• 7 Reasons to Avoid Windows 7 (and gparent vs Dr Egg)
    393 replies, posted
[QUOTE=gparent;17252485]No, it isn't. Writing bullshit all over a file isn't interoperability at all, even if the program that wrote it can parse that bullshit back into usable data. Interoperability means *multiple* programs can work together, not that one can read useless garbage out of another program's output.[/QUOTE] And they are working together. They can read the same files, so they are working together. It's just not perfect.
I like how mac gives it's updates/new OS's the furfaggiest names ever. What's next, Hung wolf? [editline]12:37AM[/editline] [quote]we complained about the OS’s inability to recognize an Adobe AIR file [/quote] What the fuck is an AIR file?
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17253298]And they are working together. They can read the same files, so they are working together. It's just not perfect.[/QUOTE] No, they aren't. The formula field isn't interoperable, and it's one of the most critical components of a spreadsheet. Plugging your head in the sand isn't going to change the fact that opening an Excel spreadsheet in OOo with formulas in it doesn't fucking work, therefore it's *not* possible to use both suites to do work on the same spreadsheet, and therefore it's *not* interoperable. If you still don't get that, you're either an idiot, or a good troll. EDIT: It's not just about opening the file. Your version of interoperatable means Notepad would be a suitable candidate - It's not. Same for xvi32. It simply *is not* interoperability to just display the file without useful parsing.
So how much longer are you gonna keep this going guys?
[QUOTE=compwhizii;17254454]So how much longer are you gonna keep this going guys?[/QUOTE] Wasn't aware there was a rule against civil arguments that drag on for more than a day. So, on that basis, as long as it takes.
No rules just wondering.
[QUOTE=compwhizii;17254490]No rules just wondering.[/QUOTE] Honestly at this point I just don't understand how the definition of interoperability can be so hard to get. He can keep believing that MS is right to have done this if he wants, but calling it interoperable is just a joke. If he'd at least admit it isn't, it would probably end right there.
Yes ok, gparent, you are right, can we move on now? It really isn't a big deal.
[QUOTE=Plastical;17255092]Yes ok, gparent, you are right, can we move on now? It really isn't a big deal.[/QUOTE] It's not about being right, it's about understanding why.
[QUOTE=gparent;17254416]No, they aren't. The formula field isn't interoperable, and it's one of the most critical components of a spreadsheet. Plugging your head in the sand isn't going to change the fact that opening an Excel spreadsheet in OOo with formulas in it doesn't fucking work, therefore it's *not* possible to use both suites to do work on the same spreadsheet, and therefore it's *not* interoperable. If you still don't get that, you're either an idiot, or a good troll. EDIT: It's not just about opening the file. Your version of interoperatable means Notepad would be a suitable candidate - It's not. Same for xvi32. It simply *is not* interoperability to just display the file without useful parsing.[/QUOTE] But there is useful parsing. The cells contain all the same values as before. It isn't a complete mess and it is working so it is interoperable. And opening a an Excel sheet in OOo only means you have msoxl and an excel forumla following it. That's slightly better than nothing, and is again interoperable. It's just not perfect.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17261806]But there is useful parsing. The cells contain all the same values as before. It isn't a complete mess and it is working so it is interoperable. And opening a an Excel sheet in OOo only means you have msoxl and an excel forumla following it. That's slightly better than nothing, and is again interoperable. It's just not perfect.[/QUOTE] If the data is not immediately useful, then it's not interoperable. This needs to work both ways, so if OOo was able to parse the msoxl formulas, and if Excel read the OOo formulas instead of cached values, and then saved formulas instead of raw values, then yes, they would be. Right now, they aren't.
[QUOTE=gparent;17262296]If the data is not immediately useful, then it's not interoperable. This needs to work both ways, so if OOo was able to parse the msoxl formulas, and if Excel read the OOo formulas instead of cached values, and then saved formulas instead of raw values, then yes, they would be. Right now, they aren't.[/QUOTE] Except they are. Just not in the most ideal way.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17263824]Except they are. Just not in the most ideal way.[/QUOTE] That's like saying a car is just like a screwdriver, just not in the most ideal way. Two people can't work on the same file right now, if either of them decide to write, then the file can't be used. And if the file is originally written using Excel, then the OOc calc person will never have a chance to even read it. It's not interoperable. EDIT: Here, in order to finish this stupid argument. If you go by the [u]IEEE definition[/u]: [quote]the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged[/quote] Since Excel can't use the formuals OOc calc writes for its intended purpose, it doesn't fit that definition. Since OOo Calc can't read the formulas, it doesn't fit that either. From [u]Wikipedia[/u], semantics of interoperability: [quote]Beyond the ability of two or more computer systems to exchange information, semantic interoperability is the ability to automatically interpret the information exchanged [b]meaningfully and accurately[/b] in order to produce [b]useful results as defined by the end users of both systems.[/b][/quote] If your users find "msoxl=<formula>" useful, they need to get fired for wasting your boss' time. [quote]To achieve semantic interoperability, both sides must defer to a common information exchange reference model. The content of the information exchange requests are unambiguously defined: [b]what is sent is the same as what is understood.[b][/quote] From OOo calc to MS Office, what is sent is a formula, was is understood is a static cached value. Doesn't fit the definition. From 2007 to OOo calc, what is sent is a formula, what is understood is basically a text field. Not the same. From [u]ISO/IEC 2382-02[/u]: [quote]"The capability to communicate, execute programs, or transfer data among various functional units in a manner [b]that requires the user to have little or no knowledge of the unique characteristics of those units".[/b][/quote] Unless your users are XML experts, they won't be able to understand what's happening. If they're good with computers, they'll understand that using the file would be a waste of time (since they'd need to fix every single formula manually). Have fun continuing being wrong if you want, but I'm most likely not going to reply if your last reply is yet another "I can't admit I'm wrong so I'll just repeat my point" type of deal.
in&#8901;ter&#8901;op&#8901;er&#8901;a&#8901;ble &#8194;&#8194;/&#716;&#618;nt&#601;r&#712;&#594;p&#601;r&#601;b&#601;l, -&#712;&#594;pr&#601;b&#601;l/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-ter-op-er-uh-buhl, -op-ruh-buhl] Show IPA Use interoperable in a Sentence See web results for interoperable See images of interoperable &#8211;adjective capable of being used or operated reciprocally: interoperable weapons systems. ya'll was askin wut it ment. da dicshunary toald meh.
[QUOTE=gparent;17268526]That's like saying a car is just like a screwdriver, just not in the most ideal way. Two people can't work on the same file right now, if either of them decide to write, then the file can't be used. And if the file is originally written using Excel, then the OOc calc person will never have a chance to even read it. It's not interoperable.[/QUOTE] But it can be used. The file isn't great in either program, but it is still readable and so some information can be gotten from it. [QUOTE]EDIT: Here, in order to finish this stupid argument. If you go by the [u]IEEE definition[/u]: Since Excel can't use the formuals OOc calc writes for its intended purpose, it doesn't fit that definition. Since OOo Calc can't read the formulas, it doesn't fit that either.[/QUOTE] Yeah but information isn't limited to the results of forumlas. [QUOTE]From [u]Wikipedia[/u], semantics of interoperability: If your users find "msoxl=<formula>" useful, they need to get fired for wasting your boss' time.[/QUOTE] Again, formulas aren't everything. They play a big part for sure, but it's not all there is to a spreadsheet, and you can still get information out. [QUOTE]From OOo calc to MS Office, what is sent is a formula, was is understood is a static cached value. Doesn't fit the definition. From 2007 to OOo calc, what is sent is a formula, what is understood is basically a text field. Not the same.[/QUOTE] For formulas. Still lots of other stuff to a spreadsheet [QUOTE]From [u]ISO/IEC 2382-02[/u]: Unless your users are XML experts, they won't be able to understand what's happening. If they're good with computers, they'll understand that using the file would be a waste of time (since they'd need to fix every single formula manually).[/QUOTE] But data is being transferred without the user knowing what is actually going on. Also I don't think you need to be an XML expert to see if something is broken. [QUOTE]Have fun continuing being wrong if you want, but I'm most likely not going to reply if your last reply is yet another "I can't admit I'm wrong so I'll just repeat my point" type of deal.[/QUOTE] Oh the ironing
Since you seem to think you have a point, I'll reply to this one: If you don't need formulas, you might as well use a Word document. Keep digging. They are *the* important part of a spreadsheet. If they don't work, according to the three definitions above, they are not interoperable. Just like if text didn't work on Word. It's not the only part, but it's the one thing that makes it useful.
Well, yes this guy is a macfag. Anyway, I skipped Vista on my main-PC (it slowed down my laptop like no tomorrow) and updated from XP->Win7 using a clean install. My PC feels as fast as under XP and boots up faster than XP.
