Sun Urged to Give Up OpenOffice Control 246
inc_x writes "Developers from OpenOffice.org are urging Sun to set the project free and bring it under a foundation. Sun's dominance over the project makes other companies such as IBM, Redhat and Novell reluctant to contribute more. Both Mozilla and Eclipse managed to attract an increasing number of developers after the projects were moved over to an independent foundation."
should happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:should happen (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:should happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't (Score:1, Insightful)
This isn't about forking however, but about better organizing OO developement, in order to attract more external developers, which would of course be a very good thing and probably also benefit Sun.
Maybe Sun should keep it? (Score:4, Insightful)
With Sun at least you've got one company at the wheel so to speak.
Re:Being urged by developers is one thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It All Depends on Sun's Goals (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Office is possibly the single most important reason why Linux is useful as a workstation OS. Seems to me like they deserve all the goodwill anyway.
That's strange (Score:5, Insightful)
But in fact I heard that most FLOSS developers are turned down by the size and overall (low) quality of OOo code.
As one developer said on blog (I failed to find that remark again) the thing is only paid Sun developers would work on it. And only because they are paid to do so. Compilation take ages and level of requirements for development is high - that all creates entry barrier to FLOSS developers, most of whome work in their own spare time.
To put in prospective: what would you want to spend you time on: hacking Linux kernel and then in 10 minutes seeing your changes or waiting N hours when OOo compilation finishes?
I never looked into OOo sources. But the pace of progress project makes - and the kind of progress it makes - tell quite much about how project is organized. I truly hope that KOffice would be able to run on Wind0ze - in office unfortunately I'm completely confined to the M$ Wind0ze. At the moment only OOo can read the SXW files OOo produces upon import from M$O... AbiWord fails completely to pick up styles in such documents. KOffice 1.4 is quite close to render the files the way as OOo does.
Pretentiousness (Score:4, Insightful)
Mozilla has gotten new developers since Firefox, NOT because it's not controlled by AOL/Netscape anymore.
I wish developers would be less pretentious about their choice of projects. Surely successful projects
which have significant amounts of corporate backing, both financial and in terms of management, are some
of the better projects to work on. You have defined goals, a great infrastructure to work in, and nobody
ever complained about the way Mozilla was being run before The Foundation (in fact The Foundation works
exactly the same way for every developer in terms of bug tracking, IRC events, software testing and
releases, as it did during AOL's tenure)
OpenOffice could get more developers if it had some unsubstantial hype or managed to get a bunch of new
features it already had (get rid of Java and implement everything the same way, some other way
not just because Sun would have dropped it. I actually think OpenOffice (like Seamonkey becoming a tiny
little sideproject in view of Firefox's popularity) would suffer for it.
Re:Causation or correlation? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure Mozilla is not so open and shut, devs would have had different reasons for working on it which may have been related to past loyalty to the browser, hatered of IE, or just plain curiousity... But I'm not sure what the OSS developer counts were for the Netscape/AOL Mozilla vs. Mozilla.org Mozilla releases.
OO.org biggest problems (Score:2, Insightful)
To make much more flexible whole project needs to become much more modular (which equals trash all existing codebase and start from scratch):
- file modules (input/output) - in ideal world OO.org would share this part with AbiWord, KOffice etc...
- "processing" module (document "managment", scripting etc.) - imagine running OO.org without GUI (some server document processing etc.)
- "GUI" module - native Qt, GTK, Windows, MacOS, etc..
But I'm 99% sure that this will not ever happen. More probable is that KOffice will become much more usable and supported on Windows/MacOS.
Re:should happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:should happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:good step (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't the XBox related activities make a loss?
Re:Causation or correlation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Genuine answer - Alot of developers have clauses in their employment contracts about what they can and cannot do in their spare time in terms of software develoment. In my own case (I had a lawyer check my contract) I can am free to work on OSS projects if they :
1) Do not undermine the business of my employer. That is the OSS project represents a competing product.
2) The project is not conntrolled by a competing company or corporation.
So I am guessing that it was at least partly a case of Mozilla and Eclipse gaining developers because they were 'set free'.
Some developers have truly draconian clauses in their contracts about the extent to which they can participate in OSS projects. I have even heard of people being forbidden by contract to develop software for anybody but their employer no matter what the circumstance or the nature of the development work (ie. even if it is an OSS project that is solely for their own enjoyment, unrelated to the employers line of business and not for profit). Such clauses would probably not hold up in court, at least not in most EU countries, but corporations include them in employment contracts anyway. The same goes for anti competition clauses, ie. "If you quit and start working for a rival corporation you must remain unemployed for N months before starting your new job". Supreme courts in a nubmer of European countries have have declared such anti competition clauses to be invalid but they keep being included in employment contracts regardless. I suppose employers are counting on their terror value since employees may be reluctant to take the matter to court even if they will win because of the legal cost and the time-demands and hassle of a court case.
OOo needs a Firefox makeover (Score:5, Insightful)
What needs to happen to it is what happened to Firefox: the thing needs to be split up, the GUI and cross platform toolkit need to be overhauled (or even replaced with Gtk+), and Java needs to be exorcised from it.
And, yes, severing the connection with Sun would be a good thing for OOo, and ultimately for Sun as well.
Not only OpenOffice, Linux kernel too (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It All Depends on Sun's Goals (Score:3, Insightful)
You may be right, but, sadly, I don't think that users want a light clean suite - they want something that looks like MS Office.
Re:OOo needs a Firefox makeover (Score:4, Insightful)
(I think it's a consequence of having too many engineers, many of which are mediocre).
How do big companies tend to produce that, but you forgot all those huge, bloated, never-controlled-by-a-corporation projects like GCC, XFree86, and suchlike?
Too many cooks spoiling the broth IS what causes it, but why make the dig at big companies?
Re:It would make sense. (Score:2, Insightful)
That's couple of pretty big ifs, of course. Many open source projects, for good or bad, tend to focus on the addition of new features rather than just making the old ones work properly and cleanly, every time; so chances are, more manpower might well be used deployed on tasks other than cleaning and streamlining, despite OOo sorely needing a bit of both. Still, a guy can dream.
Re:should happen (Score:2, Insightful)
(In other words, the parent is right.)
Re:OOo needs a Firefox makeover (Score:5, Insightful)
Open office consists of close to 10 million lines of code. Much of it is star office legacy code that very few people understand. Because of this legacy, feature development happens at a snailpace and the UI looks like shit.
A complete rewrite is not a realistic option for Sun. Doing so certainly killed Netscape and their product was a much smaller software product. A full rewrite would take the best part of this decade. A more realistic strategy would be to gradually replace the worst parts of the system. Identify the problematic components and fix or redesign them. Sure the UI sucks but it sort of works. The 2.0 development even made it look semi native on some platforms. Deoupling the components of the suit means that you can evolve them (or kill them off) seperately.
Guilty is not Java, or Sun. (Score:3, Insightful)
- Java is used in a small amount of the OpenOffice (database and some less known seperate components). i wish it would be used more. Especially in the GUI part, check NeoOffice if you want.
- Bloat is caused by the C++ side of the application. And not Sun's fault it was already rotten when Sun bought the company.
- Complexity is caused by the C++ side of the application. it would be hell if they tried to use C++ for all the database part.
- People thinks everybody will rush to participate code if it would e an organization are dreaming. if Sun does not pay, it will be in the hands of one or two stinky hacker. coding C++ code is no feast especially for this magnitude of the project. Firefox has a bunch of core developers and one million people who just rub the developers back, thay are suffering grately. Eclipse is lucky on that side because they use a better and easier programming language (Java).
Re:Being urged by developers is one thing (Score:3, Insightful)
C'mon you know better than that.
They merely allowed other people to copy it under the terms of the licence. If the licence is breached then normal copyright applies. Similarly in the event that you had a line of code included in a project then you would be able to enforce the terms of licence for *your* line of code.
As to the rest, I might agree with your summary but I find the "how dare they compete with us" attitude of the middle bit a little silly.
OpenOffice dosen't matter - ODF does (Score:4, Insightful)
But to me, the key is not OpenOffice but OpenDocument. With the widespread adaptation of an open document format, in a few years people will stop caring what Office suite you are running - just like I don't care about your brand of email client, I just assume you can read the emails I send you.
For that reason, Suns ownership of OpenOffice has been all for the good - they could probably not have justified the expense to their shareholders if they had just given it all up to a foundation - and we should all be very grateful. Now we have ODF, we have a working implementation (OO.o), and all FOSS developers can choose to work on their Office software of choice, as long as they are ODF-compliant, which will in the end lead to real choice for all of us that are mostly users.
As for Sun keeping OpenOffice or giving it to a foundation - who cares?
Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
Give them a break... (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on.
The only reason for the Mozilla Foundation was because AOL/Netscape wanted to stop bleeding money into a project that was giving them nothing. Sure, it's been a good move for Mozilla projects, but Sun's ongoing commitment to OpenOffice/StarOffice just shows how strongly they believe in the project. If OpenOffice was languishing, then it might be time to ask them to step aside and establish a Foundation. This is clearly not the case. Moreover, OpenOffice's license is very cut and dried. You can easily fork the project (as has been done with Workplace and, to a lesser extent, with NeoOffice.) Heck, you can even fork it and setup a foundation. Good luck replacing those Sun engineers, though.
OpenOffice is hugely important to Linux, Unix and Open Source in general. For the most part, I think that Sun has been doing an outstanding job with the code. Why ask them to further distance themselves from the project now? It's not like they're doing it a disservice. (As was arguably the case with Netscape/Mozilla.)
And another thing, people taking potshots at OOo 2's use of Java in Base should realize that this was yet another significant contribution to the project from Sun. Base, even with it's faults, works very well. In fact, it has already allowed me to use MySQL/OOo in place of Access at work. Sure it uses Java, but this was done for legitimate reasons with an eye on compatibility. The proof of this being that Red Hat et al. were so quickly able to port Base to the gjc. I highly doubt that the relative ease of this task was a coincidence.
Really, that this has come up at all is a true shame. I fear that it shows that even if Sun were to open source Java, people would still find some way to complain. Sun certainly does some strange things, but their contributions to OpenOffice have been nothing short of fantastic. They should be commended for Giving Microsoft their first real competition in years.
Re:should happen (Score:2, Insightful)
while (count 15 seconds)
{
waste time crunching randomized numbers here, pinning the CPU and thrashing the hard disk for no good purpose other than to annoy you
}
Every bit of code is there to provide features for graphic designers. I gave my art director three options, all licensed and installed on his PC:
- Adobe CS2
- The Gimp
- Paint Shop Pro (since uninstalled and given to my brother for the occasional work he does for us)
He has run The Gimp exactly once just to check it out. He found the GUI counterintuitive (especially when multitasking - when bringing the document forward, the palettes stay below everything else. That pisses ME off every single time I use The Gimp as well). He hates The Gimp. The only reason I use The Gimp instead of Photoshop is that Photoshop for Linux is not (yet) available.
He has used Paint Shop Pro a couple of timezs just for a couple of filters it had that Photoshop didn't, but he has since implemented his own filters.
Sit a professional graphic designer in front of The Gimp and he'll ask if you're joking. I would have to agree, even though graphic design is not my primary focus. Effects which come free in CS2 in the form of layer effects take roughly 30 clicks and 8 to 10 passes of various filters in The Gimp to achieve similar results, and if you're not happy with the results in CS2, it's the tweaking of a setting or two to remove, modify, or reapply an effect, whereas it's having to repeat the same many steps in The Gimp, and you're not likely to ever get the same effect exactly the same multiple times because there are so many steps involved. When I have to design something for a client that isn't just image editing but requires design, I usually go to my designer's workstation and use Adobe CS2. I may be pro-Linux and Pro-OSS, but I definitely see and appreciate the value in commercial products. If Adobe CS2 is ever released for Linux, I'll definitely be one of the first to buy it. Well, I take that back - I'll wait for the first patch to be released.
There is definitely value in Adobe CS2, and the "bloat" as you put it does not go to waste. If you think it's waste, you should be choosing a lighter tool because you obviously don't need the functionality it provides, but I assure you it is not bloat. Photoshop is not and was never intended to be a lightweight tool. If lightweight is what you need, check out Paint Shop Pro, The Gimp, or maybe even Photoshop Elements.
Open Projects (Score:2, Insightful)
Great way to discourage companies from OS (Score:4, Insightful)
Sun has spent a lot of money on this product, and now people are demanding that they give this up too? I don't get it. Wouldn't this discourage people from opening up their projects to OS?
You can already fork this and do your own thing right? There's no incentive for Sun to "give up" more control over this, unless they want to fire a bunch of developers Sun pays for to lower their costs.
Re:should happen (Score:3, Insightful)
actually, having all copyright dually assigned allowed sun to drop sissl (that is, dual licensing) at launch of oo.org 2.0 an thus oo.org is licensed as lgpl only now.
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS3294924491.htm
there also is a faq linked from that article (and you probably could find a lot of info in oo.org mailing list archives / website and other places)
http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/license-change.htm
Sounds like the latest news ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth is that if a high enough percentage of the OpenOffice.org people wanted to break up with Sun nobody could stop them - they could just FORK. But wait
Re:Give them a break... (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the slashdotters
Re:It All Depends on Sun's Goals (Score:1, Insightful)
Much of the rapid development that was happening to bring KOffice along went quiet when OO.o was released, if I remember correctly.
Ahh... the famous KDE fallacy. Some nice screenshots and a bit of user interface code and a hype article on slashdot == finished app. It's been a common theme on slashdot for 5 years now.
Clue: KOffice slowed down because all the low-hanging fruit had been picked. It entered the phase of development in which all much of the fun easy pay-off stuff had already been done... and it moved in the phase that all software developers know about the "elbow-grease" phase, in which you must buckle down and get all the tough stuff done.