Re: A few general questions from a Debian newbie
Bruce Hohl wrote:
> --- Carl Fink <carl@fink.to> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 01:09:10PM +0000, Antony
>>Gelberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Version 1 has perfectly adequate support for
>>>linking to databases.
>>
>>Where you presumably mean "barely usable support if
>>you're already a database expert"? At least that's
>>what *I* have.
>>
>
> I intend to use OO Base with HSQL in place of MS
> Access to *create* (not link) some single file
> databases used for analytical analysis. OO 2 appears
> to implement this functionality in a clean and
> reasonable manner (i.e. like MS Access). This is an
> important office software function.
Why categorise it as an "important office software function"? Most
offices that I know of don't design databases.
>>>In the time that you spent composing that post,
>>>you could have searched the list archives and
>>>learnt how to install it. I doubt you could have
>>>created any impressive documents in that time.
>>
>>Why use a distro if you're going to have to
>>manually install things anyway?
>>
>
> Exactly!
>
> Any who has used gnu+linux for a while understands the
> potential danger of going outside one's distribution.
> (My download is in progress .. wish me luck!)
Anybody who understands the danger will be able to avoid the danger.
> My original point: OpenOffice 2.0 (while not perfect)
> is an important piece of open source software. IMHO
> the Debian developers should get OO 2 into Testing
> soon and create deb packages for Sarge.
Somebody may or may not make packages. But it's not reasonable to ask
that of DDs. That is not how Debian works.
(And if you
> continue to doubt the importance of Office software
> just consider what Office has done for Microsoft.)
Nobody said that it isn't important. Just that the new version isn't as
important. If you are a MS Office user, did the "upgrade" to 2003 from
XP make any difference to your life? We're talking diminishing marginal
returns.
Reply to: