Re: Why buy Microsoft Office? - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: Why buy Microsoft Office? - Linux ; On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:20:47 -0400 "DFS" wrote: > The ability to create the following routines is one of many reasons > to buy MS Office. OpenOffice absolutely cannot compete: The fact that MS Office has brought scripting into ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Re: Why buy Microsoft Office?

  1. Re: Why buy Microsoft Office?

    On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:20:47 -0400
    "DFS" wrote:

    > The ability to create the following routines is one of many reasons
    > to buy MS Office. OpenOffice absolutely cannot compete:


    The fact that MS Office has brought scripting into _documents_ is
    somewhat appalling. There is at least an excuse for having
    applications on the Web.

    Have you considered that there are better ways to do things like this,
    or are you someone that would have advocated the use of something like
    VFP back in its heyday instead of a more robust and proper solution?

    --- Mike

    --
    My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.


  2. Re: Why buy Microsoft Office?

    On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:26:45 -0400, Michael B. Trausch wrote:

    > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:20:47 -0400
    > "DFS" wrote:
    >
    >> The ability to create the following routines is one of many reasons
    >> to buy MS Office. OpenOffice absolutely cannot compete:

    >
    > The fact that MS Office has brought scripting into _documents_ is
    > somewhat appalling. There is at least an excuse for having
    > applications on the Web.
    >
    > Have you considered that there are better ways to do things like this,
    > or are you someone that would have advocated the use of something like
    > VFP back in its heyday instead of a more robust and proper solution?
    >
    > --- Mike


    I'll bet you were the kid in the class who stood up with a list of
    questions on a Friday afternoon at 5pm when the professor asked if anyone
    had any questions.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  3. Re: Why buy Microsoft Office?

    "Michael B. Trausch" writes:

    > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:20:47 -0400
    > "DFS" wrote:
    >
    >> The ability to create the following routines is one of many reasons
    >> to buy MS Office. OpenOffice absolutely cannot compete:

    >
    > The fact that MS Office has brought scripting into _documents_ is
    > somewhat appalling. There is at least an excuse for having
    > applications on the Web.
    >
    > Have you considered that there are better ways to do things like this,
    > or are you someone that would have advocated the use of something like
    > VFP back in its heyday instead of a more robust and proper solution?
    >
    > --- Mike


    Are you competing for "clueless" of the year award? The scripting is for
    things like mass mailing, merging, data collection and corporate
    workflow integration. Few people, if any, see any scripting in the
    final, delivered documents.

    --
    "His asshole is so reamed out he has room for an oxygen
    tank, too."
    -- Tattoo Vampire loooking for new accomodation in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  4. Re: Why buy Microsoft Office?

    On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:03:55 -0400
    "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:

    > I'll bet you were the kid in the class who stood up with a list of
    > questions on a Friday afternoon at 5pm when the professor asked if
    > anyone had any questions.


    Actually, I was the one that would stay after class and discuss
    things---sometimes within the curriculum and sometimes outside of it,
    depending on the subject. I learned an awful lot that way.

    --- Mike

    --
    My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.


  5. Re: Why buy Microsoft Office?

    On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:27:02 -0400, Michael B. Trausch wrote:

    > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:03:55 -0400
    > "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
    >
    >> I'll bet you were the kid in the class who stood up with a list of
    >> questions on a Friday afternoon at 5pm when the professor asked if
    >> anyone had any questions.

    >
    > Actually, I was the one that would stay after class and discuss
    > things---sometimes within the curriculum and sometimes outside of it,
    > depending on the subject. I learned an awful lot that way.
    >
    > --- Mike


    Kool.
    As long as it wasn't on the other students time.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  6. Re: Why buy Microsoft Office?

    > mentally-ill troll wrote:
    >>
    >> I'll bet you were the kid in the class who stood up with a list of
    >> questions on a Friday afternoon at 5pm when the professor asked if
    >> anyone had any questions.


    I'll bet that you were the kid who would pick on the small and
    defenseless, including the abuse of small animals. You think it
    "fun", just as you do your trolling.


  7. Re: Why buy Microsoft Office?

    On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:44:50 -0500
    chrisv wrote:

    > I'll bet that you were the kid who would pick on the small and
    > defenseless, including the abuse of small animals. You think it
    > "fun", just as you do your trolling.


    That wouldn't be ethical behavior, so why would I do that?

    I'll await infinitely for a useful answer, I suppose.

    --- Mike

    --
    My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.


  8. Re: Why buy Microsoft Office?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Michael B. Trausch belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:20:47 -0400
    > "DFS" wrote:
    >
    >> The ability to create the following routines is one of many reasons
    >> to buy MS Office. OpenOffice absolutely cannot compete:

    >
    > The fact that MS Office has brought scripting into _documents_ is
    > somewhat appalling. There is at least an excuse for having
    > applications on the Web.
    >
    > Have you considered that there are better ways to do things like this,
    > or are you someone that would have advocated the use of something like
    > VFP back in its heyday instead of a more robust and proper solution?


    Is DFS opening his kimono again?

    --
    "I thought you were trying to get into shape."
    "I am. The shape I've selected is a triangle."

  9. Re: Why buy Microsoft Office?

    Context, snipped for reasons unknown, restored.

    Michael B. Trausch wrote:

    > chrisv wrote:
    >>
    >> mentally-ill troll wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I'll bet you were the kid in the class who stood up with a list of
    >>> questions on a Friday afternoon at 5pm when the professor asked if
    >>> anyone had any questions.

    >>
    >> I'll bet that you were the kid who would pick on the small and
    >> defenseless, including the abuse of small animals. You think it "fun",
    >> just as you do your trolling.

    >
    > That wouldn't be ethical behavior, so why would I do that?


    Did you write the text that I responded-to?

    I wasn't talking to you. The mentally-ill troll is flat****.


  10. Re: Why buy Microsoft Office?

    On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:46:09 -0500
    chrisv wrote:

    > Context, snipped for reasons unknown, restored.
    >
    > Michael B. Trausch wrote:
    >
    > > chrisv wrote:
    > >>
    > >> mentally-ill troll wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> I'll bet you were the kid in the class who stood up with a list of
    > >>> questions on a Friday afternoon at 5pm when the professor asked if
    > >>> anyone had any questions.
    > >>
    > >> I'll bet that you were the kid who would pick on the small and
    > >> defenseless, including the abuse of small animals. You think it
    > >> "fun", just as you do your trolling.

    > >
    > > That wouldn't be ethical behavior, so why would I do that?

    >
    > Did you write the text that I responded-to?
    >
    > I wasn't talking to you. The mentally-ill troll is flat****.
    >


    Oh, my bad.

    I need to learn how to read threads... lol.

    --- Mike

    --
    My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.


  11. Re: Why buy Microsoft Office?

    On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:19:43 -0400
    "Michael B. Trausch" wrote:

    > Oh, my bad.
    >
    > I need to learn how to read threads... lol.


    Oh, I know why I responded... 'cuz _of_ the threading. I somehow
    managed to miss that you snipped the part where I responded. Gotta pay
    closer attention, I do...

    --- Mike

    --
    My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.


  12. Re: Why buy Microsoft Office?

    Michael B. Trausch wrote:

    > Actually, I was the one that would stay after class and discuss
    > things---sometimes within the curriculum and sometimes outside of it,
    > depending on the subject. *I learned an awful lot that way.


    Those who won't put their brains in neutral and follow the crowd, probably
    won't want to use M$ Office "tardware" -- "Moshe's" definition.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  13. Re: Why buy Microsoft Office?

    Michael B. Trausch wrote:
    > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:20:47 -0400
    > "DFS" wrote:
    >
    >> The ability to create the following routines is one of many reasons
    >> to buy MS Office. OpenOffice absolutely cannot compete:

    >
    > The fact that MS Office has brought scripting into _documents_ is
    > somewhat appalling.


    Nevermind that those routines are not part of a document, I notice you
    didn't whine that OpenOffice did the same thing. Why not? Oh, you're
    another Linux idiot hypocrite.



    > There is at least an excuse for having
    > applications on the Web.
    >
    > Have you considered that there are better ways to do things like this,


    Enlighten us.


    > or are you someone that would have advocated the use of something like
    > VFP back in its heyday instead of a more robust and proper solution?


    I never used Visual FoxPro, but I'm sure it was a good system.




  14. Re: Why buy Microsoft Office?

    On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:57:35 -0400
    "DFS" wrote:

    > Michael B. Trausch wrote:
    > > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:20:47 -0400
    > > "DFS" wrote:
    > >
    > >> The ability to create the following routines is one of many reasons
    > >> to buy MS Office. OpenOffice absolutely cannot compete:

    > >
    > > The fact that MS Office has brought scripting into _documents_ is
    > > somewhat appalling.

