Thank you, Jonathon, for giving us something specific. I get so weary of LO people (and most of the media world it seems) spouting how much better LO is but I fail to see it in my use cases. Most of what you have pointed out is not applicable to the vast majority of users I would guess. I keep waiting to see the open source world quit copying the latest gimic from MS and start rolling out really useful features -- and, no, I don't have enough imagination to know what those might be.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:43 AM, toki <toki.kant...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/12/2017 04:52 PM, Chuck Davis wrote: > > > tell me half a dozen things that LO can do that OO cannot do? > > From a corporate POV, the two most significant differences are: > * TSCP/BAILS classification; > * PDF signing; > > For linguists, and users of endangered/minority languages, the most > significant differences are: > * LibO 5.3 more accurately displays non-horizontal writing systems than > AOo 4.1.3; > * LibO 5.3 more accurately displays Indus Valley writing systems than > AOo 4.1.3; > > Neither LibO nor AOo can handle reverse boustrophedon writing systems. :( > > For the rest of use, the most significant differences are: > > * Table Styles; > > * Swapping out custom palettes --- gradients, hashes, colours --- is > much easier in LibO 5.3 than AOo 4.1.3. > Semi-related, but keeping track of 500 different palettes in LibO 5.3 is > much easier than with AOo 4.1.3. > > > LO choked (version 18.104.22.168 on Linux), OO (version 4.1.2 on same machine) > opened it perfectly and gave me > > AOo is far more tolerant of malformed documents than LibO is. > OTOH, LibO can import from, and export to more file formats than AOo. > I am not saying that LibO correctly imports/exports said file formats. > > > And now, I hear, they are going to add that stupid "ribbon" thingy to be > even more annoying and counter-productive. > > I'm not sure if you are referring to MUFFIN in general, or the > NoteBookBar in specific. > > Regardless, with a slight increase in complexity, user customization > increases dramatically. You have a choice of: > * NetbookBar; > * SideBar; > * TopBar; > * Sidebar with TopBar; > * None of the above. (This requires the user to do a lot of mucking > about in the "Expert Configuration" part of LibO. It requires even more > time and patience to correctly configure everything to be keystroke > reachable. I haven't tested this part out. Misconfiguration can require > complete uninstallation of all files, then re-installing the program.); > > At least initially, use of the NetBookBar is _discouraged_. Odds are the > only support it will see, is from third party extensions. > > Wondering how long before somebody creates a theme for LibO, that > includes a NetBookBar. AFAIK, custom themes are not yet possible for AOo. > > > So code quantity or quality aside, what can LO do for me as a common > user? > > The most important thing to know, is what the use-case is: > > * Do you really need an office suite? > * Would a stand alone program be more suitable? > > If your cyberlife consists of: > > * Playing games, then GoDot is a better alternative;(^1) > * Dwelling in spreadsheets, perhaps Gnumeric is more suitable; > * Writing scientific reports, a TeX solution might be more suitable; > * Creating pretty charts, R is more suitable; > * Drawing pretty pictures, GIMP is more suitable; > * Creating movies, Cinelerra is more suitable; > * Animating things, do the whole thing with Blender; > * Databases, then Python and SQLite, PostGres, or MariaDB is more suitable; > > > ^1: All of the games (Flight Simulator, Space Invaders, Tick Tack Toe) > have been removed from LibO and AOo. However, templates for various > games are available. > > jonathon > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >