I couldn't agree more with you! I used to work for Mother Blue for nearly
30 years, dealing with large customers as a systems engineer. Even then
it occurred to me from time to time that we IT specialists thought that
IT was the only worthwhile endeavour. But, clearly, the business of a steel
firm is to produce steel, banks, well..., shipping companies and their
managers worry about shipping, travel agencies about holiday makers, etc.,
etc., and not to be proficient in IT.
IT is basically just a TOOL which they employ to get THEIR business done.
Just because somebody doesn't know C++ or Java, he/she is by no means a
"moron". IBM had/has excellent products. Selling these to customers was
never easy by any means - we were usually somewhat more costly. But, buying
from the "world standard" was SAFE, and service was RELIABLE even on night
IT managers of sizable companies need a LOT of courage and stamina to
turn their back on the "main stream".
As an aside - I have been using Open Software for decades now and will
continue to do so (Apache, MySQL, OO/LO, Squirrelmail, Courier,..., etc.,
etc.). I don't like monopolies! But then, I only look after a 50-piece
brass band... (www.rainermusik.at)
Regards from Salzburg
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:22:03 +0200, Pertti Rönnberg <email@example.com> wrote:
Thank you for your reply.
I am happy to say I had the privilege to in business visit your very
beautiful and interesting country - and especially Amsterdam - some
times very, very many years ago.
I am also retired since ten years back and used to work on manager level
in some companies mostly in metal industry, planning and delivering plants.
But not IT, I am an IT consumer since early 1980 - so you surely know
that IT field from 'inside' better than me but I know quite well the
decision making in my former environments.
I have for years been very well aware of all what you say about MS's
behavior and marketing policy - I agree with you completely and do
dislike the situation as much as you.
In many (most) companies/organizations (other than IT) the managers have
quite little own knowledge in IT why they do not have many alternatives:
they have to buy the IT from outside (more or less) experts or build up
a IT-dept of their own. In both cases they have to rely on other
people's knowhow and recommendations.
And if all (95% ?) your important contacts, customers, officials,
private, etc. use Windows, and all of your own staff know (only)
Windows/MSO then the economic calculation says that you must "talk the
same language" -- you can not afford anything else.
I strongly disagree with you about Jay's and Wolfgang' s behavior - take
a look at my parallel post "MS problems" some minutes earlier.
If these managers concentrate on their own jobs - and buy the IT - it
does not qualify them to be called "IT-illiteral morons" as Jay and
In 30 years I have had no problems (!) with the Windows' programs (the
cost are a relative matter), but from January this year when installing
LibO I have had too much problems with Base (and Calc) - and according
to this list there are a lot of others having real problems with LibO too.
In my opinion there is only one way for LibO: to become in every way
better than MSO especially for ordinary private users, user friendly,
stable, reliable, free of bugs and problems. These will then make it
easier for companies to convert to OpenSource/LibO.
Pertti Rönnberg (Finland)
On 1.10.2012 13:51, Joep L. Blom wrote:
On 01-10-12 11:57, Pertti Rönnberg wrote:
Dear Wolfgang & Jay,
A. so in your opinion people - both young and old - not yet knowing
anything about computers, perhaps buying their first unit, are - not
only "IT-illiterate" but also "morons"
B. so you agree that among these "IT-illiterate morons (= idiots)"
are bosses, persons in chief position (managers).
When responsible for their dept's/company's strategic and operative
effectiveness and economical result, these "IT-illiterate morons" decide
about the need of an IT-department -- and employ an IT-manager to that
department to take care of the company's IT-system, programs and
Are you not barking at a wrong tree - is it not this your IT-superior
you should bark at?
I take it obvious that neither of you can be in a manager position.
C. Obviously you qualify yourselves as highly "IT-literate" --
perhaps even "non-morons".
Some weeks ago LibO invited people to take part to make LibO better.
Would it not be an good idea that you - instead of blaming others - took
the opportunity to practice your high quality IT-knowledge to the
benefit of LibO.
As a Dutch (now retired) manager of a small business in IT I must
disagree. Yes, Jay and Wolfgang are not very polite but they surely
are right. I won't call them "morons" or "idiots" but choosers for
safety on false grounds.
Don't forget a salesman in a computer-shop will never tell a person
that he could use Open Source software when he can sell him buggy
Microsoft software with a profit of > 30%. He will tell him that on
his computer only certified Microsoft software will work correctly.
You and I know its complete nonsense but an IT-illiterate layman -
especially those that are afraid of everything technical - believes
him. The same goes for managers with even less interest in technical
matters and a willing ear for equals who sells him there stuff.
It is not for nothing that governments (Peru, Germany and many
others) demand the use of Open Source software instead of the use of
closed source, dangerous and expensive software. Twenty years ago the
hard- and software world was completely different and there Microsoft
has made his largest impact using unlawful methods to make everybody
believe their software was the only one to be used.A small
governmental action contrary was when the European Committee forced
Microsoft to pay a fine of > $ 500,000 and to remove Internet explorer
as integral part of their OS. But the main objection against the
activities of Microsoft remain valid: the disinformation of managers
and decisional people on the fact that they have to pay yearly for
service not delivered. Since 1981 when Microsoft began to SELL
software the buyer owned the software. Now Microsoft want to steal the
ownership from the buyer by stating that the software is not bought
but leased. That is wrong. Software running on a remote system not
owned by the buyer - and running only there - can be leased just as
installed software on a leased system. In all other cases the software
Moreover, when I buy a car and after a day my car is broken in due to
an unreliable lock, I get all refunded. Tell that to Microsoft!!