Hi Charles-H.
Charles-H. Schulz wrote > Let us leave alone the fact that macros are not standardized and are user > generated scripts the rely on application logic only creating a source of > endless pains in migrations, Novell had been working on a project to > "translate" macros from VB to Starbasic. It did have some results with > simple ones but it did not prove satisfactory. Maybe it needs more money/time invested? Charles-H. Schulz wrote > Instead of making demands on things that are supposedly blockers for > adoption (and when these are solved there is automatically a new blocker > because it is not about features parity as it is about the will to > migrate) the real question is: who is ready to pay to implement this or > that feature, knowing that often it will cost several thousands or tens of > thousands of euros/dollars? That is a very good point. Unfortunately people are naturally resistant to change. Any excuse is a good reason NOT to change. That being said, if promoting migration to LO/AOO/etc is a goal for TDF/Apache/etc then there should be a joint effort to remove barriers... I also agree that migration to FLOSS is sometimes sold to managers as low cost because they don't intend to spend money/contribute man-hours to the projects they are "borrowing" the software from. It does seem that thousands of dollars/euros would be a fair contribution when the migration of a single town caused a saving of a million euros... Cheers, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/status-of-macro-in-ODF-interoperability-tp4116471p4116798.html Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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
