I REALLY wanted iWork to become my office software as my intention was to keep a pure-Apple laptop. After Pages and Numbers had spectacularly failed to open or print or allow me to modify seamlessly documents that people send me or I must send to others, I tried OpenOffice. OpenOffice was a definite improvement over iWork but still fails too often. When we are talking about OpenOffice mangling my CV just before I need to print it or iWork mangling my invoices before I need to show them to the tax man, I end up back with Microsoft.
I'm super-happy with my Mac's stability, performance, security and backup. Just great and such a relief after Windows, but where I used to waste time and money on those (critical) things, I now waste them on document compatibility.
If maximizing your compatibility with Office is really your only priority, then you are stuck with Office. Forever.
this court needs to have the doors and windows bricked shut. it is a disgrace. they will entertain any ridiculous patent infringement suit. how's about a little discretion?
this court needs to have the doors and windows bricked shut. it is a disgrace. they will entertain any ridiculous patent infringement suit. how's about a little discretion?
So you know for a fact that this lawsuit is ridiculous? And you will tell us how and why, right?
this court needs to have the doors and windows bricked shut. it is a disgrace. they will entertain any ridiculous patent infringement suit. how's about a little discretion?
MS was found to have wilfully infringed by a jury.
i4i has, and conintues to use their patent. Seems they have a case.
I see no lack of discretion here. It looks like classic patent infringement, and MS got caught.
Apple needs to do a much better job at promoting iWork. As a recent switcher, I thought I absolutely must have Office, even if the Office for Mac version. What crap both Office for Windoze and Office for Mac are! Luckily I was smart enough when ordering my Macbook to have iWork preinstalled, since I like to experiment with software anyway. I know this is preaching to the choir, but I am totally impressed with iWork. No compatibility issues at all, much less clutter, better use of panels (rather than the uber annoying "ribbons) and Pages doesn't have the mind numbing formatting/spacing problems of Word and you can open two fully separate windows with difference Keynote presentations, something that can't be done with Powerpuke.
So, Apple, on the "to do" list, please bump up "promote iWork as viable alternative to Office".
Your loyal convert.
Amen, I chucked word out of the window after a moth of using the lean, beautifully designed and user friendly pages after switching. Any people that actually use a computer to write fiction or non fiction would be much better suited with pages. And I do agree if apple were more aggressive there they would get a sizable chunk from ms, but maybe it's part of a tacit agreement with ms to not pursue it aggressively.
Open office... what a train wreck, well handy in covering all the bases that word does, but downright ugly, can't stomach it despite trying really hard to.
So you know for a fact that this lawsuit is ridiculous? And you will tell us how and why, right?
Well, you are clearly telling us that you side with "the right to sue" crowd, which is responsible for all the insanity in the US legal system.
Software patents need to be banned. So what if MS uses XML? So what!
Do you know there is a company named OMEGA in the US that sells low quality car alarms and would have gone bankrupt by now had they not obtained patents on quite nearly everything related to automotive CAN-BUS communication? They still build car alarms but their main revenue-generation "business" consists of suing companies to get royalties over their ridiculous patents. How can someone patent the "use of CAN-BUS" in automobiles? And yet, OMEGA has been granted rights by the patent office to do just that. And now they make money suing anyone and everyone over the use of 3rd part CAN-BUS products in cars. (For example, they have a patent that covers any device that rolls up a car window via CAN-BUS. Seriously!) And this is just one example of hundreds.
Filing for patents isn't to "protect inventions" anymore. It's done to ambush successful companies who are willing to get their hands dirty in the marketplace, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from them via the courts. It's legalized extortion. Sadly, most Americans are apathetic and refuse to stop it. We need to write our representatives in Congress to create new legislation to ban this practice, and we need to create some grass-roots organizations to hound companies who making their living off suing. And I say all this with no excessive love toward MS. The same nuts who sue MS also sue our beloved Apple too.
The right to sue is fundamental to any civil legal system; if you can't see that I suggest you shouldn't comment on things you don't understand.
Congratulations on having successfully passed the BAR, joining the ranks of Abraham Lincoln himself, one of the five most admired lawyers in American history. To be sure, with only 1.1 million practicing attorneys in the US, the less fortunate are certain go without adequate legal options. We must therefore strive to boost the number of legal defenders to at least 1 for every 2 citizens in the Land of the Free. Anything less would be an insult to one's most sacred and fundamental right, to sue.
Perhaps it is now appropriate that we Mac users unit in our beep sound selection: sosume.
"My daddy is a movie actor, and sometimes he plays the good guy, and sometimes he plays the lawyer."
? Malcolm Ford, on what his father Harrison Ford does for a living
I think everyone can see that you are substituting insults and other snarky remarks for actual answers to actual questions. If you can't tell us why this particular lawsuit is, in your words, "ridiculous," then perhaps you ought to cut the smartass approach.
So you know for a fact that this lawsuit is ridiculous? And you will tell us how and why, right?
Prior art and the USPTO has a horrendously bad track record of granting trivial software patents and letting the courts figure it out. This is in direct response to forcing them to grant software patents in the first place which they didn't really want to do. So they've been doing a crappy job ever since.
Come on...using XML to store a document content separate from formatting? Please. SGML since 1970 had style sheets. One of the primary uses of XML has always been metadata and formatting.
Prior art and the USPTO has a horrendously bad track record of granting trivial software patents and letting the courts figure it out. This is in direct response to forcing them to grant software patents in the first place which they didn't really want to do. So they've been doing a crappy job ever since.
Come on...using XML to store a document content separate from formatting? Please. SGML since 1970 had style sheets. One of the primary uses of XML has always been metadata and formatting.
I'm aware of these issues, but to brand any given patent infringement suit as ridiculous without demonstrating any knowledge of the actual patents involved strikes me as agenda-driven. We should be aware that quite a few people are just plain hostile to intellectual property rights. Clearly one poster here is. This is an ideological position, not a legal one -- just so we know.
The courts have to decide these matters on a legal and factual basis. I know they don't always get it "right" but they have a better grasp on the issues than someone with an agenda who comes here to spout off without providing any support whatsoever for their opinions.
...to brand any given patent infringement suit as ridiculous without demonstrating any knowledge of the actual patents involved strikes me as agenda-driven.
Unfortunately, this statement is rather misleading as it would have the reader believe that the Dr.'s position is somehow not linked to or driven by any agenda whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
We should be aware that quite a few people are just plain hostile to intellectual property rights.
A statement which indicates the Dr. does not agree with (and perhaps even on some level is hostile toward) individuals who are "just plain hostile to IP rights."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
This is an ideological position, not a legal one -- just so we know.
And just so we know how very complex and contentious the connection between law and ideology truly is, let us not fail to explore further reading on the matter:
The courts have to decide these matters on a legal and factual basis. I know they don't always get it "right" but they have a better grasp on the issues than someone with an agenda who comes here to spout off...
A clear and most excellent revelation of the Dr.'s own agenda, consisting of a defense of the legal status quo in America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
...without providing any support whatsoever for their opinions.
There are those among us, quite educated to be sure, who require exhaustive evidence and explanations when discussing a topic, even concerning those issues which others may feel "go without saying." Then there are yet other educated individuals who prefer to exercise common sense, sometimes backed by wisdom, to assess and come to a conclusion on a given situation without the need for a lengthy dissertation on a given matter. In the context of this thread, the former group appears to believe that our system, while not perfect, is quite good and should be largely left alone. The latter group sees fundamental problems in the system and seeks change. The former group would also appear to believe that their numbers are greater than that of the latter group, and they very well may be correct in concluding that.
Unfortunately, this statement is rather misleading as it would have the reader believe that the Dr.'s position is somehow not linked to or driven by any agenda whatsoever.
A statement which indicates the Dr. does not agree with (and perhaps even on some level is hostile toward) individuals who are "just plain hostile to IP rights."
And just so we know how very complex and contentious the connection between law and ideology truly is, let us not fail to explore further reading on the matter:
A clear and most excellent revelation of the Dr.'s own agenda, consisting of a defense of the legal status quo in America.
There are those among us, quite educated to be sure, who require exhaustive evidence and explanations when discussing a topic, even concerning those issues which others may feel "go without saying." Then there are yet other educated individuals who prefer to exercise common sense, sometimes backed by wisdom, to assess and come to a conclusion on a given situation without the need for a lengthy dissertation on a given matter. In the context of this thread, the former group appears to believe that our system, while not perfect, is quite good and should be largely left alone. The latter group sees fundamental problems in the system and seeks change. The former group would also appear to believe that their numbers are greater than that of the latter group, and they very well may be correct in concluding that.
While educated, it doesn't seem that you answered the original question. You must be a politician. I could give a crap either way about the lawsuit, but your argument has no point. You are just typing things in just to see them on screen. Go somewhere else and blab about nothing, or tell us how and why you think the lawsuit is "ridiculous."
Congratulations on having successfully passed the BAR, joining the ranks of Abraham Lincoln himself, one of the five most admired lawyers in American history. To be sure, with only 1.1 million practicing attorneys in the US, the less fortunate are certain go without adequate legal options. We must therefore strive to boost the number of legal defenders to at least 1 for every 2 citizens in the Land of the Free. Anything less would be an insult to one's most sacred and fundamental right, to sue...
You're CONFUSED; I never claimed to have passed, taken or even studied for the bar exam.
I've no idea what the optimum ratio would be, but I don't think that having a defence lawyer for every two citizens makes much sense, in fact I think your suggestion is a very bad idea, as it would mean very little work for those lawyers and if achieved the economy and society would suffer in many ways. Surely you not so stupid to be able to see this?
I don't think having a more sensible ratio would be insulting to anybody, after all not everybody in in need at the same time of the legal service, and most lawyers will have more than one client at a time anyway.
I think perhaps you need to think a little more be making such daft suggestions, as they only go to making you look kinda stupid.
Excel has no equal in the world of spreadsheets. There has been a lack of innovation in all MS Office products IMHO.
I haven't used MS Word in many, many years since I switched to the Mac actually. I use Nisus Writer Pro. I will use Pages on occasion and have found it to be very good. I have thought about dropping NWP in favor of Pages, but I like the folks as Nisus.
Excel has no equal in the world of spreadsheets. There has been a lack of innovation in all MS Office products IMHO.
I haven't used MS Word in many, many years since I switched to the Mac actually. I use Nisus Writer Pro. I will use Pages on occasion and have found it to be very good. I have thought about dropping NWP in favor of Pages, but I like the folks as Nisus.
You are all of course forgetting LaTeX (free, and with a nice Mac front end, TeXShop). If writing documents in a style that looks a bit like writing computer code is your thing, it's pretty good. I was an early MS Word adopter and an early dropper. Markup languages are so 1970s but at least LaTex:
has never destroyed a source document on me
has a great layout engine
can do equations and other mathematical stuff properly
has a well-defined system of cross-referencing and numbering that you can reprogram
allows you to change overall document style quickly and easily
handles references and citations automatically in a lot of styles
The only WYSIWYG program I?ve used that?s close in features and robustness is FrameMaker but sadly Adobe has not seen fit to develop it further for the Mac and it's absurdly expensive for other platforms. Aside from a few user interface oddities the Mac version wasn't too bad and could handle encyclopaedia-length documents. Having been the route of Word being sort of OK in early versions and getting progressively worse after 5.1, I tried FM for a while then gave up and went back to the 1970s. My worst recent experience with Word was reformatting my PhD thesis to set it up for sale on Amazon. I wanted to add grey boxes at the end of each chapter commenting on how the world had changed since 1996. Word would not print a top border on the box if it was the first thing on the page no matter what I did.
Back on topic: I doubt very much this patent makes any kind of sense. I have yet to see a software patent that does. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, post it here. That would be more informative than asking what's wrong with this patent, and certainly a first for me.
Back on topic: I doubt very much this patent makes any kind of sense. I have yet to see a software patent that does. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, post it here. That would be more informative than asking what's wrong with this patent, and certainly a first for me.
Since software can be patented, I think it's incumbent on someone who thinks it never makes sense to explain why it never makes sense. Just saying so does not make it so.
You are all of course forgetting LaTeX (free, and with a nice Mac front end, TeXShop). If writing documents in a style that looks a bit like writing computer code is your thing, it's pretty good. I was an early MS Word adopter and an early dropper. Markup languages are so 1970s but at least LaTex:
Geez, every time the word processing is brought up in almost any context there has to be some joker to enlighten us about the wonders of TeX (La or otherwise). Great (maybe) if you need to write formula in published journals. Completely batshit useless for the general populace for word processing.
