Hi :) Copy&paste is good wrt my item 3. Regards from Tom :) On 3 February 2014 17:45, Kracked_P_P---webmaster <[email protected]> wrote: > > YES, F.O.S.S packages share things with other groups, but I really thing > business users needs the documentation on LO pages and not OOo pages. These > people do not understand about the sharing of information between "friendly > competition" FOSS packages and the lack of info due to the package[s] being > too "new" or immature to work for them. > > I really would hope the first place for our users for information would be > on a LO site or in LO docs. So I feel we need to have the business > information for deployment and migration in the LO wiki system and not ask > the business users to go to our "friendly competition" for that info. It > just does not look well for us and those who market and support LO to the > business users. > > > On 02/03/2014 12:27 PM, Tom Davies wrote: >> >> Hi :) >> You are not alone in that opinion but i can see it from other angles too. >> >> 1. The way i see it is that LO and AOO are produced by 1 large >> community. There are quite a few people who work in both or move from >> 1 to the other and sometimes back again. The mainstream press seems >> to think we fight and argue constantly and that seems to have boosted >> coverage for both projects. AOO aims at a slightly different niche >> from LO although both have a lot of ground in common. It's NOT a case >> of us against them. It's both of us and others (Caligra/KOffice, >> Google-docs, AbiWord&Gnumeric etc) acting in "co-operative >> competition" with/against each other against a dominant market-leader. >> >> 2. I copy&pasted one page from OOo's documentation into our own wiki >> and the original author proof-read it for us. He was more than happy >> to share the knowledge and help distribute it widely. Since then >> others have made a better page and Hagar has updated his one in AOO so >> 'mine' has fallen quite far behind and rarely gets visited now. I'll >> set it as a redirect to the updated one someday. >> >> 3. I agree that business people are probably unfamiliar with the >> concept of co-operative competition and that it might even scare them >> off from using either of LO and AOO!! Corporate-types are often timid >> when in unfamiliar terrain so it's better for us to appear to be easy >> for them to understand (imo) >> >> Regards from >> Tom :) >> >> >> >> >> On 3 February 2014 16:47, Kracked_P_P---webmaster >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 02/03/2014 08:48 AM, Marcello Romani wrote: >>>> >>>> Il 03/02/2014 13:21, IOmazic ha scritto: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> is it possible that you share this tools for windows? I will need to >>>>> install >>>>> it to around 450 pc, so it will be cool to have some tool to do all >>>>> modification needed. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> Ivan Omazic >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- >>>>> Ivan Omazic >>>>> IT Assistant / Technical Lead >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> +41 22 730 81 55 >>>>> +41 79 918 34 26 >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: >>>>> >>>>> http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-deployment-tp4077035p4095225.html >>>>> Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>> >>>> This might prove a useful starting point: >>>> >>>> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=28765&start=0 >>>> >>> Why are people still sending others to the OpenOffice.org web site for >>> information about LibreOffice? >>> >>> For this posted need, I remember hearing about "deployment" of LO on a LO >>> web page. Although LO was a fork of OOo from several years ago, it is >>> "grown" past those roots now. If we do not have the needed documentation >>> now, we should really make it a priority to set up a web site/page to >>> talk >>> about IT management deployment of LO, including network based. >>> >>> The current AOO/OOo web site should not be the place where people go to >>> get >>> information about LO. From a marketing aspect, this could lead business >>> users to think we are not the package to use, but AOO is. That is wrong >>> way >>> of doing "business". >>> >>> SO, just from the marketing aspect to businesses, this needs to be >>> resolved. >>> From the typical user, this could be an issue as well. >>> >>> I stopped using OOo when LO came out. I do not want to have to explain >>> to >>> users that LO's documentation site[s] is not the place to find the needed >>> information to migrate/deploy LO to their systems. >>> >>> Would you tell the UK tech advisors to not consider LO for the open >>> source >>> option to using the mandated ODF file format requirements, but to go with >>> AOO/OOo since we do not have the needed documentation? We would be >>> saying >>> this if we tell them to go to the OOo web site for the deployment >>> information. >>> >>> I see too many of these postings telling users to go to the OOo site[s] >>> for >>> the needed information or extension/template download. Yes, there may be >>> something there that LO currently does not have, but it should not be the >>> first option. LO needs to rely on LO's sites to give the user the help >>> and >>> support they need. >>> >>> I do not use Nabble, but I would think that there must be a forum there >>> about business migration and deployment. IF not, then there should be. >>> >>> Am I alone in this opinion? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >> >
-- 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
