diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/anonymous-response.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/anonymous-response.html | 142 |
1 files changed, 142 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/anonymous-response.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/anonymous-response.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f11135b --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/anonymous-response.html @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<title>A Response Letter to the Word Attachments +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<meta http-equiv="Keywords" + content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation, Linux, general, public, license, gpl, general public license, freedom, software, power, rights, word, attachment, word attachment, microsoft" /> + <meta http-equiv="Description" content="This essay explains why Microsoft Word attachments to email are bad, and describes what you can do to help stop this practice." /> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/anonymous-response.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>A Response Letter to the Word Attachments</h2> + +<blockquote><p> +This letter recommends OpenOffice; LibreOffice did not exist then. +<a href="https://www.libreoffice.org/">LibreOffice</a> is what we +recommend. +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +I'm sorry, but I was unable to read the Microsoft Word document you sent +me. Microsoft has been steadily changing the .doc format over the +releases of Microsoft Word (4.0, 95, 97, 2000, and now XP). Microsoft +has also intentionally refused to release the specification of the .doc +format to the community, making Microsoft Word the only application +that can reliably open this format. There is the Microsoft +Word Viewer application, but it only runs on Microsoft Windows +operating systems and does not allow one to edit the document. +</p><p> +The development team that designed the software I choose to use +(OpenOffice.org), has tried hard to figure out how the .doc format is +created and interpreted, in order to make it available to more people. +They believe that all people should be able to exchange information +electronically, and .doc is one of the most common formats. So, they +tried to make OpenOffice.org, the main competitor to Microsoft's own +Office suite, as compatible as possible with Microsoft's own formats. +But Microsoft did not like this, because it would mean that people that +have not bought Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office would be able to +read and write .doc documents. +</p><p> +Unfortunately, it seems that Microsoft is sometimes successful. My +non-Microsoft application was unable to open the .doc document you sent +me. As a result, we cannot exchange information, until one of the +following happens: +</p><p> +[0] The information intended to be read/processed by me is converted to +an open format that people who don't use Microsoft Windows and Microsoft +Office are able to process. +</p><p> +[1] I purchase and install Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Word, and by +deduction all other Microsoft applications necessary to do my work. +</p><p> +Because it will be a cold day in hell before I do the latter, I would +suggest we find a different way of exchanging information +electronically. +</p><p> +--A +</p><p> +PS: I hope you realize that I have nothing against you as a person. I +just can't use the document you sent me, and I tried to explain why the +implicit assumption that I would be able to read it, was mistaken. +</p><p> +PPS: When I tried to open the document you sent to me, my word processor +crashed, obviously unable to properly interpret the .doc format. My +word processor was handling 4 other documents at the time. Two of them +were assignments, and all changes I had not saved were lost. On +aggregate, about two hours of my work were lost because the +OpenOffice.org developers were unable to overcome the barriers Microsoft +put in place, and render the document properly. I believe they are the +last to blame for this failure. +</p><p> +PPPS: For further reasons why .doc should not be the format of choice +when exchanging information electronically, I invite you to read +<a href="/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html"> +http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html</a>. It may be +long, but it certainly exposes the compromises both you, as the +sender, and I, as the receiver, are making by exchanging Microsoft +Word documents. +</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 2003, 2014 Anonymous contributor</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2014/04/12 12:39:57 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |