[B]Because no one tracks what happens to any of these downloads. This is the biggest problem that has been noted with Open Source as regards to numbers in use. All sorts of claims are being made, but they prove nothing. Even if the Indian government is distributing 7 million copies, it doesn't mean that they will be used. There is no way to tell.
Then we could reverse the story and say that, just because X millions of copies of iWork are sold, or otherwise bundled, that doesn't mean they're being used. And since this analysis focuses solely on 'sold' copies, not used copies, then we can easily proclaim it irrelevant and fairly limited on its scope.
But, if we accept the 'sold' status of iWork and consider that as being 'used' as well, then let's accept 'downloaded' as being 'used' as well. In fact, it doesn't matter wether you downloaded a copy of OpenOffice or you bought a copy of iWork and never used it. It's still counting iWork as being 'used', with no actual data whatsoever, therefore, a downloaded copy of OpenOffice should be counted as used in the same way as iWork is.
Quote:
It's the same situation we had a year or so ago, when IDC reported high percentages of Linux adoption in third world countries. What happens, as they acknowledged later, is that these computers are sold with Linux installed. The new buyer sees a person outside the store selling disks with both Windows and Office on them. For a couple of bucks, they buy the disk, and convert the machine to windows.
And you believe this to be universall and happening at a rate of 100%, right? Even if a lot of people convert their boxes from Linux to Windows, that still doesn't explain the fact that a lot of governments in the world are using OpenOffice, the French, Israeli and Singaporian governments included. Do you have any idea how big the French government is? Or the Israeli? Or the government of Singapore? Or, and this is purely comical, the government of India? The government of India (which is using OpenOffice btw) is easily bigger than the entire amount of Macs sold during 2005, with or without iWork.
Puts some things into perspective.
Quote:
I've downloaded OO myself, at least four times. Does this mean, according to Tenhumberg, that I have four copies that are being used, rather than the one of the last version, which is NOT being used?
I posted a link that said that, although there are double downloads, in average, for every 6 copies a user downloads, he installs it in 9 machines. Let me post it again:
Quote:
Although this number may include duplicate downloads, the average user of OpenOffice downloads it six times but installs it on nine machines, according to a survey of 5000 people downloading the application that was cited by Tenhumberg.
Quote:
48 million copies downloaded over the last five years, might mean that there are four or five million of the latest version that are actually being used, as well as a couple million of older versions that are being used. The versions that were available more than about two years ago were not usable on a daily basis.
48 million copies was the number in late 2004. With the introduction of 2.0, that number has probably doubled, though I don't have any relevant link to back it up. But it's not just the downloads that matter here: they are not counting the mirrors, CDs they sell, and neither are they counting Linux distro's that include OO.org almost 100% of the times.
Quote:
How many of the downloads were of those early feature lacking, poorly function-able, versions? Is there any breakdown, the way we can get for commercial versions of software? No, there is not.
Who says you can get a breakdown for commercial versions of software? What sane company would call a product of theirs 'poorly function-able, feature lacking' ?
Quote:
What we have, is supposition, and well meaning, but also self-serving number surveys, that tell us little
No, we have facts here, and well-founded facts too. Governments around the world don't play around with software, installing and uninstalling it - they use it, and to them it doesn't matter how many times it has been downloaded.
Same goes with Linux users, who have no iWork and no Microsoft Office, therefore their only alternative options are OpenOffice and KOffice. Or do you think Linux users don't have a need for an office suite and never use it in their lives?
How about Solaris users? How about those Windows users that don't have the money for Office but don't know how to pirate it either?
You are relying on a limited analysis of US Retail Sales, with no actual data of usage as opposed to sold copies, yet you deem it a supposition that a government might be using OpenOffice.org, even if there is ample evidence that that government is using OpenOffice and no less than 7 million copies either.
If they didn't buy Office licences, and they distributed OpenOffice in CDs, and they continue to produce documents and paperwork (as is required when running a government) what is your first instinct: they're using OpenOffice or they downloaded OpenOffice but found it poor, lacking but they continue to produce documents somehow?
And finally, I didn't mean to say that OpenOffice is great or better than X or Y (it's up to the user to judge that), but all the relevant data says that it is clearly the number 2 office suite in the world so far, and all of that is based on numerous reports, data provided by government on their transition, various corporations and their transitions, estimates of Linux distro's shipping with OO, Solaris+Sun, and other relevant data, as opposed to a single source that analized a single segment of the market (US Retail Sales) and decided that iWork is number 2.
In case you are too blind to see, Outlook is ONE program; Mail and iCal are two. In Outlook, I can send an email with calendar functions; can't do that w/ Mail.
Look up UNIX philosophy and it will all make sense.
Look up UNIX philosophy and it will all make sense.
No, it won't. Evolution is a very popular Linux/UNIX program and it doesn't follow the UNIX philosophy of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). It has calendar, e-mail and other functions built in.
Sometimes benefits outweight philosophical debates when it comes to software.
No, it won't. Evolution is a very popular Linux/UNIX program and it doesn't follow the UNIX philosophy of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). It has calendar, e-mail and other functions built in.
Sometimes benefits outweight philosophical debates when it comes to software.
That's horseshit. In *every* possible case *ever* recorded, it has been proven that a modular approach is the best approach: Redundancy is reduced, resources are spared when not used and you don't need to be tied to one solution...you can mix and match what works best for you.
There's nothing more stupid than having a bunch of programs that do the same things (overlaps in functionality)...it's a waste of HD space, a waste of memory and CPU if they're running simultaneously, etc.
[B]Then we could reverse the story and say that, just because X millions of copies of iWork are sold, or otherwise bundled, that doesn't mean they're being used. And since this analysis focuses solely on 'sold' copies, not used copies, then we can easily proclaim it irrelevant and fairly limited on its scope.
Actually, you can't.
Quote:
But, if we accept the 'sold' status of iWork and consider that as being 'used' as well, then let's accept 'downloaded' as being 'used' as well. In fact, it doesn't matter wether you downloaded a copy of OpenOffice or you bought a copy of iWork and never used it. It's still counting iWork as being 'used', with no actual data whatsoever, therefore, a downloaded copy of OpenOffice should be counted as used in the same way as iWork is.
Let's not say that. You have no evidence to back that statement up. While I can't produce a great deal of data here, I think, that at the least, we can all go by our own experiences. Very few people who pay $79 for a program are doing that just to take a look. While it's true that some will not like it, and therefore not use it, that percentage is far less than that of those who download a free program and try it out.
Quote:
And you believe this to be universall and happening at a rate of 100%, right? Even if a lot of people convert their boxes from Linux to Windows, that still doesn't explain the fact that a lot of governments in the world are using OpenOffice, the French, Israeli and Singaporian governments included. Do you have any idea how big the French government is? Or the Israeli? Or the government of Singapore? Or, and this is purely comical, the government of India? The government of India (which is using OpenOffice btw) is easily bigger than the entire amount of Macs sold during 2005, with or without iWork.
I didn't say that it was 100%. But is was stated that it was likely to be the large majority of people.
The governments that you mention have gone, in a small way, to Open Source. They haven't come even close to doing an overall switch. Most of them have moved a few departments over. Some have stated that they were going to test a few thousand seats. Several governments, such as the German, have delayed their deployment because of licensing issues, and other problems.
If you can show us that the entire Indian government has switched to Linux, we would be very interested.
Quote:
Puts some things into perspective.
I posted a link that said that, although there are double downloads, in average, for every 6 copies a user downloads, he installs it in 9 machines. Let me post it again:
I'm curious as to who it was that participated in that study. If it was in any way accurate over the entire population, it would infer that 75% of all copies of an office program were OO. It doesn't seem likely.
Quote:
48 million copies was the number in late 2004. With the introduction of 2.0, that number has probably doubled, though I don't have any relevant link to back it up. But it's not just the downloads that matter here: they are not counting the mirrors, CDs they sell, and neither are they counting Linux distro's that include OO.org almost 100% of the times.
Again, an unsupported statement.
Mind you, when I say unsupported, I don't even mean that it is only undocumented, but that it is also against what is known. Companies, governments, and individuals are simply not reporting more than a miniscule takeup of OO. If you can show that to be different, that would be fine.
Personally, I would have no problem with that, if it were true. But there is simply no evidence that it is.
{QUOTE]
Who says you can get a breakdown for commercial versions of software? What sane company would call a product of theirs 'poorly function-able, feature lacking' ? [/QUOTE]
Companies have documentation as to how many copies they sold, how many upgrades they sold, and so on.
I certainly would not expect them to tell us they they were buggy, or performed well. That wasn't the point. The users do a good job of that.
The difference between OO and Office is that people will use Office because it is a standard, belongs to an ecosystem within which many companies, and governments operate, while the same is not true of OO.
Quote:
No, we have facts here, and well-founded facts too. Governments around the world don't play around with software, installing and uninstalling it - they use it, and to them it doesn't matter how many times it has been downloaded.
Again, you have no idea how many governments are using this for more than a fraction of their people.
Quote:
Same goes with Linux users, who have no iWork and no Microsoft Office, therefore their only alternative options are OpenOffice and KOffice. Or do you think Linux users don't have a need for an office suite and never use it in their lives?
You're wrong there too. Linux users have been buying CrossOverOffice for a while now. The specific reason is so that they don't have to use OO or KO. Even Linux users understand that they need Office.
Quote:
How about Solaris users? How about those Windows users that don't have the money for Office but don't know how to pirate it either?
How about Solaris users? Where are they, by the way? They are using Windows machines to do their Office work on, that's where. Not too many use StarOffice or OO, much to the chargrin of Sun.
Quote:
You are relying on a limited analysis of US Retail Sales, with no actual data of usage as opposed to sold copies, yet you deem it a supposition that a government might be using OpenOffice.org, even if there is ample evidence that that government is using OpenOffice and no less than 7 million copies either.
No, you are the one making the assumptions. I'n not relying on this retail analysis at all. There are plenty of others that have been done over time.
I'm just pointing out the fallacy of relying on download numbers which mean nothing. None of what you reported here involves usage, just attempted distribution. and vague quotes of governments without any numbers. We all know the common sense figures that we, and our companies (or government offices) use. Governments, companies, and individuals buy software to use. If a company or government wants to try out a new product, or test moving to a new systen, they will get a few copies. If it passes some basic tests, they will get more, and try a limited deployment. for a government, that could entail thousands of copies. It doesn't mean that they switch over. They might. But they might not. They might employ it in certain departments, but not most.
Quote:
If they didn't buy Office licences, and they distributed OpenOffice in CDs, and they continue to produce documents and paperwork (as is required when running a government) what is your first instinct: they're using OpenOffice or they downloaded OpenOffice but found it poor, lacking but they continue to produce documents somehow?
Of course, the program, in the last couple of versions, does work. I didn't say that it didn't. I said that it did.
That doesn't mean that is is suitable. Limited deployment testing determines that.
Quote:
And finally, I didn't mean to say that OpenOffice is great or better than X or Y (it's up to the user to judge that), but all the relevant data says that it is clearly the number 2 office suite in the world so far, and all of that is based on numerous reports, data provided by government on their transition, various corporations and their transitions, estimates of Linux distro's shipping with OO, Solaris+Sun, and other relevant data, as opposed to a single source that analized a single segment of the market (US Retail Sales) and decided that iWork is number 2.
Well, when we see some numbers from those using it, it will be easier to believe. So far, those numbers are coming from those writing it. Not the same thing at all.
By the way, did you ever get one of those AOL floppies or CD's in the mail? Does the fact that they literally distributed hundreds of millions of them over a period of years mean that hundreds of millions use AOL?
I wonder how many of the 7 million disks that the Indian government is distributing will be used?
That's horseshit. In *every* possible case *ever* recorded, it has been proven that a modular approach is the best approach: Redundancy is reduced, resources are spared when not used and you don't need to be tied to one solution...you can mix and match what works best for you.
There's nothing more stupid than having a bunch of programs that do the same things (overlaps in functionality)...it's a waste of HD space, a waste of memory and CPU if they're running simultaneously, etc.
I have ONE site I use for RSS (ars). Should I have a seperate RSS for that?
Since moving from Outlook Express to mail I have stopped using newsgroups. I miss the them but I don´t want to start up my dedicated newsreader for that.
Whattayouknow. Two acutal cases has just been put on record where the monolith approach is better. You were wrong.
I have ONE site I use for RSS (ars). Should I have a seperate RSS for that?
Since moving from Outlook Express to mail I have stopped using newsgroups. I miss the them but I don´t want to start up my dedicated newsreader for that.
Whattayouknow. Two acutal cases has just been put on record where the monolith approach is better. You were wrong.
Unless of course you were joking.
Technically, you should be using a seperate RSS app. Safari is not the best RSS app out there...it's a jack of all trade and it shows. Apple would have done better making a standalone RSS app that has more features and allow people to choose whether they want to use it or a 3rd party one.
I have one site I use for the web...AppleInsider. Should HTML rendering be integrated into the Finder? By your logic, it would be a waste to use Safari for only one site, right?
Your two cases are cases where the monoloth approach is bad. Sorry if I have to bring you back to reality like that. People that have Outlook Express *and* their favorite seperate newsreader have to cope with the fact that Outlook Express has redundant features that not only waste HD space but also memory and CPU in some instances. Same with Safari...why Apple didn't build a seperate RSS client is beyond me.
Why iTunes is becoming a frankenstein media player like Windows Media Player is another mystery.
Safari may fit your needs but it's selfish to say it's the best approach. The modular approach generally pleases everyone. The monolothic approach only pleases some.
