I used to be indecisive, now I'm not so sure [OTish]

[Jim Scott]

Up until now I have trodden the freeware path, or perhaps been led down
it (willingly) by this newsgroup, and the advice I find here (not
complaining, just stating a fact). The consequence is that I have lots of
programs like Thunderbird, Firefox, Kalendar, Phonedeck, Xnews/Gravity,
Poppy and I am sure several more. Together they do an excellent job and I
use Netlaunch to co-ordinate the internet applications.
However my new PC came with MSoffice installed, but I suspect it could
just as well be Open Office (which I do not know except seen here).
Forgetting for the moment the security aspects of MSware and assuming I
have got that covered, then Outlook (with spambayes plugin) seems to be
able to do the job of all the above named applications, just as well or
better. With XP I don't have the 'resources' problem I had with '98
either.
Is there a good reason for using diverse programs rather than one
universal application or is it just a different way of doing the same
thing and you 'pays yer money' (or not in this case) and 'takes yer
choice'?

(also posted to alt.comp.freeware.discussion)
--
Jim

Tyneside - North East of England
To email me directly omit the X from my address
Visit http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

Up until now I have trodden the freeware path, or perhaps been led down
it (willingly) by this newsgroup, and the advice I find here (not
complaining, just stating a fact). The consequence is that I have lots of
programs like Thunderbird, Firefox, Kalendar, Phonedeck, Xnews/Gravity,
Poppy and I am sure several more. Together they do an excellent job and I
use Netlaunch to co-ordinate the internet applications.
However my new PC came with MSoffice installed, but I suspect it could
just as well be Open Office (which I do not know except seen here).
Forgetting for the moment the security aspects of MSware and assuming I
have got that covered, then Outlook (with spambayes plugin) seems to be
able to do the job of all the above named applications, just as well or
better. With XP I don't have the 'resources' problem I had with '98
either.
Is there a good reason for using diverse programs rather than one
universal application or is it just a different way of doing the same
thing and you 'pays yer money' (or not in this case) and 'takes yer
choice'?

(also posted to alt.comp.freeware.discussion)

That's a big question and you'll get a lot of answers. I won't try to
answer it all. Forgetting for the moment about the security aspects
and assuming they're covered is something I just can't do, because
they're like busses, there'll be another one along in a moment. For
that reason, I haven't used any Microsoft internet apps for years.
From a purely usage point of view, I'm sure they do job adequately.

The main reason I use Open Office is because of the amount of trouble
I've had with the various versions of Word. I've always had licensed
versions but I've never been able to trust them not to mangle
normal.dot and all the templates I've based on it. Seemed to happen
every few months. I've also had difficulty with the dictionary losing
added words. Open Office doesn't suffer from these problems.

I think the main reason many people drop Outlook in favour of freeware
apps is, quite simply, security. I'm sure it'll do the job well
enough but it will leave you vulnerable.

 

[FYIS.org/estore]

In Jim Scott posted:

Is there a good reason for using diverse programs rather than one
universal application or is it just a different way of doing the same
thing and you 'pays yer money' (or not in this case) and 'takes yer
choice'?

Depenz on where you are comin' from.
In reality, no, for the average consumer there is no good reason
assuming that the application meets your functional requirements.
But if you are one of those euro socialists who believe that every
company, especially one from the US of A, is out to screw the consumer
in favor of the stockholders, and that no one man (Gates/Microsft)
must not have monopolistic power (as legal as it may be), than you
must preach a free and open source code world.
If you are a "liberal internationalist" in the context of 'An American
Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World'
(http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19912/news_detail.asp), to the extent
you are aware of US unipolar power, you don't like it. You see its use
for anything other than humanitarianism or reflexive self-defense as
an expression of national selfishness. And you don't just want the US
to ignore its unique power, you want the US to yield it piece by
piece, by subsuming itself in a new global (economic) architecture in
which America becomes not the arbiter of international (economic)
events, but a good and tame international citizen.

DanlK, FYI Services
www.FYIS.org
Visit our re-opened eBay store @ http://tinyurl.com/35wgv !
____________________________________________
Don't forget to put this html code on your web page:
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript
src="http://www.georgewbush.com/WStuff/BPForm.aspx">
</SCRIPT>

 

[jo]

Is there a good reason for using diverse programs rather than one
universal application or is it just a different way of doing the same
thing and you 'pays yer money' (or not in this case) and 'takes yer
choice'?

If resources were not an issue for me (and they are), then my reasons
would be 'efficiency' and 'flexibility'.

My feeling is that programs that claim to be able to do a lot of
different things, tend to do them inefficiently, and often
incompetently.

 

[REM]

Jim Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

Up until now I have trodden the freeware path, or perhaps been led down
it (willingly) by this newsgroup, and the advice I find here (not
complaining, just stating a fact). The consequence is that I have lots of
programs like Thunderbird, Firefox, Kalendar, Phonedeck, Xnews/Gravity,
Poppy and I am sure several more. Together they do an excellent job and I
use Netlaunch to co-ordinate the internet applications.

However my new PC came with MSoffice installed, but I suspect it could
just as well be Open Office (which I do not know except seen here).
Forgetting for the moment the security aspects of MSware and assuming I
have got that covered, then Outlook (with spambayes plugin) seems to be
able to do the job of all the above named applications, just as well or
better. With XP I don't have the 'resources' problem I had with '98
either.

Is there a good reason for using diverse programs rather than one
universal application or is it just a different way of doing the same
thing and you 'pays yer money' (or not in this case) and 'takes yer
choice'?

Interesting question. Do you feel good about putting all of your eggs into Gates
basket?

While I have bought DOS/Win3.1, Win95 and 98SE, I have always felt bad in
assisting in consolidating 'the' software market for MS. There is just something
inherently wrong, in my view, of the way MS rages through like a bull. The laws
are simply insufficient to stop a monopoly.

That's a double edged sword. I _loved_ DOS (not Win3.1), 95 was pretty good at
the time, 98SE was even better, and now I'm extremely happy running an academic
copy of XP, even though the 'gift' was leveraged to get programmers using the
..NET framework. XP rocks though, and the .NET framework is a good idea also, in
my view.

So, what's my beef? I feel really bad about adding to MS revenues in spite of
some pretty good operating systems. One of the richest guys in the world and he
tries to put his staff on the same "associate" ranking as Walmart employees to
avoid social security taxes, vacation, holiday pay, and insurance benefits to
the very people who made him what he is. That's opinionated, but that's plain
evil in my view. Were he not filthy rich and MS not the powerful corporation it
is I'd likely look at it differently.

There must be a bit of French Resistance in most of he people here. And freeware
is the ally. I've seen very many great freeware programs and I simply choose to
use them in spite of MS.

MS holds a 92% share of Google searches: (period not stated)

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=288748

"Though it's not strictly a U.S. analysis, Google itself publishes a
variety of data on usage of the search engine. (You'll see that
English-language searches are more than half of the total.) The OS
percentages in the period are:

Windows 98: 27%
Windows XP: 42%
Windows 2000: 19%
Windows NT: 3%
Macintosh: 3%
Windows 95: 1%
Linux: 1%
Other: 4%"

I'm really surprised that Linux is so low. I've tried several times myself and
just don't have the time to tame the beast. Tomorrow always promises something
new though. <G>

At what level of control by MS of the operating systems, office sytems, internet
influence, etc., at what level of domination of computer software, do you feel
comfortable with personally?

Would Open Office development continue if we all went with MS Office? I can't
see it. Even though these are the freeware programs, authors would stop writing
as the download and usage rates of the softwares declines. And that leaves us
back at square one. That's the plan, I cannot help but to presume.

While some third party programs are superior, firewalls for instance, I doubt
that most people even know freeware exists. We are the base support in author
appreciation here. They could be doing many other things and get paid for it.

That's a mighty long winded way to say, you decide (and MS of course) what runs
on your machine. I'd certainly suggest running Kerio 2.1.5 with your XP firewall
and be mindful of other "niche areas," like security, you're better off going
third party.

And just because it feels so good! Freeware is the exact opposite of what MS
represents to me personally; anti-greed.

Here's a more recent Google report of operating system percentages for June,
2004. The browser percentages are interesting also:

http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html

Down to 91%! We have them by the horns now. <G>

Or, is that visa versa?

 

[Usenet User]

Up until now I have trodden the freeware path, or perhaps been led down
it (willingly) by this newsgroup, and the advice I find here (not
complaining, just stating a fact). The consequence is that I have lots of
programs like Thunderbird, Firefox, Kalendar, Phonedeck, Xnews/Gravity,
Poppy and I am sure several more. Together they do an excellent job and I
use Netlaunch to co-ordinate the internet applications.
However my new PC came with MSoffice installed, but I suspect it could
just as well be Open Office (which I do not know except seen here).
Forgetting for the moment the security aspects of MSware and assuming I
have got that covered, then Outlook (with spambayes plugin) seems to be
able to do the job of all the above named applications, just as well or
better. With XP I don't have the 'resources' problem I had with '98
either.
Is there a good reason for using diverse programs rather than one
universal application or is it just a different way of doing the same
thing and you 'pays yer money' (or not in this case) and 'takes yer
choice'?

(also posted to alt.comp.freeware.discussion)

I can't really answer that, except that if you want the best of both
worlds (freeware, security, universal app, integration, less resources),
try the Mozilla internet suite: email client. web browser, calendar (can
be added), address book, news reader, of course. listed in order of your
apps' functions.

 

[REM]

"FYIS.org/estore" <FYIS.org/[email protected]> wrote:

Depenz on where you are comin' from.

In reality, no, for the average consumer there is no good reason
assuming that the application meets your functional requirements.
But if you are one of those euro socialists who believe that every
company, especially one from the US of A, is out to screw the consumer
in favor of the stockholders, and that no one man (Gates/Microsft)
must not have monopolistic power (as legal as it may be), than you
must preach a free and open source code world.

That'd be me I suppose. <G>

Open source is great also of course, but nothing can replace free choice and the
right to associate freely (except a monopoly leveraging the software market).

 

[Jim Scott]

<REM-snip>

I hear all you and the previous writer say, but that is not really the
question. The question is not about MS's domination of the world, although
I had a feeling that is where it would end up. ?
I already have MSoffice and have no intention of throwing it away on a
principle, but the question could equally well apply to Open Office ie is
there any virtue/gain in using the stand-alone software described, against
using an all-singing, all-dancing, tried and tested, multifunction
application?

Jim

 

[Onno Tasler]

Jim Scott scribebat:

Is there a good reason for using diverse programs rather than one
universal application or is it just a different way of doing the same
thing and you 'takes yer choice'?

If you have several specialised programs, the chance that you are
affected of a security hole in one of them is smaller as when using one
big program for everything, because there are less possibilities what
can be done with the program. On the other hand, it is more difficult to
reuse data for the different needs you have with multiple programs
instead of one. Specialised programs are often better in their specific
field compared to "I can do it all" programs.

So, if you need to exchange formatted data between your programs often,
then you are better off with one big program that does it all.
Otherwise, a combination of several programs is usually the better
choice.

 

[Roger Johansson]

Here's a more recent Google report of operating system percentages for June,
2004. The browser percentages are interesting also:

http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html

Down to 91%! We have them by the horns now. <G>

There is a lot of browser identity spoofing going on.

For example, my Opera browser is set to look like IE6 because so many
web sites check what browser you use.

This means that the numbers for IE are higher than they should be.

If they determine operating systems by looking at what browsers people
use this affects the numbers for operating systems too.

