Linked by lemur2 on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 22:24 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Netbook innovator Asustek has announced that it will ship three models of its Eee PC with Ubuntu 10.10 preinstalled. Canonical announced Asus' decision to load the Eee PC 1001PXD, 1011PX and 1015PX with Ubuntu 10.10 from 1 June as one that will "make it one of the most user-friendly PCs on the market". Asus said that "many more" Eee PC models running Ubuntu will be available later this year. Linux fans will hope that in the three years since Asus started shipping Linux on its Eee PCs users will have realised that Linux is far more lightweight and suited to netbook computing than Windows.
Thread beginning with comment 476484
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
silix
Member since:
2006-03-01

So I dare you to list one killer feature in MS Office that you use regularly and you believe does not work on OOo. Prove to us that companies /NEED/ MS Office.

if you think about it, "peace of mind" is already a feature, and a very important one

the longer one company has been in existence and the larger it is, the higher the chances it has been using the industry standard solution (aka "current market encumbent product") for a very long time (whatever the reason for adopting it originally) and the larger the amount of documents it has produced with it

but when you have an archive of documents that have to be preserved (and have a workflow built around that solution that, ehm, works) features stop being your primary concern - since to a business, sw is just a tool but documents are assets
you become concerned in maintaining their flawless editability and exchange, and in altering as little as possible that workflow (since any change in workflow must be justified with an increase in effectivess and efficiency of business activities -thus increased productivity- otherwise it's a loss and shouldnt be applied)

so, you'll adopt the product which gives you the most *guarantees* (possibly mathematical certainty) about that - and this, only when you get to replace the version you are currently using (which may be only when the current one really becomes too old to be able to perform its duty anymore, or when the system it runs on in turn is to be replaced requiring new sw licenses or...)
and even in the offshoot chance MSO and OOo/LO were on exact *feature* parity, you'd probably go for MSO...
because that's what you made your documents with in the first place, what gives you those most guarantees, and because if anything goes wrong you can blame a at least in theory- more accountable party... what chance of being indemnified would you have with a free community developed product?

so it's not entirely correct to ask what killer feature does MSO have over its competition - the correct question is:
what killer features does the OOo/LO have that is so compelling to justify migrating away from MSO?

Edited 2011-06-08 15:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


if you think about it, "peace of mind" is already a feature, and a very important one

the longer one company has been in existence and the larger it is, the higher the chances it has been using the industry standard solution (aka "current market encumbent product") for a very long time (whatever the reason for adopting it originally) and the larger the amount of documents it has produced with it

but when you have an archive of documents that have to be preserved (and have a workflow built around that solution that, ehm, works) features stop being your primary concern - since to a business, sw is just a tool but documents are assets
you become concerned in maintaining their flawless editability and exchange, and in altering as little as possible that workflow (since any change in workflow must be justified with an increase in effectivess and efficiency of business activities -thus increased productivity- otherwise it's a loss and shouldnt be applied)

so, you'll adopt the product which gives you the most *guarantees* (possibly mathematical certainty) about that - and this, only when you get to replace the version you are currently using (which may be only when the current one really becomes too old to be able to perform its duty anymore, or when the system it runs on in turn is to be replaced requiring new sw licenses or...)
and even in the offshoot chance MSO and OOo/LO were on exact *feature* parity, you'd probably go for MSO...
because that's what you made your documents with in the first place, what gives you those most guarantees, and because if anything goes wrong you can blame a at least in theory- more accountable party... what chance of being indemnified would you have with a free community developed product?

so it's not entirely correct to ask what killer feature does MSO have over its competition - the correct question is:
what killer features does the OOo/LO have that is so compelling to justify migrating away from MSO?

Well ironically the killer feature OOo/LO has over MSO IS compatibility.

OOo supports more documents than MSO and (due to ODF being truly open) actually offers the closest to a guarantee for future compatibility out of the two.

The moment you use a proprietary editor that saves in a proprietary format, you are dependant on that company keeping legacy compatibility. So ironically all the points (bar the MS branding point) you made in favour of MS Office are more true in favour of OOo/LO.

And before people chip in about XMLOO being open, not the entire spec is. There are extensions that MS Office applications use that are still closed. So users / companies could still run into problems years down the line when MS depreciates XMLOO without opening their proprietary extensions.

I'm not someone to harp on about saying "open source is better than closed" etc. At the end of the day it's about using the best tools for the job. However if compatibility is a concern (as you described), then open source IS the safer choice.

Reply Parent Score: 2

silix Member since:
2006-03-01

OOo supports more documents than MSO and (due to ODF being truly open)

what if my company has already adopted MSO and has a mass of documents in .doc form? what if all my friends and colleagues have Office and any document they send me (or that i send to them) is in .doc? what if .doc is the ONLY format i care about and absolutely totally dont' give a shit whether "more documents" are supported?
actually offers the closest to a guarantee for future compatibility out of the two.

actually, online reviews from some time ago indicated that, out of several competing office suites (yes, you may be surprised to know than there's more beyond open/libre office.. ) it was the one with the more importing and exporting quirks (to little surprise given that, despite availability of doc/xls/ppt specifications at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc313118.aspx, OOo's import filter was developed by reverse engineering), way worse than what the closed but cheap SoftMaker achieved...
The moment you use a proprietary editor that saves in a proprietary format, you are dependant on that company keeping legacy compatibility

of course, but what makes you think MS wouldn't or shouldn't keep it (since they have ALL the interest in doing so and much to lose should they fail) ?
So ironically all the points (bar the MS branding point) you made in favour of MS Office are more true in favour of OOo/LO.
i dont' see how that can be (see above), my points were in favor of company workflow and assets (documents) not of MSO per se
had OOo been as entrenched as MSO currently is, it would be MS the one with a hard time
And before people chip in about XMLOO being open, not the entire spec is. There are extensions that MS Office applications use that are still closed. So users / companies could still run into problems years down the line when MS depreciates XMLOO without opening their proprietary extensions.
premise: i abolutely totally hate both OOXML *and* ODF because they're XML based formats, thus verbose and technically inefficient (and no, i dont' believe the rationale for it according to which human readability, thus the possibility for the user to manually edit the generated xml and edit tags to fix parsing errors, is a must)
anyway, yes, OOXML' spec is tied to MSO and not fully open, but this doesnt't contradict the point - if i have started using office 2007 for any reason (say, the ribbon) i better stay with office and use doc/docx as my archive format forever, than seriously consider migrating
to each his own poison, they say...

Reply Parent Score: 2