Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-edu (292 mails)

["Mark Evans" <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Grainge,  Derek wrote:
> 
> > The arguments over Office compatibility are spurious. Yes, Star office
> > can read MS office files. However that doesn't extend to making sense
> > of embedded objects like charts and graphs,
> 
> Does when I've tried it.  Many times.  Using documents that people have
> sent me blindly assuming that I will have MS Office.

Sometimes better than the "wrong" version of Office...
The problems with MS Office compatibility between versions,
even between different installs in the same version are
very real. 

> 
> > Now for the 'years away from employment' argument.  No:  some students
> > will leave school and go straight into using IT seriously.  We don't
> > have time to teach to professional standards (how acceptable are ECDL
> > and CLAIT or a GCSE?) but what experience such students pick up at
> > school can make a significant difference.
> 
> You seem almost to be advocating training instead of education.  If you
> have taught someone how to use a word processor, they will be able to use
> MS Word.  Ditto spreadsheets and MS Excel, databases and MS Access, etc.  
> The converse is not necessarily true - if, for example, you have only
> trained someone how to use MS Access then they will not necessarily know
> how to construct a query using another database access tool.

Or for that matter a different version of MS Access or 
one which has been customised. 

> > Most Universities expect pupils to arrive with sufficient skills to
> > use machines from the moment they arrive.  Yes, many more universities
> > use Unix, but we are still referring to basic abilities rather than
> > technical skills.  There is just as much reason to teach someone
> > word-processing using MS Word as any other package.  Reasons for
> > teaching generic word-processing should not be seen as bashing any one
> > particular product.
> 
> As far as I recall, no-one has been bashing MS Word.  The argument is
> that since you aim to teach generic word-processing, it is not *necessary*
> to use MS Word.

But it is necessary to consider MS Word on its own 
merits (including such "baggage" as its licence.)

> 
> > If you argue that we should not use industry-standard products you are
> > on shaky ground:
> 
> Again, the argument is not that we "should not use industry-standard
> products", it is that we are not *constrained* to use only
> 'industry-standard' products.

Remember also that the argument that there are 
"industry-standard products" dosn't have the firmest
of foundations anyway. 

-- 
Mark Evans
St. Peter's CofE High School
Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109
Fax: +44 1392 204763