Open Standards And FLOSS Go Together

“in the 66 courts across Slovenia, the 4400 staff use Apache OpenOffice. It is well-integrated in the court’s case management system, allowing automatic document generation by combining a template repository with case data. The courts also use the Mozilla Thunderbird mail client, and the Mozilla Firefox web browser.”
 
See Open standards default at Slovenia supreme court
I cite the example to the right to refute a claim of one of our commentators that M$’s office suite is widely used because folks can use templates… Yes, well, so can users of LibreOffice/OpenOffice.org. I’ve been using templates for ages since OpenOffice.org. I don’t remember how far back that goes but it’s been over a decade certainly. When I was a teacher, I taught students how to do that as a shortcut even for letter-writing, putting in the constant information like sender, date, and addresses. Companies, organizations and individuals can insert their favourite logo, image or motto with no need to retype stuff.

That’s just the beginning. Saving money, particularly for organizations of size who don’t need to pay yet another round of licensing fees, has a huge advantage. With the money they save they can easily afford to manage all their templates and integrate with their databases further extending the usefulness of the software. I did that with report cards in schools, making the attendance, date, grades and various headings and boxes part of the templates. It made printers, not teachers, the bottleneck in the system. If e-mail could replace the printing, the bottleneck would be nearly eliminated.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in Linux in Education, politics, Teaching, technology and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Open Standards And FLOSS Go Together

  1. oiaohm says:

    Wizard Emeritus then I will deal with it the way you did. Start thinking you did this when you used the handle oldman.

  2. dougman says:

    “The fact that you don’t like what was said and you feel that you can declare your own problems with word was not in scope of what I was addressing.”

    Sounds like Oiaohm, aka as Ham-Dong, makes for the perfect social justice warrior feminist type.

  3. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “Wizard Emeritus correct I did not like either posts. Yet you deal with it instead of complaining. ”

    It doesn’t work that way sir, no matter how hard you try to make it. Dougie’s statement was over broad. I provided a counterpoint to it. Thats all.

    The fact that you don’t like what was said and you feel that you can declare your own problems with word was not in scope of what I was addressing.

    Its that simple.

    Deal with it.

  4. oiaohm says:

    Wizard Emeritus correct I did not like either posts. Yet you deal with it instead of complaining.

    My post was a refutation, nothing more.
    Sorry your was not a refutation. Yours was a under researched over-claim. So same mistake as dogman made.

    irrelevant to what I posted.
    Totally not you have held me to standard that you don’t yourself to. If I had done something like this you would expect me to admit I had lied. Are you going to say sorry for that I guess not.

  5. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “Wizard Emeritus the problem was you say his post was over broad so was yours. The reality there was a real fault their.”

    My post was a refutation, nothing more. If you are saying that you don’t like either post, thats fine, but irrelevant to what I posted.

    Again, deal with it.

  6. oiaohm says:

    Wizard Emeritus the problem was you say his post was over broad so was yours. The reality there was a real fault their.

    The reality here is every version of MS Office since the year 2000 a percentage of documents from prior versions has failed open and is called corrupt by newer versions of MS Office when there is not a single bit different to what use to open in the prior version. Yet we take Openoffice 1.0 documents and they open perfectly in current Libreoffice if they are still bit perfect.

    The arguement that you need current MS Office to access all MS Office formats is basically a myth. Why because current MS Office like all versions of MS Office only support a percentage. So the question is are the documents you wishing to open in the percentage the version of MS Office you have supports. If yes everything is good if no this could be a big problem. We are now getting to the horible location where Libreoffice opens more than MS Office.

    This is what gets kinda shocking is documents that don’t open in current versions of MS Office open perfectly in Libreoffice because they were not damaged in the first place just they contain some feature Microsoft has decide not to support any more.

    The same is true for win32 application compatibility between versions of Windows.

    So there are a set of compatibly myths around MS Office and MS Windows.

    A true functional standard with proper tests is what you need to provide long term compatibly.

  7. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “Wizard Emeritus no point you made was “works for me argument” with your level of so call experience you should not have made a claim like that.”

