Talk:OpenOffice.org/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
LibreOffice NOT competing with Microsoft Office?
I'm forced to take this revert to the talk page, for two reasons: b) minor typography; while I still explained in my edit [summary] how it violates the MOS. b) I can I guess easily find a source, that e.g. LibreOffice competes with Microsoft Office. Does any reasonable person think otherwise, or just that the source is missing? WP:V info shouldn't just be dropped, and leave the article with "Microsoft Office retained 95% of the general market — as measured by revenue"; even if true about a decade ago. There's neither any source it's still true, and it doesn't matter if it still is; That text only is a borderline WP:NPOV violation. I'm not sure what tag could be attached to that statement, even with it true. comp.arch (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Just googling with "compete" in the same sentence I found from cio.com. That's about "no-cost" LibreOffice. Clearly someone competes also and gets or get 5% share. Is "competing" only about commercial software? I don't think so; Or does it exclude any software that tries and possibly fails? comp.arch (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- First, don't change to en-dashes, just remove the spaces, and using a template is overkill.
- Second, the sentence you want is, in context
- Although Microsoft Office retained 95% of the general market–as measured by revenue–as of August 2007 (while competing products can be non-cost), OpenOffice.org and StarOffice had secured 15–20% of the business market as of 2004
- but how is that an improvement over the one without the parenthetical phrase
- Although Microsoft Office retained 95% of the general market–as measured by revenue–as of August 2007, OpenOffice.org and StarOffice had secured 15–20% of the business market as of 2004
- It's already a fallacy to argue market share by revenue when discussing a competing open source product. To emphasize that point is unnecessary, since the next phrase explains that. If it doesn't explain that well, we should be more explicit in making the statement rather than this back-and-forth. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)