Novell published some TCO stuff about their migration. I think Ryan had the details in San Diego. Basically it said the cost of transition was negligible so the saving on the licenses was significant almost immediately.
Another misconception about OOo is that it is less powerful than MSO. It is more powerful in several areas eg pdf export, smaller document sizes, cross platform, OOo Draw etc. Weaker in some others but gaining gound with every iteration. -- Ian --- Bruce Byfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Bruce Byfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:58:55 -0800 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [social] Want to know about open source? Go to Microsoft Ian wrote: > Common misconceptions: Just a few off the top of my head. > > Linux is difficult to install > Once popular Linux will be as badly affected by viruses as Windows is now > OpenOffice.org has no database > MS XML is open > Documents produced in OpenOffice.org will be incompatible with MSO > If I install OO.o it will stop MSO from working properly > Files produced in OO.o running on Linux will not be compatible with OO.o > running on Windows. > The total cost of ownership of OpenOffice.org is higher than that for MSO. > > Regards, > I was thinking of common misconceptions about OOo, not Linux, but many of these are good starts. Thanks! About the last one: Has anyone seen any TCO figures for OOo as opposed to MSO? And one thing I forgot to mention in my last post: At the end of thirty days, the copyright of any article I publish on Newsforge reverts to me. So, if I write the article, I'll release it under an appropriate licence so that OOo can use it. -- Bruce Byfield 604-421-7177 http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield
