[Liverpool] proprietary formats @ liverpool uni

[Alan Pope]

On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 03:47:15PM +0000, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:26:32 +0000, Alan Pope wrote:
> 
> > Alternatively you could have just looked at the name of the file and
> > figured out that it's an article saved from The Guardian website:-
> > 
> > http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Copying+music+legally+in+the+digital+age%22
> > 
> > The first hit:-
> > 
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/09/copyrightlaws
> > 
> > Whilst I agree that using non-free formats is bad, I think you could 
> > possibly have approached this in a somewhat less confrontational manner.
> 
> I disagree. Firstly, you have no way of knowing whether the file is that
> article, just because the title is the same.

Whilst this is indeed true, the reason I mentioned it was because there was 
a lot of rant and rhetoric in the mail sent to the originator of the mht 
file. The "you're singling me out" "discriminating against me" type of 
response in my experience is less effective than a _polite_ request to make 
the file available in an open format. I was in no way advocating using 
non-free formats, merely pointing out that it's self destructive to the 
cause to rant at people who in all likelyhood are just doing their job with 
the tools they're given.

Fact is that in all likelyhood the file _is_ a copy of the Guardian article 
which may well have been originally been supplied with text such as "Take a 
look at this Guardian article". To suggest that you should bother googling 
_because_ the file is supplied in a non-free format is being bloody minded 
IMO.

> Secondly, what happens next
> time an article is made available in this format? If you're going to try
> to change things, sooner is better than later.
> 

Which could be effected much quicker if you were to show the originator the 
error of their ways in a polite manner. Barking at them about WINE this and 
compiling that isn't the right way to go about it. Getting hold of the 
document in html format with the attached web collatoral, and feeding back 
to the originator in an open format such as a zip file might yield better 
results. Perhaps with a note saying "In the future I and other people would 
appreciate it if you take this approach to the distribution of files". 

> Making any data available as an exe file is a terrible idea, particularly
> for Windows users. Forcing people to download and run executable files is
> an easy way to infect their machines.
> 

I never advocated otherwise. I merely attempted to assist someone in 
unpacking what was originally suggested to be self extracting zip archive.

I have to say I find it somewhat ironic that the complainant here is making 
a big deal about file distribution in open formats then brazenly states that 
the file opened fine on an Apple Mac running Quicktime. Not exactly the 
bastian of open source products is it? :)

Cheers,
Al.