blog community

Welcome to blog community Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

Wouter van Vugt

This blog is no longer maintained and has moved

OpenOffice developer strikes out at Sun

Funny to see that Microsoft software is called 'closed', and they are always accused of overly protecting their markets. This is from one of the OO developers:

But I’d love to be proven wrong. I’d love to be proven that Sun still are willing to work with us, to make OO.o truly a wonderful product as well as a project attractive to prospective code contributors. But there is nothing I, as a single insignificant mere mortal can do to influence the behemoth that is Sun. It’s impossible to make an even slightest change in how the project is run, even after countless hours of coding and more than 10,000 lines of code generation (which I received no compensation for and involved quite a lot of personal sacrifice). In the end, I made no difference at all. Sad, truly sad.

This is a bit of a no-brainer. How open is your open source software if there is a large company investing highly in it? They need to meet customer demand just like any other, so probably that piece of open software is less open than you want it to be. If key positions are taken you can have a strong grip on the project and hence your company's future.

Personally I like the recent steps taken by Microsoft. They totally openend up their old and their new document format, and now they released the source of the .NET Framework. The software works and integrates extremely well. The value proposition of Microsoft Office together with SharePoint 2007 (for the most part free) for the team and collaboration stuff to me is very appealing. I wouldn't trade that for the eighties look of OpenOffice today.

[edit]A Tweakers thread actually had a sensible comment on this. I roughly translated:

If OO will fork the code you will have eight or nine versions in no time at all, who with a little luck will be 95% compatible with each other. Only a different 95% in each case of course. And then of course just when you want to send out your company folder the part that indicates how great your company actually just might not be to visible to customers using My-OO instead of the Your-OO.

Als OO dadelijk een paar keer gaat 'forken' heb je binnen de kortst mogelijke keren 8 of 9 verschillende versies die met een beetje geluk 95% compatible met elkaar zijn. Maar natuurlijk wel allemaal een andere 95%. En natuurlijk is het dan zo dat alle leuke dingen die jij in je bedrijfs reclame folder hebt staan die laten zien hoe goed jouw bedrijf is net niet helemaal overkomen bij jouw klanten die een toevallig andere versie hebebn.

(isn't this already the case?)

 

 

Published Saturday, October 06, 2007 10:20 AM by wouterv
Filed under:

Comments

 

orcmid said:

We might want to stand back from this squabble. Without any skin in the game and participation ourselves, it is very difficult to know what the facts are and how much other posturing is involved. For example, this rejoinder suggests that this is about the requirement to transfer copyright for contributions (try contributing code to a Microsoft project or a Free Software Foundation project without such a transfer) and about reneging on an existing transfer agreement: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/the_parrot_sketch_is_not I thought I also saw something about a change concerning the use of JSA, but I can't find it in my accumulation of feed items. I'll keep looking but I have to reboot right now so I am posting what I have. Arghh.
October 6, 2007 6:30 PM
 

orcmid said:

Here is what I had noticed, from Thursday: http://blogs.sun.com/jpblog/entry/openoffice_org_moves_forward This involves a change to the OO.o governance and the provision for dual licensing under the SCA (Sun Community Agreement), designed to deal with objections that people have with the JSA. Meanwhile, I think we should ignore the spat between Sun OOo folk and Novell OOo folk. They can work it out themselves, or not. Also, concerns about forking OOo are strange. After all, the whole idea is that there be diversity in the implementations of ODF, right? (Sorry, I will go back into my day now.)
October 6, 2007 7:23 PM
 

Anonymous said:

- Forking: is not necessary bad. An example: a few years ago, XFree86 changed it's license and was thus forked to X.org. Now, everyone uses X.org and XFree86 is dead. The same would happen with OO ... if it will get forked, it will get forked to a single version. Forking is freedom, it's something that's impossible with propriety software. So please don't say things like "open source is not open", it's just not true :)

- Microsoft IS closed! They still haven't released specs about NTFS and WMV for example. Is that interoperable? Is that open? I don't think so. All effords regarding NTFS support are done through reverse engineering in the open source world. - How can you say that Microsoft software always work well?! Just look at Vista, it's a flop! Or IE6, with all it's render issues!

- .NET framework IS NOT open sourced! They released the source as read only. Why? Because now they have the possibility to sue Mono with arguments like "You guys copied at our code".

- Eighties look in OO? Huh? It looks just like MS Office 2003! I personally don't like the UI of Office 2007.

October 8, 2007 4:10 PM
 

wouterv said:

@Anonymous

- True, but calling it freedom is also a bit of an overstatement. I call it 'let's make a different incompatible version'. THe difficulty is that when you use the left part of the fork, and someone else uses the right part, there might be no interoperability, which to me is a bad thing. Something that is far less likely to occur with Microsoft software, it just works.

- There is no one entity called 'Microsoft'. And yes, some is still closed, and they are opening up many things. I would advise to do the same with WMV and NTFS, just like Open XML and .NET

- Nonsense. It is about having the ability to debug your code into the .NET Framework. That they will not allow you to modify the code is a good thing. How can you expect to change anything in this large a code base when the code isn't written by you. I just have another definition of "Open Source". E.g. a piece of source that you can access. (most large projects also don't allow me to modify just random code as a unknown contrib)

- Yes, eighties! Office 2003 is a helluvalot better than OO, which looks like Office 97. The 2007 feel poses even bigger customer benefits, The Ribbon Rocks!

October 9, 2007 9:01 AM
 

anonymous said:

- Forking of OO: Forking _is_ freedom. Don't like something and can't agree with the maintainer? Fork it. For example: Ubuntu and Debian. Debian had very strong points (apt-get for example), but they focussed more on servers. Now we have Ubuntu, a distro with all the shiny Debian things which is more focused at desktop systems. Forking can be bad indeed in the case of OO. It will only be bad if both projects survive and implements the ODF standard both differently. I can't see why that will happen though. ODF is a clear standard, unlike some other 'standards'. - Most Microsoft software is and will be closed software. Trust me, they will NOT release specs about NTFS or WMV. They didn't even want to release specs about FAT16. Why? Vendor lock in. Fact is, it's often in their own disadvantage. Just look at all the bugs in Windows or IE6. In Linux or Firefox, we can fix them by ourselves. In Windows, you depend on Microsoft programmers. - I did not say .NET should get a GPL or BSD license. And yes, with it's read only license debugging is easier. BUT I won't be suprised if they spread FUD against Mono for copying .NET framework code. Just look at the Ballmer's patents FUD against Linux in the past ... - Maybe MS Office looks better than Open Office. But at least OO has a real open document format .. for years! So please tell me _why_ there is a need for yet another standard? Besides, only Microsoft can implement their standard. Nobody but Microsoft knows for example how to implement autoSpaceLikeWord95 or useWord97LineBreakRules. Oh and about the look of UI's. Sorry, but have you seen Compiz Fusion yet? That's what's Vista's Aero had to be. And it works even on my 5 year old 3D card.
October 9, 2007 4:24 PM
 

peterhe said:

- I do not see the big downside on a possible "fork": it's just another form of marketplace competition. If they're would be "eight or nine" versions of Office suites implementing OpenXML, you'd have the exact same potential issues. The only potential "downside" of a fork would be that it would scatter resources working on an ODF based product, and that it would be harder to compete with Microsoft Office. A fork might also attract new development resources however. - Like the posts above, I would be really careful on assessing this "news". Some guy wrote 10,000 lines without having backing to commit them. That sounds like either a guy who kept getting "no" but was to stubborn to stop, or someone who was just stupid. Maybe this thing is not a Sun conspiracy after all, but just some people frustrated because they could not meet the required quality level. - I think it's great .NET developers can now access the source code. This is extremely useful for debugging, profiling and documentation purposes (code often reads better than docs). I know: we Java developers can do this for years. :) - I also think OOo looks like a win95 app. Lotus Symphony though has tabs. I love tabs! It made me google if there was some office 2007 addin for tabs. I couldn't find one. Might be a challenging idea for an unnamed office guru. ;)
October 9, 2007 8:27 PM
 

Hans Bos said:

I think forking is neither good nor bad. It just happens sometimes. Then consider that these 'forked' Open Office suites and developers are using ODF as their native fileformat. But none are really using the ISO version, because it is too limited in its features. So everybody implements their own extensions on top of (hopefully) OASIS versions. I see some arguments in the comments above, that I would think are valid but only from a developer's perspective. Think about the customer for a moment. How would a customer look at this? I think some of the myths around open source are falling away now and are being replaced with reality. That is good for everybody involved, on any side of the discussion.
October 10, 2007 8:55 AM
 

Waatze said:

Its easy to point at some another person/company and say: "look, they have the same problems, why are you all blaming us?", while even in kindergarten that wasn't an excuse. Did you ever get away with something by pointing out somebody else's faults? I think fingerpointing this way is a sign of weakness.
October 10, 2007 12:48 PM
 

Jan van de Rijt said:

Hey Wouterv, I would like to shed some light on this subject, mainly because i like to gave an awnser to this particular quote :"How open is your open source software if there is a large company investing highly in it?" Open Source Software (OSS) will become more and more an economic then a technologic challenge, the effect of "free" software is that producers will be forced to move to a market mainly based on service-costs. The point is that a "free" product has an odd effect (in most cases), the price reducement of a product will result in a investment increase within the surrounding infrastructure. Simply said, If cars get cheaper, the request for fitters will raise. That is why a large company investing in OSS probably won't change how open the product will be. The forking issue is nothing strange in the OSS community, Incompatibility? yep, thats already the case but this habit is not always to blame on forking, it's simply a part in the freedom of choice :) Thats my vision on the subject, i hope it will broaden your horizon :P P.S. don't forget my option on your hardcopy - cu soon!
October 10, 2007 7:27 PM
 

Dave S. said:

"If OO will fork the code you will have eight or nine versions in no time at all, who with a little luck will be 95% compatible with each other." Sort of like how every MSO-XML developer is building their own sub-set compliant application? In fact, MS supporters proudly proclaim that it is unnecessary to support -all- the features of OOXML nee MSO-XML in order to be compliant with it. And is Office 97 an 1980's product? Microsoft certainly does have a problem shipping on time. Is it just me, or is every MS supporter incapable of making a soundly reasoned argument for or against anything? They fail on basic facts, points of comparison - I can only assume they spell their own names correctly. Even under oath in a court of law they are unable to accurately relate what they did the night before.
October 26, 2007 3:29 PM
Anonymous comments are disabled

This Blog

Syndication

News


Add to Technorati Favorites
Powered by Community Server, by Telligent Systems