In your opinion, what makes Libre/Open Office less capable than M$ Office?

[amspire]

When a document, made with ms office, doesn't look right in Libreoffice, it's the fault of Libreoffice.
When a document, made with Libreoffice, doesn't look right in ms office, it's the fault of Libreoffice.
When a document, made with ms office version x, doesn't look right in ms office version z, it's ... normal!

I think you meant to say

When a document, made with ms office version x, doesn't look right in ms office version z, it's the fault of Libreoffice.

 

[Karel]

I think you meant to say...

I was meant ironically.

[CatalinaWOW]

When a document, made with ms office, doesn't look right in Libreoffice, it's the fault of Libreoffice.
When a document, made with Libreoffice, doesn't look right in ms office, it's the fault of Libreoffice.
When a document, made with ms office version x, doesn't look right in ms office version z, it's ... normal!

When a document, made with ms office, doesn't look right in Libreoffice, it's the fault of Libreoffice.

If the document was made by ms office in ODF it would be MS fault.  As far as I know this doesn't happen.  MS doesn't need to make ODF documents.  Their dominance in the market makes it un-necessary.  When a document in MS format cannot be read in OO/LO it IS a problem for OO/LO.
 
When a document, made with Libreoffice, doesn't look right in ms office, it's the fault of Libreoffice.

If the document is ODF, as far as I know MS cannot read it.  It is MS fault, but not many care.  If the document is MS format then it IS an OO/LO problem.  Again, in the world as it exists today it is a necessity for OO/LO.

When a document, made with ms office version x, doesn't look right in ms office version z, it's ... normal!

At least there is no ambiguity about who to complain to in this situation.  And Karel, as we know from your posts on other subjects you have entire confidence that any problem that you report to a vendor will be handled correctly and to your complete satisfaction.  You have recommended that action to many.

[suicidaleggroll]

If Libre Office doesn't render a Microsoft Office document properly, why is Libre Office always blamed?

When a document, made with ms office, doesn't look right in Libreoffice, it's the fault of Libreoffice.
When a document, made with Libreoffice, doesn't look right in ms office, it's the fault of Libreoffice.
When a document, made with ms office version x, doesn't look right in ms office version z, it's ... normal!

Who cares who's fault it is?  When you need to interface with other people who use MS Office file formats, and OO/LO is incapable of reading OR writing those file formats so they can be properly interpreted by the people you're interfacing with, then OO/LO will not work for your application.  It doesn't matter if it's Microsoft's fault or OO/LO's fault, MS Office does work for that application, OO/LO does not, end of story.  That's the case for a HUGE group of people in professional environments, which is what keeps MS Office the de-facto standard.  If the OO/LO developers want to change things, they need to start with being truly compatible with the MS Office file formats, regardless of who's "at fault" for the current incompatibilities.  Microsoft doesn't want to change things, so you can't expect them to take the initiative to correct the problem.

[Karel]

That's the case for a HUGE group of people in professional environments, ...

Depends whether you are talking about exchanging documents inside an organization or between organizations.
If you are talking about inside an organization, everybody can switch to LO.
However, between (professional) organizations, one should never exchange office documents. Just pdf.
If an organization insists on sending or receiving office documents, it's entirely their problem if something messes up.

[Mechanical Menace]

If you are talking about inside an organization, everybody can switch to LO.

In theory yes, in practice even if LO can do everything you need perfectly for new documents you still have the old documents to deal with. If LO can't handle them you either need to spend a fortune manually converting those old files or still have Office around just for them.

However, between (professional) organizations, one should never exchange office documents. Just pdf.

This I agree with. "Print to PDF" and there's no worries that they don't have the font I used installed or vice versa, I or they don't have the right software or right version of it, etc, etc...

[ade]

If the document is ODF, as far as I know MS cannot read it.

Microsoft Office apps read/write ODF just fine.

However, between (professional) organizations, one should never exchange office documents. Just pdf.

No, it doesn't work that way in real-life.   Companies need to collaborate all the time.   E.g., with outside legal counsel, consulting firms, marketing partners, suppliers, external auditors, etc., etc., etc.

Converting everything to/from PDFs constantly, especially when there are revision changes to track & import as is typical during collaboration, would be insane.

[ciccio]

I'm not am Office "power user", but I remember using WordStar and Visicalc in DOS....
What I do not like in recent (2007 and newer) versions of MS office is  that the default format for saving a document is the "X" version (.DOCX, .XLSX etc) even when the new format is not needed.
Inexperienced or simply lazy users don't take the effort to set their default to "old" .DOC, and I, as a customer or a supplier, receive the document in a format that my old Office 2003 cannot open (I have MS File format converter, obviously, but it's annoying...).

In recent years many local administrations in Italy are transitioning to open source office suites, so as a supplier or a consultant in order to present a bid or a technical expertise I must edit the .ODT document they send to me.
 
I've installed LO for this, and just by curiosity I opened a lot of documents I've created in MS Office 2003. No problems found. What I'll like is a replacement for MS Publisher (I used it a lot for for technical documents),  capable of opening even the files I created with the 2000 version (they cannot be opened with 2003 version, and I do not have the 2000 version available anymore).
Publisher absolute incompatibility between old (2000 and previous) and new (2003 and following) versions is an example the absolute disregard of customer's rights.
When I installed Office 2003 it did not tell me : "hey, please do not uninstall Publisher 2000, or your  precious documents will be lost..., and no, I do not have a converter"

[ade]

I do not know how you guys survive as a business, running such obsolete software and dealing with complications, when you can fully license the entire MS Office suite for less the price of one cheap lunch each month. 

It's just $8/mo for a full set of licenses which includes Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Publisher, OneNote.

[rrinker]

 Not being able to open older documents in newer versions is absolutely bad, however I also recall how much complaining there was when various Office 2003 apps couldn't open files saved in Office 2007 - well DUH? Why should a reasonable person expect an older version to open newer files? The other way around, absolutely that should always be provided for, else how else can you upgrade to a newer version?

 They are darn near giving away Office now - given what you get with an E3 level subscription to Office 386 (Email, SharePoint, Lync (sorry, Skype for Business..) - AND full copies of Office apps - and not one per user, but FIVE. I have three computers at home plus my work laptop all using Office 2013/2016 from my work Office 365 license and it's completely legal. And I still have one install left. This is also self-managed, so if I get rid of one computer, I can remove the license from that machine and apply it to another without involving our support people (why we have support people when the majority of our employees are like me - people who install this stuff every day - still escapes me). We are entrusted with admin permissions to our clients, who are schools, banks, hospitals, etc. - but not as admins of our own internal infrastructure.

[CatalinaWOW]

 They are darn near giving away Office now - given what you get with an E3 level subscription to Office 386 (Email, SharePoint, Lync (sorry, Skype for Business..) - AND full copies of Office apps - and not one per user, but FIVE. I have three computers at home plus my work laptop all using Office 2013/2016 from my work Office 365 license and it's completely legal. And I still have one install left.

Two reasons for avoiding Office.

1.  They keep "improving" the interface.  The new interfaces aren't all that bad, but are marginal improvements at best.  It is in no way good enough to justify the time and effort retraining.  ALL use of Office products is a secondary activity for me, so I resent the time spent keeping up.

2.  Many of us remember when Lotus, Wordperfect, Microsoft and to a lesser extent Wordstar were vying for the office business.  Competition drove features up and prices down until you could buy a forever copy for far under $100 at the retail level.  After the others fell by the wayside the price of Microsoft quickly spiked up at retail.  Now it is back down, but it is an annual fee.  The fee is low now, but will go up.  The stock market demands year over year profit and volume improvements, and the market is saturated.  Price increases are the only available variable.

[apelly]

By now I've learned all I wanted about the issue. Conclusion: Suck it up and use office sometimes. Thanks for the info guys.

Slightly related:
This PDF showed up in my inbox this morning dhs.gov: Open Source Software in Governmen - Challenges and Opportunities_Final.pdf

[Delta]

In recent years many local administrations in Italy are transitioning to open source office suites, so as a supplier or a consultant in order to present a bid or a technical expertise I must edit the .ODT document they send to me.
 

That's very interesting, and encouraging!  Who (ie at what level of government) made the decision?  Was it mainly of cost grounds?  Is there an estimate of how much taxpayers money they save by using open source software?

[Delta]

... they had almost non-existant protection and so it was the wordprocessor of choice to pirate. University students in the 80's were using Microsoft Word. The same people were the ones choosing office packages in the 90's. For some reason, companies like Wordperfect could not even conceive a world where everybody would want to have a PC at home with a full-featured wordprocessor.

Do you think that was / still is a conscious decision by MS?  I have never ever paid for a single piece of MS software for my own use - going back to copying 5-1/4" floppies of DOS as a kid, to now just visiting my Swedish Distributor for a cracked version of anything I need.

It would make financial sense for MS to turn a blind eye to piracy if it gets their software into millions of homes, as the more people are familiar with it, the more companies are going to buy it for work use.

[amspire]

... they had almost non-existant protection and so it was the wordprocessor of choice to pirate. ..

Do you think that was / still is a conscious decision by MS?

It seemed so at the time. Microsoft Word was trying to enter a market dominated by Wordperfect, Wordstar, Multimate and a  few others. In the DOS era, it was all about learning key combinations, so once someone mastered the Wordstar key combinations, you couldn't shift them to another wordprocessor. But good wordprocessors were very expensive - hundreds of dollars.

Microsoft was just able to come in and largely through the pirated Word, grab the majority of users. Once people learnt the Word key combinations, they were hooked. Without the piracy, Microsoft Word didn't have a chance to break into the market.

Autocad succeeded the exactly same way. They had the 2D cad system everybody could pirate, so they became the No1 CAD package.

It is a game - you have to pretend to hate piracy, but you make it easy, and you do not aggressively hunt and prosecute infringers. Respectable companies who do not want to be accused of theft will be prepared to pay for licences. If you offer free software instead, everybody expects it to be free and they hate you when later you ask to be paid.

[ade]

Is there an estimate of how much taxpayers money they save by using open source software?

For enterprise it's usually cheaper to just use Microsoft.

Look at the experience Munich went through.  They spent 30 million Euros to convert from Windows to Linux and OpenOffice.  They had to pay $$$ to specialists for the original conversion and ongoing support, instead getting bids from the thousands of Microsoft partners available. 

Then they had so many issues with OpenOffice that they had to spend millions again to switch to LibreOffice.  Then they had massive issues with LibreOffice 4.1.x and KDE 4.  When they got new hardware, Linux didn't have the right kernel drivers...

They supposedly "saved" money but an independent study showed they would have actually spent less of taxpayer's money had they stuck with Windows.  The real cost of conversion might have been as high as 60 million Euros.  Cost had they remained with Windows: 20-30 million Euros.

A couple of years ago, the city employees were so dissatisfied that a study was proposed to see if Munich can switch back to Windows.    But there's no switching back... they're in too deep, they just have to live with the mess.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/08/linux-on-the-desktop-pioneer-munich-now-considering-a-switch-back-to-windows/

[amspire]

A couple of years ago, the city employees were so dissatisfied that a study was proposed to see if Munich can switch back to Windows.    But there's no switching back... they're in too deep, they just have to live with the mess.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/08/linux-on-the-desktop-pioneer-munich-now-considering-a-switch-back-to-windows/

That was a story going around a few years back, but Munich is still embracing Linux/Libre Office. They have 41 Windows-only applications left, and they are now going to get them replaced by 2019.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/german-city-that-replaced-windows-with-linux-to-ditch-latest-windows-xp-2000-pcs-499160.shtml

I have supported many companies, and when people are looking at costs, they often don't realise how much it costs to support Windows. Windows support can be a massive time consumer. If you have to rebuild a PC from scratch, it can easily take a day with all the updates, licensing gymnastics, etc. With old hardware and sick MS web updates, it can take 2 days easily. If you have lots of similar hardware, you can make Sysprep images to make things more efficient, but it still is a lot of work. Running Windows servers can be a massive costs. In supporting a large PC infrastructure, you want to be able to rebuild any PC in 10 minutes. If there is even a hint of a virus, you do not want to waste time debugging it. You just wipe everything and put a new clean OS on the system. Without licencing issues, it is very easy in Linux.

There are issues with Linux, but I can assure you there are no end of major problems with Windows too. Being in the Microsoft ecosystem is very claustrophobic, but to many it feels safe. Linux gives you a lot more room to move and freedom, but you also have the challenges of the Wild West. Accept the challenges and it is rewarding.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

Going Libre Office could also help avoid this sort of situation.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/3060596/software/software-audits-how-high-tech-plays-hardball.html

[vze1lryy]

For the most part it's not Microsoft's fault.

I don't agree. Maybe you are younger than me (I don't know that) but I do remember very well all the dirty tricks they did (and still do)
to kill the competition:

Microsoft's Campaign To Destroy DR-DOS
Microsoft's Anticompetitive Per Processor License Fees
Microsoft's Retaliation And Price Discrimination Against IBM
Microsoft's Organized Collective Boycott Against Intel
Microsoft's Elimination Of Word Perfect
Microsoft's Deceptive WISE Software Program
Microsoft's Elimination Of Netscape
Microsoft's Attempts To Extinguish Java
Microsoft's Elimination Of Rival Media Players
Microsoft's Campaign Against Rival Server Operating Systems
Microsoft's Failure To Comply With The Final Judgment
Microsoft's Campaign of Patent FUD against Linux and Open Source Software
Microsoft's False Promises of Interoperability

I can't say that microsoft never did anything wrong. but the netscape thing, IMO, was wildly blown out of proportion.

they included a browser with the operating system. netscape wasn't free. they said here, thanks for buying our operating system. we appreciate that. let's throw in a free browser to improve the user experience so you don't have to BUY one right after you pay for windows.

no one complains about the fact that for ten years KDE tossed in konqueror that never rendered pages properly.

[ciccio]

That's very interesting, and encouraging!  Who (ie at what level of government) made the decision?  Was it mainly of cost grounds?  Is there an estimate of how much taxpayers money they save by using open source software?

Actually I don't know. I don't think it is a government decision, but the various local administration are going this way.
Years ago Mr. Gates bought Leonardo's "Leicester Codex"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Leicester and made a deal with the Italian Goverment for lending it to an Italian museum for some time.
I remember all the bells and whistles on TV and newspapers.
But this was not a free lunch: the other side of the deal was that every public administration was forced to adopt Windows and Office, and they had to upgrade to the newer versions as soon as they were available, resulting in a lot of problems when they  had to train the clerks to the new one.
This deal was never clearly explained to the general public, and I believe it was not in the Government interest to inform us...

[MrSlack]

Chime in here. I've written products built on outlook and word. Complex ones. Big VSTO monsters that scare the shit out of mere mortals.

I couldn't give a toss about standards and neither does anyone else other than governments. Delivery is more important.

[Zero999]

In MS Office, when I want to open a file, the whole screen is obscured by the damn menu and then have to click another button to bring the file listing up! This is a step backwards, not forwards. It's the sort of thing which would happen with very old software.

What?
Ctrl-O.  Done.   

I've just tested it in MS Office and it's still rubbish. The whole screen is obscured by the menu which only shows the recently opened files. To open a file somewhere else, I have to click on computer, then browse.

OpenOffice.org is much quicker. Pressing Ctr-O takes me straight to a list of files and directories and if I need to open a recent file, I can do so via the file menu. It doesn't blank out the whole screen either, as is the case with MS Office or really old software from the 80s.

MS Office takes more clicks of the mouse than OpenOffice.org just to do the same thing!

They are darn near giving away Office now

I wouldn't use MS Office, even if it was free. I only use it at work because I'm paid to do so and the company policy prevents me from installing anything else on their computer.

[MrSlack]

No one uses Ctrl+O. Whack the start button and type the document name, then hit enter.

[Karel]

I do not know how you guys survive as a business, running such obsolete software and dealing with complications, when you can fully license the entire MS Office suite for less the price of one cheap lunch each month. 

It's just $8/mo for a full set of licenses which includes Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Publisher, OneNote.

Maybe because the pc's in our company run Linux?

Regarding surviving, we do fine, thank you.

[Zero999]

No one uses Ctrl+O. Whack the start button and type the document name, then hit enter.

That's only any good if you know what file you want to open.