Also, 85% of statistics are made up on the spot based upon anecdotal data.

I agree in the case of the Windows/OS X environment, where brand awareness of LibreOffice is low, but in the Linux world... my distribution (Debian) doesn't even package OpenOffice, and I don't know any Linux user who uses OOo.

Here's one. Never thought it necessary to change. OO works just fine.

LibreOffice is original OO, in terms of continuity of development, more so than AOO is.

And another one to some extent: oOo uses its own font rendering, the LO team (I gather) moved over to using libraries (harfbuzz) available in host OS for font rendering. I seem to have better results on former under some circumstances.

I have not had any round-trip editing problems flitting between the two under Linuxen of various kinds.

I didnt know this but at a more general level I am reluctant to "upgrade" what's already working fine due to this very fiddling with new stuff which is a common failing of the FOSS model in my experience (people wanting to add shiny things instead of making existing stuff better - Firefox, GNOME etc). This is one of the main reasons I did not migrate to LO.

Are you using a distro from 2010? Because I believe most of the major Linux distros include LIbreOffice as part of the default install.

I just checked - the latest I use is centos 7.1 which does have libreoffice already installed, however my daily machine is older and I had to install OO manually there.

Wasn't OpenOffice own by Sunacle at some point?

I think that's when a lot of users moves to LibreOffice.

ditto

So true. For example, when Node.js forked to io.js, even after a year where io.js was clearly a superior product, 90% of developers were still using Node.js. Old habits die hard, I guess.

> IME 90% of people I know who want to quickly look through a PowerPoint on Linux will install OpenOffice.

If that's all you need to do, OpenOffice will likely work just fine for you.