I read the article, and noticed there are a lot of "It claims" and "It
says".
No facts at all, no evidence, no tests, no proof. Just claims. Who would
take any notice of this?
The author has also stated a few things that suggest a general dislike
of OpenOffice.org. How come she didn't say that OO.o exports pdf, or
that it can also run off a USB drive
(http://portableapps.com/apps/office/openoffice_portable)? And all this
for nearly a decade!
She is either seriously biassed or she doesn't know anything about OO.o
(i.e. what she's talking about). How can she dislike something she has
no knowledge of?
Either way, her article was rubbish.
Mike
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Le 18 sept. 08 à 09:12, Florian Effenberger a écrit :
Hi Alexandro,
Important article that talks about OpenOffice.org being too slow and
how they will launch an office alternative that praise to run faster
and on more OS (Windows CE, PocketPC, FreeBSD).
http://opensource.sys-con.com/node/680195
thanks for pointing this out.
Well, I guess the article says it all. Nice wordings the authors
found. Looking at the SoftMaker website doesn't reveal any better.
They now praise integrated PDF export as new feature... :-)
Exactly. But mind that TextMaker also make quality software. Some
questions for them: Do they use ODF? No? Is this "change we can
believe in"? You know the drill... :-)
Charles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
