[HN Gopher] LibreOffice slams Microsoft for locking in Office us...
___________________________________________________________________
LibreOffice slams Microsoft for locking in Office users w/ complex
file formats
Author : bundie
Score : 144 points
Date : 2025-07-18 16:30 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.neowin.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.neowin.net)
| kazinator wrote:
| Microsoft doesn't lock in people.
|
| People lock in people.
| majorchord wrote:
| You might not be wrong, but yelling at people for accepting
| conveniences that most don't even understand or care about,
| seems a bit pointless to me. Why even stop at document formats?
| Why not outrage over their choice of Windows itself?
|
| What good do you think this does? I'm genuinely curious.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Well, according to StatsCounter, Linux now accounts for 5% of
| desktop users. :-)
|
| ChromeOS another 2.7% and macOS around 24%.
|
| edit: If I were to guess, Valve/Steam is solely responsible
| for at least 1 of those 5%.
| kazinator wrote:
| > _Why not outrage over their choice of Windows itself?_
|
| Because it doesn't necessarily affect anyone. Using Windows
| _ipso facto_ doesn 't mean you will send someone a file they
| can't read without a Microsoft program.
|
| I have two Windows machines in my home; they have LibreOffice
| on them, as well as Firefox.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| No, but I think the people most likely to be oblivious to
| all this, will be the ones using Microsoft programs that
| write in proprietary formats by default... and I would say
| they're not even wrong if that's what most other people use
| too.
|
| People send me Outlook messages all the time that I can't
| read at all, and many Excel spreadsheets and Powerpoint
| presentations with features that aren't supported in
| _anything_ on Linux. I literally have to use a Windows VM
| with proper Office to read this stuff. And not only work
| documents, but documents from my children 's
| school/teachers as well.
| PaulKeeble wrote:
| Its been Microsoft's strategy since its formation to make a lot
| of proprietary technology when it moves into any space and do so
| in a way that locks customers in such that if and when it is no
| longer the top product the customers can't easily leave. They do
| this in every single product and market they operate in. Where
| they can't ultimately win they buy their competitor and integrate
| the product then slowly kill it.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| Gates never even made DOS. He bought it from someone else and
| rebranded it. He's been a con man since day 1.
| edm0nd wrote:
| Still the only big tech CEO who can jump over a chair tho
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| But I bet he can't throw them the way monkey boy Ballmer
| did.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| New business idea: selling small luxury chairs to big tech
| CEOs. Subscription service, if they don't pay a million per
| month, they lose their license to jump over their chair.
| psunavy03 wrote:
| . . . being a savvy businessman is a con man? There's loads
| to criticize about MS in the 80s and 90s, but buying DOS fair
| and square and then building an ecosystem around it was just
| a good business move. The stuff they got sued and almost
| broken up over is the sketchy part.
| coliveira wrote:
| The point that he's a con man is that he signed a document
| with IBM to supply an OS when he had none. Of course in
| retrospect he was "smart" to go around and buy one, but in
| fact he was promising IBM something he didn't have and in
| an alternate universe he could be sued for that.
| pletnes wrote:
| If I order a new car, it may well not exist yet. The deal
| is that there will be a car on hand at some agreed upon
| date. I don't think Gates did anything more illegal than
| the analogous car deal. More risky, perhaps, but that's
| another thing entirely!
| BizarroLand wrote:
| IF you order a car from an unknown company, you might get
| lucky and it turn out to be Lamborghini in 1963 but it
| also might turn out to be Aptera Motors in 2004.
| coliveira wrote:
| It is important to remind people of this, because they imagine
| that MS is integrating open source projects like git, linux,
| and others for the goodness of their heart. It's well know that
| this is just step 1 of embrace, extend, and extinguish. Next
| step (underway) is to add many features that will work only
| under the MS ecosystem and finally declare those original tools
| as legacy that should not be allowed in corporations.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| I don't think anyone is under the impression that Microsoft
| is integrating with projects like git or linux _out of the
| goodness of their heart_. They do it for the exact same
| reason anyone does - thats were users /customers are, and
| they want to make money from them. This isn't some evil
| conspiracy, it's just normal boring ways to build products
| for people.
| coliveira wrote:
| > just normal boring ways to build products
|
| Microsoft is never looking for normal, boring ways to build
| products. A software company does't get much ahead thinking
| like this. They're using their old and successful strategy
| of embracing, extending, and extinguishing.
| HPsquared wrote:
| A little from column A, a little from column B.
| strongpigeon wrote:
| Honestly, having worked on Excel at Microsoft (though pretty
| far from the file format and a long time after OOXML was
| introduced), I'm pretty sure that the structure of OOXML is
| convoluted because it was easier to align with the data
| structures used by the app.
| piker wrote:
| My take as an interested third party as well.
| zerr wrote:
| Isn't it the same for PDF format spec?
| atakan_gurkan wrote:
| No. There are hundreds of programs that easily read and create
| PDFs. OTOH, reading .docx is a pain. Far be it from me to
| defend Adobe, but PDF is nothing like MS Office formats.
| jahewson wrote:
| Ooh that's not fair. Many PDFs don't conform to the spec and
| how Acrobat processes them is completely undocumented.
| troupo wrote:
| It was funny for a few years when Apple just released
| Preview, and it rendered many PDFs better than Adobe's own
| Acrobat
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Yeah it's a great app, one of the big reasons I still use
| MacOS - but there's certain features which you still need
| Adobe Acrobat for, I know to fill in the tax forms for my
| country you do.
| cogman10 wrote:
| The PDF spec is well designed to be both very expandable and
| easily readable.
|
| It's absolutely horrible to try and edit.
|
| That's because the structure of a PDF is essentially a bunch of
| media "streams". It's very easy to say "render a jpeg at this
| location on the page" but that's about it. It doesn't store,
| for example, the fact that you might need to wrap words around
| a page. Instead, it's "Here's a box with text in it".
|
| The only thing that really could make PDF rendering hard is
| adobe put a whole bunch of garbage into the spec. For example,
| the full spec had the ability to run javascript and flash at
| one point (not sure if it does anymore).
| mook wrote:
| JavaScript must still be there, because I think that's how
| form validation works? Don't recall Flash ever being there
| though.
| stop50 wrote:
| It was acrobat reader, but not in the standard. For some
| time only the reader was needed and not the player.
| izacus wrote:
| No, that spec is outright nice if you consider the PCs it was
| made for.
| gigel82 wrote:
| I doubt this one is explicit "locking in", as much as it's
| reflecting the increasing internal complexity and lack of focus
| on product quality. I'd be willing to bet the internal teams
| dread working with the overly complex structures too.
| delusional wrote:
| At this point I doubt Microsoft could even execute on a "lock
| in" strategy anymore.
| vanderZwan wrote:
| Hasn't this always been an argument against it? I remember
| hearing the same arguments when we tried to get the EU to ditch
| OpenXML over a decade ago al least.
|
| [0] https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-
| so...
| rtollert wrote:
| Original blog post by LibreOffice is here:
| https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2025/07/18/artifici...
|
| I mean... sure? When I saw this headline I was imagining that
| Microsoft added a brand-new ultracomplicated format. But no, the
| article is solely about OOXML. Why is the blog post re-litigating
| a fight that LibreOffice already fought almost 20 years ago?
| like_any_other wrote:
| Those who forget the past..?
| fsflover wrote:
| Because it still matterts today?
| OnionBlender wrote:
| Why does the title say "slams" but neither the headline or URL
| contain "slams"? I think anything that says slams is not worth
| reading.
| extrememacaroni wrote:
| I don't think microsoft could feel a slam from anyone tbh, much
| less libreoffice.
| Ukv wrote:
| Saving 4 characters (over "calls out") to fit within the HN
| submission title length limit, I'd assume.
| jollyllama wrote:
| Headlinese
| betterhealth12 wrote:
| it's ridiculous, clearly to get eyeballs. there should be a
| clickbait label on such titles
| WillAdams wrote:
| I'd really like to see an office suite which uses .md and .csv
| where possible.
|
| Mostly I use LyX and pyspread which are close/open enough.
| eviks wrote:
| These are too primitive for an office suite
| prmoustache wrote:
| > I'd really like to see an office suite which uses .md
|
| It is called pandoc and a text editor.
| jahewson wrote:
| I didn't realise we'd entered a time machine to 2007. I've worked
| extensively with OOXML and yes, the documentation is cryptic and
| often absent, but Microsoft will help you out if you contact them
| on their forums. I see Libre Office devs there all the time!
|
| But the complexity is not some kind of conspiracy - it's inherent
| - it comes from the fact that Office is ancient and very, very
| complex with a huge number of features. Many features are
| implemented in backwards compatible way on top of the old version
| of similar features and then the whole thing has been back ported
| from a bunch of C structure to XML which has the most woeful and
| underpowered schema language imaginable.
| troupo wrote:
| > it comes from the fact that Office is ancient and very, very
| complex with a huge number of features.
|
| IIRC one of the many unfortunate decisions made by MS with
| OOXML (whether intentionally, or not, or both) is to codify a
| lot of display and formatting quirks directly in the schema
| with very little explanation or docs. Instead of making it s
| different namespace or layer.
|
| So, to implement OOXML, you also needed to reverse engineer,
| say, behavior of Word97 etc.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| It's not just the complex XML based format. Word has
| collaboration tie-in's with Skype, Teams, SharePoint, OneDrive
| etc
|
| It's an entire ecosystem
|
| Also, I have tried to use LibreOffice and you have to learn an
| entirely new tool. The user interfaces are different. Word has
| its own issues of course but LibreOffice does not feel as
| polished
|
| There are things in Word that are legacy and carry overs from
| another time that carry various nuance. It's not all documented
| set of features either
|
| Trying to replicate the entire look and feel is incredibly
| difficult
|
| Most people are going to encounter Word in a corporate setting
| and to have them switch to another tool is going to a big hill to
| climb
| trelane wrote:
| If LibreOffice were smart, they'd introduce free licensing for
| schools and universities, so the students could learn it and
| then ask for it when they get to jobs later on.
|
| Maybe they could even release the source under a copyleft
| license, so the students can learn from it and maybe
| contribute.
| piker wrote:
| LibreOffice is free and GPL.
| trelane wrote:
| That's the joke, yes. Though it's MPL, not GPL:
| https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/licenses
| piker wrote:
| Woosh!
| jasonjayr wrote:
| At one point LibreOffice + MS Office were pretty much on par
| with each other.
|
| But MS has built this giant moat of integrated proprietary
| services around these systems that make it difficult to switch
| away once you are sucked into the environment.
|
| It takes a pretty sizable expense to switch to anything else,
| while satisfying all of a companies different workflows for
| various roles and levels of experience.
|
| If not MS Office + it's M365 Eco system, what then? Google
| Workspace? That's kinda the same problem in a different color?
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Google tried to get kids hooked in school and it's decent.
| But when you want to do serious work, you need to use
| Microsoft products. Google's product is like a toy
| trelane wrote:
| Most serious users can use things other than Microsoft just
| fine. The problem is file compatibility. Unfortunately,
| network effects are very much a thing. Plus most users just
| don't realize they don't actually _have_ to keep shovelling
| money at Microsoft.
| eddythompson80 wrote:
| I don't know much about advanced Google Docs, but I know
| that's the far from true for Google Sheets. Google Sheets
| covers a shit ton of ground that Excel covers, but a
| serious user can never replace Excel with Sheets.
|
| We had a lot of marketing and sales people who wanted to
| use Google Sheets instead of Excel to load sales reports
| from a shared PG database. This is of course a built-in
| feature (loading a PG table as a sheet) in Excel. Google
| Sheets obviously doesn't support any imports. They are
| all paid plugins, and they all make you pay per row or
| cell or column.
|
| You can write a plugin to do it, except their funky
| AppScript (which is a custom synchronous Javascript/V8
| environment where there is no async or callbacks, and
| promises block.
|
| Except, the plugin can only connect to MySQL. PG support
| ask has been open since 2011. They decided in 2014 that
| they don't plan to support PG. Then in 2018 they thought
| maybe they can only support GCP Postgres.[1]
|
| Ok, fine. You make your own API to call and load data.
| No, you can't return more than 50 MBs. So better split
| your query.
|
| Oh, you want to load a 50MB CSV? There are 3 different
| APIs for that:
|
| - "Import from GDrive". This is the one you want. Import
| 50MB in a couple of seconds. But it also requires the
| most permissions to full access the user's GDrive
|
| - "Basic Import API". This imports at ~100kbps but not
| always. gets slower for large data
|
| - "Advanced Import API". This imports at ~250kbps but not
| always. gets slower for small data
|
| and you need to run your own benchmarks[2][3] to
| understand which API to use in which context, then keep
| reruning them as things change.
|
| [1]:
| https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/36752790?pli=1
|
| [2]: https://gist.github.com/tanaikech/d102c9600ba12a162c
| 667287d2...
|
| [3]: https://gist.github.com/tanaikech/030203c695b3086060
| 41587e6d...
| prmoustache wrote:
| > but a serious user can never replace Excel with Sheets.
|
| This doesn't mean anything.
| eddythompson80 wrote:
| If you repeat it long enough, it'll be true.
| otikik wrote:
| I have the opposite opinion. If I have something that I
| don't care if it's irrecoverable 5 years from now, or I
| don't care that it prints differently on each printer, MS
| Office can fit the bill.
|
| I collaborate with others, a lot, though. Google is simply
| better at that
| firesteelrain wrote:
| I used Google Docs a lot initially for my Masters for our
| team projects but eventually we switched to our corporate
| Teams collaboration space. We couldn't get Google Docs to
| match the formats needed for assignments. Word worked out
| of the box.
| freeopinion wrote:
| I have met very few non-techies that could tell the difference
| between Word and Wordpad or use them any differently.
|
| Most people below the age of 30 can switch between Google Docs
| or Word without blinking. They don't use more than a few of the
| features of either.
|
| This "big hill" you mention is a fantasy.
| trelane wrote:
| You're right for home users. In businesses, the hill is also
| that some users are power users that have locked themselves
| in, in slightly different ways between the different power
| users. Also the company has also locked itself in by drinking
| deeply from the Microsoft well (e.g. AD and sharepoint and
| Windows etc) and marketing away will cost them a _lot_ of
| time and effort, and therefore money.
| freeopinion wrote:
| My comment was focused on Word. There is definitely a lot
| of lock-in for the larger MS ecosystem in business. But
| that is the nature of large bureaucracies. They struggle to
| switch between UPS and FedEx, or between Staples and
| OfficeDepot. Switching away from the MS ecosystem is
| significantly harder than that.
| ghaff wrote:
| If the lawyers and the financial analysts need Windows
| Office for certain uses let them use them. But I'd note
| that the first edition of a book I wrote a while back had a
| Sharepoint workflow and had moved away by the second
| edition.
|
| The licensing/support is cheaper carries some weight. But
| Windows to Linux mostly didn't win a lot of fights on the
| desktop. But Google Docs for collaboration and general
| simplicity does win over a lot of companies.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| > I have tried to use LibreOffice and you have to learn an
| entirely new tool.
|
| I use word processors so rarely that every time it's like
| learning a new tool. Whether it's Word, Google Doc,
| LibreOffice, or anything else.
|
| I will say that Google Docs and Word both feel a bit more
| "polished" than LibreOffice which still feels very distinctly
| like a 1990's era desktop program. I guess because it is.
| ghaff wrote:
| Latterly, I worked at a predominantly open source company
| that switched from LibreOffice to Google Docs over the
| screams of many. It was a night and day improvement both in
| terms of the software itself and the ability to collaborate.
| jajuuka wrote:
| LibreOffice very much took cues from the old Office setup.
| While alternatives like OnlyOffice took cues from the current
| Office setup.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Libreoffice was formerly openoffice which was formerly
| staroffice, an office suite that has its deepest origin in
| Starwriter, a word processor for the Zilog Z80 released in
| 1985.
| Pooge wrote:
| I know about the lack of tech-savvyness of most humans, but isn't
| Markdown and Pandoc--if you slam a GUI in front of it--covering
| the needs of 99% of users?
|
| Granted, when you need formatting, like for a formal letter, you
| use a template someone made but this is _not_ what most people
| use Word for.
|
| And don't get me started on "people wouldn't understand how to
| put things in bold or italics"; they can barely use Word anyway.
| Might as well use something much simpler. Office "productivity"
| suites are over to me.
| n8cpdx wrote:
| If you have such little regard for formatting that markdown
| suffices, you also don't care about the difficult edge cases of
| docx.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| WordPad, Notepad, or TextEdit is already included on the
| computer and perfectly fine for most writing and printed
| communication.
| thangalin wrote:
| * https://keenwrite.com/screenshots.html
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB-
| WIt1cZYLm1MMx2FBG9...
|
| Here are some of my Markdown documents:
|
| * https://impacts.to/downloads/lowres/impacts.pdf (99% pure)
|
| *
| https://pdfhost.io/v/4FeAGGasj_SepiSolar_Highlevel_Software_...
|
| * https://dave.autonoma.ca/blog/2020/04/28/typesetting-
| markdow...
|
| A lot is possible with Markdown, especially with pandoc
| extensions.
| cahaya wrote:
| I can confirm. When trying convert simple Word sentences and
| tables to e.g. Markdown/HTML from a Word XML you need a PhD in
| XML edge cases and nested garbage.
| paulbjensen wrote:
| I wonder if this tool by MSFT is able to handle that:
|
| https://github.com/microsoft/markitdown
|
| I was amazed when I realised that Word docs were just zip files
| and you could poke around in the xml files embedded inside of
| them.
|
| I almost implemented a working React -> Word document renderer
| back in 2017, but it didn't have support for creating the xml
| tags with : inside of them (which OOXML documents use).
| strongpigeon wrote:
| Technically, they're a bit more than just zip files (they're
| OPC containers [0]), but if you're hand editing the file
| content it doesn't really matter.
|
| [0] Open Package Convention:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Packaging_Conventions
| favorited wrote:
| Even though markitdown is a Microsoft project, it's just a
| thin wrapper around a bunch of 3rd party Python packages. For
| example, to go from docx to Markdown, it uses mammoth to
| convert docx to HTML[0], then uses markdownify to convert the
| HTML into Markdown[1].
|
| [0]https://github.com/microsoft/markitdown/blob/da7bcea527ed0
| 4c... [1]https://github.com/microsoft/markitdown/blob/da7bcea
| 527ed04c...
| superjan wrote:
| Well, it is not pretty to see how the sausage gets made, but
| extracting formatted text from docx is absolutely doable, no
| PhD involved. Source: I have done it as a little sidequest
| because it was useful to audit a set of word documents.
| AtNightWeCode wrote:
| It is a plague across the whole industry. The format in this case
| is highly influenced by how one corp designed their own products.
| Multiple document formats have this problem. But you can also
| find the exact same thing in PCI DSS and other standards. Like,
| one corp designed a tool to scan for a certain flaw and suddenly
| it is mandatory. Just ridiculous.
| eviks wrote:
| Meanwhile, has a better modern featureful extensible rich text
| format been invented?
| prmoustache wrote:
| asciidoc and html?
| pseudosavant wrote:
| How did this make the HN homepage? There isn't even any news
| here. It is an argument about ~20-year-old XML file formats, at a
| time when file formats couldn't matter less?
|
| On top of that, Office supports OpenDocument formats, just like
| LibreOffice supports Office formats.
|
| Also, IME the Office XML file format is far better supported by
| third parties - countless apps read/write them. I have multiple
| apps installed that can read/write an Office file, but MS Office
| is the only app on my machine that opens OpenDocument.
| jajuuka wrote:
| Yeah this is basically just an ad for LibreOffice. To be
| complaining about XML in Office in 2025 is wild.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Microsoft Office isn't even compatible with itself, deapite its
| bespoke file format. For example formulas in Excel not being
| portable between different languages.
| fsflover wrote:
| This is an old problem that is still harming the user freedom
| and hinders the adoption of LibreOffice today, due to
| Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. Are you saying it's not
| worth discussing?
| piker wrote:
| I feel qualified to opine on this as both a former power user of
| Word and someone building a word processor for lawyers from
| scratch[1]. I've spent hours pouring over both the .doc and OOXML
| specs and implementing them. There's a pretty obvious journey
| visible in those specs from 1984 when computers were under
| powered with RAM rounding to zero through the 00's when XML was
| the hot idea to today when MSFT wants everyone on the cloud for
| life.
|
| Unlike say an IDE or generic text editor where developers are
| excited to work on and dogfood the product via self-hosting, word
| processors are kind of boring and require separate testing/QA.
|
| MSFT has the deep pockets to fund that development and
| testing/QA. LibreOffice doesn't.
|
| The business model is just screaming that GPL'd LibreOffice is
| toast.
|
| [1] Plug: https://tritium.legal
| fractallyte wrote:
| *poring over
|
| Lawyers also tend to pore a lot, so it's worth getting the word
| right! ;-)
| piker wrote:
| TIL
| gchamonlive wrote:
| There are non-native English speaking lawyers in the world
| afaik
| gus_massa wrote:
| There is an old post by Joel Spolsky that worked as PM in Excel
| a looong time ago, and he agree with you: " _Why are the
| Microsoft Office file formats so complicated? (And some
| workarounds)_ " https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2008/02/19/why-
| are-the-micros... (HN discussions
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12471604 (393 points |
| Sept 2016 | 229 comments) and
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=118909 (60 points | Feb
| 2008 | 20 comments))
| eikenberry wrote:
| > The business model is just screaming that GPL'd LibreOffice
| is toast.
|
| Only if Word formats remain dominant. There might be hope with
| the EU moving off Word that an alternative, real standard might
| take root.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Microsoft may have the deep pockets, but there are Word
| documents that LibreOffice opens correctly, MS Word 2007 opens
| correctly, and MS Word 2024 _doesn 't_.
| TheMagicHorsey wrote:
| Never attribute malice where incompetence is a sufficient
| explanation.
|
| Microsoft isn't intentionally obfuscating the docx. Docx is a
| shit-show because hundreds upon hundreds of Microsoft business
| initiatives, executive pet projects, and ancient compatibility
| rules have all collided to make a giant pile of dung.
|
| If LibreOffice is worried about what docx does to their
| productivity ... you should see the fucking engineers lamenting
| INSIDE Microsoft about what it does to their friggin
| productivity.
|
| This horseshit isn't anyone's plan. This horseshit is an emergent
| phenomenon like a fucking termite hill in your back yard ...
| where no single termite is responsible or knoweldgeable, but all
| of them together made a pile that breaks your lawnmower.
| curiousgal wrote:
| Tangent: Is there a Firefox extension that blocks articles with
| _slams_ , _claps back_ , _rips_ ?
| Lammy wrote:
| > The two office suites take very different paths here.
| LibreOffice uses the OpenDocument Format (ODF), an open standard
| meant to be controlled by no single company. Microsoft, on the
| other hand, created its own Office Open XML (OOXML) to support
| every feature in its own software, giving us the familiar .docx
| and .xlsx
|
| It's so impressively underhandedly sneaky that Microsoft named
| their ODF-competitor format "Office Open" just as
| OpenOffice.org's (LibreOffice's direct ancestor) hype peaked with
| OO.o 2.0 having ODF as its native format, when MS Office finally
| had a viable _and_ popular competitor for like the first time
| ever.
|
| https://www.openoffice.org/press/2.0/press_release.html
| (2005-10-20)
|
| https://news.microsoft.com/2005/11/21/qa-microsoft-co-sponso...
| (2005-11-21)
| redeeman wrote:
| and ooxml is basically just a serialization of microsoft office
| internals, with attributes such as "likeword95" on certain
| elements..
|
| microsoft made a total piece of steaming turd, and its users
| dont care.
| RachelF wrote:
| Yes, it's bad, but the users _do_ care. Most don't have a
| choice, business machines have MS Office/Outlook/Teams as
| default and they can't change.
| TriangleEdge wrote:
| After having worked for many companies, I think the complex file
| formats is likely due to employee turnover, pressure from
| management to just get shit done, and careless coding. Not ill
| intended anti-competitive practices. The locking in is likely an
| unintended bonus for Microsoft.
| dismalaf wrote:
| Everyone needs to stop competing with Office and just build a
| better office.
|
| The truth is, no one needs to be compatible these days. Everyone
| is either:
|
| - using the same software company-wide, whether it's LO, Google
| Docs or MS Office
|
| - exporting to PDF when sharing docs with someone outside the
| organization
|
| The real thing that LO is missing is server side hosting and easy
| syncing... Until they get that, it's just going to be something
| used by individuals and small orgs.
|
| I still remember, at my university we had LO installed on lab
| computers, MS Office was a "requirement" for students to
| purchase, but most profs simply insisted we simply hand in
| assignments as Google Docs links because there was
| incompatibilities between .doc, .docx, the formats made by LO,
| etc... Google Docs were the only ones that could be shared and be
| 100% identical on every computer with the link.
|
| If LO had a web hosted solution and provided easy to install
| server code for organizations, they'd dominate. But they don't...
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| LibreOffice has _both_ of those, provided by Collabora (the
| main corporate developer of LibreOffice).
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| I tried really hard to use Collabora 'web' solution. It is
| unusable.
|
| For those who don't know: it renders the whole LibreOffice
| interface on server and passes it to you. Lots of issues with
| hotkeys on non-standard layouts (I use Dvorak), with language
| switching, with mouse behavior, with clipboard, ugh. Of
| course it is hungry for resources. No. This isn't the way.
| dismalaf wrote:
| Hmmm... They probably need to advertise that more, or connect
| the two. Had no idea they were related. Also the Collabora
| website is cancer, it's not easy at all trying it...
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| I loved OpenOffice.org back in the day, but in today's world with
| no modern web collaboration option it is dead. I'm aware of the
| attempts to make it run via browser, and no, they aren't really
| there, not even close.
|
| What we need today is a web-first suite of apps that does
| everything Google Docs/Spreadsheets/Slides do, but uses
| OpenDocument family of standards as their native file format.
| john01dav wrote:
| It isn't dead because it can still be used for many use cases.
| I write many documents in LibreOffice Writer and I regularly
| use LibreoOffice Calc for financial calculations. Also,
| LibreOffice Calc is a stupid name because it conflicts with the
| calculator in application launchers that search for substrings.
| uzuituo wrote:
| I use Libreoffice at work to open and edit MS Office files and it
| works mostly fine, except for PowerPoint (missing fonts but also
| general madness). In general, I think the LibreOffice folks did a
| great job, esp. when it comes to MS file format support. And of
| course they need to, because I (and I guess most people) actually
| open more Ms files with LibreOffice than files in LOs native
| formats.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-18 23:01 UTC)