![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
Hi,
Access -- > LO Base
Base does not replace Access and it´s not meant to do so.
Stefan
To shorten up this message, I've deleted all but Kracked's reply.
Sure, LO does not have as many "modules" as the professional version of
MSO. That said, since there are already FOSS packages to do many of
those missing "modules", why should LO have their developers work on
those as well as the "basic" office suite modules?Word -- > LO Writer
plugin -- > LO Formula
Excel -- > LO Calc
PowerPoint -- > LO Presentation
OneNote -- > . . . there should be free packages or extensions
to replace this [never used this]
Outlook -- > . . . Mozilla Thunderbird or other FOSS email
clients and their extensions should do the job [does for me]
Publisher -- > . . . Inkscape [maybe] or maybe Scribus for some jobs
Access -- > LO Base
SkyDrive -- > . . . there should be free services to replace
this [never used this, but have used a "cloud drive" once]none included -- > LO Drawing
The subject is to compare "suite" to "suite", not "suite" to "suite plus others". When you start adding the "plus others", you can turn your computer in to just about anything, and the comparison becomes useless/meaningless.
Publisher and Inkscape are not the same thing. Although you can use Inkscape for some very basic DTP items. But I dare you to set up a book or manual with it. People used to do, and may still do, the same thing with Corel Draw.
If you want to add additional software for the LO side of your example, then you have to allow the same additions on the MSO side. Level playing field, and all of that.
Which modifies your list to the following, at least:
Publisher --> Scribus
Inkscape --> Inkscape
The playing field is one program compared to one program, not one program to many programs.
So, Lo does not include all of the modules of MSO. So what. You are
able to add and remove modules of MSO depending on your need. So, if
you do not have a module in the LO office suite, you add a FOSS package
to give you that functionality. That is what I have done over the years.
The point is, the modules are part of MSO, supplied by MSO. Comparable modules are not supplied by MSO.
I am comparing suites, not computers. I don't care, for the purpose of this discussion, if the computers can do the same thing. Can the same type of suites do the same thing? If you want to compare the final abilities of the computer, then you have to allow substitutions for the MS side of the comparison as well.
So, let's substitute Adobe Pagemaker for Publisher, and Corel Draw for Inkscape. Which side offers the user more "horsepower" for the job?
Sure it is hard to find any FOSS package that reads .pub files, but
there are FOSS packages that will create the same projects as Publisher
will do. They may not work the same as Publisher, but they get the
job[s] done.
It's hard to find anything that reads .pub files, even older .pub files.
The job gets done *only* if the software is capable of doing the job. A pickup does essentially the same job as Kenworth tractor w/ 40' flatbed. But there are jobs the pickup can't do.
SkyDrive, what is so important to have that "name brand", when you can
do the job with other packages and services?
Once again, comparing suite to suite only, not suite to a range of software.
The inherent problem faced by the "range of software" solutions is the interoperability of the range of software. Which doesn't always work well.
The real mindset, for me, is if there is already a FOSS package, or just
a free one, that does the job of these extra modules of MSO, then why
should the developers really spend their valuable time recreating them.
Why do we need a LO Email when there are several good packages out there
that has a many year development cycle behind it. Our developers would
need years of work to get that far along. Someone once suggested having
other LO modules that would make a "all in one" office suite of software
marketing statement, but the goal of LO, seems to me, for creating the
best office suite that includes a word processor, spread sheet,
presentation, data base front end, vector drawing package, and a
mathematical formula creation editor. It never was, in my opinion, a
goal to create a replacement for Outlook or a cloud service. How will a
free software company pay for the hardware and bandwidth to offer a
cloud-based service? There are plenty of email clients and web mail
clients to do the work of Outlook and services to replace SkyDrive.
Interoperability, for one. Just because FOSS program A creates an .svg file, doesn't mean FOSS program B can correctly read it. But if Word creates a .docx file, all the other modules in Office that are designed to read the .docx file will be able to do that. Barring bugs, of course.
I've stipulated that LO *is* comparable to MSO Home and Office. But it's misleading to make statements that make it sound like LO is comparable to *all* versions of MSO.
It's the misleading statements (not to mention to hard the unfixed bugs that affect my use of LO), that frankly, pi$$ me off. It's like listening to a bunch of politicians tell you what you want to hear, which may not be the truth.
An aside... Base question... Base needs an separate database program that is just accesses, correct? If so, Base is not comparable to Access, which is the database program.
I know I have seen references on these lists for options that replace
OneNote for LO users. I do not remember what they were though. Since I
never used OneNote, I can not tell what would be the best option to do
what it does.
I've not used OneNote either, I use a Mac! LOL For the time being, anyway. <G>
As for a "serious" competition for MSO, well look at the FOSS record in
Europe. I would say LO is a serious contender due to the fact that more
and more large organizations, plus regional and national governments are
"scrapping" MSO for LO and other FOSS options. Do anyone remember the
news out of France? It seems that they are dropping MSO country-wide
and opting for LO and FOSS instead. This is a trend that is happening
at the local, regional, and national levels of countries world-wide.
USA, not so much, but there is a government mandate for the use of FOSS
as an option.
The question then becomes, "Why are they switching?" The simple fact they are switching tells me nothing. Maybe they don't like the price structure. Maybe they don't like the proprietary file formats. Maybe, as the European courts did address, they don't like being forced to have Internet Explorer forced on the user.
And I do remember hearing about the switch in France. I was surprised to find it mentioned on some US news shows.
I doubt there will be a change in what the US government uses internally. When computers began to become truly needed office equipment, agencies could use whatever OS and software they wanted.
But when.... (wait for it...)
.
(wait for it...) <G>
.
interoperability and IT support became issues and almost impossible to deal with, Microsoft's systems, for better or for worse, became the standard for the US government. I was there when all of this happened. A huge number of office folks did not like giving up Word Perfect.
I'm sure there are a few non-MS systems around, but they will be specialty items/uses.
I keep hearing form a few people about Kingsoft, but others are warning
me away from using it, due to some privacy issues. So, I cannot judge
the good or bad about that software.
I've heard the same privacy issues, but nothing definitive. Mostly, the concerns seemed to center around the fact it's an Asian company, Chinese I think. But then something from Taiwan is officially Chinese too.
So, for my home-based office, I use LO and FOSS and not MSO. The newest
MSO I have is 2003. I do not plan on buying any newer one.
I had a chance to get 2007 at the student price. Installed, but never used on a regular basis.
FUD you say? Pot meet kettle.
Hi Ken,
Before you can say any program *is* serious competition, you have to
determine which products, or product levels, you are going to
compare. Office is available in many forms, similar to the different
levels of comfort/convenience packages in automobiles. LO comes in
just one flavor. Kingsoft Office in 2 flavors. Chocolate and
Vanilla. OK, that's not quite right. LOL
Ok, granted, but when someones says MS Office (like you did) I happen
to think primarily of Word and Excel. I'll even normally consider that
Powerpoint and Access are in there. I don't consider OneNote (never
used it, no idea what it is), Outlook or Publisher to be part of that
package. That may be old fashioned of me, but I don't recall ever
having an MS Office version that came with Publisher. That was always
in one of the premium, too-expensive-to-even-consider packages. And
I'd never even heard of SkyDrive till now.
I'll grant you that a lot of people do use Outlook as part of the
package, and it is more than just an email client, but for me it's a
different application altogether, and not what I typically think of
when I think of an office suite.
So I finally see your real argument (the bugs and stuff, as I said,
being a red herring): No other office suite, LO included, can compete
against the full spectrum of software provided by the premium version
of MS Office. I have to agree with that.
That said, personally, I would still regard LO as serious competition
to MS Office. The mindset of "must use MS Office, because everybody
else uses it" is the greatest barrier to uptake of *anything* but
MSO, but I believe enough people are starting to shift out of that
mindset. So that aside, enough people will consider LO as an
alternative to MSO, because it does everything they need. Yes, there
are some people that need the advanced features of MSO, and yes even
more people need Outlook, but enough people don't need the advanced
features only available in the premium editions, and prefer a third
party email application anyway, so for them LO provides all they need
as an alternative to MSO, and it does that job well. That for me makes
it serious competition.
But that's a difference of opinion on what the statement means. And now
that I understand what you meant, my question is answered. Thank you.
And you aren't competing against *just* MSO, you are competing with
every other office package out there. Ford doesn't just compete with
Chevy, they compete with Honda, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagen, Mini-Cooper,
ET. AL.
This is just confusing the issue. You *are* competing against *just*
MSO when the question is about a viable alternative to MSO. None of the
other packages are relevant to the discussion of "is LO a viable
alternative to MSO"
Paul
Hi, Paul,
Hi Ken,
Before you can say any program *is* serious competition, you have to
determine which products, or product levels, you are going to
compare. Office is available in many forms, similar to the different
levels of comfort/convenience packages in automobiles. LO comes in
just one flavor. Kingsoft Office in 2 flavors. Chocolate and
Vanilla. OK, that's not quite right. LOLOk, granted, but when someones says MS Office (like you did) I happen
to think primarily of Word and Excel. I'll even normally consider that
Powerpoint and Access are in there.
When I say MS Office, I'm always talking Pro, since I include having Access as part of the meaning of the phrase. We both made the same error of not being exactly clear about the contents of MS Office. It's like talking about a 2013 Prius. When it came out, there was only one model, and when you said Prius, everyone knew which car you meant. Now, I think there are 5 Prius models, so everyone needs to know which model you are discussing.
I don't consider OneNote (never
used it, no idea what it is),
I just looked at OneNote, it's like a massive sticky note on steroids. It looks like you can stick any kind of document, file, handwritten notes, audio files, all in the same sticky note. Look like it's part word processor, part spreadsheet, part just about anything you can think of. This looks like it could be a great thing if you're part of a team and in the brainstorming stage. Everyone can add their own thoughts, notes, files, audio clips, I have no idea what else. LO has nothing like this. In fact, I've never seen anything like it.
Outlook or Publisher to be part of that
package. That may be old fashioned of me, but I don't recall ever
having an MS Office version that came with Publisher. That was always
in one of the premium, too-expensive-to-even-consider packages.
Outlook and Publisher used to be available only as standalone packages. They weren't part of Office Professional 4.3 (Windows for Workgroups days), but it's part of Office Professional 2003.
And
I'd never even heard of SkyDrive till now.
Basically, I consider it MS's answer to Apple's iCloud. I don't know the specifics of either systems as I don't use either one. AFAIK, anyone can use SkyDrive, you don't have to have MSO of any flavor. Just an MS account for Windows Live, or whatever they call it now.
I'll grant you that a lot of people do use Outlook as part of the
package, and it is more than just an email client, but for me it's a
different application altogether, and not what I typically think of
when I think of an office suite.
At one time, I used Outlook 2007 as my email client. Simply installed only that program from my copy of Office Professional 2007. <G>
Everyone is free to consider the contents of Office however they want. But, if it's going to be part of a discussion, then people need to be specific about what they are talking about so there's no confusion.
So I finally see your real argument (the bugs and stuff, as I said,
being a red herring): No other office suite, LO included, can compete
against the full spectrum of software provided by the premium version
of MS Office. I have to agree with that.
In another post or two, I stipulated that LO and Office Home and Business were competitive. Now that I've read about OneNote, and have an inkling about it's potential, I have to take that statement back. I think LO lags behind just a bit.
That said, personally, I would still regard LO as serious competition
to MS Office.
LOL But, which version of MS Office! <G>
The mindset of "must use MS Office, because everybody
else uses it" is the greatest barrier to uptake of *anything* but
MSO, but I believe enough people are starting to shift out of that
mindset.
You won't get any argument about the mindset from me. None at all. And you certainly don't want to be replacing "I have to have MSO ???) with "I have to have LO".
But if you are truly going to avoid any mindset, you have to be willing to consider other office suite options. There's all the heritage that LO belongs to, and that includes Open Office, Lotus Symphony, and Oxygen Office, all of which I know little about. Maybe there's others, I don't know. Plus other office suites, such as Ashampoo, Alantis, Ssuite, Softmaker Office, Abiword, Crystal Office, SS Office (aka Ssuite I've mentioned), Papyrus, Kingsoft, and who knows how many others. I tried the word processor for SS Office a few weeks ago, I really liked the interface. But I didn't try to get serious with it as there's no Mac version.
I went on a search for MSO alternatives one time, can you tell? LOL
If considering an alternative, the correct way to look for something is to sit down, take your time, and analyze what you are currently doing with MSO, any package. Then download and try out the alternatives, and pick the one that you feel comfortable with using, and does what you need and have anticipated you will need in the future.
So that aside, enough people will consider LO as an
alternative to MSO, because it does everything they need. Yes, there
are some people that need the advanced features of MSO, and yes even
more people need Outlook, but enough people don't need the advanced
features only available in the premium editions, and prefer a third
party email application anyway, so for them LO provides all they need
as an alternative to MSO, and it does that job well. That for me makes
it serious competition.
I'd say most people don't even need the database component. H E double hockey sticks, they don 't even know what a database is. And as Stefan Weigel posted, news://news.gmane.org:119/527696A4.1020109@bildungskreis.org, Base does not replace Access.
But that's a difference of opinion on what the statement means. And now
that I understand what you meant, my question is answered. Thank you.
You're welcome.
And you aren't competing against *just* MSO, you are competing with
every other office package out there. Ford doesn't just compete with
Chevy, they compete with Honda, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagen, Mini-Cooper,
ET. AL.This is just confusing the issue. You *are* competing against *just*
MSO when the question is about a viable alternative to MSO. None of the
other packages are relevant to the discussion of "is LO a viable
alternative to MSO"
Not really. Everyone is competing against similar programs from other vendors. Let's say you only need a word processor and spreadsheet. If you sit down and analyze your needs, LO will be competing against everyone that has those two programs and are looking for an MS alternative, and they all (AFAIK) advertise Word compatibility. How compatible, I don't know. I'm using a writing program right now that has Word compatibility, but it's not a word processor.
And, it comes with a real, up to date manual, 530 pages long. Yes, it's a commercial program, but it's only $45 US.
What irritates me to almost no end is, people have a goal they want to meet with their computer(s), but rather than find the software that gets them to their goal, they change the goal to fit the software they've found and/or have. I look for the tools that get me to my goal, I don't change my goal to fit the tools I have.
What he does not want to admit is that I am speaking from personal
experience.
jonathon
* English - detected
* English
* English
<javascript:void(0);>
The dBase 3 clone was not removed when Base was added to LO.
I reinstalled LO and AOO earlier this week. When doing my usual
customizations, I noticed that in the database part of .config, the same
filename was used for the file in it, as was used when dBase was the
only database engine included in OOo. I'll assume that that is the same
dBase file, and that both AOO and LO still include the internal clone
dBase engine.
jonathon
Using a feature by feature comparison, there is no way LO or Kingsoft is serious competition for Office Pro.
A point you are missing, is that even in a corporate environment, all of
the parts offered by MSO Pro are not needed by all of the employees who
use the office suite.
If it was cheaper for the company to buy three quarters of the staff MSO
home edition, and a quarter MSO business edition, and a quarter MSO Pro,
they would do that.
Microsoft's cheapest business license is for MSO Pro.
Assuming it is still offered, the most expensive license is for MSO
Enterprise edition.
If you want to compare office suite with office suite, MSO Enterprise
Edition is the only thing on the market, that offers all of the
programs, from the same software maker. All of the other, similar
solutions, use packages form several different software vendors.
( I don't know if Microsoft still offers MSO Enterprise Edition. Back
when the business I was working at looked at it, it was not listed on
the Microsoft Product Page alongside the other MSO offerings.)
If you want to entice people to switch from Product X to LO, you not
only have to be as good as Product X, you have to be a Helluva lot better.To be serious competition, you just have to be roughly as good.
Those are standards I do not accept. You should aspire to be the best
you can be, not just "good enough". Yugos were "good enough".
"Good enough" is the mortal enemy of "superior".
Au contraire, my friend, as I just pointed out with the charts above, LO is competition to the mid-level version of Office only.
For 80% of the MSO user base, MSO Pro is overkill, which is why LO is a
more appropriate option that MSO Pro.
Ford doesn't just compete with Chevy, they compete with Honda, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagen, Mini-Cooper, ET. AL.
At least you didn't put Lamborghini in that list.
As noted above, I've listed why LO is not serious competition except for a single version of Office.
You do realize that Microsoft has stated several times, in public, that
OOo was the direct cause of their lower earnings, and reduced
profitability, don't you.
As such, even if it was only one version of MSO that you consider it
competitive with, it took enough marketshare away from Microsoft, that
they decided it was better to offer their product gratis, with embedded
advertising, than to compete on the basis of features within the product.
jonathon
Using a feature by feature comparison, there is no way LO or Kingsoft is serious competition for Office Pro.
A point you are missing, is that even in a corporate environment, all of
the parts offered by MSO Pro are not needed by all of the employees who
use the office suite.
But in total, all parts offered by MSO Pro may be used by someone in the company.
Regardless, that's irrelevant to the discussion. That discussion is which MSO offering is LO nearest to.
If it was cheaper for the company to buy three quarters of the staff MSO
home edition, and a quarter MSO business edition, and a quarter MSO Pro,
they would do that.
But they can't. So it's moot.
Microsoft's cheapest business license is for MSO Pro.
Assuming it is still offered, the most expensive license is for MSO
Enterprise edition.
MSO Enterprise may be available, but it's not on the website. Didn't spend a lot of time searching, but found no Enterprise 2013.
If you want to compare office suite with office suite, MSO Enterprise
Edition is the only thing on the market, that offers all of the
programs, from the same software maker. All of the other, similar
solutions, use packages form several different software vendors.
I'm missing something here, would you expand on this?
( I don't know if Microsoft still offers MSO Enterprise Edition. Back
when the business I was working at looked at it, it was not listed on
the Microsoft Product Page alongside the other MSO offerings.)If you want to entice people to switch from Product X to LO, you not
only have to be as good as Product X, you have to be a Helluva lot better.To be serious competition, you just have to be roughly as good.
Those are standards I do not accept. You should aspire to be the best
you can be, not just "good enough". Yugos were "good enough"."Good enough" is the mortal enemy of "superior".
Not in the long run, if you want to be, for lack of a better phrase, in first place. Sooner or later, someone kicks your butt off the pedestal.
Au contraire, my friend, as I just pointed out with the charts above, LO is competition to the mid-level version of Office only.
For 80% of the MSO user base, MSO Pro is overkill, which is why LO is a
more appropriate option that MSO Pro.
That depends on the users needs. While I agree with your many will buy Pro when it's not needed, that's also irrelevant to the discussion.
Ford doesn't just compete with Chevy, they compete with Honda, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagen, Mini-Cooper, ET. AL.
At least you didn't put Lamborghini in that list.
Dang, I knew there was one I missed. LOL
As noted above, I've listed why LO is not serious competition except for a single version of Office.
You do realize that Microsoft has stated several times, in public, that
OOo was the direct cause of their lower earnings, and reduced
profitability, don't you.
So? How is that relevant to a discussion/comparison of features? All that statement does is confirms Paul's assertion that the mindset of "you have to have MS Office" is weakening.
As such, even if it was only one version of MSO that you consider it
competitive with, it took enough marketshare away from Microsoft, that
they decided it was better to offer their product gratis, with embedded
advertising, than to compete on the basis of features within the product.
Which MSO product is gratis? There's a price tag for all 4 packages of MSO, but there's is a first month free trial period for Office 365 after which it's a monthly subscription fee. I couldn't tell if that process is one that requires you to expressly cancel the subscription or not. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/buy/compare-microsoft-office-products-FX102898564.aspx
I haven't read all of this discussion in line-by-line detail, so forgive me if I'm unduly repetitive.
In my experience (government lawyer), larger organizations tend to prefer MSO over the free LO for several reasons.
1. Job Security. The old saying for IT Managers used to be, "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." Likewise, IT professionals will always feel safe in buying MSO. At least here in America, I think most IT managers would consider it a risky deal to move everyone in the organization to LO.
2. Compatibility. Back in the DOS days, I was the only lawyer in our office using PC-Write (still my all time favorite word processor). It didn't matter then, because we didn't have networks or share digital files. Now, everything gets shared back and forth over and over. I've tried doing with different programs (MSO to OOo, MSO to WP, WP to MSO), etc. At the end of the day, all the attempts at file conversion never worked "good enough." Something always got lost in the translation and, over time, the files got irreparably corrupted. I ended up keeping many programs on my computer so I could always use whatever my counterpart was using. Sorry to say it, but MS has the advantage of inertia. People buy it because people buy it, and as long as people keep buying it, people will buy it.
Large corporations or government offices don't care about software licensing costs. It's just the cost of doing business. This is different for home users. I have *never* paid money for an office suite on my home computers. I've used everything from MS Works, PerfectWorks, (both of which came bundled with my computers) along with StarOffice, OpenOffice.org, and LO.
As to features, both MSO and LO have far more features than any single person will ever need. Number of features isn't the issue. The issue is whether a program has the features *I* need to get today's task completed. Since software is published for a wide range of different users, programs tend to grow in an attempt to meet as many different needs as possible.
For me, LO's niche is in providing a cost effective office suite for home users or smaller businesses where cost is, indeed, an issue. But, I agree with Ken that being free isn't enough for LO to overtake MSO.
Virgil