    Actually I simply refuted an overly broad statement of Dougie by going to an older document cache and attempting to open very old documents in the latest version of word.

    It is not my problem that you don’t like my comment. There are plenty of yours that I don’t like or respect either.

    Deal with it.

  8. oiaohm says:

    As I stated previously, it is an truncated amalgamation of one of your earlier posts.
    Then its a quote by a idiot. Truncate and amalgamation has in fact altered meaning.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context
    Yes go read Quoting out of context. So truncate and amalgamation is only something a complete stupid moron would do.

    Mocking me so we have dogman here admitting that he will alter words to suit his own end so is a complete idiot who comments should be expected to be a stack of made up garbage.

    So dogman the idiot strikes again think he is being mocking when all he is doing is proving he is a complete idiot beyond question.

    Sorry a halfwit has no right to call anyone else a half-wit you complete moron. You don’t want to be called a idiot and other things learn to quote properly.

  9. dougman says:

    “My own experience line expanded to representing everyone is a sign of a idiot”

    Spoken like a true halfwit.

  10. dougman says:

    “dougman come on”

    Where we going?

    “I ignored this a few times.”

    Oh?

    “If you wish to be person putting up false quote go ahead.”

    Its not a false quote, it is an truncation of one of your postings.

    “Don’t expect any answers.”

    I’m not, it’s called mocking you.

    “That mixed up mess you cannot in fact reference a post by anyone other than you that says that made up bogus mess.”

    As I stated previously, it is an truncated amalgamation of one of your earlier posts. http://mrpogson.com/2016/09/26/my-experiences-converting-users-to-gnulinux/#comment-352712

    Some talented person could scan the entire posts made by you, and create a humorous website. The ideal would be calling it “Peter Dolding Speak” or perhaps “Oiaohm Speak” akin to the websites touting Yoda speak.

  11. oiaohm says:

    dougman come on I ignored this a few times. If you wish to be person putting up false quote go ahead. Don’t expect any answers. That mixed up mess you cannot in fact reference a post by anyone other than you that says that made up bogus mess.

    You HAMDONG idiot learn how to quote properly or don’t quote at all.

  12. dougman says:

    You know, this is a super big maybe. I have mentioned it before but the process is a pain in ass.

    Badly packages applications exist. Depending how built Yes it would be better at long last has agreed to sit down and work Ok it would be nicer

    Interesting point. There is something interesting here.

  13. oiaohm says:

    Wizard Emeritus no point you made was “works for me argument” with your level of so call experience you should not have made a claim like that.

    So the point you were making was totally invalid. You choose one random document from the past and them stupidly claimed that other documents from back then would work. Reality is due to physically connected printer metrics data being used by MS word in the format itself that is absolutely not the case. Gets worse with 2016 when it starts being selective were you go from miss formatted document to where document does not open.

    My own experience line expanded to representing everyone is a sign of a idiot,

  14. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “Wizard Emeritus really I put this by Microsoft as one of the most stupid thing ever to-do to end users.”

    But all this is still not relevant to the point that I was making. Nice try though.

  15. oiaohm says:

    Oh and Dougies cite referred to Word for Mac, not Word for windows. Since Mac users represent a fraction of the business use, especially when one projects back in time 20+ years, Dougie’s generalization is to put it kindle, unwarranted.
    If you dig around you will find people complaining about Word for Windows failing to-do the same documents.

    I also observed that I had problems with older documents, mosty because at that point in time I was using the third party typefonts (Adobe) that were needed to create polished documents. But even in this case, the documents were readable.

    Please note I have not written that you cannot have the case that all the printers you have been creating documents with match what MS Office 2016 expects that is 600×600 dpi or 1200×1200 dpi so no problems show. Now if you had a printer that was 1200×600 or anything like that connected to a machine the documents that come off that machine is possibly tainted in ways MS Office 2016 will refuse to open and it does not matter if it Mac or Windows.

    Lot of old Apple printers have odd dpi mixes so those users are in some ways more likely than PC users to hit this one.

    Land mine is a very good term to define this problem. Your documents is the mine field. You might be able to cross from one side to the other other unharmed or you might be nuked out of existence. You will only find out once you start processing the documents you have. The printers you had were the mine layers. So it possible that you are 100% safe or it possible that you are absolutely 100% stuffed or a mix in-between. Not everyone owns the same printers right and not every maker used the same metrics. ODF and its prior staroffice formats just like Latex never put physical printer metrics in them.

    This is early word perfect idea to put physical printer metrics in documents to give users more exact control over what printer produced. Sounded good at the time but has turned into a longer term document accessing nightmare.

    Broken fonts is classed as normal problems. The calling document corrupt when really they were no more broken than what 2013 would open is exactly what 2016 has done.

    In fact we are now in the stupid location where “Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint File Formats” for MS Office 2003 results in more document support than installing new MS Office 2016.

    Wizard Emeritus really I put this by Microsoft as one of the most stupid thing ever to-do to end users.

  16. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “Yes this is the MS Office Word land mine. ”

    If you will recall, my answer was in response to Dougies broad generalization

    “Well, if you care about reading/editing your document in 20+ years, using a proprietary system is not recommended.”

    To which I responded with my own very real experiences with documents of my own going back at least 21 years. I also observed that I had problems with older documents, mosty because at that point in time I was using the third party typefonts (Adobe) that were needed to create polished documents. But even in this case, the documents were readable.

    Oh and Dougies cite referred to Word for Mac, not Word for windows. Since Mac users represent a fraction of the business use, especially when one projects back in time 20+ years, Dougie’s generalization is to put it kindle, unwarranted.

  17. oiaohm says:

    Wizard Emeritus
    I would hazard a guess that the majority of documents that are created in word, are straightforward.
    Older word documents are a game of luck even if they open in current MS Office if formatting will be intact if at all. Issue is printer metrics of the connected printer were used at random.

    So you have two identical content word documents and one opens correctly and one does not just because the user creating the one of the documents used a method that end up using physical printer metrics inside the document.

    Libreoffice contains a good block of code to snoop over old doc and docx files to attempt to work out what printer metrics had been used. Newer MS Office used the 1 so call historic representative printer and if the printer you had happened to not match that things spec stiff. If current MS Office detect document does not match representative printer called the document corrupt and fails to open it. So some people changing from 2013 to 2016 can find none of their old documents open. In 2013 they would have opened but format damaged(if user noticed). Hey lets not fix MS Office to render these documents correctly we will just tag them corrupt instead good on you Microsoft.

    MS Office 2016 really means you need something other than MS Office around to be able to open all .doc and .docx documents yes MS Office 2010 and before docx is also laced with physical printer metrics at times. 2013 if you were using a MS Office 2010 produced template containing physical printer metrics would have preserved them so tainting new documents produced from that template. So businesses moving templates from office version to office version can have dug themselves into quite a deep hole when they attempt to move from MS Office 2013 to 2016.

    Yes this is the MS Office Word land mine. Hopefully 2016 documents going forwards will be clean to open in future version of MS Office and we will not have another land mined document event. MS Office 2016 that shoots the arguement dead that you install MS Office so you can access all prior MS Office produced files because MS Office 2016 makes that bogus.

  18. dougman says:

    “Funny thing Dougie, I just opened and edited a vintage 1997 word document from the latest version. Granted, it was a fairly straightforward document, but then again I would hazard a guess that the majority of documents that are created in word, are straightforward. Assuming that anyone has documents that they still care about that are that old, they should not have any problems.”

    http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/msoffice/forum/msoffice_other-mso_mac/word-2016-cant-open-older-doc-files/bc6ebd8f-266f-4c60-a473-8c8b9b07011d

    *shrug* It’s not funny when a business has tens of thousands of unopenable documents, but when shown that LibreOffice open’s them just fine, they set back and go “Huh!?”…another case of shut-up take my money.

  19. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “Well, if you care about reading/editing your document in 20+ years, using a proprietary system is not recommended.”

    Funny thing Dougie, I just opened and edited a vintage 1997 word document from the latest version. Granted, it was a fairly straightforward document, but then again I would hazard a guess that the majority of documents that are created in word, are straightforward. Assuming that anyone has documents that they still care about that are that old, they should not have any problems.

    Incidentally I did have some problems with a vintage 1990 document that I created in word for windows 3.x – In that case, the problem lay with my use of adobe typefaces (including zapf dingbats), which were not available on the newer machine.

  20. dougman says:

    “Ah, and very interestingly, people are driven into frenzy by forcing them to write a 10-page document in Word.”

    Well, if you care about reading/editing your document in 20+ years, using a proprietary system is not recommended.

  21. Deaf Spy says:

    Ram, you forgot some very important after-party activities. As a prominent participant in MS events and after parties, I’d gladly help:
    1. Tormenting little kittens.
    2. Drinking the blood of children.
    3. Setting foster care shelters on fire.
    4. Going wild on the streets, tumbling down the blind and disabled.
    5. Stealing toddlers’ blankets and toys.
    At least these are all I can remember, the rest is a blur.

    Ah, and very interestingly, people are driven into frenzy by forcing them to write a 10-page document in Word.

  22. ram says:

    MS products are only used by governments because MS pays the big bribes. Not to mention their “after parties” at computer trade shows — plenty of cocaine and prostitutes provided.

  23. oiaohm says:

    But still you underestimate the level of work put into new features, besides the technical debt.
    The level of technical debt has been quite a hindrance. Yes I know its lot of work to do new features. But the issue here was with OpenOffice code base libreoffice started from the code base was that bad that for a lot of new feature attempts it turned into 1 step forwards 2 step backward. Being 2 step backwards go fix some technical debt issue not work on new feature.

    Libreoffice code base now is getting to the point that someone starts working on a new feature and they have not likely to repeated technical debt issue come up and bite them so pulling them off new feature work. Implementing a new features is hard enough without major technical debt issues.

    For example some of the buttons on tool bars could not be even put on the sidebar because those turned out to depend on the toolbar they were on in fact initing stuff. Yes technical defect thinking user is meant to be able to reorder toolbars themselves.

    Mike Kaganski my point is not really how much work is attempted to be put into new features. How much of that work can turn into successful results so able to appear in final product for people like kurkosdr to see. There was just level of technical debt that ruins any attempt to rework application UI until it was fixed. Ok it took 6+ years to get rid of most of that so anyone starting a UI alteration project now will have a nicer time.

    The hard reality is sometimes background work has to complete before progress can be made. When a project is not making what is appearing forwards progress it pays to check what is consuming the developers time and if there is enough developers. Libreoffice case enough developers but huge technical debt problem.

    So going forwards I expect to see way more successful UI experiments. At least now technical debt fixing should not be out weighing work on new features. Of course to make sure technical debt issues don’t return test suites. Test suites are just one of those super boring areas that if you don’t do them the technical debt that builds up starts hindering new feature development at worst to effectively stopping new feature development dead until it addressed.

    So people asking for a ribbon like interface option in Libreoffice have not being ignored as such just the means to address that request has not be possible for quite a few years due to other work that was required. Then it can take a few years to perfect something like that without any technical debt in way.

  24. Mike Kaganski says:

    oiaohm That’s correct, and you are quite right about importance of the test suites we build now (btw, the UI suite, being among the latest, isn’t the only one: e.g., we made quite a lot of unit tests all around the code). Also, Markus made a great new reporting tool that allows users to send their crashes to developers in more useful form with more ease.
    But still you underestimate the level of work put into new features, besides the technical debt. My post was only meant to point to that aspect.

  25. oiaohm says:

    Mike Kaganski notebook bar is looked at for include either in 5.3 or 5.4 libreoffice that is not released yet.
    https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/5.3
    That puts the UI change for normal users as some time in 2017 or 2018.

    I posted that as a responce to kurkosdr who declared that LO doesn’t develop new UI (and you also mistakingly confirmed that it doesn’t).

    Not exactly mistakenly. The level of internal errors in libreoffice has forbid doing this kind re-factoring work until now. Of course now Libreoffice is getting proper UI testsuite re-factoring the UI now becomes possible.
    https://mmohrhard.wordpress.com/2016/09/07/ui-testing-in-libreoffice/
    Basically the Markus Mohrhard work opens up the way to these UI changes. I mixed this up with Meeks.

    Lets just say kurkosdr was expecting Libreoffice Development to run before it could even crawl. There was lots of truly boring work that had to be done before interesting work like major UI redesigns could be undertaken.

    Now that everything is getting in order so that the more interesting work can be undertaken. Because by the time that Notebook Bar is done there will be a proper UI testing framework maybe a little short on tests or it will be fairly complete depending on what version of Libreoffice is it included with. Either way it not coming into the code base before UI testing has partly started working..

    Its basically taken Libreoffice developers 6 years to get the code base to a point that so that doing anything more than minor UI changes is possible to be performed without risking bringing the complete house cards that inherited OpenOffice UI was down on everyone head. So it was not that Libreoffice developers were not interested in doing UI changes it was a sanity issue of attempting without cleaning up the code base first was going to drive everyone nuts due to a stack of strange interrelationships in the code base that were all breached of good coding practice.

    You cannot build a new building without solid foundations. The background code of OpenOffice was very much like trying to build on quicksand.

    So the future forms of Libreoffice UI changes should be quite interesting to watch as now the background code is quite solid and fairly solid methods to UI test-suite it.

  26. Mike Kaganski says:

    Sorry for being unclear.
    The link I posted is a TDF Wiki page that tracks development of LibreOffice NotebookBar – in other words, ribbon for LO. It is developed already for quite a long time, and is ready for testing in current dev builds. Several screenshots are available, e.g., at http://antilibreoffice.blogspot.ru/2016/09/libreoffice-2016.html (Russian).
    I posted that as a responce to kurkosdr who declared that LO doesn’t develop new UI (and you also mistakingly confirmed that it doesn’t).

  27. Interesting. I’ve noticed applications with interfaces specialized for mobile (smartphones or tablets). I actually prefer them because they load faster on older systems, even desktops. LibreOffice tweaked to work better on notebooks is a good idea because notebooks are different. Some have different aspect ratios and most have a touch-pad with a couple of buttons, quite different from a mouse, although there are mice specialized for tablets/notebooks with smaller cords or wireless. Touch is OK for simple applications but office suites aren’t that. I doubt voice input will ever turn an office suite into a “secretary”, but it could happen and change everything. Then the format of the screen would be much less critical and pointers might be greatly reduced in importance for many tasks. As a teacher, I often noticed how difficult it was to speak to an intelligent student to guide them through a task when a demonstration spoke a thousand words.

    I’m old, though. I’ll get by with what has worked for decades now, some kind of large screen, a pointer and a keyboard.

  28. oiaohm says:

    Yes 22,985 fixed defects on the Coverity site is only since 2012. They don’t include old fixes from the Openoffice branch when it took part in Coverity.

    12572 bugs found in Libreoffice bugzilla do have to be taken with a grain of salt.
    https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59918
    There are a lot of duplicates and bugs like the above example that are fixed in newer versions so have to remain alive until people migrate so people don’t recreate the same bug again. Also note the bug number is down to what Libreoffice teams are chewing through every 2 years in cleaning the code base up.

    Most people have no clue how much resources a bad code base sucks up fixing it. Thing is code base fixing is something that over time takes less and less resources as the quality of the code base increases. Result is more resources are now being freed up to address other problems.

    Libreoffice stalled state with no major UI design changes starts making sense when you look under the hood at what has been consuming developer time.

  29. oiaohm says:

    At the end of the day it only proves that people prefer to shed $10 / month or $100 once to get MS Office and never ever think of submitting code.

    If you don’t want to submit code that is not your only option with Libreoffice paying so much per month or one off payment to one of Libreoffice support companies is possible.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/collabora-deal-will-provide-savings-on-open-source-office-software
    The fact Libreoffice is open source and the way it developed means you have choice of vendor so can vote with your cash for features.

    So Libreoffice has 3 basic options.
    1) The free version where you pay for your own developers directly or put up with what ever features it has.
    2) The subscription option where you pay so much per month for support and development from a third party company who you can put request into to directly fix.
    3) The one off payment model for some feature.

    So cost differences to Microsoft Office not that much other than been able to take advantage if you happen to have own skilled staff due to the fact Libreoffice lets you have access to the source code can address problems internally and push them upstream. The other fact with Microsoft Office you fork over money and you really don’t have any ability to say to Microsoft for X dollars I want X feature.

    The reality is different groups around the world are tossing up if they keep on paying for Microsoft Office or instead pay some Libreoffice support group.

    Basically if you are too cheap to pay for Libreoffice and decide to pay for Microsoft Office instead you are not getting as much service for your money that way. Issue has been how much money Libreoffice has had to over the last 6 years put into fixing the code base up. Of course defect level in the Libreoffice code base is dropping.

    Just to to give you a rough price 8 million lines of code the average is 200-400 dollars a line to audit. So Libreoffice project basically started with a few billion dollars black hole to fill in.

    The following two links show a clear difference between Libreoffice and OpenOffice.
    https://scan.coverity.com/projects/openoffice
    https://scan.coverity.com/projects/211
    Free service for code quality and OpenOffice is not using it.

  30. Deaf Spy says:

    LibreOffice proves that if people need/want an office suite and/or particular features all they have to do is submit the code.

    At the end of the day it only proves that people prefer to shed $10 / month or $100 once to get MS Office and never ever think of submitting code.

  31. oiaohm says:

    One of the reasons I like MS Office is that it proves, in practice, that paid developers will work on something no matter how boring it is, as long as there is a market for it.
    Not true for Libreoffice. Something remember 90% of Libreoffice developers are paid to work on it by companies asking for particular features. So a lot of developers in Libreoffice are paid to work on quite boring things.

    Meanwhile at the OpenOffice and LibreOffice front, anyone wants to design a new UI for the thing, or fix the myriad bugs (like the Writer using the english dictionary on laguages that aren’t english and redlining all the words), or create some templates worth using? No?
    There is a lot of work going on in LibreOffice doing a new UI. Including making sure there is a functional test-suite for the UI.

    Really there is a lot of changes in the GUI from the first release of Libreoffice to current edition. Most you don’t notice because a lot are moving features to more sane locations or redesign dialogues or background functions to in fact function better.
    https://conference.libreoffice.org/assets/Conference/MichaelMeeksyear-of-vcl.pdf
    This is from the 2015 libreoffice conference. The work in the graphical sections of Libreoffice has not slowed down.

    Lets point out something boring but totally critical that has been missing. Michael Meeks has started work on the first functional UI testsuite for Libreoffice. Both Libreoffice and OpenOffice has been missing that.

    So Libreoffice starts in a location with the OpenOffice code base where it takes insanely long time to render a document. Libreoffice has brought that down by so much its not funny.
    Changing to a ribbon like interface would still require being able to render the document to screen at a decent speed right?
    So the major performance bugs no matter how boring had to be fixed first.

    Making a new interface without a functional way to make a UI testsuite for it are you mad?
    Remember you need a functional UI test-suite to make sure user instructions to-do document modifications has not being broken when you decide to major-ally alter the UI.

    The reality doing new UI has been impossible to-do due to how much boring background work did not exist. When libreoffice forked off from OpenOffice there basically was not any forms of test-suites for anything. Explained why OpenOffice was so highly unstable and still is fairly unstable. OOXML support and other document formats in Libreoffice have improved massively due to implementing a test-suite covering that.

    So its at least another 12 months before Libreoffice code base will be in a location where you should be consider major UI redesign. Yes it taken over 6 years to get decent test-suite over Libreoffice from basically nothing OpenOffice had and it most likely going to take 8-7 years total to get to somewhere near complete. Somewhere near complete test-suite system is what you require so when you change UI you can see breakages.

    Ok new UI on Libreoffice is not happening due to technical reasons why you should not attempt that yet. Lot of those technical reason came clear when they attempted to port libreoffice to Android. So its not like Libreoffice has not attempted to get a new UI either. Just key boring work is not done yet.

    A language using the wrong dictionary that should be reported to the Libreoffice localization project https://www.libreoffice.org/community/localization/

    Even in localisation depending on the language quite a few of those are full time paid people leading the localisations.

    Templates for home users is a valid issue. Most businesses using Libreoffice create their own internal templates for stuff then share them with no one.
    http://templates.libreoffice.org/template-center?getCategories=E-book&getCompatibility=any
    Even so Libreoffice has grown quite a template collection.

    See? That’s the problem with the volunteer model. Or are we supposed to believe people will “buy support” for an Office suite so money to pay some paid developers can be raised from support sales (ala RedHat)?
    Uk government and other Governments do in fact buy Libreoffice support from companies like Collabora. Majority of Libreoffice developers are employed this way.

    Something the Libreoffice board from the start did was get groups of companies around selling support to employ developers. As they understood the basics if developers could not put food on table they could not work on project. Libreoffice foundation basically followed the model of the Linux Foundation this way. Where the foundation employs very few of the developers but when Libreoffice foundation staff see well performing developers attempts to get them employment if they don’t have employment. Yes the Libreoffice foundation is constantly finding out if developers are employed and if that employer is in fact paying them to work on Libreoffice if not to either attempt to get them a job where they will be. This is a completely different behaviour to what Oracle/Sun/Apache have done with OpenOffice where good developers volunteer and don’t end up with employment to work on project so disappear.

    Really Libreoffice and Linux kernel models are very much the same when it comes to taking care of developers.

    Libreoffice is not run by volunteers as such but paid employees told to work on it. So its not believe its the fact.

    So kurkosdr really I don’t see that any of your points in fact apply to Libreoffice due to its major differences. Claiming Microsoft Office has advantage due to paid developers is kinda bogus. Paid developers have been libreoffice main stay for the past 6 years.

    Microsoft should have had quite an advantage if their test-suiting had been up to snuff. Due to the bugs in Microsoft Office that are showing up Microsoft Developers have spent more time working on flashy features than the critical boring work of test-suites.

  32. dougman says:

    “One of the reasons I like MS Office”

    Ok, you like something, now STFU. LibreOffice and MS Office is on par 1:1 these days. This why M$ gives out those 60-day trials with new computers.

  33. kurkosdr wrote, “it proves, in practice, that paid developers will work on something no matter how boring it is, as long as there is a market for it. Meanwhile at the OpenOffice and LibreOffice front, anyone wants to design a new UI for the thing, or fix the myriad bugs (like the Writer using the english dictionary on laguages that aren’t english and redlining all the words), or create some templates worth using? No?”

    LibreOffice proves that if people need/want an office suite and/or particular features all they have to do is submit the code.

  34. kurkosdr says:

    One of the reasons I like MS Office is that it proves, in practice, that paid developers will work on something no matter how boring it is, as long as there is a market for it. Meanwhile at the OpenOffice and LibreOffice front, anyone wants to design a new UI for the thing, or fix the myriad bugs (like the Writer using the english dictionary on laguages that aren’t english and redlining all the words), or create some templates worth using? No?

    See? That’s the problem with the volunteer model. Or are we supposed to believe people will “buy support” for an Office suite so money to pay some paid developers can be raised from support sales (ala RedHat)?

    Go FOSS!

  35. oiaohm says:

    As if software not being maintained stops government from using it.

    In fact places like Slovenia is why there is such a push to have OpenOffice project ended so they will finally migrate to something maintained hopefully. Ok this is government there are still areas in government running programs from the 1970~ that have no been fixed up.

  36. dougman says:

    Apache OpenOffice is dead.

    “I have regularly observed that the Apache OpenOffice project has limited
    capacity for sustaining the project in an energetic manner. It is also my
    considered opinion that there is no ready supply of developers who have the
    capacity, capability, and will to supplement the roughly half-dozen
    volunteers holding the project together. It doesn’t matter what the reasons
    for that might be.”

    http://lwn.net/Articles/699047/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *