Slashdot Mirror
OpenOffice Illustrates Open Source's Limitations?
Cardbox writes "In his latest article in The Guardian, Andrew Brown asks 'If this suite's a success, why is it so buggy?'. OpenOffice, he says, shows the limitations of the open source development model. Brown is not your usual ignorant Microsoft-bribed hack. He has himself contributed macros for OpenOffice users. Brown lists the problems and assigns causes. He adds: 'If OpenOffice3.1 becomes a blockbuster... it will be because large companies such as Sun, Google, and IBM have decided that open source is the cheapest way to gang up on Microsoft, because it means they need spend nothing on support.'"
OpenOffice.org was not built from the ground up as an open source project.
Just askin'.
you had me at #!
Heres your first complaint. Why do i have to click on the menu bar 3-5 times to get the damn menu to pop up? No, its not my mouse. No, its not my computer (dual core Pentium 3.8GHz, 2 gigs of RAM) ... dont have those problems with KDE and Windows runs slick as shit on the identical box sitting next to it ... not flamin' just sayin'
-everphilski-
In terms of daily use, annoyances of both products, and pain when the simplest task becomes complicated, microsoft office beats openoffice hands down. It is simply a much better and refined product.
I use linux, I like it, but microsoft office 2003 is a truly a good product. Openoffice 2.0 is just not nearly as good. I think a lot of people were hoping 2.0 would be the microsoft killer, but it simply isn't. Microsoft has two main sources of income, windows and office. Openoffice may be as good or better in the future, but it still has a lot of catching up to do in terms of features but more importantly usability. It's almost naive to think that openoffice 2.0 would have suceeded in the promises people around here tried to make. It's simply not that good. Office 2003 is a much better product.