Maybe that's true, but I don't think people really understood 1) how fast MS would make W7 unavailable, combined with 2) how surprisingly bad W8 turned out to be.
Except that as an individual, I don't care to--- and won't--- pay for MS Office. Is MSO better than LibreOffice? It can be argued both ways. Is it enough better for/my needs/ that I'm willing to pay for it? No way.
If the differences are worth the money to you, go buy it. Who cares.
As long as I don't have to buy it, I'm happy.
There is only one thing I haven't yet been able to do with free software: scanning and OCR, and that picture is changing too.
LaTeX produces a superior product... I don't know of anything that, on the back end, typesets so elegantly, and on the front end, allows an author to focus on content so well.
But think about it. Using LaTeX requires --- perish the thought --- a/brain/. An active, working one at that.
So it's a non-starter in about 99.9% of the world's office environments.
This is very interesting, as Hawai`i is virtually a one-party state, the Dems have near total control and with a few rare exceptions, just about always have.
Well, I live in Hawai`i and I'm pretty happy about it:)
But if you want to move here --- there's a problem with the high cost of living and relatively low paying jobs, if you even find one. Someone once called it "New York prices on Midwest wages."
No so easy go Hawai`i, brah.
Actually... yes. Emacs 'calc' is very powerful and of course you can extend it any way you want in elisp. There are also a couple of spreadsheet modes; SES isn't bad for some purposes, and there is a sort of spreadsheet built in to org-mode tables.
I am only partly serious here; while I use Emacs spreadsheet modes for simple stuff (tracking and doing stats on exercise, for instance) it's certainly not meant for The Big Stuff. But Emacs calc---- that can do some pretty impressive work.
Interesting and predictable discussion. As a Linux/Libre Office user, I totally get it that there are corporate workflows and many situations that simply require MS Office for compatibility, although I think with some redesign much of that could be eliminated (if there were a desire to do so; the amount of labor could easily swamp savings on software).
The best situation would be to build your business from the ground up with FOSS products:) There would still be some compatibility problems with the outside world, but they could be minimized. I worked for a major government entity for years and managed not to use MS products, although at times it was a little awkward and honestly I can't claim to have saved money in my lonesome quest.
I am still using Office 2003 because (a) It works just fine and does what I need. Newer versions contain absolutely nothing of benefit to me. (b) No "activation" or other bullshit required, which means I can easily transfer it to another computer when needed. (c) It doesn't have the god awful ribbon that was introduced with Office 2007 and rendered the program unusable.
And I'll continue to use Libre Office:) No activation, no ribbon, works fine and does what I need.
There will be the inevitable response: I need feature X that only MS Office has. This will not get an argument from me. If you need MS Office, go for it. Do what you have to do. I'm just happy that I don't need it myself and don't have to deal with all this nonsense.
I don't use Microsoft products myself, but if they truly meet your needs when other products don't, of course you'll use them.
Microsoft Office would actually meet and far exceed my needs but I don't care to pay for it (or Windows) when Linux/Libre Office do the job for me (and also far exceed my needs).
I don't see any need for FOSS enthusiasts (and I am clearly one) to bash Microsoft/users/. I have plenty of problems with Microsoft's business practices, but that's not the same thing. Like that guy said, can't we all just get along?
I'm happy to post stuff and give it away and I do so often.
But I feel the need to protect myself... so I formally disclaim liability, promises of support, etc. I also feel the need to protect myself against someone taking my code and then claiming it's theirs and telling me I can't use it any longer. Don't think that doesn't happen.
Unfortunately everyone doesn't play nice, so I think there will continue to be a need for licenses, even if they are very generous ones.
Your remark is an interesting take on what really is and isn't necessary.
Does the current version of Word, whatever it is, produce better communication than WordStar did? I didn't say prettier documents with more fonts, I said better communication. Early word processors provided an essential thing, freedom from the tyranny of the typewriter and its difficulties with corrections and revisions. That was a noticeable step forward in enabling better communication. How much further have we really come with all the features, bells and whistles?
The argument for modern software may be stronger with spreadsheets, but VisiCalc did quite a few things. Excel does more of it, at the price of possible (likely?) embedded errors, especially in complex spreadsheets, which become nigh on to incomprehensible at some point.
The biggest difference in my mind, with respect to better communication and doing better business, is in graphics and graphical presentation. That indeed has advanced enormously.
Emacs (mentioned above somewhere).... still going strong after... what... 35 years? It does everything. Some people even use it as a text editor.
Lotus Agenda... undersold, underappreciated, but nothing has ever come along quite like it or quite as good.
I'd be happy to pay $25 a year and always have the newest version of Windows.
And I'm quite happy to pay absolutely nothing and get the latest Ubuntu or Mint or (name the distro you like) twice a year, and choose which ones I care to install.
To anticipate an argument: yes it's work to upgrade (although can you say upgrading Windows isn't work too?)... but when I upgrade, I get a good understanding of what's going into my system, how the parts fit together, how I can streamline or improve, etc., and that translates later into regained time in terms of work effectiveness and productivity.
That isn't working "just fine" then. That's the problem with Linux hardware support and Linux software; it only kind of works and often requires a bunch of messing around to even get to that state.
And--- even assuming this is true, which it isn't most of the time--- I'm willing to do the necessary messing around, because I maintain complete control over my hardware and software. I've made my Linux Mint systems do everything necessary to accomplish real work in an efficient manner. It's cost me some time (but NO money), but I reclaim that time with a more effective and productive working environment.
They could go the way that Ubuntu does... say that they'll release patches for every 3rd version as long term support. The other two are consumer grade, but have shiny new features...
And in fact, I'll stay with Ubuntu or Mint. I am so glad I'm not on the Windows merry-go-round.
Tangentially, this explains why sites like GOG succeed, and why I'm happy to patronize them. They treat customers fairly and charge fair prices. Would I pirate a game that GOG sells? Not a chance. I'll buy it from them without thinking twice.
Such tests would be used to *ensure* that psychopaths are chosen for senior management, so that no one unsuitable (i.e. non-psycho) slipped through by accident. As other posters have noted, just take a lot at senior management of large corps if you don't think this is true.
You can play Infocom-style text games on Linux. What else is there?
Oh, you mean that modern whiz-bang FPS stuff?
Nah. If I have Zork, my world is complete.
Leaving aside unjudged all of the arguments back and forth discussed above, do you really trust the motives of companies like Microsoft in appealing for more H1B visas? They do so because there's something in it for them, not out of any kind of altruism, and surely without any concern for anything except that which benefits their bottom line.
No kidding. And newspapers wonder why they have declining fortunes. Then they fall back on the old answer: let's legislate / litigate a solution instead of tackling the real problem.
The problem I mention, though--- of making overly complicated documents and presentations--- is hardly limited to MS Office. You can make the same mistake with Libre Office, which has more than enough bells and whistles to enable your message to be obfuscated, even if not as many as MS Office. Here the user is definitely at fault, but it is independent of his choice of FOSS vs. proprietary.
I too am fine with the idea of FOSS options having fewer features; after all, I'm paying nothing for it, and most of the time, I get what I need to do the task at hand.
WRT the idea of "throwing money" at proprietary software to get the job done, however, I think the classic example is OCR, where FOSS options are severely limited (I'd love to be proved wrong, but it sure seems that way). I'm not aware of anything remotely in the class of ABBY FineReader, even though that item comes at a horrendous price.
I'm almost embarrassed to admit that Google Docs (free) meets my meager needs. You can even download copies of your documents, in several different formats, to store locally.
Highly recommended unless you have advanced needs.
Yes, I do believe Google Docs is now beyond meeting simple needs and can meet needs of moderate complexity. And I question how often 'advanced' features truly enhance communication.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe that's true, but I don't think people really understood 1) how fast MS would make W7 unavailable, combined with 2) how surprisingly bad W8 turned out to be.
