- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
OpenOffice – A House of Sand
|
|
Comments (38)
18 earlier comments in the full thread.
I'm not really telling people what to do. I'm only suggesting for efficiency they work in the same codebase. Most people don't care which one. It is the leaders who decide for them.
> It is the leaders who decide for them.
And the leadership of OpenOffice is firmly in IBM's sway. They're not going to touch LibreOffice. Like it or not, the two projects are going to remain separate for quite a while.
And the leadership of OpenOffice is firmly in IBM's sway. They're not going to touch LibreOffice. Like it or not, the two projects are going to remain separate for quite a while.
@keithcu: You're absolutely right. Having two separate projects is extremely wasteful, and it'd be a lot better if they just joined forces and worked on the same codebase.
The problem is, they tried that. It didn't work. (The people who are now) the LO developers used to be OO developers. They made all kinds of great improvements and additions, and they were ignored and sidelined by OO management. That's what forced them to make the Go-OO fork, and later the more extreme LO fork. If the OO management hadn't ignored them and sidelined them, this wouldn't have happened.
This is very similar to the situation with XFree86 and x.org. The XFree86 management (which was mainly some moron named David Dawes who somehow managed to gain control over the project) didn't want to improve the project much, and didn't like other developers coming up with great new improvements and additions, so they were mostly ignored and sidelined. Eventually, he made a dumb license change which was the hair that broke the camel's back, and the developers (including the now-famous Keith Packard) decided to fork the project. Very quickly, all the Linux distros switched to the new x.org, and Dawes and the one or two followers of his were suddenly irrelevant. Go check out the xfree86.org website; they claim to be the "premier" X system for Linux-type systems, yet there haven't been any changes there in years, their mailing list is completely dead, the place looks like it's frozen in time.
This situation is a little different because instead of withering away like XFree86, OO has stuck around since it has some corporate support, but that doesn't change the fact that the teams simply cannot work together. What's the point of having all the LO developers creating things, if their creations are simply going to be ignored by the OO maintainers? That doesn't help things at all.
Read the whole commentThe problem is, they tried that. It didn't work. (The people who are now) the LO developers used to be OO developers. They made all kinds of great improvements and additions, and they were ignored and sidelined by OO management. That's what forced them to make the Go-OO fork, and later the more extreme LO fork. If the OO management hadn't ignored them and sidelined them, this wouldn't have happened.
This is very similar to the situation with XFree86 and x.org. The XFree86 management (which was mainly some moron named David Dawes who somehow managed to gain control over the project) didn't want to improve the project much, and didn't like other developers coming up with great new improvements and additions, so they were mostly ignored and sidelined. Eventually, he made a dumb license change which was the hair that broke the camel's back, and the developers (including the now-famous Keith Packard) decided to fork the project. Very quickly, all the Linux distros switched to the new x.org, and Dawes and the one or two followers of his were suddenly irrelevant. Go check out the xfree86.org website; they claim to be the "premier" X system for Linux-type systems, yet there haven't been any changes there in years, their mailing list is completely dead, the place looks like it's frozen in time.
This situation is a little different because instead of withering away like XFree86, OO has stuck around since it has some corporate support, but that doesn't change the fact that the teams simply cannot work together. What's the point of having all the LO developers creating things, if their creations are simply going to be ignored by the OO maintainers? That doesn't help things at all.
@Khamul: The comparison with X.org is very apt.
@Khamul:
The team inside Oracle was disbanded. The new OO is not the old OO. So the situation of OO at Sun / Oracle versus now at Apache had the potential to be very different.
The team inside Oracle was disbanded. The new OO is not the old OO. So the situation of OO at Sun / Oracle versus now at Apache had the potential to be very different.
@keithcu: By your logic there should only be one Linux distribution because all the multiplication of effort is wasted. In addition to getting rid of OpenOffice we should drop Calligra as well. Duplicate effort. It isn't going to happen. I have a solid business reason why a big corporation is going to pay good money to keep OO going indefinitely so any complaints along the lines you are complaining is, to me, what is really pointless.
I still believe that competition is almost always good. It pushes quality and innovation rather than stifling it.
I still believe that competition is almost always good. It pushes quality and innovation rather than stifling it.
@keithcu: The proof is in the pudding. Are you really saying the LO team should simply disband on the hope that "this new OO leadership has the potential to be different!"? That's just like following someone asking to be made your leader and who has no track record, is a complete unknown, and just asks you to hope he or she is going to be a good leader; it's idiotic. Maybe it's defensible if your only other choice is already proven to be very bad (given two choices, unknown or certain doom, the unknown is usually a better choice), but when you have two choices, unknown and good, it's stupid to abandon the good in favor of the unknown. The fact is the OO leadership was a complete failure, and the LO team established their own leadership which has been working great. Why on earth would they want to abandon that for a complete unknown? Instead, the OO project should have been shelved when Oracle's team disbanded, and they should have adopted LO instead.
@caitlyn: "I still believe that competition is almost always good."
Competition is good where it leads to innovation, differentiation and real choice.
The question as to whether or not that will lead from the co-existence of LO and OO is not proved at this point. They are very superficially different at this point in time. This may change in the future.
Your suggestion that Calligra should be dropped and their coders help out LO is unnecessary hyperbole. They are two completely different code bases offering very different experiences.
OO and LO may end up that way, but at the moment, that is not the case. There is a business case for IBM to ensure that OO survives as a separate entity. Whether or not that is in the best interest of the larger software environment is debatable though.
Competition is good where it leads to innovation, differentiation and real choice.
The question as to whether or not that will lead from the co-existence of LO and OO is not proved at this point. They are very superficially different at this point in time. This may change in the future.
Your suggestion that Calligra should be dropped and their coders help out LO is unnecessary hyperbole. They are two completely different code bases offering very different experiences.
OO and LO may end up that way, but at the moment, that is not the case. There is a business case for IBM to ensure that OO survives as a separate entity. Whether or not that is in the best interest of the larger software environment is debatable though.
Quoting:Adding a feature to OpenOffice, then having someone cross-port that change to LibreOffice sounds like more effort than someone just adding that feature to LibreOffice from the start.
I think that is what he is getting at.
I agree and I fully understand his point. I believe we all do understand and wish to see many of the wasteful duplicate efforts that exist in FOSS be gone. But we have to be realistic here. Someone (TC,TA) said FOSS developers are like herding wild finicky cats , consequently, it is impossible for that to happen. So we might as well try to benefit out of it any way possible.
Quoting:Competition is good where it leads to innovation, differentiation and real choice.
How else are we going to know if we advocate against the existence of competing products? Although the probability is small, who could tell or predict that OO developers aren't going to come up with a new product with functions and features that blows LO out of the water? No one can for sure.
Quoting: They are two completely different code bases offering very different experiences.
But are code bases necessary to be different to have competition and innovation? I personally don't think so since at the end, all that counts are features, functionality, performance, etc...
I thought that the OO team essentially disbanded itself
-- Oracle's control-freakery was much worse, and more (for lack of a better word) malicious than Sun's control-freakery, and Oracle didn't have the loyalty that Sun had earned by acquiring Star Office and open-sourcing it as OpenOffice in the first place. So most of the team (essentially, the ones whose paychecks didn't depend on Oracle or IBM) left, and reconstituted themselves as LibreOffice.
So as far as this discussion goes, LibreOffice in effect is OpenOffice with a new name, and OpenOffice is the old name, on what was left behind.
- -
The best analogy I can think of is the good old Route 66 Interstate Highway, a historically important icon of a previous era -- everyone's heard of it -- but the Inter-State Highways network has moved on. Route 66 is a relic of the past, that hasn't kept up with modern needs, and isn't except for some particular stretches maintained that well anymore. The transportation industry doesn't use it much, anymore, and it's not really suited anymore, either. There's generally better ways to get where you're going.
-- Oracle's control-freakery was much worse, and more (for lack of a better word) malicious than Sun's control-freakery, and Oracle didn't have the loyalty that Sun had earned by acquiring Star Office and open-sourcing it as OpenOffice in the first place. So most of the team (essentially, the ones whose paychecks didn't depend on Oracle or IBM) left, and reconstituted themselves as LibreOffice.
So as far as this discussion goes, LibreOffice in effect is OpenOffice with a new name, and OpenOffice is the old name, on what was left behind.
- -
The best analogy I can think of is the good old Route 66 Interstate Highway, a historically important icon of a previous era -- everyone's heard of it -- but the Inter-State Highways network has moved on. Route 66 is a relic of the past, that hasn't kept up with modern needs, and isn't except for some particular stretches maintained that well anymore. The transportation industry doesn't use it much, anymore, and it's not really suited anymore, either. There's generally better ways to get where you're going.
Good point, let Nature take its course in a similar way as far as OO is concerned.
@caitlyn: Perhaps by my logic, there should only be one Linux distribution. If that were the case, I'd be happy if it were Debian. However, this isn't about Linux distributions, this is only about OpenOffice versus LibreOffice. Each situation needs to be looked at differently. Sometimes it makes sense to put someone in jail, and sometimes it does not.
The new AOO will only survive if they find enough naive people. With their Apache, IBM and OpenOffice name, and exclusive ownership of the trademark, that gives them enough resources that they can play this game for some years.
@Khamul: I never actually suggested the LO team should disband. I was only making the point that AOO wouldn't complain for a lack of diversity if it happened! According to Apache, this lack of diversity is a risk only to LibreOffice.
There isn't much differentiation here. Merging OO and LO is not like making every TV include a refrigerator. There is no need to compete between these two projects with the same codebases.
In terms of letting nature run its course, that is generally a good idea. However, if you saw 100s of people about to collectively shoot off their foot, would you still have that attitude?
People in LibreOffice are personally stressed about what IBM / Apache are doing. It is really just a few people who are pushing this project along.
Many like you don't see the bother of OO so don't complain, and many don't see the point of OO, so don't contribute. It is in this middle ground, wasting a lot of time, creating a lot of confusion, unable to work with LibreOffice, missing lots of features, hurting rather than helping, etc. No biggie.
Read the whole commentThe new AOO will only survive if they find enough naive people. With their Apache, IBM and OpenOffice name, and exclusive ownership of the trademark, that gives them enough resources that they can play this game for some years.
@Khamul: I never actually suggested the LO team should disband. I was only making the point that AOO wouldn't complain for a lack of diversity if it happened! According to Apache, this lack of diversity is a risk only to LibreOffice.
There isn't much differentiation here. Merging OO and LO is not like making every TV include a refrigerator. There is no need to compete between these two projects with the same codebases.
In terms of letting nature run its course, that is generally a good idea. However, if you saw 100s of people about to collectively shoot off their foot, would you still have that attitude?
People in LibreOffice are personally stressed about what IBM / Apache are doing. It is really just a few people who are pushing this project along.
Many like you don't see the bother of OO so don't complain, and many don't see the point of OO, so don't contribute. It is in this middle ground, wasting a lot of time, creating a lot of confusion, unable to work with LibreOffice, missing lots of features, hurting rather than helping, etc. No biggie.
@keithcu:
You keep missing the point, even though it's been pointed out several times. LibraOffice wasn't a fork run by people who wouldn't or couldn't "play well with others". The driving force between the split has been the OO management, who wouldn't play well with others, and drove OO developers out by turning Sun's needlessly difficult environment into Oracle's thoroughly poisonous environment.
The two projects would likely have re-merged once Oracle gave up it's control of the project -- but Oracle (abetted by IBM) quite deliberately and with malice aforethought converted OO into an Apache-licensed project, structured in a way that it could not do so.
The LibreOffice developers also have even less (none legal) ability to re-merge their GPL-licensed project back into OpenOffice, and with this harsh historical lesson still fresh in memory, understandably have no interest in returning to the old project, and abandoning the GPL to do so.
You may be correct that this divergence, parallel development and confusion are hurting the prospects of both as viable FOSS office suites -- but it's not LibraOffice that's the source of the problem, and the LibraOffice project's only option to change this would be a cure worse than the ailment.
You keep missing the point, even though it's been pointed out several times. LibraOffice wasn't a fork run by people who wouldn't or couldn't "play well with others". The driving force between the split has been the OO management, who wouldn't play well with others, and drove OO developers out by turning Sun's needlessly difficult environment into Oracle's thoroughly poisonous environment.
The two projects would likely have re-merged once Oracle gave up it's control of the project -- but Oracle (abetted by IBM) quite deliberately and with malice aforethought converted OO into an Apache-licensed project, structured in a way that it could not do so.
The LibreOffice developers also have even less (none legal) ability to re-merge their GPL-licensed project back into OpenOffice, and with this harsh historical lesson still fresh in memory, understandably have no interest in returning to the old project, and abandoning the GPL to do so.
You may be correct that this divergence, parallel development and confusion are hurting the prospects of both as viable FOSS office suites -- but it's not LibraOffice that's the source of the problem, and the LibraOffice project's only option to change this would be a cure worse than the ailment.
@BernardSwiss: I never said LibreOffice was the source of any problem. The article is a criticism of Apache, not LibreOffice.
Quoting:The article is a criticism of Apache, not LibreOffice.
You think?
OK, I get it.
You like LibreOffice. You like or have some other sort of attachment to the LibreOffice project and/or people.
Nothing remotely wrong with that.
OTOH -- You seem pretty clueless about free software -- which doesn't surprise me coming from a Microsoft refugee. Here are a few hints: FreeBSD, GNOME, KDE,apache, nginx, ruby, python,perl,X,Wayland,...
Never mind that the LO license is problematic for some people, what about the recent history of developers taking "star turns"? "Oh gee -- I know better than ANYBODY ELSE which way the future of xxxx software should go. I especially know better than that stupid old user base, which should be grateful to have to relearn everything they know and work in some funky new way because I have not charged them for the privilege of seeing my vision"
If apache wants to OO, fine. If LO developers are miffed by the fact -- who cares? Let them run home to mommy.
@dinotrac: Bernard Swiss accused me of missing the point. I was trying to respond to him. Glad you are not confused.
Your analogies are totally irrelevant to the situation at hand. In fact, it almost appears that you think working in separate codebases is how it should be. Remember that the Linux kernel works on so much hardware is because so many disparate people work together.
The LO license is a better one for this technology. Bradley Kuhn has explained: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/01/open-office.html
I don't think I know better than anyone else. All I'm doing is writing down reasons I learned from others. People can read and decide for themselves.
The LO license isn't really problematic for anyone except some people from IBM and Apache. I repeat: this is just a cabal of people who ignored LibreOffice and the feedback to their plans. There is no groundswell of support, no reason.
You really don't know any of the details of this situation when you bring up Gnome versus KDE as somehow evidence. I suggest you consider the opportunity cost of doing something better than a dumb plan. OO has already wasted one year. Microsoft would want this mess to continue. Do you find it interesting that you are on their side? Are you a double-agent?
If LO is unhappy with AOO, that should tell you something. Don't make it about me. BTW, LibreOffice is not just some group of whiners, it is nearly all the interested third-parties outside of Sun / Oracle!
Your analogies are totally irrelevant to the situation at hand. In fact, it almost appears that you think working in separate codebases is how it should be. Remember that the Linux kernel works on so much hardware is because so many disparate people work together.
The LO license is a better one for this technology. Bradley Kuhn has explained: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/01/open-office.html
I don't think I know better than anyone else. All I'm doing is writing down reasons I learned from others. People can read and decide for themselves.
The LO license isn't really problematic for anyone except some people from IBM and Apache. I repeat: this is just a cabal of people who ignored LibreOffice and the feedback to their plans. There is no groundswell of support, no reason.
You really don't know any of the details of this situation when you bring up Gnome versus KDE as somehow evidence. I suggest you consider the opportunity cost of doing something better than a dumb plan. OO has already wasted one year. Microsoft would want this mess to continue. Do you find it interesting that you are on their side? Are you a double-agent?
If LO is unhappy with AOO, that should tell you something. Don't make it about me. BTW, LibreOffice is not just some group of whiners, it is nearly all the interested third-parties outside of Sun / Oracle!
> it almost appears that you think working in separate codebases is how it should be.
Well, you see, there's this minor detail involved. It's called freedom.
If the developers want to work on separate code bases, who are you to tell them otherwise?
You may argue that it's wasted effort. You may argue that everyone would be better served if they did not. You may argue that the moon is made of green cheese for all the difference it makes. The simple fact is that they're free to do as they wish. And at the moment, they choose to work on separate code bases. And no matter what you think of the matter, their being free to do so IS how it should be.
Well, you see, there's this minor detail involved. It's called freedom.
If the developers want to work on separate code bases, who are you to tell them otherwise?
You may argue that it's wasted effort. You may argue that everyone would be better served if they did not. You may argue that the moon is made of green cheese for all the difference it makes. The simple fact is that they're free to do as they wish. And at the moment, they choose to work on separate code bases. And no matter what you think of the matter, their being free to do so IS how it should be.
@jdixon:
Of course, people are free to shoot themselves in the foot, and people are free to say they look forward to watching it happen, but that doesn't make any of it a good idea. I'm focusing on that aspect. Both codebases are free.
You will never have the money, marketshare, number of full-time programmers, etc. that Microsoft has. What you have is (the potential) for a mass of people. So don't screw that up. I also suggest you remember that there is no groundswell of interest in the AOO project. It is an arrogant oligarchy leading naive people. You seem to be the sort of person they are looking to recruit.
Do you acknowledge that this project has the potential to be a doomed plan because AOO refused to change it to fix the criticisms? Once you realize this isn't about freedom, then you can learn about minor details such as listening and compromise.
Of course, people are free to shoot themselves in the foot, and people are free to say they look forward to watching it happen, but that doesn't make any of it a good idea. I'm focusing on that aspect. Both codebases are free.
You will never have the money, marketshare, number of full-time programmers, etc. that Microsoft has. What you have is (the potential) for a mass of people. So don't screw that up. I also suggest you remember that there is no groundswell of interest in the AOO project. It is an arrogant oligarchy leading naive people. You seem to be the sort of person they are looking to recruit.
Do you acknowledge that this project has the potential to be a doomed plan because AOO refused to change it to fix the criticisms? Once you realize this isn't about freedom, then you can learn about minor details such as listening and compromise.
@jdixon: The thing is, keithcu is right: working on separate codebases is generally a bad thing. The fragmentation of Unix should have been a big lesson to everyone, but it seems most people never learned that lesson. Look where Unix is now (pretty much dead; Linux has taken over). Now obviously, you can't force anyone to work on software the way you want them to, but there's nothing wrong with or anti-freedom about making suggestions, and I agree with keith, the OO people are in the wrong, just like the XFree86 people were in the wrong. If they want to continue being wrong, that's they choice, but we don't have to be quiet about it either; we have the freedom to tell them they're wrong, and if someone doesn't like that, they can "run home to mommy".
> Of course, people are free to shoot themselves in the foot,... but that doesn't make any of it a good idea.
No, it doesn't. But we're not the ones you need to convince. And thus far, all the arguments seem to be unconvincing to those involved.
> The thing is, keithcu is right: working on separate codebases is generally a bad thing...
While that's a debatable matter, I'm willing to concede that he's correct in this case. That doesn't change anything. His arguments aren't convincing to those who need to be convinced. And some, perhaps many, of the comments on this thread sound a lot like "we know better than they do". That's not going to convince anyone on the other side.
> ...but we don't have to be quiet about it either; we have the freedom to tell them they're wrong, and if someone doesn't like that, they can "run home to mommy".
They can also write off anything you say now or in the future as being a want-a-be despot who thinks he knows better than everyone else. There are always multiple ways of looking at things. And if by overstating your arguments you fail to convince those involved and alienate those who are neutral, what have you gained?
It's one thing to point out a problem. It's another not to accept that there are legitimate reasons for people to disagree about a matter, and that people have a right to reach differing conclusions. It looks to me like we're crossing that line here. And that's a problem which also needs to be pointed out on occasion.
That said, I think I've made my point, and I'll drop the matter.
Read the whole commentNo, it doesn't. But we're not the ones you need to convince. And thus far, all the arguments seem to be unconvincing to those involved.
> The thing is, keithcu is right: working on separate codebases is generally a bad thing...
While that's a debatable matter, I'm willing to concede that he's correct in this case. That doesn't change anything. His arguments aren't convincing to those who need to be convinced. And some, perhaps many, of the comments on this thread sound a lot like "we know better than they do". That's not going to convince anyone on the other side.
> ...but we don't have to be quiet about it either; we have the freedom to tell them they're wrong, and if someone doesn't like that, they can "run home to mommy".
They can also write off anything you say now or in the future as being a want-a-be despot who thinks he knows better than everyone else. There are always multiple ways of looking at things. And if by overstating your arguments you fail to convince those involved and alienate those who are neutral, what have you gained?
It's one thing to point out a problem. It's another not to accept that there are legitimate reasons for people to disagree about a matter, and that people have a right to reach differing conclusions. It looks to me like we're crossing that line here. And that's a problem which also needs to be pointed out on occasion.
That said, I think I've made my point, and I'll drop the matter.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post