Fortunately cash is still a common option in Australia (and I’m here), and likely will remain so for a long time. However, I’m increasingly hearing that other countries are increasingly refusing to accept cash.

It’s probably best to get something working on Linux phones before it’s too late, but as you said Google is worse than a thief, so whatever is made should not use it. Best to maximise the freedom for people in a horrible future, lest Android or iOS ever become the only viable options. Problem being I don’t know how that would work, especially since banks would probably hate freedom respecting systems.

I agree basic functionality is higher priority, but I fear tap to pay will reach basic functionality status in some other countries when their banks phase out any alternative. (I don’t think cryptocurrencies will ever become common). It may not directly impact me that other countries phase them out, but it will gradually kill the Linux phone ecosystem.

That’s fair, I’m quite happy on Graphene OS.

I feel like you’re conflating some things here. Tap to pay is more private and secure than a bank card, and is more private than most cryptocurrencies. Cash is obviously better, but it is increasingly looking like it might be phased out of some places eventually (I really hope not, but is a legitimate concern). However, you are right that it’s not open source and relies on trusting big companies that don’t like user freedom.

So I would say that some of the people using tap to pay don’t necessarily not care about privacy more than convenience. Some of them just want to be able to use money in places where cash is dying out.

I don’t use tap to pay personally.

Depending on what bank they have, tap to pay won’t work with Graphene OS either.

I don’t think that’s the issue with tap to pay. Linux already works with NFC, the issue is banks and payment apps.

Huh, I’ve never heard of SoftMaker Office before, good to know it exists. I might check it out.

To add to some of the other comments, I have heard that the issue for LibreOffice is that Microsoft’s own parser isn’t compliant with the OOXML standard that they created. Yet the most important thing is compatibility with Microsoft Office, so you can’t simply build a parser according to the open standard and expect it to work with Microsoft Office. Instead, you need a parser to work the same way as Microsoft’s, which is proprietary. However, admittedly I have never read the OOXML standard or checked MS Office documents for compliance myself.

Therefore, if what I have heard is correct, I would assume that SoftMaker Office has either struck a deal with Microsoft before to improve compatibility, or has simply been better at reverse engineering. Alternatively, what I have heard could be wrong.