Re: [tdf-discuss] MS Outlook?

e-letter wrote:
> On 15/02/2012, Robert Derman <robert.derman@pressenter.com> wrote:
>   
I am just a bit slow to re comment on this, but belatedly, here goes.
> > You have to excuse me for saying this, I have used OpenOffice since it
> > was first released to the public (I loved OO Writer, and I like LO
> > Writer even more) and I am a big fan of open source software, BUT there
> > is an attitude in the general open source community that users should
> > work around the fact that open source software solutions are not, and
> > perhaps should not be totally integrated.  As long as this attitude
> > persists the corporate world will NEVER go to open source for their day
> > to day software needs.  MS, Oracle, Adobe and other corporate software
> > providers do and always will pander to this desire for fully integrated
> > solutions.
> >
> >     
> A more accurate statement would be that the open source community
> adopts the approach traditional to UNIX, that software programs should
> do single, individual tasks to very high standard. In addition, the
> user is given _choice_ about what functions are to be integrated, for
> example, user wants a hyperlink in a mail message to open in a web
> browser. The user is free to specify in the mail client configuration
> options_which_ web browser should be chosen.
>   
No matter how you phrase or interpret it, the result is the same, open 
source is NOT a fully integrated one package product.  The simple fact 
is that many in the corporate world insist on a complete solution 
provided by a SINGLE vendor.  For many, the reason for this is that when 
something doesn't work properly they don't have to put up with two 
vendors pointing fingers at each other and saying "It is his fault that 
it doesn't work, not mine!" 
> Due to an increased appreciation of the risks of integration as
> determined by the vendor (security), it could be argued that corporate
> world recognises the benefit of the open source model.
>
>   
> > Many of us, myself included have no need for this degree of software
> > integration.  However for anyone who does, all I can say is scrape
> > together the exorbitant price for M$ Office and buy it.  You will get
> > the full integration that you desire.  Forget about open source
> > software, at least for the foreseeable future it will not provide what
> > you seem to be looking for.
> >
> >
> >     
> Whilst it is appropriate to tell m$ fans to continue paying for the m$
> business model (instead of asking free software to adopt the m$
> mentality, for free!!!), it should be stated that "integration" can
> still be achieved via open source software, although not be a single
> vendor but a range of vendors using open standards to achieve the
> ability to perform multiple actions analogous to "integration".
>   
For the reason that this may not be acceptable to the corporate world, 
see my new paragraph above.
> To answer the question, an example each to consider: for calendar, use
> sunbird; tasks, mr project (or maybe a simple text editor with outline
> functionality?); contacts, zimbra.
>   
> > I am not a big fan of M$ software, but there is one thing they do that I
> > like, they send out patches that are small and only change the part of a
> > large program that needs to be changed.  They don't insist that you
> > download and install a whole new copy of it.  That is also why I won't
> > upgrade my copy of LO until version 4.0 comes along.  Or until they
> > announce that the next version incorporates some feature that I REALLY
> > want.
> >
> >     
> Patches seems to make software more inherently susceptible to bugs? I
> don't upgrade because of no interest in the constant upgrade culture
> that open source programmers seek to promote (i.e. users as free
> testers!). Changing software every three/four years has been adequate
> for most personal needs.
>   
It isn't patches that make software susceptible to bugs, but sloppy 
and/or careless design and a lack of adequate testing.


I should mention here that if anything eventually de-rails Microsoft 
Office it will likely be their insistence on document format related 
vendor lock-in.  I expect that ODF will eventually become the global 
standard for all public and legal documents.  Because of incompatability 
even within MS  made products, I expect that companies will insist on 
ODF for anything archival or to be exchanged with other companies.  
Between PDF and ODF, I expect that MS will eventually be forced to 
abandon the insistence on everyone using MS formats. 

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.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.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted