On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 13:06, Mike Kaganski <mikekaganski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 23.03.2022 10:31, A wrote:
> Why is LO focussing on both MS formats and ODF?
>
> By focusing on both formats, it is not producing very good software in
> either of these.
>
> It should focus on only one format so that it can do a much better job.
>
> I am saying all this because LO is run by volunteers and it is not
> getting much resources and money from outside.
>
> So, whatever limited resources it has, it should use that optimally to
> produce one "very good" product.
This implies that the volunteers (and contributors in general) all
should be *guided* in what they focus on. So the project should be
totally controlled from some central place, and everyone must either
work on what is "permitted", or not work at all.
This is not how the project works. If (say) *I* need MS compatibility
improved (just imagining; I actually care about both), I will work on
that, and my work will be included in the software for the benefit of
others, regardless if others think that ODF is their priority. My work
doesn't prevent others to improve ODF support. But if others tell me "do
not work on OOXML compatibility, but focus on ODF", my manpower will not
be re-directed - I will just leave.
What LO people fail to realize is that LO is not very popular and it will not be and their efforts are going to waste.
No big organizations/governments are using LO.
I used to use LO and I sent a document which I wrote using LO but the recipient said that he could not open it.
Then I bought MS Office and sent the document (which I wrote in MS Office) and he was able to open it.
So, I ended up buying MS Office.
In my opinion, LO is a wasted effort if it does not focus on only one thing.
Some people will leave if LO focuses on only one thing but then other people will join.
I will contribute to LO if LO focuses only on MS Office formats because I want people to save money.
Amit
