Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Makes Apps Script Available To All

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the come-one-come-all dept.

Google 61

theodp writes "Formerly only available to Apps Users, Google has made Apps Script available to everyone (sample script), including you Google Docs low-lifers. Apps Script lets you automate actions across spreadsheets, sites, calendars, and other Google services. No spamming, kids!"

cancel ×

61 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Make google spreadsheet useful (5, Insightful)

nathan.fulton (1160807) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472118)

In my opinion, this is going to make google's spreadsheet application a viable alternative to some uses of excel. God knows Apps Script is easier to use than excel macros.

Don't get me wrong, there are some things that excel will always be used for, but google spreadsheets have so far been just useless enough without outside manipulation that most people have turned the option down.

Re:Make google spreadsheet useful (2, Insightful)

ronocdh (906309) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472418)

Don't get me wrong, there are some things that Lotus 1-2-3 will always be used for,

Realize how silly that sounds now?

Re:Make google spreadsheet useful (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472600)

Will this stupid meme please die?

It has to be one of the stupidest and most intellectually lazy arguments ever.

Re:Make google spreadsheet useful (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472746)

He was pointing out that excel will likely not be used forever by way of an example of a similar company being no longer used. I mean it isn't proof of anything so there isn't a watertight intellectual arguement... but it is about what might happen in the future, you won't get any watertight arguements.

That said, it probably was needlessly inflamatory. OP most likely knows that excel will not be used forever. Hell, humans are not likely to exist forever unless we find a way to end time or some such. So it was really just a troll aggravated by OP's apparent misuse of the word 'always'. Which is pretty anal, and ignores the concept of poetic language completely.

Re:Make google spreadsheet useful (5, Insightful)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473480)

It's a particularly bad argument, given that Microsoft deliberately designed Excel to resemble (an "improved") 1-2-3 as closely as possible by making sure that it implemented most of the same functionality. Word featured a "WordPerfect compatibility mode" until fairly recently.

I should point out that unlike some of Microsoft's other quests for market dominance, Office seems to have succeeded by the simple virtue of being legitimately better than its competitors. While Lotus and Corel allowed their products to languish, Microsoft made a product that was initially "similar and just as good," and eventually "similar, but better in a number of respects."

Now, Microsoft themselves have gotten a bit lazy. Although I hold the (unpopular) opinion that Office 2007 offered many needed improvements, Keynote and Numbers simply blow PowerPoint and Excel out of the water in terms of usability.

Pages is a sufficiently different product from Word that any direct comparisons are difficult. Although Word lacks many of Pages' page-layout and design functions, Pages also (perhaps intentionally) lacks Word's myriad of features for managing large documents. As much as I hate its quirks and idiosyncrasies, LaTeX is still hands-down the best tool for writing and managing a large document.

Re:Make google spreadsheet useful (1)

Sark666 (756464) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473744)

Maybe in terms of usability (i don't know. never tried numbers) but it doesn't have a macro language.

Once I started using vba it opened up so many other ways of dealing with data. I'm surprised I'm defending a microsoft product but I think excel is one of their best.

Re:Make google spreadsheet useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31474786)

no need to reply to the apple fanboi...
of course he's going to claim "usability" as a key feature of apple products, but without any proof hes just being a fanboy.

Re:Make google spreadsheet useful (1)

Doggabone (1025394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31487108)

Maybe in terms of usability (i don't know. never tried numbers) but it doesn't have a macro language.

Once I started using vba it opened up so many other ways of dealing with data. I'm surprised I'm defending a microsoft product but I think excel is one of their best.

Numbers has AppleScript and Automator support. I haven't played with it much, and I don't say that it's more or less than what VBA can do, but it's there.

Re:Make google spreadsheet useful (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 4 years ago | (#31475880)

but wasn't part of the reason that they were better was that they had support from the people that wrote the OS, and early access to what to expect from the OS? undocumented API calls, preloaded libraries to enable faster launching, and such?

Re:Make google spreadsheet useful (1)

ignavus (213578) | more than 4 years ago | (#31476156)

The issue you miss is: Microsoft leapt ahead of Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect when they brought out Windows 3. Excel on Windows 2 and MS Word for DOS were behind the leaders in their markets. The emergence of Windows 3.11 as a viable platform for business use gave the Microsoft products a competitive advantage. They were ready for the new environment (Lotus and WordPerfect were not) and they could keep ahead of the competition because they now owned both the OS/GUI and the office suite - a situation that has kept them on top ever since.

You might say that Lotus and WordPerfect bungled the transition. And Microsoft exploited their new market position as (integrated) supplier of OS (DOS), GUI (Windows on top of DOS), and office applications - something they have done well in other markets too (e.g. taking over the browser market from Netscape).

Microsoft's power is based on the mutual strength of Windows and Office, and further back on DOS as the launching pad for the other two. But Windows and Office are the killer combination - so much so that the average user often has difficulty telling them apart.

Re:Make google spreadsheet useful (1)

spage (73271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31489218)

The issue you miss is: Microsoft leapt ahead of Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect when they brought out Windows 3. ... They were ready for the new environment (Lotus and WordPerfect were not)

And these other companies weren't ready for the new environment because Microsoft told all the other major software makers that the wonderful new operating system OS/2 and its Presentation Manager window system, developed by Microsoft and a soon-to-be-ass-reamed IBM, was the future and that everyone should port their advanced applications to that. At the time many people considered Windows just a DOS extender with some toy windowed apps and some nifty tricks on the i386 to run old programs, while everyone heralded OS/2 as the next generation.

Pure underhand bastard marketing genius, read more about it [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Make google spreadsheet useful (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#31476870)

As much as I hate its quirks and idiosyncrasies, LaTeX is still hands-down the best tool for writing and managing a large document.

(La)TeX is only the best if you're doing really complex math. For image-heavy documents, it's not so good. Not that I'd accuse Word of being particularly great in that regard either. There are some very good tools in this area, but they're very expensive.

OTOH, Word's a lot better than it used to be for longer documents. Sure that's starting from a low base, but I've just been through a project where we were using it for that sort of thing extensively and the world didn't collapse. (Everyone else was using Word, so there wasn't much choice of format and Word certainly was better than OpenOffice at the time we started; you just have to pick your fights, and that wasn't one that it was worth chasing.) The trick to having manageable documents is to stick rigorously to using styles for text, i.e., to pretend you're writing LaTeX with a wysiwyg front end...

Re:Make google spreadsheet useful (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31480060)

For image-heavy documents, it's not so good. Not that I'd accuse Word of being particularly great in that regard either.

MS Publisher (or other DTP package of choice) is there for image heavy documents. Word processors were just never designed for image manipulation, I've never seen one that's good at it; that's why DTP packages were invented.

Re:Make google spreadsheet useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31512096)

Numbers has a better PARADIGM (individual spreadsheets on the same page), but it has faaaar less functionality than Excel and can't be used for lots of things. For example, where are pivot tables?

Re:Make google spreadsheet useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472718)

Yes, very silly. Google would never use its image of novel/modern to advance commercial goals. Excel ought to be replaced at the drop of a hat, because we know that nobody uses Excel as a tool while at the same time learning/accommodating for its subtleties and flaws.

Re:Make google spreadsheet useful? (0)

thomst (1640045) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473064)

Method: MakeGoogleSpreadsheetUseful

Error: unknown Method!

Had my hopes up... (0)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472126)

When I first saw the summary, I thought, "Apps script lets me automate tasks across multiple sites?! Finally!" Then I read the next few words, and it seems to be only for Google services. Oh well, better luck next time.

Re:Had my hopes up... (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472190)

...Yeah, because we all know how easy it is for sites to work together, right? What did you expect? Except for their own services, Google can't make other people implement a scripting language...

