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" <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] 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
