I love this assertion:
“likely been used to raise more money than any other tool in history”
This is a spectacular article. The back story or it taking over military presentations is something I had never heard of or considered. Naively I also never thought about what it replaced… thinking back to my grade school days I vividly remember overhead transparencies and of course those went away as soon as this became available.
For my own part I’ve been Linux-only for about a dozen years now. I had used LibreOffice for slideshows but have of late been using Google Slides. I’ve seen a few talks where I know people are using Linux machines and using something else. Can anyone shed some light on other FOSS presentation software I might try?
I always use S5 – it’s not the same kind of tool, but the result is similar :)
I know profs usually use LaTeX (well, compiled to PDF)
For quick and dirty presentations with little fanfare, I’ve used sent. As with most suckless.org tools, it definitely lives up to the standard of “do one thing.” (I’m not sure about the “do it well” part, though :) )
For presentation part, some people use Impressive once they have a PDF to present (or a set of images). I guess some people like Suckless sent (which presents plaint-text files and can also show an image instead of a slide).
To create the presentation PDF, those who use LaTeX for other needs often use the beamer package.
Criticizing PowerPoint isn’t a new genre of course, but this article goes much more in-depth than most, covering some of the history of how PowerPoint (initially Presenter) evolved, gained adoption in different fields, and changed speech conventions in those fields. I found it an interesting read, anyway.
If you like this, also see this recent BBC Radio 4: PowerPointless http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b092r9j0
From there I found about the Swiss Anti-PowerPoint Party :-D
If part of the argument against PowerPoint here is that it’s less about knowledge transmission and more about collaboration/agreement/consensus, why do the authors then go on to suggest a multi-screen format? Isn’t that effectively just a multi-dimensional representation of the same tool they’re arguing against?