True, and I agree "anything non-MS" is in general positive step, but given that Microsoft's greatest power lies in marketing I do feel it would be more beneficial to at least try to prevent complete dissolution of the MS alternatives. If OOo is one option within a sea of dozens of products that all "look just like it," how will the general masses ever know what product to use? If they buy "FlyByNight Office Pro" that disappears two months later, when they need an upgrade they'll take another look at Microsoft. Tell that person about OOo, and will they think it's any better than the other Brand X clones?
I know they won't, because I do personally try to promote OOo to friends and family who's humble needs fit OOo perfectly. It's not about cost; they want convenience and peace of mind. I have in-laws that for example just purchased $1500 worth of new PC hardware when they only needed a $500 model. They liked the brand name and "complete package" advertising (and yes it came with MSO). Average users can't tell the difference, but will always pay for convenience. If OOo is ever to compete on that scale, then some attempt to reign in the "re-labelers" needs to be made. What sane person would want to dig through all the choices when they know Microsoft Office is a tested, mainstream option. It's a simple brand identity problem, and until the "real things" actively market that they are the source of the clones, people won't know or likely even care. Now it would be nice to see one of these clones clearly state the source of all their products and sell purely on their value-add of packaging and support. That would at least show they care about open source. Red Hat Enterprise is a great example of a quality open source company that sells valuable services on top of the piece of mind. If you don't want the shiny Red Hat box, go download CentOS to get the exact same Linux product without support. Both of those releases are clear and open about their technologies, and CentOS used to specifically mention Ret Hat on their site till they were asked to removed it for legal trademark reasons. I can respect the selling of services to benefit the users, but to rename the open source products as these office suite clones do and disconnect the user from the softwares' origins is negligent and opportunistic, and ultimately will only help those few making their quick bucks. --Kevin >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/19/05 10:30 AM >>> It's not like Luxative Office is the only one doing this. In my local Office Max, I saw "Perfect Office Pro" or something like that. A Nice retail box of OpenOffice.org for only $19.95. If you look at the screenshots on the box, you can clearly see where it says "OpenOffice.org 1.1.1" in the title bar. I think it's a Good Thing (tm). I don't think it's a scam. How is it any different than the countless *n*x distros that change the name of OpenOffice.org Writer to "Word Processor" or Calc to "Spreadsheet" or even "MyDistroNix Office" or whatever. It's still open source. It's still open format. It's still *not* Microsoft. I'd prefer someone to pay $20 for OpenOffice.org - no matter the name - than $150- $500 for MSO. Heck, I'd think it would be better come someone to pay $19.95 for "Perfect Print Office Professional" or "Luxative Office 2006" than pirate MSO for free. -Chad Smith
