Re: [tlug] The Great Mistake is thinking OOo is different [was: Why Vista Sucks]

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

tlug@example.com writes:

 > > Well, no.  It's still a bucket of binary sludge that you can't operate
 > > on sensibly with text-processing tools.
 > 
 > This comment is so ill-informed

Opinionated, yes, ill-informed, no.

 > that I find it challenging to reply to it politely, 

You failed.  "Slander" is a much nastier word than "crap", especially
when applied to opinion, which cannot be slander.

 > First of all, there are many good reasons for storing a document as a 
 > compressed archive of separate files.

Who denied that?  I simply maintain that for practical purposes it is
not text, and that for most practical purposes a text/* format is far
preferable.

 > Once you decompress an ODF file, you definitely can "operate on it
 > sensibly" with text processing tools.  I do so occasionally, and it
 > works rather well.

I should have written "operate on it as unstructured text streams with
the usual POSIX filters".

 > > WYSIWYG is not a solution, it is the problem, and
 > <SNIP>
 > > we're going to have to live with that crap.
 > 
 > I believe that there is no single solution to all problems; one
 > must pick the best tool for each job.

Well, sure.  But that does not guarantee that every tool is the best
for some job.

Specifically with regard to WYSIWYG, please note that I don't have
problems with programs such as TeXmacs and Lyx which give very
accurate real-time previews.  I'm specifically referring to
applications built around the idea that users need and want the level
of control that Postscript gives you, but that they should not be
asked to learn Postscript.  Rather, by manipulating what you see, you
manipulate the document, and this is represented directly in the
document.

 > Which tool is the best is not just a function of the problem,
 > however; it is also a function of the operator.

Indeed!  My main point is that there are very few operators
sufficiently skilled and talented to be able to take advantage of
WYSIWYG.  It's not that I dislike WYSIWYG personally, although I do.
It is that with very few exceptions skilled users produce fragile and
hard-to-use (though pretty) templates, while unskilled users generally
produce documents that are far uglier than necessary.

As an educator, I despise the effect that cut and paste has had on
students' original essays (let alone on their summary reports if based
on web-based research).

None of this is a function of using the wrong implementation of
WYSIWYG; it's inherent in the idea itself.

 > Slandering software or methodologies with profanity
 > just because it is not a tool of choice for yourself
 > only reflects close-mindedness,

Wrong.  Any number of my enemies will tell you otherwise.

 > egotism,
 > and disrespect toward others.

I'm an open source advocate precisely because I consider *my* tools of
choice irrelevant (unless someone chooses to ask me about them).  Feel
free to dislike me or oppose my opinions, but you really should avoid
terms like "slander" and "disrepect" in the same sentence where you
commit them.