Hi Michael, Michael Weghorn wrote: > In my opinion (and from own experience at the City of Munich), > LibreOffice (and other FLOSS software) is often not suitable for many > large enterprises "as is", so a good way of managing the lifecycle and > getting issues addressed (i.e. professional support of some kind) is > required to make it work well and users happy. > Seconded. And it's one of the greatest advantages of FLOSS in the enterprise - people can absolutely tailor it to their _specific_ needs and requirements, by adding the features & fixes they need.
That's particularly appealing to larger-scale deployments (where economies of scale offer good value-for-money on a per-user price). Would be great to market this better. > The problem is that if management was persuaded it was a good idea > to introduce LibreOffice just because it's "free as in free beer", > you won't have (and will have a hard time getting) the resources to > handle issues appropriately, so it's better to avoid wrong > expectations. > Quite. This situation is bad for the company, bad for the users, _and_ bad for us in the project. And it's sometimes ~impossible to change minds after the fact. So for LibreOffice, past mistakes of "overselling" to the enterprise (though I believe we inherited many of those wrong expectations from OOo) are coming back to haunt us now. Cheers, -- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
