Re: OT: Microsoft takes on history

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

"Stephen Leake" <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:ulma3orlo.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov...
>
> I don't know about the "average" document, but I have some that are 5
> years old and still being edited. _Not_ in Word :). Some are in LaTeX,
> some in FrameMaker. I prefer LaTeX.
>
Sure, there's things that live a really long time and are really huge. But
in most instances, we're looking at memos, homework assignments,
newsletters, e-mail messages, etc. The fact that some people have big,
long-lived documents doesn't mean that *most* users are going to care that
they can't convert their love-letters to Brittany Spears to some other word
processor. :-) If in your situation, you care about long document life, then
you need to pick a word processor that suits that purpose. Most people who
find themselves using Word don't care because its adequate for their needs &
they're not worried about long life, constant updates, portability to new
technology, etc.


> > A few days? A few months? How much work is it to totally recreate
> > the document if suddenly your favorite word processor disappeared
> > from the face of the earth?
>
> About 1 man year; it's a large and dense document.
>
Sure, but I'd suggest that this is the exception rather than the rule. If
you've got special needs, you may need special tools.


>
> Yes, but it's never adequate. If you export RTF from Word, and import
> it into FrameMaker, you get the bold fonts and stuff, but you totally
> lose the meta-format of headers, paragraph styles, etc. Well, not
> _totally_, but you lose enough that I don't try to do it anymore.
>
Granted, a lot of the exporting/importing is inadequate for a lot of
purposes, but I'd still contend that this isn't the major worry in most
user's lives. They make a document with Word. It has a shelf-life in which
it is maintained with Word. When a better tool comes along, they start their
next document with it and Word collects dust. Or they export/import it and
do the diddling around to get it looking right again with the new tool.


>
> nope. It's a real problem.
>
For some subset of word processor users. It has yet to be demonstrated that
this subset is a majority. Or even big enough for some company to think of
them as a valuable niche that needs to be catered to. There are word
processors out there that will store things in open formats, so I'd suspect
there is a niche, but I'm not yet convinced that this is the Top Priority of
even the users of those processors. I'm not saying it is a *bad* thing for a
word processor to store things in an "open" format. Just that it may not be
a major priority for most word processor users.


> So far, the only really long-lived document format is flat ASCII, like
> the Internet RFCs.
>
I'm all for that. I think most word-processed stuff is way overkill. I got a
big, major improvement moving off of paper & an IBM Selectric and on to
zeros & ones with Teco, SOS, vi, EDT, TPU, etc. Moving from there to Word &
others, I just don't see much added value for 90% of the things I need to
edit. (When you've got to include illustrations, I'd prefer not to do it
with ASCII art, so there is *some* value added with the WYSIWYG stuff.) So
probably for my own purposes, so long as Word can export to ASCII via some
means, and some other processor can suck up ASCII by some means, I don't
need to worry that much about document portability.


>
> Um, when is the last time you ran a DOS window on a Windows PC? And
> then ran the latest wizzy graphics game on the _same_ PC? you are
> benefitting from exactly that requirement!
>
And multiple generations of Word have had upward compatibility with their
file formats. I remain unimpressed. :-) My point is that if we were to
insist that all word processors store their stuff in some specific "open"
format, we might be hamstringing innovation. Just as existence of the 80x86
as a "standard" didn't stop DEC from building the Alpha or Sun from
developing the Sparc, I wouldn't object to a word processor developing its
own "proprietary" file format.If it yields advantages in some contexts,
great. If I need "portability" for my documents, I can always find something
else to use.


>
> Actually, I think it will matter. Since the only proven way to make
> money from Open Source is to offer good service that the customers
> actually want, it will matter a lot.
>
Yes, but there is always The Law Of Unintended Consequences. Open Source has
not been around for a real long time - or if it has been in some senses, it
didn't stop proprietary software from being the dominant modus operandi for
a long time. Currently, you're right - the model requires good service if a
company wants to stay in business. But does that mean there can't be a
dominant player? Does it mean that there won't be some big problems with how
the model operates that we're just not seeing yet?

Consider this: ACT doesn't exactly have a dozen serious competitors to
provide maintenance & support for GNAT. Maybe their service is so wonderful
and prices so low that nobody wants anyone else. Maybe its too much of a
niche market to spawn dozens of competitors. Maybe GNAT is just too big a
body of software for some other firm to pick up and build expertise in fast
enough to catch up with ACT. Maybe GNAT is under so many changes & revisions
by ACT so frequently that a competing vendor couldn't keep up with it or
would figure they had to go their own way anyway, so why try to build their
business on GNAT? It could be a lot of things, but the point is that there
*is* a dominant player with that technology.

Is it conceivable that 10 years from now we might see similar dominant
players for things like Linux? Is it possible that Red Hat could become so
big and powerful that we're all sitting around bitching about what rotten
bastards they are and wishing for "The Good Old Days" when we had Bill Gates
to kick around? Stranger things have happened in the world and we have not
yet seen how the Open Source model might be exploited. Maybe I just have a
hard time believing in panaceas. :-)

>
> It will be an interesting experiment. I wonder if comp.lang.ada will
> be around in 2012?
>
More importantly, will *we* be around in 2012? :-) Ada has been around for
twenty or so years. No reason to believe it won't be around for another 20.
Has Fortran died out yet? Is there a Comp.Lang.Fortran? I think the odds are
pretty good. So what do you say? Let's meet back here in 2012 and ask if
Open Source and open word processor formats and Ada are all as wonderful as
we think they are now. :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com