Comments
I REALLY wanted iWork to become my office software as my intention was to keep a pure-Apple laptop. After Pages and Numbers had spectacularly failed to open or print or allow me to modify seamlessly documents that people send me or I must send to others, I tried OpenOffice. OpenOffice was a definite improvement over iWork but still fails too often. When we are talking about OpenOffice mangling my CV just before I need to print it or iWork mangling my invoices before I need to show them to the tax man, I end up back with Microsoft.
I'm super-happy with my Mac's stability, performance, security and backup. Just great and such a relief after Windows, but where I used to waste time and money on those (critical) things, I now waste them on document compatibility.
If maximizing your compatibility with Office is really your only priority, then you are stuck with Office. Forever.
I hope you love it.
this court needs to have the doors and windows bricked shut. it is a disgrace. they will entertain any ridiculous patent infringement suit. how's about a little discretion?
So you know for a fact that this lawsuit is ridiculous? And you will tell us how and why, right?
this court needs to have the doors and windows bricked shut. it is a disgrace. they will entertain any ridiculous patent infringement suit. how's about a little discretion?
MS was found to have wilfully infringed by a jury.
i4i has, and conintues to use their patent. Seems they have a case.
I see no lack of discretion here. It looks like classic patent infringement, and MS got caught.
Apple needs to do a much better job at promoting iWork. As a recent switcher, I thought I absolutely must have Office, even if the Office for Mac version. What crap both Office for Windoze and Office for Mac are! Luckily I was smart enough when ordering my Macbook to have iWork preinstalled, since I like to experiment with software anyway. I know this is preaching to the choir, but I am totally impressed with iWork. No compatibility issues at all, much less clutter, better use of panels (rather than the uber annoying "ribbons) and Pages doesn't have the mind numbing formatting/spacing problems of Word and you can open two fully separate windows with difference Keynote presentations, something that can't be done with Powerpuke.
So, Apple, on the "to do" list, please bump up "promote iWork as viable alternative to Office".
Your loyal convert.
Amen, I chucked word out of the window after a moth of using the lean, beautifully designed and user friendly pages after switching. Any people that actually use a computer to write fiction or non fiction would be much better suited with pages. And I do agree if apple were more aggressive there they would get a sizable chunk from ms, but maybe it's part of a tacit agreement with ms to not pursue it aggressively.
Open office... what a train wreck, well handy in covering all the bases that word does, but downright ugly, can't stomach it despite trying really hard to.
Ah, and microsoft copied someone off?
Really?
So you know for a fact that this lawsuit is ridiculous? And you will tell us how and why, right?
Well, you are clearly telling us that you side with "the right to sue" crowd, which is responsible for all the insanity in the US legal system.
Software patents need to be banned. So what if MS uses XML? So what!
Do you know there is a company named OMEGA in the US that sells low quality car alarms and would have gone bankrupt by now had they not obtained patents on quite nearly everything related to automotive CAN-BUS communication? They still build car alarms but their main revenue-generation "business" consists of suing companies to get royalties over their ridiculous patents. How can someone patent the "use of CAN-BUS" in automobiles? And yet, OMEGA has been granted rights by the patent office to do just that. And now they make money suing anyone and everyone over the use of 3rd part CAN-BUS products in cars. (For example, they have a patent that covers any device that rolls up a car window via CAN-BUS. Seriously!) And this is just one example of hundreds.
Filing for patents isn't to "protect inventions" anymore. It's done to ambush successful companies who are willing to get their hands dirty in the marketplace, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from them via the courts. It's legalized extortion. Sadly, most Americans are apathetic and refuse to stop it. We need to write our representatives in Congress to create new legislation to ban this practice, and we need to create some grass-roots organizations to hound companies who making their living off suing. And I say all this with no excessive love toward MS. The same nuts who sue MS also sue our beloved Apple too.
Well, you are clearly telling us that you side with "the right to sue" crowd, which is responsible for all the insanity in the US legal system...
The right to sue is fundamental to any civil legal system; if you can't see that I suggest you shouldn't comment on things you don't understand.
The right to sue is fundamental to any civil legal system; if you can't see that I suggest you shouldn't comment on things you don't understand.
Congratulations on having successfully passed the BAR, joining the ranks of Abraham Lincoln himself, one of the five most admired lawyers in American history. To be sure, with only 1.1 million practicing attorneys in the US, the less fortunate are certain go without adequate legal options. We must therefore strive to boost the number of legal defenders to at least 1 for every 2 citizens in the Land of the Free. Anything less would be an insult to one's most sacred and fundamental right, to sue.
Perhaps it is now appropriate that we Mac users unit in our beep sound selection: sosume.
"My daddy is a movie actor, and sometimes he plays the good guy, and sometimes he plays the lawyer."
? Malcolm Ford, on what his father Harrison Ford does for a living
So you know for a fact that this lawsuit is ridiculous? And you will tell us how and why, right?
Prior art and the USPTO has a horrendously bad track record of granting trivial software patents and letting the courts figure it out. This is in direct response to forcing them to grant software patents in the first place which they didn't really want to do. So they've been doing a crappy job ever since.
Come on...using XML to store a document content separate from formatting? Please. SGML since 1970 had style sheets. One of the primary uses of XML has always been metadata and formatting.
Prior art and the USPTO has a horrendously bad track record of granting trivial software patents and letting the courts figure it out. This is in direct response to forcing them to grant software patents in the first place which they didn't really want to do. So they've been doing a crappy job ever since.
Come on...using XML to store a document content separate from formatting? Please. SGML since 1970 had style sheets. One of the primary uses of XML has always been metadata and formatting.
I'm aware of these issues, but to brand any given patent infringement suit as ridiculous without demonstrating any knowledge of the actual patents involved strikes me as agenda-driven. We should be aware that quite a few people are just plain hostile to intellectual property rights. Clearly one poster here is. This is an ideological position, not a legal one -- just so we know.
The courts have to decide these matters on a legal and factual basis. I know they don't always get it "right" but they have a better grasp on the issues than someone with an agenda who comes here to spout off without providing any support whatsoever for their opinions.
...to brand any given patent infringement suit as ridiculous without demonstrating any knowledge of the actual patents involved strikes me as agenda-driven.
Unfortunately, this statement is rather misleading as it would have the reader believe that the Dr.'s position is somehow not linked to or driven by any agenda whatsoever.
We should be aware that quite a few people are just plain hostile to intellectual property rights.
A statement which indicates the Dr. does not agree with (and perhaps even on some level is hostile toward) individuals who are "just plain hostile to IP rights."
This is an ideological position, not a legal one -- just so we know.
And just so we know how very complex and contentious the connection between law and ideology truly is, let us not fail to explore further reading on the matter:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-ideology/
The courts have to decide these matters on a legal and factual basis. I know they don't always get it "right" but they have a better grasp on the issues than someone with an agenda who comes here to spout off...
A clear and most excellent revelation of the Dr.'s own agenda, consisting of a defense of the legal status quo in America.
...without providing any support whatsoever for their opinions.
There are those among us, quite educated to be sure, who require exhaustive evidence and explanations when discussing a topic, even concerning those issues which others may feel "go without saying." Then there are yet other educated individuals who prefer to exercise common sense, sometimes backed by wisdom, to assess and come to a conclusion on a given situation without the need for a lengthy dissertation on a given matter. In the context of this thread, the former group appears to believe that our system, while not perfect, is quite good and should be largely left alone. The latter group sees fundamental problems in the system and seeks change. The former group would also appear to believe that their numbers are greater than that of the latter group, and they very well may be correct in concluding that.
Unfortunately, this statement is rather misleading as it would have the reader believe that the Dr.'s position is somehow not linked to or driven by any agenda whatsoever.
A statement which indicates the Dr. does not agree with (and perhaps even on some level is hostile toward) individuals who are "just plain hostile to IP rights."
And just so we know how very complex and contentious the connection between law and ideology truly is, let us not fail to explore further reading on the matter:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-ideology/
A clear and most excellent revelation of the Dr.'s own agenda, consisting of a defense of the legal status quo in America.
There are those among us, quite educated to be sure, who require exhaustive evidence and explanations when discussing a topic, even concerning those issues which others may feel "go without saying." Then there are yet other educated individuals who prefer to exercise common sense, sometimes backed by wisdom, to assess and come to a conclusion on a given situation without the need for a lengthy dissertation on a given matter. In the context of this thread, the former group appears to believe that our system, while not perfect, is quite good and should be largely left alone. The latter group sees fundamental problems in the system and seeks change. The former group would also appear to believe that their numbers are greater than that of the latter group, and they very well may be correct in concluding that.
While educated, it doesn't seem that you answered the original question. You must be a politician. I could give a crap either way about the lawsuit, but your argument has no point. You are just typing things in just to see them on screen. Go somewhere else and blab about nothing, or tell us how and why you think the lawsuit is "ridiculous."
Congratulations on having successfully passed the BAR, joining the ranks of Abraham Lincoln himself, one of the five most admired lawyers in American history. To be sure, with only 1.1 million practicing attorneys in the US, the less fortunate are certain go without adequate legal options. We must therefore strive to boost the number of legal defenders to at least 1 for every 2 citizens in the Land of the Free. Anything less would be an insult to one's most sacred and fundamental right, to sue...
You're CONFUSED; I never claimed to have passed, taken or even studied for the bar exam.
I've no idea what the optimum ratio would be, but I don't think that having a defence lawyer for every two citizens makes much sense, in fact I think your suggestion is a very bad idea, as it would mean very little work for those lawyers and if achieved the economy and society would suffer in many ways. Surely you not so stupid to be able to see this?
I don't think having a more sensible ratio would be insulting to anybody, after all not everybody in in need at the same time of the legal service, and most lawyers will have more than one client at a time anyway.
I think perhaps you need to think a little more be making such daft suggestions, as they only go to making you look kinda stupid.
I haven't used MS Word in many, many years since I switched to the Mac actually. I use Nisus Writer Pro. I will use Pages on occasion and have found it to be very good. I have thought about dropping NWP in favor of Pages, but I like the folks as Nisus.
Excel has no equal in the world of spreadsheets. There has been a lack of innovation in all MS Office products IMHO.
I haven't used MS Word in many, many years since I switched to the Mac actually. I use Nisus Writer Pro. I will use Pages on occasion and have found it to be very good. I have thought about dropping NWP in favor of Pages, but I like the folks as Nisus.
You are all of course forgetting LaTeX (free, and with a nice Mac front end, TeXShop). If writing documents in a style that looks a bit like writing computer code is your thing, it's pretty good. I was an early MS Word adopter and an early dropper. Markup languages are so 1970s but at least LaTex:
- has never destroyed a source document on me
- has a great layout engine
- can do equations and other mathematical stuff properly
- has a well-defined system of cross-referencing and numbering that you can reprogram
- allows you to change overall document style quickly and easily
- handles references and citations automatically in a lot of styles
The only WYSIWYG program I?ve used that?s close in features and robustness is FrameMaker but sadly Adobe has not seen fit to develop it further for the Mac and it's absurdly expensive for other platforms. Aside from a few user interface oddities the Mac version wasn't too bad and could handle encyclopaedia-length documents. Having been the route of Word being sort of OK in early versions and getting progressively worse after 5.1, I tried FM for a while then gave up and went back to the 1970s. My worst recent experience with Word was reformatting my PhD thesis to set it up for sale on Amazon. I wanted to add grey boxes at the end of each chapter commenting on how the world had changed since 1996. Word would not print a top border on the box if it was the first thing on the page no matter what I did.Back on topic: I doubt very much this patent makes any kind of sense. I have yet to see a software patent that does. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, post it here. That would be more informative than asking what's wrong with this patent, and certainly a first for me.
Back on topic: I doubt very much this patent makes any kind of sense. I have yet to see a software patent that does. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, post it here. That would be more informative than asking what's wrong with this patent, and certainly a first for me.
Since software can be patented, I think it's incumbent on someone who thinks it never makes sense to explain why it never makes sense. Just saying so does not make it so.
You are all of course forgetting LaTeX (free, and with a nice Mac front end, TeXShop). If writing documents in a style that looks a bit like writing computer code is your thing, it's pretty good. I was an early MS Word adopter and an early dropper. Markup languages are so 1970s but at least LaTex:
Geez, every time the word processing is brought up in almost any context there has to be some joker to enlighten us about the wonders of TeX (La or otherwise). Great (maybe) if you need to write formula in published journals. Completely batshit useless for the general populace for word processing.