Re: [libreoffice-users] PC Magazine Comments about LibreOffice

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