Re: [libreoffice-users] Shall we waste twelve more years promoting Free office suites instead of...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/11/2013 19:33, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote: Open File Formats I still have State agency people send out MSO 2010 or 2013 Word .docx files to other agency people who still have MSO 2007 and did not have the budget to buy 2010 or 2013. They still cannot understand that there is a limited backwards compatibility to the .docx formatted files between the newer to the older MSO packages. If, they were using a package that saved these documents in ODF [or even .doc for Word] then they would not have these troubles. Interestingly, during the installation of MS Office 2010 and 2013/365, you are now asked whether you want tthe default document type to be ODF or MS Office format... So either the use of ODF is becoming much more common, or it's the usual Embrace, Extend and Extinguish ploy from MS (Me, Cynical?) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSf1HPAAoJEBd10Bedj4uX5Y8IAJnWLBY3HKAmMDXSte8AMDTc ACLrtXIWAMakxAk2ikpzXLBAByYfV6hRr1RDH4orhkp6HqzRNSY2FPr/s85HlEs9 j3GajHHV/h8slev9LoQ0x/68DHAwtkHERAhLeHje5/qqfrWAPzjPrjnpXim16H3e +dzfOT6+0e7w5fNEqM1TtFvr1HghZYrCEUeWbPC8EcFo+4qBCwVSaLuE5Jhjf0hv 40jWpkTh6NW2jx0aXlsiUBBP66dX5cLETKdX4PozBaR7QXw6mlQ/K5bmFKihmuPJ w/ePBGiq6sa5uHjr9dVanaKh5sEE1xvxAsmhhDYTL94wyG/54AlIzD6UqZdrekY= =rBAk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[libreoffice-users] Shall we waste twelve more years promoting Free office suites instead of...
Twelve (TWELVE!!!) years ago I asked OpenOffice users “Are you advocating OO correctly.. Continues on my blog: http://stop.zona-m.net/2013/11/shall-we-waste-twelve-more-years-promoting-free-office-suites-instead-of-open-office-formats/ Feedback very welcome, of course! Marco -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Shall we waste twelve more years promoting Free office suites instead of...
Interesting article, and indeed it is true that the file format is the most important aspect of the office suite debate, but I think you are a little naive in your assumption that LO should stop doing any other type of marketing. Firstly, the question of a truly open and compatible format *is* used when discussing the problems with MSO. Secondly, we are so few, that to stop accepting MSO formats would doom us, not convince the vastly larger uneducated crowd that they need to switch. Thirdly, most people don't really care, because it doesn't affect them. All that affects them is that they can communicate with others that equally don't care, and so the entrenched establishment is perpetuated. Unless the dominant system is changed out from under them, or the dominant system stops working for them, they won't care. Our job is to slowly erode the dominant system until there no longer is a dominant system. Having the dominant system become as flaky as .docx is only helps us by making the problems actually affect the majority of users, making them care about choices, and making them more likely to make a conscious decision to choose the best alternative. Thirdly, while it is true that many people use word processors incorrectly, due to not being educated about their use, this is not relevant to the discussion of marketing LO. It is just a fact of life. Many people need word processors, but not nearly as many have the time to learn them properly, or even to understand computers properly. Many people do view computers as more complex typewriters. To fix this would require insisting that all those people stop doing these jobs for themselves and instead hire professionals. In many ways bringing computers to the masses was both Microsoft's greatest good and its greatest evil, although if MS hadn't done it, I'm sure it would have happened anyway. And the ability for people to do things for themselves that computers have facilitated is a benefit for society as a whole, one that projects like LO support. Instead of only being able to do what some company (like Microsoft) thinks you should be able to do, and only if you pay them very well, open source software believes that everybody should be able to do whatever they want. That's the very nature of Open Source: you have the source, change it if you need to. The fact that most people can't is irrelevant; it is the ability to do so that the open source movement believes *must* exist, so that collaboration and innovation can happen when enough like-minded and able people get together. The potential for self-betterment is what open source is all about. The fact that the potential for good use means that there is lots of use that is poorly implemented is one of the prices that we gladly (though with plenty of grumbles) accept. Though we (should) never stop trying to educate users. Just my point of view. Paul On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 18:59:12 +0100 M. Fioretti mfiore...@nexaima.net wrote: Twelve (TWELVE!!!) years ago I asked OpenOffice users “Are you advocating OO correctly.. Continues on my blog: http://stop.zona-m.net/2013/11/shall-we-waste-twelve-more-years-promoting-free-office-suites-instead-of-open-office-formats/ Feedback very welcome, of course! Marco -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Shall we waste twelve more years promoting Free office suites instead of...
