open office will never be 'good enough' because it violates the basic principle of foss - many small tools, each doing one thing well, rather than one big monolithic application that tries to do everything.
Reminds me of GNU Emacs. The same logic applies to it, after all it does many more things than OpenOffice.org. Many 'savvy' users do have a liking for it. Do you think it is 'good enough'?
Regards, Debarshi
Debarshi Ray wrote:
Reminds me of GNU Emacs. The same logic applies to it, after all it does many more things than OpenOffice.org. Many 'savvy' users do have a liking for it. Do you think it is 'good enough'?
What wrong did emacs do ? It is true that it can do many thing, but it doesnt necessarily mean that it needs to have anything. You can have things which you use in emacs and dont have those which yo do not use. Emacs is highly customizable to suit your needs. Also that emacs is not aimed at those who just want to use it as another notepad.
On 12/22/06, Debarshi Ray debarshi.ray@gmail.com wrote:
open office will never be 'good enough' because it violates the basic principle of foss - many small tools, each doing one thing well, rather than one big monolithic application that tries to do everything.
Reminds me of GNU Emacs. The same logic applies to it, after all it does many more things than OpenOffice.org. Many 'savvy' users do have a liking for it. Do you think it is 'good enough'?
GNU Emacs follows the model of Unix, do a small thing, and do it well. Emacs is built by making several small commands work in a series (by defining macros) to build complex commands. this is much like shell scripting. Indeed that is the reason why Eamcs rocks.
OpenOffice, or for that matter any office suit that have seen so far, approach is flawed, because the spends most time getting things done, unlike the appication doing the things for the user. This comment applieso only to the word processor component. What we need to preserve in an office suit are the spreadsheet, presentation, and database linking. These latter set of tools are very useful. If macro-definition in OO becomes easy, it may come close to my vision of a good computing application.
Nagarjuna
On 22-Dec-06, at 9:00 AM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
principle of foss - many small tools, each doing one thing well, rather than one big monolithic application that tries to do everything.
Reminds me of GNU Emacs. The same logic applies to it, after all it does many more things than OpenOffice.org. Many 'savvy' users do have a liking for it. Do you think it is 'good enough'?
that is another monster. I personally know several people who use it for macho reasons, and it is a serious hindrance to their productivity. It is like the harley davidson bike - the owner is so busy tuning it and bragging about it that he rarely gets to go anywhere. If i program, i like specialised tools - one for html, js and css, another for python, another for text editing, another for remote editing ...
that is another monster.
only in terms of disk space.
I personally know several people who use it
for macho reasons, and it is a serious hindrance to their productivity.
that happens only when people use it to ``show off" that they are techies. Most emacs users i've met knew what they were doing. There are the show off's as well, and i've met only one till now and on further observation i found out he was a windoze user.
It is like the harley davidson bike - the owner is so
busy tuning it and bragging about it that he rarely gets to go anywhere.
You don't ALWAYS have to do it. Start with a file(buffer), 99% the kind of file you are working already has a mode. If you still feel its not complete then define macros as and when needed. Not all the timeyou work on it.
If i program, i like specialised tools - one for html, js
and css, another for python, another for text editing, another for remote editing ...
Also understandable. However emacs can do all of the above as well.
Anyway for the record i fully acknowledge and respect your opinion and choice of not using emacs. i think i have started enough flame wars this week :-) and have no intention of starting any more(just yet) :-)
Emacs lovers can be with emacs, others can be happy with their free(as in freedom) tools.
Regards,
- vihan
On 12/22/06, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
that is another monster. I personally know several people who use it for macho reasons, and it is a serious hindrance to their productivity.
That is true (in a myopic sense). The learning curve for emacs is pretty steep. It may be a hindrance to productivity in the short term, but if you say it lowers productivity in general, u probably haven't used it long enough.
It is like the harley davidson bike - the owner is so busy tuning it and bragging about it that he rarely gets to go anywhere.
Maybe some people enjoy tuning more than travelling. If they aren't doing it on your time and money, it shouldn't bother you.
If i program, i like specialised tools - one for html, js and css, another for python, another for text editing, another for remote editing ...
Good for you ... as long as you don't bad-mouth what other's like :-(
. farazs
open office will never be 'good enough' because it violates the basic principle of foss - many small tools, each doing one thing well, rather than one big monolithic application that tries to do everything.
Reminds me of GNU Emacs. The same logic applies to it, after all it does many more things than OpenOffice.org. Many 'savvy' users do have a liking for it. Do you think it is 'good enough'?
good example :-)
In fact the best. i'm yet to see a software cross version 21 and still be alive as a practical utility than a university project after 2 decades.
Regards,
-vihan
-
Debarshi Ray -
Faraz Shahbazker -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Nagarjuna G. -
Parthan -
Vihan Pandey