Re:Had my hopes up... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472308)

I was thinking more along the lines of a system that would allow me to write code that interacted with the HTML and Javascript in web pages, so that I could just write my own bridges between websites and not have to wait around for the owners to cooperate. I guess that is asking a lot though.

Re:Had my hopes up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472666)

Are you thinking along the lines of Yahoo Pipes [yahoo.com] ?

Re:Had my hopes up... (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472754)

wicked complicated greasemonkey scripts?

Re:Had my hopes up... (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473240)

So find a web host and get working. You can do that with some _very_ simple PHP - I have. I have a site that pulls news posts off of a facebook group and reformats them and such. It's about 10 lines of code. I also have an even smaller script that just pulls a specific text block off another page. And one that reads from an RSS feed. It's really not that hard.

http://php.net/manual/en/function.fopen.php [php.net]

Re:Had my hopes up... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31488542)

I was thinking more along the lines of a system that would allow me to write code that interacted with the HTML and Javascript in web pages, so that I could just write my own bridges between websites and not have to wait around for the owners to cooperate.

Well, if its XHTML from web pages, you can use the URLFetch service plus the XML service in App Script to do some of that, though App Script, with its run-manually approach, isn't really ideal for most situations where you'd want to build a bridge between different web services. For that, you want to build a an app that can poll & feed different sites autonomously -- which you can do with Google App Engine already.

Re:Had my hopes up... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31474548)

...Google can't make other people implement a scripting language...

Oh, we can't, can't we?

Re:Had my hopes up... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472208)

There are APIs to retrieve URLs and parse XML. So you should be able to pull content from other sites into Google docs. Output is probably more difficult.

So they've reinvented AJAX. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472252)

Fantastic, Google. You've reinvented AJAX.

Re:So they've reinvented AJAX. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472452)

For you, it's Googlajax Beta.

Re:So they've reinvented AJAX. (1)

buswolley (591500) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473850)

Wow, Googlajax was in Alpha.

Now Googla jax off to Beta?

Re:So they've reinvented AJAX. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31474124)

Ajax runs in the browser; this runs on the server. It also ties in with a spreadsheet app, which Ajax generally doesn't.

Re:So they've reinvented AJAX. (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31488738)

Fantastic, Google. You've reinvented AJAX.

App Script runs on the server side. Sure, the combination of URL Fetch and XML services let you do things generally similar to what you can do with AJAX in the browser, except on the server, not necessarily tied back to a single origin, and with an API integrating with Google Spreadsheets, Sites, Contacts, and Calendar, and Mail, among other services.

Re:Had my hopes up... (3, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472292)

Actually, I have tried to automate tasks using various scripting languages, but it is getting a lot harder to do as more and more sites using AJAX instead of plain old HTML. Even pulling down a web page is becoming hard, since many of the web sites I am required to work with use all manner of session cookies (naturally, there is Javascript involved in that too). If you know of some toolkit or program that can actually run the javascript in a webpage, and let me automate the tasks through that page, that would be awesome, but I have a feeling such an environment does not exist yet.

Re:Had my hopes up... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472376)

There are such toolkits. I'm not familiar with any of them, but search for 'Mechanize' to get you started (there are such named libraries for Perl, Ruby and Python...).

Jumping off from that search, the first obvious 'full featured' toolkit is this one:

http://watir.com/ [watir.com]

Re:Had my hopes up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472726)

QtWebkit - but you do need an X server to run it in.

Re:Had my hopes up... (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473592)

There are actually several environments like that. You might want to check out HTMLUnit [sourceforge.net] if you're a programmer. Alternatively the spammer community has done a great job of producing fully visual web-app automation environments, for instance, check out UBot Studio. If you can live with the presence of "solve captcha" and "generate random username" type commands and the community that comes with them, it might do what you want. Just be aware that a lot of websites treat screen scraping as abuse. Typically if they want to make data accessible there'll be an API, for instance Google offers REST APIs for many of its services.

Re:Had my hopes up... (1)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473764)

Four days ago I would have disagreed. And then youtube did an update that broke my scraper and I haven't been able to figure out how yet. That said, I'd much rather that approach than, say, apple. Google won't have a problem with you doing weird shit with their services for the most part. As long as it's not scaming or triggers their automated warnings in some way. But you're shit out of luck if your unsupported method breaks. While apple just plain does everything they can to lock you out of doing anything in a way they didn't intend.

Re:Had my hopes up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31500068)

There is a tool that provides fully scriptable full browser engine... it's called "Internet Explorer" and you can script it easily with python using IE's COM interface.

Take a look at http://pamie.sourceforge.net/

Re:Had my hopes up... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31488558)

There are APIs to retrieve URLs and parse XML. So you should be able to pull content from other sites into Google docs. Output is probably more difficult.

Since the URL fetch service supports the HTTP methods POST, PUT, and DELETE as well as GET, output is not much more difficult than input.

This is awesome! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472202)

Wow, this is really fantastic. Now Google's web apps are almost comparable to The Microsoft Office for Windows 3.0, from 1992, which had VBA scripting support, in addition to COM interoperability. There are only 20 more years of catching up to do!

Re:This is awesome! (2, Interesting)

olabri (671546) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473056)

Some would argue though that that version of Office is superior to the current one...

Re:This is awesome! (1)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473212)

Any guess how many COM developers there were at COM/ActiveX's peak in the late 90s?

Any guess how many web/XML/AJAX developers there are?

So much for Microsoft 1992 scripting and interoperability.

Re:This is awesome! (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31475662)

...and UNIX has had shell-scripting for 30-odd years and Perl since 1987.

From a configuration and data manipulation perspective, as well as piping data between applications, there is nothing simpler than manipulating straightforward & boring text files.

It's because Microsoft went down the closed standards and proprietary formats path that there became a need to have a language like VB to work within the locked-down environment. So please don't credit Microsoft with anything innovative, VB just acts as a means to an end but was just "re-inventing the wheel" because of proprietary standards.

think online php/ajax gaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472234)

/.
and thank you google
ya know given the corporate climate of the usa i'll say it they are for there size a dare i say it sometimes nicer company
even if they go and accuse the chinese govt of hacking when the times shows there are tons of chinese hackers for hire that ....well you get the idea

This story is a troll (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472786)

" including you Google Docs low-lifers."

Fuck you theodp.

Re:This story is a troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31473408)

Seconded

Re:This story is a troll (1)

longhairedgnome (610579) | more than 4 years ago | (#31474006)

I found that interestin, what is the summary implying with that comment?

Flog me if you will... (3, Insightful)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473884)

...but am I the only person here who senses an innate danger to entrusting one's data to a for-profit entity? I simply cannot fathom a scenario in which I would create a business-critical or personal spreadsheet to be stored on a Google server. Google's business is data mining, plain and simple. They certainly aren't offering all of these services out of the goodness of their corporate heart (if there is such a thing). Therefore, there must be some deeper motives at play. Yet, there are those who run around breathlessly extolling every move that Google makes.

Who are these people who would entrust every detail of their business and personal life to a for-profit company? I would have thought the /. crowd, of all groups, would be asking the difficult questions.

I find the relative silence concerning these issues both disconcerting and scary.

Re:Flog me if you will... (1)

Colz Grigor (126123) | more than 4 years ago | (#31474766)

Who are these people who would entrust every detail of their business and personal life to a for-profit company?

Chances are, it's you.

Do you have business-critical conversations over the telephone? Few suspected AT&T would open up their network to the NSA to listen to your conversations [eff.org] .

Do you use a social network to share with your acquaintances? Can you trust Facebook to keep your messages private [wsj.com] ?

Do you do anything on the Internet? If so, can you trust your service provider to not be doing the same sort of thing?

People trust companies with this sort of information all the time, but in the end we tend to continue to trust these companies until they do something to lose our trust. In the end, trust is just another economic value proposition; we weigh the cost of trusting with the cost of not trusting, and so far Google hasn't done anything to erode my trust. They came close with Buzz, but the end result was that they saw that they could improve things, and they did.

I've never seen Google sell the information it collects. Yes, it does perform data analysis, but it does this using automated systems in order to better-target their advertising, which is a far cry from my idea of "data mining". The closest that they come to data mining is with their GoogleGeist aggregated analysis, which they give away for free to everyone. Not offering services "out of the goodness of their corporate heart" doesn't have to be nearly as nefarious as you would lead us to conclude. I'm not saying that Google doesn't have the potential to become evil or careless, but I am saying that I don't think they have yet.

And yes, everyone, please keep asking these difficult questions. But don't try to lead us to false conclusions by asserting false assumptions, especially about Google's "silence" [blogspot.com] . We're smarter than that...

Re:Flog me if you will... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31476036)

Who are these people who would entrust every detail of their business and personal life to a for-profit company?

Chances are, it's you.

Do you have business-critical conversations over the telephone? Few suspected AT&T would open up their network to the NSA to listen to your conversations [eff.org]

That's why I go secure [wikipedia.org] for all my phone conversations.

Re:Flog me if you will... (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 4 years ago | (#31478952)

...but am I the only person here who senses an innate danger to entrusting one's data to a for-profit entity? I simply cannot fathom a scenario in which I would create a business-critical or personal spreadsheet to be stored on a Google server.

I use Google spreadsheets to share the monthly bills with room mates and grocery shopping expenses.

Though I don't know if that is business mission critical... I wouldn't be upset if someone saw or destroyed that data.

Re:Flog me if you will... (1)

verdante (1661279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31479278)

...but am I the only person here who senses an innate danger to entrusting one's data to a for-profit entity?

Google is for-profit? I thought it was just ad-supported...

Re:Flog me if you will... (1)

trickyD1ck (1313117) | more than 4 years ago | (#31479506)

am I the only person here who senses an innate danger to entrusting one's data to a for-profit entity?

I would rather entrust anything to a for-profit entity than to a non-profit one. With for-profits it is clear that their goal is to make money and that they will behave in line with this goal. Non-profits on the other hand must have some different agenda which may be very well hidden and which I think should be a subject of concern.

Re:Flog me if you will... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31488670)

They certainly aren't offering all of these services out of the goodness of their corporate heart (if there is such a thing). Therefore, there must be some deeper motives at play.

While there is a free version, Google Apps tied to private domains are a commercial offering. The free version builds a user (and, now with App Script, developer) community with familiarity with the commercial product. Having users familiar with the product and developers targeting both are tools to reduce barriers to corporate acceptance.

Similarly, other "free" offerings from Google do one or more of the following:
1. Provide an advertising venue (advertising being Google's principle revenue stream), or
2. Build a user/developer community for a for-pay service (or serve as a limited demo)
3. Create pressure on other vendors of certain classes of product (e.g., Chrome with web browsers) to implement features that Google wants to be widely implemented so that they can be leveraged by its other offerings.

None of these motives are particularly hidden.

Welcome to vendor lock-in++ (3, Insightful)

dirkdodgers (1642627) | more than 4 years ago | (#31474002)

When you tie yourself to Microsoft Office you have physical possession of the software and they can't change it from under you. When you buy a copy of Microsoft Office and use it to script your business and finance operations, you can count on it continuing to work for 10 years, no question, as long as you can keep the hardware running, and then as long as you can run the OS in a VM.

With Google, they can change the software and scripting interfaces right under your nose and there's nothing you can do about. It's not even vendor lock-in, it's customer SOL, because unless you are willing and able to update your solution to use the new interface, that changes every 6 months or a year, knowing Google, you are SOL.

And the problem is largest for the customers who are most likely to want to take advantage of this: home and small businesses. They're the ones who are least able to take on 3 months of development on short notice to update their scripts to Google App Script x.x++. That will put a home or small business under.

