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: Gordon on 14 Jan 2010 08:21 Snit wrote: > Gordon stated in post 7r83jfF6tkU2(a)mid.individual.net on 1/14/10 1:40 AM: > >> Conor wrote: >> >>> Quite probably. You'll also find they're using MS Office as well. >>> >> For the few users only who need functions which are not in OO. And >> that's not many. > > Just looking at what functions / features each has does not tell you which > is better suited for a task... you have to look at how well each function is > handled. > > A rather nebulous reply....
From: Hadron on 14 Jan 2010 08:57 Phil Stovell <phil(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> writes: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:49:03 -0600, Rick wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:44:40 +0100, Hadron wrote: >> >>> Rick <none(a)mail.invalid> writes: >>> >>>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 04:18:07 +0000, Conor wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <slrnhkstrh.uit.jedi(a)nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2010-01-13, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > In article <slrnhksal6.5sr.jedi(a)nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH says... >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> Open Office is good enough to apply negative price pressure to >>>>>> >> MSO. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > OOo is no use to anyone who wants to do more than a basic expenses >>>>>> > spreadsheet or homework. >>>>>> >>>>>> ...which as I said before is the vast majority of users. >>>>>> >>>>> Wrong. The vast majority of office users are in a corporate >>>>> environment. OOo is not suitable for their needs. >>>> >>>> Why not? >>>> >>>> I am sure there are some corporations listed here: >>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ >>>> Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments#Private_Sector> >>> >>> It can be suitable if they dont need 100% MSO compatibility. >>> >>> To advocate it if they do is silly. >> >> From what I have seen, the only way to guarantee 100% MSO compatibility is >> for all of the parties involved to use exactly the same version of MSO, >> including service packs and add-ons. > > We went through all this last week when somebody published a MS Word DOCX > file the OO couldn't render properly. The only thing was, MS Word viewer > with the DOCX service pack couldn't render it either, the only program > that could was the version of Word that created it. Only after you claimed 100% compatability. Look, the issue is not all different versions of word. Its simply the version the corporation/business uses and the versions clients use. You guys can harp on all you like about a certain DOCX file, but the fact is that OO does not render too many MSO docs properly. EOS.
From: Hadron on 14 Jan 2010 09:00 Gordon <gbplinux(a)gmail.com> writes: > Snit wrote: >> Gordon stated in post 7r83jfF6tkU2(a)mid.individual.net on 1/14/10 1:40 AM: >> >>> Conor wrote: >>> >>>> Quite probably. You'll also find they're using MS Office as well. >>>> >>> For the few users only who need functions which are not in OO. And >>> that's not many. >> >> Just looking at what functions / features each has does not tell you which >> is better suited for a task... you have to look at how well each function is >> handled. >> >> > > A rather nebulous reply.... It was far less nebulous than yours. It actually advocated checking the functions do what they NEED to do. We realise in Gortard land that "formulas" means "everything possible", but in the real world where real people actualy USE something they need to check it supports the set of function formulae they NEED.
From: Phil Stovell on 14 Jan 2010 09:15 On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:57:44 +0100, Hadron wrote: > Phil Stovell <phil(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> writes: > >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:49:03 -0600, Rick wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:44:40 +0100, Hadron wrote: >>> >>>> Rick <none(a)mail.invalid> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 04:18:07 +0000, Conor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <slrnhkstrh.uit.jedi(a)nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2010-01-13, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > In article <slrnhksal6.5sr.jedi(a)nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH says... >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> Open Office is good enough to apply negative price pressure >>>>>>> >> to MSO. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > OOo is no use to anyone who wants to do more than a basic >>>>>>> > expenses spreadsheet or homework. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...which as I said before is the vast majority of users. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong. The vast majority of office users are in a corporate >>>>>> environment. OOo is not suitable for their needs. >>>>> >>>>> Why not? >>>>> >>>>> I am sure there are some corporations listed here: >>>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ >>>>> Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments#Private_Sector> >>>> >>>> It can be suitable if they dont need 100% MSO compatibility. >>>> >>>> To advocate it if they do is silly. >>> >>> From what I have seen, the only way to guarantee 100% MSO >>> compatibility is for all of the parties involved to use exactly the >>> same version of MSO, including service packs and add-ons. >> >> We went through all this last week when somebody published a MS Word >> DOCX file the OO couldn't render properly. The only thing was, MS Word >> viewer with the DOCX service pack couldn't render it either, the only >> program that could was the version of Word that created it. > > Only after you claimed 100% compatability. That doc was only 100% compatible with the program that created it (according to the author), nothing else I tried could display it, including Microsoft's own Word viewer. I would say that the file is CORRUPTED. > Look, the issue is not all different versions of word. Its simply the > version the corporation/business uses and the versions clients use. I have Office 97. There isn't a DOCX plugin for O97, the earliest is for O2K. So, even though I own a copy of MSO, I can't view DOCX files with it. > You guys can harp on all you like about a certain DOCX file, but the > fact is that OO does not render too many MSO docs properly. EOS. As I keep on telling you, I've never received a MSO file that didn't render properly. All my MSO docs back to O2.0 (Win3.1 from 1991) render correctly. You can say what you like, but people who actually do it don't have a problem, I'm one. Will MSO render OO ODT files correctly?
From: Snit on 14 Jan 2010 09:47
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. >>> I am sure there are some corporations listed here: >>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ >>> Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments#Private_Sector> >> >> Such as? > > I do not believe any answer to that question will satisfy you. It is public info what companies are corporations and which are not! > I think you will just trow some dissenting view of why it is being used at "X" > corporation. So, if you truly want to know, go through the list. See how bad you are at supporting your claims - even ones where the evidence you could bring up would be very solid if you would actually try! -- [INSERT .SIG HERE] |