 

[REM]

Jim Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

I hear all you and the previous writer say, but that is not really the
question. The question is not about MS's domination of the world, although
I had a feeling that is where it would end up. ?

True, I did not go straight to your question. However, you, I and everyone
else's actions directly determine the degree of domination and that, to me, is
worth consideration.

I already have MSoffice and have no intention of throwing it away on a
principle, but the question could equally well apply to Open Office ie is
there any virtue/gain in using the stand-alone software described, against
using an all-singing, all-dancing, tried and tested, multifunction
application?

I have actually had small formatting problems in Open Office documents I wrote
at home and opened in MS Word at school to laser print. The problems were small,
but unfortunately enough to get me docked for by a letter grade. I tried looking
for and fixing these glitches, but I never printed a perfect document, my own
ability is a secondary consideration.

The anti-virus market luckily has many quality freewares. The same is true for
firewalls. The same is true for editors and word processors. I don't use my MS
Word currently because it is overkill for my present needs and I like freeware.

You'll need to consider each freeware app, what you already have, and decide. I
think it best to decide individually, rather than to accept the MS program with
a builtin back scratcher and be done with it myself.

 

[REM]

There is a lot of browser identity spoofing going on.

For example, my Opera browser is set to look like IE6 because so many
web sites check what browser you use.

This means that the numbers for IE are higher than they should be.

If they determine operating systems by looking at what browsers people
use this affects the numbers for operating systems too.

Very true. I cannot imagine the Windows operating system spoofing itself as a
non-MS OS, or any other OS spoofing as if it were Windows.

There is a need in third party browsers to masquerade in order to render
reasonably though.

Almost all businesses use MS. Many governments use it. Educational systems use
it. Most any organization that is computerised is very likely to use Windows.
People buy what they know from work to use at home.

I personally know one CS instructor who uses Linux. I know probably close to 100
MS users, everyone I know other than the precious who has a computer. There are
a few Macs on campus.. no waiting, ever.

I think you only want to point out there is a large chance the percentages
listed are not totally accurate? You don't have any real doubt that Windows does
indeed hold at least a ballpark figure of the listed Google shares?

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

The question is not about MS's domination of the
world, although I had a feeling that is where it would end up. ?
I already have MSoffice and have no intention of throwing it away
on a principle, but the question could equally well apply to Open
Office ie is there any virtue/gain in using the stand-alone
software described, against using an all-singing, all-dancing,
tried and tested, multifunction application?

Not any inherent virtue, IMO. It's a choice each user may make
independently.

I tried Ximian[1] under GNU/Linux for quite a while. It's a tightly
integrated productivity/office/desktop/browser/whatever suite; there's
a Ximian build of OOo, and under GNOME it's all at least as well
integrated as MS Office IMO. I found I didn't like it. I didn't want
most of my tasks to the same GUI, the same widgets. I like having a
different look and feel for different things, and I like being able to
choose one's look independently of the others'.

[1] Still Free Software, but now run by Novell, so may not be suitable
for euro-socialist anti-hegemony needs.

 

[jo]

I already have MSoffice and have no intention of throwing it away on a
principle, but the question could equally well apply to Open Office ie is
there any virtue/gain in using the stand-alone software described, against
using an all-singing, all-dancing, tried and tested, multifunction
application?

An example:

I use Agent for text news and mail
PowerGrab for usenet binary downloads
SharkPost for usenet binary posting.

There are quite a few apps about that claim to be able to do the above
tasks in a single package; none that can do it as efficiently and
flexibly.

 

[jo]

For example, my Opera browser is set to look like IE6 because so many
web sites check what browser you use.

This behaviour encourages web masters to design for IE.

 

[Roger Johansson]

I think you only want to point out there is a large chance the percentages
listed are not totally accurate? You don't have any real doubt that Windows does
indeed hold at least a ballpark figure of the listed Google shares?

Correct. The numbers for IE should probably be a few (5?) percents
lower, but of course the overwhelming majority are still using it.