The Active Network
ActiveWin Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0  
 

neowin.net

Amazon.com

  *  

  Open Source Alternatives: Pros and Cons
Time: 10:49 EST/15:49 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim

"IE has vulnerabilities that cannot be ignored, but with these vulnerabilities come fixes," notes Jupiter Research senior analyst Joe Wilcox. "If you fix the browser enough, it becomes more secure. So whether one is more vulnerable or not we will only see over time."

Even as such open source software developers as Sun Microsystems and OpenOffice.org wax enthusiastic concerning enterprise deployments of their respective Microsoft Office alternatives, industry analysts are urging caution. Open source alternatives only make sense "when workers are doing really simple stuff and don't actually need all the functionality of a complex software suite, such as Microsoft Office, said Gartner research analyst Mark Driver. "But all too often a lot of the more complex documents don't convert, and there are times when 98 percent compatibility is just not good enough -- so you have to be careful," Driver told NewsFactor.

Read Only Comments
Return to News
  Displaying Comments 1 through 6 of 6
  This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com.
#1 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at Wednesday, December 29, 2004 01:27:55 PM
"But all too often a lot of the more complex documents don't convert, and there are times when 98 percent compatibility is just not good enough -- so you have to be careful," Driver told NewsFactor.

Precisely what I've been saying. See how long you have a job when your brilliant recommendation to switch to OpenOffice to save a few bucks has your fellow employees doing clean-up (or at a minimum, proofing every document for conversion errors, whether there are any or not...) on every document exchanged with anyone using Microsoft Office (i.e., the rest of the world, more or less). It doesn't take that complex of a document to see the problems. Contrary to what most of the Linux and/or OpenOffice fanatics say, businesses don't use their word processors to create only the simplest of documents. Spending at least a few extra minutes on every document at the billing rate makes the extra money for MS Office seem like pennies. And that's not adding in training costs, rollout costs (MS Office has tons of support tools for rolling it out), maintenance costs (Group Policy works slick!), etc.

We went through the same thing with WordPerfect. "MS Office compatible" means little when it isn't absolutely 100% compatible, and WordPerfect's Word conversion is better than OpenOffice's. You can pick up WordPerfect--which is much better than OpenOffice's Writer (and some would say Word as well)--for very little money ($30/seat)... and yet businesses still switch from WordPerfect to Word all the time--why? Obviously the cost has nothing to do with it... it's because 99% compatible still isn't enough.

This post was edited by bluvg on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 at 13:34.

#2 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at Wednesday, December 29, 2004 02:22:00 PM
"Does IE even HAVE a tab interface? (I know the IE skins make the attempt) "

I just wanted to say that these IE "skins" such as Avant Browser do a MUCH better job with Tabs than does FF. To accomplish some tab features in FF it requires addition extensions, where as many of the extension features are already included in these skins.

#3 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at Wednesday, December 29, 2004 03:21:28 PM
Definitely... a college bookstore typically does not have a need for a lot of document collaboration. Advertising, brochures, etc., on the other hand, has always been the purpose for programs such as Quark, InDesign, etc. You wouldn't want to use Word to create that material, just as you wouldn't want to use Quark for 200-page legal documents, collaboration via track changes, etc.

#4 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at Thursday, December 30, 2004 04:09:46 PM
Parkker... you do realize that with FF, you can open new windows as well as tabs, right? The whole comparison of tabs vs. new windows is really a non-issue. You're starting to sound like a Windows version of a Mac fanatic. :P

#5 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at Friday, December 31, 2004 08:09:04 AM
"It actually solves it much better than tabs.

In your opinion, yes. "

And in YOUR opinion, probably no. But of course that is not everyone's opinion. I too prefer the use of the taskbar for my tabs vs. tabs in the window, and it uses less real estate with IE when you used grouped taskbar tabs.

#6 By 7754 (65.27.87.2) at Friday, December 31, 2004 05:33:29 PM
Yup. I've used Tab browsing before with IE add-ons as far back as 2000 (Broadpage).

Um, that's not the point... the point is with FF, you can still use new windows, just like IE--you lose nothing in terms of the window vs. tabs argument, because you don't have to use tabs at all. That's why I'm saying, this really is not an argument point of FF vs. IE, because FF supports both metaphors. (And yes, IE supports both with add-ons, of course, but not out of the box.)



 

  *  
  *   *
 
replica watches