Hello Pedro On 26 juillet 2014 11:49:10 CEST, Pedro <[email protected]> wrote: >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?
Perhaps. I don't have the numbers but Novell at the time invested in this for something like 4-5 year and put several people on it so it was never exactly a side show either... > > >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... You raise an important point. I think what TDF is interested in -notice the nuance here- is ensuring that the businesses who contribute to LibreOffice get revenues on migrations and LibreOffice related project. This is what we are trying to achieve for instance with professional certification. As for the rest we can work with other ODF implementors on technical issues, solving quirks, etc. Promoting migrations would be vague I guess... > >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... Here's my theory on this based on 10 years of consultancy in these matters. It is fair to assume that a migration to FLOSS ends up costing 20% less than its equivalent in proprietary software. Why? How do I come up with that figure? 20% is the average cost of software licence compared to the rest of the costs: service, support, training... You still should pay for those with FOSS. You can of course go a little cheaper but if you are really cheaper than you are either forgetting something and not doing it right or someone else is subsidizing these costs. To me the notion that with free software you will pay zero or close to zero is dangerous. Unfortunately it is a popular one, oddly enough more popular among corporate and public sectors than among citizens themselves. Best, Charles. > >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. -- Envoyé de mon téléphone avec Kaiten Mail. Excusez la brièveté. -- 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
