None of this supports your claim office for Mac was written from scratch. There are incompatibilies between different versions on windows this does not mean they do not share code bases. Also just because VB is not supported in mac also does not mean the do not share code bases.
Originally Posted by curaga
"Thus I defined a way to spot a zealot" you mean to make a generalisation.
Originally Posted by BO$$
If you have not noticed. No one is calling for open source office you are just trolling once again. I tend to think office for linux will be a good thing for the platform but that doesnt mean everyone one that doesnt is an open source zealot as you would like to say. The main issue with office is not that its not open source, but that it doesnt support open standards. This forces you to use office to access your own documents which should be your property and should not have such restrictions. If office were to stop being made in ten or twenty years time there may be no way for you to access your documents.
Finally since you love the term zealot so much I would like to inform you that you yourself are a zealot. Thats right on your self proclaimed war on open source fans you seem to be a fully blown closed source zealot, which brings anyone to the logical question of why you are a member of these forums? Why you follow the Phoronix blog? And why you even use linux? I still think that you are just a microsoft fanboy who doesnt acctually use linux and just trolls these forums.
OMFG! Did you really just rip on someone and call their ability to spell into question? And then commit the Appeal to Authority fallacy in the same sentence where you made fun of someone's philosophical bonifides?
Originally Posted by necro-lover
Fucking comic gold!
Not quite correct.
Originally Posted by erendorn
If A, then B. But A != B. A is a sufficient condition for B, but they are not equivalent. If A = B, as you suggest, then B would be a sufficient condition for A as well, but this would be affirming the consequent - a fallacy.
If A, then B.
That's a no-no, but it's an honest mistake. Either way, it's not what he was actually saying. He was just defining the term with an example.
Lol, there is no end to the entertainment you provide. Is this really so surprising that it actually pisses you off? The linux world is where the core operating system, application frameworks, and majority of applications are open source and where the developers and majority of users all subscribe to open computing philosophy's. Yet while reading the forum of a website that is dedicated to following open source operating systems, you are actually getting pissed of that people want more projects to become open source?
Originally Posted by BO$$
What makes me almost fall off my chair in hysterics is that you continually claim to be pragmatic yet you seem unable to make any of these observations on your own. If you were truly pragmatic you would just accept this is the way the majority of people think in the linux world and move on.
But no fact is you are just a troll here to get in the way of passionate people who are trying to have informative discussions about their operating system of choice. How about just trying to make a constructive comment in these forums, come on just once?
Last edited by timothyja; 02-06-2013 at 10:06 PM.
OK; let's say instead that whatever sharing exists is poor and mostly ancient. Better?
Originally Posted by timothyja
In addition, the incompatibilities were within the same product family, not between families like in your Windows comparison. Ie, Office for Windows 97 and Office for Mac 98, or the next revision, Office XP on Windows vs Office 2001 on Mac.
(editing still broken in Opera)
At our company, Office isn't a large proportion of the cost - All the CALs for all the services are what cost the money on a Microsoft network.
Originally Posted by bwat47