Why are people shitting so much over LibreOffice? I have both on my machine in the office, and I've set LibreOffice to the default and use it almost exclusively. It's faster than Office, has a better UI, more features I see as essential (save to PDF is nice), and the leap from Office to LibreOffice these days is tiny.
Possibly from past experience; I can't be the only one who's had a red face after emailing a document, only to find out that in Word, the formatting's off just slightly enough to make the entire thing look unprofessional.
This was a good many years ago, and I accept that things may have changed, but Word and Excel work for me right now, and have the added bonus that I can trust what I'm sending to clients.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, I realise that this entire situation could be avoided by using tools meant for the job. Sadly, that wouldn't go down as well with a lot of clients who aren't as technically-savvy as the average HN user.
I have found out that very, very few non-technical users (and even many technical users) ever use Word the way it is meant to be used; i.e., using styles. Most Word users are pretty much still manually manipulating Word documents like the very first WYSIWIG word processors, as glorified typewriters that happen to have some character- and line-oriented formatting features.
So I export my LibreOffice Text documents to PDF, then use Acrobat Pro to export the PDF to Word format. What Acrobat Pro does is render a pretty literal representation of the PDF into Word. For someone used to using styles in Word, it is a generally horrid conversion. But I'm in the minority, and everyone I've sent Word documents rendered in this way is satisfied, which completely mystifies me.
For documents that I'm frequently asked to share, like contracts, I deliberately keep them dead plain text simple as much as possible. I have a contract generation program that pulls customer and project data, and populates a LibreOffice template so I can focus on just the specifics of the proposal. The contract parts that a customer's legal team might want to mark up with track changes enabled is kept simple enough that LibreOffice can still faithfully export it to Word.
I generate simple spreadsheets for myself, but keeping formatting consistent from spreadsheets I get from others has held me back from ditching Excel entirely.
I still haven't been able to work out a way to switch away from PowerPoint slide decks that I have to share with others (which is pretty much every presentation deck I produce). I'm a pretty heavy user of animations in PowerPoint, and the faithful conversion of that is non-existent.
If Microsoft was better with keeping parity between OS X and Windows Office, then I would have never explored adopting LibreOffice, but since there are enough differences to matter, I figured it couldn't hurt to wean myself from Office where feasible.
>Just for the avoidance of doubt, I realize that this entire situation could be
avoided by using tools meant for the job.
No, this situation could be avoided if Microsoft would actually correctly
implement their own fucking pseudo-standard. Not that this is possible, of
course, since the 600+ page behemoth that is OOXML is stock full of
inconsistencies, contradictions, and missing details.
Oh, and of course there is ODF, which is just plain better than OOXML. If that
doesn't work, there is again just a single entity at fault: Microsoft. So don't
blame LibreOffice for shortcomings of Microsoft Office and start demanding
Microsoft to get their shit together.
That's why I wrote: I realise that this entire situation could be avoided by using tools meant for the job. Sadly, that wouldn't go down as well with a lot of clients who aren't as technically-savvy as the average HN users.
Edit: Being more helpful, have you ever had to try and explain to a client who would much rather be doing other things, why they can't edit the document you've sent them?
You can not be serious. How can you possibly think that an UI that consists of 1) two stacked toolbars full of confusing icons and 2) a bunch of options menus with a million levels of nested items is any good at all?
The "new" Office 2007 UI is seriously amazing. For the first time ever I could actually find what I wanted in Office without looking for at least a minute. It's logically organized and it's clean.
LibreOffice feels like Office 97. That isn't a good thing.
Opinions differ, but I'm sure he is serious and I agree with him. I find the organization of the menus in Libreoffice much more intuitive than it was in Office when they used that style. I also prefer that style for use with a keyboard - it's much more intuitive when you're not entirely sure what the shortcut is.
Even if I did prefer ribbon, it would have to be MUCH better to justify the drawbacks that come with Office (cost, etc.)
Press Alt in a ribbon UI, and the UI gives you a stable multi-level hotkey set:
http://imgur.com/ZYaxc,xQiiK,2WbYk,VVW0S - this is when pressing alt, r ("start menu"), au ("auswählen" = select), f ("fangen" = catch - the icon for "select" changes in the last picture).
You can move backward using ESC, too: "alt-r, au, esc, esc, a" puts you in the "Ansicht" (view) ribbon. Once in "alt-mode" it always shows you what you can do, and how.
Wait what? Are you talking about the horrible ribbon nonsense they've done to MS office recently? I've honestly never heard anything but negative reactions to that interface. It is awful.
I'm a LibreOffice user and it regularly pisses me off. It's not terrible, but it definitely has a lot of sharp corners that I keep hitting. Image placement is my current #1 gripe. It's apsolutely horrific. More generally, it starts up slowly, does many things automatically that I don't want it to (and stubbornly refuses to do some things that I do want it to do) and is hard to configure.
I haven't used MS Office in years, but I'm fairly confident it would annoy me about as much as LibreOffice does. Office suits are just really hard to do right.
I guess it comes down to Stroustrup's famous quote:
"There are only two kinds of programs: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses."
I had the same gripe with image placement when I used Open Office on my Linux box a few years ago. I thought that MS office or Apple Pages would be better but ... well ... I don't seem to get much more done with them. Granted I did not try very hard either, since I had an alternative: Latex.
I started to use it to type my science reports and homeworks, then used it to make my resume (I simply couldn't make it not look like shit using MS Word), and finally switched to using it for everything. Now I know Latex is not for everyone, and it's not easy to have other people edit and compile it (especially if they don't know it), but as far as I'm concerned, it turned out to be good for my sanity ...
Oh and for the sake of honesty I should write that image placement in latex, although imho better than in MS Word/Pages/LibreOffice, still do drive me nuts at times..
I really don't know. I have never understood why anyone would actually pay for word processing software from 1992 onwards.
Most people use the most basic features (bold, center, adjust margins and printing). That is not worth around £200!
It's been said before in plenty of articles right here on HN, the move is minimal. Users see the same icons (open, save, print), the menus are in the same locations, Libreoffice and MSOffice look the damn same.
It' just like most problems with marketing, a lot of people cannot differentiate products or companies.
The main reason, would likely be its total lack of compatibility with MSFT Office. Just try opening even a simple Word or PPT file and saving it and then seeing it 'corrupted', even the most simple files seem not to be compatible. Whether this is MSFT's fault for changing the format all the time or LO's for not keeping up I don't know but whenever I need to edit an Office file I have to bring my Mac laptop to work and use MSFT's Office otherwise I will invariably ruin the file, inject wierd characters, screw up the formatting etc etc. LO just doesn't work when interoperability is needed.
sure, it can open them, but then it corrupts them when you save back and try to open with MSFT's office.
Even a simple pptx will change the bullets to some funky character, mess up the formatting.
It's not hyperbole, its actual real-world corporate experience. I tried recently to edit a pptx for a conference I am speaking at and as usual my linux/LO installation was unable to do so. I really wish it did work, but I just can't honestly say it ever does. try it for yourself, create a pptx in Office, add a couple slides, simple layout, nothing fancy, then save it, try opening it in LO and see what you have...