[oclug] Open Source Oppositions Get Serious
rechlin at ncf.ca
Tue Oct 8 22:21:33 EDT 2002
At 12:03 AM 10/7/02 +1000, you wrote:
>On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Robert Echlin wrote:
> > Public organizations often need access to old data, like dozens of
> years old.
> > For that reason, they should use data formats for which tools will always
>Yep, they should use open standards for the data format.
> > be available,
> > or can be re-created.
> > Whether the tools they currently use are still available is irrelevant.
> > If they use Open Source tools because the tools will "always be available",
> > they will lose out.
>Actually the opposite is true (if I understand what you are saying).
>Propriatary tools have a way of disappearing. There is plenty of data
>out there that was saved by propriatary tools in propriatary formats that
>is now unavailable.
Actually, here I was referring to open source tools using file formats that
are not part of standards.
I meant that a standard data format is much more important than whether the
tool is proprietary or source-free.
If you use Open Office with MS file formats, I suggest your data will be
difficult to convert in 2130 into the then-old-hat holographic display
formats. And you will have to convert your Latex files, but you will be
able to do so, if you want to spend the money to hire a specialist consultant.
I'm not knocking open source software.
I'm saying open file formats - preferably human-readable - offer a much
higher likelihood of protection of data over time, and that this is
important for government, educational, and other institutions.
Today, open source software is more likely to natively use this type of format.
That is more important for these markets than the license is.
Thanks for your responses, guys.
----- Robert Echlin, B. Eng. --
Read '101 ways to burn water' at: http://magma.ca/~rechlin/burn/
Fave site: http://www.HogwartsAlumni.com (bias alert)
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
More information about the OCLUG