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

To be honest, I have not read the article, but it can be said that a cardinal rule is that you do not alienate your advertisers within your articles.

Unless a writer is not biased towards one system or another, there will always be some issues with their reviews and ideas about their reviewed tech, so many people would say.

Yes, MS Office has the market share for providing office software. Yes, they have the money to make sure there are advertisements on how great their software is. If you were a publisher with MS advertising money coming into your publication, you may do what you can to make any article favor MS and make the competition look unfavorable for your needs. I have seen articles written with a slat towards one side of a debated idea and then the editors/publishers edit it towards the other side without the authors knowledge. "Don't bite the hand that feed you" is a major idea where the businesses who pay for advertisements get to influence what gets "said" in the publications.

We all have opinions about MS vs. open-source or FOSS. I cannot afford to keep paying for my software and its upgrades. That is why I first looked into Linux and its software alternatives. Yes, I still have some Windows systems, but I tend to use the packages I use on my Ubuntu systems on my Windows systems, if they have both Linux and Windows versions. LibreOffice, VLC, Firefox, and a bunch of other software, are a major part of my computer usage on both Ubuntu and Windows systems.

So, back to the article. . .
Was the author uninformed or was their other reasons that such an article content written. Then there is the question on how much research was done days or week before the article was written and who researched it for the author. I know that a professional writer may not have the time to do all of his or hers research included within an article. If you have to write an article every few days, or daily for a blog article, how much time does that author have for research?

So since this system of providing information and help for a growing competitor to MS Office suite, I say most of us tend think differently than what the article states about LibreOffice 5.x.x, or at least what we hear about what the article stated in these posts. I dumped MS Office due to costs, while others had a variety of other reasons. I do my best to promote locally LibreOffice. Having major tech articles that "bash" the abilities and stability of LibreOffice is not helpful, but these publications need the computer industry's money to survive. If the major supplies of this money needs MS products to keep the lights on, then it is hard to be objective towards alternatives to MS products. Rarely do the people in charge of a business look towards publications based on Linux and FOSS ideas and services for their information about products for their businesses. WE were raised on MS based products to be the only source personal and business solution to our computer needs. WE need to have a major push by the Linux and FOSS based communities to re-educate people that there is a different way of thinking and a different source for our computer needs. European communities are slowly learning this, but the USA communities are not hearing the shouting of the voices of change.

Pro MS articles in publications, without articles that show the real truth about the alternatives to MS, are what is holding back the USA expansion into the alternative products and markets, like LibreOffice others that can replace MS products in you personal and business computer environment.

On 11/04/2015 05:32 PM, Bastián Díaz wrote:

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: - - - -



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

"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

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: [1]
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at


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.