LibreOffice vs. Gnumeric/Abiword

[F. Russell]

Although LibreOffice has many outstanding qualities, the developers
are following a disturbing trend. LO is becoming suffused with bloat
as it attempts to incorporate a multitude of outlandish features.

I am seriously considering replacing LO on my system with the combination
of Gnumeric and Abiword.

The only obstacle is that Gnumeric does not have pivot tables and
in this age of extensive OLAP analysis this is quite a setback.

But there is no denying that LO is on a dangerous path. The developers
should be concentrating on making the core operation better. For example,
LO Calc uses only a single processor core (no multi-threading). Instead,
the emphasis is on feature expansion.

[7]

Troll!!

LibreOffice has GPU support to do in seconds
what takes all other competing spreadsheets takes days.

[F. Russell]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 17:25:14 +0000, 7 wrote:

>
> LibreOffice has GPU support to do in seconds
> what takes all other competing spreadsheets takes days.
>

Idiot!

LO has GPU support provided that that user has a video
device that supports it and provided that libopencl
and other software are installed. These provisos are
not guaranteed. (I can't use GPU because my nvidia
card does not support it.)

Also, GPU floating point is not standardized and the
accuracy of various algorithms with GPU has not been
tested.

Multi-threading on multi-cores should be an emphasis
for LO development. MS Excel uses multi-cores.

[F. Russell]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 17:25:14 +0000, 7 wrote:

>

> LibreOffice has GPU support to do in seconds
> what takes all other competing spreadsheets takes days.
>

Idiot!

GPU calculations do not apply to tasks such as file read/write,
sorting, and resizing, just to give a few examples. For these
other tasks, multi-core, multi-threading operations would be
very beneficial.

[RonB]

If Russell wants to change out from LO to Gnumeric/AbiWord, just do it.
Don't yammer on about it for ages. Since he seems to find LO so "hideous" I
don't know why he didn't do it long ago. Sounds like he would rather bitch
than actually do anything about it.

--
Zero Tolerance for iCultists and WinTrolls

[Marek Novotny]

Exactly... They don't need to use it and they don't need to concern
themselves with those who do. I'm happy with my choices. No need to
justify them to a bunch of trolls.

--
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny

[Snit]

On 6/4/17, 8:04 AM, in article oh17h...@news4.newsguy.com, "F. Russell"

<f...@random.info> wrote:

> Although LibreOffice has many outstanding qualities, the developers
> are following a disturbing trend. LO is becoming suffused with bloat
> as it attempts to incorporate a multitude of outlandish features.

And does them poorly, at least in many cases.

> I am seriously considering replacing LO on my system with the combination
> of Gnumeric and Abiword.

Have not used Abiword in a while but when I did I liked it. Seemed well
thought out and designed.

> The only obstacle is that Gnumeric does not have pivot tables and
> in this age of extensive OLAP analysis this is quite a setback.
>
> But there is no denying that LO is on a dangerous path. The developers
> should be concentrating on making the core operation better. For example,
> LO Calc uses only a single processor core (no multi-threading). Instead,
> the emphasis is on feature expansion.
>

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[7]

'Russell' is just another appile funded troll who doesn't know anything.
Its original sock master has gone where all socks go.
In some booze filled bucket after pay day.

[7]

These days I use LibreOffice for everything. It seems more polished than
ever. Some company I worked for insists everything is done in microshat
products. I do it in Libreoffice and save it in microshat format and
no one has been able to tell the difference while everyone who uses
microshit can't format their text correctly any more!!!

The average microshit crafted documents are riddled with formatting errors.

They have all gradually become windiots attached to their
mothership on drip feed and unable to operate windiot menus.
Sheesh - what a way to end.

Serves them right.

[Marek Novotny]

Microsoft formatting errors, 239,354,899,731,401 (this week)

Vim, 0 (lifetime).

[Snit]

On 6/4/17, 3:49 PM, in article epjdko...@mid.individual.net, "7"

Cool! Would love to see some examples showing examples where you think it
handles things better than the competition.

> Some company I worked for insists everything is done in microshat
> products. I do it in Libreoffice and save it in microshat format and
> no one has been able to tell the difference while everyone who uses
> microshit can't format their text correctly any more!!!

Why not? Is there an example you can show where you think LO makes it
easier? Would love to see it if so!

> The average microshit crafted documents are riddled with formatting errors.

Few use styles and the like... and for longer documents those help a lot. MS
Word actually handles those quite well, though.

> They have all gradually become windiots attached to their
> mothership on drip feed and unable to operate windiot menus.
> Sheesh - what a way to end.
>
> Serves them right.

So show examples. Would LOVE to see them.

[Snit]

On 6/4/17, 3:39 PM, in article
HL-dnSOmUpawEanE...@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny"

You compare Microsoft, a company, with vim, a text editor. What? Even if you
mean MS Word it is a word processor, not a text editor.

Bizarre.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Marek Novotny wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/10/why-microsoft-word-must-die.html

Microsoft was a personal computer software company in the early 1980s,
mostly notable for their BASIC interpreter and MS-DOS operating system.
Steve Jobs approached Bill Gates to write applications for the new
Macintosh system in 1984, and Bill agreed. One of his first jobs was to
organize the first true WYSIWYG word processor for a personal computer --
Microsoft Word for Macintosh. Arguments raged internally: should it use
control codes, or hierarchical style sheets? In the end, the decree went
out: Word should implement both formatting paradigms. Even though they're
fundamentally incompatible and you can get into a horrible mess by
applying simple character formatting to a style-driven document, or vice
versa. Word was in fact broken by design, from the outset -- and it only
got worse from there.

--
The secret source of humor is not joy but sorrow; there is no humor in Heaven.
-- Mark Twain

[Snit]

On 6/4/17, 5:18 PM, in article oh28bu$k3c$1...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"
<OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:

...

From what I can tell the style-driven mode is like external CSS (or, really,
CSS in the header) and the "control codes" are like in-line CSS. These are
NOT incompatible in any way.

And then it goes into claims that you need to use the newest version of Word
to read the newest version of the file... but they repeatedly have extended
old versions to read newer file formats. There are issues, of course, if the
older version does not support a feature, such as new character styles or
image settings or whatever.

Then it goes on to say this:
-----
Nor is Microsoft Word easy to use. Its interface is convoluted,
baroque, making the easy difficult and the difficult nearly
impossible to achieve.
-----

But it offers NO actual examples. None. Not a one. Just lots of vague
whining. Then he whines that publishers of novels want him to send them
files formatted in a common format that is a de facto standard. So? Yeah, it
would be nice if they accepted other formats but given how Word *is* a de
facto standard so what? Try legal transcription and see the standards used
THERE... and the tools to work with the documents. Hardly easy to use (but
powerful).

Perhaps my favorite quote from the article is this:
-----
PS: I write for a living. And if you're interested in seeing what I
write, my latest novella, "Equoid", goes on sale tomorrow (October
16th). At no point was Microsoft Word involved in its creation; and
you can buy it as an ebook from all the usual stores, via the menu
here.
-----

The last part... he has a link and says "via the menu here". The menu. MENU.

LOL! This guy is a WRITER and he references a link as a menu. And he wants
me to take his view of a menu-driven program seriously. Really?

OK, though, linked to his book and looked at reviews... to be fair quite a
few good ones... but there is also this:

<http://amzn.to/2rUE3sN>
-----
Stross' use of sexual violence toward children for the sake of grins
and thrills has very definitely crossed my disgust line.
-----

Not hard to guess he likely is a big fan of Stallman... and is just lashing
out against Word because of Stallman's cult-like views.

[Me Sham]

LibreOffice is complete shit. I feel sorry for the poor people and minorities who have to use it.

[Snit]

On 6/4/17, 7:51 PM, in article
367a230c-721a-4862...@googlegroups.com, "Me Sham"

<osir...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> LibreOffice is complete shit. I feel sorry for the poor people and minorities
> who have to use it.

So show the competition doing things it does not do... or does not do as
well.

[owl]

F. Russell <f...@random.info> wrote:
> Although LibreOffice has many outstanding qualities, the developers
> are following a disturbing trend. LO is becoming suffused with bloat
> as it attempts to incorporate a multitude of outlandish features.
>
> I am seriously considering replacing LO on my system with the combination
> of Gnumeric and Abiword.
>

What you needs is vim, sc, and postgres.

> The only obstacle is that Gnumeric does not have pivot tables and
> in this age of extensive OLAP analysis this is quite a setback.
>

https://vid.me/k1OZ

[Melzzzzz]

On 2017-06-05, owl <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
> What you needs is vim, sc, and postgres.

Why not MySQL aka Percona aka MariaDB?

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[owl]

Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On 2017-06-05, owl <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> What you needs is vim, sc, and postgres.
>
> Why not MySQL aka Percona aka MariaDB?
>

That would be fine too. As would sqlite. In fact, sqlite
might be a better choice as a lightweight "office suite"
database. Postgres is supposedly the more robust and
standards-compliant of all of them however.

[fr31...@gmail.com]

If they can't handle OLAP then what good are they?

NONE of the above can handle OLAP analysis and hence they
are obsolete and useless.

At least LibreOffice Calc provides some OLAP functionality
via Data Pilot and registered data sources. In fact, AFAIK
LO is the ONLY GNU/Linux software that provides OLAP access
to the average user.

OLAP analysis is the trend in "business intelligence" and
Microshit Excel has had its Power Pivot OLAP functionality
for the past 10 fucking years.

GNU/Linux needs to catch up and LO is probably the best
platform for doing so.

[Snit]

On 6/5/17, 12:19 AM, in article kali0...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

<o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> F. Russell <f...@random.info> wrote:
>> Although LibreOffice has many outstanding qualities, the developers
>> are following a disturbing trend. LO is becoming suffused with bloat
>> as it attempts to incorporate a multitude of outlandish features.
>>
>> I am seriously considering replacing LO on my system with the combination
>> of Gnumeric and Abiword.
>
> What you needs is vim, sc, and postgres.

Unless you want a word processor... which none of those are.

>> The only obstacle is that Gnumeric does not have pivot tables and
>> in this age of extensive OLAP analysis this is quite a setback.
>>
>
> https://vid.me/k1OZ
>
>

[Melzzzzz]

On 2017-06-05, fr31...@gmail.com <fr31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 10:14:47 AM UTC-4, owl wrote:
>
>> Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> > On 2017-06-05, owl <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What you needs is vim, sc, and postgres.
>> >
>> > Why not MySQL aka Percona aka MariaDB?
>> >
>>
>> That would be fine too. As would sqlite. In fact, sqlite
>> might be a better choice as a lightweight "office suite"
>> database. Postgres is supposedly the more robust and
>> standards-compliant of all of them however.
>>
>
> If they can't handle OLAP then what good are they?

PostgreSQL, an object-relational database management system, allows the
creation of pivot tables using the tablefunc module.[8]

MariaDB, a MySQL fork, allows pivot tables using the CONNECT storage
engine.[9]

>
> NONE of the above can handle OLAP analysis and hence they are obsolete
> and useless.
>

[Silver Slimer]

On 2017-06-04 11:04 AM, F. Russell wrote:
> Although LibreOffice has many outstanding qualities, the developers
> are following a disturbing trend. LO is becoming suffused with bloat
> as it attempts to incorporate a multitude of outlandish features.
>
> I am seriously considering replacing LO on my system with the combination
> of Gnumeric and Abiword.

I, too, was disappointed by how bloated LibreOffice was in the previous
years but unless you don't need any advanced features at all, AbiWord is
lacking. Certain things, like tables, don't work as well there as they
should.

> The only obstacle is that Gnumeric does not have pivot tables and
> in this age of extensive OLAP analysis this is quite a setback.
>
> But there is no denying that LO is on a dangerous path. The developers
> should be concentrating on making the core operation better. For example,
> LO Calc uses only a single processor core (no multi-threading). Instead,
> the emphasis is on feature expansion.

Eventually, they'll notice how grotesque it's become and they'll start
optimizing the code.


--
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia & EFF Member
Gab.ai: @silverslimer

Death to Islam

[fr31...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 12:06:16 PM UTC-4, Silver Slimer wrote:

>
> I, too, was disappointed by how bloated LibreOffice was in the previous
> years
>

To get an idea of just how extreme the LO bloat is becoming,
get a copy of the source tree and run ./configure --help.

You will discover the dependencies that are required or optional
to build LO.

Just one outlandish example:

libexttextcat

https://github.com/LibreOffice/libexttextcat

What the friggin' fuck?

Here's one more:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/libmwaw/

Jesus fucking Christ! Give me a break!

[fr31...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:27:11 AM UTC-4, Melzzzzz wrote:

>
> MariaDB, a MySQL fork, allows pivot tables using the CONNECT storage
> engine.[9]
>

In those cases the user must set things up manually. There
is no direct link between LO and the Postgres/MariaDb pivot
functionality.

[RonB]

On 2017-06-05, Silver Slimer <s...@im.er> wrote:

> Eventually, they'll notice how grotesque it's become and they'll start
> optimizing the code.

The LibreOffice team has been cleaning up and optimizing the code ever since
they forked from OpenOffice.

[DFS]

On 6/5/2017 3:19 AM, owl wrote:

> https://vid.me/k1OZ


That wasn't a pivot table.

But it WAS quite the tech demo... for 1981.

[DFS]

On 6/4/2017 1:25 PM, 7 wrote:


> LibreOffice has GPU support to do in seconds
> what takes all other competing spreadsheets takes days.

Keep up the "zaniness" and Creepy Ahlstrom will swoon.



How's work at Windows-based Instrotech these days?

http://instrotech.com/about_us.php

[DFS]

And you can put SQLite in your back pocket and take it everywhere you go.

[Snit]

On 6/5/17, 9:06 AM, in article WjfZA.14370$oX....@fx16.iad, "Silver Slimer"

<s...@im.er> wrote:

> On 2017-06-04 11:04 AM, F. Russell wrote:
>> Although LibreOffice has many outstanding qualities, the developers
>> are following a disturbing trend. LO is becoming suffused with bloat
>> as it attempts to incorporate a multitude of outlandish features.
>>
>> I am seriously considering replacing LO on my system with the combination
>> of Gnumeric and Abiword.
>
> I, too, was disappointed by how bloated LibreOffice was in the previous
> years but unless you don't need any advanced features at all, AbiWord is
> lacking. Certain things, like tables, don't work as well there as they
> should.

And many things do not work as well in LO... so I guess this means back to
MSO?

Not really... in each case depends on your needs.

>> The only obstacle is that Gnumeric does not have pivot tables and
>> in this age of extensive OLAP analysis this is quite a setback.
>>
>> But there is no denying that LO is on a dangerous path. The developers
>> should be concentrating on making the core operation better. For example,
>> LO Calc uses only a single processor core (no multi-threading). Instead,
>> the emphasis is on feature expansion.
>
> Eventually, they'll notice how grotesque it's become and they'll start
> optimizing the code.
>


--

[DFS]

mplayer on Ubuntu has 58 dependencies

https://packages.ubuntu.com/zesty/mplayer

Scary.



By comparison, you only have 2 dependencies, Feeb: MS Windows and MS Office.

[owl]

sc as a postgres frontend:
https://vid.me/2Ure

[owl]

Why does the summary table not qualify as a pivot table?

[fr31...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:21:33 PM UTC-4, DFS wrote:

>
> By comparison, you only have 2 dependencies, MS Windows and MS Office.
>

Incorrect as usual. The "DLL Hell" on Microshit Winblows is always
far worse.

