Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index

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

Context


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.