Thanks for those comments Hugo - they help to explain what I mean.
Not only will the original author hav to install some other software to convert the mp3 to ogg, they will then have to tell many recipients to install vlc or firefox in order to hear it, and to pass on the same instructions to everyone they send it to.
Also additional software will need to be found and used if recipients want to listen to the audio on an mp3 player. (Users without admin access won't have the ability to do this even if they have the wit). Further as non-aware users can't often judge the charactr of remote individuals telling them to install strange new software they will either refuse (lets hope so) or otherwise we will be responsible for adapting their attitude to be willing to install whatever software some remote spammer tells them to. Corporate users may face discipline for installing, or telling customers or colleagues to install software.
If they had just sent mp3 they would have found no inconvenience except from a few political geeks who's comments (see above) are unhelpful and generally make things complicated anyway.
Whatever we feel here for strategic reasons, those who hear us on this will think we are liars because in the short term all they wil get (and most recipients) will be utter inconvenince that they don't have the background to cope with.
They will learn pavlov-style to never listen.
Hence my belief that the document discussed should be political/idealistic or a helpful guide to interoperability and document exchange, but it can't do both.
Sam
-----Original Message----- From: Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org Sent: 04 April 2010 11:28 To: Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com Cc: discussion@fsfeurope.org Subject: RE: Explaining Open Standards email attachements
Hello Sam,
Allow me just to answer to this point,
Le mercredi 31 mars 2010 à 21:42 +0100, Sam Liddicott a écrit :
For example: most users cannot handle ogg for flac files. Most users who can't accept mp3 but can accept ogg do so out of conscious rejection of mp3. And so the argument for ogg is political and not about interoperability and therfore will seem dishonest to non-technical readers who will then doubt the entire argument. Imagine when nearly everyone they send an ogg to (after the initial difficulty of producing the ogg - from an mp3) needs to ask what an ogg is and how to play it. It will soon be apparent that mp3 should have been used.
I have to say that it is not true, because a lot of very common and famous software can handle those files.
Examples: VLC & Firefox 3.5. The first one is easy to install and very popular.
Best,
Dear Sam,
I don't see your point in discussing the text… can you tell me where in this text you see an unhelpful, inconvenient, geeky-stupid text?
The point of this text is to give an easy explanation of why open standards are important, taking the example of emails. In doing so, it also tries to raise awareness on some Open Standards such as ODF and OGG.
All the rest is up to you and the others, to refuse or accept mp3 files or not. I don't care and I do not want to discuss in the text to reject mp3 files because they're not Open Standards: I understand it is about convenience, but I want to say that convenience comes on both sides. That's all.
Best,
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 12:48 +0100, Hugo Roy wrote:
Dear Sam,
I don't see your point in discussing the text…
My point as I first mentioned is that I cannot tell if your text is a political document or a guide to interoperability. My point is that it can't be both. I'm trying to improve the text as you invited.
can you tell me where in this text you see an unhelpful, inconvenient, geeky-stupid text?
No, because it is not sufficient for anyone non-technical to act upon. It will have to be accompanied by a technical explanation which will be perceived as geeky, and as I explained, also unhelpful, inconvenient and stupid. For instance:
"When you attach a file to an email, please make sure that your correspondent will be able to read your files correctly. It is a basic principle of courtesy. And there is an easy way to make this possible: use open standards."
As I showed, with mp3 the correspondent likely will be able to read the file correctly unless they have taken an active and informed decision to not be able to. With an open standard that you mention - ogg - this is not true at all.
With ogg, your statement "If you do so, your correspondent will have the possibility to choose which program he or she wants" actually becomes "your correspondent will probably be required to choose a different program to the one they usually use" - as you showed when stating recently that the correspondent may have to install VLC or Firefox.
The point of this text is to give an easy explanation of why open standards are important, taking the example of emails. In doing so, it also tries to raise awareness on some Open Standards such as ODF and OGG.
Then it is a political document and not an instructional one. Is the audience intended to be those who are already aware of the issue and just need to have useful information gathered in once place, or is it intended to convert and/or raise awareness among those who aren't aware of the issues?
All the rest is up to you and the others, to refuse or accept mp3 files or not. I don't care and I do not want to discuss in the text to reject mp3 files because they're not Open Standards: I understand it is about convenience, but I want to say that convenience comes on both sides. That's all.
For sure, I don't think that such a discussion it belongs in the text, but it is one of the questions the text raises; it is an implicit self-contradiction in the text - that widespread standards aid interoperability, not open standards Open-ness is just a partial driver for wide-spreadness, not a substitute.
Sam
Le lundi 05 avril 2010 à 17:08 +0100, Sam Liddicott a écrit :
My point as I first mentioned is that I cannot tell if your text is a political document or a guide to interoperability. My point is that it can't be both.
This text is not a political document, nor a guide to interoperability. This is just an explanation of why it is wrong to send proprietary attachments with emails, because you never know if the person you send it to will be able to read it correctly.
I'm trying to improve the text as you invited.
Yes, thank you for that.
can you tell me where in this text you see an unhelpful, inconvenient, geeky-stupid text?
No, because it is not sufficient for anyone non-technical to act upon. It will have to be accompanied by a technical explanation which will be perceived as geeky, and as I explained, also unhelpful, inconvenient and stupid. For instance:
That is not the purpose of this text to be a technical guide. I leave it to those who share the link to explain how to do that.
"When you attach a file to an email, please make sure that your correspondent will be able to read your files correctly. It is a basic principle of courtesy. And there is an easy way to make this possible: use open standards."
As I showed, with mp3 the correspondent likely will be able to read the file correctly unless they have taken an active and informed decision to not be able to. With an open standard that you mention - ogg - this is not true at all.
Yes, this is true. If you send an ogg file, you make sure that your correspondent will have the possibility to read the file correctly with the software of his choice, including Free Software!
The matter of will is not the same as the one of possibility.
With ogg, your statement "If you do so, your correspondent will have the possibility to choose which program he or she wants" actually becomes "your correspondent will probably be required to choose a different program to the one they usually use" - as you showed when stating recently that the correspondent may have to install VLC or Firefox.
Yes, if they use software that don't handle Open Standards, which is in most of the cases Proprietary Software we want to fight against.
I'd like to say that your statement here is wrong, because it applies for proprietary formats, not to Open Standards, where people have the choice.
When you get a proprietary attachment: then you are require to choose a different program that the one you use. If you get an Open Standard: *it's up to you*.
The point of this text is to give an easy explanation of why open standards are important, taking the example of emails. In doing so, it also tries to raise awareness on some Open Standards such as ODF and OGG.
Then it is a political document and not an instructional one. Is the audience intended to be those who are already aware of the issue and just need to have useful information gathered in once place, or is it intended to convert and/or raise awareness among those who aren't aware of the issues?
The purpose is to give an easily understandable text to explain it. The target is people aware of the issues, who want to share the link when they get proprietary attachments.
All the rest is up to you and the others, to refuse or accept mp3 files or not. I don't care and I do not want to discuss in the text to reject mp3 files because they're not Open Standards: I understand it is about convenience, but I want to say that convenience comes on both sides. That's all.
For sure, I don't think that such a discussion it belongs in the text, but it is one of the questions the text raises; it is an implicit self-contradiction in the text - that widespread standards aid interoperability, not open standards Open-ness is just a partial driver for wide-spreadness, not a substitute.
I strongly disagree here. Widespread standards (that's a pleonasm) aid the one in control of the standards. Open Standards aid interoperability because control of the standards is shared.
Best regards, Hugo
2010/4/5 Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org:
This text is not a political document, nor a guide to interoperability. This is just an explanation of why it is wrong to send proprietary attachments with emails, because you never know if the person you send it to will be able to read it correctly.
Er ... that's a political document.
- d.
Le lundi 05 avril 2010 à 17:28 +0100, David Gerard a écrit :
Er ... that's a political document.
Last time I checked, political involves "power" and social control. Here, it is just about: if you use Open Standards, it works. If you use something else, it's wrong because you cannot be sure it works, which is a pity when you are communicating.
This one is political: http://www.fsf.org/news/why-im-rejecting-your-email-attachment
I am sure you see the difference ;)
Best,
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 06:35:32PM +0200, Hugo Roy wrote:
Last time I checked, political involves "power" and social control. Here, it is just about: if you use Open Standards, it works. If you use something else, it's wrong because you cannot be sure it works, which is a pity when you are communicating.
However, Sam is still right in pointing out that because of the widespread use of proprietary de facto standards, switching to Open Standards for most people will mean switching from something which works to something which doesn't. "Don't send people Word files, use ODT instead" would, for many people, be equivalent to saying: Don't send people files they can read, send them files they can't read instead.
I wouldn't do it in a job application.
And, most people don't have and don't want to have a clue about *why* they can't read them either. I'm all for open standards and never send people attachments in Word format (usually using PDF, RTF, HTML or plain text), but I think there must be a better way to do it than to start sending people files they can't open.
Last time I checked, political involves "power" and social control. Here, it is just about: if you use Open Standards, it works. If you use something else, it's wrong because you cannot be sure it works, which is a pity when you are communicating.
However, Sam is still right in pointing out that because of the widespread use of proprietary de facto standards, switching to Open Standards for most people will mean switching from something which works to something which doesn't. "Don't send people Word files, use ODT instead" would, for many people, be equivalent to saying: Don't send people files they can read, send them files they can't read instead.
I wouldn't do it in a job application.
And, most people don't have and don't want to have a clue about *why* they can't read them either. I'm all for open standards and never send people attachments in Word format (usually using PDF, RTF, HTML or plain text), but I think there must be a better way to do it than to start sending people files they can't open.
Hello,
Le lundi 05 avril 2010 à 19:02 +0200, Carsten Agger a écrit :
However, Sam is still right in pointing out that because of the widespread use of proprietary de facto standards, switching to Open Standards for most people will mean switching from something which works to something which doesn't.
This is wrong in my opinion. Here is how I see it, I'm going to use your sentence and change it to make my point:
"because of the widespread use of proprietary de facto standards, switching to *something else, be it proprietary or open standards or whatever* for most people will mean switching from something which works *only with his software* to something which doesn't *work with his only software*."
So to assume that it is because proprietary standards that switching to open standards doesn't work is, I think, wrong. It is because proprietary standards doesn't work that when you switch to open standards you can't use proprietary standards anymore.
"Don't send people Word files, use ODT instead" would, for many people, be equivalent to saying: Don't send people files they can read, send them files they can't read instead.
I wouldn't do it in a job application.
My point is: send people files they can read. So use Open Standards. Then I don't care if you choose ODT, OGG, TXT, WAV, EMAIL, HTML or whatever. But don't send doc files, and when you receive them, explain to your correspondant that it is important to send files people can read, and Open standards is the only way for that.
And, most people don't have and don't want to have a clue about *why* they can't read them either. I'm all for open standards and never send people attachments in Word format (usually using PDF, RTF, HTML or plain text), but I think there must be a better way to do it than to start sending people files they can't open.
I don't care about the *why* it is about politeness. In communication, it's important that people understands you. Not making this effort is considered rude. "Why": I don't care, and most people don't care, they just do it.
On 05/04/10 17:35, Hugo Roy wrote:
Le lundi 05 avril 2010 à 17:28 +0100, David Gerard a écrit :
Er ... that's a political document.
Last time I checked, political involves "power" and social control. Here, it is just about: if you use Open Standards, it works. If you use something else, it's wrong because you cannot be sure it works, which is a pity when you are communicating.
Yes, but this is exactly the opposite with ogg. What makes "it works" in real life is not open standards but wide-spread adoption, however much we like to think otherwise.
I want open standards, but I don't push losing arguments in order to advance open standards.
If me or others persuade the average man to use ogg and he actually follows our advice, he'll come to hate us and think we are idiots because instead of making things easier we made things harder for him and all of his correspondents.
We then have to explain it's part of a larger campaign which will actually bear fruit for him in a few years time if he can just bear with it.
That makes it a political document, because it's about social control. Us controlling him (by giving him half-truths) and asking him to sacrifice his convenience (and his friends) for a potential advantage so that in a few years things will be just as easy for him as they were before he listened to us BUT ALSO easy for some others who have made a conscious decision not so support proprietary standards and thus "made things hard for themselves" (if he'll listen for long enough to understand what proprietary actually means - or why it's bad). [Note I'm expressing this from his point of view]
This one is political: http://www.fsf.org/news/why-im-rejecting-your-email-attachment
I am sure you see the difference ;)
The difference seems to be in the intended audience. * Sam*
Hi Sam,
Le lundi 05 avril 2010 à 18:05 +0100, Sam Liddicott a écrit :
What makes "it works" in real life is not open standards but wide-spread adoption, however much we like to think otherwise.
Microsoft Office is very widespread, I think we have to agree on that. However, it doesn't make "it works". Try to send a .docx to someone using Office 2003. Try to send a 2003 .doc to someone using a 1997 .doc or using Mac Word Office.
It does *not* work, although it is very widespread.
However, if you compare, ODT being an open standard it is very much likely to work with several implementations (being Open or proprietary software like Lotus).
If I'm not wrong, the next version of Office is also going to be able to handle ODT.
And considering Ogg, a lot of widespread software can read it. And even proprietary software like Windows Media can read it if you install a library (not sure about this though).
If me or others persuade the average man to use ogg and he actually follows our advice, he'll come to hate us and think we are idiots because instead of making things easier we made things harder for him and all of his correspondents.
How do you explain the emergence of the AAC proprietary standard that only iTunes could read? Try not to be unreasonably defeatist, please.
We then have to explain it's part of a larger campaign which will actually bear fruit for him in a few years time if he can just bear with it.
The software is there. It's working. It's now, not in a few years.
On 05/04/10 17:22, Hugo Roy wrote:
Le lundi 05 avril 2010 à 17:08 +0100, Sam Liddicott a écrit :
My point as I first mentioned is that I cannot tell if your text is a political document or a guide to interoperability. My point is that it can't be both.
This text is not a political document, nor a guide to interoperability. This is just an explanation of why it is wrong to send proprietary attachments with emails, because you never know if the person you send it to will be able to read it correctly.
However this is not true; if I send proprietary mp3 I *know* my recipient can read it unless they took steps not to be able to. If I send open standards ogg I *know* that my recipient cannot read it unless they took steps to be able to.
It has nothing to do with "proprietary".
That is not the purpose of this text to be a technical guide. I leave it to those who share the link to explain how to do that.
It can't be done, as I said. I'll be called a liar.
"When you attach a file to an email, please make sure that your correspondent will be able to read your files correctly. It is a basic principle of courtesy. And there is an easy way to make this possible: use open standards."
As I showed, with mp3 the correspondent likely will be able to read the file correctly unless they have taken an active and informed decision to not be able to. With an open standard that you mention - ogg - this is not true at all.
Yes, this is true. If you send an ogg file, you make sure that your correspondent will have the possibility to read the file correctly with the software of his choice, including Free Software!
The matter of will is not the same as the one of possibility.
I don't think these finer points of position will impress the average man any more than the idea that DRM == choice. (As in maybe people want to choose pay $1 for itunes track and then $3 for a ringtone of the same track).
With ogg, your statement "If you do so, your correspondent will have the possibility to choose which program he or she wants" actually becomes "your correspondent will probably be required to choose a different program to the one they usually use" - as you showed when stating recently that the correspondent may have to install VLC or Firefox.
Yes, if they use software that don't handle Open Standards, which is in most of the cases Proprietary Software we want to fight against.
That's what I mean. This is really a political document fighting against proprietary standards.
I'd like to say that your statement here is wrong, because it applies for proprietary formats, not to Open Standards, where people have the choice.
It's inconvenient to most people because suddenly they don't just have a choice, they have to make a choice.
When you get a proprietary attachment: then you are require to choose a different program that the one you use. If you get an Open Standard: *it's up to you*.
I can't easily tell the difference between those two positions. Proprietary => choose a different one Open Standard => it's up to you
The point of this text is to give an easy explanation of why open standards are important, taking the example of emails. In doing so, it also tries to raise awareness on some Open Standards such as ODF and OGG.
Then it is a political document and not an instructional one. Is the audience intended to be those who are already aware of the issue and just need to have useful information gathered in once place, or is it intended to convert and/or raise awareness among those who aren't aware of the issues?
The purpose is to give an easily understandable text to explain it. The target is people aware of the issues, who want to share the link when they get proprietary attachments.
I don't think so, you said:
Yes, if they use software that don't handle Open Standards, which is in most of the cases Proprietary Software we want to fight against.
The purpose of the document is to take advantage of the inconveniences of proprietary formats in email to fight against proprietary software. I don't have any complaint with this; I just think care should be taken to choose scenarios that can be won. docx can be won because many office users can't read docx. Ogg cannot be won because for most users open format ogg is more awkward then proprietary mp3. So as a political document, I think you need to make clarifying points in relation to ogg, or anyone (you say "it's up to [me] and the others") who follows your advice on ogg will get a black eye and you may lose a convert to open formats.
All the rest is up to you and the others, to refuse or accept mp3 files or not. I don't care and I do not want to discuss in the text to reject mp3 files because they're not Open Standards: I understand it is about convenience, but I want to say that convenience comes on both sides. That's all.
For sure, I don't think that such a discussion it belongs in the text, but it is one of the questions the text raises; it is an implicit self-contradiction in the text - that widespread standards aid interoperability, not open standards Open-ness is just a partial driver for wide-spreadness, not a substitute.
I strongly disagree here. Widespread standards (that's a pleonasm) aid the one in control of the standards. Open Standards aid interoperability because control of the standards is shared.
I think sometimes you let idealism stand in the way of truth, Widespread standards IS interoperability. Open standards merely potentially supports interoperability - as the standard becomes widespread. There are enough proprietary widespread standards, or you wouldn't have had to write your document in the first place, I think?
Sam * *
On 04/05/10 12:55, Sam Liddicott wrote:
However this is not true; if I send proprietary mp3 I *know* my recipient can read it unless they took steps not to be able to.
Actually, I don't think that's true. MP3 support is not included with many distributions of GNU/Linux for patent reasons.
If I send open standards ogg I *know* that my recipient cannot read it unless they took steps to be able to.
If you interact with primarily users of free operating systems, this would be a better choice than MP3.
* Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com [2010-04-05 17:55:40 +0100]:
Widespread standards IS interoperability. Open standards merely potentially supports interoperability - as the standard becomes widespread. There are enough proprietary widespread standards, or you wouldn't have had to write your document in the first place, I think?
Do you have five examples of widespread _standards_ which are not Open Standards?
Best wishes, Matthias
On 6 April 2010 10:36, Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org wrote:
- Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com [2010-04-05 17:55:40 +0100]:
Widespread standards IS interoperability. Open standards merely potentially supports interoperability - as the standard becomes widespread. There are enough proprietary widespread standards, or you wouldn't have had to write your document in the first place, I think?
Do you have five examples of widespread _standards_ which are not Open Standards?
Microsoft Word .DOC . So many people, places and businesses accept them by default and often refuse to accept anything else. It's only in the past few years that I've seen even computing recruiters accept PDF, for instance.
- d.
* David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com [2010-04-06 11:52:21 +0100]:
On 6 April 2010 10:36, Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org wrote:
- Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com [2010-04-05 17:55:40 +0100]:
Widespread standards IS interoperability. Open standards merely potentially supports interoperability - as the standard becomes widespread. There are enough proprietary widespread standards, or you wouldn't have had to write your document in the first place, I think?
Do you have five examples of widespread _standards_ which are not Open Standards?
Microsoft Word .DOC . So many people, places and businesses accept them by default and often refuse to accept anything else. It's only in the past few years that I've seen even computing recruiters accept PDF, for instance.
That's a nice example. In that case widespread standards are not interoperability but monopoly.
Best wishes, Matthias
On 6 April 2010 12:59, Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org wrote:
- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com [2010-04-06 11:52:21 +0100]:
On 6 April 2010 10:36, Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org wrote:
Do you have five examples of widespread _standards_ which are not Open Standards?
Microsoft Word .DOC . So many people, places and businesses accept them by default and often refuse to accept anything else. It's only in the past few years that I've seen even computing recruiters accept PDF, for instance.
That's a nice example. In that case widespread standards are not interoperability but monopoly.
Indeed. However, as far as the users are concerned, they're interoperability.
If this proposed document is to be heeded by users, the writer needs to keep in mind when the user uses a word to have a different meaning to the one the writer wants it to mean. Else the users will feel the writer has been deliberately duplicitous.
- d.
Le mardi 06 avril 2010 à 13:20 +0100, David Gerard a écrit :
Indeed. However, as far as the users are concerned, they're interoperability.
Again, try to send a 2007 .doc document to a Mac Office - or to a previous Office version. Try to do the same with a .doc from 2003 to a 1999 version and the other way around.
It doesn't work, it's not in Microsoft's interest to make it work because they want everyone to upgrade to the last Office.
That's *not* interoperability.
Best,
2010/4/6 Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org:
Again, try to send a 2007 .doc document to a Mac Office - or to a previous Office version. Try to do the same with a .doc from 2003 to a 1999 version and the other way around. It doesn't work, it's not in Microsoft's interest to make it work because they want everyone to upgrade to the last Office. That's *not* interoperability.
Don't let me slow you down - you just keep using words the way you think they ought to be used, not the way your readers use them, and I'm sure you'll have great success convincing every one of them.
- d.
Le lundi 05 avril 2010 à 17:55 +0100, Sam Liddicott a écrit :
It has nothing to do with "proprietary".
A format or protocol that is patented and licensed with fees is proprietary to me (mp3).
I'd like to say that your statement here is wrong, because it applies for proprietary formats, not to Open Standards, where people have the choice.
It's inconvenient to most people because suddenly they don't just have a choice, they have to make a choice.
But this is even more inconvenient with proprietary standards, because in most of the cases you have to upgrade to a specific software. People are obliged to make that choice every 5 years because of a new .doc format.
I don't think so, you said:
Yes, if they use software that don't handle Open Standards, which is in most of the cases Proprietary Software we want to fight against.
I meant: there are no collateral problems in avoiding proprietary software that don't use open standards.
The purpose of the document is to take advantage of the inconveniences of proprietary formats in email to fight against proprietary software.
No. Proprietary software can use ODT (even the next version of Office will if I'm not wrong). This is not a diversion to fight proprietary software.
I don't have any complaint with this; I just think care should be taken to choose scenarios that can be won. docx can be won because many office users can't read docx. Ogg cannot be won because for most users open format ogg is more awkward then proprietary mp3.
And so is WMA, AAC… Do you want to make a list of alternatives to MP3 that despite inconvenience have been able to make a market share?
I strongly disagree here. Widespread standards (that's a pleonasm) aid the one in control of the standards. Open Standards aid interoperability because control of the standards is shared.
I think sometimes you let idealism stand in the way of truth,
No, I can assure you that's not the case. I'm talking here with practical arguments and situations.
Widespread standards IS interoperability.
Ok, first. Widespread standards is a pleonasm, it doesn't mean anything. Standards can be important because: they are used by only one software which has an incredible market share OR because they are used by several software which together makes a good market share.
In the first case, you have no interoperability because everyone is using the same solution. In the second case, you have interoperability because otherwise it would not be working.
Where is proprietary standards, where is Open standards? I let you guess…
Open standards merely potentially supports interoperability - as the standard becomes widespread.
Open Standards include interoperability by design! The specification is completely public, it doesn't rely on any closed/proprietary technology, it was designed in an open and democratic process and it has multiple implementations.
I hope this discussion is worth making things clear about Open Standards.
Thanks,