[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Tutorial 2.00 - Comments

From: Øystein Johansen
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Tutorial 2.00 - Comments
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:33:48 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

Read this nice article about using Microsoft Word:


It points out one of the dangers of using MS-Word. Not that a revision log is bad for our project, but Word is such a big, bloat application that it's nearly impossible to control the document. It's also saved in a undocumented binary format, and that will make our revision control trickier. What if two of us is editing the same document at the same time? Using a a plain text document format is much better for this purpose. texi can be a candidate, so can LaTeX.

And if the master document is in MS-Word, it demand that the user is sitting on a Windows computer and uses MS-Word as his Word processor application. This is absolutly not what the GNU philosophy is about. GNU philosophy says things should be free, that free to choose, free to use what ever Operating System I want, free to cooperate with other developers and free from all closed file formats. Using MS-Word blocks some of the possibility for the developers and documentation writers to cooperate.

If Albert allows it, we should decide to use some kind of plain text based format of the master document, and add it to the CVS.
Albert, do you have write access to the CVS?

Just my 0,15  NOK,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]