[TriLUG] linux apps on desktop that support *.mdb, *.vsd, *.dwg and *.mpp

[Jon Carnes]

On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 12:15, Chris Hedemark wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 12:05 PM, Michael Thompson wrote:
> 
> > In most of the places I've worked or consulted for, Word was 'standard'
> > format that could be shared.  My 'non-standard' software would be the
> > oddity, so why should everyone change to accommodate me?
> 
> RTF is not non-standard.  Word will use it happily, as will many other 
> apps.  I've had luck getting Windoze users to export to RTF.
> 
> Plain text works too and everyone can handle it.
> 

Word is fine as a standard, but you can save from word in a variety of
formats.  If you're looking for compatibility with others then txt, htm,
and rtf are three big ones that work fine.

The users do *not* have to save in a bloated proprietary file format
that is hard for others to read.  Simply set the standard based on your
companies need and then if others don't comply (and you have problems
with the document), ask them to please resubmit using your company
standards.

I've worked for awhile in Open Office and never had a problem with a
document that a client sent.  If I did, I would ask them to please
resubmit it in rtf or txt.  But, as I said, I haven't had problems with
any of the doc's.

I'm sure that 99% of the doc created in most organizations will work
fine in Open Office.  I suspect that the 1% that don't are being created
by folks who are more in love with form than function (and maybe that is
their job: web-designer or marka-droid).

Also, folks continue to ignore the fact that older versions of Office
have the exact same problem!  Incompatibility with over formated
documents stored in a proprietary format.

> > Most people just don't care. They just want to get their jobs done
> > efficiently (the way they know how) and go home.  (and have pretty
> > documents)  :)  I can actually relate to this, as I will be as stubborn
> > about my Macromedia apps (Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Flash) until 
> > something
> > comparable (that is reliable) is available for Linux.

You are dealing with inter-organizational cultural momentum, and not
looking at what happens if you *change* the standard.  If your argument
is really that Open Office is not a drop-and-insert replacement at all
organizations, then you are right!  At some organizations it's going to
require a change in their culture.

If you are arguing that Open Office can't fulfill the function of an
Office suite at an organization, then you are 100% wrong.  Open Office
works just fine and saves organizations a lot of money.  Some
organizations do need some retraining and modifications of their
standards before they can function as easily with Open Office as they
did with MS office.

Open Office does not have to *become* MS Office before it can easily
replace it.  It just has to interact with it reasonably, and it does
that NOW. 
 
> > They would argue that they lost several hours making their text look so
> > 'professional'...
> 
> It's a futile argument.  All time is lost, and none can be gained.  You 
> can use it effectively as it passes by, or you can waste the 
> opportunity.
> 
<Chris, I love your poetic response!>

Jon Carnes