Why would a home user waste valuable income on a new version of Office? Are ribbons all that important for that letter to Aunt Edna?
There's actually an interesting point here, which is that for many, many word processing jobs, all the fancy features are not necessary to get the message across. Something really old (and small) like WordStar 5.5 has more than enough feature power to write a letter to GrandMama, compose a 100,000 word novel, etc. Google Docs will do all that and more, handling graphics and tables. All the fancy-doodle stuff in Word isn't needed for probably 95% of the work out there.
ut what I know is when the wireless card on the desktop did not work, the common googled solution appears to involve recompiling the kernel with right modules. That's where I begin to tune out. It's not the specific problem, it's the fact that kernel re-compilation should never be an acceptable part of the configuration/setup that is done by the average user.
This is a valid point, and examples about multimedia could be added. But I'm a competent user and I can solve those issues for myself and family members, so I am fine with the Linux desktop, and so are they, even though they are 'average' users.
But this discussion was originally about office software. Don't forget that LibreOffice runs just fine on Windows, and there are no special support issues that I'm aware of.
Except I have trouble seeing how home users are locked into an expensive office product. At work, sure, in a lot of places you simply have no choice. But at home? Where's the compatibility requirement for complex documents?
Overly complex presentations lose the message. People start watching all the cool effects instead. Great that PowerPoint can do all that stuff, but I have to agree with the poster who said you don't really need it. Not sour grapes. Just a desire to communicate my message to an audience effectively.
And I'm willing to do that (rather than pay an accountant a lot more) because I expect them (e.g. TurboTax) to keep up with changes in tax law and reflect those in the software. If they do that well (and so far I'm satisfied) then it's worth a reasonable annual fee.
The internet before those hordes was the internet without wikipedia.
There are immense benefits to growing your community.
Again, even as a die-hard Linuxer, I have to recognize the advantages of a larger Linux community. But I do not pretend that Linux is going to be a dominant force in the foreseeable future, if ever.
Still, I'm OK with that. As long as there are enough knowledgeable users--- and the growth of Linux since the very early days makes me believe that's not a problem--- Linux will be around. It's a fact that I can do more today with Linux than I ever could before. Of course, if I have a problem I troubleshoot it myself, aided by the knowledgebase accumulated by other Linuxers. I don't think or expect that everyone (i.e. "Joe User") would do the same.
But guess what: "Joe User" doesn't troubleshoot his own Windows issues, either.
More software a linux user paid for!!! SHOCKING NEWS!!!
I'm a die-hard Linuxer and I also pay to use TurboTax online. I doubt if I'd buy the Windoze edition to run at home but running in my browser is just fine and there is the presumed added advantage that the on-line edition is up to date.
The quoted poster's implication is correct. Linuxers don't want everything for free; I pay for lots of value-added services, such as the aforementioned TurboTax, membership on a chess site, etc. I'm even going to BUY--- that's right, I said BUY--- the Linux edition of Scrivener when it comes out of beta.
That said, I do enjoy and benefit from the many free options I have such as LibreOffice, TaskJuggler, etc. etc.
You are of course not the only person to say this, but GIMP comes at a much better price, and certainly has its adherents. I wonder if it is more a question of familiarity (as you allude to below) than essential functionality.
Writing novels doesn't take much software. You can do that with a latex editor and the sffms class.
For that matter I've known of people writing a novel with VI. Your statement oversimplifies a little, but my point wasn't that Linux was better for novel writing, only that Windows or a Mac was not a necessity. By the way, the very popular novel-writing software Scrivener now has a Linux version in beta.
Outlook for example isn't a 'niche' app, it is a basic workplace necessity in almost every office.
I wonder if you are equating "commonplace" with "necessary," although the two categories merge when (as in the discussion in postings above) compatibility becomes an absolute requirement. Otherwise, Outlook is not a basic necessity by any means. Email, contact management, etc., can be done in a lot of ways.
Having a Linux near equivalent is better than nothing but nobody is going to start using Linux to have something almost as good as whats on windows. In mot cases they won't even switch for something as good or better, they want the apps they've already invested time and effort learning.
You are correct, but this has nothing to do with the inherent superiority of either Linux or Windows. It has to do with the vast inertia created by a near-monopoly provider.
In my previous employment, I was once asked by a group which I had just taken on as manager if the rumors were true and I was going to dump Windows and replace it across the board with Linux. For the reasons you mention, I had to say "no" because it would have been a poor business decision. That's really unfortunate, but reality is not always friendly. However, I didn't up the ante by bringing in every new Microsoft product as it rolled out the door.
After I moved on, though, my successor certainly did, declaring, "We're a Microsoft shop. They make good software. We're going to use it exclusively." Well, that's a business decision; what can I say?
Actually, I think that you are wrong about this. Microsoft has built its monopoly on the basis of compatibility. If compatibility were suddenly broken, that would cause lots or issues for users, who might actually look at alternatives.
I do hope you are right. In the past, Microsoft hasn't been so good about this, but I imagine it's possible that the churn will stop with the 'x' formats.
Note that, in my case, the problem is that LbreOffice will not correctly export and then import the same file via.doc or.docx formats.
We've all seen this. It's kind of like computer translation from Russian to English (imperfect) and then translation of the result back to Russian (even more imperfect, sometimes completely broken).
Your other comment --- about the problem being entirely within the LibreOffice code space --- is of course correct. I am not at all sure how technically difficult the issue may be, though I would suspect that bright minds could solve it.
In the meanwhile, when someone wants a Word document from me, they'll get the translation and they can take it or leave it. I've been able to get away with this for quite some while. But I admit that there always comes a time when you have to play someone else's game.
My comment above frankly admits that the OP will have no option but to "do Windows." That's as "real" as it gets, even if that reality is not a pleasant one. Indeed, some people will be required to use MS Office products for the reasons which you state.
But perhaps you missed the point I was making about compatibility bugs. If LibreOffice, for instance, were to suddenly start doing perfect conversions, how long would that last? Only until MS could roll out something new and incompatible, and I am pretty sure that they would. Then LibreOffice would have to chase a new target. The key concept is that until people in positions to make demands on others quit assuming that everyone as a matter of course has and uses MS products, this issue will arise over and over again and indeed will keep some users away from Linux.
Still and all, I went for something like my last 12 years in professional life as a purely Linux user, obviously then without ever having MS Office installed on my office computers. Despite being surrounded by MS Office users, I always found a workaround. Admittedly, that was a function of being in a relatively tolerant environment and certainly not everyone would have been able to get away with it.
I would agree that the problem actually is, as alluded to by the other respondent above, the requirement that data be submitted in a closed, proprietary format. The fact that LibreOffice conversion to.doc or.docx is not perfect falls in the "room for improvement" category to be sure, but you can bet that as soon as the conversions are good (if not even sooner), Microsoft will change something.
Of course, as you say, you have no control over the submittal requirements, and I agree you have to "do Windows" to meet your need.*
*I wonder what I would do in such a situation. I don't have Microsoft Office and certainly never plan to have it. I guess I would submit an incorrectly converted LibreOffice document and tell the recipient to deal with it. (It would have to be a job I didn't care about keeping.)
Unfortunately if Linux were to look exactly like Windows and work exactly like Windows and lose the multi-media issues and have a lot more apps*, Microsoft would still dominate... either just through inertia or more likely through a combination of inertia and additional changes. They would change the game and dare Linux to keep up as they leverage their near-monopoly position.
Linux works great for me, a retired long-time computer professional; I'm able to get more work done, faster and better, than I would be able to do on Windows. (And by the way, that "work" today is novel writing. You certainly don't have to have Windows or a Mac to do creative things.)
It also works for my wife, who is an "average" computer user. But then again, I support her system and fix problems (which are about 99.9% to do with multimedia).
*Does Linux really need 'a lot more apps'? Maybe, when we're talking about gaming. But for basic use? With GIMP, Inkscape, LibreOffice, etc., it seems as if the bases are covered. What "killer" apps are required? (Yes, there are industry-specific 'niche' applications that only run on Windows; I'm talking more basic than that--- and a surprising number of the 'niche' apps have Linux near-equivalents.)
Thanks for the link to LibreOffice, but LibreOffice is not MS-Word.
It certainly isn't, and thank goodness for that.
Sorry, but I just don't buy the argument that MS-Word has some "killer" feature that people just can't live without to do their job. (I am not talking about proprietary lock-in by an idiot IT department that designs templates or whatever that just absolutely won't work without MS-Office; that sort of thing could have been avoided.)
The only legitimate issue I see is exchange of documents with outside entities that insist on sending you MS-Word stuff that is so over-formatted that LibreOffice has trouble with it.
The amount of valuable time wasted on "advanced" features in products like MS-Word is incredible. The purpose of a word processor is to communicate a message, not create Nobel-prize category visual art.
Yes, we do, and in the end they'll get precious little support. Think what these people could do with adequate funding and relief from stifling bureaucracy.
"No, see, the issue is that people don't know they're not supposed to pirate DVDs."
Right, that's why they want to put a warning on something that you DIDN'T pirate, to tell you that you shouldn't do what you didn't do in the first place, and probably never planned to do... except now they've got you thinking about it... maybe next time you just might!
"Bitch about MS all you want, but their support of security fixes for Windows and Office has been excellent compared to companies like Adobe"
I have to agree, MS has indeed patched XP for a long time. MS gets lots of practice in patching security holes but to their credit (I never thought I'd say that about MS!) they have not charged anything for it. I can't even complain about them dropping support for XP in 2014; they've carried it for a long, long time and that is pretty responsible behavior (given the very slow move away from XP). Neither did they need to provide patches to pirated versions, but they did that in the best interests of the worldwide computing community.
IIRC Adobe is not the first to pull this "buy the new version" stunt.
"German internet censorship laws at work"
Isn't it instead the German law about displaying Nazi symbols?
I can't recall if it was W3D, I think it may have been, that was released on Yom HaShoah, the Holocaust Day of Remembrance. I thought that was pretty tasteless but probably due to lack of knowledge. I wrote to the developer and he wrote back and told me, "It doesn't matter, it's only a game." I didn't agree but there's room in this world for civil disagreement.
I'm just guessing but I suspect that piracy cost the theaters/industry close to zero on this one. The people downloading the movie likely either (1) wouldn't have gone to see it anyway or (2) went to see it and wanted a quick copy (this latter might cut into actual DVD sales at least some, but true fans would want a decent copy). How large can category (3) be --- the group that would have gone but will settle instead for a poor quality download?
I'm not saying either that this kind of piracy is either legal or morally right. But the point made by the poster above, that the losses are nothing like 200% of the US GDP or whatever the MPAA claims (I exaggerate only a little). And I fail to see it "costing American jobs" as the politicians have been trained to say.
This is the one that always gives me a laugh. "We run Microsoft Server because we need the support" or similar. But in fact rapid problem-solving with FOSS is a matter of looking through forums and/or posting on one. Seldom takes more than 24 hours to get a response, usually much less, and that's only if you haven't already found the solution posted somewhere --- which for me at least is about 95% of the time.
I understand why corporations feel they have to run Microsoft, but not all of the reasons seem valid (although I do agree that "free" won't sway a Fortune 1000 company).
I used to be a big-time Microsoft basher. These days I could care less. If they want to charge for a Super Pro Pack or a Media Blowout Pack or whatever, go for it. I'm not obliged to buy or use their products, and I don't. Linux does what I need.
