Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi :)
Copy&paste is good wrt my item 3.
Regards from
Tom :)

On 3 February 2014 17:45, Kracked_P_P---webmaster
<> wrote:

YES, F.O.S.S packages share things with other groups, but I really thing
business users needs the documentation on LO pages and not OOo pages.  These
people do not understand about the sharing of information between "friendly
competition" FOSS packages and the lack of info due to the package[s] being
too "new" or immature to work for them.

I really would hope the first place for our users for information would be
on a LO site or in LO docs.  So I feel we need to have the business
information for deployment and migration in the LO wiki system and not ask
the business users to go to our "friendly competition" for that info.  It
just does not look well for us and those who market and support LO to the
business users.

On 02/03/2014 12:27 PM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
You are not alone in that opinion but i can see it from other angles too.

1.  The way i see it is that LO and AOO are produced by 1 large
community.  There are quite a few people who work in both or move from
1 to the other and sometimes back again.  The mainstream press seems
to think we fight and argue constantly and that seems to have boosted
coverage for both projects.  AOO aims at a slightly different niche
from LO although both have a lot of ground in common.  It's NOT a case
of us against them.  It's both of us and others (Caligra/KOffice,
Google-docs, AbiWord&Gnumeric etc) acting in "co-operative
competition" with/against each other against a dominant market-leader.

2.  I copy&pasted one page from OOo's documentation into our own wiki
and the original author proof-read it for us.  He was more than happy
to share the knowledge and help distribute it widely.  Since then
others have made a better page and Hagar has updated his one in AOO so
'mine' has fallen quite far behind and rarely gets visited now.  I'll
set it as a redirect to the updated one someday.

3.  I agree that business people are probably unfamiliar with the
concept of co-operative competition and that it might even scare them
off from using either of LO and AOO!!  Corporate-types are often timid
when in unfamiliar terrain so it's better for us to appear to be easy
for them to understand (imo)

Regards from
Tom :)

On 3 February 2014 16:47, Kracked_P_P---webmaster
<> wrote:

On 02/03/2014 08:48 AM, Marcello Romani wrote:

Il 03/02/2014 13:21, IOmazic ha scritto:


is it possible that you share this tools for windows? I will need to
it to around 450 pc, so it will be cool to have some tool to do all
modification needed.

Kind regards,
Ivan Omazic

Ivan Omazic
IT Assistant / Technical Lead
+41 22 730 81 55
+41 79 918 34 26
View this message in context:
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at

This might prove a useful starting point:

Why are people still sending others to the web site for
information about LibreOffice?

For this posted need, I remember hearing about "deployment" of LO on a LO
web page.  Although LO was a fork of OOo from several years ago, it is
"grown" past those roots now.  If we do not have the needed documentation
now, we should really make it a priority to set up a web site/page to
about IT management deployment of LO, including network based.

The current AOO/OOo web site should not be the place where people go to
information about LO.  From a marketing aspect, this could lead business
users to think we are not the package to use, but AOO is.  That is wrong
of doing "business".

SO, just from the marketing aspect to businesses, this needs to be
 From the typical user, this could be an issue as well.

I stopped using OOo when LO came out.  I do not want to have to explain
users that LO's documentation site[s] is not the place to find the needed
information to migrate/deploy LO to their systems.

Would you tell the UK tech advisors to not consider LO for the open
option to using the mandated ODF file format requirements, but to go with
AOO/OOo since we do not have the needed documentation?  We would be
this if we tell them to go to the OOo web site for the deployment

I see too many of these postings telling users to go to the OOo site[s]
the needed information or extension/template download.  Yes, there may be
something there that LO currently does not have, but it should not be the
first option.  LO needs to rely on LO's sites to give the user the help
support they need.

I do not use Nabble, but I would think that there must be a forum there
about business migration and deployment.  IF not, then there should be.

Am I alone in this opinion?

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

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.