[QUOTE=gparent;17269947]Since you seem to think you have a point, I'll reply to this one: If you don't need formulas, you might as well use a Word document. Keep digging. They are *the* important part of a spreadsheet. If they don't work, according to the three definitions above, they are not interoperable. Just like if text didn't work on Word. It's not the only part, but it's the one thing that makes it useful.[/QUOTE] Yes but a spreadsheet isn't totally useless without them. If you get a mangled document from either program there can still be some useful information read, so it's not a complete waste.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17272115]Yes but a spreadsheet isn't totally useless without them. If you get a mangled document from either program there can still be some useful information read, so it's not a complete waste.[/QUOTE] That is completely correct, however, it doesn't make the format interoperable. If you want to say that a spreadsheet written by Excel and subsequently opened in OOo Calc isn't [u]completely[/u] useless (using the semantic definition of completely, and useless), I'll agree with that. With enough knowledge, and manual work, you could restore it to a workable state. However it's kind of a moot point, because, the spreadsheet itself isn't very useful, and that is what makes it non interoperable. The data has to be useful and meaningful on both ends to both programs and/or users, and it must also have the same meaning and function. A cached value doesn't fit that definition, and a msoxl=<formula> text field doesn't either.
I thought 7 was the best..then I tried to install a couple of drivers and my motherboard stuff...and it just didn't want to work. I'm sticking with Vista.
[QUOTE=gparent;17272237]That is completely correct, however, it doesn't make the format interoperable. If you want to say that a spreadsheet written by Excel and subsequently opened in OOo Calc isn't [u]completely[/u] useless (using the semantic definition of completely, and useless), I'll agree with that. With enough knowledge, and manual work, you could restore it to a workable state. However it's kind of a moot point, because, the spreadsheet itself isn't very useful, and that is what makes it non interoperable. The data has to be useful and meaningful on both ends to both programs and/or users, and it must also have the same meaning and function. A cached value doesn't fit that definition, and a msoxl=<formula> text field doesn't either.[/QUOTE] And it is. Just the interoperability doesn't extend to formulas
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17273704]Just the interoperability doesn't extend to formulas[/QUOTE] Right, so you're saying it's not interoperable. Otherwise showing the A1 field would be enough to interoperate. (And, well, it isn't.)
[QUOTE=gparent;17273759]Right, so you're saying it's not interoperable. Otherwise showing the A1 field would be enough to interoperate. (And, well, it isn't.)[/QUOTE] No I'm saying the formulas don't work between them. They are still interoperable.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17291153]No I'm saying the formulas don't work between them. They are still interoperable.[/QUOTE] You don't understand the definition of interoperability, then. If the formulas do not work between them, that is specifically what makes it not interoperable. I'm not sure why you can't understand or refuse to accept that. "Partial interoperability" can't make the entire format interoperable, otherwise, as I said, just showing the A1 square would be enough for your definition of interoperability. But it's not.
[QUOTE=tarkata14;17168232]Hm, I use Windows 7, and it's just fine. If you don't like it, don't use it, why get all bitchy about it?[/QUOTE] i agree
[QUOTE=gparent;17291853]You don't understand the definition of interoperability, then. If the formulas do not work between them, that is specifically what makes it not interoperable. I'm not sure why you can't understand or refuse to accept that. "Partial interoperability" can't make the entire format interoperable, otherwise, as I said, just showing the A1 square would be enough for your definition of interoperability. But it's not.[/QUOTE] Who is mac and who is windows here?
[QUOTE=Zycos;17291912]Who is mac and who is windows here?[/QUOTE] I guess I'm Windows, because Mac is typically the one who ignores the facts and just acts as if 5% interoperability == interoperable...
[QUOTE=gparent;17291853]You don't understand the definition of interoperability, then. If the formulas do not work between them, that is specifically what makes it not interoperable. I'm not sure why you can't understand or refuse to accept that. "Partial interoperability" can't make the entire format interoperable, otherwise, as I said, just showing the A1 square would be enough for your definition of interoperability. But it's not.[/QUOTE] I do understand it. It's just that I don't think that because one (significant yes) bit of it is not interoperable doesn't mean the rest of it isn't and should be ignored. Partial interoperability is still something. And it depends on what A1 is doing. [editline]11:26PM[/editline] [QUOTE=gparent;17292041]I guess I'm Windows, because Mac is typically the one who ignores the facts and just acts as if 5% interoperability == interoperable...[/QUOTE] What facts am I ignoring? And I know it isn't complete interoperability, but it's a lot more than 5% and it is still relevant/useful.
Title changed accordingly.
[QUOTE=compwhizii;17294292]Title changed accordingly.[/QUOTE] I thought it said "7 Reasons to Avoid Windows 7, gparent, and Dr Egg." :saddowns:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.