On 11/09/2013 12:59 PM, M. Fioretti wrote: Twelve (TWELVE!!!) years ago I asked OpenOffice users “Are you advocating OO correctly.. Continues on my blog: http://stop.zona-m.net/2013/11/shall-we-waste-twelve-more-years-promoting-free-office-suites-instead-of-open-office-formats/ Feedback very welcome, of course! Marco There are two different topics here. 1 - Open File Formats - ODF 2 - Free and Open Source Software office suites - LO and OOo/AOO Open File Formats Not having to deal with proprietary file formats for you office documents is a given. As long as you have such open formats, most office suites will be able to handle documents create by other office suites, and Window, MacOSX, or Linux. If you are a Linux user and you friend, or even a client or boss, sends you a document in one of the ODF formats - let us say .odt text document - then even though you have a different OS and maybe different office package, you still can read and edit the document and send it back to the sender. The key is you are not required to use the same OS or the same office package as the sender to be able to work with it. No need to hope your office package can open properly some complex MSO 2013 .docx that is sent to your system that has MSO 2010 or you are using MacOSX or Ubuntu. You hope for the best. I still have State agency people send out MSO 2010 or 2013 Word .docx files to other agency people who still have MSO 2007 and did not have the budget to buy 2010 or 2013. They still cannot understand that there is a limited backwards compatibility to the .docx formatted files between the newer to the older MSO packages. If, they were using a package that saved these documents in ODF [or even .doc for Word] then they would not have these troubles. FOSS - LO The first advantage to using a FOSS office suite - LO as the example - is to the budget when you add another computer to your home or business environment. Sure there may be business costs to get the documents saved in a common file format - i.e. ODF - but after than the costs are much less than needing to buy, or even rent, a copy of MSO. For limited budget households, buying the hardware is costly enough, so adding the costs of all that paid software can really add up. If they substitute all of the packages they need with FOSS, when available, then you cut down on the total cost of that computer[s] in your home and maybe work. For someone who uses both Linux and Windows, and some who add MacOSX, having one FOSS office package on every desktop/laptop they own helps the user, or family of users, be able to use the same package no matter which desktop/laptop they are currently using. One day they will have the same option on Android as well. This is just one set of examples why promoting Open Document Formats instead of promoting FOSS. They are two different ideas altogether. It is the classic Apples and Oranges. Both are fruit but they are totally different. They cannot really be compared like two different types of apples could be or two types of oranges. I think that is the problem with some people who look at the field of Open Document/Office Formats and Open Source Software [FOSS or not]. They are two different parts to the puzzle and need to be dealt with individually and not compared as if they were the same idea. You can have Open Source Software that can read proprietary files formats, and you can have paid software that can read ODF. We need both to make the whole work for businesses and for home. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Shall we waste twelve more years promoting Free office suites instead of...
