Re: [tlug] google ditching windows and going for open source software

[Nguyen Vu Hung <vuhung16plus@example.com>]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Ai Ling <alchow@example.com> wrote:
> While I understand the desire to conform to open formats, I have to point
> out that because of Rule #1, you didn't get to Rule #2 or Step 2.  Both Rule
> #2 and Step 2 seem, to me, to be palatable to the average user.  Rule #1 is
> something that a lot of them won't be able to understand--especially when
> sending a document to someone else will involve an extra step (conversion).

The problem arises when we have to exchange files with people outside
the company (customers). You won't force or persuade the customers using ODF.

The change is more annoying than good for average users.
But refer to my previous email for the motivation of the change.

Put all the things in a bigger pictures where average users, a company,
a country, FOSS enthusiasts  involve. I hope you see my points.

>> Our main dependencies on M$ are: The OS and the Office suite.
>> I don't think that replacing both of them is a good idea, and that if
>> the (average) users do not depend on M$ Office, they won't need
>> the OS anymore.
>
> I agree with this, but my point was aimed more at the requirement that local
> documents be in ODF.
.
Forcing people using OOo is not enough because OOo can save files in
both format: .doc and .odt.

Forcing people using ODF is not enough because they can use Office 2007
to save as ODF formats (with some addons).

The point of using ODF internally is that: We don't encourage you
using M$ Office :)


-- 
Best Regards,
Nguyen Hung Vu [aka: NVH] ( in Vietnamese: Nguyễn Vũ Hưng )
vuhung16plus{remove}@example.com , YIM: vuhung16 , Skype: vuhung16plus
A brief profile: http://www.hn.is.uec.ac.jp/~vuhung/Nguyen.Vu.Hung.html