Is anyone else encountering the same problem?

This is a discussion on Is anyone else encountering the same problem? within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom The funny thing is that you believe anyone here is actually arguing for the DOC format. ...

  1. #61
    Registered User jeffcobb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Henderson, NV
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    The funny thing is that you believe anyone here is actually arguing for the DOC format.
    Sure seems like Mario F and a few others are, indicating that we are lazy for not doing a perfect reverse engineer of the DOC format while complaining it is too much work to print it as a PDF (for example).

    But whatever; I am with MK27 on this one; if a poster wants everyone to read an attachment, they will use a format common to all platforms. If not.....
    C/C++ Environment: GNU CC/Emacs
    Make system: CMake
    Debuggers: Valgrind/GDB

  2. #62
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by QuestionKing View Post
    I can't believe that so many of ......y o u...... were so quick to flame up over a comment (lightly put) of an undesireable format.... after all of the CROSS PLATFORM!!!! CROSS PLATFORM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! arguments i have seen posted here, supported by so many...
    shame on you :/
    ....sigh.....
    It's like throwing meat to the lions

    Anyway, to be fair, MS is sort of a "default" platform, and it is not surprising that some of the users do not understand that .doc is not a transparent format. For those that do, I guess choosing incompatibility may be a worth while gamble in some sense (tho not a friendly one).

    Eg, occasionally people post code here as attachments. Often I can't be bothered period, but if it's a .doc file (occasionally happens) I definitely can't be bothered. Of course, the "pay-off" for such a gamble would be you don't have to read any advice from me
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  3. #63
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    According to the Wikipedia page, Microsoft opened the binary formats after the OpenOffice people published the results of their reverse engineering...

    DOCX... it's a standard I guess. No idea how good OpenOffice is with them yet. DOCX support was only added to OO 3 (I THINK).

    Who cares about future accessibility? The file has already been written. Unless Microsoft figures out a way to take old format DOC files off of every website on the internet and reupload them in the new DOC format, the attachment in this thread will always be readable by OpenOffice. Perhaps I'm just not understanding the concern here.
    If everyone is used to DOC files, and everyone uses DOC files, what do you think will happen when they release the next version of Office that also outputs DOC files, but with a few extensions that make them render incorrectly in earlier versions? (Of course, it won't give you any warnings about that)

    Some people will upgrade, and not knowing the implications, save their files as DOC just like they have always been doing, and share them with the rest of the world. Not soon after, the rest of the world is forced to spend a few hundred $ to upgrade their Offices.

    Has that ever happened? Or has the DOC format stayed the same over the years?...

  4. #64
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    I think the big problem here is that there is no one format that works easily with everything.

    For publishing (read only), we have PDF. But we really don't have anything for exchanging editable formatted documents.

    OpenDocument aims to become one, but Microsoft doesn't support it for obvious reasons. The format is free, and readers/writers are free, but pretty much requires people to download OpenOffice, which is tiny compared to MS Office, but still big. MS decided to make THEIR own XML format, instead of using the already-established OpenDocument. Not surprising, of course. How many people would pay hundreds of $ to buy MS Office if it's compatible with OpenOffice? They have a monopoly, and are exploiting it to the fullest, just like they did with IE and HTML. I hope it will eventually fail like their HTML plan, though (thanks to Firefox, people started to write standard-compliant HTML pages).

    I have a dream that one day we will all be exchanging documents in open, standard formats accessible by everyone, regardless of OS, choice of word processor, or willingness to shell out large sums of $ to a mega-corporation.

  5. #65
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,439
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffcobb View Post
    The funny (!) thing about this whole argument is that professional programmers who live and die by language standards are actually arguing for closed proprietary formats.
    SlyMaelstrom pretty much answered this already. However there's a hidden false belief in this emphatic declaration (as is the case with most emphatic declarations) that I feel I need to address as a representative of that group of professional programmers.

    And that is, Professional programmers somehow privileging open formats.

    Nothing further from the truth. Professional programmers are neutral towards the whole issue. If an open format benefits their work, they will implement it. If copyright, trade secrets or other constraints will benefit their work more, they will implement instead a closed format and won't even flinch. And make no mistake about this.

    ...

    And this is the part you and others who cannot detach themselves from Linux usage and Linux philosophy constantly fail to grasp. That any ethical or moral considerations should be left for the quality of your work and not computer religion.

    When you come here one day and talk computers and talk software development in a pragmatic manner you will get my respect and my attention as a fellow software developer who's been around the block for a long time when software development was discussed still only on the grounds of how good the code was or how well fit a programming language was.

    But until then, and while you insist on discussing these things as a matter of faith, philosophy and some sort of cultural revolution only you believe will ever succeed in a world ruled by economics, I will look at you as I look at any other religious maniac. Uneducated, unexperienced and too easy to fool by the promise of higher goals.

    And for your information, I use Linux and I promote and support Open Source software. What I don't do is brand it like a weapon against what eventually puts the food on my table. From someone who has seen its share of open source code and teams, Open Source is no more ethical than closed source. Neither are Open Source developers better people than closed source developers, their code of better quality or their people less susceptible to have complete arseholes in their midst. In fact, I'd trade an open source team for a software development company any day of the week for the vast majority of current open projects out there. There's too many incompetent fools pretending they are open source developers these days.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 12-18-2009 at 03:13 PM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  6. #66
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    for publishing (read only), we have pdf. But we really don't have anything for exchanging editable formatted documents.
    html/css.

    I think the need for editable documents is somewhat of a different issue and generally restricted to circumstances where all parties concerned have agreed to a format.

    I also think this is silly to present as an "open vs. closed source" issue. It is about having public standards. The fact that you may be unable to do that with closed source software is tangential. Microsoft Word could (and obviously does) remain closed source software even though the .doc format is now public. Vis. "puttting food on a table", they stand to benefit from this -- if they had done it years ago instead of last February, they might have supplanted Adobe's pdf. But they did not, which makes Word itself less relevant, and lucky for adobe (much of whose software is also closed source, but notice they cleverly keep the formats open! Flash has followed the same pattern.)
    Last edited by MK27; 12-18-2009 at 03:30 PM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  7. #67
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,673
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    RTF is outdated, but most word processors will load DOC as well, so your argument is fallacious. The reality is that the poster should have just pasted it into the post, if it is too long for that then TXT is the most appropriate format, but any common format is just as good as any other.
    I agree, but I will say that people should point out my fallacies if there are any, so I can look them up. Otherwise I think your argument is just fellatious.

  8. #68
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    html/css.
    They are good for on-screen presentation. Not so much for to-be-printed documents, since they don't have the concept of a "page".

    And I agree it has nothing to do with open/closed source. Adobe PDF reader is closed source, but the format is public, and very compatible open source readers exist for all major platforms.

  9. #69
    Registered User jeffcobb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Henderson, NV
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    SlyMaelstrom pretty much answered this already. However there's a hidden false belief in this emphatic declaration (as is the case with most emphatic declarations) that I feel I need to address as a representative of that group of professional programmers.

    And that is, Professional programmers somehow privileging open formats.

    Nothing further from the truth. Professional programmers are neutral towards the whole issue. If an open format benefits their work, they will implement it. If copyright, trade secrets or other constraints will benefit their work more, they will implement instead a closed format and won't even flinch. And make no mistake about this.
    I guess we have simply had different careers; I learned early-on that it is dangerous for any project to rely on closed, non-standard APIs. Maybe this is because I have been doing this since the early 80's and for better or worse, had to support multiple operating systems on just about every project. I have had to fire "professional" programmers who leaned too much on cute platform-specific hacks at the risk of project longevity. The true pragmatists learn to stick to standards so that code maintenance doesn't become costly.


    And this is the part you and others who cannot detach themselves from Linux usage and Linux philosophy constantly fail to grasp. That any ethical or moral considerations should be left for the quality of your work and not computer religion.

    When you come here one day and talk computers and talk software development in a pragmatic manner you will get my respect and my attention as a fellow software developer who's been around the block for a long time when software development was discussed still only on the grounds of how good the code was or how well fit a programming language was.
    A. Who brought up religion? You did. Methinks you doth protest too much. B. At any given time I am working with and coding for at least 2 if not 3 operating systems. Linux does give me measurable, quantifiable value the others do not. It doesn't get much more pragmatic than that. I too believe in the right tool for the right job. Mario, you *talk* like you have a lot of experience but it just isn't reflected in your ideas. As for your respect, I have the respect of those I respect and therefore neither crave nor desire yours. Respect is earned.

    But until then, and while you insist on discussing these things as a matter of faith, philosophy and some sort of cultural revolution only you believe will ever succeed in a world ruled by economics, I will look at you as I look at any other religious maniac. Uneducated, unexperienced and too easy to fool by the promise of higher goals.
    Religious maniac? Wow. I have no idea what cultural revolution or philosophy you are ranting about; I see nothing religious about embracing open standards but I guess you do. A software developer can enjoy open standards and even open source software without being Richard Stallman or....you. Like I said, I get real measurable value from it. If that makes me a 'maniac' then so be it. I think part of the problem with your argument is that you truly don't know who you are talking to. That is the only reason I can think of for the ridiculous things you are saying.

    And for your information, I use Linux and I promote and support Open Source software. What I don't do is brand it like a weapon against what eventually puts the food on my table. From someone who has seen its share of open source code and teams, Open Source is no more ethical than closed source. Neither are Open Source developers better people than closed source developers, their code of better quality or their people less susceptible to have complete arseholes in their midst. In fact, I'd trade an open source team for a software development company any day of the week for the vast majority of current open projects out there. There's too many incompetent fools pretending they are open source developers these days.
    ...and so you make my point for me. ^__^
    C/C++ Environment: GNU CC/Emacs
    Make system: CMake
    Debuggers: Valgrind/GDB

  10. #70
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,439
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffcobb View Post
    ...and so you make my point for me. ^__^
    Actually I meant the other way around. Didn't you guess?
    Meaning I have no desire to participate any longer on Open Source projects given the complete comedy much of the whole thing has become. I prefer the quiet, reserved, mostly ego-free, competent and professional world of commercial software development where a small number of developers do more work in a day than the entire, say Firefox team does in a week. It also pays my bills.

    As for the rest of your post, I only skimmed through it as soon as it confirmed you really have no idea what you are talking about. Had you and you would realize how ridiculous your half-arsed arguments are. Your opinion ceased to interest me.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  11. #71
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    And exactly how is open source vs closed source relevant to this already off-topic discussion?

  12. #72
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    As for the rest of your post, I only skimmed through it as soon as it confirmed you really have no idea what you are talking about. Had you and you would realize how ridiculous your half-arsed arguments are. Your opinion ceased to interest me.
    Welcome to "Mario F." I take my ball, I go home, I cannot lose because I say the game is over, so in my own mind remain the uncontested champion of the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    And exactly how is open source vs closed source relevant to this already off-topic discussion?
    It wasn't; Mario had this confused with the concept of a public standard, vs. no public standard. I suppose it is some sort of silly "derail and conquer" scheme.
    Last edited by MK27; 12-18-2009 at 06:14 PM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  13. #73
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,439
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    And exactly how is open source vs closed source relevant to this already off-topic discussion?
    Hmm? Who argued against closed formats (meaning proprietary, meaning closed source) as being... let me fetch the words...

    - Uncourteous
    - "not worth reading"
    - "a form of discrimination"
    - "standard achieved through inertia and not technical merit"
    - "ugliness of the DOC format" (mario: and this person even admits they don't know the format)

    And all this way before I even mentioned "Open Source" for the first time.

    Let me tell to you about Unreasonable...
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  14. #74
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    Open source != open standard, like MK27 has explained with the PDF (open standard) and Adobe Reader (closed source) example.

  15. #75
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffcobb View Post
    But whatever; I am with MK27 on this one; if a poster wants everyone to read an attachment, they will use a format common to all platforms. If not.....
    DOC is common to all platforms, if you are too lazy to download the packages to read it, then you are seriously in the minority.

    Windows - has DOC support
    Yellow Dog Linux - has DOC support
    MacOS - has DOC support
    Unix - has DOC support
    Solaris - has DOC support
    Redhat - has DOC support
    ReactOS - has DOC support
    Ubuntu - has DOC support
    Slackware - has DOC support
    Debian - has DOC support

    jeffcobb - no DOC support?

    sorry, but you need to adapt to reality, not the other way around.

    BTW, PDF is just as proprietary as DOC.

    Quote Originally Posted by whiteflags View Post
    Otherwise I think your argument is just fellatious.
    My argument involves sexual contact? That is news to me.
    Last edited by abachler; 12-18-2009 at 06:40 PM.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Memory problem with Borland C 3.1
    By AZ1699 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 10:22 AM
  2. Someone having same problem with Code Block?
    By ofayto in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-12-2007, 08:38 AM
  3. A question related to strcmp
    By meili100 in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-07-2007, 02:51 PM
  4. WS_POPUP, continuation of old problem
    By blurrymadness in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-20-2007, 06:54 PM
  5. Possible Windows MDAC problem
    By BobS0327 in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-28-2006, 04:57 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21