G
George Graves
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:00:22 -0700, TheLetterK wrote
(in article <eV4Pi.189$va.18@bignews4.bellsouth.net>):
> George Graves wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:04:57 -0700, Rick wrote
>> (in article <13gogapr9084a5f@news.supernews.com>):
>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:47:07 -0700, George Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 03:56:16 -0700, Rick wrote (in article
>>>> <13gmnigar37km54@news.supernews.com>):
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:05:19 -0700, George Graves wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:57:41 -0700, Oxford wrote (in article
>>>>>> <colalovesmacs-24B109.19574108102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> why so angry Jesus?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought you loved everyone?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's sad that even you have turned on the human race.
>>>>>> It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux fanatics.
>>>>>> To them every comment is a challenge, a lie, or worse. You either
>>>>>> follow the party line or you are damned. It's real simple. Linux has
>>>>>> had years to achieve some sort of critical mass as a viable desktop
>>>>>> system and it hasn't moved very far in spite of being so much better
>>>>>> than Windows that it isn't even a contest. Yet if you tell these Linux
>>>>>> fanatics that one little fact, they go ballistic. Basically, I think
>>>>>> that they know its true, but the emperor's new suit of clothes....
>>>>>> well, you know.
>>>>> Explain to use why the city of Largo uses OpenOffice if it is not a
>>>>> professional level application.
>>>> Please explain how your non sequitur remark, above, has anything
>>>> whatsoever to do with my comment.
>>> Yada, yada, yada...
>>>
>>> You said O
was not a pro-level app. Explain why Largo has deployed a
>>> non-pro-level app across the City.
>>
>> Who knows? Who cares? maybe they're cheap or broke, or both. I'm not
>> responsible for what Largo does (wherever Largo is). I'm sure you can
>> exceptions to every "rule". That doesn't prove that OO is considered a
>> pro-level application anywhere. It might be someday. but this is not that
>> day.
>
> Largo is not the only group that has either considered OOo, or has
> adopted OOo. AFAIK, the main reason companies don't move to OOo is the
> imperfect compatibility between it and MS Office.
That's certainly part of it (yet the fact that MS Office isn't particularly
compatible with itself doesn't seem to bother these same companies). The
other part is the perception that if it's free, it can't be worth very much
(I've heard IT managers actually SAY this).
(in article <eV4Pi.189$va.18@bignews4.bellsouth.net>):
> George Graves wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:04:57 -0700, Rick wrote
>> (in article <13gogapr9084a5f@news.supernews.com>):
>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:47:07 -0700, George Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 03:56:16 -0700, Rick wrote (in article
>>>> <13gmnigar37km54@news.supernews.com>):
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:05:19 -0700, George Graves wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:57:41 -0700, Oxford wrote (in article
>>>>>> <colalovesmacs-24B109.19574108102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> why so angry Jesus?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought you loved everyone?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's sad that even you have turned on the human race.
>>>>>> It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux fanatics.
>>>>>> To them every comment is a challenge, a lie, or worse. You either
>>>>>> follow the party line or you are damned. It's real simple. Linux has
>>>>>> had years to achieve some sort of critical mass as a viable desktop
>>>>>> system and it hasn't moved very far in spite of being so much better
>>>>>> than Windows that it isn't even a contest. Yet if you tell these Linux
>>>>>> fanatics that one little fact, they go ballistic. Basically, I think
>>>>>> that they know its true, but the emperor's new suit of clothes....
>>>>>> well, you know.
>>>>> Explain to use why the city of Largo uses OpenOffice if it is not a
>>>>> professional level application.
>>>> Please explain how your non sequitur remark, above, has anything
>>>> whatsoever to do with my comment.
>>> Yada, yada, yada...
>>>
>>> You said O
was not a pro-level app. Explain why Largo has deployed a >>> non-pro-level app across the City.
>>
>> Who knows? Who cares? maybe they're cheap or broke, or both. I'm not
>> responsible for what Largo does (wherever Largo is). I'm sure you can
>> exceptions to every "rule". That doesn't prove that OO is considered a
>> pro-level application anywhere. It might be someday. but this is not that
>> day.
>
> Largo is not the only group that has either considered OOo, or has
> adopted OOo. AFAIK, the main reason companies don't move to OOo is the
> imperfect compatibility between it and MS Office.
That's certainly part of it (yet the fact that MS Office isn't particularly
compatible with itself doesn't seem to bother these same companies). The
other part is the perception that if it's free, it can't be worth very much
(I've heard IT managers actually SAY this).