Linux.com

Sometimes, it is inferior

Posted by: kirkjobsluder on April 14, 2006 12:03 AM
For many tech writers, the unspoken assumption is still that FOSS is inferior to proprietary software. As a result, they do not approach it with anything like the same willingness to learn.

I'd love to use OpenOffice.org for most of my writing projects. However, when I'm working on a contract demanding delivery and edits using MSWord format, I ran into some very real problems:

* <a href="http://www.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi?issue_status=NEW&issue_status=STARTED&issue_status=REOPENED&email1=&emailtype1=exact&emailassigned_to1=1&email2=&emailtype2=exact&emailreporter2=1&issueidtype=include&issue_id=&changedin=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&short_desc=nested+tables&short_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&issue_file_loc=&issue_file_loc_type=substring&status_whiteboard=&status_whiteboard_type=substring&keywords=&keywords_type=anytokens&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&Submit+query=Submit+query" title="openoffice.org">data in nested tables</a openoffice.org> vanishing.

lack of support for many <a href="http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/" title="openoffice.org">bibliography standards</a openoffice.org>

Personally, I use OO.org or LaTeX for just about everything where I can deliver pdf. But the file compatibility issue is a big one in mixed office environments.

#

Return to Why technical writers aren't using FOSS