Unrealistic expectations
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| helios Jan 26, 2011 11:45 AM EDT |
I've been accused of being politically oblivious, and for good reason. Political nuance and correctness is a devious and wasteful thing, but we live in the real world and politics are part of that world. That being said... It was surely the "politically correct" thing to do...offering Oracle a place at the table, but to think that Oracle would work against its own offering is unrealistic at best, and just plain silly on its face. I'm just sayin'... Or not. feel free to educate me. h |
| jdixon Jan 26, 2011 12:37 PM EDT |
>...but to think that Oracle would work against its own offering is unrealistic at best, and just plain silly on its face. I'd say your absolutely correct. And that will remain the case, until and unless Oracle realizes that LibreOffice is simply better than OpenOffice, and that it removes any capability to make money off of OpenOffice. And that assumes that it actually is better, of course, which we don't know yet. |
| dinotrac Jan 26, 2011 12:59 PM EDT |
Depends on how smart the Oracle folks are. It's too early to tell, frankly, because Sun was a pretty big chunk to digest. Oracle is not primarily a desktop software company. They are a database company, an ERP company, a consulting and services company, and -- thanks to Sun -- a hardware company. Kind of like IBM with regards to Linux and apache, both free software projects to which IBM has contributed heavily. It's not completely out of the question that Oracle could find it more profitable to follow IBM's model -- contribute to an existing project and leverage that contribution to make piles in its other businesses. |
| jdixon Jan 26, 2011 1:34 PM EDT |
> It's not completely out of the question that Oracle could find it more profitable to follow IBM's model -- contribute to an existing project and leverage that contribution to make piles in its other businesses. No, it's not. But it doesn't match Oralce's past record, so I wouldn't hold my breath. But then even a blind hog... |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 26, 2011 1:40 PM EDT |
> that Oracle could find it more profitable... I've wondered about that. What "revenue stream" does Oracle see in OpenOffice? Wouldn't it be less expensive to "allow" their developers to contribute to an independent OpenOffice, what we now know of as LibreOffice, rather than pay for bandwidth, pay for full time developers, pay for fixing bugs that they are now responsible for, etc etc etc? But then I wonder the same thing about hardware manufacturers who create proprietary drivers. The drivers are a pure cost to them, when they could cut their costs to the bone by simply publishing reference code and good specifications to the F/OSS developers. |
| jdixon Jan 26, 2011 2:08 PM EDT |
> What "revenue stream" does Oracle see in OpenOffice? Sun maintained the StarOffice fork with some proprietary add-ons as a commercial office suite. Oracle may want to do the same thing, but with the OpenOffice brand. |
| dinotrac Jan 26, 2011 2:25 PM EDT |
@Bob and @JD: I know that Microsoft Office is actually a development platform for some companies who use combinations of specialized templates and macros to service their clientele. Knowing all of the ERP and database-things that Oracle does, I could envision and OpenOffice (Oracle brand) that integrated with its offerings. |
| vainrveenr Jan 26, 2011 2:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:Sun maintained the StarOffice fork with some proprietary add-ons as a commercial office suite.Indeed, when visiting the StarOffice.org Users Group Portal at http://www.staroffice.org/ , one can still plainly see the offer to "Buy StarOffice 9 from Sun for as low as $34.95". Besides the stated $34.95+ commercial offering, one can also plainly view the Disclaimer: Quoting:Sun, the Sun logo, Sun Microsystems, Java, "The Network Is The Computer," Solaris, StarOffice, and StarPortal are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the United States and in other countries. All other products and company names are trademarks of their respective owners. StarOffice.com is independent of Sun Microsystems, Inc. FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. The warranted FUD here is that Oracle will just end up attempting to "contribute to an existing project [OpenOffice.org] and leverage that contribution to make piles in its other businesses" in a dissimilar fashion as Sun Microsystems attempted to do with StarOffice prior to the Oracle acquisition. In other words, Oracle could conceivably "make piles in its other businesses" through generating enough significant FUD concerning enforcement of OpenOffice.org patentable code still present in LibreOffice. Therefore, as far as Unrealistic expectations go, the key question remains: Who has the most to gain from allowing Oracle "a place at the table"?? A. The Document Foundation, in order that LibreOffice remains ENTIRELY clean of any possibly-infringing Oracle-owned code?? OR B. Oracle itself, in order to ascertain which patentable OpenOffice.org code will remain in LibreOffice.....so it can spread FUD over this by crying "INFRINGEMENT!" ?? |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 26, 2011 2:43 PM EDT |
So...just sell the add-ons to the community project. Just goes to show I do NOT have an MBA. |
| jdixon Jan 26, 2011 5:35 PM EDT |
> ...concerning enforcement of OpenOffice.org patentable code still present in LibreOffice. Sun was a very careful and knowledgeable company. They knew how to release code as open source. I'd be shocked if there were any patentable code in the OpenOffice project's codebase. Now, that wouldn't necessarily stop Oracle from claiming there was. |
| tracyanne Jan 26, 2011 6:11 PM EDT |
What Michael Meek is doing is exactly the right thing, and exactly the sort of thing he would do in any case (This is quite in line with his personal principles, as I understand them). It also is what I would do, Oracle must be offered the chance to to do the right thing, by the community. I believe it doesn't matter that they don't, but they must still be given the chance. |
| vainrveenr Jan 26, 2011 6:14 PM EDT |
"Just goes to show I do NOT have an MBA." A highly-relevant phrase for those with or without MBA's is "financial incentive". One definition of this phrase at http://www.finance-lib.com/financial-term-financial-incentiv... describes a typical business behavior that Oracle could emulate: Quoting:Financial Incentive-- Quoting:Sun was a very careful and knowledgeable company. They knew how to release code as open source. That may very well be true, and yet the questionably FOSS-friendly Oracle ended up being the actual company to inherit the rights it did (through the Sun Microsystems acquisition) to Sun's commercial StarOffice product plus Sun's open sourced OOo. OTOH, LibreOffice was not even officially released as a viable OOo alternative during Sun's tenure over the latter. Since Oracle cannot directly control the LibreOffice that Sun never had rights to in the first place, Oracle now almost has a "financial disincentive" to lend the type of support to LibreOffice that could possibly affect Oracle's own bottom-line. Fairly straightforward. |
| ColonelPanik Jan 27, 2011 6:45 PM EDT |
http://www.oracle.com/us/products/applications/open-office/i... |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 28, 2011 3:55 AM EDT |
@CP: Check this: https://shop.oracle.com/pls/ostore/product?p1=oracleoffice&s... |
| caitlyn Jan 28, 2011 6:11 PM EDT |
What do all those newfangled Enterprise and Cloud versions with the fancy price tag buy me that I can't do with plain old OOO? A few proprietary add-ons I don't need? I can put stuff on Sharepoint just fine without a fancy connector. Did you notice the minimum quantities? You have to cough up thousands and then pay for support too if you drink the Oracle cool aid. I wonder how many copies of that they actually end up selling. |
| helios Jan 28, 2011 6:39 PM EDT |
I am guessing this would be an upsell to an established account. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 28, 2011 9:45 PM EDT |
I just did a LibreOffice install on a Windows XP box. Everything's working. I don't care enough about office suites to pull OO from my Debian Squeeze install ... |
| jdixon Jan 29, 2011 4:36 PM EDT |
> You have to cough up thousands and then pay for support too if you drink the Oracle cool aid. Isn't that a given whenever the name Oracle is on the box? |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 01, 2011 1:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:I don't care enough about office suites to pull OO from my Debian Squeeze install ... I'm waiting for it to appear on backports.org. The Debian team has backported the fixes from OOo that make it work properly on tiling window managers like Awesome and TWM. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 01, 2011 9:04 AM EDT |
I keep a thumb drive with the latest Windows version of Firefox, MalwareBytes and such, and have put LO on it in addition to OO. We'll see going forward who wants which, but LO will be the default. I'm with you Steven, OO is what is in Debian at this point, so I'll use that until LO is packaged. |
| Steven_Rosenber Feb 01, 2011 12:36 PM EDT |
Debian is using the Go-OO version, and it's fast enough on my hardware that I've been using it quite a bit. I actually had some problems on this same hardware with Abiword - there was a noticeable delay between hitting the enter key and having the screen reflect that keystroke. Strange, especially in a "low-resource" app. OO doesn't have this problem (nor does any other app) on my system. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!