I guess I have caveman instincts.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Ridcully Apr 27, 2012 4:23 AM EDT |
My Linux friend 40km up the road calls me a Luddite.....Maybe so......And yet, I still,.... STILL,... run OO3.2 - the last version put out by Sun. Oh sure, LO3.4.5 is also installed (I haven't bothered to update LO - if there is one), but oddly enough, I do virtually all of my work in OO3.2 - mostly because it just works and does everything I want. And there is also a certain satisfaction in looking at the Sun logo and thinking: Even if Oracle smashed all that Sun's OO was, I still have a rather nice piece of software from Sun's encouragement of OO. Romantic ? Sentimentalist ? Neanderthal ? Whatever you like, they are all probably quite true.....but if it ain't broke, why fix it ? And I am very, very curious to see what Apache has done.....Tell you one thing though......OO starts up on my machine in about 4 seconds......LO is still staggering along to get to a start window at 7-10 seconds. Now that should bring the wrath of gods down on my delicate shoulders. :-) |
| keithcu Apr 27, 2012 6:01 AM EDT |
Perhaps you have setup the quickstart functionality for OO, but not LO? LO should be no slower. Yes, OO 3.2 was a quite powerful and reliable product. However, there are many ways these codebases can get better, but it needs a healthy community first. Don't hold any warm sentimentality towards Sun. They long underinvested in OpenOffice, and failed at garnering a community around it. That group from Sun / Oracle is now disbanded, so the community is on our own from here. Some of those experts are fortunately getting hired. |
| Ridcully Apr 27, 2012 7:28 AM EDT |
@keithcu....I believe I have quickstarter enabled in LO......I started each up a couple of times and then timed the third startup.....OO, 2 seconds. LO, 8 seconds. As regards sentimentality for Sun.....not really. I guess it was just the disgusting things Oracle did that made Sun look so much better. Honestly though, as long as something works and works exactly how you want it.......who cares ? You can read an odt document from me whether it is written by OO or LO.......and that after all is the basic aim. It's odd, but the more powerful and complex these software packages become, the more there is likely to be problems around and the less I like them. One often wonders if the goals of power and complexity often overshadow ease of operation by the ultimate user. |
| keithcu Apr 27, 2012 8:42 PM EDT |
LibreOffice can get so much better:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Enterprises_n...
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Really_basic_... This community could keep thousands of people busy: http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/ Much of the work they would do is make the code simpler and cleaner. They actually need to clean things up and such before they can even take on big problems like new experimental user interfaces. |
| tuxchick Apr 27, 2012 9:28 PM EDT |
LO has made bigtime progress in a short time. They inherited a huge crufty mess, and have already done major cleanup. At long last LO is going in the direction it should have taken long ago, had it not been handicapped by its corporate masters. LibreOffice stats: 400 total contributors, thousands of code commits every month http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/02/libreoffice-sta... Removing unused code in LibreOffice http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2012-01-09-unused.html |
| Ridcully Apr 27, 2012 11:54 PM EDT |
@tuxchick.....no arguments from me over your statements. I'm quite certain the LO team had and still has a huge job in front of them, and it all takes time (and money no doubt). It's why I cheer the LO team on despite my "traitorous" use of OO.....And also why I keep a copy of LO firmly on my computer. From what I see, it's ability to work with the messes that Word puts out are sometimes definitely superior to what OO3.2 can do....so sooner or later, I shall upgrade my copy of LO.....and enjoy the difference. Slower or not (well for me anyhow), LO is sometimes an essential option to have. And on the subject of Word, I'm doing an enormous "copy and paste" project for a university organisation, and I do mean enormous. Over 1000 html files have to be transcribed across into another piece of software and there is NO simple way you can automate this.....the files have to be examined one by one by hand, and checked that the correct botanical conventions are adhered to.....Because of the structures, I used Word for a couple of goes at the files, but was told that the best software to do it with was FFox.......Word simply puts too many incredible and hidden formatting "things" in its code so that you never know what you will end up with. And FFox worked perfectly - you live and you learn. |
| caitlyn Apr 28, 2012 1:25 AM EDT |
I don't think using OO is traitorous. It's part of the Apache Foundation now and also free of its former corporate masters, if I may borrow tuxchick's words. Competition is usually a good thing. May the better developers win. |
| Ridcully Apr 28, 2012 1:55 AM EDT |
@caitlyn.....Well.....what can I say except that I am no longer confined in the Tower awaiting the "cheap and chippy chopper on a big black block". I agree, this could be interesting and OO sensu Apache might be rather good. |
| tracyanne Apr 28, 2012 2:04 AM EDT |
@Rid, contact me, so we can discuss this. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!