Advance warning: do not allow another company to control your software upgrade cycle for critical business infrastructure, or they will control you.

Re:Welcome to vendor lock-in++ (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31475612)

Advance warning: do not allow another company to control your software upgrade cycle for critical business infrastructure, or they will control you.

It sounds to me that the above statement applies equally as much to Microsoft as it does to Google!

Businesses require software support & accountability for in-house applications (perhaps the main reason why Linux hasn't been that well adopted in the Enterprise up till now) and if they are perfectly happy running Office 2000 or 2003 and Windows 2000 or XP, then isn't it just the same thing when Microsoft ends support for those products and forces them to upgrade?

My company is still using XP and Office 2003, I just got given a new Lenovo laptop after my Dell laptop went out of three-year warranty, and in actuality, for the first time ever there's very little change in specification between the two - they're both widescreen laptops based on Intel Dual Core CPUs.

What this says to me is that for general business use, Microsoft has really run out of ideas now & has nothing new to offer them from a feature perspective. Therefore, they are forcing upgrades just to guarantee the income stream...

Re:Welcome to vendor lock-in++ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31475718)

As the GP stated, even if Microsoft ends support for a product, you can still use it, you just won't get tech support for it. There are still companies running stuff on NT and Win9x because it still works for them.

Compare this to software-as-a-service, which ends as soon as the hosting company no longer wants to maintain it.

Now, desktop software can run into the same problem with DRM, if the company takes down the DRM servers. In the past, corporate editions of Windows have been exempted from the whole Genuine Advantage thing, but I'm not sure if that's still available.

Re:Welcome to vendor lock-in++ (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31475762)

As the GP stated, even if Microsoft ends support for a product, you can still use it, you just won't get tech support for it. There are still companies running stuff on NT and Win9x because it still works for them.

Yes, but the reason they *can* still run those is that, at best, all you had to do was put in a license key that was validated within the OS itself - i.e. once you put the correct key in, it's never checked again and you can use it as long as you like.

I don't claim to be a full-blown Windows expert but as I understand it, the purpose of WGA is to regularly check the license key of, say, Windows XP; by implication I take that to mean that even under a corporate license, that key can be set to expire by Microsoft at any point they choose.

Re:Welcome to vendor lock-in++ (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31524466)

Except MS doesn't randomly expire keys for kicks and giggles.

Re:Welcome to vendor lock-in++ (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31476168)

> Businesses require software support & accountability for in-house
> applications (perhaps the main reason why Linux hasn't been that well
> adopted in the Enterprise up till now)

Support and accountability are readily available for Linux. The difference is that if your support betrays you, you are not SOL.

Re:Welcome to vendor lock-in++ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31525642)

Support and accountability are readily available for Linux.

LOL!

Re:Welcome to vendor lock-in++ (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 4 years ago | (#31478972)

When you tie yourself to Microsoft Office you have physical possession of the software and they can't change it from under you. When you buy a copy of Microsoft Office and use it to script your business and finance operations, you can count on it continuing to work for 10 years, no question, as long as you can keep the hardware running, and then as long as you can run the OS in a VM.

Hallooo!

2 points I would like to make:

1. You can download your Google information into txt or csv files which basically can be used by any program out there.

2. Microsoft ninja'd properitaried office 2007 with the whole .docx and .xlsx and although you could plod happily along with your office 97, if you sent your file to someone else who had Office 2007 and then worked on your file, saved it, and sent it back to you then your SOL by default. You could email the person back and say, "Hey this file doesn't work for me? Save it in the old version in the Save As page"... Well depending on the person YMMV.

Oh and something I thought of in addition...

3. Thirdly... Old hardware breaks and floppy disks decay.

XLA add-in for excel? (1)

Vo1t (1079521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31474194)

What about Google writing App Script interpreter for Excel? Would that be helpful for migrating away from Excel to Apps?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?