On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 13:06, Mike Kaganski <mikekagan...@hotmail.com> 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