For one thing, you neglected version number. The HUNDREDS of dll's
that come with Microshit Orifice, foe example, are not compatible
with those of earlier versions and woe unto a programmer who neglects
to keep track of what goes with what.

I will not even mention the .NET version requirements that
come with various installed packages and with Microshit itself.

When it comes to bloat, Microshit is way ahead in first place.

[Melzzzzz]

On 2017-06-05, owl <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

Because it's not excel ;p

[fr31...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:21:33 PM UTC-4, DFS wrote:

>

> mplayer on Ubuntu has 58 dependencies
>

Those are not DEPENDENCIES, idiot.

Those are optional libraries that a user can include or exclude
depending on his needs.

That's the beauty and superiority of GNU/Linux.

On Microshit Winblows it would be all or nothing.

Of course, most junk GNU/Linux distros, like Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.,
will take the same "all or nothing" approach.

[owl]

Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On 2017-06-05, owl <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/5/2017 3:19 AM, owl wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://vid.me/k1OZ
>>>
>>>
>>> That wasn't a pivot table.
>>>
>>> But it WAS quite the tech demo... for 1981.
>>>
>>
>> Why does the summary table not qualify as a pivot table?
>>
>
> Because it's not excel ;p
>

Another rounded rectangle.

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:nnr6lx.2.1
<quote>
Word Mark PIVOTTABLE
...
Owner (REGISTRANT) Microsoft Corporation CORPORATION WASHINGTON One Microsoft Way Redmond WASHINGTON 98052
</quote>

[Snit]

On 6/5/17, 11:27 AM, in article az00b....@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

Because a pivot table is a lot more than that:

<http://www.excel-easy.com/data-analysis/pivot-tables.html>

[DFS]

I was doing that a decade ago, at least, with Excel and
Oracle/Access/SQL Server...

Just recently have your first beer, too?

:)

[owl]

Since you were using Excel as a frontend, you must not
have had to handle any large queries.

> Just recently have your first beer, too?
>
> :)

I was keeping track of the beers I drank, but since I was using
Excel 2003 I had to stop drinking at 65536.

[Silver Slimer]

On 2017-06-05 1:40 PM, RonB wrote:
> On 2017-06-05, Silver Slimer <s...@im.er> wrote:
>
>> Eventually, they'll notice how grotesque it's become and they'll start
>> optimizing the code.
>
> The LibreOffice team has been cleaning up and optimizing the code ever since
> they forked from OpenOffice.

Good to hear. It runs wonderfully on Linux so I can only hope that they
eventually optimize in Windows as well if they haven't already.

[owl]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xpnyoAOTCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fWyzwo1xg0

[Snit]

On 6/5/17, 2:46 PM, in article azc8v0...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

I answered... but feel free to pretend otherwise. LOL!

[vallor]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 16:35:28 +0000, F. Russell wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 17:25:14 +0000, 7 wrote:
>
>
>> LibreOffice has GPU support to do in seconds what takes all other
>> competing spreadsheets takes days.
>>
>>

> Idiot!

Yes, you are.

>
> LO has GPU support provided that that user has a video device that
> supports it and provided that libopencl and other software are
> installed. These provisos are not guaranteed. (I can't use GPU because
> my nvidia card does not support it.)

Bzzzt, try again.

https://developer.nvidia.com/opencl

Better luck next time.

--
-v

[DFS]

Down puppy dog!

That summary isn't a pivot table.

A pivot would turn the rows into columns while summarizing:

Bill Joe John Tammy
77 44 134 16


Your data is sales by name. Typically you would have at least one more
dimension to pivot on: say, sales by name by quarter.

Then the pivots would look like:

Qtr Bill Joe John Tammy
Q1 77 44 134 16
Q2 11 82 105 116
Q3 38 68 137 146

or

Name Q1 Q2 Q3
Bill 77 11 38
Joe 44 82 68
John 134 105 137
Tammy 16 116 146

Then there's multidimensional pivots / OLAP cubes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoE6bgJv08E

As always: say goodbye to 1981 and look to Excel for the answer.

[Peter Köhlmann]

Silver Slimer wrote:

> On 2017-06-05 1:40 PM, RonB wrote:
>> On 2017-06-05, Silver Slimer <s...@im.er> wrote:
>>
>>> Eventually, they'll notice how grotesque it's become and they'll start
>>> optimizing the code.
>>
>> The LibreOffice team has been cleaning up and optimizing the code ever
>> since they forked from OpenOffice.
>
> Good to hear. It runs wonderfully on Linux so I can only hope that they
> eventually optimize in Windows as well if they haven't already.
>

The windows version uses the same codebase, so LO being slower on windows is
mostly due to the inferior speed of that OS. So is the situation also in the
OSX version. It too uses the same codebase, but OSX is *very* slow compared
to linux.

Always keep in mind that the original code comes from StarOffice, which was
mainly developed under windows and OS/2

[F. Russell]

On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 22:09:34 +0000, vallor wrote:

>
> Better luck next time.
>

For you it's better luck never.

This asswipe posts a response 36 hours after my original post.
He must have used all that time to desperately seek some fragment
or shred with which to attempt to overturn my statements.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What a lame loser!

But he failed. My original post is absolutely accurate.

I cannot invoke OpenCL because my nvidia card, and its associated
driver, does not support it.

In conclusion:

Go and fuck yourself.

[Snit]

On 6/5/17, 3:19 PM, in article oh4l7d$84n$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"

<peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:

> Silver Slimer wrote:
>
>> On 2017-06-05 1:40 PM, RonB wrote:
>>> On 2017-06-05, Silver Slimer <s...@im.er> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eventually, they'll notice how grotesque it's become and they'll start
>>>> optimizing the code.
>>>
>>> The LibreOffice team has been cleaning up and optimizing the code ever
>>> since they forked from OpenOffice.
>>
>> Good to hear. It runs wonderfully on Linux so I can only hope that they
>> eventually optimize in Windows as well if they haven't already.
>>
>
> The windows version uses the same codebase, so LO being slower on windows is
> mostly due to the inferior speed of that OS.

You have not even shown it is faster or slower on either.

> So is the situation also in the OSX version. It too uses the same codebase,
> but OSX is *very* slow compared to linux.

Look forward to your support! And keep in mind LO does more on macOS than it
does on Linux.

> Always keep in mind that the original code comes from StarOffice, which was
> mainly developed under windows and OS/2
>

[vallor]

On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 22:54:13 +0000, F. Russell wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 22:09:34 +0000, vallor wrote:
>
>
>> Better luck next time.
>>
>>
> For you it's better luck never.
>
> This asswipe posts a response 36 hours after my original post. He must
> have used all that time to desperately seek some fragment or shred with
> which to attempt to overturn my statements.
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What a lame loser!

Yeah, so "lame" that you had to snip the original exchange, including the
URL that shows how wrong you are.

>
> But he failed. My original post is absolutely accurate.
>
> I cannot invoke OpenCL because my nvidia card, and its associated
> driver, does not support it.

Not because it can't support it, but only because you won't install the
right driver.

Probably because that is beyond your capabilities.

BTW, with the CUDA driver installed, you can also turn on accelerated
rendering in Blender.

>
> In conclusion:

Conclusion hasn't changed.

BTW, thanks to Melzzzz for posting about opencl being supported by LO,
will give it a try sometime on my GTX 980.

--
-v

[owl]

DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 6/5/2017 5:46 PM, owl wrote:
>> owl <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/5/2017 3:19 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://vid.me/k1OZ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That wasn't a pivot table.
>>>>
>>>> But it WAS quite the tech demo... for 1981.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why does the summary table not qualify as a pivot table?
>>>
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xpnyoAOTCo
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fWyzwo1xg0
>
>
> Down puppy dog!
>
> That summary isn't a pivot table.
>

Sure it is.

> A pivot would turn the rows into columns while summarizing:
>
> Bill Joe John Tammy
> 77 44 134 16
>

I doesn't need to do that.

>
> Your data is sales by name. Typically you would have at least one more
> dimension to pivot on: say, sales by name by quarter.
>
> Then the pivots would look like:
>
> Qtr Bill Joe John Tammy
> Q1 77 44 134 16
> Q2 11 82 105 116
> Q3 38 68 137 146
>

A bit tedious with just bash arrays, so here's a postgres approach:

https://vid.me/j3nO

It needs to be redone in C for better performance, and would be best
hand-coded without a dbms, especially if you want anything near
real-time results. Maybe sqlite would be fast enough. Right now
I've got 8 or 9 psql runs, and it takes several seconds to complete
the pivot.

> or
>
> Name Q1 Q2 Q3
> Bill 77 11 38
> Joe 44 82 68
> John 134 105 137
> Tammy 16 116 146
>
> Then there's multidimensional pivots / OLAP cubes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoE6bgJv08E
>
> As always: say goodbye to 1981 and look to Excel for the answer.
>

What, and say hello to 2003 ?

[F. Russell]

On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 00:17:57 +0000, vallor wrote:

>
> including the
> URL that shows how wrong you are.
>

Eat shit and die, you fucking moron.

That ridiculous URL only shows certain applications that
are amenable to parallelization (a subject of which you
understand nothing).

The lack of MULTI-CORE THREADING in LO is still a serious
handicap. For example, reading a file with one thread
while a second thread processes the data. This is beyond
the current capabilities of LO and is NOT addressable by
opencl.

>
> Not because it can't support it, but only because you won't install the
> right driver.
>

Wrong again, you insufferable imbecile.

You need to be soaked in gasoline and then set on fire.

>
> Conclusion hasn't changed.
>

At least you correct about this. Go and fuck yourself.

[DFS]

On 6/6/2017 6:41 AM, owl wrote:
> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 6/5/2017 5:46 PM, owl wrote:
>>> owl <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/5/2017 3:19 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://vid.me/k1OZ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That wasn't a pivot table.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it WAS quite the tech demo... for 1981.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why does the summary table not qualify as a pivot table?
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xpnyoAOTCo
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fWyzwo1xg0
>>
>>
>> Down puppy dog!
>>
>> That summary isn't a pivot table.
>>
>
> Sure it is.
>
>> A pivot would turn the rows into columns while summarizing:
>>
>> Bill Joe John Tammy
>> 77 44 134 16
>>
>
> I doesn't need to do that.

You got no pivot in your pivot table, son.

>> Your data is sales by name. Typically you would have at least one more
>> dimension to pivot on: say, sales by name by quarter.
>>
>> Then the pivots would look like:
>>
>> Qtr Bill Joe John Tammy
>> Q1 77 44 134 16
>> Q2 11 82 105 116
>> Q3 38 68 137 146
>>
>
>
> A bit tedious with just bash arrays, so here's a postgres approach:
>
> https://vid.me/j3nO
>
> It needs to be redone in C for better performance, and would be best
> hand-coded without a dbms, especially if you want anything near
> real-time results. Maybe sqlite would be fast enough. Right now
> I've got 8 or 9 psql runs, and it takes several seconds to complete
> the pivot.

Are you using the crosstab function?

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/tablefunc.html

Shouldn't require 8 passes and several seconds to transform 15 rows.

Here's an Access crosstab on 28K rows (ODBC link to SQLite table) that
completes in <1 second, and produces around 158 columns

https://vid.me/XBjT

>> or
>>
>> Name Q1 Q2 Q3
>> Bill 77 11 38
>> Joe 44 82 68
>> John 134 105 137
>> Tammy 16 116 146
>>
>> Then there's multidimensional pivots / OLAP cubes
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoE6bgJv08E
>>
>> As always: say goodbye to 1981 and look to Excel for the answer.
>>
>
> What, and say hello to 2003 ?

Pivot tables in Excel go back to 1994 (23 years ago), but I used them in
the DOS-based Javelin spreadsheet long before they were added to Excel.

In 2017 such a powerful feature still isn't part of sc?

pwned

[DFS]

On 6/5/2017 2:44 PM, fr31...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:21:33 PM UTC-4, DFS wrote:
>
>>
>> mplayer on Ubuntu has 58 dependencies
>>
>
> Those are not DEPENDENCIES, idiot.

Why do I have to repeat myself for a moron?

mplayer on Ubuntu has 58 dependencies

https://packages.ubuntu.com/zesty/mplayer

See where is says 'depends'?

Not recommends or suggests or enhances, but depends.

> Those are optional libraries that a user can include or exclude
> depending on his needs.

If they're optional then they're not dependencies. Ubuntu calls them
dependencies.

What you say is meaningless, as usual.

> That's the beauty and superiority of GNU/Linux.

58 dependencies is a joke.



Hey, you can finally have a woman in your life:
http://mplayerhq.hu/images/screenshots/IdegCounter-01.jpg

[F. Russell]

On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 18:16:26 -0400, DFS wrote:

>
> look to Excel for the answer.
>

Not quite, idiot.

The pivoting capabilities of LO are just as good as that
of Microshit Excel, as I have amply demonstrated in a posted
video.

The only issue is that LO, unlike Excel's Power Pivot, lacks the
ability to internally relate spreadsheet tables into a data model
upon which pivoting can be applied.

[Steve Carroll]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:16:24 AM UTC-6, F. Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 18:16:26 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
> >
> > look to Excel for the answer.
> >
>
> Not quite, idiot.
>
> The pivoting capabilities of LO are just as good as that
> of Microshit Excel, as I have amply demonstrated in a posted
> video.

So the guy who has repeatedly whined about how bad video is
for imparting information used video to impart it... interesting.

[F. Russell]

On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 08:48:57 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:

>
> So the guy who has repeatedly whined about how bad video is
> for imparting information used video to impart it...
>

Except MY videos do not conform to the contemporary standards
of video documentation, and therefore very few people, with their
contemporary attention deficits, are able to tolerate them.

In Russia, for example, academic seminars can persist for
up to FIVE HOURS or longer and every participant remains focused
throughout. If the same seminar were to be given in the USA,
the audience would degenerate and disperse after about 30 minutes.

[Marek Novotny]

Pretty cool!

// snip

--
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny

[Steve Carroll]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:10:48 AM UTC-6, F. Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 08:48:57 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> >
> > So the guy who has repeatedly whined about how bad video is
> > for imparting information used video to impart it...
> >
>
> Except MY videos do not conform to the contemporary standards
> of video documentation, and therefore very few people, with their
> contemporary attention deficits, are able to tolerate them.

Oh, I forgot... everyone you do is 'special' <eyeroll>.

> In Russia, for example, academic seminars can persist for
> up to FIVE HOURS or longer and every participant remains focused
> throughout. If the same seminar were to be given in the USA,
> the audience would degenerate and disperse after about 30 minutes.

Hint for a total moron: That clueless people don't use a medium well doesn't
say anything about the medium.

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 9:10 AM, in article oh6k5...@news4.newsguy.com, "F. Russell"

Might want to look at research on how people learn.

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 6:16 AM, in article oh69u...@news4.newsguy.com, "F. Russell"

<f...@random.info> wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 18:16:26 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>>
>> look to Excel for the answer.
>>
>
> Not quite, idiot.
>
> The pivoting capabilities of LO are just as good as that
> of Microshit Excel, as I have amply demonstrated in a posted
> video.

Link?

> The only issue is that LO, unlike Excel's Power Pivot, lacks the
> ability to internally relate spreadsheet tables into a data model
> upon which pivoting can be applied.
>

[DFS]

On 6/6/2017 12:10 PM, F. Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 08:48:57 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>>
>> So the guy who has repeatedly whined about how bad video is
>> for imparting information used video to impart it...
>>
>
> Except MY videos do not conform to the contemporary standards
> of video documentation, and therefore very few people, with their
> contemporary attention deficits, are able to tolerate them.

