Replies

Maybe the so-called "average user" only uses 10-20% of the features in Excel. But each "average user" doesn't use the same 10-20% featureset. Hence the need for 100% of the features offered

No, most users use, altogether, less than 90% of the features. I can give my wife as a good power-user example. She'd used Excel and Word for years, then we switched to OpenOffice at home to avoid stupid upgrade costs. She doesn't miss MS Office, and I see no advantages to the MS Office I use constantly at work.

Open source zealots always start out with outlandish claims of how superior their software is.

I can't make that general statement. I can say that certain free software in many roles and settings is better than Microsoft. I can also say that while sometimes it is inferior, it is not several hundred dollars per seat inferior.

Don't count me among the zealots. I do get mad at them when they say OSS will solve all problems in all circumstances, because that statement is plain wrong. For example, if you have someone who has some average need for graphics, go ahead and get the Gimp. However, these people try to say that graphics houses should dump Photoshop for it, but no way in hell is the Gimp up to that level no matter how much they scream it is.

For one, it won't render any except the most simple Powerpoint slides.

That's interoperability, not objective criteria of the merits of the software itself. If your entire office were set up with OpenOffice, that would not be a problem.

No, most users use, altogether, less than 90% of the features.

So now you presume to speak for "most users". Give my regards to the Psychic Network.

I can't make that general statement.

And you would be wise not to.

Don't count me among the zealots.

LMAO! Too funny...

That's interoperability, not objective criteria of the merits of the software itself. If your entire office were set up with OpenOffice, that would not be a problem.

Dude, welcome to reality. I can't help the fact that nearly all companies that do presentations use Powerpoint. And it's also a fact that presentation software is used a lot to get your message across to organizations outside your own. If you both don't use Powerpoint, you can either (1) throw up your hands and hope for the best, or (2) convert your slides to Powerpoint. Neither option is something that I would consider acceptable for a professional environment. Choose the right tool for the job. In this case, Powerpoint is the right choice.

>> For one, it won't render any except the most simple
>> Powerpoint slides.

> That's interoperability, not objective criteria of the
> merits of the software itself. If your entire office were
> set up with OpenOffice, that would not be a problem.

The fact that you don't consider interoperability to be an "objective criteria of the merits of software" is a perfect example of someone inventing criteria that isn't objective.

Companies don't operate in their own private bubble. A person who defines bidding criteria for office software and who doesn't consider the effects of interoperability with suppliers and customers is most likely someone with an agenda.

In the case of Munich, it obviously wasn't a money saving agenda, since you said they rejected the low bid. I'd put my money on an anti-American agenda.

In the US, the low bidder is almost never rejected because of fear of lawsuits and corruption charges. Europe evidently has no such fear of screwing American companies. And why should they? They have so many vocal American supporters cheering them on... even here on Free Republic.