Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Opening the Potential of OpenOffice.org

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Sun Sep 18, 2005 06:04 PM
from the coming-a-long-way dept.
[vmlinuz] writes "O'Reillynet is running an article about 'Opening the potential of OpenOffice.org' which explores how anyone can contribute to argubly one of the most important Open Source projects. The article also discusses the importance of a shorter release cycle."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by eosp (885380) on Sunday September 18 2005, @06:07PM (#13591971) Homepage
    If something's in beta, people won't want to use it because it just doesn't sound reliable. If it sounds like a stable, final release, people will be more willing to use it, thereby finding the bugs, thereby resulting in bugfixers, which leads to more reliable software.
    • by rolfwind (528248) on Monday September 19 2005, @03:07AM (#13594217)
      Hi,

      I don't like that idea and here's why.

      If something is announced as stable, I want *it* to be stable.

      I do use a lot of beta software (writing this in Firefox 1.5b now) but at home where I choose to. When I'm at my office computer, I expect no crashes, especially from my Office Software.

      I use Open Office and am very happy with it and as I'm happy to get the updates whenever they come out - partly because it's free (much more to pay that than $500), partly because I've been disillusioned by the MS upgrade glitz with the greatest latest new features I can't live without yet never use (normal users call this bloat) but mostly because I'm happy with the current package.

      People who want the greatest/latest will use beta anyway - and they are the ones who can/will make bug reports if anyone. The rest of us will grumble quietly and move onto something else - so I don't see why this will result in quicker bug fixes.

      What you are suggesting is essentially false advertising (misleading labelling) and OO.org doesn't need that hit to its reputation. That's the sort of thing that will drive people back to MS complaining while that "buggy office package."

      Linux or FreeBSD didn't get their good reputations this way. This is their most valuable asset now because Linux is spread by the most valuable advertising medium - word of mouth - regardless of essentially meaningless version numbers.

      Please let's not emulate Microsoft.
    • by Moraelin (679338) on Monday September 19 2005, @05:50AM (#13594680) Journal
      I'll have to side with rolfwind on this one. "Let's mis-label it a release, so people will beta-test it for us" is the kind of idea that really disgusts me.

      Now I'm not opposed to smaller incremental releases, meaning less features added, and easier to thoroughly test before release. But nevertheless, I expect "stable" to be just that: stable.

      You have to understand that while maybe for you "yay, I contributed a bug report to OOo" or "yay, I dug for a week through kernel sources and made my old ISA SCSI board work" may count as fun, for most people it doesn't. In the real world it's more like "fuck, why doesn't this POS print my document right?" Or I can tell you first hand that at work we're not like "yay, it's so cool that we contributed a bug report", but rather "fuck, I'm opening yet another PMR for this POS software. Someone remind me... why are we using this crap anyway?"

      What's attractive about OSS to most people is the "because lots of other people have inspected the code and made it better for you" part. It's not the "because you too can spend weeks debugging our code and fixing our bugs, or just beta-testing our unstable stuff and waiting for months for a fix" part. Forcing people to be beta-testers against their will, isn't really going to make your software popular.
  • Mmm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Saiyine (689367) on Sunday September 18 2005, @06:08PM (#13591979) Homepage

    Strange, the submitter and the article writer share names.

    --
    Superb hosting [dreamhost.com] 4800MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, $7,95.
    Kunowalls!!! [kunowalls.host.sk] Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).
  • Change the default (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2005, @06:08PM (#13591982)
    One of the reason I am stuck with Microsoft office is because others will send me office documents and I have to use Micrsoft Office suite to open/change/modify them. As many others have noticed, openoffice doesn't work well with all the documents (Especially complex tables, etc).


    Personally I prefer LaTeX and send pdf files. That works ok till I am working alone. But if we have to work and interact, keeping track of changes is not the easiest thing to do in LaTeX.


    • by Anonymous Coward

      ...keeping track of changes is not the easiest thing to do in LaTeX.

      man diff, bitch.

