On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 12:15 +0100, Mike Scott wrote:
Well, it looks like a 4.0 review to me. Firefox gives page info as
published time: 2013-05-01T16:57:00+00:00
I get a LO 5.0 review... but it is OK, you aren't missing anything. It
is a pretty typical drive-by rubbish review which spends most of its
time nit-picking superficial issues. Mostly it reads like an add for
pay-for products [he even includes links and prices].
"Among the new features in LibreOffice 5.0 are some that you probably
won't care about," ... yeah, classy. I love reviewers who know what
features I need and what is important to me.
And he clearly does not know how to do versioning in LO. So he
criticizes it as wanting.
I should get a job writing these kinds of reviews - EASY MONEY!
I miss the depth of old BYTE! magazine reviews.
Adam Tauno Williams <mailto:email@example.com> GPG D95ED383
Systems Administrator, Python Developer, LPI / NCLA
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
Re: [libreoffice-users] LibreOffice 5.0 Review & Rating | PCMag.com · zed
- Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice 5.0 Review & Rating | PCMag.com (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