I'm sure others have noticed that these rip-offs, whether it's software or books or what have you, are very formulaic in their presentation. You can practically look at the copy layout and tell what they're up to. And the confirming proof is a fake series of markdowns and a promise that the price will be raised after the initial sale is over.
Envision an alternative reality in which development of FOS software, let's say Linux, OpenOffice, etc., predated Microsoft's rise to power. In that alternate universe, the FOS tools got widespread adoption. Services sprung up to support them, in line with the idea that you can make money from open source by providing quality support and services for a fee. Because of its widespread adoption, documents are exchanged as a norm in OpenOffice format.
Now, along comes a commercial entity that says, "Our $500 office software and $350 operating system is the way to go."
They would get nowhere, for reasons like lack of widespread support, lack of de facto standardization, etc. And of course cost would argue against them.
But in our universe, the commercial software got traction first and, in a sort of positive feedback loop, as they made more money they wielded more power and increased their influence and made more money.
So FOS fights an uphill battle and much of that battle isn't really based on cost so much as power and influence, especially in high government and corporate places. When the IT shop suggests open source, MS doesn't drop in to visit with the programmers; they go right to the top, suits talking to suits, and before you know it we have things like Australia mandating MS "standards" for government.
As an individual, I use Linux, OpenOffice, etc., exclusively. As an individual, proprietary software suits have no interest in buying me off. I can provide my own support and to me up-front cost is all the cost, and makes a big difference. But the corporate and government worlds are hardly the same. I sincerely hope FOS will make more and more corporate inroads. But it's a tough battle against powerful foes.
I still use RCS because it does what I need, which is merely tracking single-developer projects and single-writer authoring. It works, it's simple, so what more do I need. And syncing an RCS directory from desktop to laptop with an online sync tool is more than good enough. I should set up GIT repositories *why*? No thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would a home user waste valuable income on a new version of Office? Are ribbons all that important for that letter to Aunt Edna?
There's actually an interesting point here, which is that for many, many word processing jobs, all the fancy features are not necessary to get the message across. Something really old (and small) like WordStar 5.5 has more than enough feature power to write a letter to GrandMama, compose a 100,000 word novel, etc. Google Docs will do all that and more, handling graphics and tables. All the fancy-doodle stuff in Word isn't needed for probably 95% of the work out there.
Sure, cool new stuff similar to the ribbon :)
ut what I know is when the wireless card on the desktop did not work, the common googled solution appears to involve recompiling the kernel with right modules. That's where I begin to tune out. It's not the specific problem, it's the fact that kernel re-compilation should never be an acceptable part of the configuration/setup that is done by the average user.
This is a valid point, and examples about multimedia could be added. But I'm a competent user and I can solve those issues for myself and family members, so I am fine with the Linux desktop, and so are they, even though they are 'average' users. But this discussion was originally about office software. Don't forget that LibreOffice runs just fine on Windows, and there are no special support issues that I'm aware of.
Except I have trouble seeing how home users are locked into an expensive office product. At work, sure, in a lot of places you simply have no choice. But at home? Where's the compatibility requirement for complex documents?
Here's the thing: People who won't accept a LibreOffice document from me are going to get a PDF. Weird, huh?
Overly complex presentations lose the message. People start watching all the cool effects instead. Great that PowerPoint can do all that stuff, but I have to agree with the poster who said you don't really need it. Not sour grapes. Just a desire to communicate my message to an audience effectively.
And I'm willing to do that (rather than pay an accountant a lot more) because I expect them (e.g. TurboTax) to keep up with changes in tax law and reflect those in the software. If they do that well (and so far I'm satisfied) then it's worth a reasonable annual fee.
The internet before those hordes was the internet without wikipedia.
There are immense benefits to growing your community.
Again, even as a die-hard Linuxer, I have to recognize the advantages of a larger Linux community. But I do not pretend that Linux is going to be a dominant force in the foreseeable future, if ever.
Still, I'm OK with that. As long as there are enough knowledgeable users--- and the growth of Linux since the very early days makes me believe that's not a problem--- Linux will be around. It's a fact that I can do more today with Linux than I ever could before. Of course, if I have a problem I troubleshoot it myself, aided by the knowledgebase accumulated by other Linuxers. I don't think or expect that everyone (i.e. "Joe User") would do the same.
But guess what: "Joe User" doesn't troubleshoot his own Windows issues, either.
Isn't TurboTax all on the website now?
I know I paid to use it last year.
More software a linux user paid for!!! SHOCKING NEWS!!!
I'm a die-hard Linuxer and I also pay to use TurboTax online. I doubt if I'd buy the Windoze edition to run at home but running in my browser is just fine and there is the presumed added advantage that the on-line edition is up to date.
The quoted poster's implication is correct. Linuxers don't want everything for free; I pay for lots of value-added services, such as the aforementioned TurboTax, membership on a chess site, etc. I'm even going to BUY--- that's right, I said BUY--- the Linux edition of Scrivener when it comes out of beta.
That said, I do enjoy and benefit from the many free options I have such as LibreOffice, TaskJuggler, etc. etc.
GIMP is awful compared with Photoshop.
You are of course not the only person to say this, but GIMP comes at a much better price, and certainly has its adherents. I wonder if it is more a question of familiarity (as you allude to below) than essential functionality.
Writing novels doesn't take much software. You can do that with a latex editor and the sffms class.
For that matter I've known of people writing a novel with VI. Your statement oversimplifies a little, but my point wasn't that Linux was better for novel writing, only that Windows or a Mac was not a necessity. By the way, the very popular novel-writing software Scrivener now has a Linux version in beta.
Outlook for example isn't a 'niche' app, it is a basic workplace necessity in almost every office.
I wonder if you are equating "commonplace" with "necessary," although the two categories merge when (as in the discussion in postings above) compatibility becomes an absolute requirement. Otherwise, Outlook is not a basic necessity by any means. Email, contact management, etc., can be done in a lot of ways.
Having a Linux near equivalent is better than nothing but nobody is going to start using Linux to have something almost as good as whats on windows. In mot cases they won't even switch for something as good or better, they want the apps they've already invested time and effort learning.
You are correct, but this has nothing to do with the inherent superiority of either Linux or Windows. It has to do with the vast inertia created by a near-monopoly provider.
In my previous employment, I was once asked by a group which I had just taken on as manager if the rumors were true and I was going to dump Windows and replace it across the board with Linux. For the reasons you mention, I had to say "no" because it would have been a poor business decision. That's really unfortunate, but reality is not always friendly. However, I didn't up the ante by bringing in every new Microsoft product as it rolled out the door.
After I moved on, though, my successor certainly did, declaring, "We're a Microsoft shop. They make good software. We're going to use it exclusively." Well, that's a business decision; what can I say?
Actually, I think that you are wrong about this. Microsoft has built its monopoly on the basis of compatibility. If compatibility were suddenly broken, that would cause lots or issues for users, who might actually look at alternatives.
I do hope you are right. In the past, Microsoft hasn't been so good about this, but I imagine it's possible that the churn will stop with the 'x' formats.
Note that, in my case, the problem is that LbreOffice will not correctly export and then import the same file via .doc or .docx formats.
We've all seen this. It's kind of like computer translation from Russian to English (imperfect) and then translation of the result back to Russian (even more imperfect, sometimes completely broken).
Your other comment --- about the problem being entirely within the LibreOffice code space --- is of course correct. I am not at all sure how technically difficult the issue may be, though I would suspect that bright minds could solve it.
In the meanwhile, when someone wants a Word document from me, they'll get the translation and they can take it or leave it. I've been able to get away with this for quite some while. But I admit that there always comes a time when you have to play someone else's game.
Let me suggest that you "get real"
My comment above frankly admits that the OP will have no option but to "do Windows." That's as "real" as it gets, even if that reality is not a pleasant one. Indeed, some people will be required to use MS Office products for the reasons which you state.
But perhaps you missed the point I was making about compatibility bugs. If LibreOffice, for instance, were to suddenly start doing perfect conversions, how long would that last? Only until MS could roll out something new and incompatible, and I am pretty sure that they would. Then LibreOffice would have to chase a new target. The key concept is that until people in positions to make demands on others quit assuming that everyone as a matter of course has and uses MS products, this issue will arise over and over again and indeed will keep some users away from Linux.
Still and all, I went for something like my last 12 years in professional life as a purely Linux user, obviously then without ever having MS Office installed on my office computers. Despite being surrounded by MS Office users, I always found a workaround. Admittedly, that was a function of being in a relatively tolerant environment and certainly not everyone would have been able to get away with it.
I would agree that the problem actually is, as alluded to by the other respondent above, the requirement that data be submitted in a closed, proprietary format. The fact that LibreOffice conversion to .doc or .docx is not perfect falls in the "room for improvement" category to be sure, but you can bet that as soon as the conversions are good (if not even sooner), Microsoft will change something.
Of course, as you say, you have no control over the submittal requirements, and I agree you have to "do Windows" to meet your need.*
*I wonder what I would do in such a situation. I don't have Microsoft Office and certainly never plan to have it. I guess I would submit an incorrectly converted LibreOffice document and tell the recipient to deal with it. (It would have to be a job I didn't care about keeping.)
Unfortunately if Linux were to look exactly like Windows and work exactly like Windows and lose the multi-media issues and have a lot more apps*, Microsoft would still dominate ... either just through inertia or more likely through a combination of inertia and additional changes. They would change the game and dare Linux to keep up as they leverage their near-monopoly position.
Linux works great for me, a retired long-time computer professional; I'm able to get more work done, faster and better, than I would be able to do on Windows. (And by the way, that "work" today is novel writing. You certainly don't have to have Windows or a Mac to do creative things.)
It also works for my wife, who is an "average" computer user. But then again, I support her system and fix problems (which are about 99.9% to do with multimedia).
*Does Linux really need 'a lot more apps'? Maybe, when we're talking about gaming. But for basic use? With GIMP, Inkscape, LibreOffice, etc., it seems as if the bases are covered. What "killer" apps are required? (Yes, there are industry-specific 'niche' applications that only run on Windows; I'm talking more basic than that--- and a surprising number of the 'niche' apps have Linux near-equivalents.)
Thanks for the link to LibreOffice, but LibreOffice is not MS-Word.
It certainly isn't, and thank goodness for that. Sorry, but I just don't buy the argument that MS-Word has some "killer" feature that people just can't live without to do their job. (I am not talking about proprietary lock-in by an idiot IT department that designs templates or whatever that just absolutely won't work without MS-Office; that sort of thing could have been avoided.) The only legitimate issue I see is exchange of documents with outside entities that insist on sending you MS-Word stuff that is so over-formatted that LibreOffice has trouble with it. The amount of valuable time wasted on "advanced" features in products like MS-Word is incredible. The purpose of a word processor is to communicate a message, not create Nobel-prize category visual art.
We've got some damn fine people working on this.
Yes, we do, and in the end they'll get precious little support. Think what these people could do with adequate funding and relief from stifling bureaucracy.
"No, see, the issue is that people don't know they're not supposed to pirate DVDs."
... except now they've got you thinking about it ... maybe next time you just might!
Right, that's why they want to put a warning on something that you DIDN'T pirate, to tell you that you shouldn't do what you didn't do in the first place, and probably never planned to do
"Bitch about MS all you want, but their support of security fixes for Windows and Office has been excellent compared to companies like Adobe"
I have to agree, MS has indeed patched XP for a long time. MS gets lots of practice in patching security holes but to their credit (I never thought I'd say that about MS!) they have not charged anything for it. I can't even complain about them dropping support for XP in 2014; they've carried it for a long, long time and that is pretty responsible behavior (given the very slow move away from XP). Neither did they need to provide patches to pirated versions, but they did that in the best interests of the worldwide computing community.
