Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:The problem with FOSS office suites (Score 1) 266

I used templates supplied by Create Space that were intended for MS Word. The documents were both several hundred pages and included illustrations. I used The Gimp to create front and back cover images and free fonts from Font Squirrel for the title fonts. OO worked
perfectly.

Sanity happens. Now, if the templates are badly done with complex direct formatting, and if you have to go back and forth with
the proprietary word processor several times, or if it is ‘Open’XML, then bad things happen.

Comment Re:The problem with FOSS office suites (Score 1) 266

Strangely enough, I've had better lucking importing huge documents ( > 400 pages ) into OO and formatting for print than in Word itself.

Not strange at all, if the original document used styles sanely instead of going for complex direct formatting.

When things really break is when one has to collaborate with people who resist to LibreOffice on some badly formatted document, and then you have to convert to
and back again several times.

Comment Re:The problem with FOSS office suites (Score 1) 266

The only fundamental way where LibreOffice falls short is when dealing with unnecessary complexity in the proprietary suite
files.

I think it's pretty clear that this is a fundamental shortfall of those files and formats, not of LO. The latter would have no problem opening and saving them if they were not obfuscated and undocumented. Just as with the nouveau driver, it's Jesus- worthy miracle that it works at all.

That was my point.

But I actually think it is not only the proprietary file formats being bad. It is also that the proprietary suite falls short
in organising documents with styles and templates, so people use very complex direct formatting.

Comment Re:The problem with FOSS office suites (Score 5, Informative) 266

I remember at least three incidents where I was instructed to evaluate Open Office, Libre Office or other F/OSS word processing or layout packages. In each instance, the F/OSS products fell short in fundamental ways, and were a total disaster for larger documents.

Quite to the contrary, LibreOffice deals better with long documents than the proprietary alternative, and also it never
corrupts complex documents like the proprietary alternative.

The only fundamental way where LibreOffice falls short is when dealing with unnecessary complexity in the proprietary suite
files. Complexity which is fairly common, given the proprietary suite deficiencies in structuring documents.

Comment Re:Why semirelational? (Score 1) 49

RDBMs don't require you to define primary keys

Yes, they do. The few of them, that is. SQL DBMSs do not, but they are not relational.

This requirement is where Spanner still looks like a key-value store: the primary keys form the name for a row, and each table denes a mapping from the
primary-key columns to the non-primary-key columns.

This makes little sense to me, because it describes not a key-value store — unless you consider the ‘value’to be all
non-primary key columns, which would stretch the definition of a key-value store —, but a relational database relation.

Comment Re:Why semirelational? (Score 1) 49

Codd's original book

Not a Book, but an article. Granted, Codd published a book aftwards, but that was not original anymore.

required every relation to have a primary key, even if the key is composed of all the columns.

Precisely.

Not sure about what do you mean with relationships here. Relationships are a concept of ERDs, not of the relational model.

Comment Re:Margins (Score 2) 365

They were never a price oriented company.

This is not true at all. Nearly all markets Microsoft entered they underpriced, usually a lot. Operating systems, server
software, office suites, you name it — MS products were always cheaper than the then incumbent. What MS always
did was to establish a proprietary lock-in by embracing, extending and extinguishing existing standards, so that they
could avoid lowering prices — software having fat margins, former incumbents would underprice MS once they lost in the
market, so avoiding a price war was of essence.

As far as I know this is the first time Microsoft enters a new market — actually, reenters a redefined market, as they failed to
develop the market for tablets with their MS Windows for Pen Computing OS version and are now playing in a renewed by Apple
and Google market — overpricing it. Netbook history, where Asus created the market with GNU/Linux and forced MS to lower the
price on MS Windows XP, seems to indicate where will MS Windows RT prices will go after a few months. Downhill.

Comment Why semirelational? (Score 1) 49

From the original paper linked at the summary post above:

Spanner’s data model is not purely relational, in that rows must have names. More precisely, every table is required to have
an ordered set of one or more primary-key columns.

OK, relational keys should not be ordered. But the fact that each table must have a key makes it a relation, at least in
principle, so Spanner at first looks like it is in fact more relational than SQL. Am I missing anything?

Slashdot Top Deals

To restore a sense of reality, I think Walt Disney should have a Hardluckland. -- Jack Paar

Working...