Yeah, this morning I opened the window to get some fresh air and I almost got smacked by a low-flying pig ...
Fucking Office, get Bill Gates in here!
It has incompatibilities with Windows office using the exact same doc format both are supposed to fully support - how do you explain that if the common code, ie format support, is shared?
Updates for it take much longer, sometimes years longer, than those for w32 office.
Have some links in addition:
If you have not noticed. No one is calling for open source office you are just trolling once again. I tend to think office for linux will be a good thing for the platform but that doesnt mean everyone one that doesnt is an open source zealot as you would like to say. The main issue with office is not that its not open source, but that it doesnt support open standards. This forces you to use office to access your own documents which should be your property and should not have such restrictions. If office were to stop being made in ten or twenty years time there may be no way for you to access your documents.
Finally since you love the term zealot so much I would like to inform you that you yourself are a zealot. Thats right on your self proclaimed war on open source fans you seem to be a fully blown closed source zealot, which brings anyone to the logical question of why you are a member of these forums? Why you follow the Phoronix blog? And why you even use linux? I still think that you are just a microsoft fanboy who doesnt acctually use linux and just trolls these forums.
If A, then B. But A != B. A is a sufficient condition for B, but they are not equivalent. If A = B, as you suggest, then B would be a sufficient condition for A as well, but this would be affirming the consequent - a fallacy.
If A, then B.
That's a no-no, but it's an honest mistake. Either way, it's not what he was actually saying. He was just defining the term with an example.