IIRC Adobe is not the first to pull this "buy the new version" stunt.
"German internet censorship laws at work" Isn't it instead the German law about displaying Nazi symbols? I can't recall if it was W3D, I think it may have been, that was released on Yom HaShoah, the Holocaust Day of Remembrance. I thought that was pretty tasteless but probably due to lack of knowledge. I wrote to the developer and he wrote back and told me, "It doesn't matter, it's only a game." I didn't agree but there's room in this world for civil disagreement.
I'm just guessing but I suspect that piracy cost the theaters/industry close to zero on this one. The people downloading the movie likely either (1) wouldn't have gone to see it anyway or (2) went to see it and wanted a quick copy (this latter might cut into actual DVD sales at least some, but true fans would want a decent copy). How large can category (3) be --- the group that would have gone but will settle instead for a poor quality download? I'm not saying either that this kind of piracy is either legal or morally right. But the point made by the poster above, that the losses are nothing like 200% of the US GDP or whatever the MPAA claims (I exaggerate only a little). And I fail to see it "costing American jobs" as the politicians have been trained to say.
This is the one that always gives me a laugh. "We run Microsoft Server because we need the support" or similar. But in fact rapid problem-solving with FOSS is a matter of looking through forums and/or posting on one. Seldom takes more than 24 hours to get a response, usually much less, and that's only if you haven't already found the solution posted somewhere --- which for me at least is about 95% of the time. I understand why corporations feel they have to run Microsoft, but not all of the reasons seem valid (although I do agree that "free" won't sway a Fortune 1000 company).
I used to be a big-time Microsoft basher. These days I could care less. If they want to charge for a Super Pro Pack or a Media Blowout Pack or whatever, go for it. I'm not obliged to buy or use their products, and I don't. Linux does what I need.
I'm sure others have noticed that these rip-offs, whether it's software or books or what have you, are very formulaic in their presentation. You can practically look at the copy layout and tell what they're up to. And the confirming proof is a fake series of markdowns and a promise that the price will be raised after the initial sale is over.
Envision an alternative reality in which development of FOS software, let's say Linux, OpenOffice, etc., predated Microsoft's rise to power. In that alternate universe, the FOS tools got widespread adoption. Services sprung up to support them, in line with the idea that you can make money from open source by providing quality support and services for a fee. Because of its widespread adoption, documents are exchanged as a norm in OpenOffice format.
Now, along comes a commercial entity that says, "Our $500 office software and $350 operating system is the way to go."
They would get nowhere, for reasons like lack of widespread support, lack of de facto standardization, etc. And of course cost would argue against them.
But in our universe, the commercial software got traction first and, in a sort of positive feedback loop, as they made more money they wielded more power and increased their influence and made more money.
So FOS fights an uphill battle and much of that battle isn't really based on cost so much as power and influence, especially in high government and corporate places. When the IT shop suggests open source, MS doesn't drop in to visit with the programmers; they go right to the top, suits talking to suits, and before you know it we have things like Australia mandating MS "standards" for government.
As an individual, I use Linux, OpenOffice, etc., exclusively. As an individual, proprietary software suits have no interest in buying me off. I can provide my own support and to me up-front cost is all the cost, and makes a big difference. But the corporate and government worlds are hardly the same. I sincerely hope FOS will make more and more corporate inroads. But it's a tough battle against powerful foes.
I still use RCS because it does what I need, which is merely tracking single-developer projects and single-writer authoring. It works, it's simple, so what more do I need. And syncing an RCS directory from desktop to laptop with an online sync tool is more than good enough. I should set up GIT repositories *why*? No thanks.