RMS: Putting an End to Word Attachments 1022
sombragris writes "I've spotted in NewsForge a very interesting editorial by none other than RMS himself on the subject of getting rid of those annoying MS Word attachment that people send. The essay is worth thinking and doubtless worth implementing." I've found that KWord and Abiword both did a fine job of reading Word files - it's the being able to Save As Word where things get messy.
Save a HTML (Score:4, Informative)
It's a shame, as XHTML and CSS allows for very clean separation of content from presentation... maybe someday they will hit critical mass and it will be the accepted form of "rich" content presentation. But for now I have to slog through RTF, Word, Powerpoint (ugh) and Excel documents that are not converted cleanly to the office suites on Linux.
To reply to Hemos (Score:1, Informative)
Re:.doc is a de facto standard (Score:2, Informative)
Adobe has a little advertised web service [adobe.com] that will convert a variety of documents formats, including MS Office, to PDF files. Cost is 9.95 a month, but the 5 conversion freebie trial which is controlled by email address.
No problem saving as .doc (Score:2, Informative)
That's just the opposite of my experience with StarOffice. I've opened .doc files from the network, with "track changes" enabled, edited them in StarOffice Writer, and then saved them. None of my coworkers were ever the wiser.
I also print a lot of homework at work. I've saved my files as Word 2000 files, opened them on Word 2000, and printed without a problem.
Re:.doc is a de facto standard (Score:2, Informative)
The difference is, PDF is perfectly readable with a number of tools, free and Free and not, without issues.
Unless things have changed, nothing reads word docs correctly all of the time...
Re:Don't tell me to stop using MS Word... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:PDF? (Score:4, Informative)
Scroll down to the File Format Specification section.
RTF file with .doc extension (Score:5, Informative)
International? (Score:3, Informative)
(Assuming I have Word of course.)
-jfedor
Resume in Word format (Score:4, Informative)
If they are not willing to go that small distance for me, there is generally not going to be a good working relationship anyway.
Problem is the lack of a compliant MS email client (Score:2, Informative)
None of MS's email clients emit RFC compliant email. MS Outlook combined with an MS Exchange server running in Enterprise Mode can be coerced into sending almost compliant email messages, but it is tough to do and the messages are still problematic enough that some email systems cannot deal with the resultant messages (e.g., Exchange to Notes email is very troublesome).
This actually worked... (Score:5, Informative)
Their explanation was a little simpler, which was basically, "Hi. Those of us with Unix machines don't have Word installed, so it's a major pain in the ass for us to read that document you just attached. Can you send it in a different format?" Personally, I wouldn't recommend using any of the examples in the article, as they all sound pretty self-righteous and would probably make an average recipient more likely to walk over and give the writer a massive wedgie than to change their email attachment behavior.
The drawback, of course, is that the people who were sending Word attachments in the first place were still composing them in MS Word. And so you've either got to deal with the huge mess that is Word's "Save as HTML" or you lose all the pretty formatting (which does sometimes include important diagrams or tables) when it's saved as text. But I suppose it's a moral victory, if nothing else...
Re:We first need ... (Score:2, Informative)
For business, definively not. My company generates docs of hundreds of pages. It would takes days to reformat one of them (I had to, a couple of times :-( ).
And it is not only the good-looking. For large docs, things like cross-reference and automatic indexes are a god blessing.
Demoroniser (Re:Save a HTML) (Score:3, Informative)
T
Bah, convert it to PDF (Score:5, Informative)
#!/usr/bin/perl
my $fn=shift;
my $or=$fn;
$fn=~s/.*\/(.*)\.doc$/$1/o;
$fn=~s/
$or =~ s/
`antiword -p letter $or | ps2pdf - > $HOME/tmp/$fn.pdf `;
exec("/usr/bin/acroread $HOME/tmp/$fn.pdf");
It does require antiword which you can obtain from freshmeat.
Re:RMS is full of shit (Score:3, Informative)
The only reason you would NOT use MS Office is ideology. "
True. And by my ideology, stealing is wrong. Since I can't afford to buy a copy of MS Office (and really wouldn't wish to spend that much money simply to read email attachments, even if I could), I don't have MS Office. There's also the little fact that I run linux on my home system, and Office isn't known for it's compatibility with linux. And no, I don't run linux for political or ideological reasons; I run linux because I believe it's a better system. My computer doesn't crash, I don't have to upgrade my system every time a new version is released, and I have massive amounts of free (as in beer) software to play with. The fact that I agree with much of the ideology is a bonus, but wasn't enough to get me over to linux until I found that it suited my needs much better than Windows did.
Antoher side effect: Conservation of bandwidth (Score:1, Informative)
Gui for TeX (Score:3, Informative)
RMS is incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
This statement is incorrect... Microsoft redefined the file format with Word 97 to make it extensible. SO the basic text, formatting, images, etc are all compatible between Word 97, 2000, and XP. I can save a Word file in WordXP and open it in Word 97 without any sort of conversion or downgrading... its just that the "extensions" not supported by Word 97 won't be displayed or might be displayed incorrectly.
The differences between 97 and 2000 are especially small... we have about 85% of our users on Office 97 and they exchange documents both ways with our other users of Office 2000. Of course they don't do anything special with fileformats (remember: these users think their keyboard can 'get a virus') -- the Word 97 users can open the Word 2000 files without conversion.
Who gives a sh*t about Word docs (Score:2, Informative)
Now it could be a problem, when they send you stuff back in word format.
Re:Same with my car (Score:3, Informative)
2. A car is a car is a car, whether its a 2002 Viper or a 1985 Ford Tempo. A 1985 Ford Tempo, if you can find one, can probably be purchased for the same as Word. Software is software is software, no matter what the price point.
3. I write Content Management software for a web development company. People need to get into that code all the time. People need to get into the code in Word, or Outlook, or other Office products to fix buffer overflows and other bugs. The fact that I can't but Joe at Redmond can is the point, and the problem.
4. (the coffee maker argument) Point to you, *but* if I heavily modified my cars looks (a fair number of people heavily tweak the settings in Word, turning off things like AutoCorrect), and somebody broke a window, I'd rather not have to make my car look like it did when I first drove it off the lot. Similarly, I'd rather not have to download all my patches again because my mom accidentally deleted some obscure file I didn't know that Word needed.
The point is that anybody who happens to think that "I wish I could change function X in Word, because it isn't powerful enough for me" is in no way allowed to do that. Just because you will never exercise a liberty does not mean that it's okay to take that liberty away. Slippery slope, and all that.
Re:RTF file with .doc extension (Score:3, Informative)
BeOS has an excellent method that makes much more sense:
Doing it this way is much better, since the user can then name their files any way they like without worrying about confusing the OS. Since other OS's are now beginning to support file attributes, perhaps the time has come for them to start using this technique as well.
Re:RMS is full of shit (Score:2, Informative)
Works has included the most recent version of Word for a while now. I bought a computer a year ago and it came with Works preloaded, and Word 2000 was right there with it. I don't know how long it has been a part of it, but it IS a part of it now.
Re:RMS is incorrect (Score:1, Informative)
My co-worker had a laptop with Word 2000 and a desktop PC with Word 97. Working on the same documents on both computers every day really messed up the documents in a few months. The documents were so long that this was not noticed for a few weeks. We quit using Word 2000 immediately! We simply cannot take such risks with our work.
My version (Score:3, Informative)
Many modifications are possible, of course. (P.S. The indentation is nicer in my file, but the lameness filter won't allow it. Sorry.)
Now, my message: