Well, to debunk all these Ximian comments to replace Outlook, how is that possible when Evolution is designed to run on platforms OTHER than Windows?
Evolution is supported on the following distributions:
SUSE LINUX 9.0
SUSE LINUX 8.2
SUSE LINUX Desktop 1.0
Red Hat Linux 9.0
Red Hat Linux 8.0 (see note below)
Red Hat Linux 7.3 (see note below)
Linux Mandrake 9.1
Sun Solaris 8 (SPARC)(requires Sun GNOME 2)
So that is pretty much useless.
#1 By Halcyon-X12 (792 Posts) at 6/15/2004 9:54:11 AM [Delete | Nullify] Wrote:
>I find this article's arguments pretty weak.
It was actually a good article, but had a dead end conclusion
>you need to be aware that with OpenOffice, you get what you pay for
>It is clearly biased, saying OpenOffice is good for nothing?
They didn't say it was good for nothing. I read that as being a good product for free, but not worth paying for.
>technical support is pretty much limited to whatever information you can find on the Internet.
>If you want support you can pay Sun for it, it's a lot cheaper than OpenOffice.
They are talking about OO, not Star. For Sun, you have to pay for the OS. And for Sun, they give users more filters for improved MS Office conversions (which is still pathetic at best)
>Chances are if you're migrating then you have enough experience on MS Office already to >know what you're doing in OpenOffice, is support really an issue?
Support is the number issue for consumers/retailers/corporations buying software.
>For home use, people tend to never call tech support but rather ask others for help, and >others rely on others, etc, until you get to a geek who's figured it out for themselves.
Wrong. As a support person, it is my finding that home users USE tech support frequently for MS products as well as any other product.
>No home user usually calls MS for support, and for office users, they can pay Sun for support >for OpenOffice or they can migrate to StarOffice which has support contracts as well, if they >are looking for an inexpensive alternative.
The article is about OO, not Sun. But, the migration would be a disaster in a small business or corporate environment. The typical secretary might not have an issue with the coversion, since all they are going to be converting over are simple letters and spreadsheets. An inexpensive alternative would be to use Microsoft Works/Microsoft Works Suite, which is far better than OO.
>The most notable example is that there is no OpenOffice version of Microsoft Outlook.
This is true.
>but perhaps you would be better without Outlook and try Ximian Evolution or something >similar
AFAIK, that is a linux only platform application. Useless.
>Or can you buy Outlook seperately?
Yes you can.
>Even so, the missing features can make converting Microsoft Office documents to OpenOffice >format difficult. For example, in Microsoft Office, macros are encoded in Visual Basic Script. >However, OpenOffice doesn't support Visual Basic script.
However, it does offer a scripting language.
That doesn't help in a migration. This would require people to rewrite millions and millions lines of code in millions and millions of docs or spreadsheets. In time and labor, that would be in the $BILLIONS.
>MS Office also doesn't offer support for >OpenOffice documents
Why should it? It was OO choice to enter a market dominated by Office by about 97%. If they want to me competitive and be compatible, it is them they need to work on better migration tools, not Microsoft.
>But what VB scripts are in common documents that don't have macros that aren't viruses?
there are millions and millions.
|