OpenOffice.org 3.0 Beta Released 390
Sean0michael writes "OpenOffice.org has announced their 3.0 Beta is ready for testing. The new version includes some great enhancements, including MS Office 2007 import filters, an improved notes feature, a built-in Solver component, and an Aqua interface for Macs. The site has a complete list of Beta features. Download your beta release from their site."
Aqua (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Aqua (Score:4, Informative)
Looks like there is only an Intel version, no universal binary.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Aqua (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes no sense whatsoever for them to not make PPC binaries available. I have both Intel and PPC Macs, and the PPC machines are still perfectly good machines and are nowhere close to deserving of their treatment as outdated relics.
Re:Aqua (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For those of you who want this in PPC:
1. I haven't looked, but I suspect the source code is available.
2. IIRC, every Macintosh with OSX has shipped with full development software. It isn't normally installed, but it's there. If you've lost the install disks and never installed Xcode, you can always download it from Apple.
3. So, you can always compile it yourself. There should be accomodation for compiling for Macs, and that should work for PPCs.
4. ???
5. Profit!
Re:Aqua (Score:5, Informative)
http://ooopackages.good-day.net/pub/OpenOffice.org/MacOSX/Dev_BEA300_m2/
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and on some torrent trackers.
I've installed it alongside 2.4 - it's a lot slower than 2.4 (so much so that it's close to unusable on my 1.5 Ghz G4), but it has the lifesaving feature of being able to open
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Aqua (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unless there is no OOo for PPC.
Re:Aqua (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Aqua (Score:5, Interesting)
So I'll ask again: Name a single significant open source application that originated on OS X and now runs on other platforms. You can't, because OS X is designed specifically to prevent cross-platform development, and the Apple development community likes it that way.
Your inability to honestly answer this question proves my point that Mac users will certainly enjoy downloading and using OpenOffice for free, but very very few will contribute anything back: because OS X developers simply don't care about other platforms. This is also proven by the existence of things like Darwin ports, where the contributions are all one way. Again, an absolutely MASSIVE use of open source by the Apple community, with almost nothing given back.
Of course, you all have the right to do this since it is open source, just don't expect the rest of us to give you guys any respect as true members of the community.
Re:Aqua - LaunchD, etc... (Score:5, Informative)
LaunchD
Bonjour (Dynamic DNS Stuff (mDNS))
iCal Server
Thats just a few
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Aqua (Score:4, Interesting)
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/kde.html [what-is-what.com]
Just this week was the first time I sat down to a Mac. They are rediculously expensive in Israel, and very uncommon. I opened the control center to configure Sticky Keys, and I could have sworn that I had opened Kcontrol, the KDE control center. Worse yet, Kcontrol has two interfaces, one that I like and one that I hate. This was the one that I hate.
Re:Aqua (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, OpenOffice was a Linux exclusive app that moved to Mac, so you're quest for a OS-X only app that runs on Linux seems pointless.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FWIW OpenOffice.org started as the *proprietary* suite Staroffice, which was bought by Sun and open sourced.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://handbrake.fr/ [handbrake.fr]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Um... Transmission?
It's only the best BitTorrent client I've ever used, and now it has become the default client in Ubuntu. Though AFAICT the Mac version is still superior.
Re:Aqua (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's actually fairly easy to write Cocoa apps that can be ported to Linux and the BSDs via GNUStep (it has a few extensions to Cocoa, but these can be installed on Macs without the rest of GNUStep). It doesn't support AppleScript, but Objective-C is part of GCC (which Apple themselves use), so there isn't any need to in
Re:Aqua (Score:4, Insightful)
But for just a second, I'd like to appreciate how *freaking awesome* it is that GPL app like Open Office exists. Sure it has problems, but it's also an incredibly hard space to work in. The Microsoft monopoly is based very much on the office formats, and the dedication of Sun and the Open Office team to build this complex thing is creating all sorts of freedom for the rest of us. Microsoft knows this, and that's why they expended so much effort trying to mess up the formats
It's pretty hard to function on the internet without some ability to deal with office documents. In fact, I suspect Open Office is creating more freedom and competition than Firefox. Writing a browser, strangely, is not *that* hard. I can think of ten or so browser projects, but only a few office suites.