You're right about that. Your stupid vids are intolerable:

* how to create mailing labels with LeeberOffice

* idiocy about "ain't got no tools" on Windows

* drunk babbling about window focus

> In Russia, for example, academic seminars can persist for
> up to FIVE HOURS or longer and every participant remains focused
> throughout. If the same seminar were to be given in the USA,
> the audience would degenerate and disperse after about 30 minutes.

Moron. Americans are /smarter/ and better than vodka-soaked Russki idiots.

[DFS]

On 6/6/2017 9:16 AM, F. Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 18:16:26 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>>
>> look to Excel for the answer.
>>
>
> Not quite, idiot.

Quite.

> The pivoting capabilities of LO are just as good as that
> of Microshit Excel,

LO 5.2.7.2 (the latest) pivot tables aren't even nearly as good as Excel
2003 pivot tables. They're barebones, just barely-good-enough.

http://imgur.com/a/HDkqr

And LibreOffice Base doesn't even support crosstab queries (the
equivalent of pivot tables in a spreadsheet). Access does, of course.

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Faq/Base/142

Those part-time hobbyists (at least 1100 have contributed to OO/LO) have
a LOT of work to do to catch up with Microsoft Office.

> The only issue is that LO, unlike Excel's Power Pivot, lacks the
> ability to internally relate spreadsheet tables into a data model
> upon which pivoting can be applied.

That's not the only issue. There's also the issue of your intellectual
dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
MS Office is a travesty.

[Melzzzzz]

On 2017-06-06, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
> dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
> MS Office is a travesty.

Ahahahah, holy MS Office! How dare you make sacrilege!

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[owl]

DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 6/6/2017 6:41 AM, owl wrote:
>> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/5/2017 5:46 PM, owl wrote:
>>>> owl <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/5/2017 3:19 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://vid.me/k1OZ
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That wasn't a pivot table.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it WAS quite the tech demo... for 1981.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does the summary table not qualify as a pivot table?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xpnyoAOTCo
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fWyzwo1xg0
>>>
>>>
>>> Down puppy dog!
>>>
>>> That summary isn't a pivot table.
>>>
>>
>> Sure it is.
>>
>>> A pivot would turn the rows into columns while summarizing:
>>>
>>> Bill Joe John Tammy
>>> 77 44 134 16
>>>
>>
>> I doesn't need to do that.
>
> You got no pivot in your pivot table, son.
>

heh.

>
>
>>> Your data is sales by name. Typically you would have at least one more
>>> dimension to pivot on: say, sales by name by quarter.
>>>
>>> Then the pivots would look like:
>>>
>>> Qtr Bill Joe John Tammy
>>> Q1 77 44 134 16
>>> Q2 11 82 105 116
>>> Q3 38 68 137 146
>>>
>>
>>
>> A bit tedious with just bash arrays, so here's a postgres approach:
>>
>> https://vid.me/j3nO
>>
>> It needs to be redone in C for better performance, and would be best
>> hand-coded without a dbms, especially if you want anything near
>> real-time results. Maybe sqlite would be fast enough. Right now
>> I've got 8 or 9 psql runs, and it takes several seconds to complete
>> the pivot.
>
> Are you using the crosstab function?
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/tablefunc.html
>

Yes.

psql -t -c "copy (select * from crosstab('select quarter,name,sum from sums order by 1,2','select distinct name from sums order by 1') as ct (${q})) to stdout csv header" sales

> Shouldn't require 8 passes and several seconds to transform 15 rows.
>

The passes are for counting, inserting, and filling arrays for the
main query. The data in the (database) table matches what's on the
screen, so since some might be deleted on the screen, each run deletes
all values from the tables and reinserts the new values. Also, the
crosstab in postgres does not give you access to column names, so I have
to massage those out in the shell, which takes another query or two.

Anyway, I'm currently converting the script to C and I'll see if it
runs any faster. I'm hoping that it's all the psql connections and
teardowns that's causing all the sluggishness. With C it'll be just
the one connection.

I may try to work through the logic without using a database.
That should be lightning fast, but my brain's getting mushy,
in my old age, so I don't know.

[RonB]

On 2017-06-06, Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On 2017-06-06, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>
>> dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
>> MS Office is a travesty.
> Ahahahah, holy MS Office! How dare you make sacrilege!

In my opinion, M$ Office is a bloated pile of crap -- and I've thought that
long before I started using Linux.

--
Zero Tolerance for iCultists and WinTrolls

[Marek Novotny]

On 2017-06-06, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-06-06, Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-06-06, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
>>> MS Office is a travesty.
>> Ahahahah, holy MS Office! How dare you make sacrilege!
>
> In my opinion, M$ Office is a bloated pile of crap -- and I've thought that
> long before I started using Linux.

I have nothing against Microsoft office. I'm simply used to Libre
Office. Had Microsoft made Office available to Solaris in the 90s and
then made it available to Linux I'd likely be using it. But they didn't,
so I had to find something else in the late 90s. That's when I found
Star Office by Star Division. And I just stuck with it. Works fine for
me.

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 1:37 PM, in article oh73qd$pc7$1...@dont-email.me, "RonB"

<ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2017-06-06, Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-06-06, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
>>> MS Office is a travesty.
>> Ahahahah, holy MS Office! How dare you make sacrilege!
>
> In my opinion, M$ Office is a bloated pile of crap -- and I've thought that
> long before I started using Linux.

So why not show a tool that works better for you? Explain why it is working
better.

Would be great advocacy!

[owl]

It's painfully slow though. Reminds me of windoze.

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 2:01 PM, in article baz08t...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

Did you ever get your even/odd random number tool to not be painfully slow?

<https://youtu.be/Jyus45TjCqc>

I suspect you can make yours be even faster, frankly.

[DFS]

On 6/6/2017 3:39 PM, owl wrote:


> Anyway, I'm currently converting the script to C and I'll see if it
> runs any faster. I'm hoping that it's all the psql connections and
> teardowns that's causing all the sluggishness. With C it'll be just
> the one connection.
>
> I may try to work through the logic without using a database.
> That should be lightning fast, but my brain's getting mushy,
> in my old age, so I don't know.

If you can write a generic C xtab/pivot routine for sc, submit it to the
maintainers and if they add it to the production release cola will have
/two/ REAL MEN. How cool would that be?

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 1:59 PM, in article
H-Sdna9Fh94riqrE...@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny"

And that is fine... at least you are not pretending it is doing things the
competition cannot.

[Marek Novotny]

I started with a Commodore 64 and a Tape drive. That's slow.

On that same Commodore 64, the 1541 disc drive was the slowest on the
market. I remember loading something and the screen actually said,
patience is a virtue.

Did I mention I started with a 75 bps terminal? That's slow. I once
bought a salvaged Fiat Fox. I have a theory that if I drive the car off
the side of a cliff it would fall slowly.

[Melzzzzz]

On 2017-06-06, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2017-06-06, Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-06-06, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
>>> MS Office is a travesty.
>> Ahahahah, holy MS Office! How dare you make sacrilege!
>
> In my opinion, M$ Office is a bloated pile of crap -- and I've thought that
> long before I started using Linux.
>

When we are at that I remember using ms word back in 92 on 286 PC with
1MB of ram. You type letter then wait for it to show up for a sec ;)

[Melzzzzz]

Why don't you try with MariaDB?
https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb/connect-table-types-pivot-table-type/

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 2:38 PM, in article oh77d9$57k$2...@news.albasani.net, "Melzzzzz"

<Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:

> On 2017-06-06, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-06-06, Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-06-06, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
>>>> MS Office is a travesty.
>>> Ahahahah, holy MS Office! How dare you make sacrilege!
>>
>> In my opinion, M$ Office is a bloated pile of crap -- and I've thought that
>> long before I started using Linux.
>>
> When we are at that I remember using ms word back in 92 on 286 PC with
> 1MB of ram. You type letter then wait for it to show up for a sec ;)

I used to use Word on the old 9 inch Macs... worked quite quickly. Heck, you
can use it here:

<http://jamesfriend.com.au/pce-js/pce-js-apps>

HD2 > Apps > Microsoft Word 4.0a > Microsoft Word

Best with Format > Show Ruler

You do need to hold the mouse button down to use the menus. Command keys
(Apple Keys) are weird on the emulator. The option (alt) key works as the
Apple key.

