So the primary reason volunteers contribute their time to LibreOffice is for themselves? Sorry, that doesn’t jibe with what is stated on LibreOffice.com > About us > Who we are (see below for reference). They clearly are trying to make a product that works better for everyone, not just for themselves. And since the inability to move rows and cells by cutting & inserting the cut cells is one of the first problems most new users run into, and is a complaint that keeps coming up again and again (and one of the biggest reasons new users get turned off and abandon LibreOffice) is this lack of functionality, then it’s not a stretch at all to think the developers would 1) pay attention to user feedback (not just their own limited personal experiences), and 2) respond to users’ most frequent frustrations.
Also, it’s not helpful or decent of you to add the snide comment about me paying someone to develop the capability. I’m trying to keep food on the table, a roof over our head, and our cars running, which is part-and-parcel of why I don’t want to pay for MS Office on every old computer we own. So other than jabbing at me, that comment helps no one.
FROM THE WEBSITE:
" We seek to eliminate the digital divide and empower all as full citizens, support the preservation of mother tongues, and avoid proprietary software and format lock-in. We work to attain our goals by
- providing unfettered access to our office productivity tools at no cost
- encouraging the translation, documentation, and maintenance of our software in one’s own language
- promoting and actively participating in the creation and development of open standards and Free Software via open and transparent peer-review processes
Though the members of our community hail from many different backgrounds, we all value personal choice and transparency, which translates practically into wider compatibility, more utility, and no end-user lock-in to a single product. We believe that Free Software can provide better quality, higher reliability, increased security, and greater flexibility than proprietary alternatives."