Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 11/29/2013 07:21 AM, anne-ology wrote:
        But what I cannot understand is why the continual changing by any
            to improve - ok; but this continual changing makes it nearly
impossible to stay up-to-date;

        forinstance, the typewriter basically stayed the same -
            yes, they electrified it, even adding memory ... yet the
operation of it remained as it had been  ;-)

        forinstance, the automobile basically stayed the same -
            yes, they switched the driver's seat, the ignition, horn, brake
placements ... yet the operation of it remained as it had been -
                up until the electronics were added  ;-)

        forinstance, the craftsman took pride in his workmanship -
            then came advertising & the 'throw-away' society  ;-(

        Are we better off with these changes or merely more 'n more confused
& frustrated  ;-)

        From me - the goofy, horse 'n buggy era-er  ;-)

The problem is with many software packages the basic functionality has been under development for 30+ years and for most packages the most useful/needed features have been added many years ago. So companies like MS are faced with how to convince/force users to stay on the upgrade treadmill to maintain sales. Also, MS faces the problem that MSO is dominant that they are likely to lose market share (and sales) in the future.

Date: Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: moving to new version of MS Office

Hi :)

Thanks Pedro :)  I am looking for criticism and for other points so
that i can write a much shorter and less emotional list and maybe give
a link to the "White Paper" that someone has been writing
Regards from
Tom :)

On 29 November 2013 00:06, Pedro <> wrote:
Hi Tom

Tom wrote
2.  The format stays the same between different versions of the
program.  It is the same format used "natively" by many other programs
such as IBM Lotus Symphony, Google-docs, K.Office, Calligra and
others.  Even MS Office 2013, and more recent, can open and use the
format which is an ISO format.
Actually this is not true. The file extension is the same but the format
been changing (that is why you have options to save to ODF 1.0, 1.1, 1.2
1.2 Extended)
If you try to open an ODF 1.2 Extended file more complex than simple text
with any other of those programs (even with some older versions of
LibreOffice) you will find some incompatibilities...

So, I agree with most of your points but this argument is shooting
on the foot. ODF does share that problem with MS XML files: same
different file structure.

The advantage is that you can always get the latest LibreOffice version
free (unlike MS Office...)


Jay Lozier

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: 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.