Subj : Re: How much should I charge for fixed-price software contract?
To   : comp.programming
From : blmblm
Date : Sun Aug 21 2005 05:14 am

In article <0001HW.BF2BC51A0081BBA8F0386550@news.verizon.net>,
Randy Howard  <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote
>(in article <3mm80hF17go82U3@individual.net>):
>
>>> Strange.  If she knows enough to run Linux, then she should be 
>>> capable of opening a word doc.  :-)
>> 
>> "It's a bit of a nuisance" != "I can't do it", no?
>
>Perhaps, I find that a lot of people, especially as we get 
>older, have an exceedingly low tolerance for even what would 
>have been termed a "very minor nuisance" 20 years earlier, and 
>perhaps not even worth considering, much less arguing about on 
>Usenet.  Some rule along the lines of "As net worth approaches 
>MAGIC_RETIRMENT_NUMBER, TOLERANCE_FOR_BULLSHIT asymptotically 
>approaches zero."  :-)

Sing it.  I'm still some years/dollars from MAGIC_RETIREMENT_NUMBER,
but already my TOLERANCE_FOR_BULLSHIT is alarmingly low.

[ snip ]

>> Yes, I have tried OpenOffice.  Yes, it does a pretty
>> good job, and I'm grateful that it exists.  I don't have extensive
>> experience with the most recent version, but previous versions ....
>
>It's gotten a lot better over the last year or so, but it is 
>still imperfect.  The powerpoint part of it is especially weak 
>compared to its MS counterpart, but thankfully I don't care much 
>about that anymore.

I use it almost exclusively as a way to access content when people
send me files in MS Office formats.  In that regard the newest (?)
version -- 2.0 -- seems to have fewer problems than earlier versions.
I'm less interested in using it for native wordprocessing or other
Office-type tasks.  LaTeX is more fun.

>> Well, over the past few years I have often had occasion to compare the
>> results of me using OpenOffice to print a particular Word document with
>> the results of someone else using MS Word to print the same document.
>> They're never exactly the same, and sometimes the differences are
>> not subtle (misnumbered lists, e.g.).
>
>True, yet another argument for exporting to PDF and sending that 
>instead.  

If only I could convince all the people who send me Word files to go
that route.

>>> I, unlike you apparently, would prefer a PDF or plain text to 
>>> HTML.  I'm officially sworn off of Microsoft anything from here 
>>> on out.  However, if someone wants a .doc file, I'll be happy to 
>>> send them one, without using any MS product in the process.
>> 
>> Do you ever compare the appearance of the .doc files you send, as
>> rendered by whatever tool you use, with their appearance as rendered
>> by MS Word?  
>
>Yes.
>
>> (I'm not being snarky here -- I'm curious about whether
>> the problems I mentioned earlier apply in reverse as well.)
>
>Understood.  I think the key thing is that if you use a lot of 
>non-standard fonts, or funky advanced features, macros, and 
>custom bullet styles, then the results can be suboptimal (at 
>best).  If you stick to conventional fonts and take the default 
>bullet types, it seems to work pretty well.  

Useful to know; thanks.

[ snip ]

-- 
| B. L. Massingill
| ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

.