Jay, you're speaking logically; too few people today seem to think logically - or to even think ;-)
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Jay Lozier <jsloz...@gmail.com> wrote: On 08/08/2012 10:10 AM, anne-ology wrote: > >> Tom, well done. >> >> Maybe those at LO will listen, but I don't know what more they >> could >> do; >> the problem probably originates from the States due to the >> massive use of MSFT products ... hackers attack these ... MSFT responds >> with their endless stream of fixes ... hackers continue to attack the >> loop-holes ... ... ... >> yet folks still are afraid to get away from MSFT products >> ;-) >> > Spreading FUD about other options other than MS products is very common. I > do not know how often I have seen someone say how difficult Linux is to use > or that most users need to use advanced features in MSO. The last IMHO is > silly, most users do not use more than a few of the features regularly and > do not know of many of the advanced features in MSO. The only real issue I > see is that exact layout of the GUI is somewhat different and this may > cause some issues initially. > > I remember trying to get others to use Word templates many years ago and > failing. They could not grasp the concept of a pre-defined, standard > template. If users have trouble with a fairly basic and very handy feature > I doubt they use any advanced features. > > While I do not share ODF formats because the others I work with have MSO > versions from 2003 to 2010, I have not found either the files I receive or > send to be much more than "plain Jane" spreadsheets or Word/Write > documents. Basically there is minimal formating and only basic features are > used. Other than being displayed in a pretty format, these documents are > not much more complex than typical documents from the mid to late 80's. > > >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Tom Davies <tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> Hi :) >> >>> I have forwarded this to the marketing team for them to discuss because >>> there are a lot of the BoD on that list. However i am far more unpopular >>> there than i am on this list so they will probably just ignore it as >>> "trolling" or some-such. >>> >>> If, like me, you want to see LO succeed and believe some of these issue >>> may indeed be "holding LO back" or setting up bigger problems for the >>> future then feel free to take up the discussion there or even better >>> forwards it to the "discuss" list. >>> >>> I think the original op of this thread wanted to avoid getting bogged >>> down >>> in all this and just wanted practical comments on issues arising from >>> trying to share with the 90% (or thereabouts, depending on geography) of >>> computer users that still use MSO. Perhaps just a few pointers on how to >>> get better results from sharing. >>> >>> Regards from >>> Tom :) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Jay Lozier <jsloz...@gmail.com> >>> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Do You Share ODF Documents With MS >>> Office >>> Users? >>> To: users@global.libreoffice.org >>> Date: Wednesday, 8 August, 2012, 3:26 >>> >>> On 08/07/2012 08:24 PM, rob wood wrote: >>> >>>> >From my experience of working in the IT department of a very large >>>> >>> college >>> >>>> with over 10 000 computers, it has nothing to do with functionality. >>>> >>> 99.9% >>> >>>> of employees use office to type letters and send emails. For the .1% >>>> that >>>> would use advanced features, policy probably disallows them anyway. >>>> Plus, >>>> it is fairly trivial to have different images for those that need/want >>>> >>> them. >>> >>>> The reason they don't migrate is because it would create more work for >>>> >>> the >>> >>>> IT department, it is that simple. Plus there is no benefit as far as the >>>> >>> IT >>> >>>> department is concerned. Office 2003 works, and whoever approves the >>>> >>> budget >>> >>>> is just going to accept however much is put in there for it, that is if >>>> >>> it >>> >>>> is actually a separate item and not bundled in with the other microsoft >>>> licences. >>>> >>>> Office = safe. >>>> LO = risky + more work. >>>> >>> I would second that most users do not use advanced features of any the >>> MSO parts. Very few can actually program/write a macro and macro >>> execution should normally be turned off for security reasons. >>> >>> The reasons for not updating MSO version or using another office suite >>> (LO, AOO, etc) are roll out costs, roll out time, inertia (no real >>> business reason to change), and perceptions about users finding the new >>> suite difficult to use. >>> >>>> >>>> On 8 August 2012 00:11, Steve Morris <samor...@netspace.net.au> wrote: >>>> >>>> Just my 2 cents worth. Businesses with a heavy investment in office >>>>> >>>> can't >>> >>>> migrate to LO, as LO is not a functional replacement for office 2002, >>>>> >>>> let >>> >>>> alone 2010. A lot of business functionality that is used from day to day >>>>> and is critical to the organisation in order for their various business >>>>> units to operate, from say excel, that libreoffice does not provide, >>>>> >>>> even >>> >>>> in 3.6, and features that excel allows that Calc disallows (as far as I >>>>> >>>> can >>> >>>> see for no good reason). Another reason for not migrating is also the >>>>> >>>> steep >>> >>>> learning curve, both with front end functionality and macros, that >>>>> >>>> business >>> >>>> cannot afford to undertake due to the loss of time and resources. >>>>> >>>>> regards, >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>> >>> -- >>> Jay Lozier >>> jsloz...@gmail.com >>> >>> -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+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/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
