[KLUG Members] Re: MS Office for Linux? Not quite--but close!

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 08:56, flinchlock@fastmail.fm wrote:
> FYI...
> MS Office for Linux? Not quite--but close!

Even if there was a native MS Office version for Linux, it would *SUCK*
as much as MS Office for Mac.  Everyone who "complains" about
Star/OpenOffice's import/export to/from MS Office for Windows has never
tried MS Office on a non-Windows system.

My personal favorite of all time was the requirement of MS Office 98 for
Mac users to use "CSV" (comma separated values) to exchange Excel files
with MS Office 97 for Windows.  So you basically lost all formatting and
any complex equations.

Furthermore, an MS Word files aren't always usable between different
versions of MS Office not only because Microsoft changes the internal
format (to force you to never be out of sync by one verson), but instead
of using proper file reads/writes with byte-by-byte logic, it slams
entire binary records around.  This is primarily why 3rd party word
processors can import MS Word documents better than MS Word can open
itself!

You see, the problem with Windows has never been the OS (at least not
NT).  It's the apps.  The apps are security-ignorant, poorly written and
completely unportable.  Those who have Macs know this**.

People say MS Word is a "standard."  Technically, MS Word canNOT even be
considered a "proprietary standard."  That would require it to be
compatible with itself.  As many in the "wv" project have discovered, it
is _much_safer_ to use _another_ word processor than MS Word, as the
latter cannot often read nor write documents with previous versions.  As
such, I highly recommend _against_ using MS Word for important
documents.

-- Bryan

**NOTE:  The sooner Star/OpenOffice runs on MacOS X, the better.  Why? 
Because the second Mac users realize that Star/OpenOffice allows 100%
native file exchange with Windows users, there will be 0 reasons to use
MS Office on Mac (as it cannot do the same).

-- 
The USDOJ v. Microsoft trial will result in unconditional surrender.
No matter who wins, the consumer will be subject to the victor's
"terms."  Which is worse?  Clueless government or clueless monopoly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Smith, SmithConcepts, Inc.        mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
Engineers and IT Professionals          http://www.SmithConcepts.com