The "well if you don't like feature x, don't use it" excuse isn't a good one. If it was, you might as well integrate everything under the sun into one single giant app.
Yes I do. And I posted several links while you are relying on your own words as arguments.
Quote:
While I can't produce a great deal of data here, I think, that at the least, we can all go by our own experiences.
Your experiences don't really matter here, because not everybody's experience is the same.
Quote:
Very few people who pay $79 for a program are doing that just to take a look. While it's true that some will not like it, and therefore not use it, that percentage is far less than that of those who download a free program and try it out.
And you know this... how? BTW, you need to understand that the percentage of people who *bought* iWork is MUCH lower than the percentage of people who downloaded OpenOffice, therefore the percentage of people who kept using iWork is much lower than the percentage of people who kept using OpenOffice.
How many people bought iWork? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? And now, how many people kept using it regularly? 75%? That makes 75,000 people if we go by the highest number here (these are not real numbers, just something to illustrate the point).
So, now, let's consider the other side of the coin: how many people downloaded OpenOffice? 50 million? 75 million? And how many times has it been bundled with distro's? Ubuntu alone shipped at least 3 million copies of their 5.04 Ubuntu Linux, all had OO bundled. Add SuSE to that, add Fedora Core, add Debian... you get the picture. So, how many people? Let's say... for the sake of argument, 80 million people. Considering that we went with 75% of people still using iWork because they paid for it, let's now say that 40% of people kept using OO (a very *low* estimate, btw). Out of, say, 75 million copies of OO downloaded/shipped/bought, 40% are still being used. That makes how many copies of OO being used?
30 million.
Quote:
I didn't say that it was 100%. But is was stated that it was likely to be the large majority of people.
It was stated where?
Quote:
The governments that you mention have gone, in a small way, to Open Source. They haven't come even close to doing an overall switch.
And they're using... what? iWork? heh.
Quote:
Most of them have moved a few departments over. Some have stated that they were going to test a few thousand seats. Several governments, such as the German, have delayed their deployment because of licensing issues, and other problems.
Read the links again please. It wasn't the German government, but the local government of the german city Munich, which didn't talk about 'Open Source', but about switching to SuSE from Windows, which is completely different than OO or whatever.
Read the links at least.
Quote:
If you can show us that the entire Indian government has switched to Linux, we would be very interested.
7 million copies of OO distributed by the said government go a long way to tell you that.
Quote:
I'm curious as to who it was that participated in that study. If it was in any way accurate over the entire population, it would infer that 75% of all copies of an office program were OO. It doesn't seem likely.
'Over a population' ? It's talking about *people who downloaded OO*. You made the claim that they download it and delete it, and I showed you a study that said that not only did they not delete it, but they actually went ahead and installed it on more computers than the number of downloads they made.
Quote:
Again, an unsupported statement.
As opposed to your supported statements? With what, chocolate vanilla?
Quote:
Mind you, when I say unsupported, I don't even mean that it is only undocumented, but that it is also against what is known. Companies, governments, and individuals are simply not reporting more than a miniscule takeup of OO. If you can show that to be different, that would be fine.
Read the links I posted for chrissakes. They clearly show that they are shifting towards *complete* OO-based desktops.
Quote:
Personally, I would have no problem with that, if it were true. But there is simply no evidence that it is.
The evidence is prevalent on this thread. You just choose to ignore it.
Quote:
Companies have documentation as to how many copies they sold, how many upgrades they sold, and so on.
And this translates to actual market share, how?
Quote:
The difference between OO and Office is that people will use Office because it is a standard, belongs to an ecosystem within which many companies, and governments operate, while the same is not true of OO.
Actually, the only standard here is OASIS, or .ODF which OO.org pioneered. The so-called Microsoft Office standard is based on market share, but market share alone does not make something a standard, at least not in the legal sense.
If it was standard, why would Microsoft push for the creation of committees for the standardization of .doc .xls, etc?
Quote:
Again, you have no idea how many governments are using this for more than a fraction of their people.
There are public sources, government(s) included that tell me how many people are using them.
If there's someone here that has no idea how many government are using this, it would be you.
Quote:
You're wrong there too. Linux users have been buying CrossOverOffice for a while now. The specific reason is so that they don't have to use OO or KO. Even Linux users understand that they need Office.
Right. Just because it's called CrossOverOffice, it doesn't make it an Office supplement. Far from it. CrossOverOffice is a simple GUI front-end to WINE, and people are buying it so they can run apps that have no counterpart in Linux - apps like Photoshop, Illustrator, IE6/7 (to test their pages), etc.
I run Linux myself. I know why I use it, and I know why other people use it.
Quote:
How about Solaris users? Where are they, by the way? They are using Windows machines to do their Office work on, that's where. Not too many use StarOffice or OO, much to the chargrin of Sun.
Where are they? Oh, they're around. But let me ask you: if they're nowhere, as you claim when you ask 'where are they, by the way?' - how do you know they use Office? And is there a version of Office for Solaris?
Quote:
No, you are the one making the assumptions. I'n not relying on this retail analysis at all. There are plenty of others that have been done over time.
Links?
Quote:
I'm just pointing out the fallacy of relying on download numbers which mean nothing. None of what you reported here involves usage, just attempted distribution. and vague quotes of governments without any numbers.
If you don't read the sources, of course they're vague and without any numbers, although you yourself have mentioned some numbers a couple of times.
Quote:
We all know the common sense figures that we, and our companies (or government offices) use. Governments, companies, and individuals buy software to use. If a company or government wants to try out a new product, or test moving to a new systen, they will get a few copies. If it passes some basic tests, they will get more, and try a limited deployment. for a government, that could entail thousands of copies. It doesn't mean that they switch over. They might. But they might not. They might employ it in certain departments, but not most.
And you know this how? Care to back it up? Because as far as I know, some governments have passed laws that say that they will reduce purchases from Microsoft by 25% by the end of this year, and guess what that means? They won't be buying brand new Macs with iWork I'll guarantee you that.
Quote:
Of course, the program, in the last couple of versions, does work. I didn't say that it didn't. I said that it did.
That doesn't mean that is is suitable. Limited deployment testing determines that.
Well, when we see some numbers from those using it, it will be easier to believe. So far, those numbers are coming from those writing it. Not the same thing at all.
Likewise, when we see numbers of iWork usage coming from those using it, then it will be easier to believe. So far, we have number of copies bought, in US ONLY, within a certain period of time. That doesn't prove anything.
Quote:
I wonder how many of the 7 million disks that the Indian government is distributing will be used?
Don't you?
Let me answer that with another link:
Quote:
Linux isn't the only non-licensed software government agencies are turning to. Brazil's postal system chose Sun's OpenOffice.org for 14,000 desktop computers purchased in January and plans to replace Microsoft's Office suite of programs on about 32,000 computers around the country, said Eduardo Medeiros,director of information technology at the company.
