8 ms·

That's understandable, and it's great that you are able to utilize the expensive products available. As a counter, I am a broke college student that values my p

That's understandable, and it's great that you are able to utilize the expensive products available. As a counter, I am a broke college student that values my privacy, and I make frequent use of LibreOffice. While complete professional market penetration would do wonders to LibreOffice by increasing awareness of more bugs and bring in more developers, it isn't necessary to be very useful to some. The freedom to have the choice between the widely used product and the slightly buggy but free product is very nice to me.

taeric 9y ago
My point would be to do whatever to improve interop. At the least, focus on ux. Intrinsic quality of the code does little to address this, as much as we developers want otherwise. And as a student, I definitely used free options. I encourage that use. Just don't think you will make much inroads in the commercial world. Until you can use all of the commercial world.
- soperj 9y ago
  It inter-operates better than Microsoft's own software. Try opening a document that was saved from an older version of word in the newest. LibreOffice is better.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    I could have agreed with your claim 10 years ago, but not now. I've had such problems with MS software back in office97/2000 era, but not now - on the other hand, I have had interop issues with Libreoffice back when I used it last year, so it's currently not good enough (yet?) to be used safely. To be clear on definitions, my understanding of "interoperability" involves the following workflow - if I open a complex document made by someone else in MS Excel or Word, change one word in it, save it (in MS format) and send it back, then I have to be sure that I haven't corrupted anything else in that document - layout nuances, styles,references, pagination, whatever. Currently it's not the case, and it makes it unusable, since I can't even verify if something looks different on my computer than it had looked in MS Office. I mean, it's a simple test - if opening ("importing"? "converting"? technically that might be more appropriate than merely opening) a document and immediately saving it changes it somehow, it's not ok.
    - soperj 9y ago
      Use a open standard. Save it as an odt.
      - PeterisP 9y ago
        That's switching to another workflow, not interoperability with the existing one.
  - blipmusic 9y ago
    I had a bunch of old Word-documents from a late researcher using non-latin scripts and custom fonts that needed fixing for archiving (the only important step was to make these readable by humans). Don't remember what encoding. Current version of Word wouldn't even touch these, raising errors left and right. In the end I changed the strings that specified the problematic/missing fonts in a hex editor (I naively assumed that would do the least damage...) to a compatible font I eventually found after some digital archaeology. LibreOffice accepted these files but didn't display them correctly (as in: according to what my eyes and brain expected - "machine readable" was in a different universe at this point). I saved the hex-edited documents in whatever version of docx LibreOffice exports to. Word accepted these, displayed them as well as could be hoped, and a little bit of modern history could be saved for future generations. Not a very technical approach, I guess. I feel the 1990's in general did a lot of damage. It's not only Word. Competing, proprietary formats together with lacking text-encodings (and in my case custom fonts messing up character tables, due to academic/linguistic needs) has caused more information loss than the decades before and after for the data I've worked with. Suffice to say I use plain text as much as possible (markdown, latex), as text-encoding alone is hard enough.
    - sangnoir 9y ago
      That's sounds like a proper programmer-archaeologist gig to make Vernor Vinge proud.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
    Reminds me of wine, which apparently has better luck with old programs than do new versions of Windows.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  They are doing work on the UX, but that's work for a different kind of people than the folks who do security. Security is an enormous concern with an office suite. The formats which need to be supported by an office suite are terrifyingly complex, and people open documents from untrusted sources on a regular basis. Opening malicious documents in office suites is a major vector for malware attacks, especially in the "commercial world". and as soperj points out, LibreOffice often has better interop with word, especially older documents. It also correctly opens and saves ODF formats, generates better quality PDFs. The UX is also kinda hard to objectively iterate on. The current iteration of the office ribbon generates some amount of positive feedback for new users, but experienced MSO and OO.o users often prefer the current style of LibreOffice. If iterating on the UX means anything, it probably means adding a second UI. Outside of UI, it would probably be good to get better cloud (or even collaborative) support. It's frankly not certain how that would be done, maybe federated synchronization servers.
  - taeric 9y ago
    This is an extremely fair criticism of my post. And looking back, I regret that I was a downer on the first post. You are right that they can and are doing both.
- problems 9y ago
  Maybe I'm alone in this, but ever since Microsoft went to the ribbon-style UI I've not much liked the MSO user interface, it hides too much stuff. I find LibreOffice's menus far simpler to follow and find things in. Possibly just from having grown up on WordPerfect and Lotus 123. Just a taste thing though I suppose.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    Yeah, it's just a taste thing. I personally don't like the ribbon either, but back when I worked tech support, we transitioned our workstations from Office to LibreOffice. The biggest struggles were due to a difference in UI. I think having an optional ribbon UI would make a big difference to those familiar to Microsoft's products that are trying to switch.
  - kinleyd 9y ago
    I could never figure out the ribbon-style UI. Always went round and round looking for my frequently used menu options. I'm presently half way between MSO and LO - I use MSO in a VM for legacy work, mainly in Excel. And I use LO for all my other work.
  - froindt 9y ago
    I hated the ribbon style of a lot at first because only about 20% of my time was in ribbon. Once my home and all school computers switched to ribbon, I picked it up quickly. I also like knowing the hot keys to get stuff done (Alt+h+b for bold, alt+h+m+c for merging cells, etc.).
  - WalterGR 9y ago
    > it hides too much stuff The Ribbon was created to improve discoverability, in part because users were constantly requesting features that the Office products already had. User testing was performed to verify that the Ribbon improved discovery. I believe there is/was a series of blog posts on the Office blog that go into great detail about the design. > Just a taste thing though I suppose. Could be. Or perhaps the UI/UX folks in the Office organization did the testing incorrectly.
- Sylos 9y ago
  A ribbon-style UI will be optionally available not too long from now. You can already try it out in LibreOffice 5.3 by ticking the "Enable experimental features (may be unstable)"-checkbox in the settings under LibreOffice->Advanced. Then in the menubar, select View->Toolbar Layout->Notebookbar.
  - Frenchgeek 9y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s
- cesarb 9y ago
  > My point would be to do whatever to improve interop. At the least, focus on ux. Intrinsic quality of the code does little to address this, as much as we developers want otherwise. Intrinsic quality of the code allows the developers to change the code faster and with less risk of breakage. This helps them address everything else, including interop and ux.
  - taeric 9y ago
    This is the argument, but evidence is actually severely lacking that it is the case. And let me be clear, I agree with the argument.
  - cwyers 9y ago
    Fixing the sort of bugs found by fuzzers doesn't always lead to cleaner, easier to maintain code. It depends on what the bug is and how it's fixed. Sometimes you just have to write something ugly and inscrutable to deal with how your compiler handles undefined behavior, memory allocation, etc. (Or, in other words: in unsafe languages, there's a class of bugs that occur precisely because doing it the straightforward, idiomatic way leads to the bug.) This doesn't make this bad or mean that you should leave bugs around, but fixing bugs found by a fuzzer is unlikely to lead to improvements in Office compatability, UX, etc.
- xbmcuser 9y ago
  That's the reason I feel google's play for the classrooms is a great entry to break Microsoft office monopoly in the workplace. Though would have preferred an open source office suit to do so.
krrrh 9y ago
I was at a conference last year where @patio11 performed a rap trying to persuade people to do all their writing in markdown. I wish I could simply link to it as an argument from authority, but consider the value of doing your writing in plaintext. You will benefit from editor choice, flexible tooling, version control, and forward compatibility. There are a lot of tools out there for "compiling" from markdown to a nicely formatted pdf, rtf, docx, or odt file. I've got a pile of inaccessibile old university papers that for some reason are in Aldus Pagemaker format. Edit: typo
- themodelplumber 9y ago
  Aldus Pagemaker? Wow. Even back then that was pretty fancy for University work. I keep all my notes in markdown: Daily journal entries and templates, schedules, collections of code snippets; even a book which is just about ready to publish. I find that I rarely use any of the conversion tools, but they are nice when needed. Overall I'm really glad that text editing keeps evolving and find it a sort of foundation of computer use with which you can't go wrong.
  - WilliamDhalgren 9y ago
    curious: what kind of txt editor(s) would make sense for non-code writing, say a novel, say w markdown or something similar? Especially if the person writing is non-technical so stuff like emacs, vim, atom don't seem like a great fit? I'm thinking something non-obtrusive and with limited options, so that UI is not getting in the way of writing, but with very litte learning curve? And, given the example of GeorgeRRMartin, perhaps something WordStar-like would fit the bill? If so, are there good free editors in the style of WordStar? I have this friend, and I've seen the mess of unintended font changes, sizes, styles, bulleted lists, indentation changes. and all kinds of horrible stuff in his manuscripts when I had to repair some of that damage because it was getting unusable - think he'd appreciate a more focused alternative..
    - themodelplumber 9y ago
      I use Geany and really like it. Customizable. Even easy to e.g. type something in, press tab, and it inserts the output of your shell script or program. I use that to put the day's weather in my journal.

taeric 9y ago

My point would be to do whatever to improve interop. At the least, focus on ux. Intrinsic quality of the code does little to address this, as much as we developers want otherwise. And as a student, I definitely used free options. I encourage that use. Just don't think you will make much inroads in the commercial world. Until you can use all of the commercial world.

soperj 9y ago
It inter-operates better than Microsoft's own software. Try opening a document that was saved from an older version of word in the newest. LibreOffice is better.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  I could have agreed with your claim 10 years ago, but not now. I've had such problems with MS software back in office97/2000 era, but not now - on the other hand, I have had interop issues with Libreoffice back when I used it last year, so it's currently not good enough (yet?) to be used safely. To be clear on definitions, my understanding of "interoperability" involves the following workflow - if I open a complex document made by someone else in MS Excel or Word, change one word in it, save it (in MS format) and send it back, then I have to be sure that I haven't corrupted anything else in that document - layout nuances, styles,references, pagination, whatever. Currently it's not the case, and it makes it unusable, since I can't even verify if something looks different on my computer than it had looked in MS Office. I mean, it's a simple test - if opening ("importing"? "converting"? technically that might be more appropriate than merely opening) a document and immediately saving it changes it somehow, it's not ok.
  - soperj 9y ago
    Use a open standard. Save it as an odt.
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      That's switching to another workflow, not interoperability with the existing one.
- blipmusic 9y ago
  I had a bunch of old Word-documents from a late researcher using non-latin scripts and custom fonts that needed fixing for archiving (the only important step was to make these readable by humans). Don't remember what encoding. Current version of Word wouldn't even touch these, raising errors left and right. In the end I changed the strings that specified the problematic/missing fonts in a hex editor (I naively assumed that would do the least damage...) to a compatible font I eventually found after some digital archaeology. LibreOffice accepted these files but didn't display them correctly (as in: according to what my eyes and brain expected - "machine readable" was in a different universe at this point). I saved the hex-edited documents in whatever version of docx LibreOffice exports to. Word accepted these, displayed them as well as could be hoped, and a little bit of modern history could be saved for future generations. Not a very technical approach, I guess. I feel the 1990's in general did a lot of damage. It's not only Word. Competing, proprietary formats together with lacking text-encodings (and in my case custom fonts messing up character tables, due to academic/linguistic needs) has caused more information loss than the decades before and after for the data I've worked with. Suffice to say I use plain text as much as possible (markdown, latex), as text-encoding alone is hard enough.
  - sangnoir 9y ago
    That's sounds like a proper programmer-archaeologist gig to make Vernor Vinge proud.
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
  Reminds me of wine, which apparently has better luck with old programs than do new versions of Windows.
microcolonel 9y ago
They are doing work on the UX, but that's work for a different kind of people than the folks who do security. Security is an enormous concern with an office suite. The formats which need to be supported by an office suite are terrifyingly complex, and people open documents from untrusted sources on a regular basis. Opening malicious documents in office suites is a major vector for malware attacks, especially in the "commercial world". and as soperj points out, LibreOffice often has better interop with word, especially older documents. It also correctly opens and saves ODF formats, generates better quality PDFs. The UX is also kinda hard to objectively iterate on. The current iteration of the office ribbon generates some amount of positive feedback for new users, but experienced MSO and OO.o users often prefer the current style of LibreOffice. If iterating on the UX means anything, it probably means adding a second UI. Outside of UI, it would probably be good to get better cloud (or even collaborative) support. It's frankly not certain how that would be done, maybe federated synchronization servers.
- taeric 9y ago
  This is an extremely fair criticism of my post. And looking back, I regret that I was a downer on the first post. You are right that they can and are doing both.
problems 9y ago
Maybe I'm alone in this, but ever since Microsoft went to the ribbon-style UI I've not much liked the MSO user interface, it hides too much stuff. I find LibreOffice's menus far simpler to follow and find things in. Possibly just from having grown up on WordPerfect and Lotus 123. Just a taste thing though I suppose.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  Yeah, it's just a taste thing. I personally don't like the ribbon either, but back when I worked tech support, we transitioned our workstations from Office to LibreOffice. The biggest struggles were due to a difference in UI. I think having an optional ribbon UI would make a big difference to those familiar to Microsoft's products that are trying to switch.
- kinleyd 9y ago
  I could never figure out the ribbon-style UI. Always went round and round looking for my frequently used menu options. I'm presently half way between MSO and LO - I use MSO in a VM for legacy work, mainly in Excel. And I use LO for all my other work.
- froindt 9y ago
  I hated the ribbon style of a lot at first because only about 20% of my time was in ribbon. Once my home and all school computers switched to ribbon, I picked it up quickly. I also like knowing the hot keys to get stuff done (Alt+h+b for bold, alt+h+m+c for merging cells, etc.).
- WalterGR 9y ago
  > it hides too much stuff The Ribbon was created to improve discoverability, in part because users were constantly requesting features that the Office products already had. User testing was performed to verify that the Ribbon improved discovery. I believe there is/was a series of blog posts on the Office blog that go into great detail about the design. > Just a taste thing though I suppose. Could be. Or perhaps the UI/UX folks in the Office organization did the testing incorrectly.
Sylos 9y ago
A ribbon-style UI will be optionally available not too long from now. You can already try it out in LibreOffice 5.3 by ticking the "Enable experimental features (may be unstable)"-checkbox in the settings under LibreOffice->Advanced. Then in the menubar, select View->Toolbar Layout->Notebookbar.
- Frenchgeek 9y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s
cesarb 9y ago
> My point would be to do whatever to improve interop. At the least, focus on ux. Intrinsic quality of the code does little to address this, as much as we developers want otherwise. Intrinsic quality of the code allows the developers to change the code faster and with less risk of breakage. This helps them address everything else, including interop and ux.
- taeric 9y ago
  This is the argument, but evidence is actually severely lacking that it is the case. And let me be clear, I agree with the argument.
- cwyers 9y ago
  Fixing the sort of bugs found by fuzzers doesn't always lead to cleaner, easier to maintain code. It depends on what the bug is and how it's fixed. Sometimes you just have to write something ugly and inscrutable to deal with how your compiler handles undefined behavior, memory allocation, etc. (Or, in other words: in unsafe languages, there's a class of bugs that occur precisely because doing it the straightforward, idiomatic way leads to the bug.) This doesn't make this bad or mean that you should leave bugs around, but fixing bugs found by a fuzzer is unlikely to lead to improvements in Office compatability, UX, etc.
xbmcuser 9y ago
That's the reason I feel google's play for the classrooms is a great entry to break Microsoft office monopoly in the workplace. Though would have preferred an open source office suit to do so.

krrrh 9y ago

I was at a conference last year where @patio11 performed a rap trying to persuade people to do all their writing in markdown. I wish I could simply link to it as an argument from authority, but consider the value of doing your writing in plaintext. You will benefit from editor choice, flexible tooling, version control, and forward compatibility. There are a lot of tools out there for "compiling" from markdown to a nicely formatted pdf, rtf, docx, or odt file. I've got a pile of inaccessibile old university papers that for some reason are in Aldus Pagemaker format. Edit: typo

themodelplumber 9y ago
Aldus Pagemaker? Wow. Even back then that was pretty fancy for University work. I keep all my notes in markdown: Daily journal entries and templates, schedules, collections of code snippets; even a book which is just about ready to publish. I find that I rarely use any of the conversion tools, but they are nice when needed. Overall I'm really glad that text editing keeps evolving and find it a sort of foundation of computer use with which you can't go wrong.
- WilliamDhalgren 9y ago
  curious: what kind of txt editor(s) would make sense for non-code writing, say a novel, say w markdown or something similar? Especially if the person writing is non-technical so stuff like emacs, vim, atom don't seem like a great fit? I'm thinking something non-obtrusive and with limited options, so that UI is not getting in the way of writing, but with very litte learning curve? And, given the example of GeorgeRRMartin, perhaps something WordStar-like would fit the bill? If so, are there good free editors in the style of WordStar? I have this friend, and I've seen the mess of unintended font changes, sizes, styles, bulleted lists, indentation changes. and all kinds of horrible stuff in his manuscripts when I had to repair some of that damage because it was getting unusable - think he'd appreciate a more focused alternative..
  - themodelplumber 9y ago
    I use Geany and really like it. Customizable. Even easy to e.g. type something in, press tab, and it inserts the output of your shell script or program. I use that to put the day's weather in my journal.