If there's one think I'm beginning to learn about FOSS, it's that forks are
an inevitable part of the game. I'm just starting to dabble in Linux and
there are so many flavors and forks of that operating system, it's no wonder
that the free OS has never become a serious Windows challenger.
The open source defenders tout this as one of the benefits of open source
software. Anyone can take the program and improve it for their particular
needs. I agree, that is a real FOSS benefit. But, then, that person gathers
a group of people and they send their unique version out into the world.
Then someone else inserts a new killer feature and sends their version out
into the world. Add to this dynamic the human element of people just not
getting along, and pretty soon you have scores of versions of the same
software. There are so many Linux versions out there that software makers no
longer even try to maintain versions of their programs for all the different
flavors.
I love the concept of open source software, but I hate this inevitable side
effect.
Virgil
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Lish
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 5:45 AM
To: users@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: A Tale of Two Office Suites
Hi Carol,
You are definitely NOT out of line.
I'm not desk based and use OoO for the basics. I come from a military and
"hands on" manufacturing environment (now retired) where there must be
established procedure for every task, as I'm sure is the same for an office
environment.
I'm also a newby regarding the full potential use of OoO or Libre.
I am impressed with your succinct analysis of effort spent between the two.
Such a waste of time should not be necessary, and could not be tolerated
within any productive environment. Frankly, the reasons behind the split
don't interest me. and I am just as likely to use Libre as Open Office.
What does interest me is, why there isn't a global outcry for a focused
effort to produce one office suite to equal any paid for suite without all
this wasted, counter productive, time and effort needed for configuring it.
Why such a situation is tolerated for so long, when a combined, focused
effort is all it takes.
regards,
Mike Lish
On 10 December 2012 22:07, Carol-Virgil Arrington
<arringto...@hotmail.com>wrote:
I may be way out of line here, but I’m sending this post to the user lists
for both LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice. I have both programs on my
computer and regularly use both. Like many of you out there, I have
subscribed to both user lists.
I don’t know the full history behind the Libre/Oracle split, but from what
I have read on various forums and lists, there is considerable emotional
pain resulting from the split. The result is two different FOSS office
suites.
Some have pleaded for the two to combine forces. Others have noted that
the competition is good for the end user as it results in more rapid
development of improvements to both suites.
I see both sides, but I’d like to point out one thing I have noticed in my
own use of the two programs. Some computer programs are what I would call
“load and use.” Programs like web browsers and mail clients, etc., require
little to no configuration or customization. One can simply do productive
use without much thought. I can easily bounce back and forth between
Internet Explorer and Firefox, Live Mail and Thunderbird.
Not so with office suites. To get the most out of my office suites, I
create and edit templates, page, character and paragraph styles. I have to
set the autocorrect functions of each program to my liking to prevent a
(c)
from turning into a ©. While it’s not essential, I tend to customize my
toolbars and have created helpful macros. Effectively using an office
suite
requires a commitment akin to a marriage.
For this reason, bouncing back and forth between two suites is
counterproductive. I find myself importing and exporting settings, styles,
and templates between the two programs rather than simply doing my work.
Why do I put up with this inconvenience? Because each program has
essential virtues over the other.
For example, if I need to properly hyphenate my US English, I use
LibreOffice as (to date), OpenOffice fails to properly hyphenate US
English.
But, if I need to create mailing lists, as I just did for Christmas cards,
I use OpenOffice as its Avery 5160 template is more properly aligned than
that found in LibreOffice.
LibreOffice remembers my hierarchical stylelist setting, whereas
OpenOffice does not, but OpenOffice more effectively supports the advanced
Graphite features of the Linux Libertine font.
So, depending on my specific needs, I bounce back and forth. I’m sure many
would suggest that I help out by reporting bugs. I have done so, but even
I
get lost keeping track of the bugs of each program that I am most
interested in following.
I suspect this situation will only get worse as each program develops
features that will be lacking in the other. And, while I’m not a
developer,
my guess is that both programs are so complex that keeping up with each
other will become an increasingly elusive effort. And, the time will come
when decisions will be made NOT to implement features found in the other
program.
I truly like the motivation generated with competition, and sometimes
having multiple programs on my computer to meet specialized needs can be
helpful. But, in the world of office suites, where user commitment is
essential to effective use, it would be very helpful to us end users if
TDF
and Apache could somehow overcome their differences and join forces to
give
us one glorious office suites rather than two almost glorious office
suites.
These are just my thoughts.
I’d be curious as to how many others are using both programs because of
advantages of each over the other.
Virgil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
