Subj : Re: How much should I charge for fixed-price software contract? To : comp.programming From : blmblm Date : Sun Aug 21 2005 05:30 am In article , Dave Vandervies wrote: >In article , >Richard Heathfield wrote: >>Randy Howard wrote: > >>> Strange. If she knows enough to run Linux, then she should be >>> capable of opening a word doc. :-) >> >>And so she is, as I indicated above. > >Every Linux distribution I've ever met is even kind enough to give you >the tools you need to do it. Sort of. >strings will extract any readable text from the file, and Word still >keeps the text in a readable format as part of the file (at least up >to the version that created the last Word file I had to read, though >they've probably "fixed" that by now), so that will give a sufficiently >clued user everything they need. Well .... I'm fairly sure that on at least one occasion I used "strings" to get the ASCII content out of a Word document that had been modified with change tracking on, and ended up getting content that did not reflect the most recent changes. I've been somewhat happier with "antiword" for the purpose of getting text content out MS Word files. It will optionally also produce a minimally formatted PostScript version. It also has stumbled on documents created with change tracking on, though. (I actually think Word's change tracking is a nice feature, but it does seem to cause problems for non-Word programs that try to read the results.) >If strings doesn't work, then there's the "Read Microsoft" tool, rm, >which gives you the useful content of Word files that strings can't >extract and helpfully moves the hideous fonts, ugly typography, macro >viruses, and general bloat that make up the rest of this class of Word >files into the bit bucket for you. rm is the "Read Microsoft" tool? Hm. I already have a program by that name, but .... Oh. "Helpfully moves .... into the bit bucket for you." Why yes, I suppose it does. -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. .