because thats not about quality, its about "i demand something thats 100% exactly the same as microsofts product, even in the places where its objectively crappier. I also wish it to track the microslop so that it consistently stays as shitty as microslop deems, so that I may never realize I use something else."

This is the kind of attitude that will keep OSS from becoming widely adopted. If simply shipping a quality office suite was enough, this problem would have been solved last millennium. And in fact, there are many quality office suites.

Organizations choose Office because it:

1. is interoperable

2. has a commercial throat to choke

3. has an existing pipeline of workers trained on it

4. has a deep feature set for edge-case power-users

5. integrates with other products and services that their customers want

Every institutional office-migration project runs into these issues -- they're solvable, but damn if OSS advocates stopped pretending they didn't exist, they might actually fix them.

> "so that I may never realize I use something else"

The main reasons are:

1) ... so my muscle memory work. (In some editor Ctrl+Y is redo, in others no, I never remember in which editors, I hate when it doesn't work.)

2) ... so I can exchange files with coworkers, and they will see exactly what I wrote (I recently received an email with a draft and I complained about a missing ≥. It actually was there was the visor in Gmail was not showing it.)