Re:Aqua (Score:5, Funny)
(Kidding. A brief fiddle about with it makes me very hopeful.)
Re:Aqua (Score:5, Informative)
Ooooh! I want to be that douche bag!
Seriously, this is a great step forwards, but like most ports it is still seriously lacking in real functionality, especially when it comes to features that OS X offers, but other OS's do not. These include:
Please note. These don't mean OO.org sucks or the developers are lazy or anything else. It just means that there is a real usability and functionality concern when comparing a not quite polished port to a native application. One of the drawbacks of cross-platform applications (especially when they are not designed as cross-platform initially, but try to port to new platforms) is they tend to miss things and also tend to become a least common denominator when it comes to features. Windows and Linux don't have a universal grammar checker, so if you use OO.org on OS X (which does) it is ignored, despite being implemented by default in all native applications.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I filed the first two years ago. I haven't filed any in a while because they don't have a bug report feature built into the program and to file bugs requires you to register an account, (including your personal info) with Sun.
Don't Hate! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't Hate! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand why people think that OpenOffice gets better the more it's like MS Office. OpenOffice.org seems to try hard to be an MS Office clone, but it's like the Linux distros that try to be "Windows-like"; Windows is the reason we want something else, so why are you copying it?
Macs, for instance, do looks of things differently than Windows and Linux, and people are attracted to them because they're different, not because it's just a way to do MS-things, the MS-way, with non-MS program. Until Ope
Clones needed, references checked (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm DMing a D&D game right now, and most people are trying to use HeroForge spreadsheets to build their characters and show them to me. Without MS Office, I can't read them. If there's a problem with character sheets for D&D, I can only imagine how many businesses and other groups have problems with OOO not recognizing MS scripts.
Re:Clones needed, references checked (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe that's why I love Linux and hate Windows. I don't need "user friendly". I need user obedient. I don't care if it sneers at me and insults me so long as it does what I want it to do the way I want it to.
Microsoft programs do what they allow you to have them do, the way they want or no way at all.
As an added bonus with Linux, it doesn't unsult me, while my intelligence is often insulted with Microsoft's "user friendliness".
I don't need my hammer to be user friendly, either. I just want to drive a nail and no backtalk from the damned hammer. Like Linux, it is user-obediant.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The great thing about Linux these days is the community. It only takes one "genius" (i.e. anyone who can read a man page) to figure out how to do something via CLI and post the howto on ubuntuforums. He ups his "thanked x times in y posts" count, and the rest of the proles have an easy recipe they can search for.
This is oftentimes superior to the closed s
Re:Don't Hate! (Score:4, Insightful)
In this particular instance, this is a real and useful feature, especially for people looking to perform a large migration to OpenOffice and away from MS Office. Simply put, this feature means less work for people trying to perform such a migration and that is better than more work. That seems quite understandable to me.
Re:Don't Hate! (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that I personally have a few GB worth of data in Excel and Word formats, and much of the Excel stuff is macro-enabled/enhanced. If OpenOffice did not support the Macros, I'd have to keep a copy of Office... at which point, why download and use OpenOffice?
Now, please note that I am playing somewhat the devil's advocate here. I'm a user of NeoOffice (even paid for the early access thing) and do in fact use both Office and OpenOffice together on the same machine - in part because I don't want to be locked in to a specific package again in the future. I was just trying to convey the vantage point that I think typifies the office market.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the Windows implementation of these things is why people want something else. The features themselves aren't necessarily a bad idea.
Meanwhile, things like VBA support are *vital* for migration away from Microsoft products. Without them, people will continue to be locked in to MS solutions. So quite complaining. This is a good thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want something else. I want a clone of MS Office. I want to save money to spend it on training costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't Hate! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't Hate! (Score:5, Insightful)
I use MS Office 2007 at work. I don't have a choice in the matter. If we start delivering documents in any other format, our clients will have a conniption fit. If we can't open a Word file because our office suite isn't perfectly compatible with the file, we have a major problem.
Unfortunately, I sometimes have to take my work home with me, where I don't want to pay the MS tax. The more easily I can work with Word and Excel files with OO on my home computer, the happier I am. The more OO screws up my cell formatting and causes things to print incorrectly, the more likely I am to turn to the dark side at home.
Before anybody brings it up, no, it's not an option to explain to our clients that open source and implementing open standards is the way to go. We get files from governments at all levels and work for dozens of different clients. Most of them are a hell of a lot bigger than us and won't care if some engineering consulting company thinks an open program is better. Changing office suites is a big deal to some companies. Just look at the feedback MS got for changing to ribbons in Office 2007. People bitched and moaned that they couldn't find anything and it took a whole click more to do a something they had done in three clicks before.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't Hate! (Score:5, Informative)
And while sun does have the copyright, the community plays a role in the development process.
Furthermore, some other projects do use OO code, eg neooffice [wikipedia.org]
Re:Don't Hate! (Score:4, Informative)
Now, I have never contributed to OOo, so I can't speak for how they actually handle individual contributors. Many open source projects are not always very inviting to individual contributors, especially when their opinions differ from the core devs (see GNOME). But they certainly do accept code from others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I own a Windows and a Mac laptop. The Mac laptop is better. There isn't one particular feature I can point to as to why it's better, but as I use both, I prefer the Mac. There's just a ton of little reasons that make up for the fact that I can't run Windows prog--oh wait, yes I can do that, too.
I was a Windows zealot; I defended Microsoft during the antitrust trials; I've faithfully used Microsoft products (including MS-DOS) since I was in kindergarten (that's 20 friggin years). I've
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Finally! (Score:2)
OpenOffice Aqua Finally (Score:2)
Missing change items (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm missing the "complete rewrite of rendering API and functionality", as well as proper SVG handling (or EPS, or PDF, hell native support for any proper vector graphics format!), and other things that would keep Impress presentations from looking like ass. What about uniform lines, circles that look at least remotely like circles, etc.? What about proper inline (and display) math typesetting? Instead of trying to remain bug-compatible with MS Office at all cost, they should perhaps think about, well, not sucking as bad.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Missing change items (Score:4, Insightful)
Alternately, I could work on the code I know, you can work on the code you know, and the OpenOffice developers can work on the code they know. We all pay attention to user requests, and then we don't have to all go learn a new codebase every time we find a program that's missing a feature. Much more efficient that way, don't you think?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been looking around. The OO.o people know exactly that their drawing framework stinks out loud, and they announced far-reaching changes for 2.0. What they came up with is XCanvas [openoffice.org]. OO.o and Inkscape were officially started around the same time. Both had a base to work from. In that time, Inkscape has evolved into a quite powerful vector graphics tool with a rendering engine (libcairo) that is extremely capable, and with an interface that's actually fun to work on. OO.o on the other hand has done... what
*STILL* no outline mode. (Score:5, Interesting)
And to quote myself (http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=322381&cid=20912291): "...before some n00b who's never written a 200-page document jumps all over me: No, the OOo "Navigator" does not provide an outline mode. It provides something akin to a re-organizable TOC in a floating window, but it doesn't provide the productivity enhancements afforded by inline hierarchical control within the editing window. This is one function that MS Word got right. For example, in Word I can start typing and make a list in normal text, click into "outline mode" and either use a key shortcut or a single click-drag to promote/demote some text to headings (while leaving other items as content), or re-order paragraphs of text or headings. To do the same thing in OOo's Navigator, I need to switch to a different window to reorganize headings, but switch back to the editing window to resume editing content. I also need to switch between two windows to split a heading into two sections, switch back to move it, and switch again to resume composing content -- something I can do with a CR and single mouse-drag in Word.
Word: type, type, drag, type, type, [enter], key-combo, type.
OOo: type, type, switch-window, drag, switch-window, type, type, re-style, switch-window, drag, switch-window, type.
Come on guys, suck up the Not-Invented-Here pride and adopt this one feature that MS got right! Or do it one-better and improve on the similar inline hierarchical editing from FrameMaker+SGML. Or innovate some collapsible tag interface from something like the old HotMeTaL from SoftQuad. (But don't trash the Navigator; it *is* useful for final proofing, just not composition)
Re:*STILL* no outline mode. (Score:5, Informative)
Lack of outline mode is bug nÂ3959 [openoffice.org] and if you had as much as skimmed its content you would know why it is taking longer to develop than you think it should.
Everyone agrees it is important, everyone is impatient, the developers know all about it, but it is not a trivial hack, so it will take resources and therefore time.
How does 3.0 beta compare with go-oo? (Score:2)
Still low limit on Calc rows? (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I've seen, this release still has the absurd 65535 row limit on Calc—the only reason such a limit was acceptable in previous versions was because MS Office didn't yet support more, but now that Office 2007 supports up to 4 million-some-odd rows, there is absolutely no excuse for putting that many or more into OpenOffice.
More than 65K rows is the killer feature that has gotten parts of my company to upgrade to 2007. Until and unless OOo supports it, there's no way we'll be able to use it as a full replacement for MS Office, as much as we'd like to.
Dan Aris
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Still low limit on Calc rows? (Score:5, Informative)
We're querying data out of a database and trying to do simple processing on it (the type that Excel does very well) in the simplest ways we can, and present it to the bosses. Yes, I could write a Java program to subtotal all our payments by type and spit it out in some kind of elegant format, or we could spring for a dozen more Crystal Reports licenses, but the fact is that Excel does this just fine, and now we don't even have to use 6 worksheets within a workbook to hold it all.
I hate Microsoft, but I just have no way of recommending replacing Office with OpenOffice while this is an issue.
Oh, and by the way (not directed at you, but at the stuck-up git who wrote that quote, which I read, too): when someone says they have a reason to use more than X of something in your product, and all it would cost you to give it to them is (I think) changing the types of a bunch of variables, and maybe adding a couple of extra converter methods, you don't tell them, "No one should ever need that many! Only an idiot would even ask for that!" You either say, "Well, we don't currently have enough demand for that feature to be worth the trouble," or you just darn well do it!
Dan Aris
Re:Still low limit on Calc rows? (Score:4, Insightful)
And not to defend someone who is acting like a stuck up git (I haven't read the quote), chances are that he's right, it sounds like you're using a speadsheet to do the job of a database. When someone tells you you're using a hammer to cut wood, you can't just tell them that it costs them little to put serrated edges on the hammer's head and that they should just darn well do it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree that if you have 65k+ records or rows of data, a spreadsheet probably isn't the best tool.
However, there are several reasons why handling such data in Excel/OO is not unreasonable. These include:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, I speak from experience. My company is currently moving away from a 20 year old UNIX based legacy system where most of the reporting is done via CSV dumps (routinely greater than 65,000 rows) and E
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is usually somebody in an organization that informs management of the best ways to use computer resources - and unfortunately for you it appears they may have dropped the ball. If I suggested sending managers reports that were raw spreadsheets with more than sixty five thousand rows I would be laughed at. Th
From the beta list info (Score:2)
What about OpenType font support? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can anyone tell me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh, all this focus on features. Not speed & (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile, the thing is still a slow, bloated pig. Do we have to make efficiency some sort of feature, or provide fake goals and a shiny racetrack before people address the fundamentals?
Makes me sick to see open source apps follow the same fated trails as other bloatware
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
What, no ribbon? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Still no Reveal codes feature? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You'll need to tell me what you mean by 'code' and 'extension' first though.
pffft
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still no Reveal codes feature? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sadly, I believe that the OpenOffice developers are thinking the same way, Microsoft has thought of MS Office. The must be thinking, all users are dumb enough to never want anything more abstract than WISIWYG editing with some useless hidden formatting characters shown.
I think Openoffice Writer is a nice product, it is too bad they do not aim to improve it beyond MS Word.
Nothing worse than having garbge/redundent/misplaced formatting staying hidden just to bite me on the next change on a large document. This is still my prime reason to not use OpenOffice (or MS Word) to create any serious document of a substantial size.
Reveal codes feature: Vote for it! (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3395 [openoffice.org]
BTW: work has started on it.
PDF Import Extension (Score:4, Informative)
" Available Soon... PDF Import Extension
The PDF Import Extension allows modifying existing PDF files for which the original source files do not exist anymore. "
However, that was August 2007 [sun.com].
Re:Hang in there guys (Score:5, Informative)
I can open a word document with OO. I cannot open an OO document with Word.
I can open a Word Perfect document with OO. I cannot open a WP document with Word.
OO has the cool cachet of the GPL, while Word is just another boring corporate moneymaker.
OO has fewer bugs and faster bug fixes.
OO costs nothing, while stupid people pay good cash for Word that could otherwise be spent on more important things like beer, games, and more beer.
The only thing Word has going for it is that the Uncyclopedia parodies Bill Gates [uncyclopedia.org] (and even includes a real criminal justice system mug shot [uncyclopedia.org] of him) but not Scott McNealy [uncyclopedia.org]. I mean, if Uncyclopedia doesn't make fun of you your software must really suck, right?
Re:Hang in there guys (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft Word has many more (and more mature) features than OO.org and your post does not dispute this at all.
+4 "Informative" indeed.
Re:Hang in there guys (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't recall the last time I sent a Word/Excel doc to somebody who couldn't open it.
Nor can I recall having a WP file sent to me in the last decade or so. Besides, Word CAN open up WP docs saved in the WP5 or WP6 formats.
Now.. as a developer, I have done some pretty great things with Office. Not so much using Office as the platform (although everyones done a bit of that at some point), but moreso just automating it in C#/Visual C++ using its COM wrapper.
A good example is an MRP we wrote in C# that uses Excel as a reporting platform.
Many here just can't get past the idea that it's closed-source, a MSFT product, etc. Me? I just want to deliver the best software I can. We're a small company. Top Line growth is important. And I don't have the luxury of indulging personal preferences.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hang in there guys (Score:4, Insightful)
Embrace, Extend, Exterminate.
OOo *still* lacking some basic functionality (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll ditto encoderer here:
Plus, there's one feature that really belongs more in the "Basic Functionality" category, and that's accurate word and character counting. As documented on the OOo bug list for some years now [openoffice.org], any combination of double-byte Asian text + regular single-byte alphanumeric text results in "word" counts that are worse than useless. A number of Asian languages do not count by "word" so much as by character (and for that matter there still isn't much agreement as to what exactly is a "word" in Japanese). OOo gives a total "word" count for either the document or selection, but does not break out any included Asian text -- which MS Word does, and has done for longer than I can clearly remember (starting maybe with MSO 97?). This makes OOo a non-starter for anyone working with such Asian languages in any situation that requires counts -- which includes just about all academic and professional use.
There's a sample .odt file included in the bug report (direct linky [openoffice.org]) that clearly spells out the differences in how the two apps count from a UI perspective (can't speak to the internals). I'd love to pitch in with the coding, but I sadly cannot afford the time and energy required to dig through OOo's extraordinarily convoluted API documentation to figure out how to update the source code myself; I started the process, but gave up in disgust at how the docs are organized. I've still got MSO, so until such time as the OOo team can get around to fixing this long-standing bug, and / or produce more sensible API docs, I'll keep using Word.
Re:Hang in there guys (Score:4, Insightful)
the majority of ms office users could easily get by with either openoffice or abiword/gnumeric. basic typed documents and simple spreadsheets are the most common types of documents and many users simply do not do anything more "involved" than that, ever, with ms office.
the only reason we have ms office (or windows, for that matter) in our office is because we support users and companies that buy them, and the most common reason they give us as to why they did is simply "because everybody else has them", NOT because they NEEDED them.
we promote and support open source solutions wherever possible. we live and work in a poor, rural part of the US and not everybody has money to burn on things they don't truly NEED. saving a couple hundred bucks or more by skipping ms office and maybe windows, too, is one way a lot of people can save some cash (so they can afford other things like food, electricity and fuel; which are all steadily rising in cost).
so what if the open source product is missing feature XYZ; how many people actually use feature XYZ and is it really crucial to have in the first place? is it worth spending $$$ just to have it? is there another open source product that'll work better? or can you simply do what you need to do a different way and save the money? the beauty of open source projects is that if people do want and need feature XYZ, it stands a chance of being added.. or if you're so inclined, you can add it yourself. how often do big, greedy corporations actually listen to their consumers instead of the ka-ching their money makes when they blindly hand it over?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hang in there guys (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OpenOffice's sluggishness is mostly an issue of feeling. I don't think I've lost even a minute, in total,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And let us not forget the speed. While I have no qualms giving OO.o to my customers when they have me build them a new box, I would never recommend OO.o to a business that was using hardware older than 1 to 2 years. It is just too damned slow.
Compare OO.o,even the older 1.5,to say,Office 2K(best damned Office released IMHO) the speed will blow you away,even with the hidden Office service disabled.
Though I agree that Open Office is damn bloated compared to MS Office in terms of Memory usage (the same spreadhseet takes over 100 megs of ram in OpenOffice, vs 15 megs in Excel isn't uncommon) I've learned to live with it, due to the cost/benefit of simply buying more Memory. RAM is damn cheap and has Far more utility, so I would rather buy 1 gig of (laptop) RAM for $50, than buy MS Office.
Re:Hang in there guys (Score:5, Insightful)
While OpenOoffice.org has many features that are more than enough for the average user (e.g. Me), Microsoft Office has more and many that many users can't do without.
And Microsoft Office 2007 (once you get used to the "ribbon") is even better than Office 2003, which is better than anything from OpenOffice.org.
Personally, I'm happy with OpenOffice.org in Linux but I'm also open-minded enough to know that it's inferior to Microsoft Office 2003/2007.
It's pretty much a copy of Microsoft Office 2000 (which is 9 years old).
You get what you pay for...
When was the last time you used Microsoft Office and what version was it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hang in there guys (Score:5, Insightful)
We have Word (and Word Perfect) at work, and I don't use anything in it I didn't use ten years ago.
At its best, an unused feature is bloat. At its worst it's a security risk.
If OO lacks a feature you need that Word has, you should buy Word. If not and you still buy Word IMO you're either not thinking clearly or you're spending someone else's money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OOo has about the same functionality now that Office had 10 years ago.
Ten years ago was Office 97, which a lot of people in industry I've talked to consider the first version of Office that was 'good enough.' Many of them have upgraded some or all of their machines because you can no longer buy Office 97 and it's no longer supported, but if OpenOffice really is as good as Office 97 (I haven't felt the need for an office suite for some years, so I can't accurately make this comparison) then that's probably something worth advertising. Most people would take something that's
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Taking too long! (Score:5, Funny)
UI argument (Score:3, Interesting)
That's funny, I've had a company switch to OOo precisely because of the UI. Their sound argument was that Open Source products in general do not change UI so quickly and dramatically, allowing staff to grow with the changes.
The reason for that is simple: FOSS doesn't need an argument other than improvement for a new version. It doesn't need UI drama to give a bunch of sales peop
Re: (Score:3)
Decisions in the workplace aren't being made by those who spell Microsoft with a dollar sign.