office productivity systems - the shape of things to come

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by peterwn, Nov 8, 2007.

  1. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    See:
    http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.21/odf-workshop

    Especially:
    "Germany is not the only country in favour of ODF. As expressed by
    Gavin Beckett of the city administration of Bristol, UK, a migration
    to Sun Microsystems's StarOffice is currently in progress in the city
    administrative offices. Mr. Beckett pointed out that the difficulty in
    the development of the progress is the inertia and habit of the office
    employees having been used Microsoft operation system for many years.
    "The point is to overcome deeply ingrained modes of behavior," he
    stated."

    New Zealand is more like European countries than the USA with respect
    to this sort of things.

    As I have explained before, there are three hefty reasons to escape
    the thralls of a single monopoly vendor:

    1. Sovereignty. It just does not make sense on leaving security in
    the hands of a foreign corporation who does not necessarily have New
    Zealand's interests at heart. t is unfortunate for USA that they are
    virtually forced to eat
    the Micro$oft dogfood. In the longer term there are serious
    implications for USA's national security ans sovereignty.

    2. Archives - a 'must' for public agencies under the law. There is
    not really provision or commitment for this at present.
    For example, can Office 2007 read very early MS Word files. No, you
    need to use Open Office for this.

    3. Environmental concerns. The upgrage treadmill cycle is hard on
    the environment and Microsoft has no commitment to its customers or
    humankind in general to try and alleviate this (apart from supporting
    power saving features. PC's should be lasting at least 10 years, not
    the present 2 - 3 years.
     
    peterwn, Nov 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. peterwn

    Cadae Guest

    Yes, these are serious concerns and a hefty solution is needed - we need to
    use chizelled stone tablets for record keeping

    1. Sovereignty. We'd no longer be leaving security in the hands of
    computer, electricity, paper and pen manufactures. We may become dependent
    on quarries and chizellers, but ISO accreditation may overcome security
    issues related to this dependency.

    2. Archives - a 'must' for public agencies under the law. Paper is known to
    degrade afer a few centuries. Can we now read those Egyptian papyrus tax
    records of 2,000 years ago ? No. You need stone tablets for this.

    3. Environmental concerns. The computer and paper manufacturing treadmill is
    hard on the environment and these manufacturers have no commitment to their
    customers or humankind in general. Records should be lasting thousands of
    years, not the present few centuries. Also, stone tablets can be re-cycled
    as wheel chocks to assist the dodgy parking brakes on the old VW Combi.


    PC
     
    Cadae, Nov 8, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. peterwn

    Don Hills Guest

    While they have many admirable qualities, they suffer from the same problem
    as other storage media - reading them later. If it were not for the Rosetta
    Stone, we'd be unable to read many old stone tablets. For a modern day
    example, magneto-optical disk storage (once common in the Mac world,
    plus the Sony Minidisc) is probably the most stable and long-lived writable
    media available today. But I doubt there will be drives around to read them
    in a century's time.
     
    Don Hills, Nov 8, 2007
    #3
  4. However, I didn't realise that a nation without a sovereign could have
    sovereignty.

    Isn't that a concept utterly dependent on there being a monarch?

    :eek:)
     
    Jonathan Walker, Nov 8, 2007
    #4
  5. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    No - Sovereignty - supremacy / self-government / self governing state
    (Pocket Oxford Dictionary).
     
    peterwn, Nov 8, 2007
    #5
  6. peterwn

    Max Burke Guest

    In news: Don Hills Scribbled:
     
    Max Burke, Nov 8, 2007
    #6
  7. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    Two points here:
    1. A significant portion of public sector documents are archived
    indefinitely, including those boring old files tied up wuth green
    tape. I suspect that almost all those 'brown cards' containing school
    pupil records still exist somewhere.

    2. With the advent of new technology, formal policies on electronic
    storage methods are needed, and this is something no doubt that
    National Archives, Turnbull Library, etc are paying great attention
    to. It is not so much the physical media, but the storage formats
    that are of concern. In general, as a medium type ends its lifecycle,
    the information is relatively easily tranferred to more odern media.
    The devil is in the formats. This is why internationally recognised
    dtable formats are to be preferred for public sector information. As
    far as can see, Microsoft has no commitment to such archive needs eg
    Office 2007 AFAIK will not read early Microsoft formats. The TCO
    studies sponsored by Microsoft assume short term business
    philosophies, and would fall over if re-worked for long term
    solutions.

    This is why I am saying that public sector IT operations should be
    tending towards formats with long term stability, and formts that
    cannot be 'broken' at the whim of a monopoly vendor.
     
    peterwn, Nov 9, 2007
    #7
  8. peterwn

    bret Guest

     
    bret, Nov 9, 2007
    #8
  9. For there to be sovereignty there must be a sovereign; for sovereignty is
    predicated on, and exists within, the sovereign.

    how could it be any different?
     
    Jonathan Walker, Nov 10, 2007
    #9
  10. I think you've got it backwards. Rather than a sovereign conferring
    sovereignty on to something it's sovereignty (supreme authority) which
    makes someone a sovereign.

    A sovereign government means there is no authority above it i.e. it is
    not a colony or dependant state.
     
    Roger Johnstone, Nov 10, 2007
    #10
  11. "Sovereign government" = the sovereign - not those authorities that act in
    the sovereign's name.
     
    Jonathan Walker, Nov 10, 2007
    #11
  12. A sovereign government does not need a sovereign ruler. The government
    itself can be sovereign without requiring an individual head of state.
     
    Roger Johnstone, Nov 10, 2007
    #12
  13. peterwn

    Murray Symon Guest

    A clue: in the English language there are some words that have more than one
    meaning. If you don't believe me, look in a good dictionary.
     
    Murray Symon, Nov 10, 2007
    #13
  14. That is illogical.

    Sovereignty is predicated on the absolute rule of a sovereign.
     
    Jonathan Walker, Nov 10, 2007
    #14
  15. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    Sovereignty - 1. (n) supreme power or authority -> the authority of a
    state to govern itself or another state. 2. (a) a self governing
    state. - Concise Oxford Dictionary 10th Edition.
     
    peterwn, Nov 10, 2007
    #15
  16. Sovereignty
    Sovereignty \Sov"er*eign*ty\, n.; pl. {Sovereignties}. [OE.
    soverainetee, OF. sovrainet['e], F. souverainet['e].] The quality or
    state of being sovereign, or of being a sovereign; the exercise of, or
    right to exercise, supreme power; dominion; sway; supremacy;
    independence; also, that which is sovereign; a sovereign state; as,
    Italy was formerly divided into many sovereignties.
    [1913 Webster]

    -- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

    sovereignty
    n 1: government free from external control 2: royal authority; the
    dominion of a monarch [syn: {reign}]

    -- From WordNet (r) 2.0


    There you have it.

    "The quality or state of being sovereign, or of being a sovereign".

    And, as NZ is subject to many international agreements and laws and
    organisations, it can hardly be described as "sovereign" - and neither can
    its elected body of representatives.
     
    Jonathan Walker, Nov 10, 2007
    #16
  17. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    See:
    http://www.lamlaw.com/tikiwiki1983/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=425

    Fullly agreed. A cynic would argue that New Zealand is under the
    control of Micro$oft ia the USA Department of Justice.

    Why is it that when Micro$oft high-up's visited NZ nearly a year ago?

    Why is it that a few years ago the State Services Commission was
    hoodwinked into publishing a heap of Micro$oft FUD as a 'factual'
    statement on the legal risks of Open Source?
     
    peterwn, Nov 10, 2007
    #17
  18. All of which the sovereign nation of NZ voluntarily joined or agreed to.

    By your reasoning sovereignty can't exist at all then, since there's
    always some higher authority that can be pointed to, so perhaps you
    should write to the dictionary editors and tell them to remove the word :
    o)
     
    Roger Johnstone, Nov 10, 2007
    #18
  19. Busted! Elsewhere in this thread, just eleven hours later, you used this
    dictionary definition:

    The first definition makes no mention of a sovereign.
     
    Roger Johnstone, Nov 10, 2007
    #19
  20. Not at all.

    Sovereignty exists in the person of the sovereign. It does not exist
    elsewhere.
     
    Jonathan Walker, Nov 10, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.