Also fun to see the other apps... BBEdit, etc.

[DFS]

uh oh... you have a starry-eyed groupie who doesn't know what he's
looking at.

> It's painfully slow though. Reminds me of windoze.

MS Access
Time to run xtab: 0.195s
Rows in table: 41642
Columns in xtab: 252


MS is smarter than FOSS.



Dim starttime As Double
cSQL = "TRANSFORM Count(RPT_SUNDAY) AS RPTCNT "
cSQL = cSQL & "SELECT REPLY_FROM AS ReplyFrom "
cSQL = cSQL & "FROM TABLE1 "
cSQL = cSQL & "GROUP BY REPLY_FROM "
cSQL = cSQL & "ORDER BY REPLY_FROM "
cSQL = cSQL & "PIVOT RPT_SUNDAY;"
Call UpdateQuery("Q_TEST_XTAB", cSQL)
starttime = Timer
Set rs = db.OpenRecordset("Q_TEST_XTAB")
Debug.Print "Time to run xtab: " & Format(Timer - starttime, "0.000") &
" seconds"
Debug.Print "Rows in table: " & DCount("POSTID", "TABLE1")
Debug.Print "Columns in xtab: " & rs.Fields.Count - 1
rs.Close

[RonB]

I never liked Microsoft Word. It seemed like it always wanted to "think" for
me and, since it was retarded, it wasn't very good at it. I had nothing
against Excel, but OpenOffice Calc worked just as well for my purposes.

[Marek Novotny]

Word Perfect was my thing back in the day. I posted some pictures a few
days back and if you look through them you'll see Word Perfect for DOS
and Word Perfect for NeXT. I also had Word Perfect for the Amiga. I had
bought Word and Office for the PC and the Mac going way way back. But I
did like Word Perfect. That goes all the way back to the Amiga for me.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Melzzzzz wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2017-06-06, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>
>> dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
>> MS Office is a travesty.
>
> Ahahahah, holy MS Office! How dare you make sacrilege!

MS Office has a lot of "features", probably more features by far than any
other "office suite". That doesn't mean that those extra features are
useful to most users, and it certainly doesn't mean that those extra
features don't cause their own issues due to additional complexity.

What's the rule? First a software application becomes rococo...
then it collapses.

The latest Office has a lot of bugs.

--
If you think last Tuesday was a drag, wait till you see what happens tomorrow!

[Chris Ahlstrom]

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2017-06-06, Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-06-06, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
>>> MS Office is a travesty.
>> Ahahahah, holy MS Office! How dare you make sacrilege!
>
> In my opinion, M$ Office is a bloated pile of crap -- and I've thought that
> long before I started using Linux.

MS Office, in some of its parts, is broken by design. Just try to do
anything complex with it. Bug City.

Sure, you can do a lot with it, if you are willing to become an
"Office expert". And now Microsoft has you by the short hairs.

--
It may or may not be worthwhile, but it still has to be done.

[Melzzzzz]

On 2017-06-07, Chris Ahlstrom <OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:
> Melzzzzz wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2017-06-06, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
>>> MS Office is a travesty.
>>
>> Ahahahah, holy MS Office! How dare you make sacrilege!
>
> MS Office has a lot of "features", probably more features by far than any
> other "office suite". That doesn't mean that those extra features are
> useful to most users, and it certainly doesn't mean that those extra
> features don't cause their own issues due to additional complexity.
>
> What's the rule? First a software application becomes rococo...
> then it collapses.
>
> The latest Office has a lot of bugs.
>

I can't tell. Latest everything always has bugs. In Linux world it's
called regressions ;p

[Chris Ahlstrom]

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

I liked Office 97. After that? No thanks. Too much churn, Microsoft.
Sayonara. LaTeX is far more scalable.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Marek Novotny wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

I used WordPerfect, the GUI version for Windows, around 1993 or so. I liked
it. Unlike many others, I thought it worked pretty well.

Anyway, the vast majority of people don't need anything more sophisticated
than WordPad. And yet they think they need "Office".

--
What happened last night can happen again.

[Silver Slimer]

I'm one of those people. I'll be the first to admit that WordPad is more
than enough for me and that the only feature it lacks is spell-checking
but that can easily be remedied with a free solution like AbiWord or
LibreOffice.


--
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia & EFF Member
Gab.ai: @silverslimer

Death to Islam

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 5:37 PM, in article TUHZA.200197$3v3.1...@fx06.iad, "Silver

Slimer" <s...@im.er> wrote:

>>> Word Perfect was my thing back in the day. I posted some pictures a few
>>> days back and if you look through them you'll see Word Perfect for DOS
>>> and Word Perfect for NeXT. I also had Word Perfect for the Amiga. I had
>>> bought Word and Office for the PC and the Mac going way way back. But I
>>> did like Word Perfect. That goes all the way back to the Amiga for me.
>>
>> I used WordPerfect, the GUI version for Windows, around 1993 or so. I liked
>> it. Unlike many others, I thought it worked pretty well.
>>
>> Anyway, the vast majority of people don't need anything more sophisticated
>> than WordPad. And yet they think they need "Office".
>
> I'm one of those people. I'll be the first to admit that WordPad is more
> than enough for me and that the only feature it lacks is spell-checking
> but that can easily be remedied with a free solution like AbiWord or
> LibreOffice.

Makes sense that for your very simple needs it would work great for you. No
issue with that at all.

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 5:24 PM, in article oh7he1$3be$5...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"

<OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:

>>>> I have nothing against Microsoft office. I'm simply used to Libre
>>>> Office. Had Microsoft made Office available to Solaris in the 90s and
>>>> then made it available to Linux I'd likely be using it. But they didn't,
>>>> so I had to find something else in the late 90s. That's when I found
>>>> Star Office by Star Division. And I just stuck with it. Works fine for
>>>> me.
>>>
>>> I never liked Microsoft Word. It seemed like it always wanted to "think" for
>>> me and, since it was retarded, it wasn't very good at it. I had nothing
>>> against Excel, but OpenOffice Calc worked just as well for my purposes.
>>
>> Word Perfect was my thing back in the day. I posted some pictures a few
>> days back and if you look through them you'll see Word Perfect for DOS
>> and Word Perfect for NeXT. I also had Word Perfect for the Amiga. I had
>> bought Word and Office for the PC and the Mac going way way back. But I
>> did like Word Perfect. That goes all the way back to the Amiga for me.
>
> I used WordPerfect, the GUI version for Windows, around 1993 or so. I liked
> it. Unlike many others, I thought it worked pretty well.
>
> Anyway, the vast majority of people don't need anything more sophisticated
> than WordPad. And yet they think they need "Office".

For many people simple tools will work fine... but many others need more.
Even if they only use a fraction of the features if they need some uncommon
ones not in more simple tools then it is of value.

Really that is the argument for why KDE has value... the features are
generally not done well and are integrated even worse, but there are times
it has a feature few other solutions have.

With MS Word, though, while it is not the best at everything (of course)
most of its features are done well AND well integrated.

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 5:20 PM, in article oh7h75$3be$3...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"

<OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:

> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2017-06-06, Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-06-06, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
>>>> MS Office is a travesty.
>>> Ahahahah, holy MS Office! How dare you make sacrilege!
>>
>> In my opinion, M$ Office is a bloated pile of crap -- and I've thought that
>> long before I started using Linux.
>
> MS Office, in some of its parts, is broken by design. Just try to do
> anything complex with it. Bug City.

Show an example! Then show doing the same thing in LO. Would love to see it!

