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

[tlug@example.com]

Let me attempt to start this reply out on the right foot: I do not wish to 
disrespect you and am sorry for my strong words.

On Saturday 12 April 2008 13:35:48 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> 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.

Your opinion, quoted above, is in response to Dave's comment that ODF 
is "still a great improvement over standard MS Office format."  Standard MS 
Office formats (pre-OOXML) cannot be operated on with text-processing tools 
at all, while ODF formats clearly can, which makes it a very significant 
improvement in that sense.  Even non-trivial documents in OOXML format cannot 
be operated on with text-processing tools, as is explained in the "defective 
by design" link from my previous email.

>  > 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.

Again, I am sorry for my strong words.  The recent ISO approval of OOXML has 
been frustrating and made this a sensitive topic for me.

>  > 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.

Perhaps I made an incorrect assumption...  You called ODF formats "binary 
sludge," so I was trying to illustrate the reasons why encapsulating all 
parts of a document into a compressed archive is a good idea.  I use a 
compressed archive to transmit LaTeX projects for the same reasons, so I 
would be more prone to using the phrase "binary shield." ;)

I do not deny the usefulness of plain text formats.

> 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.

I do not think that OOo or ODF posits to be such a tool, nor does Microsoft 
formats for that matter.  For applications that require Postscript level 
accuracy, such applications are clearly not the best tool for the job.  Many 
people, however, simply want to use a word processor to produce printed 
documents (but not necessarily typeset documents).  They want to be able to 
edit the document easily, insert images, etc.  A word processor allows these 
types of users to get the job done quite easily.

> Indeed!  My main point is that there are very few operators
> sufficiently skilled and talented to be able to take advantage of
> WYSIWYG.

I agree with this, and I think that I understand your point.  The problem is 
that there are many people who do not want to become skilled in the art of 
document production.  For these people, the software is a tool to get the job 
done, and many try to do the minimum necessary to do just that.

> 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).

I think that cut-and-paste has had both positive and negative effects on essay 
quality.  I do not blame the negative effects solely on cut-and-paste, 
however, as I think they reflect a change in culture and decrease in the 
quality of education.  As for the positive effects, consider how such 
functionality eases the burden of revision.  Students in a writing class 
learn to make multiple drafts of an essay, and cut-and-paste allows them to 
alter the order of sentences or paragraphs very easily.

> 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.

I do not dislike you.  Your email rubbed me the wrong way, and I am sorry that 
my reply was so strong.

Cheers,

Travis