'No Problem' Word Processor Poses a Problem for Former President Carter (1981)
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
In retrospect it seems pretty wild that users were expected to actuate an explicit “save” command and that word processors didn’t just handle this automatically.
I’m sure there were real reasons - I was never involved in DOS or Windows programming but I presume it had to do with the slowness of saving to disk (and that a background auto-save wasn’t technically possible?). Or did we just not yet collectively have enough experience to know that auto saving was something critical to writers…?
I'd expect autosave to prevent typing, which would bogart the workflow. I can envision doing quick incremental saves, maybe, but then you'd probably get jittery behaviour.
If we're talking mid 80s, something like the c64 would need assembly to handle anything like that I'd think.
I remember writing a BBS in basic, and just typing for an afternoon and running out of ram. I had to create separate modules for the up/download area, the message board, file transfer, and so on, all loaded off of... there was a commodore 1M floppy drive I used.
a) writing to disk was inherently dangerous: file systems of the time were not robust, so anything going wrong while updating metadata (in particular) could trash not just your file but the whole filesystem. Floppies were slow and machines were crashier, making the whole operation riskier; and
b) using floppies reduces their lifespan because the disk physically rubs against both the read/write heads and the internal padding of its casing, so typically they were only accessed as part of an explicit user request.
I'm asking because it is also possible that such features weren't implemented because the weren't thought of or because the defied contemporary expectations.
It is amazing how much the price of word processors has declined over the years. It has dropped from $12,000 to free, provided you have a PC on which to run it:
https://www.openoffice.org/product/writer.html
I wonder if President Carter had to pay for his or if it was free for him given that having him use it was likely was a great advertising opportunity at the time.
Libreoffice is the active project: https://www.libreoffice.org/discover/writer/
https://github.com/apache/openoffice/graphs/commit-activity
It does not have as much activity as Libre Office, but saying it is inactive seems extreme to me:
https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commits/trunk/?after=c8...
One pull as opposed to zero indeed may break the inactive barrier but probably good not to read too much into commit counts graphs.
https://www.openoffice.org/security/bulletin.html
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=openoffice
Note that two of the ones in the mitre results are in a PHP project that is not part of the Open Office code base.
Unless you can prove otherwise, it looks to me like people saying this are spreading FUD. The GitHub commit analysis shows an active project, although not as active as libre office, so the remarks about Open Office being a dead project are exaggerations at best and outright lies at worst.
Finally, I would like to remark that it is ridiculous to complain because I cited an open source project you do not use/like. This is vim vs emacs levels of nonsense.
I personally barely use any office apps for 5 minutes per year. I'm not a fan of any.
I am the one being jumped by you and others for mentioning a competing office suite's word processor in a price comparison. You asked me to look closer, so I did and found that the claims being made against Open Office were baseless. You did not like that, so you made yet another unfounded accusation, this time targeting me.
By the way, I use Google Docs, so I have little interest in either project. However, the FUD being spread against Open Office by LibreOffice proponents has damaged LibreOffice in my eyes.
FUD is not what's being said about Open Office. There is no fear, or uncertainty, or doubt being employed. There is simply a direct claim being asserted that practically all of the developers and maintainers of OO one day created LibreOffice and they are all there now, and OO has had nothing remotely like the development of LO since then.
That assertion may or may not be accurate, or the facts may or may not have changed in the last few years, but it's nature is not FUD.
It's been over year since the last release, because there is no release manager. 4.2.0 was scheduled for "2024" and they have about two days left to hit that target. They published the dev preview for this version in 2019. They still don't support Apple Silicon nor do they yet have a build for 64-bit Windows.
If you bring your concerns to the developers mailing list, they call you a sock puppet and return to fiddling with localization files. The localization is supposedly the main blocker for the 4.2.0 release but they're not even sure if it's done.
Just use Libreoffice.
This lobbying is having the opposite effect of what you intend, since the more I see it, the more my opinion of LibreOffice sinks.
As for 'contradicting myself,' I did not. Unfixed security flaws exist in the code base, the project used to address them, and now no longer does. I also urge onlookers to investigate how Openoffice handles CVEs: the Apache foundation is a CVE Numbering Authority, they only issue CVEs after a release contains fixes, and they falsely claim to be the only CNA who can issue CVEs for Apache software projects. So, for the rest of the world, you don't get to find out about the flaws until the project gets around to fixing them, which is a wait increasing by the day.
And this model 103: https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?threads/lanier-model-103-n...
Interesting how the mechanical concept of a carriage carried on.
EDIT: Found it: https://bsky.app/profile/audiooblivion.bsky.social/post/3leg...