What is his agenda?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn May 23, 2012 4:41 PM EDT |
I have to wonder what the writer's agenda is? What is his stake? |
| keithcu May 23, 2012 5:01 PM EDT |
Hi! I don't like to see 100s of people building a sandcastle. Having worked in Office, I can tell you it is a project so complicated that you will need a lot of people working together. We don't have people to waste, re-doing each other's work. A better question is what is the agenda of those who ignored the feedback of the LibreOffice team. |
| caitlyn May 23, 2012 5:15 PM EDT |
OO is not going away. Why? IBM won't let it since it's the basis of Lotus Symphony and they want/need an Apache license, not the GPL. Since OO is well funded the development process will continue. OK, I am either not buying that is your only agenda or else I think your article is pointless. Competition spurs better results. The only thing your article did for me was make me want to download OpenOffice and see if it addresses my complaints about LibreOffice. |
| Khamul May 23, 2012 5:43 PM EDT |
@keithcu: If you're asking what the "agenda" of the OO management was in ignoring the critical feedback which caused the fork to LO, there probably wasn't any, it was just plain incompetence, NIH, and other such factors that cause groups of humans to perform poorly when in groups. There's a poster I once saw with the tagline, "Meetings: none of us is as stupid as all of us". |
| skelband May 23, 2012 5:45 PM EDT |
Reading the article I come away with a feeling that the writer dislikes the split effort between two projects that are ostensibly the same. I have some sympathy with that view. Competition is great where you have choice. This will become true if LibreOffice and OpenOffice diverge to a significant degree and find their own paths but at the moment, that is looking unlikely. Maybe that will change in the future, I truly don't know. |
| keithcu May 23, 2012 5:47 PM EDT |
OO is not as well funded as you think. I didn't get into it but they don't nearly have enough people and the original team was laid off! Feel free to download OpenOffice or use Google Knol. This isn't about freedom, this is about working together efficiently. Microsoft would love to see Apache hurt LibreOffice as it helps them. Furthermore, this isn't "my agenda". I am documenting the facts I learned from other people. If you were to talk to people in LibreOffice, many would agree with my perspective. |
| Fettoosh May 23, 2012 6:11 PM EDT |
Quoting:Microsoft would love to see Apache hurt LibreOffice as it helps them. I understand how MS benefits if Apache hurts LibreOffice, what I don't understand is how Apache going to hurt LibreOffice? competition? That won't happen because whatever OO can come up with, LibreOffice will be able to make use of. That will only make it better and stronger. Sort of like, two heads better than one?! |
| caitlyn May 23, 2012 6:22 PM EDT |
Quoting:I don't understand is how Apache going to hurt LibreOffice? competition? That won't happen because whatever OO can come up with, LibreOffice will be able to make use of. That will only make it better and stronger. Sort of like, two heads better than one?!That's how I see it. I also wouldn't underestimate IBM's desire to strengthen Lotus Symphony and therefore to support OO. |
| skelband May 23, 2012 6:23 PM EDT |
@Fettoosh: 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. As the two code bases get further apart, that cross-porting effort is going to become substantial. I can see the two products diverging to some degree, but I wonder if they will really become two very different propositions to give real choice. |
| tracyanne May 23, 2012 6:23 PM EDT |
As as been pointed out before, OO due to it's license will act as a potential source of code for Libre, while the reverse cannot happen. I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that the Libre people are reducing dependents on Java, while I see from the recent article on OO that they are continuing support for Java. This means OO code may over time become less useful to Libre. None of this addresses how OO will hurt for Libre. |
| keithcu May 23, 2012 6:45 PM EDT |
There are various ways that this hurts LibreOffice. The biggest is the opportunity cost of doing something better than wasting the efforts of 100 people rebuilding LibreOffice. Where would LibreOffice be today if they had all these resources for the last year? However, there is also the confusion this causes in the industry. People become unsure which version to install. Maybe they decide to just stick with Microsoft. As the codebases get farther apart, it becomes more work to share code as Skelband also mentioned. There have been many emails sent about this. This battle is a distraction. The LibreOffice people are personally stressed about this situation. They want to work together. They recognize that there isn't any groundswell of support for a fork of LibreOffice because it is somehow lacking diversity. This is a cabal of IBM "open source" evangelists. |
| skelband May 23, 2012 6:49 PM EDT |
I think the "hurt" is difficult to define or quantify. It's also hard to determine if it really exists or not. The writer is assuming, I think, that developers currently working on OpenOffice would otherwise work directly on LibreOffice thereby reaping the benefit of some efficiencies from not splitting the effort between two superficially similar products. I think it doubtful since the two products have a very different perspective and worldview. "Hear hear" to removing Java dependencies, though. |
| BernardSwiss May 23, 2012 7:01 PM EDT |
The main problem with OpenOffice is that OO is the big, well-known project with "brand-name recognition" (especially among Windows users), and thus we still keep hearing about OpenOffice's deficiencies, while a more satisfactory (from an end-user's perspective) alternative is left unrecognized on the sidelines. For what it's worth, I strongly suspect that for a long time, much of the differing perceptions over OpenOffice's suitability for day-to-day work and practical interoperability with Microsoft Office, has been in large part due to the simple fact that Linux users were (often unawares) actually using the Go-OO fork instead of Sun's official OpenOffice. |
| Fettoosh May 23, 2012 7:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:Where would LibreOffice be today if they had all these resources for the last year? You are ignoring few facts just to justify your argument. Most, if not all, of the developers working on both OO & LO were together working on OO, yet OO stayed stagnant for some time. So if both teams remained working under the direction and control of the same organization, we would expect OO to have little movement if not staying stagnant. So you are ignoring the ideological differences that were hindering any progress. The 2nd thing you are ignoring is two heads better than one. The group that split and formed LO were doing lots of innovation and development work on their own, while the other group was trying hard to maintain control by refusing some of that development. Having two entities in the end solves the idealogical/control problem very nicely. Quoting: However, there is also the confusion this causes in the industry. People become unsure which version to install. That doesn't really make sense since both use exactly the same document format and whichever application is used it wouldn't make a difference in the end no matter how far the code base diverge. That is the beauty of open standards. Quoting:The LibreOffice people are personally stressed about this situation. They want to work together. They recognize that there isn't an groundswell of support for a fork of LibreOffice because it is somehow lacking diversity. Do you have a proof of that? If both are standing firm ideologically, how is that going to be resolved? Didn't they try already and they agreed to disagree? |
| Fettoosh May 23, 2012 7:41 PM EDT |
The way I see it, the Apache group will resolve it some how since they now have full ownership of OO. Oracle new what they were doing when they transfered all rights. They saved their pride by not giving in to LO and left it to Apache and LO to eventually resolve the issue. I say it will be resolved in due time. Even if it doesn't get resolved, LO over time will eventually be more attractive and dominant and the issue will be solved naturally. |
| keithcu May 23, 2012 7:45 PM EDT |
Your history is irrelevant. We have LibreOffice today, and a cabal of people trying to pretend there is a market for yet another community to work on a codebase that is 99.99% the same and for which it is illegal to share code. Two heads are better than one, that is why I want both heads to be working on the same team. Take Linux versus FreeBSD. FreeBSD exists and that is fine, but the Linux kernel supports many more scenarios because of its larger team. FreeBSD's existence is not evidence that the Linux kernel is missing any features / diversity. Are you aware of anything? It is just history and inertia. In any case, I've nothing against FreeBSD. If they have happy customers, that is great. This is a discussion about OpenOffice and LibreOffice. Open standards are a good idea. Are you aware that they already cannot interoperate? LibreOffice supports a number of ODF features OpenOffice does not. Furthermore, this is not a standard like USB where you'd plug in a mouse and a keyboard and there is no confusion by customers which product they need. In this case, the similarities make it much harder. Consider people who want to service and support these products. Now they need to be familiar with two codebases and their many differences. This can get resolved when Apache adopts a copyleft-friendly license and the LibreOffice codebase becomes the mainline. They are a year ahead of OpenOffice, and have more programmers, etc. These groups are not peers in fact, Apache OpenOffice is behind LIbreOffice and will never catch up. |
| tuxchick May 23, 2012 7:53 PM EDT |
OO has fallen far behind LO. LO has the developers, the energy, and the momentum. I don't see the point of OO anymore. |
| Fettoosh May 23, 2012 8:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:Are you aware that they already cannot interoperate? No. Obviously one is not fully complying with official standard and should stop of die. Quoting:Apache OpenOffice is behind LIbreOffice and will never catch up. OK, we agree on one thing, can we agree on not telling its developers to stop doing what they want? |
| keithcu May 23, 2012 8:22 PM EDT |
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. |
| jdixon May 23, 2012 8:47 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| Khamul May 23, 2012 10:34 PM EDT |
@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. |
| skelband May 23, 2012 10:56 PM EDT |
@Khamul: The comparison with X.org is very apt. |
| keithcu May 24, 2012 9:50 AM EDT |
@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. |
| caitlyn May 24, 2012 12:34 PM EDT |
@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. |
| Khamul May 24, 2012 12:58 PM EDT |
@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. |
| skelband May 24, 2012 1:12 PM EDT |
@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. |
| Fettoosh May 24, 2012 2:30 PM EDT |
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 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... |
| BernardSwiss May 24, 2012 2:33 PM EDT |
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. |
| Fettoosh May 24, 2012 2:41 PM EDT |
Good point, let Nature take its course in a similar way as far as OO is concerned. |
| keithcu May 25, 2012 8:20 AM EDT |
@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. |
| BernardSwiss May 25, 2012 10:04 PM EDT |
@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. |
| keithcu May 26, 2012 2:44 AM EDT |
@BernardSwiss: I never said LibreOffice was the source of any problem. The article is a criticism of Apache, not LibreOffice. |
| dinotrac May 26, 2012 6:46 AM EDT |
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. |
| keithcu May 26, 2012 11:34 AM EDT |
@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! |
| jdixon May 26, 2012 12:24 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| keithcu May 26, 2012 1:02 PM EDT |
@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. |
| Khamul May 26, 2012 1:03 PM EDT |
@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". |
| jdixon May 26, 2012 1:26 PM EDT |
> 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. |
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!