On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 17:57 -0400, webmaster for Kracked Press Productions wrote:
> On 04/24/2011 02:21 PM, Twayne wrote: > > The OP here sounds like no more than sour grapes to me based on his mostly > > wanting a free copy of MSO. LiberOffice is new and is NOT meant to simply > > replace MS Office. > I call LibreOffice an alternative to MSO, not a direct replacement. > Just like laptops are used at times instead of desktops, but there are > very few laptops that have the power and graphics [and heat > displacement] to replace most modern desktops. So we need to use > "alternative to" instead of "replacement for" when we describe > LibreOffice and MSO. > > > > There also seems to be a lot of pressure albeit indirect, > > to dispense with OO and LO meaning a myopic view of the world of office > ??? dispense with both OO and LO ??? I think that OO will die on its > own with Oracle dropping out of developing and supporting it. The key > will be if they sell the OOo name and trademark to some greedy company > or turn it over to the community that supports OOo. This Oracle > "dropping out" is one of the big reasons for LibreOffice being created > in the first place. > > suites, or a very staunch of MS. All those are fine but his stated views are > > pretty mixed up meaning he should take a step back and get a look at the > > forests instead of a few individual trees. MSOffice # OOo or LO. MSO is > > simply a large target area for LO/OO. > > > > In news:BANLkTi=o7YGpy03DyY8b+7K1sh_ao3A=3...@mail.gmail.com, > > e-letter<inp...@gmail.com> typed: > >>>> A business that receives profits from customers that > >>>> demand to use M$ > >>> software should simply pay the licences to meet their > >>> customers' demands and consider it a cost of doing > >>> business. > > Software does not "pay the license" in any way you could look at it. > > Licenses are for users to know what can/cannot be done with the software. > > Those are choices the OP must live with as they won't be written to > > accomodate only him. > > > >>> I can't tell which of the following statements you mean: > > ... > >>> position, and use Microsoft products; > >>> > >> None, the example scenario is a customer (in any > >> business, not necessarily IT) sends a document in m$ word > >> and the recipient decides > >> to use LO but finds that there is (minor?) loss of > >> formatting (e.g. a table width greater than the body text > >> margin), then writes to LO mailing list to complain that > >> LO writer is not good enough for their needs. In this > >> scenario, the business using LO should pay for an m$ > >> licence to use m$ software in their business and not use > >> LO at all. > > Yes. It's a matter of using what fits one's own specific needs and wants. If > > the OP is in a position where he must make such decisions, he needs to be > > asking for a transfer from the sound of it. > > > >> LO should concentrate on the scenario that both a > >> business customer > >> and supplier are _both_ using LO software and when > >> documents are exchanged, the documents produced and > >> received using LO software are found to be of good > >> quality (i.e. no bugs). > > LO should concentrate on whatever path appears to be the most lucrative > > based on what is viewed as the desired future for the product. As in, read > > their Mission Statement for such information; it'll clarify better than can > > be done here. > > > >> It is not fair for LO to be expected to be an exact clone > >> of m$ products. > > Exactly! Nor is it expected to be an exact clone of any other product such > > as the WordPerfect capabilities, PDF, and a host of others. The expectation > > is to meet or exceed the needs of the largest set of users as is possible. > > Being a clone of MSO would not accomplish that. > > > >>>> Any business using open source software to generate a > >>>> private profit should put their money where their mouth > >>>> is; > > That's a senseless and meaningless paragraph that only the OP is likely > > aware of what it means. > > > >>> a) Do you know how many employees the "average" business > >>> in the united states has? > > That's irrelevant. > > > >> Don't understand the significance. > >> > >>> b) Do you have any idea how difficult it was for non-Sun > >>> clients to get features and functions added to OOo? > > Well, if you were contributing to the development and marketing of OOo or LO > > in any meaningful way, you would understand that better. YOUR wants& needs > > are not necessarily even close to what the majority needs/wants. You seem to > > have taken a completely personal, egotistical approach to things here and > > it's not helping whatever point it is you wish to make. > > > >> No, but presumably this justifies the creation of LO. > >> > >>> c) Do you have any idea what the learning curve involved > >>> in knowing how to code for OOo was/is? > > I have a smattering of a feeling for it. Some parts are trivial, some are > > complex, and some are buggy. I would assume that anyone taking on a coder > > would mean that coder already has the needed background on his own or he's > > not going to be taken very seriously. LO is not a learn-to-code project, > > it's something entirely different. This is one of the advantages of open > > source; the many can contrubute and the best chosen as the way to go. > > > >> No, not qualified to comment. > >> > >>> Those three factors mitigated against organizations that > >>> were not in the IT industry from even considering > >>> customizations of OOo, much less paying for them. > > This is irrelevant to the development of OOo/LO and those three factors have > > so little to do with it that it almost makes me laugh. I certainly had to > > smile smugly at this post when I first read the misinformative little rage. > > > >> Is it not true that organisations are not able to get > >> customisations > >> of m$o unless they pay m$ and/or m$ partners to make such > >> changes? > > I believe that is true, and it takes deep pockets for the most part to > > create such unique and specialized ware. Usually changes are going to be > > made by third parties as the originators aren't much interested in > > specialization but in the future market share and their own futures with any > > company/entity. > >>> Once two or three organizations offer Level 4 Support > >>> for LibO, you'll see organizations that are willing to > >>> pay for the features that they want/need/desire. That is > >>> also when you'll start seeing non-IT organizations > >>> sending their customizations back upstream. > >>> > >> Sounds good; time will tell... > > That's a possibility, I agree, as there are already several of them offering > > to modify OOo for money. LO will follow suit, and it makes a good will > > customer base. With the code in the open like it is, it's going to be > > entirely possible. But the other question is: How much need for it will > > there be? Will there be enough business to go around and support the new > > guys entering the market? IME you get a lot of people in those areas that > > only "think" they know what they're doing. It's a get what you pay for world > > out there too. > > > >>>> LO programmers should concentrate on making a good > >>>> software product; > >>> that should be the priority. > > Yes. And they are well on their way to it. LO was a good, looking-ahead fork > > when it started and has made progress by leaps and bounds IMO. Versioin 4 > > should show some excellent progress. > > > >>> One of the major criteria that businesses use in > >>> selecting software, is compatibility with their existing > >>> work-product. In terms of office suites, that usually > >>> means the ability to read, write, and edit documents in > >>> a Microsoft file format as well as, if not better than > >>> MSO can read, write, and edit those documents. > > I have to agree with the response written below: > > > >> True, as well as the cost of training personnel to use > >> either new software or the latest version (the ribbon!) > >> of existing software. Businesses demanding LO (and all > >> others) to be better than m$, without having paying a > >> penny towards development of these alternatives are > >> asking for too much. There must have been a time when > >> people kept > >> copies of documents on floppy disks, but then new > >> hardware became available. How many businesses have > >> demanded that the new computers > >> they buy must have a floppy drive in order to be > >> compatible with existing procedure to keep copies on > >> floppy disks? Instead, new procedures (e.g. use CD-ROM) > >> were developed. > >> > >>> Different organizations define the compatibility line > >>> differently. > > Software functionality defines compatibility, not the organization. It is up > > to the organization to decide whether any application meets its needs. > >>> Personally, I consider microsoft file formats to be > >>> "never twice same output" formats, and hence best > >>> discarded. > > I can't agree with that. What already exists as .doc is fine. The only > > comment I have in this area is a lack of communications: the receiver of say > > LO .doc files should be made aware of that fact beforehand. Then if a > > problem should crop up, it can be intelligently discussed and perhaps a > > better communication format would be, say, .rtf. > > A lot of people bitch that files on one computer don't look the same on > > another computer but that's never going to happen unless both computers are > > using the same printer drivers and screen resolutions, for a started. > > So far I have not experienced ANY data loss in sending an LO created > > .doc > > file to others who have only MSO. They have different drivers, screen > > resolution, dpi settings, etc., but the files are all perfectly readable and > > look fine on the screen and printout/s. You'll get the same exact results if > > you send an MSO .doc to another MSO user. > > The only way around those differences is to use PDF as your file format > > - > > things will look very, very similar from machine to machine with PDF, but > > not with .doc, .odt, etc. etc.. > > > >>> jonathon > > I wonder if the OP might like to rewrite his original post based on a lot of > > the information here and what he's learned or not learned and possibly with > > a lot more clarity and much less vaguery. > > > > HTH, > > > > Twayne` > > > > > > > > > > Two very brief comments, every FOSS project has its own goals and every person/organization should determine what their real needs are. All FOSS projects have their own goals, LO is no different. One should read each projects' stated goals before commenting on what they are achieving. In selecting software, there two major constraints what do I need and what can I run on my equipment? Do I need MS Office or can I use another office suite along as I can produce an MS file format when needed? Can it run on the OS in use and the hardware? All software is series of compromises to produce something usable, it is the balancing of these compromises that is critical. MS Office and LO have each made different compromises based on organizational goals, philosophy, and resources. A question that should be asked, "Should anyone produce a feature for feature copy of any software product?" I think not, LO should offer an office suite that will somethings better and unfortunately some things worse than MSO. Hopefully, LO does more better than worse. LO should do most common office tasks well, but defining common is not easy. I support projects that I want to see succeed. A comment on outputs, besides printer formatting effects you have font substitution effects when the other computer does not have the original font installed. -- Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
