On Thursday 21 April 2005 19:41, Rich Drewes wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Gerasimos Grammatikopoulos wrote:
> > One big issue here is that such third party add-ons for Word are usually
> > paid their LOC in gold.
>
> (LOC?)
Lines Of Code :-) It's certainly not their weight (10-20 grams per cd more or 
less)!

> > Another problem is the quite frequent instabillity derived
> > by "overloading" word with such bells and whistles. I can't tell anything
> > about EndNote since I haven't used it, but ReferenceManager in its days
> > had blown up in my face more than once.
>
> Yes, I agree that stability can be an issue with Word addons.  I have
> actually had rare Lyx crashes occur for me that appear to be related to
> the pipe communication between Pybliographic and Lyx, and I have also had
> some issues with Pybliographic importing reference files from major
> journals.  (The Pybliographic problems seem to be related to those
> journals putting out reference keys that Pybliographic didn't consider
> standard format.  However, when I tried to import the same file in EndNote
> it "just worked".  From a user's perspective, "just working" with a
> warning message perhaps would be prefereble to failure plus an obscure
> error message which is what I got in Pybliographic.)

I agree on the pybliographic issues. Unfortunately, pybliographic can offer 
filtering only for these formats its authors have already seen and 
"digested". Its pubmed import is rather arcane and that's why I went on with 
TeXmed.
 
> I have never lost data with Lyx.  Thanks, Lyx team.
Although Lyx provides another language layer over LaTeX (which works over 
plain TeX) its files still maintain a rather simple structure that becomes 
life-saving over crashes and glitches both Lyx-related and system-wide.  
You can't say the same for office suites, OO.org included, although the 
latter's choice of xml as the basics under its file formats offers an edge on 
that area.

> > Please keep in mind that you can rather
> > easily change "formatting" of the references anytime you please while
> > still not messing (and thus loosing time) with the actual archive.
>
> This is a rather routine capability actually.  Word+EndNote can do it too.
Again, I can't say anything over EndNote since I have not tried it. If it's 
such a "routine capability" how come the behemoth of office suites has not 
included it? To better explain where I stand, let's say you also need the 
final product to be in .pdf format. For LaTeX-based solutions it's a 
no-brainer and for OO.org just a button-click away but for MS Word you NEED 
Acrobat Writer. This brings you to a summary of Word+EndNote+Acrobat and 
while the complexity of your productivity tools increments, your wallet gets 
exponentially thinner :-)  


> Further, I have seen a live demonstration of some features of EndNote and
> RefViz that are pretty cool; there is nothing comparable in
> BibTex+Pybliographic or addons as far as I can find.  It turns out I don't
> need those capabilities but I can see their usefulness.
>
> > You can also
> > SQL-query for references if your university library offers such service.
> > I for one, consider the TexMed web interface a god send.
>
> Again, pretty routine stuff.  EndNote can do it.
I'm not trying to prove LaTeX is better than something I don't actually know. 
That would be very foolish of me. I'm just saying it can be a great solution 
for rather advanced editing needs at practically zero monetary cost and 
ridiculously low computer-resources cost. You could perfectly do your job on 
a 386 from a console - as long as you dare use vi as a TeX editor. Of course, 
what you gain on money and resources you have to pay with time, be it "una 
tantum" for learning the LaTeX skills, or product-related  for using that 
ancient hardware and hostile environment rather than Lyx or other full-blown 
editors on a shining kde 3.4.  

> > OO.org's bibliography is far better than whatever "hack" you can get with
> > the native MS Word endnotes.
>
> I'm not sure we are on the same page . . .  EndNote isn't a native Word
> package of course, it is an add on software package.  
Yes, that's why I used the "native" indication to separate normal "endnotes" 
rather that the software called EndNote. I did a mere comparison among bare, 
out-of-the-box MS Word, OO.org Writer and bibtex. That's why I'm talking 
about a "hack" regarding MS Word: it can be done, but it's more like shooting 
yourself in the foot.

> I tried OO's built 
> in bibliographic support and found it pretty useless for now.
OO.org can use SQL dig-ups for bibliography and rarely or never screws up 
numbering. What it CAN'T do, is painless formatting changes - your reference 
database should be configured to reflect the desired format. Now, that can be 
a horrible pain! I also admit I never stressed OO.org's ability with more 
than about 20 references.

> Latex+pybliographic was much better than OO's built in stuff for
> bibliographic management.  I would put Latex+pybliographic as in the same
> class as Word+Endote.  Word+Endnote have a few more features for
> bibliographic management, but the basics are there in both.  As I said
> there are some advanced features that Word+EndNote+RefViz can do that have
> no counterpart in open source AFAIK (unfortunately).
I will take it that this is probably the case. In the open source world, 
"special interest" and "niche market" issues are almost invariably addressed 
only when a FOSS developer has also a part in the specific issue.
Here is an example. When I started using linux, some 7 years ago, sound 
support was almost a joke. It was the minimum necessary, bare-metal support 
to just listen to an mp3 or so. I used to dual boot with windows for quite a 
long time just to use my musical productivity tools. And now? It's been 2 
years since I last used windows on a computer I own. Truth be told, I still 
pay some extra time over the monetary gain since some things require 
fiddling-with and trial-error sessions. But it's not impossible, nor does it 
affect the quality of the final product.
The solution is simple: the mere increase in adoption rates, but even better 
the specific feature requests to the usually open-minded devs invariably 
forces to an evolving solution or at least work-around of the issue.

Gerasimos


Reply via email to