Hi :) +1 Good to see another professor that is not a moron about soemthing outside of her/his specialism! Regards from Tom :)
>________________________________ > From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster <webmas...@krackedpress.com> >To: users@global.libreoffice.org >Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 15:18 >Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO >alternative is not LO > > >On 06/07/2013 05:41 AM, Tom Davies wrote: >> >> Hi :) >> The MS Office Eula makes similar claims on the rights of work produced >> using their software. MS owns your work! You don't! It'd be >> interesting to see that one stand up in court though. Too many >> precedents exist where MS has not fought to enforce that part of their >> own Eula. So, I can't imagine any judge anywhere allowing that. Hmm, >> maybe MS have changed their Eula since i last read it thoroughly about a >> decade or so ago. >> >> >> I too wouldn't touch Kingsoft with a barge pole. I want to steer towards >> using formats that will be >> around and usable in a few years time. I want to be able to open >> documents maybe 10-20 years from now without having to struggle against >> malware and without having to try to find long-dead versions of long >> dead software produced by a company that may not even exist by then. >> >> >> What i tend to find is that people use all sorts of rubbishy excuses for why >> they 'cant' move away from certain software. They moan and grumble >> about petty issues in an alternative they have been handed but then go >> and find some other alternative that they feel more in control of because >> they chose it. Once they have made the break away from that certain >> software they become more reasonable about looking at other >> alternatives realistically. >> >> >> One of the commonest grumbles i hear about LO (at the moment) is that it >> uses the old interface and not the nice new ribbon-bar. So, 'obviously' LO >> is old! (Easy to see how FUD develops, right?). Kingsoft neatly >> deal with that and such grumblers can now be pointed towards that as an >> alternative. Of course when i do that i will still be quite disparaging >> about the ribbon-bar specifically and about proprietary software (and >> formats) in general but at least now i can sound like it's not "just sour >> grapes", >> just because LO hasn't got it. Now i can be seen to be offering genuine >> choices rather than trying to herd people in a direction they might not want >> to go. > >I was talking to a professor a few days ago. He does not like the newer >versions due in part to "the way they keep changing the interface and >how to do things". I made sure he know about LO. He loved the multi >language part as well. > >I did not like the "ribbon" menu system either. Sure, the type of >interface that LO uses has been around for years, but that does not mean >you need to change it. "Refreshing" or redesigning the interface, just >because you can, is not a reason to. One of the good things about LO as >it went from 3.3 though 4.0 is the way the interface does not change, or >has a slow change so it does not "stand up and slap your face" with the >changes. Once you learn "what is where" and how to do things, changing >that will cause problems. Sure the interface could use some >enhancements, like the "persona" addition, but to keep our users happy, >you must not make the users relearn how to do things or where are the >menu options are now located. > > >. >> >> Of course any fool that does escape the one trap by jumping into another >> is still able to completely jump free by trying out LO at some point in >> the future. Perhaps by then they will be ready. >> >> >> Regards from >> Tom :) >> >> >> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Jay Lozier <jsloz...@gmail.com> >>> To: Tom Davies <tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk> >>> Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 1:46 >>> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO >>> alternative is not LO >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:09:48 -0400, Tom Davies <tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi :) >>>> That comment looks like FUD to me. Where are the links to substantiate >>>> his claims? There is a lot of FUD about China at the moment. Perhaps >>>> some is true but western journalism has it's own biases so getting at >>>> the truth is a tad tricky. >>>> Also it's not Cnet that are recommending Kingsoft. It's only the >>>> author's opinion. PLus it's got a question mark after it. If you >>>> search through Cnet you will probably find similar claims in titles of >>>> articles about LibreOffice >>>> >>>> >>>> This page in Wikipedia >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_office_suites >>>> shows Kingsoft has been around since 1988 and is available for Windows >>>> and Gnu&Linux (incl Android). LibreOffice's first release date is >>>> listed as 2010 which just shows how tricky it is to adequately report on >>>> such things. Many people would say the first release of LO is the same >>>> as OpenOffice and that should be the same as StarOffice's first release >>>> date over a decade ago. I just had to do a little editing there myself >>>> but if you check the history you can see that the lines about Kingsoft >>>> have been unchanged for ages, possibly years. >>>> >>>> Regards from >>>> >>>> Tom :) >>>> >>> Kingsoft appears to use a proprietary format with MSO support. Also, they >>> only have Writer, Calc, and Impress equivalents. Those two issues make me >>> wary about the package: poor ODF support and limit suite. The ODF issue is >>> philosophical; I prefer to use an open, ISO format that means my files are >>> much less likely to be orphans in future. Most long time computer users >>> have data that is in obsolete file formats if not on obsolete media. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster <webmas...@krackedpress.com> >>>>> To: LibreO - Marketing Global <market...@global.libreoffice.org>; >>>>> LibreO - Users Global <users@global.libreoffice.org> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013, 19:48 >>>>> Subject: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO >>>>> alternative is not LO >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I never even heard of this office packages company. >>>>> >>>>> If the commenter is correct, then CNET really need to rethink their >>>>> recommendations. >>>>> >>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33153_7-57587824-10391733/kingsoft-office-2013-the-best-free-microsoft-office-alternative/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kingsoft Office 2013: The best free Microsoft Office alternative? >>>>> >>>>> Not only does it have the best interface around, it also brings >>>>> innovations like tabbed document viewing and drag-and-drop paragraph >>>>> adjustment. >>>>> Rick Broida >>>>> by Rick Broida >>>>> June 5, 2013 10:52 AM PDT >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> One of the replies to that article is as follows >>>>> --------------- >>>>> >>>>> the_brigadier >>>>> 25 minutes ago >>>>> >>>>> You do know Kingsoft is a communist Chinese company whose nation has >>>>> been conducting unrelenting hack attacks to strip America of all its >>>>> technology? If you can't build it, steal it is their credo. What better >>>>> way to open up a million backdoors then by offering free software that >>>>> exactly emulates Microsoft's flagship program. >>>>> >>>>> By the way read their EULA very carefully. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT >>>>> ANYTHING CREATED USING THEIR SOFTWARE BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF KINGSOFT. >>>>> Have you read it Karyn? I downloaded this software several years ago >>>>> read that EULA and used Revo to deepscan uninstall that software. It had >>>>> put tendrils all through my computer. Revo is very good and got it all, >>>>> but don't be fooled. >>>>> >>>>> This is part and parcel to China's hacking attempts and for cnet to >>>>> recommend it is both incredibly naive and questionable at best. >>>>> >>> I doubt the reviewer ever read the Kingsoft EULA (nor have I). Though you >>> do bring a good point about EULA's being highly anti-consumer as typically >>> written by most properietary software companies. I would not be surprised >>> if some EULA's by others claim ownership of all documents created by the >>> package. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jay Lozier >>> jsloz...@gmail.com >>> >>> >>> > > >-- >To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@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 > > > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@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
