Marxists and Microsoft [Archive]

jake williams

10th February 2009, 07:28

You can't boycott capitalism.
It's not quite that simple. You can certainly try. In only a very theoretical sense, capitalism does try to be all-consuming and to limit space for life outside it. But in the real world it's relatively possible to live with not a whole lot of dependence on the capitalist system, depending on how you define that.

Totally separate then is whether or not one should try. I agree in the broad scope of things it's not an effective tactic of class struggle. But locally, in people's immediate lives, it can be refreshing to escape, inasmuch as one can, the material and social structure of capitalism, and I don't see any reason to get upset about what can be an emotionally and even socially valuable indulgence so long as it doesn't detract from the larger goal.

This is all in response to a sort of general train of thought I've noticed around here which is angrily and instantly critical of any sort of perceived "lifestylist" tendency. If your point is, however, that a person shouldn't feel guilty for living in a capitalist society and using its material products, then I certainly agree. If not using certain products is emotionally helpful, then that in and of itself is not harmful to class struggle and you should do it, even though one shouldn't feel obligated to.

Invincible Summer

10th February 2009, 07:59

It's not quite that simple. You can certainly try. In only a very theoretical sense, capitalism does try to be all-consuming and to limit space for life outside it. But in the real world it's relatively possible to live with not a whole lot of dependence on the capitalist system, depending on how you define that.

Totally separate then is whether or not one should try. I agree in the broad scope of things it's not an effective tactic of class struggle. But locally, in people's immediate lives, it can be refreshing to escape, inasmuch as one can, the material and social structure of capitalism, and I don't see any reason to get upset about what can be an emotionally and even socially valuable indulgence so long as it doesn't detract from the larger goal.

This is all in response to a sort of general train of thought I've noticed around here which is angrily and instantly critical of any sort of perceived "lifestylist" tendency. If your point is, however, that a person shouldn't feel guilty for living in a capitalist society and using its material products, then I certainly agree. If not using certain products is emotionally helpful, then that in and of itself is not harmful to class struggle and you should do it, even though one shouldn't feel obligated to.

Wise words. However, I'd say that trying to avoid using Microsoft products in this context is somewhat detrimental, as they are trying to distribute revolutionary materials.

welshboy

10th February 2009, 08:50

The thing is though it's not about boycotting microsoft it's about being democratic and allowing everyone, regardless of operating system or their ability to shell out £70 for MS Office, can access your material.
From an organisational point of view it also makes more sense to use .rtf, for example, which everyone can open in any wordprocessor.
Open Office is free and works on all, to the best of my knowledge, operating systems and so it just makes sense to encourage its use within and between organisations.
Its also got a built in pdf creator for those who worry about that sort of thing.:D

apathy maybe

10th February 2009, 09:34

OpenOffice.org (http://openoffice.org) is free, can read and write MS Word formats (often better than MS Word...), can export PDFs, can import PDFs (OO.o 3 with plugin)...

PDF Creator (http://www.pdfforge.org/products/pdfcreator) works like a printer for Windows, you select print, select PDF Creator as the printer, and it will save a PDF file for you. Free. If using Mac OS X or virtually and free *nix (including Ubuntu), you will be able to do a similar thing, without installing any software.

For other arguments about not using MS Word format to send files to people, see:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
http://www.rfc1149.net/documents/whynotword
http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/no-word/attach.html
http://jriddell.org/why-not-to-use-word-documents.html

Alternatives to sending MS Word formated files are, sending as PDFs (I've explained how most people can freely and easily create these above), sending files in OpenDocument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument) format (a patent free, free, international standard, used as the native file format by many office suites (including OpenOffice.org), and can be read and written by even more (including AbiWord)), plain text (though you lose formatting), HTML (though not if you are using MS Word) and Rich Text Format.

If you are using MS Word and would like to be able to read and write OpenDocument files, then check out the following:
http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/index.html
http://www.sun.com/software/star/odf_plugin/

CommieCat

10th February 2009, 13:19

Generally I use Microsoft Word 2007 because its compatible with MATLAB's notebook feature, which I'm pretty sure other word processing programs don't have. Saves a LOT of time dealing with(out) LaTeX in that you don't have to learn two sets of programming language and generally looks a lot better in overall presentation. Doesn't make a difference to me, I didn't pay for MATLAB or Word. :D

welshboy

10th February 2009, 19:22

You may not have paid for Word but sending documents in MS formats coerces others into using it, especially if you use docx.

Yazman

14th February 2009, 11:13

You don't need to pay for word in order to have it and to use it. You don't need to fund microsoft to use pretty much any of their stuff.

apathy maybe

14th February 2009, 13:45

You don't need to pay for word in order to have it and to use it. You don't need to fund microsoft to use pretty much any of their stuff.
Whatever, the point is that you are creating culture where Microsoft is accepted. You might not have to pay, but others feel that they should pay for software. You encourage a mono-culture (always bad). Etc.

The argument that you can get it free, and that therefore it's OK, is wrong. I can't be bothered explaining more just now, but I'm sure you could find other people explaining more about it, if you do a search.

CommieCat

14th February 2009, 13:57

You may not have paid for Word but sending documents in MS formats coerces others into using it, especially if you use docx. ...and me using a computer in the first place 'coerces' someone else into using a computer, which is probably manufactured by some big corporation which hires dirt cheap labor...

Perhaps I should write with pen and paper (but NOT the English language, why that coerces others into learning English...)

Sorry, but I use what I consider the best products on the market, and that happens to be MATLAB which works well with Word. Even so, I rarely pass on the direct file, but a print of it, so its pretty irrelevant whatever program I use to create that document and it hardly coerces anyone else.

Yazman

14th February 2009, 14:17

Whatever, the point is that you are creating culture where Microsoft is accepted. You might not have to pay, but others feel that they should pay for software. You encourage a mono-culture (always bad). Etc.

The argument that you can get it free, and that therefore it's OK, is wrong. I can't be bothered explaining more just now, but I'm sure you could find other people explaining more about it, if you do a search.

As a PC user, a gamer, as well as somebody who regularly has to distribute documents to large amounts of people I must say that I really don't give a flying fuck about branded shite. No corporation is exempt from my Marxist wrath but the issue that you are raising here really conflicts quite seriously with my sensibilities as a technophile.

I am primarily concerned with compatibility and efficiency. Compatibility is exceedingly important; let us also not forget that .doc is just a file format and is not a proprietary one. You can get software like the OpenOffice.org Suite that is freely available to all, distributed online, that uses such formats. Whether using Microsoft Word or OpenOffice I don't really care as long as I can produce that which I need to distribute to people - this is where compatibility becomes important.

Whatever, the point is that you are creating culture where Microsoft is accepted. You might not have to pay, but others feel that they should pay for software. You encourage a mono-culture (always bad). Etc.

I don't encourage people to pay for applications at all and at the end of the day I prefer creating a culture of freely available and accessible software. I don't know why you focus on Microsoft here. I attack ALL businesses that sell software! Why focus on just Microsoft? What about Apple? Sun? Don't be a hypocrite.

Charging for applications is stupid as all fuck. I would rather encourage people to get their software for free and get them out of the mindset that being subservient to software corporations and charging for software is ok! Its hard enough for many workers to get by nowadays without having to pay for a fucking application.

Keeping more on topic - how does using the .doc format encourage people to use MS Word? The .doc format predates Windows! This is also not to mention that almost every major word processing suite across the board of operating systems supports independently reading and writing this format. Nobody is "encouraged" to use MS Word because somebody sent them a .doc format. That argument could be used to say it encourages people to use OpenOffice!

apathy maybe

14th February 2009, 17:53

I am primarily concerned with compatibility and efficiency. Compatibility is exceedingly important; let us also not forget that .doc is just a file format and is not a proprietary one. You can get software like the OpenOffice.org Suite that is freely available to all, distributed online, that uses such formats. Whether using Microsoft Word or OpenOffice I don't really care as long as I can produce that which I need to distribute to people - this is where compatibility becomes important.
Actually the MS Word format is proprietary, and only through the efforts of people to reverse engineer it, is it possible for OOo to read and write the format. If you really cared about compatibility, you would use an actual open, international standard (e.g. OpenDocument). Not only is it a better format, it makes accessing the text into the future a shit load easier ('cause it's XML based).

Oh, and if you care about compatibility, you wouldn't use MS Word, as from one version (or even copy) of the program to the next, you will lose formatting, and layout.

I don't encourage people to pay for applications at all and at the end of the day I prefer creating a culture of freely available and accessible software. I don't know why you focus on Microsoft here. I attack ALL businesses that sell software! Why focus on just Microsoft? What about Apple? Sun? Don't be a hypocrite.
:rolleyes:

I'm glad you don't encourage people to pay for software, but simply by distributing MS Word files, you are telling people that they should have MS Word. And, as I said, not everyone is willing to "not pay" for it.

Oh, and why Microsoft? What's the topic about? MS Word. I never talked about "selling software" at all, at least, it wasn't my intention to talk about that as significant. I would rather talk about compatibility. I would be happy to attack Sun or Apple though, if they had a product that controlled a majority of the market for that sort of product, and it didn't use an open standard.

Keeping more on topic - how does using the .doc format encourage people to use MS Word? The .doc format predates Windows! This is also not to mention that almost every major word processing suite across the board of operating systems supports independently reading and writing this format. Nobody is "encouraged" to use MS Word because somebody sent them a .doc format. That argument could be used to say it encourages people to use OpenOffice!

:rolleyes:

.doc format is not a single format. It is a variety of formats, the oldest of which may predate MS Windows, but that is irrelevant. When people see a file with .doc on the end, they think MS Word, they don't think OpenOffice.org. Why? Because .doc is the file format for MS Word! Not everyone knows about alternatives (such as OpenOffice.org) to MS Word, and by sending a .doc file, well, you are effectively telling them, "get MS Word". Here's a task for you, go out to your place of work/study (assuming you work/study with people who aren't too computer literate, most of the population), ask the first five people which program or programs they could use to open up a .doc file. Don't prompt them. Most of them will mention MS Word as the first option.

Anyway, also have a read of the variety of links I listed in my first post in the thread, they give all the arguments I've given and more.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

14th February 2009, 20:58

Bah, I use .rtf for my documents. If you can't open .rtf files, what damn century are you living in?

The Idler

15th February 2009, 12:01

The only doc format that predates Microsoft Word is the 1980s WordPerfect doc format which was a completely different incompatible format.

As for sweatshop computer hardware, users might have bought their computers second-hand or even got them free from Freecycle.

Microsoft is the obvious target as it is the most well-known widely used closed format (as specialist minority software MATLAB is irrelevant). RTF and PDF are widely used open standards. Mention "proprietary software" or "closed standard" to someone and they aren't likely to know what you are talking about. Just as "another world is possible", it is important that computer users are made aware "another software system is possible".

DIzzIE

15th February 2009, 23:13

I use MS Word since virtually everyone with a computer or access to one will have it and the important question is the content rather than the form. I would use PDFs except that I cannot convert them, and not everyone has Acrobat Reader.

If he actually believes that (that is to say in the importance of universal access to information) then there is absolutely no excuse for not saving his documents as textfiles. It is as simple as that. It's also important to keep in mind that the 'form' often entails certain nefarious content (ie security vulnerabilities that may allow the hiding of malicious code within files and/or hidden metadata within the file), so the distinction of form/content cannot easily be made when talking about file formats.

People have become seduced by superfluous enhancements to the point where all caution is thrown out the window. 'So what if I risk compromising my system to an attack, or exposing my name, timezone (and hence approximate location), serial numbers and more to any potential forensic examiner...as long as I get to show off my font collection and desktop publishing skills.'

Whether the format is an open standard or not is beside the point. ODF and DOC, for example, both potentially pose serious security risks (security vulnerabilities that may allow rogue code to be executed, as well as information leakage through metadata), with the only difference being that they're generally easier to locate when open standards are used.

The point then is to avoid using shit you don't need. For most things people write, opening up a plain text editor will suffice. I'm certainly not saying that there may be times when you need special, intricate formatting, but those times are few and far between.

So use plaintext whenever possible, and fuck the needless headache of worrying about the hidden dangers of other formats (both open and closed).

Yazman

16th February 2009, 08:45

Oh, and if you care about compatibility, you wouldn't use MS Word, as from one version (or even copy) of the program to the next, you will lose formatting, and layout.

For the vast majority of my files though I prefer to just use .txt because there is no real formatting there.. its just a clean, simple, universally readable format. Its also a hell of a lot faster to open up the basic text editor than to open openoffice/msword/lotus/whatever.

When I do need formatting (in university, for example) I generally use OpenOffice although I sometimes use Office apps. I'm not paying for it either way so I'm not really fazed by it. If its open source, or freely distributed, then all the better.

Also, the point of what I posted, is that rather than targeting .doc - and making excuses like "most people think of MS Word". If you are really concerned about people funding Microsoft... why not just target the selling of applications in general? Why not educate people about why you should not support corporations like Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc. rather than just disregarding this because "most people don't want to." That you seem to think most people WANT to fund Microsoft, well thats the problem.. you should be targeting that view.. if people really do think its somehow "wrong" to acquire software without paying for it - question their view. Get them out of that stupid mindset. I've done it before.

So use plaintext whenever possible, and fuck the needless headache of worrying about the hidden dangers of other formats (both open and closed).

The reason my favourite word processor happens to be notepad and the clone apps in other OS is simply because formatting itself can be too much of a headache across applications. Its easier to type up document for distribution that lacks formatting (plain text) because it is universally readable.

apathy maybe

16th February 2009, 11:50

The only doc format that predates Microsoft Word is the 1980s WordPerfect doc format which was a completely different incompatible format.

Err, Microsoft Word has had multiple formats, until Word 97, the format changed virtually every version. That is, Word 1 had a different format to Word 2, to Word 3, etc. From Word 97 until Word 2003, the format was backwards compatible, though certain features would be lost if opening up in an older version.

As for supporting Microsoft, the real reason not to use Word format to distribute documents is because it is not an open format. I don't care if people use MS Word, so long as, when they distribute the document, they save it as an open format.

Finally, @DIzzIE, I know of no security concerns with the OpenDocument Format, unlike the MS Office formats... Can you link to something explaining security concerns, I would be interested.

The Idler

17th February 2009, 17:02

... there is absolutely no excuse for not saving his documents as textfiles.Layout and formatting is needed in document exchange much more than ordinary text. Perhaps not quite as much as it is actually used, but still more than ordinary text. Most techno-primitivists recognise that word processed documents do represent necessary progress over unformatted text.

Also, the point of what I posted, is that rather than targeting .doc - and making excuses like "most people think of MS Word". If you are really concerned about people funding Microsoft... why not just target the selling of applications in general? Why not educate peopleFor the same reason McDonalds is targeted instead of "the fast food industry".

Err, Microsoft Word has had multiple formats, until Word 97, the format changed virtually every version. That is, Word 1 had a different format to Word 2, to Word 3, etc. From Word 97 until Word 2003, the format was backwards compatible, though certain features would be lost if opening up in an older version. Err, try and open a Microsoft Word 2003 document in Microsoft Word 97 and you might realise it was not backwards compatible. Besides my point was to Yazman, that doc does NOT predate Microsoft Word except for a completely different unrelated WordPerfect format in the 1980s. The modern DOC is a Microsoft-only "standard" which even they have found it profitable to ignore and undermine.

deLarge

17th February 2009, 18:20

I'm pretty sure the new version of Open Office supports reading from .docx files, and writing to .doc files.. the latter of which can be read by office 2007, so I don't think it's a problem.

capitalistwhore

19th February 2009, 00:14

Aside from the aforementioned compatibility problem, this all seems counter-productive. Let's encourage people to buy MS Office. Hell, let's encourage them to buy all the mindless capitalist goods that their crap capitalist system supports until they feel enslaved and organize, shred these companies and shed this economy ...

I still think people have to feel really, really ripped off monetarily before they will recognize they are being ripped off spiritually.

Somehow didn't happen with Vista, but I have my hopes set for Windows 7.:D

DIzzIE

21st February 2009, 06:50

Finally, @DIzzIE, I know of no security concerns with the OpenDocument Format, unlike the MS Office formats... Can you link to something explaining security concerns, I would be interested.

With regard to potential rogue code execution, see an advisory here (http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2007-4770.html) (though it's important to point out that the Security Team says that "Vulnerabilities which have been resolved are listed in our Bulletin", and that they appreciate "confidential disclosure", which makes one wonder exactly what unresolved vulnerabilities are lurking behind this security through obscurity facade). Though the issue in itself isn't if there're any vulnerabilities, it's that there is a potential for them; with plain text there is absolutely no risk.

With regard to information leakage through metadata, see Section 3 (http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.1/OS/OpenDocument-v1.1-html/OpenDocument-v1.1.html#3.Metadata%20Elements|outline) of the OpenDocument specification for a laundry list of potentially private details your ODF files risk leaking. A more in-depth explanation of why this is problematic is here (http://www.dizzy.ws/underground.security.paper.number.3.the.dangers.of .metadata.txt).

Though this whole exercise of pointing out potential vulnerabilities is what I was talking about when I said that by using plain text one avoids the needless headaches of wondering if there are any new or old security risks in unnecessary formats (and unnecessary software) in the first place.

... there is absolutely no excuse for not saving his documents as textfiles.

Layout and formatting is needed in document exchange much more than ordinary text.

I've been having great difficulty wrapping my mind around this statement over the past several days. Unless you are talking about exchanging blank, albeit formatted, documents--in other words, templates?--I simply don't understand how formatting could possibly be 'much more needed' than text.

At any rate, the quote you quoted was itself a direct response to another quote (which you yourself quoted in the original post), and which I don't feel the need to quote for a third time, though it seemingly said the exact opposite of what you are saying here.

Since, however, you seem inexplicably concerned about some perceived drastic loss of apparently pivotal formatting, perhaps that formatting could be emulated in plain text? Italics, bold, underlined text, headings, indentations, columns, artwork, even various fonts, can all be reproduced (or at the least, designated) in plain text.

Desktop publishing apps (whether open or closed) and their accompanying formats are all essentially bloatware, symptomatic of decadent excess and, more importantly, pose significant security risks. The latter reason alone should suffice as a sufficient prompt for minizing your use of them whenever possible.

Plain text is more accessible, more transparent, and more secure than any other document format. So I again reiterate that if one's concern is with safe, universal, and open presentation and dissemination of digital information, it stands to reason that one will then use a format that's fully palatable with those concerns (namely, plain text).

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

21st February 2009, 07:48

revolution inaction

21st February 2009, 10:19

No love for .rtf? Seems to me to be the go-to format if one wants to strike a good balance between simplicity, flexiblity, and compatibility.

As for the security side of things, I have no idea whether .rtf has any issues on that matter or not.

I mostly use rtf for exchanging documents or using them on other computers where i don't know what software is installed. txt isn't good enough it doesn't preserve basic formating, doc often look different on open office and micrsoft office or on different versions of microsoft office. odt is no use because its not installed on most computers so i cant guaranty opening it.
PDF's are good too if you only want to look at them or print

apathy maybe

21st February 2009, 12:48

Thanks DIzzIE.
Regarding text though, unless you use Unicode (which is doubtful), you will always have trouble with sharing between people using different operating systems, different languages, displaying equations (including sub and super script) etc.

All these features are present in Unicode, however, they still require special software, because the symbols aren't on ordinary keyboards.

I personally push HTML as the format to use. It can do everything, and with CSS, you get all the formatting as well.

Especially when you are displaying on the web. There is no reason to us MS Word documents on the web, none at all.

22nd February 2009, 10:24

I use OpenOffice (MS Office is not an option for me) and mostly use .rtf for exchanging document files. However, if you want to have pics in the documents, OOo can't seem to store them in eithe .doc or .rtf, so I'm forced to use .odt or export it as .pdf

Now, my question is simple: is there an easy, foolproof way to install the MSOffice plugin to read/write the OpenDocument format? That is to say: have a guide for dummies to install it. Also, the Sun website requires you register it for download, which is a no-go for computer illiterates.

Tjis

22nd February 2009, 15:32

Err, try and open a Microsoft Word 2003 document in Microsoft Word 97 and you might realise it was not backwards compatible.
That's not backwards compatibility though, but forward compatibility. Backwards compatibility is where you have a word 97 document and you are able to open it in microsoft word 2003. Microsoft office versions all have that feature from office 97 upwards.

Anyway, I never need word processors. For things like poster design, there are way better, free (both free as in freedom and free of charge) programs around. The same goes for writing leaflets and books. Also, for university assignments, we (students) are pretty much required to use LaTeX (a markup language which also has many free implementations), since it's so much better at representing mathematical formula's and such.

In my opinion, word processors might only be the right tool for one job, which is writing letters. And for that the rtf format is probably sufficient.

Tjis

Vicarious

7th March 2009, 15:49

Look I'm a little late posting this reply but the most anti capitalist thing to do is use Linux. You can use Ubuntu and get OpenOffice wich supports all word formats and I think you get the Adobe formats too. Linux runs on anything, the software in commercial airplanes is Linux. It's all free unless you want to get Novell or some odd ball OS.
The CIA offices use Redhat!

Klepto

8th March 2009, 06:12

Yazman

8th March 2009, 15:49

Using Microsoft's software to disseminate leftist propaganda seems a bit like holding your local party meeting in McDonald's. I would have thought that the open source movement would be popular here, although it's philosophy is derived more from American academic libertarianism than anything else. Me, I've been Microsoft-free for a decade now.

The problem is that a lot of us are also PC gamers, which is virtually impossible to do effectively without using MS software. Even though WINE and Crossover have improved greatly they just don't do what you need them to do as a gamer much of the time.

BOZG

8th March 2009, 18:06

Using Microsoft's software to disseminate leftist propaganda seems a bit like holding your local party meeting in McDonald's. I would have thought that the open source movement would be popular here, although it's philosophy is derived more from American academic libertarianism than anything else. Me, I've been Microsoft-free for a decade now.

The vast majority of us also don't entertain the idea of boycotting capitalism.

Klepto

8th March 2009, 19:24

The problem is that a lot of us are also PC gamers, which is virtually impossible to do effectively without using MS software. Even though WINE and Crossover have improved greatly they just don't do what you need them to do as a gamer much of the time.
I understand, although it's very possible if you are prepared to limit your selection of games. I'm a gamer too, and I'm never lost for a game to waste time with :)

The vast majority of us also don't entertain the idea of boycotting capitalism.Fair enough, I don't think I was even hinting at a wholesale boycott of capitalism. That said, I don't like giving my money to companies that I find particularly disagreeable.

The Idler

8th March 2009, 22:13

Just don't promote property/proprietary standards by promulgating Microsoft standards.

