Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Good Article for LibreOffice

Hi :)
I think AOO and LO have different niche markets they are more suitable for.  Oddly the niche for 
AOO is currently finding LO to be a better choice for them but this may settle down in a few years 
with people eventually settling for the one that really does fit them better.  Of course with the 
rapid pace of LO's community development and all other development too we may find that LO does fit 
that niche better by then.  

I think one of the main strengths of both projects is that the other one does exist and is easy to 
migrate to.  Both are different enough that a calamity for one might be beneficial for the other.  
Both projects are able to focus on what they do best without having to worry about covering all 
options.  Then remember there are loads of other projects such as Caligra/KOffice, Google-docs, 
Gnome Office and many others that have already settled into their respective niches but are still 
growing into other areas incrementally.  Any or all could take over the areas dominated by AOO and 
LO at the moment.  

"United we stand".  Why let people push us into arguing between projects?  
Regards from
Tom :)  






> ________________________________
> From: Jay Lozier <jslozier@gmail.com>
> To: users@global.libreoffice.org 
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 15:38
> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Good Article for LibreOffice
>
> On 11/28/2012 09:55 AM, VA wrote:
> > This is utterly maddening.
> >
> > Based on Pedro's post, I ran a simple test. I created a document in Word (.docx) and an 
> > identical document in LibO (.odt). I saved them both and then extracted their contents using 
> > 7-zip Manager. I was amazed at how similar the two document contents were, and yet how 
> > different. Neither document had any of the binary smilie faces I've come to expect by opening a 
> > .doc document in a text editor. All of the individual files contained formatting codes in simple 
> > text. And, yet...
> >
> > The maddening part is how two programs can create the same type of documents (xml files saved in 
> > a zipped format) and yet remain so completely different.
> >
> > I found similar results when I tried saving .rtf files with different word processors. They all 
> > claimed to be .rtf, and in fact, were .rtf, yet they were all different.
> >
> > But, MS knows how to market its products. Programs need something to set them apart from other 
> > similar programs, and office suites are getting to the point that any decent suite will be able 
> > to perform the same tasks as the others. LibO is set apart by being free (both in $ and in 
> > license restrictions). MS can't compete head to head with that model, so the only way it can set 
> > itself apart is by maintaining some uniqueness in its file format. The only reason people buy MS 
> > is because everybody else buys MS. If it fully adopted the .odt format, there would no longer be 
> > a reason for people to buy MS. Unless it had some killer feature, it would die and LibO would 
> > win.
> Actually MS would need to adopt a different commercial model. The model could possibly be similar 
> to Canonical's model with Ubuntu - the software is free or very cheap but you pay for professional 
> support/training/certifications. The issue is providing value to the user. I have used Ubuntu and 
> derivatives and other than donations to a project never spent any money.
>
> The real problem for MS in the hypothetical market is that they would need to adopt a different 
> attitude towards users and their user community. Currently they do not have an MSO community 
> similar to LO/AOO or Ubuntu.
>
> Another model that Oracle uses with MySQL is there is a community edition (free) and an enterprise 
> edition (pricey). The enterprise edition includes more support options and features than the 
> community edition.
>
> MS does have options if the ODF formats became the international standard. Whether they would 
> adapt quickly enough is another story.
> > I sense that a similar future lies for either Apache OO or LibO. Right now, the two programs are 
> > very similar and use the same file format. I use both programs interchangeably, sometimes 
> > forgetting which one I have open. My guess is that, at some point, either Apache or LibO will 
> > become different enough and so clearly superior that the other will fade away. That may be the 
> > hazard of having a truly open and standard file format. It eliminates a program's ability to 
> > survive.
> Product extinction is inevitable for many reasons. I can name old standards equivalent for Writer 
> and Calc that have not been available for years/decades. I suspect LO and AOO will diverge 
> somewhat with each having particular strengths and weaknesses.
> > Virgil
> >
> > Virgil
>
> > -----Original Message----- From: Pedro
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:05 AM
> > To: users@global.libreoffice.org
> > Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Good Article for LibreOffice
> >
> > Hi Tom, all
> >
> > Let me be the "Devil's advocate" for a moment...
> >
> >
> > Tom wrote
> > > MS keeps claiming that is what their new format is all about.  They
> > > claimed it with Rtf which they no longer develop which fits their pattern
> > > for gradually dropping completely and they are claiming it again with
> > > their DocX and all.
> >
> > RTF is plain text with format codes. So it is true that you can open it even
> > in a text editor. Even if it is discontinued, it is not encrypted.
> > Docx is exactly the same as ODT. A Zip container which stores objects such
> > as images, formats and the actual text in a XML file.
> >
> >
> > Tom wrote
> > > Given that ODF 1.0 and 1.1 still open in LO, AOO and all the rest it looks
> > > like ODF might achieve the promise, especially given that "contents"
> > > written in Xml can be opened and read.
> >
> > The same applies to MS Office. You can always open previous MS files in a
> > newer Office version.
> >
> > As explained above ODF follows the same logic as OOXML ;)
> > In both cases you need to have some program that opens the zip container in
> > order to have access to the XML file which contains the text.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Pedro
> >
> >
> >
> > -- View this message in context: 
> > http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-libreoffice-marketing-Good-Article-for-LibreOffice-tp4020703p4021203.html
> > Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> -- Jay Lozier
> jslozier@gmail.com
>
>
> -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@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
-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@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