To shorten up this message, I've deleted all but Kracked's reply.
On 11/3/13 10:36 AM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
Sure, LO does not have as many "modules" as the professional version of
MSO. That said, since there are already FOSS packages to do many of
those missing "modules", why should LO have their developers work on
those as well as the "basic" office suite modules?
Word -- > LO Writer
plugin -- > LO Formula
Excel -- > LO Calc
PowerPoint -- > LO Presentation
OneNote -- > . . . there should be free packages or extensions
to replace this [never used this]
Outlook -- > . . . Mozilla Thunderbird or other FOSS email
clients and their extensions should do the job [does for me]
Publisher -- > . . . Inkscape [maybe] or maybe Scribus for some jobs
Access -- > LO Base
SkyDrive -- > . . . there should be free services to replace
this [never used this, but have used a "cloud drive" once]
none included -- > LO Drawing
The subject is to compare "suite" to "suite", not "suite" to "suite plus
others". When you start adding the "plus others", you can turn your
computer in to just about anything, and the comparison becomes
Publisher and Inkscape are not the same thing. Although you can use
Inkscape for some very basic DTP items. But I dare you to set up a book
or manual with it. People used to do, and may still do, the same thing
with Corel Draw.
If you want to add additional software for the LO side of your example,
then you have to allow the same additions on the MSO side. Level
playing field, and all of that.
Which modifies your list to the following, at least:
Publisher --> Scribus
Inkscape --> Inkscape
The playing field is one program compared to one program, not one
program to many programs.
So, Lo does not include all of the modules of MSO. So what. You are
able to add and remove modules of MSO depending on your need. So, if
you do not have a module in the LO office suite, you add a FOSS package
to give you that functionality. That is what I have done over the years.
The point is, the modules are part of MSO, supplied by MSO. Comparable
modules are not supplied by MSO.
I am comparing suites, not computers. I don't care, for the purpose of
this discussion, if the computers can do the same thing. Can the same
type of suites do the same thing? If you want to compare the final
abilities of the computer, then you have to allow substitutions for the
MS side of the comparison as well.
So, let's substitute Adobe Pagemaker for Publisher, and Corel Draw for
Inkscape. Which side offers the user more "horsepower" for the job?
Sure it is hard to find any FOSS package that reads .pub files, but
there are FOSS packages that will create the same projects as Publisher
will do. They may not work the same as Publisher, but they get the
It's hard to find anything that reads .pub files, even older .pub files.
The job gets done *only* if the software is capable of doing the job. A
pickup does essentially the same job as Kenworth tractor w/ 40' flatbed.
But there are jobs the pickup can't do.
SkyDrive, what is so important to have that "name brand", when you can
do the job with other packages and services?
Once again, comparing suite to suite only, not suite to a range of software.
The inherent problem faced by the "range of software" solutions is the
interoperability of the range of software. Which doesn't always work well.
The real mindset, for me, is if there is already a FOSS package, or just
a free one, that does the job of these extra modules of MSO, then why
should the developers really spend their valuable time recreating them.
Why do we need a LO Email when there are several good packages out there
that has a many year development cycle behind it. Our developers would
need years of work to get that far along. Someone once suggested having
other LO modules that would make a "all in one" office suite of software
marketing statement, but the goal of LO, seems to me, for creating the
best office suite that includes a word processor, spread sheet,
presentation, data base front end, vector drawing package, and a
mathematical formula creation editor. It never was, in my opinion, a
goal to create a replacement for Outlook or a cloud service. How will a
free software company pay for the hardware and bandwidth to offer a
cloud-based service? There are plenty of email clients and web mail
clients to do the work of Outlook and services to replace SkyDrive.
Interoperability, for one. Just because FOSS program A creates an .svg
file, doesn't mean FOSS program B can correctly read it. But if Word
creates a .docx file, all the other modules in Office that are designed
to read the .docx file will be able to do that. Barring bugs, of course.
I've stipulated that LO *is* comparable to MSO Home and Office. But
it's misleading to make statements that make it sound like LO is
comparable to *all* versions of MSO.
It's the misleading statements (not to mention to hard the unfixed bugs
that affect my use of LO), that frankly, pi$$ me off. It's like
listening to a bunch of politicians tell you what you want to hear,
which may not be the truth.
An aside... Base question... Base needs an separate database program
that is just accesses, correct? If so, Base is not comparable to
Access, which is the database program.
I know I have seen references on these lists for options that replace
OneNote for LO users. I do not remember what they were though. Since I
never used OneNote, I can not tell what would be the best option to do
what it does.
I've not used OneNote either, I use a Mac! LOL For the time being,
As for a "serious" competition for MSO, well look at the FOSS record in
Europe. I would say LO is a serious contender due to the fact that more
and more large organizations, plus regional and national governments are
"scrapping" MSO for LO and other FOSS options. Do anyone remember the
news out of France? It seems that they are dropping MSO country-wide
and opting for LO and FOSS instead. This is a trend that is happening
at the local, regional, and national levels of countries world-wide.
USA, not so much, but there is a government mandate for the use of FOSS
as an option.
The question then becomes, "Why are they switching?" The simple fact
they are switching tells me nothing. Maybe they don't like the price
structure. Maybe they don't like the proprietary file formats. Maybe,
as the European courts did address, they don't like being forced to have
Internet Explorer forced on the user.
And I do remember hearing about the switch in France. I was surprised
to find it mentioned on some US news shows.
I doubt there will be a change in what the US government uses
internally. When computers began to become truly needed office
equipment, agencies could use whatever OS and software they wanted.
But when.... (wait for it...)
(wait for it...) <G>
interoperability and IT support became issues and almost impossible to
deal with, Microsoft's systems, for better or for worse, became the
standard for the US government. I was there when all of this happened.
A huge number of office folks did not like giving up Word Perfect.
I'm sure there are a few non-MS systems around, but they will be
I keep hearing form a few people about Kingsoft, but others are warning
me away from using it, due to some privacy issues. So, I cannot judge
the good or bad about that software.
I've heard the same privacy issues, but nothing definitive. Mostly, the
concerns seemed to center around the fact it's an Asian company, Chinese
I think. But then something from Taiwan is officially Chinese too.
So, for my home-based office, I use LO and FOSS and not MSO. The newest
MSO I have is 2003. I do not plan on buying any newer one.
I had a chance to get 2007 at the student price. Installed, but never
used on a regular basis.
Mac OS X 10.8.5
To unsubscribe e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org
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
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Engaging Users in the LibreOffice Project · Charles-H. Schulz
[libreoffice-users] Re: Engaging Users in the LibreOffice Project · Urmas
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy