I assume you're defining high-quality as easy-to use? If so, then that definition is lacking at best.
Well you would be wrong. I have LibreOffice 7.1.4.2 in front of me right now and it still can't correctly render stuff I had from 2014. The text boxes and stuff all end up in massively wrong positions, like they always have. (And they render fine in Word, like they always have.)
Similarly, first Excel spreadsheet I try to open in it gives this error: Warning loading {document}: The data could not be loaded completely because the maximum number of columns per sheet was exceeded.
I could waste my time with other examples but it would be that: wasting my time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm rooting for them. Maybe someday there will finally come a free office program that can function like MS Office did a decade ago. I'm looking forward to seeing it before I die. But in the meantime, there's just no way we can honestly tell people LibreOffice is as high-quality as MS Office, regardless of how much we want that to be the case. It's just a lie we keep telling ourselves.
> (in some aspects)
...you just made my point for me.
That's not exactly a fair assessment exercise. I'm not sure what format is the original excel file, but xlsb is a proprietary format.
My experience with Writer is wonderful. Have not had any issues and I know many people who use it daily with no issues.
Try to balance a picture and a couple of paragraphs in M$ Word in a long document and then come back to me on how that "high-quality" software handles it.
> there's just no way we can honestly tell people it's as high-quality as MS Office
Apparently, like many others in this entire thread, you've totally missed the point. I wasn't saying it's "as" high quality as M$ word (although I disagree with the usage of the word high quality here) but just that it is high quality by itself. This is known as an irrelevant conclusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrelevant_conclusion
The entire discussion has been regarding this verbatim quote from the top comment: "open source projects will always provide a lower quality than commercial ones". If you replied regarding some other premise, then you're the one missing the point and changing the topic, not me.
> That's not exactly a fair assessment exercise
It sure is fair to me. Just saying this doesn't make it true. And a reality check is warranted here: "it's not fair" is not going to be a satisfactory response to any user you're trying to win over.
> I'm not sure what format is the original excel file, but xlsb is a proprietary format.
No, it's an open format [1], and LibreOffice supports opening it... with poor quality. And again: even if it was, you're not going to win over or satisfy any users with an "it's a proprietary format so we don't support that many columns" excuse. They expect their office programs to dance around their documents, not the other way around.
[1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/office_file_forma...