The postal service expects to save 8.1 million reais this year and 21.4 million reais in coming years in licensing fees for Word, Excel and other Microsoft programs, he said. [
If only you would provide any links opposing the statistics given by official government agencies in Brazil, then what you say would have more credibility.
That's horseshit. In *every* possible case *ever* recorded, it has been proven that a modular approach is the best approach: Redundancy is reduced, resources are spared when not used and you don't need to be tied to one solution...you can mix and match what works best for you.
Any links to those cases?
Quote:
There's nothing more stupid than having a bunch of programs that do the same things (overlaps in functionality)...it's a waste of HD space, a waste of memory and CPU if they're running simultaneously, etc.
There's one program in Linux/GNOME that does that: it's called Evolution.
I don't see how you can run the same program simultaneously, and why you would run 2 different programs if you had them, if they did the same thing.
People are not stupid. And Mac OS X is not the only system that has usability standards.
Lets see their cited references end at 9, market share reference being 10, and it's wikipedia, the place where anybody can write something. Wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate due to the lack of accountability for publication.
You're right, they're not...that's why the ones that have a clue really try to stay away from multi-purpose apps like Entourage or Outlook Express and other such garbage.
But as an example, someone that uses Entourage may also need Address Book for the other apps that actually integrate well with Address Book. If that person isn't frustrated by the fact that Entourage has its own proprietary contact database, then that person is a better person than I.
So much under his nose that he's not noticed you can do it already. in iCal, create a new event, click attendees and it pulls them from your address book, click 'Send invitation' at the bottom of the drawer. Mails go out and users with iCal get the even added to their calendars if accepted.
If the schedule creator makes a change to any of the events, do those changes get automatically reflected in other people's iCal schedules?
I am genuinely curious. I have "posted" an iCal calendar myself, but have yet to check to see if user's iCals automatically fetch updates.
You're right, they're not...that's why the ones that have a clue really try to stay away from multi-purpose apps like Entourage or Outlook Express and other such garbage.
I guess you just proved that 95% of all the people using mail clients are stupid. Congrats.
Yes I do. And I posted several links while you are relying on your own words as arguments.
Your experiences don't really matter here, because not everybody's experience is the same.
And you know this... how? BTW, you need to understand that the percentage of people who *bought* iWork is MUCH lower than the percentage of people who downloaded OpenOffice, therefore the percentage of people who kept using iWork is much lower than the percentage of people who kept using OpenOffice.
How many people bought iWork? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? And now, how many people kept using it regularly? 75%? That makes 75,000 people if we go by the highest number here (these are not real numbers, just something to illustrate the point).
So, now, let's consider the other side of the coin: how many people downloaded OpenOffice? 50 million? 75 million? And how many times has it been bundled with distro's? Ubuntu alone shipped at least 3 million copies of their 5.04 Ubuntu Linux, all had OO bundled. Add SuSE to that, add Fedora Core, add Debian... you get the picture. So, how many people? Let's say... for the sake of argument, 80 million people. Considering that we went with 75% of people still using iWork because they paid for it, let's now say that 40% of people kept using OO (a very *low* estimate, btw). Out of, say, 75 million copies of OO downloaded/shipped/bought, 40% are still being used. That makes how many copies of OO being used?
30 million.
It was stated where?
And they're using... what? iWork? heh.
Read the links again please. It wasn't the German government, but the local government of the german city Munich, which didn't talk about 'Open Source', but about switching to SuSE from Windows, which is completely different than OO or whatever.
Read the links at least.
7 million copies of OO distributed by the said government go a long way to tell you that.
'Over a population' ? It's talking about *people who downloaded OO*. You made the claim that they download it and delete it, and I showed you a study that said that not only did they not delete it, but they actually went ahead and installed it on more computers than the number of downloads they made.
As opposed to your supported statements? With what, chocolate vanilla?
Read the links I posted for chrissakes. They clearly show that they are shifting towards *complete* OO-based desktops.
The evidence is prevalent on this thread. You just choose to ignore it.
And this translates to actual market share, how?
Actually, the only standard here is OASIS, or .ODF which OO.org pioneered. The so-called Microsoft Office standard is based on market share, but market share alone does not make something a standard, at least not in the legal sense.
If it was standard, why would Microsoft push for the creation of committees for the standardization of .doc .xls, etc?
There are public sources, government(s) included that tell me how many people are using them.
If there's someone here that has no idea how many government are using this, it would be you.
Right. Just because it's called CrossOverOffice, it doesn't make it an Office supplement. Far from it. CrossOverOffice is a simple GUI front-end to WINE, and people are buying it so they can run apps that have no counterpart in Linux - apps like Photoshop, Illustrator, IE6/7 (to test their pages), etc.
I run Linux myself. I know why I use it, and I know why other people use it.
Where are they? Oh, they're around. But let me ask you: if they're nowhere, as you claim when you ask 'where are they, by the way?' - how do you know they use Office? And is there a version of Office for Solaris?
Links?
If you don't read the sources, of course they're vague and without any numbers, although you yourself have mentioned some numbers a couple of times.
And you know this how? Care to back it up? Because as far as I know, some governments have passed laws that say that they will reduce purchases from Microsoft by 25% by the end of this year, and guess what that means? They won't be buying brand new Macs with iWork I'll guarantee you that.
Likewise, when we see numbers of iWork usage coming from those using it, then it will be easier to believe. So far, we have number of copies bought, in US ONLY, within a certain period of time. That doesn't prove anything.
If only you would provide any links opposing the statistics given by official government agencies in Brazil, then what you say would have more credibility.
Most of what you're dsaying here is nonsense.
Even your own links don't prove anything.
IDC and the rest of them are still just measuring downloards. No matter what you want to say, that proves nothing.
It's lovely that the Brazilian government wants to move a few percent of seats.
By the way, I'm not saying that iWork exceeds the number of seats of OO out there. I never did. You're assuming I did.
I'm juxt saying that the usage of OO and equiv. are not as great as you seem to think it is.
I'm not impressed by self serving numbers. And I know it was Munich. They haven't gotten far with it yet.
And I've also read your links. Most of that info has been around for awhile. It's nothing new. A great deal of it has been questioned.
When I said where are the Solaris users, I didn't mean that in the literal sense, but in the sense that there aren't very many of them, and the number is shrinking.
Crossover Office is for exactly the putpose it's name implies. To use office on Linux. A popular alternative.
Comments
Hopefully this new version is faster than the previous ones, and I will finally get my much needed Mac spreadsheet.
Originally posted by melgross
[B]Because no one tracks what happens to any of these downloads. This is the biggest problem that has been noted with Open Source as regards to numbers in use. All sorts of claims are being made, but they prove nothing. Even if the Indian government is distributing 7 million copies, it doesn't mean that they will be used. There is no way to tell.
Then we could reverse the story and say that, just because X millions of copies of iWork are sold, or otherwise bundled, that doesn't mean they're being used. And since this analysis focuses solely on 'sold' copies, not used copies, then we can easily proclaim it irrelevant and fairly limited on its scope.
But, if we accept the 'sold' status of iWork and consider that as being 'used' as well, then let's accept 'downloaded' as being 'used' as well. In fact, it doesn't matter wether you downloaded a copy of OpenOffice or you bought a copy of iWork and never used it. It's still counting iWork as being 'used', with no actual data whatsoever, therefore, a downloaded copy of OpenOffice should be counted as used in the same way as iWork is.
It's the same situation we had a year or so ago, when IDC reported high percentages of Linux adoption in third world countries. What happens, as they acknowledged later, is that these computers are sold with Linux installed. The new buyer sees a person outside the store selling disks with both Windows and Office on them. For a couple of bucks, they buy the disk, and convert the machine to windows.
And you believe this to be universall and happening at a rate of 100%, right? Even if a lot of people convert their boxes from Linux to Windows, that still doesn't explain the fact that a lot of governments in the world are using OpenOffice, the French, Israeli and Singaporian governments included. Do you have any idea how big the French government is? Or the Israeli? Or the government of Singapore? Or, and this is purely comical, the government of India? The government of India (which is using OpenOffice btw) is easily bigger than the entire amount of Macs sold during 2005, with or without iWork.
Puts some things into perspective.
I've downloaded OO myself, at least four times. Does this mean, according to Tenhumberg, that I have four copies that are being used, rather than the one of the last version, which is NOT being used?
I posted a link that said that, although there are double downloads, in average, for every 6 copies a user downloads, he installs it in 9 machines. Let me post it again:
Although this number may include duplicate downloads, the average user of OpenOffice downloads it six times but installs it on nine machines, according to a survey of 5000 people downloading the application that was cited by Tenhumberg.
48 million copies downloaded over the last five years, might mean that there are four or five million of the latest version that are actually being used, as well as a couple million of older versions that are being used. The versions that were available more than about two years ago were not usable on a daily basis.
48 million copies was the number in late 2004. With the introduction of 2.0, that number has probably doubled, though I don't have any relevant link to back it up. But it's not just the downloads that matter here: they are not counting the mirrors, CDs they sell, and neither are they counting Linux distro's that include OO.org almost 100% of the times.
How many of the downloads were of those early feature lacking, poorly function-able, versions? Is there any breakdown, the way we can get for commercial versions of software? No, there is not.
Who says you can get a breakdown for commercial versions of software? What sane company would call a product of theirs 'poorly function-able, feature lacking' ?
What we have, is supposition, and well meaning, but also self-serving number surveys, that tell us little
No, we have facts here, and well-founded facts too. Governments around the world don't play around with software, installing and uninstalling it - they use it, and to them it doesn't matter how many times it has been downloaded.
Same goes with Linux users, who have no iWork and no Microsoft Office, therefore their only alternative options are OpenOffice and KOffice. Or do you think Linux users don't have a need for an office suite and never use it in their lives?
How about Solaris users? How about those Windows users that don't have the money for Office but don't know how to pirate it either?
You are relying on a limited analysis of US Retail Sales, with no actual data of usage as opposed to sold copies, yet you deem it a supposition that a government might be using OpenOffice.org, even if there is ample evidence that that government is using OpenOffice and no less than 7 million copies either.
If they didn't buy Office licences, and they distributed OpenOffice in CDs, and they continue to produce documents and paperwork (as is required when running a government) what is your first instinct: they're using OpenOffice or they downloaded OpenOffice but found it poor, lacking but they continue to produce documents somehow?
And finally, I didn't mean to say that OpenOffice is great or better than X or Y (it's up to the user to judge that), but all the relevant data says that it is clearly the number 2 office suite in the world so far, and all of that is based on numerous reports, data provided by government on their transition, various corporations and their transitions, estimates of Linux distro's shipping with OO, Solaris+Sun, and other relevant data, as opposed to a single source that analized a single segment of the market (US Retail Sales) and decided that iWork is number 2.
Originally posted by kmok1
In case you are too blind to see, Outlook is ONE program; Mail and iCal are two. In Outlook, I can send an email with calendar functions; can't do that w/ Mail.
Look up UNIX philosophy and it will all make sense.
Originally posted by a_greer
Look up UNIX philosophy and it will all make sense.
No, it won't. Evolution is a very popular Linux/UNIX program and it doesn't follow the UNIX philosophy of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). It has calendar, e-mail and other functions built in.
Sometimes benefits outweight philosophical debates when it comes to software.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
No, it won't. Evolution is a very popular Linux/UNIX program and it doesn't follow the UNIX philosophy of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). It has calendar, e-mail and other functions built in.
Sometimes benefits outweight philosophical debates when it comes to software.
That's horseshit. In *every* possible case *ever* recorded, it has been proven that a modular approach is the best approach: Redundancy is reduced, resources are spared when not used and you don't need to be tied to one solution...you can mix and match what works best for you.
There's nothing more stupid than having a bunch of programs that do the same things (overlaps in functionality)...it's a waste of HD space, a waste of memory and CPU if they're running simultaneously, etc.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
[B]Then we could reverse the story and say that, just because X millions of copies of iWork are sold, or otherwise bundled, that doesn't mean they're being used. And since this analysis focuses solely on 'sold' copies, not used copies, then we can easily proclaim it irrelevant and fairly limited on its scope.
Actually, you can't.
But, if we accept the 'sold' status of iWork and consider that as being 'used' as well, then let's accept 'downloaded' as being 'used' as well. In fact, it doesn't matter wether you downloaded a copy of OpenOffice or you bought a copy of iWork and never used it. It's still counting iWork as being 'used', with no actual data whatsoever, therefore, a downloaded copy of OpenOffice should be counted as used in the same way as iWork is.
Let's not say that. You have no evidence to back that statement up. While I can't produce a great deal of data here, I think, that at the least, we can all go by our own experiences. Very few people who pay $79 for a program are doing that just to take a look. While it's true that some will not like it, and therefore not use it, that percentage is far less than that of those who download a free program and try it out.
And you believe this to be universall and happening at a rate of 100%, right? Even if a lot of people convert their boxes from Linux to Windows, that still doesn't explain the fact that a lot of governments in the world are using OpenOffice, the French, Israeli and Singaporian governments included. Do you have any idea how big the French government is? Or the Israeli? Or the government of Singapore? Or, and this is purely comical, the government of India? The government of India (which is using OpenOffice btw) is easily bigger than the entire amount of Macs sold during 2005, with or without iWork.
I didn't say that it was 100%. But is was stated that it was likely to be the large majority of people.
The governments that you mention have gone, in a small way, to Open Source. They haven't come even close to doing an overall switch. Most of them have moved a few departments over. Some have stated that they were going to test a few thousand seats. Several governments, such as the German, have delayed their deployment because of licensing issues, and other problems.
