Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet IBM Software

Why Google Should Embrace OpenOffice.org 277

CWmike writes "Preston Gralla has a decent idea that could move the office needle: If Google really wanted to deliver a knockout punch to Microsoft, it would integrate OpenOffice with Google Docs, and sell support for the combined suite to small businesses, medium-sized business, and large corporations. Given the reach of Google, the quality of OpenOffice, and the lure of free, it's a sure winner. Imagine if a version of it were available as a Web service from Google, combined with massive amounts of Google storage. Integrated with Google Docs, it would also allow online collaboration. For those who wanted more features, the full OpenOffice suite would be available as a client — supported by Google. wouldn't be at all surprised to see this happen. Just yesterday, IBM announced that it was selling support for its free Symphony office suite. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine Google doing the same for OpenOffice, after it integrates it with Google Docs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Google Should Embrace OpenOffice.org

Comments Filter:
  • by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @06:13PM (#23660143) Homepage Journal
    Imagine the repercussions if a large technology company like Sun Microsystems helped the development and support of OpenOffice.

    They could twin its codebase with their own corporate version [sun.com] and then the sky would truly be the limit.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @07:00PM (#23660919)
    True enough. I tried OOo for 3 months while writing a book chapter. It was good at many things, and useless at some of the crucial things. I then spent another week looking for an alternative to Word, because it too is good at many things, and rubbish at some crucial things, like maintaining the styles and formatting I set. None of the other word processing software did the trick. It was either a steep learning curve (Pagemaker, LaTex), rudimentary (AbiWord), or had other issues (WordPerfect). So I started writing in HTML. Much easier. A bit more time required for writing tags, and none of the fancy features that are also such headaches in Word and Writer. No difficulties fomratting pictures or captions. No sudden reverting to the default dictionary/language/template.

    I don't expect to go back to OOo until it has developed generations beyond what it is now.I certainly wouldn't start using Google Docs on that basis.
  • by Thai-Pan ( 414112 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @07:10PM (#23661075) Journal
    I'm glad I'm not the only one.

    When I was a student, before getting assimilated by MS (I am now a MS employee), I ran Linux exclusively on my school laptop and used OpenOffice full time. There's no way around saying it, it was a terrible experience. When it wasn't crashing, losing my documents, or in some other way completely failing to function, it was painfully slow, bordering on unusable.

    I stuck by it and fiddled with it until one day in a lab I had to do some extensive spreadsheet work. Specifically, getting data out of a tab-delimited file, approx 15,000 rows and ~5ish columns. Every way I could possibly attempt to open, paste, import this file would throw OpenOffice into a seemingly endless loop. I'd wait 20, 30, 40 minutes, but it couldn't handle this 100kB file no matter how I diced it. I made all sorts of excuses as other students were doing the same thing in mere seconds on their Windows PCs or Macs. It was the last straw for me and I gave up, and used the lab machine with MS Office to do the same thing in about 5 seconds. A similar lab experience only a few weeks later, and I ended up dual-booting my laptop "just for Excel", and before I realized it, I liked the whole Office suite better than OpenOffice. I still used Linux primarily at that time, but every time I needed anything remotely Office related, I simply found OpenOffice to be inadequate.

    Sorry, I'm really not trying to be a troll about this, and I know many folks will scream bloody murder at me for even posting because of my bias. But before I had such a bias, I tried so very hard to love OpenOffice, and just couldn't. Like Wulfstan said, the quality of OpenOffice is just not very good.

    If I were Google, I'd be working hard to carve out this niche market for online services and stay out of desktop apps beyond perhaps plugins for better online integration. OpenOffice doesn't fit with Google's business model, and frankly, I think Google could probably crank out something superior to OpenOffice from scratch anyways.
  • Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by J Story ( 30227 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @07:18PM (#23661183) Homepage

    What does OpenOffice offer the average user that Google Docs is lacking?

    And why would Google use OpenOffice to fill that gap when they could just improve Google Docs?
    Footnotes. Text boxes. Styles.

    Whether Google can put these into their online Docs is a valid question, but it doesn't look easy.

  • Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ady1 ( 873490 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @07:21PM (#23661217)
    I have used Citrix and to be honest, it is horrible. A royal pain in the ass to use on a regular basis. I would take Google docs any day over that torture.
  • by jadrian ( 1150317 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @07:21PM (#23661223)
    KOffice has lots of potential. Quite light, the code is much cleaner and very modular. It's also going to be multiplatform. I wish a fourth of the effort being put in OpenOffice was being invested in KOffice instead.
  • I'd rather they (or anyone else) would develop a word processor that doesn't make me want to cut my hands off and write raw HTML by whistling morse code into a telephone because it would suck less.

    I am SO tired of every word processor out there, including the one by the white kool aid clan, mimicking the worst drawbacks of word because it makes it a bit easier to roundtrip documents to and from Word. I'd rather have the native format something like Docbook, but I'll take HTML if that's the only way to get real nested document structures and markup as THE native format.
  • by davidsyes ( 765062 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @09:34PM (#23662483) Homepage Journal
    Try Lotus SmartSuite... Get hold of a $7.00 to $30.00 unopened, resold CD. Unfortunately, 1-2-3 has some mouse issues in scrolling in Win4Lin and in VirtualBox (maybe even in windoze), but the STARS of SmartSuite have to be Word Pro and Approach, the WYSIWYG, end-user, no-programming skills-required front end.

    I'm creating a screenplay/dialog management tool in it, and the regrettable thing is there is no stand-alone executable, and no way to simply run the finished files by end-users unless they have the full suite disk and then deselect installation of the other components.

    Table linking is simplistic, but works. Similar to how FileMaker used to be.

    Unfortunately, Approach has not got horizontal sliders for detail tables, but it has filters, constraints, and sliders. There is a large, vibrant end-users group at IBM and elsewhere:

    http://jabrown.customer.netspace.net.au/approach/official.htm [netspace.net.au]

    http://www-10.lotus.com/ldd/ssforum.nsf/0/d361cd261211b1e485256e24004dcd75?OpenDocument&Click= [lotus.com]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Approach [wikipedia.org]

    BTW, the form shown on the Wikipedia site does an injustice to the things the forms CAN do. It would be nice if /. could resurrect image/file-posting (safely...)... I could submit some screen shots or actual working tables. But, you can also just go into the "Extras" and the SmartMasters (templates) folders and check out the checkbook, movie rental, and other tables.

    See:

    http://www.bluechillies.com/details/9317.html [bluechillies.com]

    See Built For Employees 1.0

    SmartSuite has some 20+ application templates, numerous forms files... THAT is what BASE should have been emulating, but unfortunately, NIH syndrome STILL pervades, even after my circa-2001 pleas for them to peruse Lotus Approach. All we end up with is a hodgepodge of tepidly invented and release, hi-geekoid, no-beauty apps the make me feel my stomach was kicked in.

    That's ANOTHER topic, but Open Source needs companies like IBM, Google, & Sun to shell out beautification money so Open Source developers can have their warez evaluated and transformed into wares. I dare say that most would-be converts are put off by sheer UGLINESS of many Open Source apps that never got any real polish for non-developers. Yeh, I know TheKompany has an app (Rekall), and they have some former Approach users, but their interface approach left me feeling I'd had a combination of Approach and Abscess melded. I would have stuck with Omnis's (since become Raining Data) stuff, but I hate the overhead, the licensing schemes, and the need to CODE to get done what I want to get done.

    What somebody NEEDS to do is:

    Take SQLite or MySQL as back ends and Lotus Approach's FRONT END for it's WYSIWYG interface, and update it to the CAPABILITIES but not the COMPLEXITY of FileMaker, and THEN, THEN, THEN Open Source will have a worthy database application for end-users who want to open all the current database files Approach can access, and have the ease-of-use of Approach...

    (steps down from soap box)
  • by cras ( 91254 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @09:37PM (#23662509) Homepage
    I hate it that OpenOffice is so often associated as "one of the best open source software" among with Linux and Firefox. Every time I've tried OOo (on Linux) I've immediately hated it. It's slow, bloated and annoying to use. Disabling its annoying "helpful" features takes a lot of time. So a while ago I bought MS Office 2008 for Mac, in part just so that I can say I would rather buy MS Office than use OOo for free.

    (And no, I won't try to help them make it better just because it's open source. I'm busy enough as it is with my own open source projects.)
  • Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mabhatter654 ( 561290 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @10:19PM (#23662903)
    What's wrong with remote 'X' sessions over SSH? That's what LTSP already does... considerably better than Citrix and less expensive.
  • Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Falstius ( 963333 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @10:43PM (#23663099)
    So you trust Google with your documents (which aren't encrypted in anyway so far as I can tell) but not the US Border guards? I'm not saying your mistrust is misplaced, just interesting.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @10:54PM (#23663181)

    Wrong again. OpenOffice is written primarily in C++. It's surprising to see this myth perpetuated. Certain things like Base and various import export plugins require Java, but certainly not OpenOffice itself. Please stop spreading this kind of untruth. Besides being untrue, it's not relevant.
    "OpenOffice.org has been criticized for slow start times and extensive CPU and RAM usage in comparison to other competitive software such as Microsoft Office. In comparison, tests between OpenOffice.org 2.2 and Microsoft Office 2007 have found that OpenOffice.org takes approximately 2 times the processing time and memory to load itself along with a blank file; and took approximately 4.7 times the processing time and 3.9 times the memory to open an extremely large spreadsheet file. Critics have pointed to excessive code bloat and OpenOffice.org's loading of the Java Runtime Environment as possible reasons for the slow speeds and excessive memory usage."

    Java is definetelly one of main factors for its slowness. There isn't a single Java GUI program that doesn't suck majorly when it comes to speed and responsiveness.
  • Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @12:09AM (#23663683)
    Google Docs, when being run over a fast computer with a decent network connection is just as joy to use.

    No. No its not. Google Docs isn't as full featured, and javascript in a browser isn't remotely as powerful or as flexible as what can be done with a native app either run locally, or even hosted via Citrix. There really is no comparison.

    Now Google has no former experience or desire to go in application hosting business.

    Really? I'll buy the no former experience, but pretty much everything they do lately is AJAX application hosting stuff.

    They do have a lot of webserver on their disposal though and they can, without investing significant amount, host all sort of web applications (google docs included).

    If they hosted 'real' applications instead of 'web applications' they could spare themselves all the trouble of actually WRITING web applications. All they'd have to do is write the application publisher... and for linux we ALREADY even have THAT in the form of remote X sessions; it just needs to be polished up a bunch to work over slow high latency WANs.

    If I were at google, and I wanted to make 'online office'... who in their right mind would want to write an office suite from scratch in JAVASCRIPT to run in a variety of browsers that are all buggy to some degree and over which you have little control, and where standards compliance is a fantasy?

    Especially when you could just take an existing free office suite, and the existing remote access provided by X-windows, and polish it up to run robustly and reliably over a WAN link. (And you KNOW this is possible because the guys over at Citrix have ALREADY done it.)

    And when you are done, you have a solution that will work with practically ANY app. You want an online graphics program... publish gimp, you want an online ide? publish eclipse. You want an online mail program, publish evolution.

    The ONLY downside to this solution is the cpu load on the server is higher. But if google figures they can scale up to give everyone on the planet gigabytes upon gigabytes of storage space, I think throwing CPUs at their network to give them some processing capability really shouldn't be an insurmountable problem for them.
  • Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Daengbo ( 523424 ) <daengbo&gmail,com> on Thursday June 05, 2008 @02:32AM (#23664503) Homepage Journal
    Dude. I think version 1.0 was released in 2000. X-over-SSH has been usable since the 90's (forgiving the patent on SSH back then)

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.

Working...