What's Holding OpenOffice Back? - Linux

This is a discussion on What's Holding OpenOffice Back? - Linux ; On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:44:21 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:43:52 -0400, Linonut wrote: > >> * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo: >> >>> On 2008-07-07, Rick wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

  1. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:44:21 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:43:52 -0400, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-07-07, Rick wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Every Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) product has a free, open source
    >>>> counterpart created by dedicated programmers who loathe everything
    >>>> the company stands for. The free stuff is darn good. Yet companies
    >>>> and individuals continue to buy billions of dollars worth of
    >>>> Microsoft products.
    >>>>
    >>>> To be fair, Microsoft software is sometimes better than the
    >>>> competition's. But quality isn't the only factor: The company has
    >>>> spent years digging moats around its castle, building digital walls
    >>>> to keep other vendors out and users in. One of the biggest factors is
    >>>> its control over proprietary data formats.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> ... and the explanation goes on from there.
    >>>
    >>> I personally don't believe that is the case. The fact is, that MS
    >>> word has forever supported other formats for export (rtf, csv, word
    >>> perfect, xml, html, etc)- so, loosing your data is sort of a bogus
    >>> claim. The real reason, I believe, and no one seems to ever address
    >>> is the automation aspect. The level of automation and scripting that
    >>> you can do with Office is way beyond anything I've seen with OO.o or
    >>> any of it's competitors. That simple fact has resulted in a lot of
    >>> buisness applications relying on Office or actually being implemented
    >>> in office. These systems are not often easily replaced by the
    >>> competition.

    >>
    >> Nah, that doesn't explain /at all/ why the average person sends around
    >> Word documents or Excel spreadsheets.

    >
    >
    > Most people just hit the *Save* button and assume that the program made
    > the correct choice.
    > With Microsoft Word they pretty much will be correct in that assumption.
    >
    > With Open Office?
    >
    > Who knows?
    >
    > Isn't the default *Save* format OO's own format?


    Yes, it is. However, you can set the default to be anything OO.o supports.

    > I don't remember and am too lazy to boot to Linux to check.


    Why let facts get in your way?

    >
    > As for the Linux advocates whining about this version of Office not
    > reading that version of documents, in the rare case that happens due to
    > a user not keeping their program up to date, a quick trip to
    > microsoft.com will fix it.
    >
    > Compare this to an OpenOffice user sending a person who is using
    > Microsoft Office a native Open Office format document. Not a prayer that
    > the user will figure out how to view it and even if they do the results
    > will vary.


    Of course Microsoft Office doesn't open OO.o native files. That is not
    the fault of the OO.o developers, it is the fault of Microsoft. If MS
    allowed that to happen, more people might start using OO.o, MS can't
    afford to help that to happen.

    When various agencies tried to mandate Open file formats, Microsoft could
    have just added the formats to Office. The agencies could have easily
    just kept MS Office. Did MS do that? No. They came up with there own
    format, and then tried to force it through standards certification.



    --
    Rick

  2. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:37:53 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 03:48:11 +0100, Homer wrote:
    >
    >> What's Holding OpenOffice Back?
    >>
    >> At more than 1.2 million downloads per week, not much I'd say:
    >>
    >> http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2008-...20080529.3.xml

    >
    > Yea, and how many people are actually *USING* it ? Not many from what I
    > can tell.


    Define many.

    >
    > The same line is used by Linux advocates all the time when it comes to
    > popularity of Linux distributions.
    >
    > IOW xxx million downloads, the servers crashed due to the huge demand of
    > the latest distribution etc....
    >
    > Yet, the numbers still show desktop Linux to be a miserable 0.6 percent
    > or so.


    .... or so? How about .8% (http://marketshare.hitslink.com) - 3.7% (http://
    w3schools.com/). And yes, this is measuring web page hits.

    >
    > If all these people *downloading* Linux/OpenOffice were actually using
    > the program rather than trying it and dumping it, Microsoft would have
    > been out of business a long, long time ago.


    .... in your opinion.