Charles Xavier

8th March 2009, 22:25

The working class program and expand microsoft, the corporation profits. you might as well argue against wearing clothes because they are greatly overpriced in the first world.

welshboy

8th March 2009, 23:21

Personally I've got dual boot with microsoft on both my laptop and desktop.
On the laptop for some strange reason I can't quite remember and on the desktop for gaming.
I use Linux 99% of the time and only boot into windows if I want to play a non-free game. I will admit that I don't game that often, if I did though I think I would just invest in a PS3.
It's obviously not possible to boycott capitalism and those that advocate using Linux aren't doing so, last time I checked Novell, Canonical, Sun, IBM et al were not communist front organisations.
However for political organisations using open standards is pretty essential, not doing so is like leasing the paper your propaganda is printed on from Rupert Murdoch.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

9th March 2009, 00:50

Just don't promote property/proprietary standards by promulgating Microsoft standards.

Considering the vast majority of computer users are interested in things other than revolutionary leftism, I don't think it makes a meaningful difference either way. Proprietary standards will be with us as long as corporations exist, and open standards will always exist as long as there are people willing to make use of them - and they do so for various reasons other than because they have pretensions of being "revolutionary".

I understand, although it's very possible if you are prepared to limit your selection of games. I'm a gamer too, and I'm never lost for a game to waste time with :)

Well, I'm not prepared to limit what games I'm able to play. Pragmatism and personal preference is what dictates the standards that I use, not some quite frankly weird attempt to appear as some kind of electronic revolutionary.

Klepto

9th March 2009, 04:00

Considering the vast majority of computer users are interested in things other than revolutionary leftism, I don't think it makes a meaningful difference either way.
You don't have to be interested in revolutionary leftism to be an advocate of open source software. I though part of the point of this thread was to explore any similarities and/or relationship between the two.

Well, I'm not prepared to limit what games I'm able to play.
That's your call, I was merely relating my experience as previous posts could give the impression that you cannot be both a gamer and a Linux enthusiast, or at least that in order to be a PC gamer you need to use Windows. I don't believe this to be true.

Pragmatism and personal preference is what dictates the standards that I use
Me too.

not some quite frankly weird attempt to appear as some kind of electronic revolutionary.
I hope I don't come across like that, I'm long past any particular hatred of Microsoft, I don't even put dollar signs in their name any more.

Given that the open source software movement is a serious challenger to the supremacy of corporate power in the first world (albeit in a narrow context) I'm truly surprised that there is such hostility to the comments I and others have made here supporting the use of such software. Perhaps I should ask why? in the learning forum, I get the feeling there may be some history here I'm unaware of.

Ultra_Cheese

21st March 2009, 08:58

You can't boycott capitalism.
It's not really about avoiding sending money to Microsoft. If they wanted to do that, they would just download Windows and crack it. The goal is to make it so you don't have to hand over control of your computer to Microsoft or anyone.

22nd March 2009, 00:04

How does Microsoft control your computer? That just sounds a bit ridiculous.

DIzzIE

22nd March 2009, 02:51

How does Microsoft control your computer?

For starters, have a read through http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

That just sounds a bit ridiculous.

Also would you clarify what you meant exactly by this?

Are you saying that the suggestion that Microsoft is controlling your computer ridiculous? In other words, you find it hard to believe that a corporation would try to exert as much control as it can over you? And if you're this trusting of corporations, what are you doing on this forum--the description of which is described, in part, as "how to improve your life outside of capitalism"? Or are you saying that that the act of a corporation exerting control over your computer is itself ridiculous? In other words, what Microsoft is doing is ridiculous?

Ultra_Cheese

22nd March 2009, 02:56

The Idler

22nd March 2009, 21:47

Since you don't have the source code, you can't verify what the software's doing. Thus the developer has complete control. In the past, they've found backdoors built into Windows meant for use by the NSA, and there are likely still backdoors and other malicious features hidden in the proprietary code.There are users who still use Windows 98 because of the increased government surveillance (http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=105936&view=findpost&p=767992) since 9/11.

It was already revealed in 1999 that "special access codes prepared by the US National Security Agency have been secretly built into Windows" http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/5/5263/1.html People at the Moscow Institute of Technology in Dolgoprudny were saying in 1997 that the raison-d'être of PTS-DOS was that you "cannot have an American operating system in Russian tanks."

Ultra_Cheese

23rd March 2009, 00:41

There are users who still use Windows 98 because of the increased government surveillance since 9/11.
That's odd. I don't see why anyone would use an old version of Windows, which may or may not have hidden surveillance features, instead of using a modern, fully functional, free software operating system.

The Idler

23rd March 2009, 21:03

That's odd. I don't see why anyone would use an old version of Windows, which may or may not have hidden surveillance features, instead of using a modern, fully functional, free software operating system.Because its fast, well-documented and compatible with a wide range of software.

Ultra_Cheese

24th March 2009, 22:36

Because its fast, well-documented and compatible with a wide range of software.
I'd wager it's just their own bias. A modern GNU/Linux distro would surely be faster, there's more readily available documentation for it, and there are free software applications for just about any job non-free Windows applications do. It's really not about which is better though. They have a false sense of security using the old versions. Even if the OS contained no hidden features that allowed for spying, that doesn't mean the other proprietary software they install won't.

25th March 2009, 07:16

Because its fast, well-documented and compatible with a wide range of software.

What on Earth are you talking about? You can't even run basic software like Firefox anymore on Win98 (support for it was dropped in Firefox 3), let alone more demanding software. In contrast GNU/Linux distributions have tens of thousands of software applications available, all bleeding edge up to date. And even if you really want that specific Win98 software to run, there is no issue either as Wine has a near flawless Win98 implementation (I'm not exaggerating when I'm saying that you can probably run Win98 software better on Linux then you can on WinXP!).

And I'm not even touching security issues and sheer software design limitations on Win98.

swirling_vortex

28th March 2009, 04:20

If you need to use MS Office, you can always download the Open Document Format plugin, which will allow Word to read and save to .odt files.

http://www.sun.com/software/star/odf_plugin/get.jsp

Well, I'm not prepared to limit what games I'm able to play. Pragmatism and personal preference is what dictates the standards that I use, not some quite frankly weird attempt to appear as some kind of electronic revolutionary.
Wine has an extensive database that allows you to see if your game will have any chance of running.

http://appdb.winehq.org/

Yazman

28th March 2009, 12:04

Wine has an extensive database that allows you to see if your game will have any chance of running.

http://appdb.winehq.org/

Wine also doesn't run a lot of applications and games that I do want to run, not to mention I don't want to have to fuck around with debugging and compatibility issues for basic tasks. I want to be able to use the full range of software with games including mods and applications that work in sync with them, and neither wine nor crossover does this to the extent that it would be worth it for me. I know this because I have plenty of experience with both. I dualboot and run Linux when I need to do intensive tasks or keep my PC up and running for a long period of time. For internet and gaming related tasks though its simply easier to run XP.

ON ANOTHER NOTE, to those who talk of boycotting Microsoft and their standards because of some dubious info collection, tracking and backdoors (not saying it isn't justified though cause it is) - how come I never hear the same crowd talking about Google's dubious practices? I would argue that their dubious practices are on par with the bullshit Microsoft does, yet I rarely hear these staunch MS critics talking about Google's fucked up shit:

http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/
http://www.google-watch.org/

apathy maybe

28th March 2009, 17:05

Google is fucked up too. All companies are.

I try my best to not connect my online activities in one location, and that includes Google.

It just so happens that Google actually does provide a superior search service for most people (and many other services). I don't let them set cookies though, and refuse to get an account.

Of course I hate Google. (And in this thread, people aren't bashing Google 'cause they weren't relevant.)

IcarusAngel

28th March 2009, 20:28

I don't like Unix and Linux that much, but I still use them.

The problem with this kind of reasoning is that most people don't like Unix and Linux, so when you put a lot of stock in the claim that they are more close to communist ideals I think it just puts people off more and more.

I do agree that you should try and minimize the move towards fascism and capitalism, perhaps by not supporting certain companies. But the way things are developed within capitalism makes it nearly impossible that anything will resemble communist ideals.

Linux and Open source right now is promoted and used by several big, restrictive corporations anyway, so I fail to see it as an "alternative."

As for the claim that it's easier to install things on Linux than on windows, even win98, I disagree. A distributor of Linux software has to actually create the package, and there are dozens of packagement management systems on Linux now - like YaST 2, Yum, up2date, apt-get, etc. etc. So if a package doesn't exist, you'll have to install it from source which is a nightmare if you don't know what you're doing. To install a "big project" this boils down to installing dozens of packages from source and making system configurations as you do it. Since their are many versions of the same distribution, often the packagers will not update their packages, or they'll make an error while creating the new package.

Hardware drivers can also be a nightmare, that often require recompiling the kernel to make sure certain features exist in the kernel.

Windows 98 is an outdated OS anyway. It's like asking to run Firefox 3 on Redhat 6.2 (You'd probably have to update your version of glibc - good luck), but there are of course still programs written in Visual C++ using MFC libraries so a lot of applications would still run without flaw, and if they can, it's a lot easier to install them.

Finally, the finished products on windows are generally a lot better, such as the Office programs and adobe.

Of course, a lot of this is due to the "corporatism" that exists in the industry, such as microsoft not sharing its APIs with developers or forcing other developers to conform and enter into secrecy with microsoft - and forcing hardware developers to only focus their attention on windows, but that just emphasizes my point that it's nearly impossible to establish progressive or anarchist production in a capitalist society.

I think most leftists would rather just use whatever tools work with computers and focus on studying theory, rather than tyring to figure out how to recompile their kernel to add the right networking support for a wireless card.

IcarusAngel

28th March 2009, 20:44

DIzzIE

29th March 2009, 08:24

ON ANOTHER NOTE, to those who talk of boycotting Microsoft and their standards because of some dubious info collection, tracking and backdoors (not saying it isn't justified though cause it is) - how come I never hear the same crowd talking about Google's dubious practices? I would argue that their dubious practices are on par with the bullshit Microsoft does, yet I rarely hear these staunch MS critics talking about Google's fucked up shit

Well, to use but one high-profile example to disprove your baseless generalizations, here's (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html) RMS talking shit about Microsoft, and here's (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman/print) RMS likewise talking shit about Google. Is your next complaint then going to be along the following lines...

ON YET ANOTHER NOTE, to those who talk of boycotting Microsoft and Google and their standards because of some dubious info collection, tracking and backdoors (not saying it isn't justified though cause it is) - how come I never hear the same crowd talking about Colgate-Palmolive's dubious practices? I would argue that their dubious practices are on par with the bullshit Microsoft does, yet I rarely hear these staunch MS and Google critics talking about Colgate-Palmolive's fucked up shit

And so on and on adding another corporation to your list each round, until eventually you will apparently expect 'these staunch critics' to either a) present an essentially eternal list of critiqued minutiae specific to the practices of every existing corporation or b) glibly gloss over all corporate practices as damaging without attention to the actual inner workings of said info collection/tracking/backdoors (in other words, some vague theoretical abstractions without any concrete examples).

Meanwhile, ON ANOTHER NOTE, how come those who critique Microsoft critics for allegedly not critiquing Google never critique Google critics for not critiquing Microsoft?

----

ON ANOTHER NOTE, to those who talk of boycotting Microsoft and their standards because of some dubious info collection, tracking and backdoors (not saying it isn't justified though cause it is) - how come I never hear the same crowd talking about Google's dubious practices? I would argue that their dubious practices are on par with the bullshit Microsoft does, yet I rarely hear these staunch MS critics talking about Google's fucked up shit:

http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/
http://www.google-watch.org/

That's a big problem with so-called lifestylism. They often end up supporting "alternatives" that are not much better and perhaps even worse than what they're supposedly "boycotting." It just doesn't work.