On Sat, 2013-11-09 at 14:33 -0500, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote: On 11/09/2013 12:59 PM, M. Fioretti wrote: Twelve (TWELVE!!!) years ago I asked OpenOffice users “Are you advocating OO correctly.. Continues on my blog: http://stop.zona-m.net/2013/11/shall-we-waste-twelve-more-years-promoting-free-office-suites-instead-of-open-office-formats/ Feedback very welcome, of course! Marco There are two different topics here. 1 - Open File Formats - ODF 2 - Free and Open Source Software office suites - LO and OOo/AOO Open File Formats Not having to deal with proprietary file formats for you office documents is a given. As long as you have such open formats, most office suites will be able to handle documents create by other office suites, and Window, MacOSX, or Linux. If you are a Linux user and you friend, or even a client or boss, sends you a document in one of the ODF formats - let us say .odt text document - then even though you have a different OS and maybe different office package, you still can read and edit the document and send it back to the sender. The key is you are not required to use the same OS or the same office package as the sender to be able to work with it. No need to hope your office package can open properly some complex MSO 2013 .docx that is sent to your system that has MSO 2010 or you are using MacOSX or Ubuntu. You hope for the best. I still have State agency people send out MSO 2010 or 2013 Word .docx files to other agency people who still have MSO 2007 and did not have the budget to buy 2010 or 2013. They still cannot understand that there is a limited backwards compatibility to the .docx formatted files between the newer to the older MSO packages. If, they were using a package that saved these documents in ODF [or even .doc for Word] then they would not have these troubles. FOSS - LO The first advantage to using a FOSS office suite - LO as the example - is to the budget when you add another computer to your home or business environment. Sure there may be business costs to get the documents saved in a common file format - i.e. ODF - but after than the costs are much less than needing to buy, or even rent, a copy of MSO. For limited budget households, buying the hardware is costly enough, so adding the costs of all that paid software can really add up. If they substitute all of the packages they need with FOSS, when available, then you cut down on the total cost of that computer[s] in your home and maybe work. For someone who uses both Linux and Windows, and some who add MacOSX, having one FOSS office package on every desktop/laptop they own helps the user, or family of users, be able to use the same package no matter which desktop/laptop they are currently using. One day they will have the same option on Android as well. This is just one set of examples why promoting Open Document Formats instead of promoting FOSS. They are two different ideas altogether. It is the classic Apples and Oranges. Both are fruit but they are totally different. They cannot really be compared like two different types of apples could be or two types of oranges. I think that is the problem with some people who look at the field of Open Document/Office Formats and Open Source Software [FOSS or not]. They are two different parts to the puzzle and need to be dealt with individually and not compared as if they were the same idea. You can have Open Source Software that can read proprietary files formats, and you can have paid software that can read ODF. We need both to make the whole work for businesses and for home. Hi, I think promoting ODF formats which are ISO standards for all office documents levels the playing field. It does not matter as pointed out above what program is used by the user to create or edit a file. Then all packages are truly competing on features/benefits/costs continuum not on the ability to properly parse a specific proprietary format. Also, using ODF formats avoids the tweaking MS apparently does with their formats with each new release. As far as overall features, my opinion is that office suite and related software are mature products. Thus it is very difficult to find a feature that most people will buy a new version to get it. Thus, the primary issues for most users is the ease of use and accuracy of handling proprietary formats. For most users the required functionality is met by a number commercial and FOSS packages. Thus, the primary reason to buy a commercial package is (theoretical) availability of user support. My experience is that user support is either very limited or effectively non-existent. -- Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List
Re: [libreoffice-users] Shall we waste twelve more years promoting Free office suites instead of...
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 21:25:19 PM +0200, Paul wrote: Interesting article, and indeed it is true that the file format is the most important aspect of the office suite debate, but I think you are a little naive in your assumption that LO should stop doing any other type of marketing. Hi Paul, please note that I specifically say centered on “Open Formats First”. Centered, not only Firstly, the question of a truly open and compatible format *is* used when discussing the problems with MSO. Secondly, we are so few, that... these are the SAME answers that ruled the scene in 2001. My point is to suggest that they have not been very effective. Or, at least, that almost completely ignoring the file format issue in favour of these approaches didn't work out so well. Thirdly, while it is true that many people use word processors incorrectly, due to not being educated about their use, this is not relevant to the discussion of marketing LO. I am not so sure, but never mind, the REAL issue is here: open source software believes that everybody should be able to do whatever they want. That's the very nature of Open Source: you have the source, change it if you need to. what I am trying to say is that sticking almost exclusively to THIS party line for at least 12 years is EXACTLY what left that translator with keep using MS Office as the only option. Whereas, if there had been more insistence on the fact that a proprietary format is an idiot thing no matter what, maybe today MS Office would handle ODF well enough to not create problems to LO/AOO users. Marco -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Shall we waste twelve more years promoting Free office suites instead of...