    --
    Rick

  3. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:46:47 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > Rational Requisite Pro (requirements management app) uses Word as its
    > user interface, and Excel to automate collection of requirements.
    >
    > The best you can say about it is that it can get the job done. But it
    > is also slow, clumsy, and fragile.


    I think that's more a reflection of the quality of Rational code than
    anything else. It's always ironic that the supposed software methodology
    guru's always create the worst software.

    ClearCase, Rose, RequisitePro, all examples of supposed expert tools that
    are just crap software.

  4. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    On 2008-07-08, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:46:47 -0400, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> Rational Requisite Pro (requirements management app) uses Word as its
    >> user interface, and Excel to automate collection of requirements.
    >>
    >> The best you can say about it is that it can get the job done. But it
    >> is also slow, clumsy, and fragile.

    >
    > I think that's more a reflection of the quality of Rational code than
    > anything else. It's always ironic that the supposed software methodology
    > guru's always create the worst software.


    Whereas the critics of those gurus' efforts create /great/ software.

    Anybody's fault as long as "anybody" ain't Microslop, eh Fuddie?

    --
    When you boil it down to the essentials, it's because Linux is
    designed to be *used* and Windows is designed to be *sold*.
    ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
    http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

  5. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:03:28 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:

    > On 2008-07-08, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    >> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:46:47 -0400, Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>> Rational Requisite Pro (requirements management app) uses Word as its
    >>> user interface, and Excel to automate collection of requirements.
    >>>
    >>> The best you can say about it is that it can get the job done. But it
    >>> is also slow, clumsy, and fragile.

    >>
    >> I think that's more a reflection of the quality of Rational code than
    >> anything else. It's always ironic that the supposed software methodology
    >> guru's always create the worst software.

    >
    > Whereas the critics of those gurus' efforts create /great/ software.
    >
    > Anybody's fault as long as "anybody" ain't Microslop, eh Fuddie?


    You assume too much.

    Even the worst estimation of Microsoft software from the most
    anti-Microsoft zealot doesn't compare to the suckiness that is Rational
    software.

  6. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:12:09 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:03:28 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-07-08, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    >>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:46:47 -0400, Linonut wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Rational Requisite Pro (requirements management app) uses Word as its
    >>>> user interface, and Excel to automate collection of requirements.
    >>>>
    >>>> The best you can say about it is that it can get the job done. But it
    >>>> is also slow, clumsy, and fragile.
    >>>
    >>> I think that's more a reflection of the quality of Rational code than
    >>> anything else. It's always ironic that the supposed software methodology
    >>> guru's always create the worst software.

    >>
    >> Whereas the critics of those gurus' efforts create /great/ software.
    >>
    >> Anybody's fault as long as "anybody" ain't Microslop, eh Fuddie?

    >
    > You assume too much.


    He does whatever Roy Schestowitz tells him to do.

    > Even the worst estimation of Microsoft software from the most
    > anti-Microsoft zealot doesn't compare to the suckiness that is Rational
    > software.


    Never used it so I can't comment.
    Is it worse than the usual OSS slopware?


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  7. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:52:28 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    >>> Anybody's fault as long as "anybody" ain't Microslop, eh Fuddie?

    >>
    >> You assume too much.

    >
    > He does whatever Roy Schestowitz tells him to do.
    >
    >> Even the worst estimation of Microsoft software from the most
    >> anti-Microsoft zealot doesn't compare to the suckiness that is Rational
    >> software.

    >
    > Never used it so I can't comment.
    > Is it worse than the usual OSS slopware?


    As I said, it's true irony that the worlds foremost software methodology
    guru's create the worst software imaginable, although I'm pretty sure
    Booch, Rumbaugh and Jacobson don't have much if anything to do with the
    software development themselves. Still, it's their company (or was before
    IBM bought them). Not a good reflection.

    I'd rather use some of the open source Java tools like Argo UML, which..
    other than being obviously written in Java, and is kind of a pig and slow,
    isn't a bad piece of software.

    http://argouml.tigris.org/

  8. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:35:23 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:52:28 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >>>> Anybody's fault as long as "anybody" ain't Microslop, eh Fuddie?
    >>>
    >>> You assume too much.

    >>
    >> He does whatever Roy Schestowitz tells him to do.
    >>
    >>> Even the worst estimation of Microsoft software from the most
    >>> anti-Microsoft zealot doesn't compare to the suckiness that is Rational
    >>> software.

    >>
    >> Never used it so I can't comment.
    >> Is it worse than the usual OSS slopware?

    >
    > As I said, it's true irony that the worlds foremost software methodology
    > guru's create the worst software imaginable, although I'm pretty sure
    > Booch, Rumbaugh and Jacobson don't have much if anything to do with the
    > software development themselves. Still, it's their company (or was before
    > IBM bought them). Not a good reflection.
    >
    > I'd rather use some of the open source Java tools like Argo UML, which..
    > other than being obviously written in Java, and is kind of a pig and slow,
    > isn't a bad piece of software.
    >
    > http://argouml.tigris.org/


    Fair enough..
    I always suggest using what works for the particular person and
    application.
    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  9. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    On Jul 8, 2:52*pm, "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
    > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:12:09 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:03:28 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:

    >
    > >> On 2008-07-08, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    > >>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:46:47 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    >
    > >>>> Rational Requisite Pro (requirements management app) uses Word as its
    > >>>> user interface, and Excel to automate collection of requirements.

    >
    > >>>> The best you can say about it is that it can get the job done. *But it
    > >>>> is also slow, clumsy, and fragile.

    >
    > >>> I think that's more a reflection of the quality of Rational code than
    > >>> anything else. *It's always ironic that the supposed software methodology
    > >>> guru's always create the worst software.

    >
    > >> Whereas the critics *of those gurus' efforts create /great/ software..

    >
    > >> Anybody's fault as long as "anybody" ain't Microslop, eh Fuddie?

    >
    > > You assume too much.

    >
    > He does whatever Roy Schestowitz tells him to do.
    >
    > > Even the worst estimation of Microsoft software from the most
    > > anti-Microsoft zealot doesn't compare to the suckiness that is Rational
    > > software.

    >
    > Never used it so I can't comment.
    > Is it worse than the usual OSS slopware?
    >


    It's one of the worst pieces of software ever written.

  10. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > I'd rather use some of the open source Java tools like Argo UML, which..
    > other than being obviously written in Java, and is kind of a pig and slow,
    > isn't a bad piece of software.
    >
    > http://argouml.tigris.org/


    Other than? Because of more like.

  11. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 04:31:10 -0700 (PDT), cc wrote:

    > On Jul 8, 2:52*pm, "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
    >> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:12:09 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:03:28 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:

    >>
    >>>> On 2008-07-08, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    >>>>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:46:47 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    >>
    >>>>>> Rational Requisite Pro (requirements management app) uses Word as its
    >>>>>> user interface, and Excel to automate collection of requirements.

    >>
    >>>>>> The best you can say about it is that it can get the job done. *But it
    >>>>>> is also slow, clumsy, and fragile.

    >>
    >>>>> I think that's more a reflection of the quality of Rational code than
    >>>>> anything else. *It's always ironic that the supposed software methodology
    >>>>> guru's always create the worst software.

    >>
    >>>> Whereas the critics *of those gurus' efforts create /great/ software.

    >>
    >>>> Anybody's fault as long as "anybody" ain't Microslop, eh Fuddie?

    >>
    >>> You assume too much.

    >>
    >> He does whatever Roy Schestowitz tells him to do.
    >>
    >>> Even the worst estimation of Microsoft software from the most
    >>> anti-Microsoft zealot doesn't compare to the suckiness that is Rational
    >>> software.

    >>
    >> Never used it so I can't comment.
    >> Is it worse than the usual OSS slopware?
    >>

    >
    > It's one of the worst pieces of software ever written.


    So it appears.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2