What exactly are you on about? Has anyone in this thread suggested that someone use Google in lieu of Microsoft? Or are you implying that the alternatives suggested in this thread (ODF, RTF, plaintext, etc.) are (all?) 'not much better and perhaps even worse' than DOC? Or that not using DOC files doesn't work? Or are you just throwing about baseless generalizations? So to clarify, what exactly "doesn't work", and how exactly "doesn't it work"?

These are pretty heavy accusations to be slinging around as carelessly as you're doing, you might end up giving yourself a hernia...

RedStar

29th March 2009, 15:52

Hello comrades.
I'd like to express my opinion on this question. It is of course the aim of leftists to go against the products of giant corporations like Microsoft, but if we take it so seriously then please we all should stop using computers with CPUs produced by the likes of Intel or AMD or motherboards produced by ASUS or whatever company there is. Please stop using electricity too.
I myself am using Windows and all kind of proprietary software but i havent paid a dollar for it. Does that make me support Microsoft or other companies? No.
I of course am in favor of open source and consider in the near future to switch to Linux (or BSD) but for the moment i have too much obligations to read so much documentation to master those and all the other software that comes with it and i think other people have this same problem.
Then as mentioned before in the previous posts there are gamers who play games that function only with proprietary solutions. (RA2 rules:laugh:) You cannot say that they are not true left and don't stand for what they say they stand for because they use them.
But you can of course point to them that they should spend less time on them and instead focus on other useful activities.

In the end leftists should use any "weapon" (product) available to work towards what they stand for and that is what it is all about.
We will make obligatory switch to open source after the revolution.:)

Tjis

29th March 2009, 15:57

IcarusAngel

30th March 2009, 04:57

What exactly are you on about? Has anyone in this thread suggested that someone use Google in lieu of Microsoft? Or are you implying that the alternatives suggested in this thread (ODF, RTF, plaintext, etc.) are (all?) 'not much better and perhaps even worse' than DOC? Or that not using DOC files doesn't work? Or are you just throwing about baseless generalizations? So to clarify, what exactly "doesn't work", and how exactly "doesn't it work"?

I'm saying it's stupid to claim that one product is better than another because it might be closer to communist ideals, i.e, "marxists and microsoft."

I see no reason why Marxists shouldn't use Mac OSX or Windows unless there was an alternative that better fit their needs. If certain products are actually better than another product: make the case, but I don't see the point in acting like we shouldn't be using products because of certain workers' violations. All companies are exploitative.

As for DOC versus the alternatives: I'd much rather Marxist organizations use .doc. OpenOffice is nowhere near as good as MS Word, plus more people use Word anyway. Even many Linux users install MS Office through wine as they do not like OpenOffice. However, if someone did use Open Office, I wouldn't really care. These debates are piontless.

These are pretty heavy accusations to be slinging around as carelessly as you're doing, you might end up giving yourself a hernia...

I don't see how they're accusations. I don't see the point in arguing which tools are better than others except in terms of which tools help best get the message out there, etc. If it's to complain about corporatism and the treatment of workers probably hardware companies would be the best place to start complaining.

IcarusAngel

30th March 2009, 05:04

Hello comrades.
I'd like to express my opinion on this question. It is of course the aim of leftists to go against the products of giant corporations like Microsoft, but if we take it so seriously then please we all should stop using computers with CPUs produced by the likes of Intel or AMD or motherboards produced by ASUS or whatever company there is. Please stop using electricity too.
I myself am using Windows and all kind of proprietary software but i havent paid a dollar for it. Does that make me support Microsoft or other companies? No.

And even if you had paid a thousand dollars for Vista, MS word, and a host of other MS products, would that make you less of a leftist or communist? Absolutely not.

It's like saying you shouldn't buy jeans from levis. People need software, just as they need jeans, and they should use whatever is tailored to their needs. These type of "debates" serve absolutely no purpose: in communism, it is supposed to be recognized people have different "needs", and they should be able to get their needs without being hassled by others.

I of course am in favor of open source and consider in the near future to switch to Linux (or BSD) but for the moment i have too much obligations to read so much documentation to master those and all the other software that comes with it and i think other people have this same problem.

All kinds of software would exist under a free system. It's hard to tell exactly what it'd look like as communism would be so different from capitalism, the production would be different as well.

In the end leftists should use any "weapon" (product) available to work towards what they stand for and that is what it is all about.

Couldn't agree more.

IcarusAngel

30th March 2009, 05:08

It's not so much about microsoft products, it's about microsoft formats. As a leftist organisation you should make sure that whatever you write is readable by as many people as possible. The best way to do this is to make sure you use an often used open standard.
A good choice would be pdf. You can edit your documents in whatever you please, as long as you make sure the end document is pdf. There are free pdf readers for every operating system.

You have to create the PDF though which is more difficult than creating a word document.

I think it'd be best if they offered a variety of formats, so people could use what they have installed on their computer: PDF, Docx, RTF, what have you. Many of the organizations I've seen do offer their documents in several formats.

Cult of Reason

30th March 2009, 05:54

You have to create the PDF though which is more difficult than creating a word document.

Well, I do not know about MS Word but OpenOffice.org Word Processor has an "Export to PDF..." option in the "File" menu. I use this routinely. It is as simple as pressing that button, pressing "OK" on the dialogue box (which also allows you to fiddle first, if you want) and selecting filename and path.

3rd April 2009, 03:04

I see no reason why Marxists shouldn't use Mac OSX or Windows unless there was an alternative that better fit their needs. If certain products are actually better than another product: make the case, but I don't see the point in acting like we shouldn't be using products because of certain workers' violations. All companies are exploitative.
Just pointing out here that the case has been made several times already in this thread. But I agree with your notion that software should serve the user and the user should use the best software tools available. I just think those tools are open source most of the time.

As for DOC versus the alternatives: I'd much rather Marxist organizations use .doc. OpenOffice is nowhere near as good as MS Word, plus more people use Word anyway. Even many Linux users install MS Office through wine as they do not like OpenOffice. However, if someone did use Open Office, I wouldn't really care. These debates are piontless.
You're really repeating an old argument here that would've flied for OpenOffice 1.x or the early 2.x versions. But OOo 3.x is a very mature office suite. I suggest you give it a try for a while. Sure, it's not an exact copy-paste of everything that MSoffice does, but does that make it bad? Talk about lifestylism...

Yazman

5th April 2009, 11:28

Well, to use but one high-profile example to disprove your baseless generalizations, here's RMS talking shit about Microsoft, and here's RMS likewise talking shit about Google. Is your next complaint then going to be along the following lines...

ON YET ANOTHER NOTE, to those who talk of boycotting Microsoft and Google and their standards because of some dubious info collection, tracking and backdoors (not saying it isn't justified though cause it is) - how come I never hear the same crowd talking about Colgate-Palmolive's dubious practices? I would argue that their dubious practices are on par with the bullshit Microsoft does, yet I rarely hear these staunch MS and Google critics talking about Colgate-Palmolive's fucked up shit

And so on and on adding another corporation to your list each round, until eventually you will apparently expect 'these staunch critics' to either a) present an essentially eternal list of critiqued minutiae specific to the practices of every existing corporation or b) glibly gloss over all corporate practices as damaging without attention to the actual inner workings of said info collection/tracking/backdoors (in other words, some vague theoretical abstractions without any concrete examples).

Meanwhile, ON ANOTHER NOTE, how come those who critique Microsoft critics for allegedly not critiquing Google never critique Google critics for not critiquing Microsoft

While you've been so obsessively trying to sling mud at me, you have obviously failed to realise that the point is not "omg you're not talking about X corporation!" Its that lifestylism is fucking stupid because you can't just boycott some things and be ok with others. The idea of boycotting these corporations is ridiculous - as pointed out by another poster, many energy corporations have a lot more fucked up practices than microsoft so why don't you just boycott electricity until after the revolution?

There are better and more relevant ways to be progressive than saying "Don't use MS Word"

5th April 2009, 19:00

There are better and more relevant ways to be progressive than saying "Don't use MS Word"

The point is that there is no guarantee you'll be able to view your MSOffice documents in say 10 years time as shown with the difficulties the current issue has with Office 97. Closed formats are a bad way to communicate for all the reasons already mentioned here in the thread.

DIzzIE

6th April 2009, 10:52

I see no reason why Marxists shouldn't use Mac OSX or Windows unless there was an alternative that better fit their needs.

I agree completely. The question is then what exactly the needs are...

Plain text is more accessible, more transparent, and more secure than any other document format. So I again reiterate that if one's concern is with safe, universal, and open presentation and dissemination of digital information, it stands to reason that one will then use a format that's fully palatable with those concerns (namely, plain text).

And to repeat myself yet again, since people are either not reading or outright ignoring earlier postings in this thread: if the need is unbridled digital data dissemination which ensures that as many people as possible can safely read the digital document, then plaintext is unmatched in relation to this need. Therefore it does not make sense to use any format other than text (or in the specific occurrences that extra features are required to use an open standard that can provide those features); to do so would be to contradict this need.

If on the other hand, the need is something else, say surveillance, identification, system compromisation, excess software bloat, locking down content, limiting accessibility, and so on, then yes it would of course follow that either proprietary or bulky open formats are more palatable to those needs.

don't see how they're accusations.

To simply say that something 'just doesn't work' is a blatant accusation of failure, which was (and continues to be) entirely unwarranted.

---

While you've been so obsessively trying to sling mud at me

Do please quote precisely where you feel that I have been doing so.

If by mud slinging you mean something along the lines of posting blatantly untrue claims about entire groups, then I believe that would make you the slinger right here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=139720#post139720), with my reply being a sardonic response to your initial slinging, as it were.

ou have obviously failed to realise that the point is not "omg you're not talking about X corporation!"

I'm well aware that 'the "omg you're not talking about X corporation!" is not the point, though perhaps my previous reply didn't lay it on thick enough? My only surprise is, if you too are aware of this, why then did you make a seemingly unwarranted post which could be precisely paraphrased as "omg you're not talking about X corporation!" in the first place, to fight windmills?

Its that lifestylism is fucking stupid because you can't just boycott some things and be ok with others.

Why are you and others persistently talking about this alleged lifestylism bogeyman in this thread? Who here, within this thread, has advocated this "lifestylism" that you decry ever so passionately? I'm getting pretty fucking fed up with the onslaught of mindless 'lulz boycotting capitalism doesn't work' non-sequiturs that have fuck all to do with the on-going discussion about the utility of various file formats. It's as if you and others are intentionally trying to drown out the debate with irrelevant bleating, "oh keep using those proprietary formats, to do otherwise is to be a 'fucking stupid lifestylist.'"

Now to repeat others yet again as there have already been at the least three responses to the point you are making for no apparent reason, since people are either not reading or outright ignoring earlier postings in this thread:

The thing is though it's not about boycotting microsoft it's about being democratic and allowing everyone, regardless of operating system or their ability to shell out £70 for MS Office, can access your material.

You can't boycott capitalism.It's not really about avoiding sending money to Microsoft. If they wanted to do that, they would just download Windows and crack it. The goal is to make it so you don't have to hand over control of your computer to Microsoft or anyone.

It's not so much about microsoft products, it's about microsoft formats. As a leftist organisation you should make sure that whatever you write is readable by as many people as possible. The best way to do this is to make sure you use an often used open standard.