Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
On 16/09/10 22:53, Grant Sewell wrote: O I'm sure the BBC have thoroughly tested it in all versions of everything available to have come up with this statement. Umm, well that's not exactly what they said lol - I'd already established that it didn't work on Lucid and figured it out via trial and error, discussion on forums and checking bug reports before emailing BBC to ask them to sort it out. After pointing it out on their forum and emailing them when I got no reply (and no doubt lots of other people complained too), BBC doesn't say anything about Lucid but now lists Ubuntu versions up to Karmic on their website as compatible. Apparently it also works on Suse. Paula -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
You can install 32 bit air on 10.04, even 64-bit. Essentially, you need to download the .bin (not the .deb) version. It's really easy to install Air onto Lucid, as I understand it, problem is the iPlayer doesn't work with the version of Air in the repos. You might be able to sort it out you have a couple of afternoons free but I don't at the mo ;) Paula -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO
On 17/09/2010 12:16, Glen Mehn wrote: > > > Word wins out over Writer, I think, for the following reasons: > - Track Changes is just easier to use. > - Comments make more sense-- you highlight a section to comment, rather > than picking a point, so when there's a long comment or a tricky bit of > comprehension, it helps. A lot. Especially when you're > co-writing/editing a 50pp+ document with people speaking different > languages in six timezones. > - Writer's styles& formatting is just inconsistent. Sometimes styles > get applied, sometimes they don't. Sometimes styles change (revert to > default) between iterations of the same document on the same OS on the > same install of OOO. > Interestingly I have both Office 2007 and OO 3.2.1 and I would make the following observations. Word has the ability to print several pages on one sheet whereas OO does not. (Same machine, Windows 7, same printer). However, the "print booklet" function in Word 2007 is well and truly broken (whether they have fixed that in 2010 I don't know, and as it's extremely unlikely that I shall upgrade to 2010 given the excellence of the current OO version, I probably will never find out!) - the OO version (print brochure) is very good. The Ribbon I find pretty good. It doesn't take too long to find everything, but I also like the menus and icons of OO as well. The MAJOR problem I have with Word 2007 is that if you use the default OOXML format, then to send a document to a non-2007 (or 2010) user, you HAVE to do a Save-As into .doc format, which means that you then have TWO versions of the document. In OO all you need to do is File-Send-Email Document as Microsoft Word and it automatically converts ODF to ,doc IN THE EMAIL, so you effectively only have ONE version of the document on your HDD. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO
On 16/09/2010 23:31, David King wrote: > Alan Pope wrote: >> On 15 September 2010 09:10, Mark Harrison wrote: >> >>> 1: I've not used MS Office for about 5 years now, however the one time I >>> needed to was in 2007 for a really complex mailmerge, which is one area >>> where MSO is still better than OOo :-( >>> >> I once made the mistake of saying on a LUG mailing list "I have to use >> Microsoft office at work" at which point it was pointed out that I >> didn't have to work for that company by one of the members of the >> list. This is of course true, and for some people it is indeed >> possible and desirable to make a career choice based only on whether >> they get to use free software all day or not. An example of such a >> person would be Bradley Kuhn. Personally that's not a choice I'm going >> to make because I'm a pragmatist, and the software I use on a daily >> basis is only part of the decision making process. >> >> Unfortunately OpenOffice.org is incompatible with the systems we use >> at work every day. This frustrates me, but that frustration is >> tempered with the knowledge that we have hundreds of quite chunky >> boxes powering the Enterprise that are all running Linux :D >> > I too have to use MS Office 2007 at work. We used to use MS Office 2003 > which was quite good, but 2007 is really lousy to use, with a terrible > ribbon interface and it seems quite a few bugs. > > I would much prefer to use OpenOffice.org at work, or other high quality > software. > > A friend of mine recently bought an Apple Mac, which came with MS Office > 2008. Compared to the Windows version 2007, the Mac version is > fantastic. It has menus, a toolbar and a floating palette like a DTP > program. This Mac version of Office is definitely a well-designed > program, and something that the Linux community should be looking to > emulate. > > I hope that future software will NOT have stupid ribbon interfaces, but > will continue to have sensible menus and palettes that help people to be > more productive. > > Where I work, the switch to Office 2007 has seriously reduced > productivity. The only plus side to this is that I have been getting > more overtime (and thus more pay). But it really has caused a lot of > headaches. I really wish that OpenOffice.org was up to the task of doing > what MS Office can do (in relation to what we need to where I work, > which does not include mailmerge, but does include a lot of page > layouts, complicated financial charts and lots of complicated nested > tables). > > At least I know that the company does use Linux, at least for its file > servers, but we have Windows XP on the desktop. I expect they could > change everything to either Linux or Mac, but within a large > organisation getting everyone retrained is expensive and time-consuming, > although they have wasted a lot on changing to Office 2007. > > But I do believe that for startups and small companies, using OpenOffice > is probably the best option for an office suite rather than any MS > software (as well as Linux on the desktop instead of Windows). Hmmm.. Much as I am an enormous free software advocate (linux user since 1993, professionally since 1998), I have to disagree with you here. The answer is, unfortunately, "It depends on what you're doing". This below is all my 2p. Office software is a large, complicated beast, that's used by everyone from programmers to office admins to statisticians. The Ribbon interface is a choice, which does some things well and other things poorly. I know the OOO interface team is looking at the pros and cons of a ribbon type interface. It takes a bit of getting used to, but once you understand how it works (and where all the functionality is), it can make things clearer-- particularly for the new user. I personally think OOO and MSO have their own pros and cons-- this comes from working for 12 years as an IT and business consultant on strategy and ops work, and using unix based tools (I'm VI over emacs, for instance), but in the last 5 years making extensive use of both sets of office products. Word wins out over Writer, I think, for the following reasons: - Track Changes is just easier to use. - Comments make more sense-- you highlight a section to comment, rather than picking a point, so when there's a long comment or a tricky bit of comprehension, it helps. A lot. Especially when you're co-writing/editing a 50pp+ document with people speaking different languages in six timezones. - Writer's styles & formatting is just inconsistent. Sometimes styles get applied, sometimes they don't. Sometimes styles change (revert to default) between iterations of the same document on the same OS on the same install of OOO. Excel and Calc are closer, though I think Excel still has a slight edge - Pivot tables support pivot charts and more data types - Excel has more keyboard shortcuts (think: ctrl-d/ctrl-r to fill down/right), although they're hiding both of these - Slightly be
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
On 16/09/2010 18:19, Tony Pursell wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 18:13 +0100, Steve Fisher wrote: >> Well that answers part of it, but not why mine still works, 64bit >> browser (Chromium) and iPlayer works fine. >> >> >> Steve > It seems that what you cannot do is download programs because that needs > Air and Air does not install on Lucid. I.e you can only watch programs > streamed in your browser. > > You can install 32 bit air on 10.04, even 64-bit. Essentially, you need to download the .bin (not the .deb) version. I use it for tweetdeck and iplayer-- though my iplayer often hangs when downloading. http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/09/how-to-install-adobe-air-in-ubuntu-10-10-64bit/ (there are other similar suggestions) Glen -- Glen Mehn e: glen.m...@oba.co.uk | t: @gmehn m: +44 7942 675 755 | w: http://glen.mehn.net b: http://glen.mehn.net/mba -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO
Alan Pope wrote: > On 15 September 2010 09:10, Mark Harrison wrote: > >> 1: I've not used MS Office for about 5 years now, however the one time I >> needed to was in 2007 for a really complex mailmerge, which is one area >> where MSO is still better than OOo :-( >> > I once made the mistake of saying on a LUG mailing list "I have to use > Microsoft office at work" at which point it was pointed out that I > didn't have to work for that company by one of the members of the > list. This is of course true, and for some people it is indeed > possible and desirable to make a career choice based only on whether > they get to use free software all day or not. An example of such a > person would be Bradley Kuhn. Personally that's not a choice I'm going > to make because I'm a pragmatist, and the software I use on a daily > basis is only part of the decision making process. > > Unfortunately OpenOffice.org is incompatible with the systems we use > at work every day. This frustrates me, but that frustration is > tempered with the knowledge that we have hundreds of quite chunky > boxes powering the Enterprise that are all running Linux :D > I too have to use MS Office 2007 at work. We used to use MS Office 2003 which was quite good, but 2007 is really lousy to use, with a terrible ribbon interface and it seems quite a few bugs. I would much prefer to use OpenOffice.org at work, or other high quality software. A friend of mine recently bought an Apple Mac, which came with MS Office 2008. Compared to the Windows version 2007, the Mac version is fantastic. It has menus, a toolbar and a floating palette like a DTP program. This Mac version of Office is definitely a well-designed program, and something that the Linux community should be looking to emulate. I hope that future software will NOT have stupid ribbon interfaces, but will continue to have sensible menus and palettes that help people to be more productive. Where I work, the switch to Office 2007 has seriously reduced productivity. The only plus side to this is that I have been getting more overtime (and thus more pay). But it really has caused a lot of headaches. I really wish that OpenOffice.org was up to the task of doing what MS Office can do (in relation to what we need to where I work, which does not include mailmerge, but does include a lot of page layouts, complicated financial charts and lots of complicated nested tables). At least I know that the company does use Linux, at least for its file servers, but we have Windows XP on the desktop. I expect they could change everything to either Linux or Mac, but within a large organisation getting everyone retrained is expensive and time-consuming, although they have wasted a lot on changing to Office 2007. But I do believe that for startups and small companies, using OpenOffice is probably the best option for an office suite rather than any MS software (as well as Linux on the desktop instead of Windows). David King -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:03:25 +0100 pmgazz wrote: > > On 16/09/10 18:48, Alan Bell wrote: > > > > The adobe air iplayer app works for me on Maverick, pretty sure I > > have it on a Lucid box too. Works on Maverick in 32 bit and in 64 > > bit. > > > > Alan. > > > Nu-uh, I emailed BBC and they said only works up to Karmic. > > Paula I'm sure the BBC have thoroughly tested it in all versions of everything available to have come up with this statement. Grant. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 18:21 +0100, Jacob Mansfield wrote: > flash doesn't work properly at all on mine, how did you get it to > work? > > On 16 September 2010 18:19, Tony Pursell > wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 18:13 +0100, Steve Fisher wrote: > > Well that answers part of it, but not why mine still works, > 64bit > > browser (Chromium) and iPlayer works fine. > > > > > > Steve > > > It seems that what you cannot do is download programs because > that needs > Air and Air does not install on Lucid. I.e you can only watch > programs > streamed in your browser. > > Tony > What I had was it just kept telling me to install a new version, even after I had downloaded and installed it. Finally I removed a plugin folder, and its contents, in my home directory. I can't quite remember where it was. Probably under ~/.adobe. Tony -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
silly bbc On 16 September 2010 19:03, pmgazz wrote: > > On 16/09/10 18:48, Alan Bell wrote: > > > The adobe air iplayer app works for me on Maverick, pretty sure I have > it on a Lucid box too. Works on Maverick in 32 bit and in 64 bit. > > Alan. > > > Nu-uh, I emailed BBC and they said only works up to Karmic. > > Paula > > -- > ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/ > > -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
On 16/09/10 18:48, Alan Bell wrote: The adobe air iplayer app works for me on Maverick, pretty sure I have it on a Lucid box too. Works on Maverick in 32 bit and in 64 bit. Alan. Nu-uh, I emailed BBC and they said only works up to Karmic. Paula -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
On 16/09/10 13:46, pmgazz wrote: > I had a similar heart-searching around Adobe Air - I work with > non-profits for whom fundraising is core - most funders issue > badly-constructed pdf forms and trying to fill these in with Evince is > still a work in progress. I can manage to do it because I know Evince > fairly well and what it can and can't do and don't mind working around > it - my clients were having total nervous breakdowns. > > Getting rid of Adobe's ghastly, bloated and tentacled reader was a > major plus in moving to Ubuntu for me ;) However, my clients really > really weren't coping. I now put Acroread onto Ubuntu Desktops where > people need to deal with pdf forms. Hate it, but there it is. > > And, until I upgraded to 10.04 and BBC iPlayer didn't, I used to > install Air (grumbling all the way) so I can run the iPlayer on my > desktop. I'm really committed to Free Software but I'm not a hermit ;) > > By the way, is there something we could (collectively) do to hassle > the BCC to sort out the iPlayer for Lucid (and Maverick - or is it > fixed on Maverick? I haven't had time to install it yet). > > Paula The adobe air iplayer app works for me on Maverick, pretty sure I have it on a Lucid box too. Works on Maverick in 32 bit and in 64 bit. Alan. -- Alan Bell The Open Learning Centre Web: http://www.theopenlearningcentre.com Mob: +44 (0)7738 789190 Tel: +44 (0)844 3576000 The Open Learning Centre is a trading name of Bell Lord Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales #05868943. VAT Registration #GB 901 4715 55 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
This may be of interest: http://www.webupd8.org/2010/09/adobe-flash-player-square-102-64bit.html -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
Don't understand, Lucid64 install, flash works (10.1.82.76) and BBC iPlayer works (Air not installed) what am I missing? I mean the Desktop version, the browser version works OK. Paula -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
On 16 September 2010 18:21, Jacob Mansfield wrote: > flash doesn't work properly at all on mine, how did you get it to work? > > > On 16 September 2010 18:19, Tony Pursell wrote: > >> On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 18:13 +0100, Steve Fisher wrote: >> > Well that answers part of it, but not why mine still works, 64bit >> > browser (Chromium) and iPlayer works fine. >> > >> > >> > Steve >> >> It seems that what you cannot do is download programs because that needs >> Air and Air does not install on Lucid. I.e you can only watch programs >> streamed in your browser. >> >> Tony >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/ >> > > > -- > ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/ > > Must of got it installed before it was withdrawn, other than that dunno. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
flash doesn't work properly at all on mine, how did you get it to work? On 16 September 2010 18:19, Tony Pursell wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 18:13 +0100, Steve Fisher wrote: > > Well that answers part of it, but not why mine still works, 64bit > > browser (Chromium) and iPlayer works fine. > > > > > > Steve > > It seems that what you cannot do is download programs because that needs > Air and Air does not install on Lucid. I.e you can only watch programs > streamed in your browser. > > Tony > > > > > -- > ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/ > -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 18:13 +0100, Steve Fisher wrote: > Well that answers part of it, but not why mine still works, 64bit > browser (Chromium) and iPlayer works fine. > > > Steve It seems that what you cannot do is download programs because that needs Air and Air does not install on Lucid. I.e you can only watch programs streamed in your browser. Tony -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
Well that answers part of it, but not why mine still works, 64bit browser (Chromium) and iPlayer works fine. Steve -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/000/6b3af6c9.html On 16 September 2010 17:48, Steve Fisher wrote: > Don't understand, Lucid64 install, flash works (10.1.82.76) and BBC iPlayer > works (Air not installed) what am I missing? > > Steve > > -- > ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/ > > -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
Don't understand, Lucid64 install, flash works (10.1.82.76) and BBC iPlayer works (Air not installed) what am I missing? Steve -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO - and Adobe!
I currently don't like adobe because of the lack of x64 support for flash > no web games/movies On 16 September 2010 13:46, pmgazz wrote: > I had a similar heart-searching around Adobe Air - I work with non-profits > for whom fundraising is core - most funders issue badly-constructed pdf > forms and trying to fill these in with Evince is still a work in progress. I > can manage to do it because I know Evince fairly well and what it can and > can't do and don't mind working around it - my clients were having total > nervous breakdowns. > > Getting rid of Adobe's ghastly, bloated and tentacled reader was a major > plus in moving to Ubuntu for me ;) However, my clients really really > weren't coping. I now put Acroread onto Ubuntu Desktops where people need to > deal with pdf forms. Hate it, but there it is. > > And, until I upgraded to 10.04 and BBC iPlayer didn't, I used to install > Air (grumbling all the way) so I can run the iPlayer on my desktop. I'm > really committed to Free Software but I'm not a hermit ;) > > By the way, is there something we could (collectively) do to hassle the BCC > to sort out the iPlayer for Lucid (and Maverick - or is it fixed on > Maverick? I haven't had time to install it yet). > > Paula > > -- > ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/ > > -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO
On 15 September 2010 10:00, Yorvyk wrote: > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:10:46 +0100 > Mark Harrison wrote: > >> > From: Jacob Mansfield >> > of corse you can do it in OO, why the f**k would you want to use M$ >> >> >> Couple of things: >> >> 1: I've not used MS Office for about 5 years now, however the one time I >> needed to was in 2007 for a really complex mailmerge, which is one area >> where MSO is still better than OOo :-( >> >> There are lots of areas where OOo is genuinely better, in terms of >> functionality, as well as being free (in the cash sense). Actually, it's not >> quite Free in the OpenSource sense, if you read the Sun licence carefully >> :-) >> >> >> 2: I'm not sure you CAN do this in OOo - ie, create a link in a spreadsheet >> that then creates a pre-populated document in Writer. This wasn't a question >> about mailmerge, but about how to achieve a particular task. To be fair, I >> don't think that mailmerge in MSO is the right answer either, but given the >> user in question feels that mailmerge is too complex, I'm guessing that >> telling them that it needs about 20 lines of VBA macros probably isn't going >> to work either :-) >> >> >> 3: If you asked a question about OOo, and someone replied "MSO can do this, >> why the f*** would you use OpenOffice instead", would you: >> >> A: Feel that the respondent had a good point, and you should go out and try >> MS Office. >> >> B: Feel that the respondent was a jerk, and that you wanted to steer clear >> of the kinds of things he was recommending. >> >> >> >> The reason I bring this up is that I had a meeting with the IT Director of a >> FTSE 100 company a couple of years ago, and that one of the things that came >> up was OpenOffice as a possible replacement for MSO. >> >> The reply I got was "This is like Linux. I'm fed up of Linux people. They >> come in and want to have a religious conversation. I want to have a business >> conversation." >> > >> > >> This over-the-top, "why the f would you" stuff is actually DRIVING >> PEOPLE AWAY FROM LINUX. >> >> >> If I ran for Microsoft's Dirty Tricks Division, then I'd pay people to join >> LUG lists and post nasty comments about MS to make people feel that the >> Linux community were nutters :-) >> >> >> So, thanks for harming the spread of Free software. >> >> > Negative publicity is still publicity, panning somebody else’s product rarely > works. I’m (nearly :) always very careful about the claims I make about > what OOo can do. It is not a drop in replacement for Office. > > > -- > Steve Cook (Yorvyk) > > http://lubuntu.net > > -- > ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/ > I have used both MS and OO mailmerges. The philosopy is about the same, except that OO lets you create a database for your data. I think you can plonk an Excel sheet into an OO database so the problem is solvable. Mary -- Mary Mooney DEUK +44 (0) 7914 079 026 "A well-developed sense of humour is the pole that adds balance to your steps as you walk the tightrope of life. William Arthur Ward" Q:What's tiny and yellow and very, very, dangerous? A:A canary with the super-user password. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:10:46 +0100 Mark Harrison wrote: > > From: Jacob Mansfield > > of corse you can do it in OO, why the f**k would you want to use M$ > > > Couple of things: > > 1: I've not used MS Office for about 5 years now, however the one time I > needed to was in 2007 for a really complex mailmerge, which is one area > where MSO is still better than OOo :-( > > There are lots of areas where OOo is genuinely better, in terms of > functionality, as well as being free (in the cash sense). Actually, it's not > quite Free in the OpenSource sense, if you read the Sun licence carefully > :-) > > > 2: I'm not sure you CAN do this in OOo - ie, create a link in a spreadsheet > that then creates a pre-populated document in Writer. This wasn't a question > about mailmerge, but about how to achieve a particular task. To be fair, I > don't think that mailmerge in MSO is the right answer either, but given the > user in question feels that mailmerge is too complex, I'm guessing that > telling them that it needs about 20 lines of VBA macros probably isn't going > to work either :-) > > > 3: If you asked a question about OOo, and someone replied "MSO can do this, > why the f*** would you use OpenOffice instead", would you: > > A: Feel that the respondent had a good point, and you should go out and try > MS Office. > > B: Feel that the respondent was a jerk, and that you wanted to steer clear > of the kinds of things he was recommending. > > > > The reason I bring this up is that I had a meeting with the IT Director of a > FTSE 100 company a couple of years ago, and that one of the things that came > up was OpenOffice as a possible replacement for MSO. > > The reply I got was "This is like Linux. I'm fed up of Linux people. They > come in and want to have a religious conversation. I want to have a business > conversation." > > > This over-the-top, "why the f would you" stuff is actually DRIVING > PEOPLE AWAY FROM LINUX. > > > If I ran for Microsoft's Dirty Tricks Division, then I'd pay people to join > LUG lists and post nasty comments about MS to make people feel that the > Linux community were nutters :-) > > > So, thanks for harming the spread of Free software. > > Negative publicity is still publicity, panning somebody else’s product rarely works. I’m (nearly :) always very careful about the claims I make about what OOo can do. It is not a drop in replacement for Office. -- Steve Cook (Yorvyk) http://lubuntu.net -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO
I think you can do it but it would involve setting up the spreadsheet as a data source, which isn't transparent in my experience, but can be done with a bit of head scratching and judicious Googling. s/ On 15 Sep 2010 09:11, "Mark Harrison" wrote: > From: Jacob Mansfield > of corse you can do it in OO, why the f**k would you want to use M$ Couple of things: 1: I've not used MS Office for about 5 years now, however the one time I needed to was in 2007 for a really complex mailmerge, which is one area where MSO is still better than OOo :-( There are lots of areas where OOo is genuinely better, in terms of functionality, as well as being free (in the cash sense). Actually, it's not quite Free in the OpenSource sense, if you read the Sun licence carefully :-) 2: I'm not sure you CAN do this in OOo - ie, create a link in a spreadsheet that then creates a pre-populated document in Writer. This wasn't a question about mailmerge, but about how to achieve a particular task. To be fair, I don't think that mailmerge in MSO is the right answer either, but given the user in question feels that mailmerge is too complex, I'm guessing that telling them that it needs about 20 lines of VBA macros probably isn't going to work either :-) 3: If you asked a question about OOo, and someone replied "MSO can do this, why the f*** would you use OpenOffice instead", would you: A: Feel that the respondent had a good point, and you should go out and try MS Office. B: Feel that the respondent was a jerk, and that you wanted to steer clear of the kinds of things he was recommending. The reason I bring this up is that I had a meeting with the IT Director of a FTSE 100 company a couple of years ago, and that one of the things that came up was OpenOffice as a possible replacement for MSO. The reply I got was "This is like Linux. I'm fed up of Linux people. They come in and want to have a religious conversation. I want to have a business conversation." This over-the-top, "why the f would you" stuff is actually DRIVING PEOPLE AWAY FROM LINUX. If I ran for Microsoft's Dirty Tricks Division, then I'd pay people to join LUG lists and post nasty comments about MS to make people feel that the Linux community were nutters :-) So, thanks for harming the spread of Free software. Mark -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/ -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] MS vs. OO
On 15 September 2010 09:10, Mark Harrison wrote: > 1: I've not used MS Office for about 5 years now, however the one time I > needed to was in 2007 for a really complex mailmerge, which is one area > where MSO is still better than OOo :-( > I once made the mistake of saying on a LUG mailing list "I have to use Microsoft office at work" at which point it was pointed out that I didn't have to work for that company by one of the members of the list. This is of course true, and for some people it is indeed possible and desirable to make a career choice based only on whether they get to use free software all day or not. An example of such a person would be Bradley Kuhn. Personally that's not a choice I'm going to make because I'm a pragmatist, and the software I use on a daily basis is only part of the decision making process. Unfortunately OpenOffice.org is incompatible with the systems we use at work every day. This frustrates me, but that frustration is tempered with the knowledge that we have hundreds of quite chunky boxes powering the Enterprise that are all running Linux :D > There are lots of areas where OOo is genuinely better, in terms of > functionality, as well as being free (in the cash sense). Actually, it's not > quite Free in the OpenSource sense, if you read the Sun licence carefully > :-) > Indeed. The Linux Kernel isn't/wasn't properly free software until very recently. http://webmink.com/2010/08/30/gnulinux-finally-its-free-software/ > This over-the-top, "why the f would you" stuff is actually DRIVING > PEOPLE AWAY FROM LINUX. > +1 > If I ran for Microsoft's Dirty Tricks Division, then I'd pay people to join > LUG lists and post nasty comments about MS to make people feel that the > Linux community were nutters :-) > I suspect they do this already! :D Cheers, Al. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
