Actiontech router?

[Janina Sajka]

Hey, Buddy. I'm not sure those wysiwyg tools are so easy. In my office I
hear a lot of cussing about what that Word thing just did to somebody's
file. And I hear a lot about how people can't get it to print a certain
way, etc., etc., etc.


Buddy Brannan writes:
> From: Buddy Brannan <davros at ycardz.com>
> 
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:31:05PM -0400, jack mendez wrote:
> > i guess what i am trying to say is that if you don't use the tools which
> > you have available to you simply because of some idealogical and really,
> > foolish motion that open source is better just because, you are a fool.
> 
> Why not tell us what you *really* think, Jack? 
> 
> I hardly think, first of all, that the notions you mentioned are
> foolish at all. They're just as valid as any other reasons one might
> choose to use open-source (or more narrowly, free) software. And
> people who choose to use, or not use, tools for what you consider to
> be foolish reasons are only fools in your limited vision. (BTW, I
> really think you might've worded your opinion in a more constructive
> fashion, but that, in turn, is my opinion.) 
> 
> I could argue that people who don't use tools, for instance, such as
> the tex typesetting language, preferring instead to use a WYSIWYG word
> processor, are foolish for not using a tool that has the power to be
> much more exact in its execution of typesetting of documents. They are
> foolish because they don't want to take the time or energy to learn to
> use these tools and instead choose to use something easy. Copping out
> if you will. I won't say so, and I don't believe this is true. Sure, I
> might think that the non-use of these tools is short-sighted (I don't,
> necessarily). Or I might think a lot of things. Thing is though, we
> have a choice, and we can make that choice based on whatever criteria
> we like. Ideological, ease-of-use, power. But because someone's
> choices and reasons are not yours, they are not fools, nor are their
> reasons foolish. (Now if one chooses to support bloated, monopolistic,
> predatory, short-sighted, sloppy, shoddy software companies, I
> wouldn't say they're fools either. Short-sighted, maybe; ignorant of
> all the facts, perhaps; lazy, could be; they don't see anything wrong
> with this picture, possibly; but I don't know everyone's
> motivation. But their ideology's not mine. Fools? Probably not.) 
> 
> Sure, I'll use something if proprietary and closed if an open
> alternative is not available. I'll even use something that's open
> source if something as useful isn't available as free
> software. (Please understand the distinction.) However,
> *ideologically*, and maybe in your eyes *foolishly*, I will use a free
> software product if it is of as much utility--or close to as much
> utility--as something that is not free. Heck, I'll even pay for free
> (as in speech) software and support it over non-free software (even if
> the non-free software is free (as in beer)). 
> 
> I, for one, look forward to the day--and it's coming--that I will no
> longer require the use of proprietary, non-free software. And I'll
> gladly ditch all of the proprietary, non-free software. Unfortunately,
> being a realist, I recognize that there will always be some things
> that will require some software that isn't free. Doesn't mean I have
> to like it. 
> 
> BTW, at least some of the reason I love GNU/Linux is ideological, so
> scuse me while I dust off my dunce cap. 
> -- 
> Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV/3   | "And if the ground yawned,
> Phone: (814) 455-7333     | I'd step to the side and say,
> Email: davros at ycardz.com  | "Hey ground! I'm nobody's lunch!"
> http://www.ycardz.com/    | --Eddie From Ohio
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
	
				Janina Sajka, Director
				Technology Research and Development
				Governmental Relations Group
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

Email: janina at afb.net		Phone: (202) 408-8175