Sick of Open Office!! Dumped

[Max Quordlepleen]

Agree with your non-synonym statement... so long as the same
dictionary is used consistently, regardless of the source of the
software, it makes any side-by-side comparisons meaningful; otherwise
they're of no use, other than as a soapbox.

My comment had nothing to do with closed-source versus open-source
software, or M$ vs. anybody else. It was simply addressing the
unwarranted and unsupportable assertion, made by another poster, that
the phrase "works transparently" "seems to imply 100% compatibility."
The poster in question happened to be pro-M$, but he was criticising
OpenOffice on the basis of a sloppy and ill-founded misuse of English.
I could criticise OOo, and have done, for many reasons, but not one of
them would be because I inferred something into their promotional
material that I ought not have. I could criticise M$ for any number of
things too, its lackadaisical approach to security and total lack of
and contempt for corporate or human ethics among them, but I would not
base such criticisms on unfounded inferences drawn from M$ promotional
writings.And, when an M$ product suits my purposes, as does W2K, I will
use it, until an alternative presents itself that sfills my needs
better.

 

[Alan]

No, the standards change according to whether money changes hands.
There's nothing unusual here - our laws have long held sellers to a
higher level of accountability than those who give away their goods or
services for free.

It's not laws and accountability I'm concerned with in ACF. It's
credibility of comment and review information. If the "standards" of the
latter vary in a subjective and unspecified way, depending on the source
of the product, then comparisons are not really going to be of much use.

 

[Alan]

My comment had nothing to do with closed-source versus open-source
software, or M$ vs. anybody else. It was simply addressing the
unwarranted and unsupportable assertion, made by another poster, that
the phrase "works transparently" "seems to imply 100% compatibility."
The poster in question happened to be pro-M$, but he was criticising
OpenOffice on the basis of a sloppy and ill-founded misuse of English.
I could criticise OOo, and have done, for many reasons, but not one of
them would be because I inferred something into their promotional
material that I ought not have. I could criticise M$ for any number of
things too, its lackadaisical approach to security and total lack of
and contempt for corporate or human ethics among them, but I would not
base such criticisms on unfounded inferences drawn from M$ promotional
writings.And, when an M$ product suits my purposes, as does W2K, I
will use it, until an alternative presents itself that sfills my needs
better.

As I said, no argument about the language usage aspect in this context;
just commenting that for comparisons to be of any value, the criteria
must be consistently applied to both/ all products. That includes the
interpretation of the language used in descriptions etc. Clearly, that's
something you would do with consistency.

 

[Tiger]

OK, that's what I was wanting to know - the goal posts are
selectively opened and closed, depending on *who* produced the
software.

That's not what he said nor implied. Is MS Office better than OO? I
believe it is. Is it $400-$500 better? Not in this universe. It
wouldn't matter if Linus Torvalds designed a $400 office suite...or
anyone else for that matter...it would have to do some pretty
extraordinary things to be $400 *better* than OO.

Sad... this makes comparisons, reviews etc. against any

criterion pretty useless and pointless. Thanks for the heads.

Not at all. It doesn't matter that MS is the author. I'd recommend OO
over Lotus or Star Office for the same reasons...they simply aren't
hundreds of dollars better. It doesn't matter to people who have money
to burn. For those of us with tight budgets, OO is the clear winner.

--
Tiger

"Zero is where the fun starts
There is too much counting everywhere else."
- Hafiz

 

[Max Quordlepleen]

Not at all. It doesn't matter that MS is the author. I'd
recommend OO over Lotus or Star Office for the same reasons...they
simply aren't hundreds of dollars better. It doesn't matter to
people who have money to burn. For those of us with tight
budgets, OO is the clear winner.

While I agree with the above for the most part, I think there is an
important caveat to be added. Sometimes, budgetary constraints are not
the only factor. For example, OOo currently allows only 32,000 rows in
its Calc spreadsheets. For anybody who needs more, then Excel _will be_
$400 better than OOo. Of course, it gave me great pleasure recently to
be able to point out to someone who needed a spreadsheet app capable of
handling 100K+ rows that while ExHell could not do that, there is a
spreadsheet app. out there that does, and it happens to be the one I
use, part of a suite costing significantly less than M$ Orifice. So,
while I won't recommend non-freeware in ACF, I will acknowledge that
there are some things that can't be done in freeware app.s.

 

[Alan]

That's not what he said nor implied. Is MS Office better than OO? I
believe it is. Is it $400-$500 better? Not in this universe. It
wouldn't matter if Linus Torvalds designed a $400 office suite...or
anyone else for that matter...it would have to do some pretty
extraordinary things to be $400 *better* than OO.

I believe that is pretty close to what he said - "the standards change
according to whether money changes hands". This suggests to me that when
assessing, say, a compatibility claim, then it's OK to say that
something free *is* compatible, because it's partly compatible, but
something you pay for, which makes the same claim, is *not* compatible,
because it's only partly compatible.

And whether one thing is 4 or 5 hundred dollars better than something
else is a purely subjective judgement and is as far from the type of
comparison I was talking about as could be.

Sad... this makes comparisons, reviews etc. against any
Not at all. It doesn't matter that MS is the author. I'd recommend
OO over Lotus or Star Office for the same reasons...they simply aren't
hundreds of dollars better. It doesn't matter to people who have
money to burn. For those of us with tight budgets, OO is the clear
winner.

Again, this is hardly the kind of comparison at issue here. I'm talking
about things like the feature sets of 2 word processors, compared
side-by-side, and judged against the same (preferably quantitative)
criteria. Whether somebody has a tight budget or an open cheque book to
play with is not a comparison between software products. What you say
above is simply a statement that some things are freeware and the others
are not.

 

[Darrien]

That is not true.

Yes it is.

It is not an all or nothing situation.

Yes it is.

Even your beloved M$ Orifice doesn't maintain 100% compatibility with
older versions of itself.

"My beloved"?

I never attach emotions to software the way you seem to do.

The latest versions of OOo do an excellent job of opening M$ Orifice
files,

I agree. "Excellent job" and "100% compatibility" (which is redundant)
are not the same.

but of course, since M$ makes sure that its file formats are
completely secret, no one can make a perfectly compatible suite,

Are you saying that it's impossible to reverse engineer their file
formats?

and OOo doesn't promise what it can't deliver.

"works transparently" is not how I would describe OpenOffice's handling of
Microsoft's file formats.

Unless you're using a truly unique dictionary, "transparently" does not
mean "perfectly", and Sun/OOo can't be held responsible for what you
choose to infer - they "implied" nothing,

Are we using the same definition of "implied"?

you "inferred" it.

Because they implied it.

 

[Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply]

from choice. End of story. I will not again report any problems with
programs. I'll just dump
them and keep my mouth shut and let others do what the will, since the
elitism in this group is
becoming a waste to read.

There is a long-held piece of wisdom in Usenet, represented by the
acronym YMMV -- your mileage may vary -- which means that one size will
not fit all.

Your unhappy experience is just as valuable as other people's happy
experiences. There is no need to not say anything. In fact, people
NEED to hear about negative experiences with something even if they are
minority opinions.

 

[Max Quordlepleen]

Because they implied it.

Against my better instincts, I will ask, "Where?" The passage you
quoted said that OpenOffice "works transparently" with a variety of
file formats, not that it is 100% compatible with them. Compatibility
of software formats is not an all or nothing situation, and so the
phrase "100% compatibility" is not a redundancy. A file format can be
largely compatible, to the extent of opening the file, and preserving
most of the features, without being 100% compatible. Were that not
true, you would have to class M$ Office 97 as incompatible with M$
Office XP or 2003, since Office 97 cannot import all features of those
later versions, and indeed OpenOffice and WordPerfect 10 & 11 all do a
better job of importing files from Word XP than does Word 97.

According to Merriam-Webster, "imply" means:
1 obsolete : ENFOLD, ENTWINE
2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary
consequence rather than by direct statement *rights imply obligations*
3 : to contain potentially
4 : to express indirectly

The quote you linked to does not fit any of those descriptions, with
the possible exception of definition 3. Transparent means "clear",
"easily seen through", and the like. It does not mean "perfectly."
While I personally find it an unusual choice of words for the purpose
to which it was put in that context, it does not imply 100% (or, if you
prefer, perfect) compatibility. Indeed, according to M-W's thesaurus,
related words to transparent include "distinguishable", "recognisable"
and "plain", making it easily possible to infer that the statement was
intended to imply only that files from other formats would be opened by
OOo in a distinguishable or recognisable form. Note that I do not say
that such _was_ the intent, merely that such an inference could be
supported by commonly accepted definitions and/or synonyms of the word
transparent, which is simply not true of your contention that use of
the word transparent implies perfect compatibility. So, either provide
support for your inference, or, in the interests of maintaining a
consistent position, berate M$ for failing to provide compatibility
with its own products.

 

[Darrien]

Against my better instincts, I will ask, "Where?" The passage you
quoted said that OpenOffice "works transparently" with a variety of
file formats, not that it is 100% compatible with them.

Hence, the inference.

There is also the matter of it complaining whenever you try to save to a
Microsoft format. Hardly transparent.

Compatibility of software formats is not an all or nothing situation,

Yes it is.

and so the phrase "100% compatibility" is not a redundancy.

Yes it is.

Main Entry: com·pat·i·ble
Pronunciation: k&m-'pa-t&-b&l

....

5 : designed to work with another device or system without modification;
especially : being a computer designed to operate in the same manner and
use the same software as another computer

A file format can be largely compatible, to the extent of opening the
file, and preserving most of the features,

So I guess you would say that a Unix formatted text file is compatible with
Notepad? After all, it "preserves most of the features" of the text.
Except for the formatting of course.

without being 100% compatible. Were that not true, you would have to
class M$ Office 97 as incompatible with M$ Office XP or 2003, since
Office 97 cannot import all features of those later versions,

I do.

and indeed OpenOffice and WordPerfect 10 & 11 all do a better job of
importing files from Word XP than does Word 97.

Big surprise there, those all came *after* Word 97. Since Word 97 predates
Word XP, I would be a fool to expect it to support something that did not
yet exist.

According to Merriam-Webster, "imply" means:
1 obsolete : ENFOLD, ENTWINE
2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary
consequence rather than by direct statement *rights imply obligations*
3 : to contain potentially
4 : to express indirectly

The quote you linked to does not fit any of those descriptions,

I think #4 fits it well.

with the possible exception of definition 3. Transparent means "clear",
"easily seen through", and the like. It does not mean "perfectly."

"Transparently" has a slightly different connotation in computer science,
as I am sure you are well aware.

Though if you were to force me to use the normal English definition:

Main Entry: trans·par·ent
Pronunciation: -&nt

....

2c : readily understood

While I personally find it an unusual choice of words for the purpose
to which it was put in that context, it does not imply 100% (or, if you
prefer, perfect) compatibility.

There is no need to add redundancy to your sentances.

Indeed, according to M-W's thesaurus, related words to transparent
include "distinguishable", "recognisable" and "plain", making it easily
possible to infer that the statement was intended to imply only that
files from other formats would be opened by OOo in a distinguishable or
recognisable form.

Which means that it's not compatible.

Note that I do not say that such _was_ the intent, merely that such an
inference could be supported by commonly accepted definitions and/or
synonyms of the word transparent, which is simply not true of your
contention that use of the word transparent implies perfect
compatibility.

Again, I thought we were using the computer science definition of
"transparent".

So, either provide support for your inference,

See above.

or, in the interests of maintaining a consistent position, berate M$
for failing to provide compatibility with its own products.

I will not. For one, they maintan compatibility with older versions of Office
quite well. Two, I do not take orders from anyone. Especially someone who
writes poorly, makes arguments full of logical fallacies and, despite
thumping a dictionary, does not fully understand the meaning and proper use
of the words he uses.


P.S.
I advise you to look up the word "paragraph" the next time you are perusing a
dictionary.

 

[Max Quordlepleen]

For one, they maintan compatibility with older versions of Office
quite well.

"Quite well" - yet you said compatibility was an all or nothing
situation. If so, "quite well" is a redundancy.

 

[Max Quordlepleen]

"My beloved"?

I never attach emotions to software the way you seem to do.

Registered Linucks hater #7011799107

"I never attach emotions to software"? Last time I looked, hate was an
emotion.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

<
[about current versions of Microsoft Office]

"Quite well" - yet you said compatibility was an all or nothing
situation. If so, "quite well" is a redundancy.

But does it mean 100% or 0%?

 

[JunkMonkey]

Are you saying that it's impossible to reverse engineer their file
formats?

Remember, there is a difference (a BIG difference) between being able to
reverse engineer a file format and being legally able to USE a file format
regardless of how it is obtained. What a lot of people forget is that a
large part of what you get from StarOffice over OpenOffice is the use of
file formats whose owners insist on getting paid for their use. It is also
one of the reasons MS Office, WordPerfect, and SmartSuite have higher
degrees of compatibility with each other than OO does. Is it worth the
extra money for such compatibility? Well, so far, the marketplace has
answered yes.

This kind of gets us back to MY original point (which I don't charge for by
the way. A sort of OpenOpinion, if you will) is that you have got to match
the software to the job at hand. OO CAN'T be offered up to everyone as the
software of choice since it can't DO all the things big 3 can do.

Telling someone it can do what they need it to do when it can't, or showing
someone a favorable review without telling them that the review standards
for one product were different because of pricing considerations is the
worse kind of fraud in my opinion. In such cases, you are lying for
political reasons.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

One other thing...if you import a csv file into OO's spreadsheet app,
when you save it back as a csv file you get quotation marks around the
csv's. That messes up the program that the csv's were generated from

< snip >

So did you contact them to see whether there was a way to avoid that ?
Or to see if it could be changed in a future release ?

Regards, John.

--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.aspects.org.au/index.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/

 

[Alan]

<
[about current versions of Microsoft Office]

"Quite well" - yet you said compatibility was an all or nothing
situation. If so, "quite well" is a redundancy.

But does it mean 100% or 0%?

I'd have thought that was fairly transparent... well about 86% anyway.

 

[Darrien]

"Quite well" - yet you said compatibility was an all or nothing
situation. If so, "quite well" is a redundancy.

OK, you got me on that point.

What about the rest?

 

[Darrien]

"I never attach emotions to software"? Last time I looked, hate was an
emotion.

Look up "humor" and "sarcasm" the next time you're near a dictionary too.

 

[Darrien]

Remember, there is a difference (a BIG difference) between being able to
reverse engineer a file format and being legally able to USE a file
format regardless of how it is obtained. What a lot of people forget is
that a large part of what you get from StarOffice over OpenOffice is the
use of file formats whose owners insist on getting paid for their use.
It is also one of the reasons MS Office, WordPerfect, and SmartSuite
have higher degrees of compatibility with each other than OO does. Is
it worth the extra money for such compatibility? Well, so far, the
marketplace has answered yes.

This kind of gets us back to MY original point (which I don't charge
for by the way. A sort of OpenOpinion, if you will) is that you have got
to match the software to the job at hand. OO CAN'T be offered up to
everyone as the software of choice since it can't DO all the things big
3 can do.

Telling someone it can do what they need it to do when it can't, or
showing someone a favorable review without telling them that the review
standards for one product were different because of pricing
considerations is the worse kind of fraud in my opinion. In such cases,
you are lying for political reasons.

Agreed.

I have termed this the "Open source (double) standard".

 

[Avraham Hanadari]

This is a freeware group. It is quite in order to ask for "free
alternatives". For "alternatives - otherwise", please ask
somewhere else.

It is quite obvious that this is a freeware group. The intent of my
comment was to stress the problem of finding BiDi software, and EVEN stuff
that is not freeware (please whisper the last four words!) Of course, I
would never dream of using anything other than freeware, as indicated by
my evaluations of OO and Abi.

Try ACCOX -freeware-
http://tinyurl.com/qmso

Thanks for the lead to ACCOX.

I would like to suggest, however, that it is less than helpful to provide
a link to the download command for a program. Personally, I would like to
read a little about what the creator has to say. In this case, almost
everything was in Czech, so I learned very little EXCEPT that this program
enables R2L text input FULL STOP / PERIOD. It doesn't seem to be a BiDi
text editor, and certainly not a word processor. It's not a very big
package, so I downloaded it before I realized what was happening. I'll
give it a more thorough examination, and report back.

Thanks again.

Avraham