    • by jshaped (899227) on Sunday September 18 2005, @06:28PM (#13592086)
      Thank you for bringing up LaTeX.
      As a grad student in CS, the benefits of LaTeX are obvious.
      But it's surprising how many educated people still do not understand what LaTeX is or how beneficial it is.
      Example, last semester I turned in a project proposal (written with LaTeX) to a professor.
      His response: "Aren't your margins a bit too big?"
      I was speechless.
        • by Coryoth (254751) on Sunday September 18 2005, @07:02PM (#13592244) Homepage Journal
          So, were your margins a bit too big? Or do you mean you sent him the latex source and he printed that out? Just because it's Latex doesn't mean you can't make shitty looking documents with it.

          I suspect the OP was referring to the fact that MS Word has what are, by typesetting standards, very narrow margins that make for long lines of text. In practice narrow text actually proves to easier to read, requiring less left-right scanning with the eyes and making the end-of-line to start-of-next-line shift much easier and less prone to error. Professional typesetters are not idiots and have been studying and refining such things for a very long time. LaTeX defaults to the same margins you'll find in professionally typeset books and other publications - the same margins professional typesetters have come to use after years and years of experience and refinement. They look large if you're used to MS Word documents, but are by most other measures, the margin size that maximise readability and amount of text on the page.

          Jedidiah.
          • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Sunday September 18 2005, @08:11PM (#13592621)
            Professional typesetters are not idiots and have been studying and refining such things for a very long time. LaTeX defaults to the same margins you'll find in professionally typeset books and other publications - the same margins professional typesetters have come to use after years and years of experience and refinement.

            I like LaTeX, but you know the default presentation in the standard document classes was only meant to be a quick demo, right? It was assumed that serious writers/publications would all create their own classes using sensible typesetting preferences. In reality, the demo proved to be "good enough" for a lot of people, hence the large number of obviously LaTeX'd articles in circulation among some scientific communities. The layout in the standard classes isn't bad in terms of typography, but it's nothing special, and some aspects are truly awful.

            Of course, a lot of professionally typeset books have truly awful typography as well these days, either through using poor technique, or through trying to be a bit too clever. :-(

          • So what are the default LaTex margins? (Word's defaults are 1" or 1.25" (depending on your version) on the left and right.)

            As for professionally typeset books, books on 8.5" paper are rare.

              • I'm surprised that 2 or 3-column layout isn't more popular than it is; then you can have minuscule margins and still have good readability.

                One factor to take into account is that the smaller the width available for text, the more space is lost to word-wrapping.
    • But if we have to work and interact, keeping track of changes is not the easiest thing to do in LaTeX.

      This sounds like a job for cvs or arch or monotone some other version management system. LaTeX files are plain text, so a proper versioning system would work with them much better than it would with ugle .doc files.
    • . But if we have to work and interact, keeping track of changes is not the easiest thing to do in LaTeX.

      Others have pointed out that you can easily put LaTeX documents in a version control system, such as subversion [tigris.org]. In addition to this, latexdiff [tug.org] is quite handy. Running this perl script on 2 tex files can produce a 3rd file with appropriate color coding/strikeouts/etc.

      • by timeOday (582209) on Sunday September 18 2005, @10:03PM (#13593162)
        Others have pointed out that you can easily put LaTeX documents in a version control system, such as subversion.
        Sure, until some editor moves the linebreaks (which are not significant to TeX). Then diff'ing is screwed.

        Anyways, that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that using LaTeX in practice requires a highly customized environment with lots of little scripts, tools, and packages, which is highly non-portable. Everybody uses TeX in a different way, an since Tex isn't very self-contained that leads to problems.

        The fact is that LaTeX isn't an analogue to MS Office, or even MS Word. For instance, how do you make a figure? The answer is some external program. And what format should the figure be in? That depends a lot on what output you're working towards - a .png works great for .pdf output with pdflatex, but not for .ps files. And for that matter, "compiling" a text document (some indeterminate number of times) is a completely obsolete idea.

        LaTeX is perfect for one or a small number of highly technical people to compose a document, and that is about it.

    • by Coryoth (254751) on Sunday September 18 2005, @07:19PM (#13592350) Homepage Journal
      Personally I prefer LaTeX and send pdf files. That works ok till I am working alone. But if we have to work and interact, keeping track of changes is not the easiest thing to do in LaTeX.

      Keeping track of changes is as easy as RCS/Subversion/version control system of choice (I've even used Visual SourceSafe when I was in an MS shop). Sharing changes can be done easily enough via PDF annotations [adobe.com], or LaTeXdiff [tug.org] depending on what tools you have available.

