Micoshaft oriffice no more! - Use OpenOffice
in [UK Linux]
|
Prev: (F3) Find Files can't work, after installing SP3 ; os says a
Next: Installing package ending rpm.run ?
From: Phil Stovell on 14 Jan 2010 17:28 On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:16:11 +0000, Conor wrote: > In article <pan.2010.01.14.19.06.03.628253(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk>, Phil > Stovell says... >> >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:58:05 +0000, Conor wrote: >> >> > Its shitloads. In Calc, there's shitloads of Exel functions missing >> > and there's sod all macro support. >> >> Are all Calc functions in Excel? > > Nobody cares because Excel is the only thing that counts. Got you. You're a troll.
From: Peter Köhlmann on 14 Jan 2010 17:33 Rick wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:16:43 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> Rick stated in post aMGdnROUzbJNDtLWnZ2dnUVZ_v1i4p2d(a)supernews.com on >> 1/14/10 2:59 PM: >> >>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:47:44 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> Rick stated in post 47GdnWkNKaSnmdLWnZ2dnUVZ_uxi4p2d(a)supernews.com on >>>> 1/14/10 4:47 AM: >>>> >>>> ... >>>>>>> Why not? >>>>>> >>>>>> I would not go so far as to say it is not suitable, but I do not >>>>>> think it intrinsically is the best product for most needs: it does >>>>>> not offer as many features and has features not done was well >>>>>> (including ones which are relatively common). Still, because of >>>>>> *external* factors I can see (and have) recommended it to quite a >>>>>> few people - mostly based on price but also for some who place >>>>>> value on the OSS principles. You repeatedly post your link to a >>>>>> list of groups who use OpenOffice as if that somehow shows >>>>>> something about the software... as if people using it shows it has >>>>>> better intrinsic >>>>>> value. Your game is absurd though... if mere counts of companies >>>>>> substituted for a sign of value, then MS Office and MS Windows are >>>>>> *clearly* the best products in their class by *far*. >>>>> >>>>> It apparently meets the needs of those using it well enough to keep >>>>> using it instead of using other sofftware. >>>> >>>> And, of course, you say the same thing about Windows and MS Office - >>>> it meets the needs of those who use it well enough that they keep >>>> using it instead of other software. >>> >>> ... except that, for the most part, those people/corporations have >>> switched TO OO.o FROM MSO or some other software. >> >> And many companies switched from WordPerfect to MS Office... at least >> those who have been around a while. And, I am sure, they have changed >> other things that do not serve them well... don't you agree? > > Possibly. But, AGAIN, OO.o apparently meets the needs of most of those > using it well enough to keep using it instead of using other sofftware. Well, several german cities seemed to be quite content with OO. Seems OO provided everything they needed. For example: The computers in Munich which still run windows have OO installed -- Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware
From: Peter Köhlmann on 14 Jan 2010 17:34 Phil Stovell wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:16:11 +0000, Conor wrote: > >> In article <pan.2010.01.14.19.06.03.628253(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk>, Phil >> Stovell says... >>> >>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:58:05 +0000, Conor wrote: >>> >>> > Its shitloads. In Calc, there's shitloads of Exel functions missing >>> > and there's sod all macro support. >>> >>> Are all Calc functions in Excel? >> >> Nobody cares because Excel is the only thing that counts. > > Got you. You're a troll. Nope. Even trolls are usually not *that* dumb -- I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
From: Phil Stovell on 14 Jan 2010 17:38 On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:33:25 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Rick wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:16:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> Rick stated in post aMGdnROUzbJNDtLWnZ2dnUVZ_v1i4p2d(a)supernews.com on >>> 1/14/10 2:59 PM: >>> >>>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:47:44 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> Rick stated in post 47GdnWkNKaSnmdLWnZ2dnUVZ_uxi4p2d(a)supernews.com on >>>>> 1/14/10 4:47 AM: >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>>>>> Why not? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would not go so far as to say it is not suitable, but I do not >>>>>>> think it intrinsically is the best product for most needs: it does >>>>>>> not offer as many features and has features not done was well >>>>>>> (including ones which are relatively common). Still, because of >>>>>>> *external* factors I can see (and have) recommended it to quite a >>>>>>> few people - mostly based on price but also for some who place >>>>>>> value on the OSS principles. You repeatedly post your link to a >>>>>>> list of groups who use OpenOffice as if that somehow shows >>>>>>> something about the software... as if people using it shows it has >>>>>>> better intrinsic >>>>>>> value. Your game is absurd though... if mere counts of companies >>>>>>> substituted for a sign of value, then MS Office and MS Windows are >>>>>>> *clearly* the best products in their class by *far*. >>>>>> >>>>>> It apparently meets the needs of those using it well enough to keep >>>>>> using it instead of using other sofftware. >>>>> >>>>> And, of course, you say the same thing about Windows and MS Office - >>>>> it meets the needs of those who use it well enough that they keep >>>>> using it instead of other software. >>>> >>>> ... except that, for the most part, those people/corporations have >>>> switched TO OO.o FROM MSO or some other software. >>> >>> And many companies switched from WordPerfect to MS Office... at least >>> those who have been around a while. And, I am sure, they have changed >>> other things that do not serve them well... don't you agree? >> >> Possibly. But, AGAIN, OO.o apparently meets the needs of most of those >> using it well enough to keep using it instead of using other sofftware. > > Well, several german cities seemed to be quite content with OO. Seems OO > provided everything they needed. For example: The computers in Munich > which still run windows have OO installed The UK Government used to have (may still have) a policy of only using software that is ISO standards compliant. OO is, I'm not sure about MSO.
From: Phil Stovell on 14 Jan 2010 17:41
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:34:13 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Phil Stovell wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:16:11 +0000, Conor wrote: >> >>> In article <pan.2010.01.14.19.06.03.628253(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk>, Phil >>> Stovell says... >>>> >>>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:58:05 +0000, Conor wrote: >>>> >>>> > Its shitloads. In Calc, there's shitloads of Exel functions missing >>>> > and there's sod all macro support. >>>> >>>> Are all Calc functions in Excel? >>> >>> Nobody cares because Excel is the only thing that counts. >> >> Got you. You're a troll. > > Nope. Even trolls are usually not *that* dumb I'm after a new laptop (with Ubuntu and OO, of course). I now know where not to buy from, back to Novatech. |