Hi,
> This is not a thesis and some things are obvious and don't need proving
> to LUG users. OO is well used and we all know what it is. So is star
> office. You are completely aware of that so stop playing childish word
> games.
I'll stop correcting you when you stop getting it wrong. :)
> Are you talking about the current version 3? I'm sure would it still
> recovered the document, which may cause some concern, but at least you
> could carry on working.
Yep, including the current version 3. It does recover the document,
but that's still a minimum of 20 mins lost time taken, because that's
how long it takes to open the document again. Not to mention the
productivity hit.
>>> The other issue is user familiarity of MS office. Just because OO
>>> doesn't exactly mirror MS office doesn't mean it is crap.
>>
>> Straw man. When did I claim that?
>
> Did I say you claimed that?
Implicitly, yes. I claimed OOo is crap. You countered as above.
> By trying to improve this they need our help.
I accept that. But I struggle with it. If it costs me more money in
lost time and productivity to use an open source solution than a
commercial solution, I'm not going to play. I'm not a charity.
> Your comments will prevent
> people even trying open office as it is not as bad as you make out.
If it saves them time and money, or makes them use a better
alternative (eg gnumeric, and people invested time in getting
gnumeric's excel compatibility to work well), then that's a good
thing. It's a free market. If my experience is that a piece of
software is shit, and costs me a lot of time and money, I will say so.
> is at v3, MS office is v10 (or 11?). It will improve the more people and
> companies use it, but it is far from crap.
My definition of crap: Software that costs me a lot of money because
it is slow and it crashes.
S.
--
Stephen Nelson-Smith
Technical Director
Atalanta Systems Ltd
www.atalanta-systems.com
