Re: [discuss] Re: Reason corporates won't touch OO.o

2005-05-22 Thread Ian Lynch
On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 17:01 +0200, Mathias Bauer wrote: > I think you and Chad take your personal experience too seriously. There is a marketing issue in all this. If people have a file problem with MSO they will tend to say "oh, that's just bad luck, all technology has some peoblems and I just h

[discuss] re:updating OO and dictionaries

2005-05-22 Thread adrian Greeman
I really was trying to make a discussion point with my recent query about dictionary transfer (I read it on the digest again and it looks only like a "how to" question). The point is - it is important to me as a user to be able to keep the dictionaries and things I build up and easily transfer

Re: [discuss] Re: Reason corporates won't touch OO.o

2005-05-22 Thread Sophie Gautier
Hi all, I'm jumping here. For those of you who are able to read French, the consortium MutualInfo, which is grouping 3 corporates : EDF/GDF (energy) Peugeot/PSA (cars) and National Education in France, has written a white paper on the influence of alternative suites in corporations, you'll fi

Re: [discuss] Re: Reason corporates won't touch OO.o

2005-05-22 Thread Nicolas Mailhot
Sophie Gautier a écrit : Hi all, I'm jumping here. For those of you who are able to read French, the consortium MutualInfo, which is grouping 3 corporates : EDF/GDF (energy) EDF and Gaz de France are separating so I guess we can say 4 corporates now :) (Never write/say GDF BTW - the peop

[discuss] Re: Re: Reason corporates won't touch OO.o

2005-05-22 Thread Andrew Brown
Jonathon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > He _will_ have to upgrade. No ifs, ands, or buts,. > > MSO97 can not correctly read files created by MSO98, MSOXP, MSO2003. > > There are some _major_ differences in the file formt between MSO97, > and MSOXP. > I don't kn

Re: [discuss] Re: Re: Reason corporates won't touch OO.o

2005-05-22 Thread Rigel
Andrew. Please refer to the archive for this thread on the OOo discuss web site, in the message archives. The confusion has long since been resolved, at least as far as I'm concerned. Rigel On 5/22/05, Andrew Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jonathon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > news:[E