RE: [TCLUG:10692] StarOffice

[Christopher Reid Palmer <reid@pconline.com>]

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Schlough, Mark wrote:

> > I agree, except that I'll go farther. Consider TeX, which is appropriate
> > for even the most daunting of page layout tasks. 
> 
> I wonder whether it's more appropriate to say that Tex is
> appropriate for only the most daunting tasks.

:P


> What user that would like SO would even consider using Tex?

A good point, but irrelevant. What I was trying to get across was that
fantastic text formatting does not require a $2000, brand-spanking-new
computer.

But there is always Lyx, anyway.


> 	'modern, more powerful' Star Office
> 	are those your words... I think.  Are you quoting someone?

I was paraphrasing Brent.


> > StarOffice is a step backward, plain and simple.
> > 
> 	I am not defending the fact that SO is big.  However, to make such a
> carte blance statement seems a bit, well, silly.
> 
> 	Considering:
> 	* It reads/writes Word 95/97 documents.  You personally may not need
> this, but thousands of people do.  It saves them the pain of purchasing
> separate copies of software for home so that they can simply bring documents
> that they inherit/receive and open them retaining most all of the
> formatting.

A person who 1) needs to use MS Word format and 2) doesn't mind using
proprietary software (like StarOffice is) would be happier running
Windows with Word. It's faster than Star Office, and there's no need to
convert formats back and forth.

> 	* It is $0.  This alone is another big deal.  PageMaker sure as hell
> is not free.

No, but TeX and Lyx are both gratis and free.

> 	* It runs on Linux- OS/2 - Sun - Win9x.  So, if you have Winders
> user, you may be able to move to Linux more easily.  So, as an evalgelical
> tool, this is huge!

Resaons to use Linux:

1. free
2. gratis
3. efficient

StarOffice offers only (2), the least important. I would never advocate
that people migrate to Linux 'just because' -- the reasons to do it are
(1), (3), and (1). StarOffice negates these reasons.


> So, to say it is a step backward ignores it's attributes, in spite
> of it's shortcomings in speed.

I don't see that it has any benefits over either proprietary solutions or
free solutions.


> 	Actually, if I were to learn a formatting language to use for
> document composition, I'd be learining XML. (Which I actually am learning)
> It separates content from presentation.  If I wanted to change a TeX, HTML,
> or Word document's appearance, I'd have to muck around with the content,
> even if the content changes.  No, thanks.  I'd rather design a new XSL
> stylesheet and blast the data through that.  I just wish the XSL standard
> would get finalized.

Agreed.


--
  Christopher Reid Palmer : http://www.innerfireworks.com/