Thread: Is anyone else encountering the same problem?

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

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.....

Originally Posted by QuestionKing

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

Originally Posted by jeffcobb

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.

Originally Posted by cyberfish

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.)

Originally Posted by Mario F.

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. ^__^

Originally Posted by jeffcobb

...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.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

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.

Originally Posted by cyberfish

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.

Originally Posted by cyberfish

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...

Originally Posted by jeffcobb

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.

Originally Posted by whiteflags

Otherwise I think your argument is just fellatious.

My argument involves sexual contact? That is news to me.