The problem with F/OSS office suites is that their audience tends to be uncritical, so much as in the fairy tale "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" (but in inverse), professionals have stopped listening.
I remember at least three incidents where I was instructed to evaluate Open Office, Libre Office or other F/OSS word processing or layout packages. In each instance, the F/OSS products fell short in fundamental ways, and were a total disaster for larger documents. Their main strength was that it was often easier to ex
This. I have done similar comparisons for myself many times. I used OOo way back in the beginning and have contributed bug reports to both OOo and LibreOffice. I upgraded from OOo to NeoOffice to LibreOffice Mac version. But, Microsoft Office 2004 for the Mac is STILL superior so I need both! It kills me! The reason why is "LibreOffice will wreck this layout" and "which means I would not be able to share the document with other people", and also "And even simple things like bulleted or numbered outlines get scr
The reason why is "LibreOffice will wreck this layout" and "which means I would not be able to share the document with other people", and also "And even simple things like bulleted or numbered outlines get screwed up and wrongly numbered when sending from LO to MSO"!! How utterly braindead. And wasn't there a thing where "passwords are not secure so we won't implement them"? Anyway you just have to have MS Office if you want to do work in the real world, unless you can live in a
I'll agree with you that the answer to someone asking about a particular MSO feature is not to say "You're stupid for requesting it."
On the other hand, I think OO is perfectly viable for use if you're a new company deciding on your own tech infrastructure as opposed to trying to be the OO loner in a MS-based company.
The problem with FOSS office suites (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with F/OSS office suites is that their audience tends to be uncritical, so much as in the fairy tale "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" (but in inverse), professionals have stopped listening.
I remember at least three incidents where I was instructed to evaluate Open Office, Libre Office or other F/OSS word processing or layout packages. In each instance, the F/OSS products fell short in fundamental ways, and were a total disaster for larger documents. Their main strength was that it was often easier to ex
Re: (Score:2)
This. I have done similar comparisons for myself many times.
I used OOo way back in the beginning and have contributed bug reports to both OOo and LibreOffice.
I upgraded from OOo to NeoOffice to LibreOffice Mac version.
But, Microsoft Office 2004 for the Mac is STILL superior so I need both! It kills me!
The reason why is "LibreOffice will wreck this layout" and "which means I would not be able to share the document with other people", and also "And even simple things like bulleted or numbered outlines get scr
FOSS shoots itself in foot with false claims (Score:2)
You make a really good point:
Re:FOSS shoots itself in foot with false claims (Score:2)
I'll agree with you that the answer to someone asking about a particular MSO feature is not to say "You're stupid for requesting it."
On the other hand, I think OO is perfectly viable for use if you're a new company deciding on your own tech infrastructure as opposed to trying to be the OO loner in a MS-based company.