[Liverpool] RE: Liverpool Digest, Vol 122,
Issue 6 - where are your standards ?
John Smith
john_5029 at hotmail.com
Fri Mar 7 11:40:46 GMT 2008
----------------------------------------
> From: liverpool-request at mailman.lug.org.uk
> Subject: Liverpool Digest, Vol 122, Issue 6
> To: liverpool at mailman.lug.org.uk
> Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:39:04 +0000
>
> Send Liverpool mailing list submissions to
> liverpool at mailman.lug.org.uk
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/liverpool
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> liverpool-request at mailman.lug.org.uk
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> liverpool-owner at mailman.lug.org.uk
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Liverpool digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: proprietary formats @ liverpool uni (Alan Pope)
> 2. Re: proprietary formats @ liverpool uni (Vladimir)
> 3. Re: proprietary formats @ liverpool uni (Giacomo Lacava)
> 4. Re: proprietary formats @ liverpool uni (Sujita Purushothaman)
> 5. Re: proprietary formats @ liverpool uni (Vladimir)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 19:53:12 +0000
> From: Alan Pope
> Subject: Re: [Liverpool] proprietary formats @ liverpool uni
> To: liverpool at mailman.lug.org.uk
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 20:37:56 +0000
> From: Vladimir
> Subject: Re: [Liverpool] proprietary formats @ liverpool uni
> To: "Alan Pope" , "Liverpool Linux User Group"
>
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Alan, there's a confusion a bit here.
> the thing is that the letter where i was "barking" about
> compiling, etc was my letter after a harsh exchange of emails
> before (about the MHT issue). i just can't post the letters of my lecturer
> without asking him, as u understand.
>
> about being bastian of open source. o believe me,
> i am. sometimes even to extremes. but this case is a bit
> different - because very large proportion of music students
> use Macs (because of Logic Pro), and i wasn't speaking
> only on my behalf there.
> even worse - it is no longer all about one OS being
> disadvantaged (say, Linux), but anything else other than Windows.
> well, that's extremely not fair, IMHO.
>
>
> On 06/03/2008, Alan Pope wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Liverpool mailing list
>> Liverpool at mailman.lug.org.uk
>> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/liverpool
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Support Underground!
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/liverpool/attachments/20080306/7d5b48da/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 22:47:21 +0000
> From: "Giacomo Lacava"
> Subject: Re: [Liverpool] proprietary formats @ liverpool uni
> To: "Alan Pope" , "Liverpool Linux User Group"
>
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Alan Pope wrote:
>> To suggest that you should bother googling
>> _because_ the file is supplied in a non-free format is being bloody minded
>> IMO.
>
> "Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people
> attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore,
> depends on unreasonable people."
>
> George Bernard Shaw
>
> :)
>
> cheers
> Giacomo
>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Liverpool mailing list
>> Liverpool at mailman.lug.org.uk
>> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/liverpool
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Giacomo Lacava
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 07:25:06 +0000
> From: Sujita Purushothaman
> Subject: Re: [Liverpool] proprietary formats @ liverpool uni
> To: Liverpool Linux User Group
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Alan Pope wrote:
>> 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 think lecturers have the obligation to be inclusive. I wouldn't blame
> students for being confrontational when lecturers are not inclusive. If
> someone came up to me and said, I don't have any software that can read
> your PDF handouts, I would immediately do 3 things:
> 1. Point and help him/her install Adobe Reader.
> 2. Give the same document in word and try to accommodate them as far as
> possible next time.
> 3. Then give a lecture about free, open and closed file formats. I do
> this as much as possible anyway. :-)
>
> Outside an educational establishment, I would skip 1 and 2.
>
> Vladimir: You could also point them to the VirtualDub case and explain
> how once you save your data in one format you are effectively saying I'm
> going to pay Microsoft money for as long as I want access to this data,
> especially considering that software is now leased instead of bought.
>
> Rgds,
> Sujita
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:39:00 +0000
> From: Vladimir
> Subject: Re: [Liverpool] proprietary formats @ liverpool uni
> To: "Liverpool Linux User Group"
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Sujita!
> what's the VirtualDub case? can you remind?
>
> Vladimir
>
> On 07/03/2008, Sujita Purushothaman wrote:
>>
>> Alan Pope wrote:
>>> 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 think lecturers have the obligation to be inclusive. I wouldn't blame
>> students for being confrontational when lecturers are not inclusive. If
>> someone came up to me and said, I don't have any software that can read
>> your PDF handouts, I would immediately do 3 things:
>> 1. Point and help him/her install Adobe Reader.
>> 2. Give the same document in word and try to accommodate them as far as
>> possible next time.
>> 3. Then give a lecture about free, open and closed file formats. I do
>> this as much as possible anyway. :-)
>>
>> Outside an educational establishment, I would skip 1 and 2.
>>
>> Vladimir: You could also point them to the VirtualDub case and explain
>> how once you save your data in one format you are effectively saying I'm
>> going to pay Microsoft money for as long as I want access to this data,
>> especially considering that software is now leased instead of bought.
>>
>> Rgds,
>>
>> Sujita
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Liverpool mailing list
>> Liverpool at mailman.lug.org.uk
>> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/liverpool
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Support Underground!
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/liverpool/attachments/20080307/aa18a874/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Liverpool mailing list
> Liverpool at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/liverpool
>
> End of Liverpool Digest, Vol 122, Issue 6
> *****************************************
Maybe I'm missing the point here, not having attended university, but surely there are standards laid down for IT in Liverpool University ?
If not a standard desktop then certainly a tool set or at least a set of file formats ? Should this desktop/tool set/file format turn out to be an offering of Microsoft then so be it. It seems that without such standards this kind of thing (incompatability) is bound to happen. Yes we all like freedom but look at the problem another way - the lecturers presumably give their presentations in English and don't cater for non English speakers. So English is the standard language used at the establishment. Imagine the havoc if a lecturer had to be multilingual !
Yes I am a Linux user, (or I wouldn't be here), but having worked in large IT departments for both the public and private sectors I know the importance in having standards for CIT, like it or not.
I would have thought an organization such as a university would also have such a framework in place. Obviously these standards should apply across the board to staff as well as students. Perhaps then the staff and students can get on with the business of education rather than worrying about peripheral issues.
Apologies if this sounds harsh - it just seems common sense to me.
Cheers
EdH.
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
More information about the Liverpool
mailing list