Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
Little things that matter in language design
Not being familiar with EndNote I can only wonder why the OOo Tools > Bibliography Database is not good enough?
Mostly a matter of the network effect
Posted Jan 19, 2006 12:10 UTC (Thu) by fredrik (subscriber, #232)
network effect, BibTeX
Posted Jan 19, 2006 13:18 UTC (Thu) by pjm (subscriber, #2080)
The BibTeX format is plain text and well-understood: see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BibTeX. The aforementioned http://bib2web.djvuzone.org/bibtex.html points to converters between BibTeX and numerous other important bibliographic formats.
The EndNote web site refers to ftp://support.isiresearchsoft.com/pub/bibtex/ for (apparently Macintosh-only) conversion between BibTeX and EndNote; where one finds ftp://support.isiresearchsoft.com/pub/bibtex/bibtex_expor... which gives the impression that all of the limitations in converting between the two formats are due to limitations in the EndNote format rather than in the BibTeX format.
It may thus be more profitable to seek compatibility between OpenOffice and BibTeX than trying to track a proprietary product like EndNote.
See http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_So... for OpenOffice.org's wiki page on bibliographic software.
Posted Jan 21, 2006 21:36 UTC (Sat) by liamh (subscriber, #4872)
OOo biblio database SUCKS!! (at least in 1.1.3)
Posted Jan 23, 2006 1:11 UTC (Mon) by hazelsct (guest, #3659)
It was excruciatingly painful. Bad. Horrendus. So dreadful, that after the edits to the text, I copied and pasted the whole thing into emacs/LaTeX, and re-did the bibliography using BibTeX.
First, entries such as author, title, etc. were length-constrained to about THIRTY CHARACTERS! What the hell??? Almost all of the articles I cited had longer titles or lists of authors.
Second, the default formats absolutely SUCKED! And when a field was missing (e.g. booktitle, editor), it just put two commas with blank space between them: "Author, Title, , , 2004.!" At least BibTeX can sanely deal with missing fields.
Third, the bibliography did not auto-regenerate when new entries were added, and there was no way to re-generate the bibliography!
Fourth, I share config files among a bunch of machines using rsync, and some machines used the database in .openoffice/1.0.1/database/biblio, others in 1.1.1, others in 1.1.0. What the hell??? All of these machines are using identical versions of Debian sarge and identical .openoffice tree, why can some of them open the database and others not??
Version 2.0(.1) may be much better, but that they could let such a piece of crap get released has forever soured me in using OOo for any document involving a database, which for me is just about everything.
Sorry about the all-caps, this was such a nuisance to me for the past few days I'm a bit emotional about it just now. Meanwhile, I'm upgrading to Debian etch with OOo 2.0. In the meantime, BibTeX users considering a migration should "caveat scriptor".
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds