What's Holding OpenOffice Back? - Linux

This is a discussion on What's Holding OpenOffice Back? - Linux ; 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

  1. What's Holding OpenOffice Back?



    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.

    --
    Rick

  2. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    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.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  3. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:05:50 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:

    > 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


    In order for those to be practical, you would have to set them as the
    default format for saving files. And formatting rarely survives that type
    of conversion.


    > 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.


    hmmm.. automation. That may have some merit. I am not familiar with the
    scripting in either Office or OO.o.


    --
    Rick

  4. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    "Rick" stated in post
    i6adnevQlo8KGu_VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/7/08 2:16 PM:

    > On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:05:50 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >
    >> 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

    >
    > In order for those to be practical, you would have to set them as the
    > default format for saving files. And formatting rarely survives that type
    > of conversion.


    This is contrary to your claim that a user can get a non-fractured UI by
    simply selecting programs all made for Gnome (or whatever - all consistent).

    >> 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.

    >
    > hmmm.. automation. That may have some merit. I am not familiar with the
    > scripting in either Office or OO.o.
    >




    --
    Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
    Feel free to ask for the recipe.




  5. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    Rick wrote:

    > On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:05:50 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:


    < snip >

    >> 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.

    >
    > hmmm.. automation. That may have some merit. I am not familiar with the
    > scripting in either Office or OO.o.
    >
    >


    Scripting in OO is just slightly /different/
    Not inferior to MSO
    --
    "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend: and inside a dog,
    it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx


  6. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > i6adnevQlo8KGu_VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/7/08 2:16 PM:
    >
    >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:05:50 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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

    >>
    >> In order for those to be practical, you would have to set them as the
    >> default format for saving files. And formatting rarely survives that type
    >> of conversion.

    >
    > This is contrary to your claim that a user can get a non-fractured UI by
    > simply selecting programs all made for Gnome (or whatever - all
    > consistent).
    >


    And again Snot Michael Glasser shows his incredible reading comprehension
    problems
    But then, he is an "IT teacher". He has "classes" and "students" and
    a "business"

    Pray tell, you incompetent nimwit, what have "default formats for saving
    files" to do with your incredible idiotic "fractured UI" schtick?

    I propose you do one of your (in)famous videos (how to use a mouse part 1 of
    7, for professionals only) on that subject. Maybe your wife will have
    enough time then to actually put food on the table then when you're
    occupied with your usual bull****
    --
    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.


  7. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    48728a67$0$6603$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net on 7/7/08 2:28 PM:

    ....
    >>> In order for those to be practical, you would have to set them as the
    >>> default format for saving files. And formatting rarely survives that type
    >>> of conversion.

    >>
    >> This is contrary to your claim that a user can get a non-fractured UI by
    >> simply selecting programs all made for Gnome (or whatever - all
    >> consistent).
    >>

    >
    > And again Snot Mi=xchael Glxsser shows his incredible reading comprehension
    > problems


    So you say but you show no evidence

    > But then, he is an "IT teacher".


    I have never claimed to be an "IT teacher". There - proof that you have
    problems with your reading comprehension.

    > He has "classes" and "students" and a "business"


    Yes, I do! You got something right!

    > Pray tell, you incompetent nimwit, what have "default formats for saving
    > files" to do with your incredible idiotic "fractured UI" schtick?


    Ah, you spew insults and then prove you cannot understand what you read.

    How ironic, eh?

    > I propose you do one of your (in)famous videos (how to use a mouse part 1 of
    > 7, for professionals only) on that subject. Maybe your wife will have
    > enough time then to actually put food on the table then when you're
    > occupied with your usual bull****


    In case anyone wonders why Peter is freaking out:

    * He mocked a bug in MS Excel that is shared by OpenOffice... and this
    was humiliating to him

    * His ISP smacked him down for targeting my personal and business info
    so he has to change Usenet providers.

    * He as caught openly lying about my comments about students in regards
    to Mac use and files and folders.

    Once again Peter has made an ass out of himself... so he gets angry and
    lashes out.

    And as he crosses the line of decency and targets my business I shall be
    reporting him to his current Usenet provider... hence the reason he,
    thankfully, has reduced this behavior considerably. It certainly is not
    because he suddenly grow some moral fiber!



    --
    "For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
    I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
    interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
    company..." Linus Torvalds


  8. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:21:18 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Rick wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:05:50 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:

    >
    > < snip >
    >
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> hmmm.. automation. That may have some merit. I am not familiar with the
    >> scripting in either Office or OO.o.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > Scripting in OO is just slightly /different/ Not inferior to MSO


    I am not familiar with either. IIRC they are both based on BASIC, yes?
    Only Microsoft's is based on their own VB... ?
    --
    Rick

  9. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    On 2008-07-07, Rick wrote:
    > On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:21:18 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Rick wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:05:50 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:

    >>
    >> < snip >
    >>
    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> hmmm.. automation. That may have some merit. I am not familiar with the
    >>> scripting in either Office or OO.o.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Scripting in OO is just slightly /different/ Not inferior to MSO

    >
    > I am not familiar with either. IIRC they are both based on BASIC, yes?
    > Only Microsoft's is based on their own VB... ?


    Yes, OO.o has a BASIC and Office has VBA - but the automation support in
    Office goes way beyond that. You can automate office externally from just
    about any language you can think of on windows - all it requires is COM
    support. So, you can manipulate office from C#, VB, JavaScript, PowerShell,
    Perl, Python, PowerBasic, C++, Java, etc, etc, etc... OO.o has an external
    API - but, I believe that it is Java based so you have to use Java or
    something a language that understands Java to be able to use it.

    Even internally from at least O2K3 you could use .NET (C# and VB.NET) to
    create applications that run inside of office - so they are actual office
    addins, not external applications, so even there you not limited to VBA.

    The problem that I see is, not so much a case of can the task be accomplished
    in OO.o, but at what cost? And since, Office is so entrenched it really
    becomes, can I convert the system? And if so, what is the cost vs. benifit of
    doin so? I'd be willing to bet that the cost is going to be fairly
    significant in most cases - and in the end not worth the it...

    --
    Tom Shelton

  10. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    In article <487288ce$0$6603$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>,
    >
    > Scripting in OO is just slightly /different/
    > Not inferior to MSO


    How well is it documented? Here's nearly 500 pages from Microsoft on
    scripting Excel 2004 with Applescript:

    >



    --
    --Tim Smith

  11. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    Rick wrote:

    > To be fair, Microsoft software is sometimes better than the
    > competition's.


    Microsoft's Office wants to think for you, which I hate. I never used Office
    on my home computer. I stuck with WordStar until I was dragged, screaming,
    into the Windows world -- I went to Lotus Word Pro from there.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  12. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    "RonB" stated in post 4Hzck.43$H35.24@newsfe05.lga
    on 7/7/08 6:48 PM:

    > Rick wrote:
    >
    >> To be fair, Microsoft software is sometimes better than the
    >> competition's.

    >
    > Microsoft's Office wants to think for you, which I hate. I never used Office
    > on my home computer. I stuck with WordStar until I was dragged, screaming,
    > into the Windows world -- I went to Lotus Word Pro from there.


    At least you can turn off many of its annoying "helpful" features...
    absolutely insane how it wants to "help" you in many cases.


    --
    When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
    When God changes your mind, that's faith.
    When facts change your mind, that's science.


  13. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:38:00 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:

    > The problem that I see is, not so much a case of can the task be
    > accomplished in OO.o, but at what cost? And since, Office is so
    > entrenched it really becomes, can I convert the system? And if so, what
    > is the cost vs. benifit of doin so? I'd be willing to bet that the cost
    > is going to be fairly significant in most cases - and in the end not
    > worth the it...


    There are still companies running COBOL applications too.

    --
    // This is my opinion.

  14. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    Snit wrote:

    > "RonB" stated in post
    > 4Hzck.43$H35.24@newsfe05.lga on 7/7/08 6:48 PM:
    >
    >> Rick wrote:
    >>
    >>> To be fair, Microsoft software is sometimes better than the
    >>> competition's.

    >>
    >> Microsoft's Office wants to think for you, which I hate. I never used
    >> Office on my home computer. I stuck with WordStar until I was dragged,
    >> screaming, into the Windows world -- I went to Lotus Word Pro from there.

    >
    > At least you can turn off many of its annoying "helpful" features...
    > absolutely insane how it wants to "help" you in many cases.


    I found that out when I had to work with it -- at work. But why don't they
    turn the crap off at startup and let you figure out what you want to
    automate?

    Lotus Word Pro was much smaller and cleaner.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  15. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    "RonB" stated in post Q%Ack.51$Y51.39@newsfe06.lga
    on 7/7/08 8:18 PM:

    > Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "RonB" stated in post
    >> 4Hzck.43$H35.24@newsfe05.lga on 7/7/08 6:48 PM:
    >>
    >>> Rick wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> To be fair, Microsoft software is sometimes better than the
    >>>> competition's.
    >>>
    >>> Microsoft's Office wants to think for you, which I hate. I never used
    >>> Office on my home computer. I stuck with WordStar until I was dragged,
    >>> screaming, into the Windows world -- I went to Lotus Word Pro from there.

    >>
    >> At least you can turn off many of its annoying "helpful" features...
    >> absolutely insane how it wants to "help" you in many cases.

    >
    > I found that out when I had to work with it -- at work. But why don't they
    > turn the crap off at startup and let you figure out what you want to
    > automate?


    So I can be paid to go to offices and turn it off for people!

    Seriously - it is absurd... while I generally like MS Office it certainly
    has its fair share of stupidity. Fair share and more.

    I actually have been working almost completely without MS Office - there
    have been a few things I have found that it does better than Apple's Pages
    or OpenOffice, so I do go back to it from time to time.

    > Lotus Word Pro was much smaller and cleaner.




    --
    The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.


  16. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    * 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.

    --
    Surprise your boss. Get to work on time.

  17. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Even internally from at least O2K3 you could use .NET (C# and VB.NET) to
    > create applications that run inside of office - so they are actual office
    > addins, not external applications, so even there you not limited to VBA.
    >
    > The problem that I see is, not so much a case of can the task be accomplished
    > in OO.o, but at what cost? And since, Office is so entrenched it really
    > becomes, can I convert the system? And if so, what is the cost vs. benifit of
    > doin so? I'd be willing to bet that the cost is going to be fairly
    > significant in most cases - and in the end not worth the it...


    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.

    Not much of a testament, in my opinion.

    And what kind of moron uses Word as the user interface?

    And how about embedded documents? Try editing a Visio document embedded
    in Word. What a pile of crap.

    --
    I am a computer. I am dumber than any human and smarter than any administrator.

  18. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    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.

    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.

    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.


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

  19. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

    On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:18:53 -0500, RonB wrote:

    > Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "RonB" stated in post
    >> 4Hzck.43$H35.24@newsfe05.lga on 7/7/08 6:48 PM:
    >>
    >>> Rick wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> To be fair, Microsoft software is sometimes better than the
    >>>> competition's.
    >>>
    >>> Microsoft's Office wants to think for you, which I hate. I never used
    >>> Office on my home computer. I stuck with WordStar until I was dragged,
    >>> screaming, into the Windows world -- I went to Lotus Word Pro from there.

    >>
    >> At least you can turn off many of its annoying "helpful" features...
    >> absolutely insane how it wants to "help" you in many cases.

    >
    > I found that out when I had to work with it -- at work. But why don't they
    > turn the crap off at startup and let you figure out what you want to
    > automate?
    >
    > Lotus Word Pro was much smaller and cleaner.


    I've always thought that Lotus Wordpro was a better program than Microsoft
    Word.
    Highly under rated IMHO.

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

  20. Re: What's Holding OpenOffice Back?

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

    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.



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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast