Go ahead. If my memory serves me right there was an OpenErp booth at the last FOSDEM. I'll go talk to them then.
Best, Charles. Immanuel Giulea <giulea.imman...@gmail.com> a écrit : >There was an OpenERP meetup in Montreal recently. I can get in touch >with >the local people here. > >Immanuel >On Dec 29, 2012 5:12 PM, "Charles-H. Schulz" < >charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Anybody knows someone at openerp? Otherwise I'l lcontact them. >> >> Best, >> Charles. >> >> >> Italo Vignoli <italo.vign...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> >Sorry for top posting, but I think that the idea of creating a wiki >> >page >> >where we can brainstorm about the selling points for Windows (as >> >Microsoft document is focused on Windows, which is their cash cow) >is >> >very good. All the points that have been raised so far are extremely >> >good, and I think that we should pick them and paste in a starting >> >document. >> > >> >I am currently working at the final version of the migration and >> >training protocol for certification, and I do not have the time for >> >creating this wiki page for a few days. Anyone could create the page >> >though, in the Marketing area of TDF wiki: >> > >> >https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing >> > >> >I would call the page "Selling Point vs MS Office", because this is >the >> >summary of the contents. >> > >> >Marc can definitely help in creating the page, if someone has >problems >> >with the wiki. >> > >> >I am definitely interested in helping with the contents, once I will >> >have finished working on the certification protocols. >> > >> >On 12/29/12 10:07 PM, Jay Lozier wrote: >> >> On 12/29/2012 01:12 PM, Immanuel Giulea wrote: >> >>> Well to be fair, I raised three points that seemed to me were the >> >>> arguments of MS feature-wise. >> >>> >> >>> Other arguments are listed, and my suggestion was to create a new >> >wiki >> >>> page where we could compare (side-by-side) LO and MSO. >> >>> >> >>> Summary of arguments from MS against LO >> >>> >> >>> *Arguments about $$* >> >>> >> >>> * Total costs: Business impact; like software issues, >integration, >> >>> incompatibility, run-time errors, downtime, unreliable >support >> >and >> >>> security vulnerability. >> >>> >> >> Unreliable support? MS normally offers very limited direct user >> >support >> >> - 1 or 2 incidents max if I remember correctly. Most user support >> >will >> >> be from a help desk (internal or external). If it is from MS it is >> >via >> >> separate contract or additional costs to the licensing agreement. >> >> Security is a joke because MS is notorious for shipping insecure >> >> products. Run-time errors? What about BSOD for Windows? >Integration >> >and >> >> incompatibility are very nebulous - do they mean file formats or >> >being >> >> able to access the program from another? The first is really MSO >not >> >> following standards and the later is a programming issue. >> >>> >> >>> * Total benefit: Such as reliable supports, updates, >> >accessibility, >> >>> and security. >> >>> >> >>> * Integration cost: The cost associated when you decide to use >a >> >>> different software platform. >> >>> >> >> Different software platform - do they mean OS? If so, LO does this >> >> better even if the OS/distro is not officially support because the >> >> source code is available and can be compiled by someone for a very >> >> specific platform. With MSO, if a version is not provide you have >no >> >> options (Linux version available). >> >>> >> >>> * Management: Can it be easily managed? Large companies tend to >> >have >> >>> this issue because they don't have a unified system. >> >>> >> >> This is truly a management problem, is the management competent? >> >>> >> >>> * Deployment costs: Can it handle corporate size business >> >>> productivity? In addition to the compromise or extra benefits >of >> >>> software alternatives. >> >>> >> >> Software suitability should be determined for each case. There is >no >> >> blanket answer for this. MS is implying that MSO is the only >answer >> >for >> >> businesses when in fact it is often not. Often the issue is that a >> >> company has an installed base of VB macros, etc for MSO that would >> >need >> >> porting to LO >> >>> >> >>> * OpenOffice/LibreOffice does not provide the same depth of >> >>> functionality as Microsoft Office as a result do not meet the >> >>> needs of some end users. This will force your organization to >> >>> manage multiple software suites potentially increasing IT >costs. >> >>> >> >> No software meets the needs of all users because all are >> >design/feature >> >> compromises. >> >>> >> >>> * When running a mixed software environment you are also >running >> >the >> >>> risk of interoperability issues which could further increase >IT >> >>> and helpdesk costs, inhibit productivity, and generate end >users >> >>> frustration. >> >>> >> >> Most companies standardize on the software tools as much as >possible >> >to >> >> reduce these costs. However no single program/suite will cover all >> >user >> >> needs so to some degree there will be a mixed software >environment. >> >>> >> >>> * Additional factors that could create higher costs include >> >>> integration with your existing systems and applications like >ERP >> >>> and content management systems and software updates. >> >>> >> >> This is more of issue with the ERP and CMS software not LO per se. >> >They >> >> can support LO if required by contract or if the vendor desires. >> >>> >> >>> * *LibreOffice*/OpenOffice *does not allow for incremental >> >software >> >>> updates. *Instead it requires a complete uninstall and >reinstall >> >>> every time you need to update the software. >> >>> >> >> How difficult are Windows/Mac updates? I use Linux. I am not sure >> >this >> >> is a major issue if the updates are handle uninstall/reinstall >> >without >> >> user intervention. >> >> >> >> The cost argument is mostly bogus because it ignores the >> >> purchase/licensing costs for MSO while LO/AOO are free for >unlimited >> >> installations. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> *Arguments more about features* >> >>> >> >>> * Office drives increasing business value through innovations >that >> >>> span basic functionality, like copy and paste, to >> >>> advanced features like business intelligence. >> >>> >> >> How? Most of the "business intelligence" I am aware of is located >in >> >> databases outside of MSO/LO thus the issue is interfacing >> >(Base/Access) >> >> or importing the data (Calc/Excel). Importing data is fairly easy >> >with >> >> Calc and Base can interface with many relational database backends >if >> >> desired. >> >>> >> >>> * LibreOffice/OpenOffice does not deliver a complete >productivity >> >>> suite. Critical components like email and calendaring are >> >absent, >> >>> not to mention equivalent software to Publisher, OneNote, >> >Business >> >>> Contact Manager and SharePoint Workspace. >> >>> >> >> If they are so valuable why do some versions of MSO not include >them? >> >> Also, can the feature be done within LO >> >> (Publisher/OneNote/BusinessContactManager) using the existing >> >components? >> >>> >> >>> * LibreOffice / OpenOffice also lack some commonly used >> >components, >> >>> for instance; they do not ship with commonly used >functionality >> >>> like user friendly ribbons, clipart, SmartArt or Pivot >Charts. >> >>> >> >> Ribbons user friendly? Many find them poorly designed. >> >Clipart/SmartArt >> >> IMHO nice but not very necessary. Pivot Charts I am not sure >about. >> >>> >> >>> * Organizations may have to fill these application gaps with >> >product >> >>> extensions, additional software or customizations adding to >cost >> >>> and complexity. >> >>> >> >>> >> >> And they do not with MSO? The main issue for LO is that is a large >> >> number of third part extensions available for MSO to extend >> >> functionality that would need to be created if the functionality >does >> >> not already exist in LO. >> >> >> >>> *Arguments about collaboration* >> >>> >> >>> * Collaboration technology should facilitate ease of sharing, >and >> >>> trust in the fidelity of information shared. To facilitate >> >>> collaboration, Office 2010 has many new features including >> >>> co-authoring, integration with the Microsoft Unified >> >>> Communications technologies in addition to the new online >> >>> companion applications, the Office Web Applications. >> >>> >> >> IMHO, MS is trying to slowly convert everyone to renting MSO by >using >> >> Office Web Applications. This renting is more lucrative in the >long >> >run; >> >> lots of "small" monthly fees forever versus a one time purchase. >When >> >> the true costs are analyzed many may reject this model. For many >the >> >> major reason to upgrade from MSO XP to MSO 2013 is because XP does >> >not >> >> support the MSOX file format. There are no new features they need >> >beyond >> >> what XP already has they need. MS dropping support may not be a >real >> >> issue for some, they are occasional users and security issues may >not >> >be >> >> that critical. >> >> >> >> Pushing a limited use feature for many - collaboration - as the >> >reason >> >> for renting MSO online as the reason for this. The are very few >truly >> >> new features most users want in LO or MSO that would get them >excited >> >> about a new release. For MS this means most people would then buy >the >> >> new version for the new feature. This means for any office suite >many >> >> users will delay upgrading to a newer version for sometime just to >> >avoid >> >> the cost/aggravation of updating. I suspect MS is seeing this >trend >> >with >> >> business users and is trying find some other way to separate them >> >from >> >> their money. Thus the push for online collaboration. I can >remember >> >when >> >> spell checkers were added and people really wanted the new version >> >for >> >> the spell checking. >> >>> >> >>> * People using OpenOffice/LibreOffice are limited to using >> >>> disparate email and document repositories to share and >> >>> edit documents one person at a time. To take advantage of >> >advanced >> >>> collaboration technologies will require additional software >and >> >>> possibly more customization. In addition to sharing >documents, >> >>> information formatting integrity is critical. >> >>> >> >> There are no external users? As soon as the an external user is >added >> >> this argument falls apart, they must access the document outside >the >> >> original organizations IT domain. Also, if the all the users are >> >> internal why can they not access the documents on the internal >> >server? >> >> This would seem to much simpler than the convoluted methods MS is >> >> talking about. >> >>> >> >>> * LibreOfice/OpenOffice can read and output many file types, >> >however >> >>> vital information like formatting structures, calculations, >> >>> layout, and macros may not be preserved when sharing with non >> >>> OpenOffice/LibreOffice users. >> >>> >> >> What about MSO file type/version incompatibilities. Macros are a >> >problem >> >> but they are also a serious security risk. Document layout is >often >> >> determined by system default settings and the printer settings. I >> >have >> >> seen different printers re-paginate a document because of >mechanical >> >> issues when printing from the same computer. >> >>> >> >>> * Whether you have a mixed group of users or plan to share >> >documents >> >>> with people outside of your organization you may not be able >to >> >>> trust that people receive the document with the intended >content >> >>> and formatting. >> >>> >> >> See above, also what do the external users need to have; are they >> >> involved in editing the document? LO offers better PDF exporting >than >> >> MSO and often this is a better format for sharing with external >> >users. >> >>> >> >>> *Security/Sensitive information* >> >>> >> >>> * OpenOffice/LibreOffice are limited to only password >protecting >> >>> files. Although password protected documents can be >effective, >> >>> they do not ensure security and may cause additional >complexity. >> >>> >> >> Older versions of MSO used a weak password protection scheme. >> >Password >> >> protection is useful in some situations but it is limited to the >> >> strength of the password. The "complexity" of password protection >> >must >> >> be judged in context of the security needs for the specific >document >> >and >> >> the overall system security. Also, user level protection schemes >> >beyond >> >> passwords are dubious, IMHO, because most users do not really >> >understand >> >> the security methods/models to properly use them. >> >>> >> >>> * Advantage and also weakness of OpenOffice/LibreOffice for >being >> >an >> >>> open source software means that many users have the ability >> >>> to alter the state of the software by integrating their >> >>> own design, which could lead to security vulnerability issue. >> >>> >> >> Truly, how many people actually do this? I think in practical >terms >> >this >> >> more a theoretical issue than a practical one. Most users and >> >> organizations (vast majority?) are not going to modify the code. >> >Also, >> >> this could be a benefit for a large corporation to customize there >> >> office suite to better suit their needs. I think IBM did this OO >with >> >> Symphony. >> >>> >> >>> * Microsoft Office provides a robust set of features for >securing >> >>> documents that reduces the risk and cumbersomeness of >password >> >>> only protection. >> >>> >> >> MS security implementations have historically been poor so what >> >robust >> >> features? Also, are these features protecting against MS >stupidities >> >> which LO does not support anyway. >> >>> >> >>> * Information Rights Management (IRM) allows individuals and >> >>> administrators to specify permissions to documents, >workbooks, >> >and >> >>> presentations. This helps prevent sensitive information from >> >being >> >>> printed, forwarded, or copied by unauthorized people. After >> >>> permission for a file has been restricted using IRM, the >access >> >>> and usage restrictions are enforced no matter where the >> >>> information is. >> >>> >> >> I doubt most users would correctly use this feature, they are not >> >system >> >> administrators. This sounds good but can the system be bypassed by >> >> anyone logging in with valid user credentials or by some with >valid >> >> credentials modifying the permissions? >> >>> >> >>> *Arguments about "Cloud"* >> >>> >> >>> * OpenOffice/LibreOffice does not provide any other deployment >> >>> option besides the desktop. >> >>> >> >> IMHO, cloud deployment will be secondary for most users, most of >the >> >> time. The primary issue for users is having the tools available >and >> >> access to the files. If the user has access to both the tools >(local) >> >> and the files (external) this issue is moot. See above comment >about >> >> renting software. >> >>> >> >>> * Microsoft provides a seamless experience across the PC, >phone, >> >>> and browser. >> >>> >> >> Really, Linux users can not use MSO and LO can be compiled/ported >to >> >> other devices because the code is available Compiling/porting is >not >> >> trivial. MSO is limited to what MS supports (or not supports) >> >>> >> >>> *Future-looking arguments* >> >>> >> >>> * OpenOffice/LibreOffice may be limited in providing the next >> >>> generation of productivity, cloud computing, lacking the >> >ecosystem >> >>> of enabling server and consumer collaboration technologies >> >>> likeSharePoint and SkyDrive. >> >>> >> >> Dropbox? UbuntuOne? AmazonWeb? There are several services for >sharing >> >> files between remote users. The only issue is which to chose. >Also, >> >IMHO >> >> MS is pushing cloud centric models to drive users to a rental >model >> >for >> >> MSO. If the data is in the cloud why not have the have MSO in the >> >cloud >> >> and charge a monthly rental fee to access both? MS probably hopes >to >> >> make more money this way. >> >> >> >> I have one rule: If sales/marketing is pushing a "solution" I ask, >> >"Does >> >> the solution really benefit me or does it benefit the vendor?" For >> >most >> >> cloud models, I do not see any benefit for renting software for me >> >but >> >> considerable benefit for the vendor. I see some benefit for >sharing >> >> documents between devices and others and this can be done >> >independently >> >> of any software. >> >>> >> >>> * Choosing Microsoft Office will help ensure that you can take >> >>> advantage of the next generation of productivity software. >> >>> >> >> Pure marketing hype. Also, how many new features do users need? >IMHO, >> >> most users would like improved implementations of existing >features >> >not >> >> many truly new features. Make the software better at what it does >and >> >> make useful but obscure features more accessible/visible. For >example >> >I >> >> like any improvements for importing and exporting MSOX formats >since >> >I >> >> receive them periodically. But this is not a new feature but >> >improvement >> >> to an existing feature. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Is it possible to add this to a wiki or something please. We can >> >work >> >>> on it collaboratively :) >> >> +1 - see inline comments >> >>> >> >>> Cheers, >> >>> >> >>> Immanuel >> >> >> >> Summary: >> >> >> >> Most of MS' talking points are about collaboration with others. LO >> >> offers tools for collaboration with others so this is not the real >> >> issue. The issue to MS is that LO does not offer a cloud version >but >> >> this ignores what really is needed for collaboration. What is >really >> >> needed is the ability to share files with other users and numerous >> >> methods services are available to do this. Where the LO is >installed >> >is >> >> not critical along as users have access to LO. IMHO, MS is trying >to >> >> push a software rental model using the cloud versus a software >> >purchase >> >> model. The rental model is likely to make more money for MS over >the >> >> life of the product. Assuming an annual rental of about $300 >> >($25/month) >> >> one can easily spend more over time than if they purchased. LO and >> >AOO >> >> use the purchase model, the user installs locally but since LO and >> >AOO >> >> are both free the user has unlimited downloads/installs to any >> >device. >> >> >> >> Another point is that MS is saying they support a wide variety of >> >> devices which is not strictly true, they do not support many OS'. >LO >> >and >> >> AOO have many official versions available for many devices but >> >because >> >> the source code is available users are able to compile/port either >to >> >> any device. One can argue LO and AOO can potentially support all >> >devices >> >> on the market while MS only supports selected devices/OS' with >> >> unsupported users having no options. >> >> >> >> IMHO the MS security features are probably more dangerous because >> >they >> >> allow untrained users to make important security decisions. While >> >there >> >> are potential benefits the problem is that most users are well >versed >> >in >> >> security issues. Thus they are liable to make serious mistakes >when >> >> implementing anything beyond password protection of a document. >Also, >> >MS >> >> has a long, dismal history with security issues so why should one >> >assume >> >> they implemented best practices. >> >> >> >> Most direct feature comparisons are disingenuous because LO/AOO >often >> >> implement the same feature/functionality differently. Some cases >> >LO/AOO >> >> has a better implementation and in some cases MSO has the better >one. >> >> Also, when one downloads LO/AOO one gets the entire suite while >MSO >> >is >> >> offered with different retail selections so direct comparison >should >> >> specify which MSO retail selection is being discussed. LO is >clearly >> >> more feature rich than the less expensive MSO variants by virtue >of >> >> including everything. >> >> >> >> Integration with Outlook, IMHO, sounds good but is really not that >> >> useful and the principal functionality can be replaced by other >FOSS >> >> options. >> > >> >-- >> >Italo Vignoli - italo.vign...@gmail.com >> >mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP 5316...@messagenet.it >> >skype italovignoli - gtalk italo.vign...@gmail.com >> > >> >-- >> >Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to >> >marketing+h...@global.libreoffice.org >> >Problems? >> >>http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >> >Posting guidelines + more: >> >http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >> >List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/ >> >All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot >be >> >deleted >> >> -- >> Envoyé de mon téléphone avec Kaiten Mail. Excusez la brièveté. >> -- >> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to >marketing+h...@global.libreoffice.org >> Problems? >> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >> Posting guidelines + more: >http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/ >> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot >be >> deleted >> > >-- >Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to >marketing+h...@global.libreoffice.org >Problems? >http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >Posting guidelines + more: >http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/ >All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be >deleted -- Envoyé de mon téléphone avec Kaiten Mail. Excusez la brièveté. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