> Sure, you can do a lot with it, if you are willing to become an
> "Office expert". And now Microsoft has you by the short hairs.

A Linux user whining that you need to learn to use a tool... um, what?

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 5:18 PM, in article oh7h39$3be$2...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"

<OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:

> Melzzzzz wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2017-06-06, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
>>> MS Office is a travesty.
>>
>> Ahahahah, holy MS Office! How dare you make sacrilege!
>
> MS Office has a lot of "features", probably more features by far than any
> other "office suite". That doesn't mean that those extra features are
> useful to most users, and it certainly doesn't mean that those extra
> features don't cause their own issues due to additional complexity.

By all means show examples!

> What's the rule? First a software application becomes rococo...
> then it collapses.
>
> The latest Office has a lot of bugs.

Such as?

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 3:34 PM, in article
2YudnefMWoqNs6rE...@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny"

I used WP 5.1 for DOS a lot when I worked in computer labs... it was the
norm back then.

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 2:58 PM, in article oh78ij$927$2...@dont-email.me, "RonB"

<ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2017-06-06, Marek Novotny <marek....@marspolar.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-06-06, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-06-06, Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2017-06-06, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
>>>>> MS Office is a travesty.
>>>> Ahahahah, holy MS Office! How dare you make sacrilege!
>>>
>>> In my opinion, M$ Office is a bloated pile of crap -- and I've thought that
>>> long before I started using Linux.
>>
>> I have nothing against Microsoft office. I'm simply used to Libre
>> Office. Had Microsoft made Office available to Solaris in the 90s and
>> then made it available to Linux I'd likely be using it. But they didn't,
>> so I had to find something else in the late 90s. That's when I found
>> Star Office by Star Division. And I just stuck with it. Works fine for
>> me.
>
> I never liked Microsoft Word. It seemed like it always wanted to "think" for
> me and, since it was retarded, it wasn't very good at it.

Examples?

> I had nothing
> against Excel, but OpenOffice Calc worked just as well for my purposes.



--

[Marek Novotny]

On 2017-06-07, Chris Ahlstrom <OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:

> Melzzzzz wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2017-06-06, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
>>> MS Office is a travesty.
>>
>> Ahahahah, holy MS Office! How dare you make sacrilege!
>
> MS Office has a lot of "features", probably more features by far than any
> other "office suite". That doesn't mean that those extra features are
> useful to most users, and it certainly doesn't mean that those extra
> features don't cause their own issues due to additional complexity.
>
> What's the rule? First a software application becomes rococo...
> then it collapses.
>
> The latest Office has a lot of bugs.

I'm personally not in need of most of what those apps have to offer.
Even so if big business isn't adopting Libre Office because of the lack
of a feature I'd suggest it is in their best interest to invest in
developing that feature and then contributing it upstream. This is no
different from Intel, Samsung, and every other large contributor to the
kernel. What they gain is a choice to use an app at *any* scale the want
without added cost. One of these days one of the bean counter
accountants is going to wake up to this fact and then you'll very likely
see a trend take place to add-on what you need to open source projects
and switch to those. If North America doesn't do this I'd bet the farm
some other country will. It makes way too much to ignore.

--
Marek Novotný
https://github.com/marek-novotny

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 6:24 PM, in article
TZSdnW7JWYRdyKrE...@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny"

<marek....@marspolar.com> wrote:

> On 2017-06-07, Chris Ahlstrom <OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:
>> Melzzzzz wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 2017-06-06, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
>>>> MS Office is a travesty.
>>>
>>> Ahahahah, holy MS Office! How dare you make sacrilege!
>>
>> MS Office has a lot of "features", probably more features by far than any
>> other "office suite". That doesn't mean that those extra features are
>> useful to most users, and it certainly doesn't mean that those extra
>> features don't cause their own issues due to additional complexity.
>>
>> What's the rule? First a software application becomes rococo...
>> then it collapses.
>>
>> The latest Office has a lot of bugs.
>
> I'm personally not in need of most of what those apps have to offer.

Most people are not... but as with KDE it comes down to if you have uncommon
needs which it meets and others do not. The big difference is the features
on MS Office are *mostly* well designed and coordinated, but with KDE they
are poorly thought out and even less work goes into integration. Still,
there are times when you may need a feature and it has it and few other
options do.

> Even so if big business isn't adopting Libre Office because of the lack
> of a feature I'd suggest it is in their best interest to invest in
> developing that feature and then contributing it upstream.

And to do that they may have to do a LOT of development... look at the
oh-so-popular image rotation and masking topics. LO just CANNOT do that well
based on the current code base.

And then after all that development it may or may not be accepted by the LO
team, and it may or may not lead to other issues in other features.

> This is no different from Intel, Samsung, and every other large contributor to
> the kernel. What they gain is a choice to use an app at *any* scale the want
> without added cost.

Massive cost of, in this case, redesigned major parts of a program for BASIC
features.

> One of these days one of the bean counter accountants is going to wake up to
> this fact and then you'll very likely see a trend take place to add-on what
> you need to open source projects and switch to those.

You pointed to an add-on for LO to handle just a subset of the image
weaknesses being discussed... and it STILL handled it less well than the
online version of the word processor you get for free on macOS.

<https://youtu.be/i7Ad_9hzc7s>

> If North America doesn't do this I'd bet the farm some other country will. It
> makes way too much to ignore.

To get even that basic functionality a major rewrite would be needed. Maybe
a new product will rise up that is open source that handles it well? But
then it will take quite some time to mature.

[DFS]

On 6/6/2017 8:18 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:


> The latest Office has a lot of bugs.

Way to bring that evidence, Creepy.

[Marek Novotny]

On 2017-06-07, Chris Ahlstrom <OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:

Can anyone imagine a future where proprietary software wins? I sure
can't and before the trolls dismiss this I'd say just use common sense.
Imagine Star Trek or Star Wars, where the government is licensing
software. So what, the computer that runs the ship is running on
proprietary Windows NT? Seriously? And the report that the capt. files
with the ships systems, that's what a DOCX file?

Programming is another science like algebra and calculus. The processors
we create and the software we develop to run life support systems,
avionics and so on simply aren't going to last as private intellectual property
owned by a corporation. It's just not going to pan out that way. These
will become sciences taught in school and improved upon by the community
the same way we improve upon on theory and principle by academics. You're
not going to have some future star ship requiring product activation or
security through closed source and obscurity. I just can't see this
method ever winning. History will show commercial software to be a blip
in the grand scheme of things. It started free, and it will end free.
There will be a footnote in the centuries to come saying that software
was briefly a commercial interest which jump-started and upward surge.
But I don't see Capt. Kirk of the future flipping open an iPhone to
order Scottie to beam him up using an IBM manufactured transporter.

Software patents will eventually stop being granted because they never
made sense in the first place.

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 6:41 PM, in article oh7lch$bpn$1...@dont-email.me, "DFS"

LOL!

Hey, I welcome whatever he has to show... and am happy to show things
myself. Here is my video showing the extension Marek pointed to:

<https://youtu.be/i7Ad_9hzc7s>

Apple and MS are doomed. :)

[Marek Novotny]

On 2017-06-07, Chris Ahlstrom <OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:

// snip

> I used WordPerfect, the GUI version for Windows, around 1993 or so.
> I liked it. Unlike many others, I thought it worked pretty well.
> Anyway, the vast majority of people don't need anything more
> sophisticated than WordPad. And yet they think they need "Office".

I couldn't agree more. I'm sure much of the corporate world needs more
than WordPad, but the home user I have a tough time believing they need
more than WordPad. I worked for three different ad agencies. One of the
medical ad agencies had a CEO that was using Apple Works. He never
needed anything that it didn't offer. He was totally fine with it. I
asked. I asked if he wanted Office instead. He shrugged and said, nope.
Works was fine.

