On 22/07/2011 15:24, e-letter wrote:
True to a certain point. But you can't ignore the fact that 90-95% of
Office suite users USE MS! They aren't going to be persuaded to migrate
to LO or even OO if when they are sent documents created by MSO, they
don't render properly in LO.
The ability for LO to create fine ODF documents far better then MS
creates Office documents will only be a major factor in the uptake of LO
when the number of users of LO is approaching that of those who use MSO
- ie as the split tends towards a much higher proportion of LO users.
Rather a catch 22 situation wouldn't you say?
Fine. People are/should be free to choose whichever program they
prefer. If someone likes the interface of m$o, good for them. The
point of the original post, is that priority should be for LO
performance in native odf to be better than m$o performance in native
m$ format (or indeed secondary odf). It does not seem right that
people complain that "writer does not save to m$ format well", when
the statement "writer creates beautiful, easily-created odf documents"
should be the main reason to use LO.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
- Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy? (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