Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 8th Jan 2013 23:27 UTC
Permalink for comment 547917
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-10
I have worked for loads of high profile companies and none, repeat none, would ever consider OOo in a million years. The main reasons are the massive IP investment they all have in MS Office.
For example the tight integration with TFS and Sharepoint that you don't get with OOo. And then there are the inevitable crap-tonne of Access and Excel VBA apps that run everything from timesheets to monitoring billion dollar LNG modules as I discovered in horror at Chevron.
It's not an option.
It's always an option. An option that can be shot down, of course.
You are making a generalization. For every example of a company that cannot change, I can give you an example of a company that can and did change. I know the corporate world, I'm not saying that MS Office is always replaceable - it's not -, but there are many, many cases where it is. And sometimes it's not even necessary to migrate an entire company, just some departments.
OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice also have other problems in the corporate wold, like the lack of MSIs and Group Policy integration.