When I was a tech we wrote a lot of the contract in terms of mile
stones and process. We'd make a TOC at the end, and do footnotes and
page numbers, etc. We used styles and color and in general made the
document pretty and presentable. But those are things you can do on
virtually every word processor I have used since the late 80s. They made
it easier to source data and do things like mail merge but after that
it's just been more and more of things I've not heard of. Mostly because
my needs are already satisfied.

I went after venture funds in the 90s. Back then I read the first three
chapters of an access book. That was all I needed to make a simple
database of the 200 contacts I wanted to engage. And I was easily able
to spit out one letter to all 200 of them using access. That was both
the first and last time I used access.

With Linux, I am sure you're familiar with the concept of a *here*
document. I can essentially write a letter in a text editor, and have
200 copies come off the printer or I can have 200 emails go out using a
simple bash shell script. I don't need word, mail merge or anything
else.

Now I suppose some of the posters here will argue that isn't as
approachable to the masses. Well, perhaps it would be if everyone spent
a little time learning a shell instead of spending 25 years learning and
using word. I learned what I know of the shell in the first year. I
basically stopped learning when I knew enough to accomplish the tasks I
need to accomplish. If I need to do something I don't know how to do, I
will get help and learn a little more to get me over that hump.

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 6:42 PM, in article
O8adnWgNnYBjxKrE...@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny"

<marek....@marspolar.com> wrote:

> On 2017-06-07, Chris Ahlstrom <OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:
>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 2017-06-06, Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2017-06-06, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> dishonesty. Even /thinking/ - let alone saying - that LO is a match for
>>>>> MS Office is a travesty.
>>>> Ahahahah, holy MS Office! How dare you make sacrilege!
>>>
>>> In my opinion, M$ Office is a bloated pile of crap -- and I've thought that
>>> long before I started using Linux.
>>
>> MS Office, in some of its parts, is broken by design. Just try to do
>> anything complex with it. Bug City.
>>
>> Sure, you can do a lot with it, if you are willing to become an
>> "Office expert". And now Microsoft has you by the short hairs.
>
> Can anyone imagine a future where proprietary software wins?

Wins what? Not even sure what you mean here? Makes open source go away? Not
going to happen. But what are you even talking about? And why see it as a
fight between the two?

> I sure can't and before the trolls dismiss this I'd say just use common sense.

Your name calling is a sign of your insecurity.

> Imagine Star Trek or Star Wars, where the government is licensing software. So
> what, the computer that runs the ship is running on proprietary Windows NT?
> Seriously? And the report that the capt. files with the ships systems, that's
> what a DOCX file?
>
> Programming is another science like algebra and calculus.

It is also an art and a tool.

> The processors we create and the software we develop to run life support
> systems, avionics and so on simply aren't going to last as private
> intellectual property owned by a corporation. It's just not going to pan out
> that way.

Pick a date when proprietary software is dead.

> These will become sciences taught in school and improved upon by the
> community the same way we improve upon on theory and principle by academics.
> You're not going to have some future star ship requiring product activation or
> security through closed source and obscurity. I just can't see this method
> ever winning.

This "method"? What?

> History will show commercial software to be a blip in the grand
> scheme of things. It started free, and it will end free. There will be a
> footnote in the centuries to come saying that software was briefly a
> commercial interest which jump-started and upward surge. But I don't see Capt.
> Kirk of the future flipping open an iPhone to order Scottie to beam him up
> using an IBM manufactured transporter.
>
> Software patents will eventually stop being granted because they never made
> sense in the first place.

Never made sense to you. Got it.

[Marek Novotny]

Nothing to feel guilty or bad about. I seriously use vim as my text
editor 99% of the time. The only time I use Write is if I want to add
formatting like color text and to make the document pretty. Sometimes
just for readability. An example of this is when I study man pages. This
will sound funny but I actually send the man pages I want to study to a
text file and then strip it down with just the parts I'm interested in.
I format the text using vim and then when done, I open it in Write and
then color the text. Blue for descriptions. Commands are black. The
names of sections are red. Sometimes I use green for notes I want to
stand out. And then I print those off my laser printer and put binder
holes in them. They go into a binder which has a pre-printed index a..z
tabs. Then I study everything in the binder. It's super easy to navigate
this way.

http://imgur.com/a/SGTGF

[Snit]

On 6/6/17, 6:58 PM, in article
8OWdnYijp6MpwKrE...@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny"

<marek....@marspolar.com> wrote:

> On 2017-06-07, Chris Ahlstrom <OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:
>
> // snip
>
>> I used WordPerfect, the GUI version for Windows, around 1993 or so.
>> I liked it. Unlike many others, I thought it worked pretty well.
>> Anyway, the vast majority of people don't need anything more
>> sophisticated than WordPad. And yet they think they need "Office".
>
> I couldn't agree more.

Keep in mind even for some pretty basic features your efforts to do them in
LO, even with an extension, were weak at best (not even matching what the
ONLINE version of the competition can do).

<https://youtu.be/i7Ad_9hzc7s>

> I'm sure much of the corporate world needs more than WordPad, but the home
> user I have a tough time believing they need more than WordPad.

Why? Many home users do a lot more than you seem to think they do. Maybe
that is why you use Linux at home -- your needs are not great and you do not
even think in terms of greater needs.

> I worked for three different ad agencies. One of the medical ad agencies had a
> CEO that was using Apple Works. He never needed anything that it didn't offer.
> He was totally fine with it. I asked. I asked if he wanted Office instead. He
> shrugged and said, nope. Works was fine.
>
> When I was a tech we wrote a lot of the contract in terms of mile stones and
> process. We'd make a TOC at the end, and do footnotes and page numbers, etc.
> We used styles and color and in general made the document pretty and
> presentable. But those are things you can do on virtually every word processor
> I have used since the late 80s. They made it easier to source data and do
> things like mail merge but after that it's just been more and more of things
> I've not heard of. Mostly because my needs are already satisfied.

And you are stuck in the '80s with much of what you do. Or maybe '90s. Look
at how you are just baffled by something as simple as PDF annotations...
thinking that was mostly a PRO feature. Hilarious!

> I went after venture funds in the 90s. Back then I read the first three
> chapters of an access book. That was all I needed to make a simple database of
> the 200 contacts I wanted to engage. And I was easily able to spit out one
> letter to all 200 of them using access. That was both the first and last time
> I used access.
>
> With Linux, I am sure you're familiar with the concept of a *here* document. I
> can essentially write a letter in a text editor, and have 200 copies come off
> the printer or I can have 200 emails go out using a simple bash shell script.
> I don't need word, mail merge or anything else.

If you need 200 copies of the SAME thing that is not what mail merge even
is. Seriously, AppleWorks on the Apple IIe was able to handle mail merge
quite well. In the 1980s.

It is absurd that the current iWork cannot do it (well, not without absurd
work arounds).

> Now I suppose some of the posters here will argue that isn't as approachable
> to the masses. Well, perhaps it would be if everyone spent a little time
> learning a shell instead of spending 25 years learning and using word.

You think it takes TWENTY-FIVE YEARS to learn Word! LOL!

As far as the command line, it is great but, no, most people are not going
to learn it. They do not care. Nor should they have to.

> I learned what I know of the shell in the first year.

So?

> I basically stopped learning when I knew enough to accomplish the tasks I need
> to accomplish. If I need to do something I don't know how to do, I will get
> help and learn a little more to get me over that hump.

Again: so?

[RonB]

I owned WordPerfect for DOS and (later) Windows but I never really got to
where I liked either -- even though WP for DOS smooth and rock solid. I
stayed with WordStar for DOS well into my Windows' days, finally moved to
Lotus WordPro at the end. By then I really didn't have much use for a
standard word processor. Most of my creative writing was done in Movie Magic
Screenwriter by then. Now all that is in the past ... well, I still have
WordStar for DOS that I occasionally run in DOSBox, but Jstar is just
easier and fits my needs better. And there's always LibreOffice Writer when
I want to "prettify" a document.