Re: [vox-tech] Pasting From Netscape

[Micah Cowan <micah@MAPScowanbox.com>]

On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 10:13:51PM -0800, Robert G. Scofield wrote:
> Deja User wrote:
> 
> > On a related note, since I mentioned it earlier, Star Office has a
> > lot of good functionality, but it is very slow to respond (which
> > is a major drawback, IMO). If SUN can get Star Office to work more
> > quickly and keeps improving it, why not use it? I think SUN will
> > support it for at least a few years. I dislike having to change
> > horses in midstream, so I try to find things I can stick with for
> > a while. I don't trust Corel and/or WordPerfect all that much. vi
> > is still the best text-only editor I have ever used (and I'm sure
> > emacs means as much to its adherents)! UA
> 
> I can't stand StarOffice.  WordPerfect is more intuitive.  It's
> easier for me than either MSWord, which I admit I don't have that
> much experience with, or Star Office.  Somehow I can run WordPerfect
> without any training.  I've got a book on Star Office, and still
> have a hard time trying to figure things out.

Yeah - first time I installed StarOffice it took me about 3 1/2
minutes before I rm -rf'd it.  I don't have to work much with Word,
and on the few occasions I do need it, I just need to /read/ it, so I
use antiword (I nice program which translates to text or ps).

The only time I needed to output Word was for resumes at my last job
search (some people just hate text resumes for some reason - obviously
UNIX/Linux-related jobs shouldn't be this way, but many were
consultance agencies which had a "client" they thought would be
interested in me).  And StarOffice did a really crappy job of it - the
bullet points used some very wierd character instead of bullets.

*However*, since Sun liberated OpenOffice, I anticipate a much better
suite in years to come.  I think it'll be a while, but eventually,
something wonderful will be molded from the primordial slime that is
StarOffice. ;)

Micah