On 26 juillet 2014 11:49:10 CEST, Pedro <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Charles-H. Schulz wrote
Let us leave alone the fact that macros are not standardized and are
generated scripts the rely on application logic only creating a
endless pains in migrations, Novell had been working on a project to
"translate" macros from VB to Starbasic. It did have some results
simple ones but it did not prove satisfactory.
Maybe it needs more money/time invested?
Perhaps. I don't have the numbers but Novell at the time invested in this for something like 4-5
year and put several people on it so it was never exactly a side show either...
Charles-H. Schulz wrote
Instead of making demands on things that are supposedly blockers for
adoption (and when these are solved there is automatically a new
because it is not about features parity as it is about the will to
migrate) the real question is: who is ready to pay to implement this
that feature, knowing that often it will cost several thousands or
thousands of euros/dollars?
That is a very good point. Unfortunately people are naturally resistant
change. Any excuse is a good reason NOT to change. That being said, if
promoting migration to LO/AOO/etc is a goal for TDF/Apache/etc then
should be a joint effort to remove barriers...
You raise an important point. I think what TDF is interested in -notice the nuance here- is
ensuring that the businesses who contribute to LibreOffice get revenues on migrations and
LibreOffice related project. This is what we are trying to achieve for instance with professional
certification. As for the rest we can work with other ODF implementors on technical issues, solving
quirks, etc. Promoting migrations would be vague I guess...
I also agree that migration to FLOSS is sometimes sold to managers as
cost because they don't intend to spend money/contribute man-hours to
projects they are "borrowing" the software from.
It does seem that thousands of dollars/euros would be a fair
when the migration of a single town caused a saving of a million
Here's my theory on this based on 10 years of consultancy in these matters. It is fair to assume
that a migration to FLOSS ends up costing 20% less than its equivalent in proprietary software.
Why? How do I come up with that figure? 20% is the average cost of software licence compared to the
rest of the costs: service, support, training... You still should pay for those with FOSS. You can
of course go a little cheaper but if you are really cheaper than you are either forgetting
something and not doing it right or someone else is subsidizing these costs.
To me the notion that with free software you will pay zero or close to zero is dangerous.
Unfortunately it is a popular one, oddly enough more popular among corporate and public sectors
than among citizens themselves.
View this message in context:
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Envoyé de mon téléphone avec Kaiten Mail. Excusez la brièveté.
To unsubscribe e-mail to: email@example.com
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] status of "macro in ODF" interoperability? · Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
[libreoffice-users] Re: status of "macro in ODF" interoperability? · Owen Genat
- Re: [libreoffice-users] status of "macro in ODF" interoperability? (continued)
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