[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
On Tuesday 20 July 2004 12:34, Adrian Midgley wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:31:03 +0100, Carl <cjm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Adrian Midgley wrote: It doesn't actually prove a case for open source.The draft is explicit on that already.It makes absolutely no difference to the end user whether or not the source code for Excel is available.Can you prove that?
I doubt that this is refutable. But, given that the idiot^h^h^h^h^huser didn't bother to read the manual (where this behaviour *and* how to defeat it is clearly documented), I'd say that the probability of him/her reading the *source* tended to zero.
My opinion is that end users who take science forward through peer-reviewed publication whcih includes details of methods are likely to think that the publication of the method in the instance of the software is a significant difference.
Alas, you've picked te wrong horse to whip. The book (in this case the online documentation) makes it absolutely clear that this is the way in which Excel is designed to work. Just because this user doesn't like it doesn't make it wrong.
Excel can be a damn frustrating app in many ways, but it generally correctly handles cell formatting.However, we respond to a report of a case in which it did not, an exception, with a comment on a diffferently-produced tool which did not share that exception...
No you don't. You respond to a report of a case where the user didn't read the documentation. Between the seats in a Piper PA28 there's a lever with a button on the end. It's where you'd expect a handbrake to be if you hadn't read the manual. It *looks* like a handbrake. Alas, it isn't one, and if you'd failed to read the manual then you'd be one disappointed bunny if you expected it to work like one. That doesn't make Piper irresponsible for not publishing its drawings.
I was going to invent a general theory of relativity, but that's been done, nevertheless if this sort f thing provides a shred of padding in the shoulder pad of the jacket of a giant upon which someone else may sit later, then it is not entirely without virtue.If a user sets up a spreadsheet (which is not intended to be used as a replacement for a database)I didn't see anything that suggested that a spreadsheet was being used a sa replacement for a database. It may be the case, but it may not.
It was being used to hold arbitrary data in the expectation that it would retain the relationship and leave the data invariant despite its published method of operation. Sounds like a database to me.
As I said, I don't see how an open source model helps in this kind of instance.Clearly the proposed draft letter is not sharply enough written, yet, then. I do see it but may not be able to convince everyone else.
I don't think you *do* see it. You, too, appear to expect Excel to do something it's advertised not to do because you find its behavior unintuitive. This has *nothing* to do with peer review or publishable source or trying to kid the world that software has no cost.
The OpenOffice spreadsheet is of course an OSS one, I'm pleased to hear it is in one respect better than Excel, I use it as well.
Of course it's not *better*, it's different. If you want to make the cell formatting rules congruent you can.
Is there any general principle that can be drawn from it?
I think not.
Does it handle the data in question in the same damaging way as Excel, or in the non-damaging way as does Gnumeric? That would appear to be another experiment in the same series.
Excel doesn't damage data. It merely transforms it in this case, and in a manner that the manual tells you it will. The idea that this user couldn't reconstruct his or her original strings (or whatever) from the data that Excel holds is frankly ludicrous, and, I suspect, just another facet of his or her failure to understand the tool. -- John Daragon argv[0] limited john@xxxxxxxxxx Lambs Lawn Cottage, Staple Fitzpaine, Taunton TA3 5SL, UK (house) 01460 234537 (office) 01460 234068 (mobile) 07836 576127 (fax) 01460 234069 -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.