    >
    > Nevermind that those routines are not part of a document, I notice you
    > didn't whine that OpenOffice did the same thing. Why not? Oh, you're
    > another Linux idiot hypocrite.
    >


    I don't believe that OOo should have the functionality, either, to be
    honest. I disable it and refuse to use it. If I want to use an
    application to get things done, then I will use an application to get
    things done. If the application that I need does not exist yet, and I
    need it badly enough, then I will write it. 99 times out of a hundred,
    though, I can do what I need to do _without_ any specialist
    application, and without using "features" like scripting within
    documents in a word processor.

    Now, there is something to be said for having a very limited, very
    sandboxed ability to create macros for something calculation-intensive,
    such as a spreadsheet. But there is no reason on this Earth that a
    spreadsheet needs the ability to communicate over network sockets
    and/or work with the filesystem. Spreadsheets are for number-crunching.

    There is a little philosophy out there that I rather like WRT tools:
    each one should do one thing, and do that one thing superbly. Maybe
    that's why I don't use things like bloated word processors in the first
    place, for the most part. They generally try to be a jack of all
    trades, and perform less than excellently in nearly any of the tasks
    that they are capable of doing.

    >
    > > There is at least an excuse for having
    > > applications on the Web.
    > >
    > > Have you considered that there are better ways to do things like
    > > this,

    >
    > Enlighten us.
    >


    If it has to be explained to you, then it probably isn't worth wasting
    the space. But hey, this is Usenet... text storage is nearly infinite
    from our points of view anyway...

    If you want to create an application wherein you have an entry form,
    and save the results to a shared data store, you could create a form in
    Microsoft Word and feed the results into an Access database (though, do
    hope that no two users tread over top of each other). Or you could send
    it to some other defined data source on the system (effectively using
    Word and its form as a front-end into a database), or you could use a
    quick Web application that is better tied to the database, or you could
    use a small GUI application that does it for you.

    If you're doing payroll using spreadsheets, fine. Save a copy of the
    damn thing as a CSV file (hey, plain text---you know, that thing that
    is interoperable?) and feed it to a system that will process the
    payroll checks. Microsoft Office should *not* be doing that whole
    process, shoveling data out of a spreadsheet onto a server into a Word
    document formatted to print checks out on the laser printer to then be
    sent off.

    What I am saying is this: It's perfectly fine to use a spreadsheet as
    input in part of some other larger process---say, payroll. It's not
    even *close* to cool to be using the spreadsheet as a data entry
    front-end to the payroll system and then have scripts within the
    spreadsheet use the network to send the data off to some server.
    That's what Web applications are for. That's what data interchange
    formats are for. That's what specialized application software is for,
    too. There are a number of ways to implement something like this
    correctly---and none of them involve Microsoft Excel as a hard,
    absolute requirement.

    >
    > > or are you someone that would have advocated the use of something
    > > like VFP back in its heyday instead of a more robust and proper
    > > solution?

    >
    > I never used Visual FoxPro, but I'm sure it was a good system.
    >


    Such a good system, in fact, that applications that run on top of the
    VFP engine have a hard time being sandboxed as a non-administrative
    user (when it does, even if the permissions on the database tables
    themselves are set for just that user, or even for *everyone* to read,
    it still finds a reason to not start up).

    The database files are often stored in the application's directory in
    Program FIles (part of the way that VFP packages the entire thing for
    deployment).

    The "database" is stored in a series of flat files that can be easily
    corrupted and contain no method of verifying data contained within the
    files; the only type of consistency check that is possible is to (a)
    open the file, (b) scan the header, (c) check the actual file length
    against the computed file length derived from fields stored in the
    header, and (d) hope that the file contents didn't somehow get eaten by
    the hard disk drive or some other process or another instance of the
    VFP engine, or whatever.

    The engine itself is nothing but a glorified xBase engine, working with
    a (slightly modified) xBase data table format (with all of its grand
    limitations), and provides very little in the way of ensuring data
    integrity (no built-in integrity in the file format itself, combined
    with no transactional safety).

    It's only anywhere close to good if you've no desire to scale beyond a
    single user, on a single workstation, at a single time, in a single
    place, _and_ know someone that can pull data out of it. Fortunately,
    many programmers can write software to pull data out of VFP files,
    though depending on how crappy the application designer/author is, you
    might not be able to figure out what any of the data actually *is*
    unless all of the column names fit within 16 characters. So, it's a
    pain to use and it's a pain to run away from. I doubt very much that
    the original implementers of the FoxPro series of software are very
    proud of what it became.

    --- Mike

    --
    My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEAREDAAYFAkj4IeMACgkQ0kE/IBnFmjAQiACfZiFQ5XTPk2N9SpZBxwMXs8Nd
    ZBoAn0ZzdqdkPiyOfiew5FSVx8ktl4rY
    =Qx7u
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


+ Reply to Thread