Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2015 Archives by date, by thread · List index



I think some very whimsical and uninformed comments from the author.
Unfortunately, that information makes users distrust LibreOffice not want to test their virtues. I would say that LibreOffice is in its best and still much more to do.

Some articles with facts showing quality and low error that has LibreOffice:
-http://www.coverity.com/press-releases/libreoffice-makes-strides-in-software-quality-with-coverity-scan/
-http://www.infoworld.com/article/2687117/open-source-software/libreoffice-code-ten-times-better-than-proprietary.html
-https://colonelqubit.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/libreoffice-qa-over-1000-bibisects-served/
-https://mmohrhard.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/short-update-about-the-performance-testing/

Cheers

---
BASTIÁN DÍAZ
https://telegram.me/diazbastian

El 04-11-2015 17:58, CVAlkan escribió:

For what it's worth...

In a review of Microsoft Office 2016 in the November 2015 of PC Magazine, long time reviewer Edward Mendelson gives the new version of Microsoft's suite 4.5 of 5 stars. As is typical of such reviews, the main discussion is followed by a short section - in this case titled "Office Alternatives" -
describing other competitive offerings, such as Google Apps, Corel
WordPerfect Office, Apple's iWorks, etc.. He had the following to say about
LibreOffice:

"Although Office 2016 as a whole towers over its competition, it isn't the
best at everything. LibreOffice 5 is a free and open-source suite, so
governments and security-conscious organizations can use it without worrying about what might be hidden inside Microsoft's code - but it's also clumsy
and unstable."

"Clumsy" seems to me to be a matter of what one is used to (i.e. de gustibus non disputandum as Horace said), and Mr. Mendelson doesn't explain what he
means by "unstable" (it's of course easy to find "bugs," but I consider
"unstable" to suggest frequent crashes, which I haven't experienced or heard
about).

There are a variety of use cases for which LibreOffice is simply inadequate for serious work of course, but these are not the sort of things that the average user would run across. Given that LibreOffice is FREE, and coded mostly by volunteers with a wide range of programming skills and experience, it seems to me that the author's characterization misses the whole value
proposition of LibreOffice.

--
View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/PC-Magazine-Comments-about-LibreOffice-tp4165317.html [1]
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Links:
------
[1] http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/PC-Magazine-Comments-about-LibreOffice-tp4165317.html

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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

Context


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.