Comments on: Three steps to Open Source in the Church http://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/ Jesus, family, music, tech Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:21:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: BE!http://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/comment-page-1/#comment-16502 BE! Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:35:06 +0000 http://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/#comment-16502 Scott McCluskey mentioned your interest in open software and your background in programming as well as your participating in discussions about WTS computing. Keep up the good work. I have keen interest in open software. One area I find useful is web-based collaborative software and my current favorite is mindmeister.com which allows free limited usage for mapping on the web and links to freemind (among others). I have created a MM for open/free software. I will send you an invitation which allows you to contribute and modify the map. I would be interested in any additions you may have and also your classifying freedomware and freeware the various sites if you have time. I have yet to read all your blogs but I will be doing so. Scott McCluskey mentioned your interest in open software and your background in programming as well as your participating in discussions about WTS computing. Keep up the good work. I have keen interest in open software. One area I find useful is web-based collaborative software and my current favorite is mindmeister.com which allows free limited usage for mapping on the web and links to freemind (among others). I have created a MM for open/free software. I will send you an invitation which allows you to contribute and modify the map. I would be interested in any additions you may have and also your classifying freedomware and freeware the various sites if you have time.
I have yet to read all your blogs but I will be doing so.

]]> By: “Freedom Software” versus “Free Software” | Ted Carnahanhttp://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/comment-page-1/#comment-10661 “Freedom Software” versus “Free Software” | Ted Carnahan Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:35:07 +0000 http://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/#comment-10661 [...] Three steps to Open Source in the Church [...] [...] Three steps to Open Source in the Church [...]

]]> By: Why Open Source Software is like Church Coffee Beans » Ted Carnahanhttp://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/comment-page-1/#comment-6365 Why Open Source Software is like Church Coffee Beans » Ted Carnahan Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:12:50 +0000 http://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/#comment-6365 [...] « Three steps to Open Source in the Church [...] [...] « Three steps to Open Source in the Church [...]

]]> By: Perché è importante usare standard aperti (ed essere contrari a OOXML) « Com’è dura la professione!http://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/comment-page-1/#comment-5703 Perché è importante usare standard aperti (ed essere contrari a OOXML) « Com’è dura la professione! Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:26:40 +0000 http://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/#comment-5703 [...] Perché è importante usare standard aperti (ed essere contrari a OOXML) Archiviato in: Microsoft, Open Source, cosi' va il mondo — lbell @ 23:26 La fine del supporto a certi tipi di “vecchi” formati di file decretata da Microsoft, fa riflettere sull’utilità di impiegare formati proprietari per memorizzare i documenti. In un altro blog leggo che decine di documenti religiosi e scolastici a causa di questa decisione rischiano di essere perduti perché fra qualche tempo non esisteranno più programmi in grado di leggerli, mentre gli atti più vecchi scritti su carta possono essere tranquillamente consultati. [...] [...] Perché è importante usare standard aperti (ed essere contrari a OOXML) Archiviato in: Microsoft, Open Source, cosi’ va il mondo — lbell @ 23:26 La fine del supporto a certi tipi di “vecchi” formati di file decretata da Microsoft, fa riflettere sull’utilità di impiegare formati proprietari per memorizzare i documenti. In un altro blog leggo che decine di documenti religiosi e scolastici a causa di questa decisione rischiano di essere perduti perché fra qualche tempo non esisteranno più programmi in grado di leggerli, mentre gli atti più vecchi scritti su carta possono essere tranquillamente consultati. [...]

]]> By: ikarugahttp://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/comment-page-1/#comment-5583 ikaruga Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:35:52 +0000 http://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/#comment-5583 @Byron@ - there are various open-source softwares for accounting. For example: GNU-cash. (However, I don't really use accounting software so I can't recommend it.) If you unfortunately think of a church as a business, requiring professional quality software, there are various open-source (and both free and hi-quality) alternatives out there. For example, instead of PhotoShop, why not try the Gimp? There are also guides out in the web to help someone make the transition... @Byron@ – there are various open-source softwares for accounting. For example: GNU-cash. (However, I don’t really use accounting software so I can’t recommend it.) If you unfortunately think of a church as a business, requiring professional quality software, there are various open-source (and both free and hi-quality) alternatives out there. For example, instead of PhotoShop, why not try the Gimp? There are also guides out in the web to help someone make the transition…

]]> By: Boycott Novell » OOXML: Forced Upgrades, Forced Obsolescencehttp://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/comment-page-1/#comment-5562 Boycott Novell » OOXML: Forced Upgrades, Forced Obsolescence Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:35:42 +0000 http://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/#comment-5562 [...] Here is another serious complaint about this forced upgrade stunt, followed by some suggestions. The solution is simple: open standards. [...] [...] Here is another serious complaint about this forced upgrade stunt, followed by some suggestions. The solution is simple: open standards. [...]

]]> By: D.C. Parrishttp://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/comment-page-1/#comment-5560 D.C. Parris Fri, 04 Jan 2008 05:52:45 +0000 http://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/#comment-5560 Here are some earlier thoughts on this theme:http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7653 http://www.linux.com/articles/38595 http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci990899,00.htmlhttp://www.lulu.com/dcparris or http://matheteuo.org/download.php?view.1And, of course... http://matheteuo.org/download.php?view.2The book (PitP) points to a larger community of Christians geared toward fostering FOSS usage.Blessings, Don Here are some earlier thoughts on this theme:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7653
http://www.linux.com/articles/38595
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci990899,00.html

http://www.lulu.com/dcparris or
http://matheteuo.org/download.php?view.1

And, of course…
http://matheteuo.org/download.php?view.2

The book (PitP) points to a larger community of Christians geared toward fostering FOSS usage.

Blessings,
Don

]]> By: Marco Fiorettihttp://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/comment-page-1/#comment-5552 Marco Fioretti Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:09:53 +0000 http://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/#comment-5552 The point that religious organizations have even more reasons than others has been already raised. Please check out:http://www.linux.com/feature/49533 http://www.linux.com/feature/53644 http://www.eleutheros.it (suggested reading: home page, manifesto and faq, in this order)I look forward to hear from you if there are further developments.Happy 2008, Marco Fioretti The point that religious organizations have even more reasons than others has been already raised. Please check out:

http://www.linux.com/feature/49533
http://www.linux.com/feature/53644
http://www.eleutheros.it (suggested reading: home page, manifesto and faq, in this order)

I look forward to hear from you if there are further developments.

Happy 2008,
Marco Fioretti

]]> By: Noelhttp://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/comment-page-1/#comment-5544 Noel Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:25:07 +0000 http://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/#comment-5544 Here's a church which has taken the "open" to their own content, allowing anyone to use what they create for free - how cool. http://open.lifechurch.tv/ Here’s a church which has taken the “open” to their own content, allowing anyone to use what they create for free – how cool. http://open.lifechurch.tv/

]]> By: WMarkHhttp://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/comment-page-1/#comment-5541 WMarkH Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:10:26 +0000 http://www.tedcarnahan.com/2008/01/02/three-steps-to-open-source-in-the-church/#comment-5541 Good points. However, this advice may not go far enough. As someone has pointed out, "The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from." This applies in the open source arena as well. Sure, I might not have to "pay" for document conversion, but if a standard I depend on never really catches on and is decremented ten years from now, is my grandmother ready to do the software engineering necessary to convert those old documents?Whenever the opportunity arises, I try to educate users toward the principles of simplicity and proven endurance. For instance, ASCII is forever. It has obvious limitations for true documents, but by saving with minimal formatting (for instance, line feeds only at the end of paragraphs), it imports easily back into any word processor for reformatting as needed. So I encourage people to save any copies of any enduring documents in text format, regardless of what other format they use.After ASCII, consider RTF (Rich Text Format) or HTML. Either of these are broadly supported, and will allow enough formatting for all but the most complex documents.Last on the list should be proprietary or relatively new standards. I cannot emphasize enough that, regardless of anything else, standards endure by popularity far more than technical merit. Lotus Word Pro 97 was a great example. Because of its limited sales and use, new applications don't see any need to support this format in their conversion modules.For more advanced software (spreadsheets, project management, databases, etc.), as much as it hurts to say this, users with limited technical abilities may be best advised to go with Microsoft. They will pay more, but trust me, MS Word 2007 has no problems reading MS Word 97 (or older) documents.Finally, if an organization is far-sighted, they can save the money they would have spent on software and re-invest a small portion of it in open source software and periodic technical / operational reviews. Most churches are in far more danger of losing ten years of documents because they keep them on old computers with no backups than because of standards obsolescence. Good points. However, this advice may not go far enough. As someone has pointed out, “The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.” This applies in the open source arena as well. Sure, I might not have to “pay” for document conversion, but if a standard I depend on never really catches on and is decremented ten years from now, is my grandmother ready to do the software engineering necessary to convert those old documents?

Whenever the opportunity arises, I try to educate users toward the principles of simplicity and proven endurance. For instance, ASCII is forever. It has obvious limitations for true documents, but by saving with minimal formatting (for instance, line feeds only at the end of paragraphs), it imports easily back into any word processor for reformatting as needed. So I encourage people to save any copies of any enduring documents in text format, regardless of what other format they use.

After ASCII, consider RTF (Rich Text Format) or HTML. Either of these are broadly supported, and will allow enough formatting for all but the most complex documents.

Last on the list should be proprietary or relatively new standards. I cannot emphasize enough that, regardless of anything else, standards endure by popularity far more than technical merit. Lotus Word Pro 97 was a great example. Because of its limited sales and use, new applications don’t see any need to support this format in their conversion modules.

For more advanced software (spreadsheets, project management, databases, etc.), as much as it hurts to say this, users with limited technical abilities may be best advised to go with Microsoft. They will pay more, but trust me, MS Word 2007 has no problems reading MS Word 97 (or older) documents.

Finally, if an organization is far-sighted, they can save the money they would have spent on software and re-invest a small portion of it in open source software and periodic technical / operational reviews. Most churches are in far more danger of losing ten years of documents because they keep them on old computers with no backups than because of standards obsolescence.

]]>