![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
I managed to get the original article by using google translate, and
than choose to see the original language 
The lay-out is cluttered, but the article is readable.
Met vriendelijke groeten, Salutations distinguées, Kind Regards,
DRIES FEYS
CORPORATE SERVICES • Specialist Software Developer
TVH GROUP NV
Brabantstraat 15 • BE-8790 WAREGEM
T +32 56 43 42 11 • F +32 56 43 44 88 • www.tvh.com
Watch our company movies on www.tvh.tv
Nope. Still lands up on the 4.0 page from 2013 for me, at http://uk.pcmag.com/office-suites-products/2249/review/libreoffice
The "fresh" branch introduces new features. The "still" branch is suggested
for "production" environments. I too would regard the fresh branch as "beta"
although Charles Schultz makes a distinction between fresh and beta: see the
section "Spring water" here:
http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2014/08/01/libreoffice-4-3/
If the lack of testers is so bad that pivot tables remain untested, it
should not even reach the beta status.
I should get a job writing these kinds of reviews
Why are you assuming that a human-being wrote the review?
It has most of the hallmarks of a bot-written review.
EASY MONEY!
The days of the paid, professional reviewer are numbered.
From one side, are reviews written for gratis across the social media;
From the other side, bots are writing reviews;
From the third side, content distributors are trying to slash costs
wherever and whenever possible;
I miss the depth of old BYTE! magazine reviews.
The primary virtue of BYTE! reviews was that there was a sense of
objectivity, in what was rated, and how it was rated. There were a
couple of times when the reviewer was trying to say the product was
"good", when their own ratings showed that it was bad, and vice-versus.
jonathon
Thought I'd share this. One of my latest open source pieces for TechRepublic about LibreOffice 5.0.
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/libreoffice-5-0-the-strongest-release-to-date/
Jack
Jack Wallen wrote
Thought I'd share this. One of my latest open source pieces for
TechRepublic about LibreOffice 5.0.http://www.techrepublic.com/article/libreoffice-5-0-the-strongest-release-to-date/
Nice article.
I disagree that the UI is the biggest problem...
If you are a NEW user (i.e. never used an Office suite before) then you need
to learn it from zero and organized menus are more logical than large
buttons organized by someone else.
If you are moving from Office 2003 then you will feel at home.
However if you are used to Office 2007 or newer then you are in real
trouble. Not only you will have to relearn/adjust to the UI but you will
have BIG problems with round-trip documents regardless if you are using XML
based MS file formats or Open Documents...
The issue is that not only XML based MS formats are proprietary and
constantly changing even within MS Office versions (so it is impossible for
other Offices to open or save EXACTLY like MS) but Microsoft makes sure that
you will also not want to use Open Document format to exchange files. You
will ALWAYS get some warning (more or less scary) that you will loose
something or that you have already lost something...
I really don't see a solution for this problem... Even if Governments
effectively push for Open Documents, the scary messages will always make
users think twice before opening or saving to Open Document formats...
Just my 2 cents
Nice article indeed.
I personally like the structured way of the menus. I am a long time user of OpenOffice, and later LibreOffice.
When MS started with the ribbon, I just didn't use MS office anymore, and on my newer systems (Mac's and PCs) I only install LO.
Recently I experienced that I can't update LO beyond version 4.3.6 on the Mac I mostly use which is running OSX 10.7.5; The hardware does not allow upgrading OSX any further... So, I feel a little 'left in the dark'
I am still a happy user of LO, though!
Rob.
On the contrary, Jack, comparing the LO UI with that of Windows, most
users with whom I've come in contact who don't use these products
professionally - your «average user» - find the former far easier to
understand and use than the latter. Professional users soon get accustomed
to any interface, even one as unintuitive as the infamous MS Office
«ribbon», which now also plagues such services as Hotmail (aka Outlook.com)
and then find it easy to use, but this is definitely not the case for the
average user. Toolbars which make it easy to find what one is looking for
are far better than those that hide them under layers of inaccessibility....
Henri
The acid test is whether or not the UI passes or fails Section 508 criteria.
Currently, LibO fails Section 508 criteria.
(Draw fails everything. Impress fails most of the time.)
jonathon
After reading through the Section 508 criteria (
http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-section-508-standards/section-508-standards)
, may I suggest that the authors, whatever wordprocessor on which they
produced their document,
have a distinct UI problem themselves ?...
Henri
Hi 
I got the 4.0 article from the original link too even though i'm not in the
southern hemisphere and don't have my monitor upside down either. Guess it
is another Firefox issue. Even going to the author's page and clicking on
the 5.0 link got me to the 4.0 review. Also the font size kept jumping
from large font size to medium. So maybe it's a problem with their
web-design !skills.
Actually i thought most of the 4.0 article wasn't as bad as i was
expecting. A lot of it seemed very pro-LibreOffice even without mentioning
some of the main advantages of LIbreOffice and the OpenSource world in
general. The first paragraph was appalling but after that it got a bit
better.
The first comment seemed to address one of the many advantages of
LibreOffice but didn't mention it was also something that OpenOffice
offers, and also doesn't specifically state that it's something MS Office
definitely doesn't offer. Still top-marks for the 1st comment!
Regards from
Tom
Hi
I think it is important to get some good comments in there quickly. It
would be good to do this to any other articles about LibreOffice too.
It is best to write more comments for articles that are properly
pro-LibreOffice so that their authors get seen positively by whoever
publishes such articles. Even negative comments about an article increases
the authors pay-packet and/or likelihood of getting further articles
published.
Perhaps help people who claim to have problems in the comments sections.
They are probably MS shills (or whatever) but treating their 'problems' as
legitimate and avoiding being rude can often encourage people to try LO.
The typically rude comments tends to put most people off ime. Even 'just'
"signposting them" (pointing them) to the official website;
https://www.libreoffice.org/
and tell them to click on the "Get Help" menu is often seen as friendly and
helpful. I know it's trendy and clever to be rude and sometimes it is
difficult to avoid but it puts most people off OpenSource.
In the 4.0 review it rankles that ...
Err, of course most of his opinions are stated as facts - such as the
ribbon vs proper-menu.
His problem with the Options pop-up requiring him to fix his Java settings
is unique to the only machine he seems to have tried. That problem has
never been raised on this list and no-one else i know of or have seen
comments or articles from has ever mentioned it. So his mention of it as
being a fact that everyone will have to contend with seems a little
unfair.
However even taking those things into account his article seems
surprisingly pro-LibreOffice, in a back-handed sort of way.
Regards from
Tom
LibreOffice users might want to note that Nick Heath at *Tech Republic*
places
it *first* of the five free apps he recommends those who have installed
Windows 10 to download (
www.techrepublic.com/article/microsoft-windows-10-five-free-apps-you-should-download)
; obviously, not all reviewers are quite as negative as Mr Mendelson at *PC
Mag*. Myself, I'd agree with Mr Heath, but with one caveat ; I'd put LO in
second place - the first thing anyone should do after installing Windows 10
is to download and install Classic Shell (classicshell.net), which provides
the user with a genuine start button and start menu....
Henri
So PC Magazine links (pcmag.com) in UK get converted to uk.pcmag.com and some place else they get converted to au.pcmag.com? Nasty! It's hard to communicate that way. Censorship?
Hello James,
So PC Magazine links (pcmag.com) in UK get converted to uk.pcmag.com
and some place else they get converted to au.pcmag.com? Nasty! It's
hard to communicate that way. Censorship?
Unlikely. It's more likely that the web site detected that the reader
wasn't/isn't located in the UK(1) and 'helpfully' redirected them to a
more appropriate(?) site.
Short version WRT censoprship: Never attribute to malice that which can
be attributed to stupidity.
(1) Perhaps based on IP. Not infallible.
> So PC Magazine links (pcmag.com) in UK get converted to
> uk.pcmag.com
> and some place else they get converted to au.pcmag.com? Nasty! It's
> hard to communicate that way. Censorship?
Unlikely. It's more likely that the web site detected that the
reader wasn't/isn't located in the UK(1) and 'helpfully' redirected
them to a more appropriate(?) site.
In order to show them more appropriate advertising!
Short version WRT censoprship: Never attribute to malice that which
can be attributed to stupidity.
+1
Hello Adam,
In order to show them more appropriate advertising!
Indeed. Although that wasn't the reason I was thinking of, it's at least
as good as, probably better.