Webtop vs sogo thinking

Before @gabriele_bulfon’s explanations, I can add some information on how to activate and configure this new Feature.
Some information is on the issue:

To enable adding external resources to your personal cloud:

Webtop - Administration -> Domains -> NethServer -> Groups -> users -> Authorizations ->
Add (+) -> Services: com.sonicle.webtop.vfs (Cloud) -> Resource: STORE_CLOUD -> Action: CREATE -> OK
Add (+) -> Services: com.sonicle.webtop.vfs (Cloud) -> Resource: STORE_OTHER -> Action: CREATE -> OK -> Save & close

To add your own nextcloud resources

Log in with your user.
Select personal cloud -> Right button on my resources -> Add resource -> Add Nextcloud resource -> Complete the wizard

2 Likes

Nah, interoperability due to M$'s way of slightly abusing standards to make sure that their format is not compatible with said standard. I can only use OO or LO for internal use and some basic actions, but as soon as cusomer X has a macro-enabled spreadshit, you need M$ Office. Fun things happen with layout sometimes as well. If my editing a document renders it useless to the customer, LO or OO is not an option.

This issue will likely not be solved any time soon, as M$'s proprietary format prohibits that. The various workflow integrations are lost as well when using OO or LO compared to M$ Office.

1 Like

@planet_jeroen,
Agreed, whilst Microsoft has participated with other open-source providers in the past (ie. Microsoft ongoing “alliance partnership” with Novell / SuSE), they have not really been very successful providing their framework / document format to other software providers. Sure, I am aware that Microsoft formatted documents can be exported and imported into other products (ie. LibreOffice an OpenOffice), but this framework was created by open-source developers (reverse engineering of MS own framework).

I remembered when Microsoft announced that they would be providing “Open XML and Open Document File Formats”,back in 2007 (those of us that where following the MS press statements in 2007 will recall the abusive and bullying attitude of Microsoft when it came to the subject of open file formats).

Also it is worth mentioning the Microsoft Open Specification Promise, which
"Red Hat believes that the text of the OSP gives sufficient flexibility to implement the listed specifications in software licensed under free and open source licenses."

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Open_Specification_Promise

2 Likes

I completely agree. Backwards compatible is a must. User-systems should be the last to change and experience no altered behaviour when backends change, unless there is a very good reason to. And then there still is the issue of having to ‘sell’ it.

Preferably, user behaviour should seemlessly transfer to new systems or have intuitive replacements. What’s intuitive varies per user. If users do not feel like they understand the system or if it suddenly doesnt work as expected any longer, trust evaporates and all kinds of stupid questions emerge and before you know it you can ferry in the old system again, cuz, we know it.

3 Likes