On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:13:49 -0700
Ken Springer <email@example.com> wrote:
On 11/9/13 12:25 PM, Paul wrote:
Interesting article, and indeed it is true that the file format is
the most important aspect of the office suite debate, but I think
you are a little naive in your assumption that LO should stop doing
any other type of marketing.
From a programmer's perspective, I think you are right. It's a lot
less work. But, from the "average" users perspective, they don't
care. As long as they can exchange their files with everyone they
need/want to share with, with no glitches or problems, it makes no
difference to them. Those file formats could have been created by
Klingons, for all they care.
I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here. It sounds like you are
just echoing my sentiments :)
Businesses will care about interoperability, and the ease of
converting or accessing files created with their current software.
LO isn't there yet, IMO.
Actually, I think LO *is* there. I think it is better at
interoperability than MSO, it's just not better at interoperability
I disagree with your premise of the user that does not know how to
modify the code is irrelevant. I would argue just the opposite.
You're misquoting me; I never said that the *users* were irrelevant, I
said that *the fact that not everybody knows how to change the source*
is irrelevant. I said that open source believes we should all have the
*choice* to change the source if we wish, irrespective of how many of
us actually are capable of changing the source. *Very* different.
But, I can't tell them they'll have no problems. I'm not talking the
inevitable changes in any file format, I'm talking about features
that don't work correctly. It's that "perceived value" that LO is
better than staying with whatever product they are currently using.
So you're saying that LO has far more features that don't work
correctly as opposed to MSO? I honestly don't find that many. Not
enough to make me want to use MSO. Not enough to make me tell people I
know not to use LO.
And even if what you are saying is true, that doesn't speak of LO doing
anything wrong, it speaks of LO not yet having managed to reach the
same level as MSO. Not an irrelevant discussion, just a different
one to the one I was responding to.
The potential for self-betterment is what
open source is all about. The fact that the potential for good use
means that there is lots of use that is poorly implemented is one of
the prices that we gladly (though with plenty of grumbles) accept.
Though we (should) never stop trying to educate users.
Actually, this is taken out of context. I was replying to a whinge
about how many documents are poorly written and formatted; I was saying
that that had nothing to do with any discussion about marketing free
software vs. marketing standard file formats.
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
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