OpenOffice to be dumped in Freiburg ?

users
#41

While its interesting to get different perspectives from around the globe, I'm not sure we'll agree on the principal tasks of government, so I'll leave that subject and return to the computer side of things.

Without trying to defend MS, it can only dominate markets that customers allow it to dominate. Nobody is forced to purchase MS products. They do so because, for whatever reason, they perceive that MS serves their needs. One of those needs is file compatibility with others, which by its nature, allows MS sales to feed on themselves. The more people buy MS products, the more people need to buy MS products to communicate with all the others who went before.

Perhaps it's also a function of job security for IT managers. Back in the '80s, the saying was that, "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM products." My guess is that, today, you can replace "IBM" in that phrase with "Microsoft."

Virgil

#42

At the risk of getting political, the last thing I want is my government dictating to me what kind of file format to use on my documents.

Virgil

The issue is not truly political if the agreed standards are used by all - it levels the playing field and tends to lower costs for consumers.

#43

I believe that lawyers call them "de facto standard" and... "we would really
like this to be standard, so do us a favor, please - standard". It's hard to
call ODF "de jure standard", really.

#44

I think my point, apparently not clear, was that governments themselves
would say, "We will only *use* software that meets these criteria." I don't
support governments mandating file types, or intervening in my private
business. However, they are by far the "biggest elephant in the room," and
if, for example, the USGovt would say, "Folks, we love your software, but
we will only buy it if it produces file types that are compatible with the
following...." then MSO and others would do that, because they need sales
as much as the next company. And about the govt being involved in the
computer world, and the internet...anybody remember DARPA?? And DARPAnet??
Steve

#45

I fully agree with your clarification. Microsoft needs customers more than customers need Microsoft, and the larger customers could very well influence how Microsoft designs its software.

Virgil

#46

VA wrote:

Nobody is forced to purchase MS products.

Try and buy a computer without Windows. While there are some available, they're rare. Also, read up on the MS anti trust cases to see how they forced market share with illegal and near illegal methods, including extortion.

#47

I'm not defending Microsoft; I don't particularly like them. I'm just saying that if I don't want to buy MS, I don't have to, and neither does anyone else.

Of course, you can buy a Mac and not have Windows. However, I never count Windows as a "purchase" because it comes installed on the computer. I don't pay any extra for it, and I have NEVER purchased any Windows upgrade. After buying a Windows computer, if I wanted, I could completely blow off the Windows, reformat the hard drive and install Linux. I'm sure many people have done just that. I have a dual-boot Windows/Linux system on my laptop.

While my employer has purchased MS Office, I have never done so for my home computers.

In other words, no matter what tactics MS uses, legal or not, as the customer, I always control where I spend my money. MS cannot dominate my computer without my permission or the software market without our collective permission.

Virgil

#48

I get a discount for purchasing without windows.
I say I want that machine, no windows, take it off the price, and save myself some dollars.
Steve

#49

Here, here. But what about gov'ts mandating simply that the format structure be open (without mandating a specific one be used)? That's not political IMHO.
Carl

#50

Without trying to defend MS, it can only dominate markets that customers allow it to dominate. Nobody is forced to purchase MS products. They do so because, for whatever reason, they perceive that MS serves their needs. One of those needs is file compatibility with others, which by its nature, allows MS sales to feed on themselves. The more people buy MS products, the more people need to buy MS products to communicate with all the others who went before.

But, of course, the only reason file compatibility is an issue - the only reason MS can behave as it does - is that it is an effective monopoly. Last time I checked monopolies are anti-competitive, and there are LAWS in the US to curb them. So I agree, there is a role for gov't to step in. Good luck waiting for that though. Break the monopoly for a few years by being hyper-vigilant about code development and marketing and you might actually break the monopoly for good.

Furthermore, if enough people forced gov't to accept standardized document types (e.g. ODT or even PDFs!), the monopoly would weaken.

Carl

#51

Wow! I didn't mean to cause such a firestorm of discussion....but isn't it
good?? and isn't this why there IS open source software?? So that we can
create, and eventually have our creations exist and be read by the next
generation?? File formats are the new paper. It's important that no one
company or person own the formula for paper.
SteveB.

