What's the value of it being online? Surely being able to run it as a native application would be preferable?

It means that it is de-facto compatible with all operating systems.

Also means that the tooling to make collaborative work in this suite possible already exists because it's a common use case on the web and less so on native software (see Microsoft Office vs. Microsoft 365 online).

▲

mimasama 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, "all" operating systems. "All" that is OSes that have a web browser built for it that at least supports [TransformStream](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/TransformSt...)... And the browser and spec written and maintained mostly by people outside of France. Kinda compromises the point of being "sovereign" doesn't it?

	▲	touisteur 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Forking Firefox whenever the rug is pulled seems doable (with elbow grease), and in the meantime Europeans can invest on problems that don't have an already mature fully open-source solution.

▲

vman81 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Managing documents on the back end can be very sensible, depending on your work context. Not having to deal with installations is also a real advantage in a heterogeneous environment with a mix of US-controlled operating systems and unencumbered OSes. It also makes migration between them easier, since you only need a common browser to be supported.

▲

ddulaney 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are definitely some benefits! Installation and updates become trivial. Also, collaboration is generally easier, because all you have to do is send a link.

These are the same reasons Google Docs took off, and they are real advantages.

▲

5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]