If the differences are worth the money to you, go buy it. Who cares.
As long as I don't have to buy it, I'm happy.
There is only one thing I haven't yet been able to do with free software: scanning and OCR, and that picture is changing too.
LaTeX produces a superior product ... I don't know of anything that, on the back end, typesets so elegantly, and on the front end, allows an author to focus on content so well.
But think about it. Using LaTeX requires --- perish the thought --- a /brain/. An active, working one at that.
So it's a non-starter in about 99.9% of the world's office environments.
This is very interesting, as Hawai`i is virtually a one-party state, the Dems have near total control and with a few rare exceptions, just about always have.
Well, I live in Hawai`i and I'm pretty happy about it :)
But if you want to move here --- there's a problem with the high cost of living and relatively low paying jobs, if you even find one. Someone once called it "New York prices on Midwest wages."
No so easy go Hawai`i, brah.
And you can do it all in Emacs.
Actually ... yes. Emacs 'calc' is very powerful and of course you can extend it any way you want in elisp. There are also a couple of spreadsheet modes; SES isn't bad for some purposes, and there is a sort of spreadsheet built in to org-mode tables.
I am only partly serious here; while I use Emacs spreadsheet modes for simple stuff (tracking and doing stats on exercise, for instance) it's certainly not meant for The Big Stuff. But Emacs calc---- that can do some pretty impressive work.
Interesting and predictable discussion. As a Linux/Libre Office user, I totally get it that there are corporate workflows and many situations that simply require MS Office for compatibility, although I think with some redesign much of that could be eliminated (if there were a desire to do so; the amount of labor could easily swamp savings on software). The best situation would be to build your business from the ground up with FOSS products :) There would still be some compatibility problems with the outside world, but they could be minimized. I worked for a major government entity for years and managed not to use MS products, although at times it was a little awkward and honestly I can't claim to have saved money in my lonesome quest.
I am still using Office 2003 because (a) It works just fine and does what I need. Newer versions contain absolutely nothing of benefit to me. (b) No "activation" or other bullshit required, which means I can easily transfer it to another computer when needed. (c) It doesn't have the god awful ribbon that was introduced with Office 2007 and rendered the program unusable.
And I'll continue to use Libre Office :) No activation, no ribbon, works fine and does what I need.
There will be the inevitable response: I need feature X that only MS Office has. This will not get an argument from me. If you need MS Office, go for it. Do what you have to do. I'm just happy that I don't need it myself and don't have to deal with all this nonsense.
I don't use Microsoft products myself, but if they truly meet your needs when other products don't, of course you'll use them. Microsoft Office would actually meet and far exceed my needs but I don't care to pay for it (or Windows) when Linux/Libre Office do the job for me (and also far exceed my needs). I don't see any need for FOSS enthusiasts (and I am clearly one) to bash Microsoft /users/. I have plenty of problems with Microsoft's business practices, but that's not the same thing. Like that guy said, can't we all just get along?
I'm happy to post stuff and give it away and I do so often. But I feel the need to protect myself ... so I formally disclaim liability, promises of support, etc. I also feel the need to protect myself against someone taking my code and then claiming it's theirs and telling me I can't use it any longer. Don't think that doesn't happen.
Unfortunately everyone doesn't play nice, so I think there will continue to be a need for licenses, even if they are very generous ones.
Your remark is an interesting take on what really is and isn't necessary. Does the current version of Word, whatever it is, produce better communication than WordStar did? I didn't say prettier documents with more fonts, I said better communication. Early word processors provided an essential thing, freedom from the tyranny of the typewriter and its difficulties with corrections and revisions. That was a noticeable step forward in enabling better communication. How much further have we really come with all the features, bells and whistles? The argument for modern software may be stronger with spreadsheets, but VisiCalc did quite a few things. Excel does more of it, at the price of possible (likely?) embedded errors, especially in complex spreadsheets, which become nigh on to incomprehensible at some point. The biggest difference in my mind, with respect to better communication and doing better business, is in graphics and graphical presentation. That indeed has advanced enormously.
Emacs (mentioned above somewhere) .... still going strong after ... what ... 35 years? It does everything. Some people even use it as a text editor.
Lotus Agenda ... undersold, underappreciated, but nothing has ever come along quite like it or quite as good.
GNUS forever! But I fetch via IMAP from gmail because I just don't want to deal with all the spam locally.
I'd be happy to pay $25 a year and always have the newest version of Windows.
And I'm quite happy to pay absolutely nothing and get the latest Ubuntu or Mint or (name the distro you like) twice a year, and choose which ones I care to install. To anticipate an argument: yes it's work to upgrade (although can you say upgrading Windows isn't work too?)... but when I upgrade, I get a good understanding of what's going into my system, how the parts fit together, how I can streamline or improve, etc., and that translates later into regained time in terms of work effectiveness and productivity.
That isn't working "just fine" then. That's the problem with Linux hardware support and Linux software; it only kind of works and often requires a bunch of messing around to even get to that state.
And--- even assuming this is true, which it isn't most of the time--- I'm willing to do the necessary messing around, because I maintain complete control over my hardware and software. I've made my Linux Mint systems do everything necessary to accomplish real work in an efficient manner. It's cost me some time (but NO money), but I reclaim that time with a more effective and productive working environment.
They could go the way that Ubuntu does... say that they'll release patches for every 3rd version as long term support. The other two are consumer grade, but have shiny new features...
And in fact, I'll stay with Ubuntu or Mint. I am so glad I'm not on the Windows merry-go-round.
Tangentially, this explains why sites like GOG succeed, and why I'm happy to patronize them. They treat customers fairly and charge fair prices. Would I pirate a game that GOG sells? Not a chance. I'll buy it from them without thinking twice.
Such tests would be used to *ensure* that psychopaths are chosen for senior management, so that no one unsuitable (i.e. non-psycho) slipped through by accident. As other posters have noted, just take a lot at senior management of large corps if you don't think this is true.
You can play Infocom-style text games on Linux. What else is there? Oh, you mean that modern whiz-bang FPS stuff? Nah. If I have Zork, my world is complete.
Leaving aside unjudged all of the arguments back and forth discussed above, do you really trust the motives of companies like Microsoft in appealing for more H1B visas? They do so because there's something in it for them, not out of any kind of altruism, and surely without any concern for anything except that which benefits their bottom line.
No kidding. And newspapers wonder why they have declining fortunes. Then they fall back on the old answer: let's legislate / litigate a solution instead of tackling the real problem.
People with 'causes' such as PETA need more to do.
The problem I mention, though--- of making overly complicated documents and presentations--- is hardly limited to MS Office. You can make the same mistake with Libre Office, which has more than enough bells and whistles to enable your message to be obfuscated, even if not as many as MS Office. Here the user is definitely at fault, but it is independent of his choice of FOSS vs. proprietary. I too am fine with the idea of FOSS options having fewer features; after all, I'm paying nothing for it, and most of the time, I get what I need to do the task at hand. WRT the idea of "throwing money" at proprietary software to get the job done, however, I think the classic example is OCR, where FOSS options are severely limited (I'd love to be proved wrong, but it sure seems that way). I'm not aware of anything remotely in the class of ABBY FineReader, even though that item comes at a horrendous price.
I'm almost embarrassed to admit that Google Docs (free) meets my meager needs. You can even download copies of your documents, in several different formats, to store locally.
Highly recommended unless you have advanced needs.
Yes, I do believe Google Docs is now beyond meeting simple needs and can meet needs of moderate complexity. And I question how often 'advanced' features truly enhance communication.
Expect to be followed up with a "Free to Type" and "Pay to Save" model shortly.
.... which some demo and shareware products in fact already have implemented.