If you can show us that the entire Indian government has switched to Linux, we would be very interested.
Puts some things into perspective.
I posted a link that said that, although there are double downloads, in average, for every 6 copies a user downloads, he installs it in 9 machines. Let me post it again:
I'm curious as to who it was that participated in that study. If it was in any way accurate over the entire population, it would infer that 75% of all copies of an office program were OO. It doesn't seem likely.
48 million copies was the number in late 2004. With the introduction of 2.0, that number has probably doubled, though I don't have any relevant link to back it up. But it's not just the downloads that matter here: they are not counting the mirrors, CDs they sell, and neither are they counting Linux distro's that include OO.org almost 100% of the times.
Again, an unsupported statement.
Mind you, when I say unsupported, I don't even mean that it is only undocumented, but that it is also against what is known. Companies, governments, and individuals are simply not reporting more than a miniscule takeup of OO. If you can show that to be different, that would be fine.
Personally, I would have no problem with that, if it were true. But there is simply no evidence that it is.
{QUOTE]
Who says you can get a breakdown for commercial versions of software? What sane company would call a product of theirs 'poorly function-able, feature lacking' ? [/QUOTE]
Companies have documentation as to how many copies they sold, how many upgrades they sold, and so on.
I certainly would not expect them to tell us they they were buggy, or performed well. That wasn't the point. The users do a good job of that.
The difference between OO and Office is that people will use Office because it is a standard, belongs to an ecosystem within which many companies, and governments operate, while the same is not true of OO.
No, we have facts here, and well-founded facts too. Governments around the world don't play around with software, installing and uninstalling it - they use it, and to them it doesn't matter how many times it has been downloaded.
Again, you have no idea how many governments are using this for more than a fraction of their people.
Same goes with Linux users, who have no iWork and no Microsoft Office, therefore their only alternative options are OpenOffice and KOffice. Or do you think Linux users don't have a need for an office suite and never use it in their lives?
You're wrong there too. Linux users have been buying CrossOverOffice for a while now. The specific reason is so that they don't have to use OO or KO. Even Linux users understand that they need Office.
How about Solaris users? How about those Windows users that don't have the money for Office but don't know how to pirate it either?
How about Solaris users? Where are they, by the way? They are using Windows machines to do their Office work on, that's where. Not too many use StarOffice or OO, much to the chargrin of Sun.
You are relying on a limited analysis of US Retail Sales, with no actual data of usage as opposed to sold copies, yet you deem it a supposition that a government might be using OpenOffice.org, even if there is ample evidence that that government is using OpenOffice and no less than 7 million copies either.
No, you are the one making the assumptions. I'n not relying on this retail analysis at all. There are plenty of others that have been done over time.
I'm just pointing out the fallacy of relying on download numbers which mean nothing. None of what you reported here involves usage, just attempted distribution. and vague quotes of governments without any numbers. We all know the common sense figures that we, and our companies (or government offices) use. Governments, companies, and individuals buy software to use. If a company or government wants to try out a new product, or test moving to a new systen, they will get a few copies. If it passes some basic tests, they will get more, and try a limited deployment. for a government, that could entail thousands of copies. It doesn't mean that they switch over. They might. But they might not. They might employ it in certain departments, but not most.
If they didn't buy Office licences, and they distributed OpenOffice in CDs, and they continue to produce documents and paperwork (as is required when running a government) what is your first instinct: they're using OpenOffice or they downloaded OpenOffice but found it poor, lacking but they continue to produce documents somehow?
Of course, the program, in the last couple of versions, does work. I didn't say that it didn't. I said that it did.
That doesn't mean that is is suitable. Limited deployment testing determines that.
And finally, I didn't mean to say that OpenOffice is great or better than X or Y (it's up to the user to judge that), but all the relevant data says that it is clearly the number 2 office suite in the world so far, and all of that is based on numerous reports, data provided by government on their transition, various corporations and their transitions, estimates of Linux distro's shipping with OO, Solaris+Sun, and other relevant data, as opposed to a single source that analized a single segment of the market (US Retail Sales) and decided that iWork is number 2.
Well, when we see some numbers from those using it, it will be easier to believe. So far, those numbers are coming from those writing it. Not the same thing at all.
By the way, did you ever get one of those AOL floppies or CD's in the mail? Does the fact that they literally distributed hundreds of millions of them over a period of years mean that hundreds of millions use AOL?
I wonder how many of the 7 million disks that the Indian government is distributing will be used?
Don't you?
Originally posted by kim kap sol
That's horseshit. In *every* possible case *ever* recorded, it has been proven that a modular approach is the best approach: Redundancy is reduced, resources are spared when not used and you don't need to be tied to one solution...you can mix and match what works best for you.
There's nothing more stupid than having a bunch of programs that do the same things (overlaps in functionality)...it's a waste of HD space, a waste of memory and CPU if they're running simultaneously, etc.
I have ONE site I use for RSS (ars). Should I have a seperate RSS for that?
Since moving from Outlook Express to mail I have stopped using newsgroups. I miss the them but I don´t want to start up my dedicated newsreader for that.
Whattayouknow. Two acutal cases has just been put on record where the monolith approach is better. You were wrong.
Unless of course you were joking.
Originally posted by Anders
I have ONE site I use for RSS (ars). Should I have a seperate RSS for that?
Since moving from Outlook Express to mail I have stopped using newsgroups. I miss the them but I don´t want to start up my dedicated newsreader for that.
Whattayouknow. Two acutal cases has just been put on record where the monolith approach is better. You were wrong.
Unless of course you were joking.
Technically, you should be using a seperate RSS app. Safari is not the best RSS app out there...it's a jack of all trade and it shows. Apple would have done better making a standalone RSS app that has more features and allow people to choose whether they want to use it or a 3rd party one.
I have one site I use for the web...AppleInsider. Should HTML rendering be integrated into the Finder? By your logic, it would be a waste to use Safari for only one site, right?
Your two cases are cases where the monoloth approach is bad. Sorry if I have to bring you back to reality like that. People that have Outlook Express *and* their favorite seperate newsreader have to cope with the fact that Outlook Express has redundant features that not only waste HD space but also memory and CPU in some instances. Same with Safari...why Apple didn't build a seperate RSS client is beyond me.
Why iTunes is becoming a frankenstein media player like Windows Media Player is another mystery.
Safari may fit your needs but it's selfish to say it's the best approach. The modular approach generally pleases everyone. The monolothic approach only pleases some.
The "well if you don't like feature x, don't use it" excuse isn't a good one. If it was, you might as well integrate everything under the sun into one single giant app.
Originally posted by melgross
Actually, you can't.
Why not? Because you say so?
Let's not say that.
Why not?
You have no evidence to back that statement up.
Yes I do. And I posted several links while you are relying on your own words as arguments.
While I can't produce a great deal of data here, I think, that at the least, we can all go by our own experiences.
Your experiences don't really matter here, because not everybody's experience is the same.
Very few people who pay $79 for a program are doing that just to take a look. While it's true that some will not like it, and therefore not use it, that percentage is far less than that of those who download a free program and try it out.
And you know this... how? BTW, you need to understand that the percentage of people who *bought* iWork is MUCH lower than the percentage of people who downloaded OpenOffice, therefore the percentage of people who kept using iWork is much lower than the percentage of people who kept using OpenOffice.
How many people bought iWork? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? And now, how many people kept using it regularly? 75%? That makes 75,000 people if we go by the highest number here (these are not real numbers, just something to illustrate the point).
So, now, let's consider the other side of the coin: how many people downloaded OpenOffice? 50 million? 75 million? And how many times has it been bundled with distro's? Ubuntu alone shipped at least 3 million copies of their 5.04 Ubuntu Linux, all had OO bundled. Add SuSE to that, add Fedora Core, add Debian... you get the picture. So, how many people? Let's say... for the sake of argument, 80 million people. Considering that we went with 75% of people still using iWork because they paid for it, let's now say that 40% of people kept using OO (a very *low* estimate, btw). Out of, say, 75 million copies of OO downloaded/shipped/bought, 40% are still being used. That makes how many copies of OO being used?
30 million.
I didn't say that it was 100%. But is was stated that it was likely to be the large majority of people.
It was stated where?
The governments that you mention have gone, in a small way, to Open Source. They haven't come even close to doing an overall switch.
And they're using... what? iWork? heh.
Most of them have moved a few departments over. Some have stated that they were going to test a few thousand seats. Several governments, such as the German, have delayed their deployment because of licensing issues, and other problems.
Read the links again please. It wasn't the German government, but the local government of the german city Munich, which didn't talk about 'Open Source', but about switching to SuSE from Windows, which is completely different than OO or whatever.
Read the links at least.
If you can show us that the entire Indian government has switched to Linux, we would be very interested.
7 million copies of OO distributed by the said government go a long way to tell you that.
I'm curious as to who it was that participated in that study. If it was in any way accurate over the entire population, it would infer that 75% of all copies of an office program were OO. It doesn't seem likely.
'Over a population' ? It's talking about *people who downloaded OO*. You made the claim that they download it and delete it, and I showed you a study that said that not only did they not delete it, but they actually went ahead and installed it on more computers than the number of downloads they made.
Again, an unsupported statement.
As opposed to your supported statements? With what, chocolate vanilla?
Mind you, when I say unsupported, I don't even mean that it is only undocumented, but that it is also against what is known. Companies, governments, and individuals are simply not reporting more than a miniscule takeup of OO. If you can show that to be different, that would be fine.
Read the links I posted for chrissakes. They clearly show that they are shifting towards *complete* OO-based desktops.
Personally, I would have no problem with that, if it were true. But there is simply no evidence that it is.
The evidence is prevalent on this thread. You just choose to ignore it.
Companies have documentation as to how many copies they sold, how many upgrades they sold, and so on.
And this translates to actual market share, how?
The difference between OO and Office is that people will use Office because it is a standard, belongs to an ecosystem within which many companies, and governments operate, while the same is not true of OO.
Actually, the only standard here is OASIS, or .ODF which OO.org pioneered. The so-called Microsoft Office standard is based on market share, but market share alone does not make something a standard, at least not in the legal sense.
If it was standard, why would Microsoft push for the creation of committees for the standardization of .doc .xls, etc?
Again, you have no idea how many governments are using this for more than a fraction of their people.
There are public sources, government(s) included that tell me how many people are using them.
If there's someone here that has no idea how many government are using this, it would be you.
You're wrong there too. Linux users have been buying CrossOverOffice for a while now. The specific reason is so that they don't have to use OO or KO. Even Linux users understand that they need Office.
Right. Just because it's called CrossOverOffice, it doesn't make it an Office supplement. Far from it. CrossOverOffice is a simple GUI front-end to WINE, and people are buying it so they can run apps that have no counterpart in Linux - apps like Photoshop, Illustrator, IE6/7 (to test their pages), etc.
I run Linux myself. I know why I use it, and I know why other people use it.
How about Solaris users? Where are they, by the way? They are using Windows machines to do their Office work on, that's where. Not too many use StarOffice or OO, much to the chargrin of Sun.
Where are they? Oh, they're around. But let me ask you: if they're nowhere, as you claim when you ask 'where are they, by the way?' - how do you know they use Office? And is there a version of Office for Solaris?
No, you are the one making the assumptions. I'n not relying on this retail analysis at all. There are plenty of others that have been done over time.
Links?
I'm just pointing out the fallacy of relying on download numbers which mean nothing. None of what you reported here involves usage, just attempted distribution. and vague quotes of governments without any numbers.
If you don't read the sources, of course they're vague and without any numbers, although you yourself have mentioned some numbers a couple of times.
We all know the common sense figures that we, and our companies (or government offices) use. Governments, companies, and individuals buy software to use. If a company or government wants to try out a new product, or test moving to a new systen, they will get a few copies. If it passes some basic tests, they will get more, and try a limited deployment. for a government, that could entail thousands of copies. It doesn't mean that they switch over. They might. But they might not. They might employ it in certain departments, but not most.
And you know this how? Care to back it up? Because as far as I know, some governments have passed laws that say that they will reduce purchases from Microsoft by 25% by the end of this year, and guess what that means? They won't be buying brand new Macs with iWork I'll guarantee you that.
Of course, the program, in the last couple of versions, does work. I didn't say that it didn't. I said that it did.
That doesn't mean that is is suitable. Limited deployment testing determines that.
Facts speak otherwise.
Well, when we see some numbers from those using it, it will be easier to believe. So far, those numbers are coming from those writing it. Not the same thing at all.
Likewise, when we see numbers of iWork usage coming from those using it, then it will be easier to believe. So far, we have number of copies bought, in US ONLY, within a certain period of time. That doesn't prove anything.
I wonder how many of the 7 million disks that the Indian government is distributing will be used?
Don't you?
Let me answer that with another link:
Linux isn't the only non-licensed software government agencies are turning to. Brazil's postal system chose Sun's OpenOffice.org for 14,000 desktop computers purchased in January and plans to replace Microsoft's Office suite of programs on about 32,000 computers around the country, said Eduardo Medeiros,director of information technology at the company.
The postal service expects to save 8.1 million reais this year and 21.4 million reais in coming years in licensing fees for Word, Excel and other Microsoft programs, he said. [
Link.
If only you would provide any links opposing the statistics given by official government agencies in Brazil, then what you say would have more credibility.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
That's horseshit. In *every* possible case *ever* recorded, it has been proven that a modular approach is the best approach: Redundancy is reduced, resources are spared when not used and you don't need to be tied to one solution...you can mix and match what works best for you.
Any links to those cases?
There's nothing more stupid than having a bunch of programs that do the same things (overlaps in functionality)...it's a waste of HD space, a waste of memory and CPU if they're running simultaneously, etc.
There's one program in Linux/GNOME that does that: it's called Evolution.
I don't see how you can run the same program simultaneously, and why you would run 2 different programs if you had them, if they did the same thing.
People are not stupid. And Mac OS X is not the only system that has usability standards.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Citation
Lets see their cited references end at 9, market share reference being 10, and it's wikipedia, the place where anybody can write something. Wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate due to the lack of accountability for publication.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
People are not stupid.
You're right, they're not...that's why the ones that have a clue really try to stay away from multi-purpose apps like Entourage or Outlook Express and other such garbage.
But as an example, someone that uses Entourage may also need Address Book for the other apps that actually integrate well with Address Book. If that person isn't frustrated by the fact that Entourage has its own proprietary contact database, then that person is a better person than I.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
So much under his nose that he's not noticed you can do it already. in iCal, create a new event, click attendees and it pulls them from your address book, click 'Send invitation' at the bottom of the drawer. Mails go out and users with iCal get the even added to their calendars if accepted.
If the schedule creator makes a change to any of the events, do those changes get automatically reflected in other people's iCal schedules?
I am genuinely curious. I have "posted" an iCal calendar myself, but have yet to check to see if user's iCals automatically fetch updates.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
You're right, they're not...that's why the ones that have a clue really try to stay away from multi-purpose apps like Entourage or Outlook Express and other such garbage.
I guess you just proved that 95% of all the people using mail clients are stupid. Congrats.
Originally posted by Telomar
Wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate due to the lack of accountability for publication.
Of course.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I guess you just proved that 95% of all the people using mail clients are stupid. Congrats.
Well...
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well...
You too, you too. You use multi-purpose apps too, no?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You too, you too. You use multi-purpose apps too, no?
Boy...someone had a wee bit too much caffeine in their diet today.
Relax dude. You've really got it going about a bunch of things. Take a valium.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
[B]Boy...someone had a wee bit too much caffeine in their diet today.
Relax dude. You've really got it going about a bunch of things. Take a valium.
Not much left to say, ha?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Why not? Because you say so?
Why not?
Yes I do. And I posted several links while you are relying on your own words as arguments.
Your experiences don't really matter here, because not everybody's experience is the same.
And you know this... how? BTW, you need to understand that the percentage of people who *bought* iWork is MUCH lower than the percentage of people who downloaded OpenOffice, therefore the percentage of people who kept using iWork is much lower than the percentage of people who kept using OpenOffice.
How many people bought iWork? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? And now, how many people kept using it regularly? 75%? That makes 75,000 people if we go by the highest number here (these are not real numbers, just something to illustrate the point).
So, now, let's consider the other side of the coin: how many people downloaded OpenOffice? 50 million? 75 million? And how many times has it been bundled with distro's? Ubuntu alone shipped at least 3 million copies of their 5.04 Ubuntu Linux, all had OO bundled. Add SuSE to that, add Fedora Core, add Debian... you get the picture. So, how many people? Let's say... for the sake of argument, 80 million people. Considering that we went with 75% of people still using iWork because they paid for it, let's now say that 40% of people kept using OO (a very *low* estimate, btw). Out of, say, 75 million copies of OO downloaded/shipped/bought, 40% are still being used. That makes how many copies of OO being used?
30 million.
It was stated where?
And they're using... what? iWork? heh.
Read the links again please. It wasn't the German government, but the local government of the german city Munich, which didn't talk about 'Open Source', but about switching to SuSE from Windows, which is completely different than OO or whatever.
Read the links at least.
7 million copies of OO distributed by the said government go a long way to tell you that.
'Over a population' ? It's talking about *people who downloaded OO*. You made the claim that they download it and delete it, and I showed you a study that said that not only did they not delete it, but they actually went ahead and installed it on more computers than the number of downloads they made.
As opposed to your supported statements? With what, chocolate vanilla?
Read the links I posted for chrissakes. They clearly show that they are shifting towards *complete* OO-based desktops.
The evidence is prevalent on this thread. You just choose to ignore it.
And this translates to actual market share, how?
Actually, the only standard here is OASIS, or .ODF which OO.org pioneered. The so-called Microsoft Office standard is based on market share, but market share alone does not make something a standard, at least not in the legal sense.
If it was standard, why would Microsoft push for the creation of committees for the standardization of .doc .xls, etc?
There are public sources, government(s) included that tell me how many people are using them.
If there's someone here that has no idea how many government are using this, it would be you.
Right. Just because it's called CrossOverOffice, it doesn't make it an Office supplement. Far from it. CrossOverOffice is a simple GUI front-end to WINE, and people are buying it so they can run apps that have no counterpart in Linux - apps like Photoshop, Illustrator, IE6/7 (to test their pages), etc.
I run Linux myself. I know why I use it, and I know why other people use it.
Where are they? Oh, they're around. But let me ask you: if they're nowhere, as you claim when you ask 'where are they, by the way?' - how do you know they use Office? And is there a version of Office for Solaris?
Links?
If you don't read the sources, of course they're vague and without any numbers, although you yourself have mentioned some numbers a couple of times.
And you know this how? Care to back it up? Because as far as I know, some governments have passed laws that say that they will reduce purchases from Microsoft by 25% by the end of this year, and guess what that means? They won't be buying brand new Macs with iWork I'll guarantee you that.
Facts speak otherwise.
Likewise, when we see numbers of iWork usage coming from those using it, then it will be easier to believe. So far, we have number of copies bought, in US ONLY, within a certain period of time. That doesn't prove anything.
Let me answer that with another link:
Link.
If only you would provide any links opposing the statistics given by official government agencies in Brazil, then what you say would have more credibility.
Most of what you're dsaying here is nonsense.
Even your own links don't prove anything.
IDC and the rest of them are still just measuring downloards. No matter what you want to say, that proves nothing.
It's lovely that the Brazilian government wants to move a few percent of seats.
By the way, I'm not saying that iWork exceeds the number of seats of OO out there. I never did. You're assuming I did.
I'm juxt saying that the usage of OO and equiv. are not as great as you seem to think it is.
I'm not impressed by self serving numbers. And I know it was Munich. They haven't gotten far with it yet.
And I've also read your links. Most of that info has been around for awhile. It's nothing new. A great deal of it has been questioned.
When I said where are the Solaris users, I didn't mean that in the literal sense, but in the sense that there aren't very many of them, and the number is shrinking.
Crossover Office is for exactly the putpose it's name implies. To use office on Linux. A popular alternative.
http://www.computerworld.com/softwar...105779,00.html
An interesting article about the Munich changeover.
http://www.computerworld.com/softwar...104425,00.html
On the other hand:
http://www.computerworld.com/governm...103892,00.html
http://www.computerworld.com/governm...100253,00.html