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 15:20:49 PM -0500, Jay Lozier wrote: On Sat, 2013-11-09 at 14:33 -0500, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote: There are two different topics here. 1 - Open File Formats - ODF 2 - Free and Open Source Software office suites - LO and OOo/AOO Kracked_P_P that is true. But if you don't understand why and how they are deeply interrelated, and how promoting the first is the most effective thing you may do to promote the second, please re-read again what Jay wrote: I think promoting ODF formats which are ISO standards for all office documents levels the playing field. It does not matter as pointed out above what program is used by the user to create or edit a file. Then all packages are truly competing on features/benefits/costs continuum not on the ability to properly parse a specific proprietary format. Also, using ODF formats avoids the tweaking MS apparently does with their formats with each new release. Thanks Jay, well said. Marco -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Shall we waste twelve more years promoting Free office suites instead of...
On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 21:39:00 +0100 M. Fioretti mfiore...@nexaima.net wrote: Firstly, the question of a truly open and compatible format *is* used when discussing the problems with MSO. Secondly, we are so few, that... these are the SAME answers that ruled the scene in 2001. My point is to suggest that they have not been very effective. Or, at least, that almost completely ignoring the file format issue in favour of these approaches didn't work out so well. Maybe, maybe not. I see ODF and LO being more widely used now than ever before, and think the arguments are slowly but surely working. If more time had been spent telling people why the file format was a good thing (even more time than actualy *was* spent, I don't think it's as little as you think) and less time had been spent telling them that an alternative to MSO existed that was just as good, I don't think it would have worked as well. what I am trying to say is that sticking almost exclusively to THIS party line for at least 12 years is EXACTLY what left that translator with keep using MS Office as the only option. Whereas, if there had been more insistence on the fact that a proprietary format is an idiot thing no matter what, maybe today MS Office would handle ODF well enough to not create problems to LO/AOO users. I think that there has been more use of the ODF is a better format argument than you think. Also, I don't think the current situation could have been any better, no matter what argument we used. The fact that it is changing at all is testimony to our dedication in spreading all the good arguments for Open Source and ODF. This is, sad to say, the best we could hope for given how entrenched MSO was. And 12 years ago ODF wasn't around, as far as I know. It was only standardised in 2005. So before that the usual open source gives you choice argument was all there was. Once odf came out, almost from the first I was hearing about how a truly open standard was a better thing. All this is, of course, personal opinion. So given how much the argument for the odf format *is* actually touted today (it's possibly even the main argument people give for switching to LO), why do you suggest we should do more of it, and how exactly do you suggest we do that? -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Shall we waste twelve more years promoting Free office suites instead of...
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 23:29:01 PM +0200, Paul wrote: Also, I don't think the current situation could have been any better, no matter what argument we used. The fact that it is changing at all is testimony to our dedication in spreading all the good arguments for Open Source and ODF. This is, sad to say, the best we could hope for given how entrenched MSO was. After following this topic for (at least) 12 years, I would say this is the best we could hope for, given how entrenched MSO was, and how much the FOSS community in general underestimated the need to promote formats and standard instead of, or before, software. And 12 years ago ODF wasn't around, as far as I know. It was only standardised in 2005. So before that the usual open source gives you choice argument was all there was. Of course ODF as such did not exist in 2001, but the basic argument (push common, open formats before software, ) has been valid and usable since well before 2001. For the reasons I wrote in the first 2 points here http://digifreedom.net/node/56.html and in http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/linux-and-open-source/how-to-fix-configuration-anarchy-on-the-linux-desktop/2708/ So given how much the argument for the odf format *is* actually touted today (it's possibly even the main argument people give for switching to LO), why do you suggest we should do more of it because cases like that of that translator happen all too often. I would also like to know for what subset of people you think the format is the main argument for switching. In the world I live in, 90% of people who use computers can't even explain correctly what a file format is. and how exactly do you suggest we do that? Exactly as I wrote twelve years ago and repeated in today's post, of course. Marco -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