#52

Hi Virgil,

I have never purchased a copy of Windows either. I only get it when it comes on a computer. Microsoft charges computer companies less than what the public pays, but the last time I heard anything it was something like $50 per computer that the computer companies pay Microsoft for Windows. So we both do pay for it with new computer.

Don

#53

yes, microsoft has a strong monopolistic policy.  furthermore the attempts of big pc producers to sell desktops and laptops with linux instead of windows failed.  however there are promising producers such as garlach44 or system76 who provide nice pcs with linux.  however it seems clear that producers has to choose between windows and linux.

#54

That ODF12 is supported by m$ is useful to know, thanks. This means
that LO users will be able to send ODF12 documents and when recipients
complain that they can't read it, the recommended options are to
upgrade to m$ or use LO/another ODF compliant program.

As mentioned before ad nausem, those unhappy with LO should simply revert to m$.

The best way to solve these endless questions about "compatibility" is
not to use LO as a m$ clone. Use it to create odf documents or buy m$.

#55

Don Myers wrote:

I have never purchased a copy of Windows either. I only get it when it comes on a computer. Microsoft charges computer companies less than what the public pays, but the last time I heard anything it was something like $50 per computer that the computer companies pay Microsoft for Windows. So we both do pay for it with new computer.

And lets not forget the time bombed versions of Office that's included with many new computers. People start using it, and then, after a while, find they can't work with their own documents unless they pay for Office.

#56

Carl Paulsen wrote:

Here, here. But what about gov'ts mandating simply that the format structure be open (without mandating a specific one be used)? That's not political IMHO.

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20121119172623282

#57

MS must use several different methods of pushing its Office. My Sony laptop came with Win7 and a "Starter" version of Office. I have a stripped down version of Word and Excel. Many advanced functions are missing and I have banner ad reminders to buy the full version, but the software doesn't seem to be "time bombed." I've had it for two years now and it still works.

All that said, I never use it unless I need full Office compatibility, which of course is the issue that started this thread in the first place.

Virgil

#58

VA,

In reply to your E-mail from 20-11-2012, 14:05 with subject "[libreoffice-users] Re: OpenOffice to be dumped in Freiburg ?".

MS must use several different methods of pushing its Office. My Sony laptop
came with Win7 and a "Starter" version of Office. I have a stripped down
version of Word and Excel. Many advanced functions are missing and I have
banner ad reminders to buy the full version, but the software doesn't seem
to be "time bombed." I've had it for two years now and it still works.

Just a thought of an average user.

Microsoft is forced by the European community to give user the choice
what browser they want to use (IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari ...).
Microsoft even got a penalty for refusing it.

It would be a nice option, if a buyer of a computer can select as well
which office suite he want to use. Let say MSO, OO or LO.
This could increase the number off users using LibreOffice. To reach
this goal TDF needs to start a lobby in Brussels.

Greetings,

Piet Jan Koeleman.

#59

Buying a computer without an OS installed is easy. You just have to not go into the brick-n-morter stores, but go online to various stores. I bought my quad computer without an OS. I then added a 19" monitor from a differentonline store, which was cheaper than buying the computer's store LCD/LED options. That was a few years back, but I see computers all the time listed with either no OS or Win7. I will never buy a Win8 computer, with its anti-Win7 and anti-Linux security system

Try TigerDirect.com for your computer needs. I do. They have good warranties as well.

#60

IMHO Europe will probably finally force the issue with full ODF compatibility with MS. MS has annoyed many with their monopolistic tactics.

A marketing problem for MS is as long as the MSO formats are supported/readable by the current MSO and other suites (LO/AOO) many will not need the newest version. Truthfully the market has matured enough for office suites that improvements are incremental not fundamental. I can remember when spelling and grammar checkers were added - that was a big deal. That improvement was enough to get anyone's attention. It was such a valuable addition to the usefulness of the suite that people would get the newest version. But the last versions of any office suite have been incremental improvements, bug fixes, etc. that are important but may not really impact a specific user. Thus the older version is still perfectly adequate. In the case of MSO I not sure I have used any of the new features added since MSO 2000 in any version of MSO I have used. The market growth for MS is much slower because for many there is no major reason to upgrade for many unless forced to by lack of support of either the file format or the software itself.
.