Outlook installation

Peter Flynn peter at silmaril.ie
Fri Apr 12 09:05:05 UTC 2019


On 12/04/2019 08:49, Liam Proven wrote:> I repeat myself with emphasis:
> 
>>> With the old formats, you could at least recover raw text from a
>>> *damaged file* with tools such as the Unix ``strings'' command. With

Sorry, I missed the damaged bit. I'm lucky, I've never had anyone come 
to me with a corrupted Word file since the days of Win95.

> A corrupted Zip is junk. A corrupted .DOC can have the raw text
> extracted, simply and easily.

What there is of it. But for me this is an extreme edge case.

> The #1 way of recovering a corrupted MS Office file is to open it in
> LibreOffice, but there were about 2 decades of doing this when
> LibreOffice didn't exist and I had to do it by hand.

By hand is usually better.

> I only use Word for 1 thing. The outliner. I seem to be the only
> person left who knows it's there.

:-) org-mode

> No other editor in the world offers me the power of the Word outliner.

I remember using outliners in the days of WordPerfect. Even their ill-fated
version for Linux had it.

> Trying to edit text -- plain, formatted, XML, whatever -- in a flat
> text editor is _painful_ to me, and nobody understands what we have
> lost.

Most XML editors have the equivalent, which is to show a structure view, 
to whatever selected depth you want, with each item openable by clicking 
on the +. But I agree, most writers have never seen an outline.

> That is what using a flat editor feels like when compared to an
> outliner. I have been deprived of the single most powerful editing
> tool there is -- structure -- and it doesn't matter how many macros,
> regexes, and fancy editor syntax. If the file is flat, it's crippled.

Yep, that's why outline views are essential. Even LaTeX editors have 
them nowadays.

> It would be _ideal_ for HTML and XML. But nothing understands it.
> Oxygen has a very clumsy block-hiding function but it's hopelessly
> clumsy. It needs to be in-stream, in file, as part of the document or
> it's worthless to me.

I haven't used oXygen for a while. Fortunately their people are *very* 
responsive so I'll see what they say. HTML has no structure anyway, so 
it would be fairly useless.

P



More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list