microsoft shop and although it's difficult to generalize - each company/institution has its way of doing things - perhaps I can offer some advice concerning bringing Free Open Source Software into a traditional corporate environment.
In the year I spent fighting for the right to test and deploy my company's first official FOSS solution (others were running GNU/Linux secretly in closets; I myself prototyped an intranet site on GNU/Linux in 1997), I would say the single biggest obstacle was the fear that there would be "no throat to choke" - no accountability. I successfully countered this argument first of all by choosing among the largest, most active FOSS projects, contrasting these with "orphans" - proprietary solutions my company had chosen in the past which have since disappeared. I asserted that whether we chose proprietary or Free software, we would need an integrator in any case for installation, training, deployment, frontline maintenance, etc. So I carefully chose my integrator, who was able to send serious IT people (with suits and ties :) to meetings and propose reassuring SLA contracts. The technical director at the integrator was co-author of a reference work on the subject; I bought the book and passed it around at every meeting. I also mentioned the widespread IT industry support for FOSS projects outside of Microsoft, since the collaborative development model - made possible by the Internet - has proven itself as a better way to produce reliable, secure software. I insisted that how no matter how many times we tried to choke the throats of our company's Microsoft account managers, they remained incapable of improving the security of their internet browser or improving multilanguage support of their SharePoint product; they could only apologize and ask us to wait for the next version, whenever that might be (!).
I contrasted the difference between software built to standards (W3C, ISO, Dublin Core, LDAP) and designed for interoperability, and proprietary solutions designed to lock in revenue streams whether in the customer's interest or not.
I showed how FOSS can be very easily prototyped, in most cases by simply downloading binary executables and running them in a sandbox. This contrasts with most proprietary solutions, where an integrator designs a pilot project as a step in commitment (human resources, financial, legal) to a bigger project. In this vein I discussed the advantages of avoiding gigantism in our IT projects, and deploying focused projects which reduce risk, minimise business process disruption, and shorten project timelines.
After mentioning that there are 90,000 registered projects on Sourceforge (this was in 2004), I showed a short list of the FOSS titans: GNU/Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, etc. I cited examples of very successful companies relying on FOSS, such as Google with Python.
In my company's case, I chose an application which runs on Windows servers as well as GNU/Linux; I explained that this solution could be deployed immediately on today's Windows servers, compatible with existing corporate standards while minimising IT staff impact (very few GNU/Linux experts at my company); at the same time, opening a path to better performance, reliability, and security in the future the day we run the application over GNU/Linux. I added that although all 40,000 PCs and 90% of servers (the rest being proprietary Unices) at my company run Windows, I would bet that the new generation of IT personnel at our company were all running GNU/Linux at home and surfing the web with Firefox.
I avoided the Free versus Open Source discussion, since in my context this was picking nits; I spent many hours explaining that large successful Free software projects are not three guys in a garage, but extremely competent engineers many of which are employed by familiar IT companies. I did however successfully negotiate with our legal department to invert our standard intellectual property clause; my company explicitly renounced any intellectual property claims to software developed for and financed by our FOSS projects, so that it may be made available to the community. I explained that this contribution could be considered our end of a deal in which we got great software for free, created by others who have used and improved it before us. I felt that this aspect was very important; although I explained that the GNU GPL did not obligate us to publish source code since there was no distribution (we are final end-users), I thought it necessary to set that precedent for a FOSS project.
Finally, I demonstrated that for my project, my chosen solution would be at least seven times cheaper than the proposed Microsoft solution, the major differences being in licensing costs and in consulting/development necessary to adapt the MS solution to our needs.
Although I had the support of my business unit managers who were principally interested in the lower cost and faster deployment aspects, I had to endure some very tense meetings at which I was accused by IT executives of recklessness, incompetence, and worse. Several colleagues contacted me privately to say that they hoped I would succeed, although they themselves couldn't stick their necks out. In the end, the corporate IT director was called upon to decide and spent half a day hearing the arguments. He approved the solution as a new corporate standard, saying: "we must be pragmatic, not dogmatic" and "we have gone too far in our dependence on one IT supplier". Prudently, he directed that such projects be limited at first to noncritical databases and informational intranets. Today, FOSS projects are flourishing at my company; the first GNU/Linux servers have appeared in production as replacements for proprietary Unix servers, after tests showed that our in-house Unix tools could be easily recompiled and run over GNU/Linux. And several IT managers are reporting success with virtualization solutions, running Windows server images over GNU/Linux.
One final note: my company (a manufacturer not in IT) has absolutely nothing to gain by publicly discussing our IT infrastructure; you will not find a news article on Google that talks about this. But Microsoft is fully aware that its top-tier customers are testing the waters, and that the industry has changed. The major consulting firms in daily contact with large corporations are also aware of the change. I think FOSS is a clear choice for any company or institution which has to watch its IT budget, and a viable choice for richer corporations who want to improve security and deploy applications more quickly. I believe that corporations can be persuaded to accept the advantages of keeping code Free, in the same way that sustainable development has become a top-of-mind - an issue unheard of ten or fifteen years ago.
Sean DALY.
> Message du 03/05/06 23:54
> De : "Shane M. Coughlan" <shane(a)shaneland.co.uk>
> A : discussion(a)fsfeurope.org
> Copie à :
> Objet : A day with the boys from GLLUG
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Recently I was down in London speaking to the Great London Linux User
> Group. I just posted a blog entry about my adventure here:
> https://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/shane/communicating_freely/a_day_with_the_b…
>
> I had a great time, and we touched on some pretty topical things. If
> you are interested in deployment of GNU/Linux and other Free systems in
> business environments, or in the danger that as Free Software gets more
> corporate we'll cooperate less, you might find something to mull over :)
>
> Shane
>
> - --
> Shane Martin Coughlan
> e: shane(a)shaneland.co.uk
> m: +447773180107
> w: www.shaneland.co.uk
> - ---
> Projects:
> http://mobility.opendawn.comhttp://gem.opendawn.com
> http://enigmail.mozdev.orghttp://www.winpt.org
> - ---
> Organisations:
> http://www.fsfeurope.orghttp://www.fsf.org
> http://www.labour.org.ukhttp://www.opensourceacademy.gov.uk
> - ---
> OpenPGP: http://www.shaneland.co.uk/personalpages/shane/files/publickey.asc
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.4-svn4127: (MingW32)
>
> iQCVAwUBRFkmX9wG3M95JPpzAQgOzAP/YhYXLi9rPllh/Sjjmh7IeqcBOq/xqTUK
> cUhVRr09025zG7I6DRXHuPtor0SMzU2tOz9X8w2R1y4plJntJJ3zm2hMz0CNMM19
> GinPKV8avB7736/OBtARk7Fn24KXYpm2Gtod7Q15N2hROA7Sksr6/TbksXgQQAJV
> IVXsq4g32vI=
> =13KE
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion(a)fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
>
"Shane M. Coughlan" <shane(a)shaneland.co.uk>
> Legal TV, a TV channel broadcasting on Sky 885, will have a show at noon
> tomorrow (Friday) about copyright and the Internet. DRM will also be
> addressed.
Legal TV is on eurobird at 28e 11224 V 27.5Ms/s, and is
visible over much of Europe free-to-air. For footprint, see
http://www.eutelsat.com/satellites/285e_popd.html and for
satellite TV FAQ see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/comp/astefaq.txt
The channel's web site is at http://www.legaltv.co.uk/ but
its programme guide is out of date.
Good luck! Ask if you want any background info, but I guess
you know most of it.
Cc: FreeCultureUK and discussion@fsfe
--
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Alex Hudson wrote:
> I would think in most communities, especially in large continents like
> Africa, people would generally receive TV over a satellite link.
> Satellite set-top boxes already have the TV output hardware, they
> sometimes run Free operating systems, have modems and serial ports, and
> could easily be adapted to allow a keyboard and/or mouse to be plugged
> in (in fact, Sky systems have come with keyboards in the past). Because
> they're bigger and don't have the same mobile size constraints, they
> could also be made cheaper, and the cost of providing general purpose
> computing facility would likely be most a software one, compared to the
> extra hardware required in a mobile phone.
I believe you're talking about the richest aspects of developing
societies. In many countries people are using standard terrestrial
televisions to receive standard signals. The cost of satellite
technology is extremely prohibitive. Certainly in Thailand, China,
Malaysia, Iran, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and Brazil terrestrial
television is very common. I was referring to the low tech end of TV units.
As for making the units cheaper, yes. This is possible. However,
people are already distributing mobile technology for voice
communication purposes. Extending functionality to allow for ICT
functions (email, word processing, etc) would not involve much in the
way of a hardware solution. USB ports already exist in many phones -
especially in Japan and Korea - and some phones already include some
form of video-out. These two hardware functions and some innovative
software would complete the ICT loop.
> Granted it's not as portable as a mobile, but a mobile which requires a
> TV and keyboard to work as a computer isn't really a portable computer
> unlike the OLPC. Plus, they're still going to need both satellite TV and
> mobile phones.
Not satellite TV. Just a TV set. The mobile phone is already
distributing itself. Rather than suggesting a new technology, I'm
suggesting extending existing technologies slightly to allow for vastly
extended functionality.
Reading through the Microsoft Research thoughts on this matter, it seems
that their approach might favour a *new product* idea. Perhaps a neat
"developing nation Windows CE mobile" thing. That's not what I favour.
I think that (a) our current phone hardware can be extended with minimal
cost and effort to provide the potential for ICT functionality. I
further propose (b) that we can use a cooperative server-based software
development model using little shared components to provide what appear
to be quite powerful applications. In reality these applications are
light-weight front-ends that call lots of light-weight single-purpose
services that are usually not running.
I think this could be good for getting lots of functionality into small
spaces and for fostering quick application development. As long as the
services are well-designed, they would provide really good tools for
applications to call. Furthermore, it could be in Java, allowing
everything to be totally cross-platform. It would not matter who made
the phones or what form of CPU was running the show.
If you think about it, this model could work effectively with Free
Software. It would be cooperative software, where application
interaction of all sorts would have to be both totally open and well
documented. Each new service could be called by all applications, and
each application front-end would be really light. It might be possible
to create specialist applications are very low cost once a certain
critical mass is reached with regards having functional and stable services.
> I'm not totally sold on the TV as an output device. Contrary to the
> figures you quoted, the maximum horizontal resolution for text is
> somewhere in the region of 400/500 pixels, sometimes less (many older
> TVs start losing focus, which isn't noticeable on most TV programmes,
> but very noticeable on computer displays). Plus, the 576 vertical
> display isn't really either - it's 288 lines per scan, then interlaced.
> Reading text on an interlaced screen can be horrendous. So, you're
> talking somewhere nearer QVGA than VGA in my opinion, and mobile phones
> are already at that resolution (I hear there's a VGA one coming out soon
> too).
On this point I don't agree. Having used Sinclair Spectrums, C64s,
Oracles and (my personal favourite) the Memotech, I have found
televisions to be a decent - if imperfect - textual device.
I think televisions work well enough as long as we don't push resolution
too far. You made a good point about interlacing, and you are quite
correct that this can make text problematic on some occasions. But for
a significant amount of time we did manage to display a great deal of
textual information on these devices, and I feel confident that we can
do so once again.
> I also thought that the OLPC project would be better served trying to
> make a more up-to-date version of the Psion Series 3 or something -
> those things lasted for weeks on two AA batteries, and you could get
> some really good software for them. I'm sure I bought mine for something
> less than £200, and they were always pretty niche machines.
On this point I certainly agree with you. I think the $100 laptop is a
*great* idea. However, great ideas do not make great products. It
takes a lot of time and careful testing to push out new technology.
I've been working on mobile encrypted email platforms for more than six
months with a team, and we're building on Mozilla, GPG and Enigmail
code. We're only really getting into shape now.
Creating a new laptop with new design concepts and a new operating
system...ouch. That's a lot of variables. The suggested time frame
just sounds too ambitious, and this is beginning to show with delays and
redesign decisions.
I hope the $100 laptop stays on (altered) track. However, I do think it
might be along later than people think. Working on something like a
Psion Series 3 would bring a product to the market a lot faster. I
think extending mobile phones with small hardware alterations and clever
software would also give potential benefit.
Shane
- --
Shane Martin Coughlan
e: shane(a)shaneland.co.uk
m: +447773180107
w: www.shaneland.co.uk
- ---
Projects:
http://mobility.opendawn.comhttp://gem.opendawn.comhttp://enigmail.mozdev.orghttp://www.winpt.org
- ---
Organisations:
http://www.fsfeurope.orghttp://www.fsf.orghttp://www.labour.org.ukhttp://www.opensourceacademy.gov.uk
- ---
OpenPGP: http://www.shaneland.co.uk/personalpages/shane/files/publickey.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4-svn4121: (MingW32)
iQCVAwUBREl2UNwG3M95JPpzAQgUxgQAkXSZqaYK17rlPemucvA2e39yWRVsA63c
dFeKgPUN8535lPCn9HXZEqAKQycxTo4YR3Vn4dt1VwZssX82PvUQmEDKDBaGAQTo
aItC0xsxOFGcDvDkwDK4MUpcI7iW0YrdlXYK2n/4/sl3a+n61qe3vWcCvbLInxb4
fJS9JRbDnM4=
=SOwN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----