Interesting comments, considering that OOo and SO use the same CVS tree. :)
There are some things in SO that are not in OOo, but those shouldn't affect basic functionality such as opening/saving documents, etc. Mark Post -----Original Message----- From: Ross Patterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 8:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Ellison: StarOffice "almost usable" At 07:58 04/02/2003 -0500, Henry Schaffer wrote: > >He is right, if there were an office suite that ran like Office on windows > >available on Linux, it would be a no-brainer to switch. > > But I think that "almost usable" is too pessimistic. I've been using >Star Office 6.0 on a Windows PC, and it is quite good for my uses. I've been using StarOffice on MS-Windows for over four years, and you're right - it's quite good. I've got MS-Office on the same machine, and I use StarOffice much more often. I've also been using the StarOffice-based open source system OpenOffice.Org (what a lousy name!) on Linux for over a year. The experience hasn't been as positive. Obviously I don't have MS-Office on *that* machine, but I work in an office that's pretty evenly split between OpenOffice.Org and MS-Office users, and therein lies the rub. If you can ignore the difficulties of getting nice fonts on Linux, OpenOffice.Org works quite well by itself. But its interoperation with MS-Office is patchy, although there's certainly room to blame Microsoft for some (most?) of that. Having said all that, I'm not ditching OpenOffice.Org any time soon, although I'm careful when working on files I'll have to share with my MS-Windows co-workers. Ross Patterson
