Or just employees got fed up with the "almost but not quite there" compatibility, and unpolished functionality, and wanted to return to MS Office.
I've got a CS degree, have used Linux since 1998, used and developed for several commercial unices, and have used Open Office since it was Sun's. I still prefer MS Office.
not in this case.
people coming from office 2003 have a hard time with 2010 or higher.
it had a lot of things to do with smartphones which are problematic in the windows environment aswell.
also germany builds more and more web interfaces for administrative work.
It's it? I try to use open source software as much as possible but Office365 is just significantly better than the alternatives. I wish it wasn't true but it is.
And it's not even that expensive. £8/month/person. Slack is £5/month/person and that's just for chat.
Considering an average employee probably costs at least £3000/month it's a bit silly to worry about these small expenses.
Does MS Office have real competitors? Google Docs is very casual compared to MS Office. LibreOffice needs a lot of work.
My money was on Corel Office for Linux (with solid products like Wordperfect and Quattro Pro), but Microsoft bought a large share of Corel and it was mysteriously discontinued.
Slack has competitors but none of them are as good. At least none of the free ones - I've tried them all. Zulip is closest but it has a weird threading model (it's more like Usenet).
It's quite surprising given how relatively simple it is.
I disagree wrt office 365 (except for the collaborative editing in the browser feature). I dont recognize the price either - more like 22£ (unless its exchange only).
That's true, there was cronyism. For example, they used the worse, slower KDE instead of better options like MATE because KDE has a considerable European (and even German) legacy. I imagine they took many decisions like that.
Take a computer that used to run Windows 2000 and install KDE on it, it's no wonder people got pissed and they had to revert their decision.
I still use KDE (4.x) on CentOS 7, with older hardware.
It's not quite as as snappy as XFCE, or probably MATE, but it's still easily good enough to get the job done.
On CentOS, being a stable platform, KDE itself is also really stable. (important to me, as I have better things to do that screwing around just keeping a desktop updated)
For strict accuracy, MATE is not a fork of GTK2, but of GNOME 2. MATE did originally use GTK2, though without forking it, and it has since switched to GTK3 (while still keeping the GNOME 2 "look").
MATE is a fork of GNOME 2, which is a full featured desktop environment as well. MATE runs orders of magnitude faster and is much more stable than KDE. Especially on the old workstations where they installed LiMux.
I'm not going to say that the project failed entirely because of technical reasons, but at first glance it really looks like they took bad decisions. It's hard to defend a move where you end up with worse software and a worse experience for users, no matter how much money you save.
First, being abandoned for new development is a great indication of the quality of a project.
Second, you haven't given us any arguments for your "indications of quality" regarding MATE and KDE.
Third, like Gnome, KDE has a huge legacy in FOSS, and is a great project in itself based on a top notch GUI backend. Some of its code even went on and become the basis of the modern web (KHTML -> Webkit -> Blink -> Node -> now also Edge), other tools like KDevelop, Krita, etc are among the best in class in what they do.
What are you, some teenage Linux nerd, with a "favorite" desktop to promote in flame wars?
MATE is not a GNOME project.
When GTK3 was made and the decision to build Gnome Shell was made, the MATE project was started to fork GTK2 and the old shell.
It's obvious you're being provocative on purpose but I don't see this leading to any fruitful discussion. Maybe try a more constructive approach next time.
The LiMux project started in 2005, so the KDE version used back then would be KDE3. That was not really worse in performance than GNOME2 (or today MATE), although comparing it to Windows 2000 would not be easy.
Then put Windows 10 on it, or any other fully featured modern GUI OS. And we have proved what? Computers from 18 years ago don't run modern OS's very well, but can run ok with an OS specifically pitched as 'lightweight'.
On the other hand I have a PC right here on my lap that is 10 years old that is running Kubuntu problem free.
@xte - I agree with you for the most part; however, I think there are some supply-and-demand considerations to be made. For example, companies who use esoteric or obsolete languages, where the workforce who knows that language inside and out is particularly small (a la Cobol programmers circa late 1990s), should expect to pay more. Where I live, because of the area being inundated with technology boot camps, there is an exorbitant number of JavaScript programmers. Since you can't breathe without huffing a JavaScript programmer, they tend to be paid less.
Also, some languages and applications require a higher degree of knowledge, training, and expertise than others. For example, I would expect to pay a programmer working in robotics more than I'd expect to pay a React or Angular developer.
Having grown up working in construction, I completely agree with your tool analogy though (and used the same analogy in another comment).
I disagree completely - javascript encourages shitty programming by design and by culture. If you don’t expose the young chances are they won’t get infected.
Because all of those who started on something like C, C++, or Java have way better programming practices? My experience tells me that starting language is literally not a vector in determining how good of a programmer someone is.
I agree. Maybe its the barrier to entry for publishing that has gotten a lot lower and thus pushing down the quality of public code (which is natural). Or maybe im just worried about everything being pushed to the browser.
This is absolutely nonsense. Modern JavaScript is powerful and actually quite elegant. Perhaps stop thinking about the crappy JavaScript people wrote >10 years ago.
Maybe some are. There is however nothing nothing elegant about running 5 massive electron, node etc apps in your browser w. 60% code overlap grinding everything to a halt. Its not so much the language but how its being used.
If you have never been exposed to programming before chances are you will struggle no matter the name of the school. The name will, most likely, help you get a better job but don’t worry about the skill level attained (unless you went to something like Trump university).
If anyone is in Norway and is good with Java or C# I might be able to get you an interview somewhere that has good managers. Email should be in my profile.
Probably not. I didn't think an engineer here can expect cross 100k€ without either 1.) running his own consulting business well or 2.) having huge performance bonus and perform well or 3.) cross into management or sales.
Do you know many engineers in Norway who earn > 100k €? I was not able to figure out from your profile if you know Norway or not.
No, but I am always trying to learn new topics and ever since I got professionally involved in blockchain I have picked up a couple of econ books but I wouldn't falsely represent myself as an econ expert. Why do you ask?
Oh THATS why android gets so few updates.. (pardon the sarcasm). Its all because of those damn linux renegates - ruining software for the rest of us. Somebody ought to stop the linux bullies preventing those poor corporations from updating their products.
> It's unreasonable to expect OEMs to keep updating the code every time the driver API is broken, especially when you have dozens of mobiles.
Nobody expects that. Once drivers are in the mainline, the OEMs don't have to do any work to keep them from getting broken when Linux devs decide to do the kind of refactoring and systemic improvements that are impossible on Windows. All Android OEMs have to do is git pull, make, and send the new OS image off to the same QA processes any other update needs before deployment.
The drivers aren't where the important trade secrets are. Those are all in the hardware or in the proprietary firmware that the driver has to upload to the hardware, or in a userspace blob as with AMD's GPU drivers. The code that actually runs in the kernel on the host CPU doesn't reveal any valuable IP given the way most hardware is designed these days.
They don't have to. They just need to open-source their drivers and mainline them, don't they? People will gladly maintain what Qualcomm et al. aren't willing to, they just need to abandon the binary blob bullshit.
Yes - very unreasonable. Im sure its an enormeous expense. Better keep those devices 10 security updates behind to make sure the bloatware still works. I mean - they already paid right: why bother updating.