      LaTeX also offers possiblities that simply aren't available in word processors like MS Word and OO.o Writer. Using packages like xcomment it is possible to write a single document that is both a paper report and slide presentation - just change the document class and recompile. I've written document classes such that I have a couple of extra environments available: \begin{summary} and \begin{shared}. Anything in a summary environment is included in the presentation, but not in the report, and anything in shared is in both report and presentation. Anything not in either environment is left out of the presentation. With that done it is easy enough to start writing your report, adding a little set of bullet points summarising each paragraph in a summary environment as you go (and sharing any equations and diagrams as needed) and once you're done you've got your presentation complete as well as your report. You've also go the whole package encapsulated in a single file: any changes are easy to propogate from report to presentation of vice-versa, and maintenance is far easier. Try that with your standard office suite.

      Jedidiah.
    • by Spoing (152917) on Sunday September 18 2005, @07:23PM (#13592373) Homepage
      Complex table issues have been addressed quite a bit in OOo v.2.

      Some oddities will remain, though.

      For example, if you highlight something (say, mark a word yellow) in OpenOffice, you can't change it with the same tool under Word. You have to use the formatting paintbrush. Why? Word has 2 seperate levels of highlighting while OpenOffice has one. Got me why Word benifits from 2 different types of highlighting...but it has them. This difference is an artifact of Word.

      • by rco3 (198978) on Sunday September 18 2005, @10:11PM (#13593215) Homepage
        *I* would expect people to use LyX [lyx.org]. All the power of LaTeX, lots of easier to use.

        It's not wysiwyg, it's wysiwym (what you see is what you mean). You type, with no latex code (unless you want to), doing all the latex stuff with pulldowns and key combinations - kinda like any other WP. You insert citations, references, etc. with dialogs. Your content simply gets typed and viewed in a format chosen for readability. When you want to see what it REALLY looks like, you preview in DVI or pdf with a simple keystroke.

        The point is, this separates the content from the formatting. Especially in an office with standardized formats and relatively untrained typists/secretaries, this is great. One person can design the templates for LyX, and the typists simply type in and go. They actually don't need to know LaTeX at all, as LyX pretty much takes care of all of that. It's also got the best math equation editor I've ever used, bar none.

        I've used LyX to write my master's thesis and several journal papers, and I don't know SHIT for LaTeX. I've got a reference that I can use if I need to... but I usually don't. It looks the way it's supposed to, it's easy to use, and the citations and cross-referencing mechanisms are superlative, both in terms of the underlying LaTeX functionality and in terms of LyX's user interface to those functions.

        Basically, it's what I think a word processor oughta be. I think I would have torn out what little hair I have left if I'd tried to do that thesis in Word - it certainly wouldn't have been done as quickly. Did I mention that you can get LyX to spit out pdfs with the TOC, Lists of Figures, Index, etc. already hotlinked to their targets? Took me 10 minutes to figure out the line in the preamble to make that happen, which is a LOT quicker than having to try to manually create all those links. Yes, that's LaTeX functionality, not LyX - but LyX lets you have the best of both worlds.

        I don't think anyone expects you to write all that LaTeX code and keep rendering to see if what you've typed works. Good news is, you don't need to.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2005, @06:09PM (#13591983)
    ...now that Office 12 has been demoed. That means the specs for OpenOffice.org 4.0 are almost complete!!
  • Developers Needed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by C-Diddy (755183) on Sunday September 18 2005, @06:09PM (#13591984)
    I didn't realize that the OpenOffice project had only 100 developers. Many more will be needed to establish the kind of release schedule mentioned in the article. Interesting stuff. Is this a potential weekness of open source - an inability to attract more developers who will donate their time?
  • by menorikey (915085) on Sunday September 18 2005, @06:18PM (#13592036)
    I would agree with more frequent release cycles up to a point; they would have to ensure, however, that they don't begin to mimic M$ by releasing new builds simply for the sake of releasing them just to keep the name fresh in people's minds. Release schedules should only be to either implement beneficial features or to resolve any outstanding issues that benefit the user base as a whole.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2005, @06:34PM (#13592118)
    Opening the potential of OpenOffice.org takes like 10 minutes on my computer. It's not going to win any awards for speed.
  • by a_greer2005 (863926) on Sunday September 18 2005, @06:45PM (#13592167)
    Sure, a shorter releaese cycle may seem better, but is it really? Correct me if I am wrong, but it is the short release cycle and shareholders constant demands for "more more more" that got MS office to be the bloatware that it is today; honestly, what can anyone do in todays MS office that couldnt be done in Office 2000?

    I agree that the OOo guys need to draw a line in the sand soon with 2.0, go gold, if for no othere reason than the current 1.1 is so insainly lacking compared to MS office or OOo2 beta. But just because the number is higher doesnt make it better, want proof, look at Adobe Reader, what can 7 do that 5 can not?

  • by banglogic (702448) * <Ken.Knicker@noSpam.nuveen.com> on Sunday September 18 2005, @07:10PM (#13592297) Homepage
    I agree that Open Office is one of the most important open source projects. This is because it won't be a Linux derivitive that makes its way onto the desktops of the masses first. It will be open, free applications that can reliably provide the benifit of expensive commercial applications on the *Windows* desktop. A company I work for is interested in an open source "Save to PDF" tool because, well, have you priced Adobe's Acrobat lately? Not cheap. So, they are willing to consider this open source replacement to distribute to the general population. It provides most of the functionality that most of their user base needs and saves them money. The users don't even need to learn anything new. But ask them to swap out their enterprise desktop? Forget about it. If Open Office can get there (and it will *long* before Linux deriviti do), the Corporate World(TM) will open its loving arms.
  • My suggestion is just to follow the mozilla phoenix/firebird/firefox approach and break the suite up and develop the components separately.

    Break off the wordprocessor and strip it back to essential functionality as was done with phoenix 0.1. Go for a rapid release cycle again as happened with phoenix with new updates at least every month. This will reinject vitality into the project. The full office suite will still be available as Mozilla is to this day.

    The essential thing that Mozilla had was the gecko rendering engine and XUL. None of this was lost in moving to single app development. The essential thing that OpenOffice has is its well-developed ability to read/write MS office file formats and its own OpenDoc format. This also would not be lost by splitting off the wordprocessor.

    The Office suite as a monolithic application was really a marketing innovation, not something that was user driven. Let's free ourselves of the unwieldy bloat it has given us.

  • by enmane (805543) on Sunday September 18 2005, @07:15PM (#13592334)
    Disclaimer: I'm no MS fanboi. In fact, I dislike a lot of what they do. I'm no OO fanboi. In fact, I'm quite disgusted with what they've done with the product.

    The delta between Excel and Calc is too large to ignore.

    The delta between Powerpoint and Impress is small at the moment and can be tolerated.

    The delta between Word and Writer is negligible for _most_ users. For a basic word processor Writer is better but _a lot_ of people I know love the collaboration features of Word. I hate how Word keeps "thinking" for me and screwing with my documents.

    The delta between MSO and OO in terms of speed is just a tad smaller than the distance from one end to the other of the Grand Canyon.

    Now considering all that, OO is trailing, hugely. Now look at... http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=1147 20 [msdn.com] and you'll see that OO is 5-6 yrs behind MSO. I've done my best to use OO and even to try and help. I am so disgusted by the developers and their responses to my pleas for improvement in key areas that I've stopped promoting OO to people that need a cheap office suite. If they need a free one then I still show it off. If they have some $$ then I show them where to get MSO dirt cheap. The new MSO 12 looks to blow the socks off of anything out there. If it all works like it is supposed to (huge IF) it will be a remarkable product.

    In that case, I thank the OO development team for putting pressure on MS. Like everyone, competition causes one to raise their performance and I think MSO 12 will be a killer app. I just wish OO could have moved quicker.
      • where does one get MSO for dirt cheap legally?

        Trick 1: It's relatively easy to qualify for an OEM version.

        Trick 2: A lot of people have access to Office cheaply, and just don't realise it. For example, my employer (that is, the reasonably large US corp that owns the small subsid I work for) has a bulk deal with Microsoft to use Office on all its machines. As part of that deal, I would qualify to install a full version of Office on my home PC as well, in exchange for some nominal fee. Similarly, a lot

  • by holloway (46404) on Sunday September 18 2005, @07:51PM (#13592520) Homepage

    If anyone's trying to write open source software that uses MS Word, here's a web service that uses OpenOffice.org [holloway.co.nz] to convert to Oasis OpenDocument 1.0 format, and then optionally runs the XML through an XSLT pipeline to make any XML/HTML.

    I had about 100 test documents and I tried using Abiword, WVWare, but OpenOffice.org had the best reverse engineering of msword. Is there any other open source conversion software I should have used?

  • I tried... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rongage (237813) on Sunday September 18 2005, @07:51PM (#13592522)

    I tried to contribute to the OOo project on the marketing team. It was incredibly difficult to be taken seriously when your "product" moniker could not be distinguished from a web site.

    I tried to contribute to the OOo project by submitting valid and repeatable bug reports but I was told that getting label and envelope printing working CORRECTLY was a feature request, not a bug, and would not be addressed in the upcoming release.

    I tried to contribute to the OOo project but could not because the software build system REQUIRES PAM so I could not build the current tree (Slackware user). I WAS going to work on a stand alone viewer for Impress.

    I would love to contribute to OOo, but the OOo team seems to want to make things as difficult as possible for outsiders to come in. Why on Earth would an Office Suite need PAM???

  • by PineHall (206441) on Sunday September 18 2005, @09:15PM (#13592927)
    Jon Udell has an interesting [infoworld.com] idea [infoworld.com] of reinventing the office suite for a networked world. He says it should include "service orientation, peer-to-peer capability, workflow, federated identity, and new ways to query and visualize data." With the source code, someone could develop a system that could improve inter-company communication and collaboration using Open Office. We need to think 21st century.
  • by massysett (910130) on Sunday September 18 2005, @09:18PM (#13592940) Homepage
    OpenOffice gets all the press attention. I'm not sure why. It seems sluggish and takes an extremely long time to load, in Linux and Windows. The download is massive. My impression of Gnumeric and Abiword has been much more favorable in both Linux and Windows: they're sleek, quick to download, and quick to load up. Also, OO screws up even basic Excel imports, which Gnumeric handles without a hiccup.

    I understand Abiword and Gnumeric can't replace the entire MS suite, but surely word processing and spreadsheet are the most common office suite applications (except maybe email, which OO doesn't have either.) I certainly don't understand why an integrated bloated "Office Suite" like OO is needed to replace MS Office, when Abiword and Gnumeric seem to me to be doing a much better job right now than OO.

    We don't necessarily need a single office suite like OO to replace MS Office. Right now I would support Gnumeric and Abiword.

    • Re:Indeed (Score:5, Funny)

      by DoubleRing (908390) on Sunday September 18 2005, @06:15PM (#13592012)
      And yet you found the need to bold AND italicize the first word of your comment :P
      • Can you please explain to this nutjob how I can give my boardroom presentation in vi to maximize visual impact? I really need to get my message through.

        Sure, but I'll explain it to you.

        1. Draft your document in vi, add some preamble and the requisite \begin{slide} and \end{slide}, etc. where necessary.

        2. Compile.

        3. Display on screen during the board meeting.

        You can make things as simple or as complex as you'd like.

        I have fond memories of seeing a few thousand of secretaries using a similar approach. Gr
    • by jarich (733129) on Sunday September 18 2005, @06:20PM (#13592045) Homepage Journal
      C'mon now. One of the most important open source projects in the world? I suppose that assumes that MS Office is one of the most important programs (suite...whatever) in the world? For real?

      YES!

      The office suite is the one application that keeps people on Windows! My brother is a lawyer and would love to move his entire staff over to an open source suite (just for financial reasons) but he has to be 100% compatible.

      When the office suite becomes a commodity, you'll see more defections.

      • C'mon now. One of the most important open source projects in the world? I suppose that assumes that MS Office is one of the most important programs (suite...whatever) in the world? For real?

        YES!

        The office suite is the one application that keeps people on Windows!


        The others were authored by *cough* Google *cough*...

        (Weird that, huh?)
      • and? Are we supposed to see your brother as the most important person in the world or something? My brother won't switch to Linux because he doesn't know how to work a command line and we still don't have a decent control panel applet on any Linux distribution worth mentioning. So why isn't that the most important application? When you don't need to operate a shell to configure your computer, then we'll see more defections, not before.
          • I guarentee it does. Last time I checked these were lacking:
            • Changing the screen resolution.
            • Configuring display/mouse/keyboard drivers.
            • Setting up a sound card.
            • Configuring a network.
            • Installing a printer.

            I use Ubuntu, and put up with the various annoying things. Like installing a new app via synaptic and then having no way to launch it except by running it from the command line. That's a new kind of insanity.. the first time it happened to me I actually went and grabbed the source package, extracted it and

            • by jarich (733129) on Sunday September 18 2005, @07:10PM (#13592300) Homepage Journal
              You sound mighty sure of yourself for someone who writes XP software. ;)

              Let's take these FUD-esque statements one at a time. I've just booted my laptop to Kubuntu so I can walk through this.

              Changing the screen resolution.

              Right click on the background, select "Configure Desktop", click "Display", select your screen resolution from the drop-down.

              Configuring display/mouse/keyboard drivers.

              Configuring the display drivers we may have just covered. If you're thinking about editing your xconfig files, I've never had to Kubuntu. It's not like The Old Days anymore.

              My keyboard and mouse worked out of the box. I can plugin in a USB mouse at any time and the system picks it up uses it. However, if you want to tweak the keyboard or mouse, click your "System" icon in the task bar, select the "Settings" entry. Select "Peripherals". You'll see both "keyboard" and "mouse" in the dialog. Tweak away.

              Configuring a network

              From the System/Settings dialog we were just in... clck "Internet and Networking". You can add network interfaces, configure the proxy, set up your wireless networks, configure Samba, etc and so forth.

              Installing a printer

              Back to the "Peripherals" screen. Click the "Printers" button.

              I think you're comment about the menu items is related to the people who wrote the package you've installed, not the people who wrote the operating system.

              Kubuntu is drop dead easy to use. You can still open a shell and go crazy (if you know how), but you don't have to anymore.

              btw, they just released a new preview of their next version. They claim to have improved the Control Panel (kcontrol). I'm downloading it now to see what they've done.

              • You sound mighty sure of yourself for someone who writes XP software. ;)

                Sigh. I also write a lot of Free Software.

                Let's take these FUD-esque statements one at a time.

                That's offensive. Just because I'm pointing out some obvious deficiencies does not mean I have some evil agenda.

                Configuring the display drivers we may have just covered. If you're thinking about editing your xconfig files, I've never had to Kubuntu. It's not like The Old Days anymore.

                I'm talking about changing your X display driver from "nv"
      • > My brother is a lawyer and would love to move his entire staff over to an open source suite (just for financial reasons) but he has to be 100% compatible.

        Then he shouldn't be using Microsoft Office. Different versions of Microsoft Office often render the same file differently. For compatibility, use PDF or OpenDocument. *Everyone* can view and edit his OpenDocument files since *everyone* has a license to install and use the same version of OpenOffice.org while there are far fewer people with a license
    • That is really one of the major blocks for most companies to use open source / linux software - lack of a good office suite.

      For most companies the majority of computer use is editing documents. Composing proposals, making presentations, writing memos. All you need to do these things is a good word processor. If Linux had a better one companies would ditch MS and use it for the cost savings alone
      • If Linux had a better one...

        I found it interesting in TFA when OpenOffice was compared to Firefox. Its not Firefox, it Mozilla. What OpenOffice needs to succeed is a decrufting just as Mozilla needed a few visionary programmers to come along and throw it all out.

        IMHO, as it stands OO is a slow, crufty, bloated nightmare. For gods sakes, will someone drive a stake into the heart of this ten headed monster and kill it. Maybe a phoenix will rise from the ashes.

        OO needs to take a long hard look at the success o
    • You will find variants of Office on almost every Windows PC used in the business and academic worlds, so it's pretty important.

      For me, one of the best features of OpenOffice is its ability to export documents as PDFs. Lovely, lovely feature for creating interoperable documents. Yeah, yeah, I know not everyone likes PDFs, but there are PDF readers for most platforms...

      Eric
      Join my mailing list and win a free book [makeeasymo...google.com]
    • by Quino (613400) on Sunday September 18 2005, @06:59PM (#13592238)
      I think it can be argued that, for wide-scale adoption of Linux, the first step will be the wide-scale adoption of OpenOffice over the MS office suite.

      After that, switching out the underlying OS becomes transparent (Ok, more transparent for more people).

      I guess I subscribe to the idea that a key foothold MS has (at least in the corporate world) is that all of our data is stored in their propietary file formats. Or, in other words, the problem in switching people over isn't that they have to run a MS os, they have to run the MS apps, in particular their office suite. Excel and Word are defacto standards to run a business -- and by extension the MS OS.

      It's in that sense that I do think OpenOffice is incredibly important to the OSS world at large. The threat of being a credible (or higher quality, more useful) replacement is higher than with what's happened (and happening) with Firefox vs IE, since IE is also free. MS Office is far from free -- and I think it'll be easier to justify abandoning it because of the cash saved.

      If I were MS, I do think OpenOffice is the one OSS project I'd be most nervous about, as it's one of the major threats to the monopoly, and an attack on one of the biggest reasons companies are forced to pay for the MS OS.

      BTW, the web browser is probably the other "very important app" for the same reasons, and it's cool that Mozilla Firefox has grown so much. At work it doesn't matter that I choose to run Linux, since I'm running the same web browser as many people who are running Windows (my company is already formally supporting, and recommending, Firefox for internal use). Again though, imagine that IE was an extra app that companies had to pay money for -- I wonder what the Firefox adoption rate would be.

      One last thing, it's no surprise that MS has from the beginning to "subvert" the web and web standards. It's all about the formats. I guess they simply arrived way too late to the Web to completely take it over. But I'm sure they know that if they had managed to switch everyone over to ms-propietary-html to surf the web, we'd be paying through the nose for IE and their OS and Office monopoly would be further protected.

    • by Mateito (746185) on Sunday September 18 2005, @07:25PM (#13592381) Homepage
      From the point of view of business, there are two fundamental applications:
      1) Email
      2) Wordprocessing/Self publication.

      These are the drivers.

      Personally, I see three killer apps from Microsoft (or currently owned by Microsoft) that yet to have equivalents in the open-source world:

      - Excel:
      The power of the Excel in power-user mode is phenominal. The scalability, programability and calculation abilities of this program are amazing. Open Office does not, as yet, scrape the surface. That OO calc is enough for 90% of all users means that it won't get into businesses where the other 10% need to share data.

      - Project
      - Visio
      I'll bundle these two, as neither are particularly complicated, but the file formats have become defacto standard. Once open source tools can import and export these formats, we'll be able to start displacing them on the desktop.
      • by QuantumRiff (120817) on Sunday September 18 2005, @10:02PM (#13593159)
        As Much as I hate to admit it, Access should be on that list as well. Knowledgeable managers use Excell to connect to databases, and pull the data they want out for reports. Many, many other managers use Access, connect to the "real" backend database, and use QBE (Query By Example) to generate their reports. Also, many small businesses seem to think it is a real database.
        • by WoTG (610710) on Sunday September 18 2005, @11:35PM (#13593558) Homepage Journal
          I totally agree. To me, Access is like the swiss army knife of data processing.

          Have a list to mangle? Shove it in a table or two and run some queries on them.

          Want to query to totally unrelated databases that use totally different database servers? Link the tables via ODBC and run queries.

          Create a really basic data entry tool? Build a form that feeds a table in literally minutes.

          Want to easily move that little form to another computer for someone else to fill in? Just copy that ONE .mdb file and you are done.

          Plus, if you want to move into something with a real database, well, Access makes a great front end to your full featured database.

          I'm not a huge MS fan, but they do have some excellent products. Access, and Exchange/Outlook and SQL Server come to mind.
    • by lakin (702310) on Sunday September 18 2005, @06:30PM (#13592101)
      "explores how anyone can contribute to argubly one of the most important Open Source projects."

      Not the most important project, but one of them..

      I think openoffice is just as important as linux anyway. (This is helped because i dont think of linux as *that* important anyway, being a big bsd fan - but thats a discussion for another time). I think if you want people to switch to an open source operating system you need to take it in steps, making programs like firefox and openoffice (which will run on windows inplace of IE and MS Office) a vital part of the plan. Once you have changed all their apps over to open source versions, you can switch the os and all they will notice is a new look.
    • " Why even have split development? Most ppl who don't use the current OO aren't not using it b/c of some small bugs, but b/c it lacks major abilites like being able to competantly convert MS formats"

      What you say? Don't you know that office formats are based on XML and are completely open? Anybody can read and write office formats.