Google Hiring Programmers to Work on OpenOffice 538
massysett writes "Google is hiring programmers to work on OpenOffice.org. "We use a fair amount of open-source software at Google. We want to make sure that's a healthy community. And we want to make sure open source preserves competitiveness within the industry," said Google's manager for open-source software. Perhaps Google's work will address an oft-heard complaint about OO.o: "Google believes it can help OpenOffice--perhaps working to pare down the software's memory requirements or its mammoth 80MB download size.""
Well (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:3, Interesting)
Google Desktop Search might be better done as a GUI for many pre-existing Linux tools, though. Grep, locate, find, etc. all with a pretty Gnome or KDE wrapper.
Having said that, I've never used GDS, and it might have some incredibly cool functionality that isn't replicated by any of the above. Even so, they could still probably write that functionality as a command line program and tie it into the same GUI, though....
How about Picasa? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How about Picasa? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well (Score:4, Interesting)
(although i must admit, reducing memory usage and speeing up startup does overlap)
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well (Score:3, Informative)
I just tested this 5 times with the option on and with the option off. It averaged 10 vs 8 seconds. Twenty percent improvement is nothing to sneeze at generally, but 2 seconds just doesn't give a huge improvement feel.
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair to Office, you're running OpenOffice on a lot faster hardware than you ran Office on all those years ago.
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a no-brainer, but a lot of people don't know about it, would rather buy than download, or just want a product they are sure is compatable with their teacher's/classmate's/coworke
Or better yet (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Or better yet (Score:5, Informative)
> in the suite as an alternative.
Tor Lillqvist was hired by Novell [nat.org] to help get Evolution running on Windows. While I was working on Revolution [rubyforge.org] and was subscribed to evolution-hackers I remember that he'd occasionally post progress notes there.
I'm not sure how far that effort is along at this point, although Tor certainly seemed to be making excellent progress and was patching all sorts of Gnome/Win32 bugs in various projects.
Re:Or better yet (Score:5, Interesting)
EvoWin32 progress here: http://tml-blog.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Demo failed on GNOME Summit but as he writes otherwise, it should be pretty far with porting. If I remember correctly it is now about 2-3 months sice he posted first screenshots. And all libs are now in CVS and can be built
Re:Or better yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Or better yet (Score:3, Insightful)
2 step process (Score:3, Interesting)
I've never had the great experience of using Outlook and/or Exchange; but it must be tackled to replace Office in many environments.
Re:Or better yet (Score:5, Funny)
I like evolution, but it crashes more than a 90-year-old drunk Irishman on St. Patrick's day.
Re:Or better yet (Score:5, Funny)
Well, if it weren't for evolution, we wouldn't have drunk Irishmen living up to 90 years of age.
It's been a while.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's been a while.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's been a while.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Compared to AbiWord, yeah, it's kinda mammoth. I think it's about 5MB for Windows. So, the Word Processor component is only ~5MB. Why does OO have to be over 10x as large and yet still load slow, be a memory hog, and be only mildly competitive in the Windows/MS Office world?
Re:It's been a while.... (Score:5, Informative)
Yet OOo is:
Word Processor
SpreadSheet
Presentation
Drawing App
Math App
Database App w/Database
Using the same 5MB per calculation, I get 30MB (6x5MB). Now add in a boatload more features, all with cool icons, plus some snazzy templates and clipart, and you can get it up there in no time flat.
Which isn't to say that there isn't still bloat in OOo. But it's not so significant that it should matter.
Brings up the suite question again (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Brings up the suite question again (Score:3, Informative)
We can pretty much thank StarDivision for their "StarDesk" idea for this rediculous level of integration. Sadly, we're still paying for it 5 years later.
As somebody else pointed out the last time OO.o w
Re:Brings up the suite question again (Score:3, Informative)
tricky@maihem:/var/cache/apt/archives$ ls -l *ffice*.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 29138 2005-10-22 09:47 openoffice.org2_2.0.0-0ubuntu1-0ubuntu1_amd64.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2813238 2005-10-22 09:48 openoffice.org2-base_2.0.0-0ubuntu1-0ubuntu1_amd64
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3579878 2005-10-22 09:48 openoffice.org2-calc_2.0.0-0ubuntu1-0ubuntu1_amd64
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 22900216 2005-10-22 05:35 openoffice.org2-common_2.0.0-0ubuntu1_all.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 r
Re:Brings up the suite question again (Score:3, Informative)
openoffice.org-core appears to be 80 MB
Re:It's been a while.... (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, if history teaches us anything, their programmers will spend a year looking through the code, decide it's impossible to deal with, and start from scratch. We should expect Moz^H^H^HGoogle Office to be ready for prime time in about 5 years.
Re:It's been a while.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, it's an office suite... (Score:3, Insightful)
80MB may be awkward for those on a dial up modem, but put into context, it isn't that bad. I suppose that it would be nice to modularize it so that bits are downloaded as needed. A 20MB
Re:Yeah, it's an office suite... (Score:3, Informative)
Office 2003 Pro is nearly 6 times as large, 477 meg according to the install point we have at work.
Re:Yeah, it's an office suite... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's been a while.... (Score:3, Insightful)
is 80 MB really mammoth?
Compared with less than 20MB for (the much faster) KOffice? In any case, I don't think it's the download size per se that is the big deal, it's just that it's a convenient metric that roughly correlates to some sense of bloat.
If Google can fix the load time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If Google can fix the load time (Score:2)
Re:If Google can fix the load time (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If Google can fix the load time (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Without java no macros (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for asking. I went back and checked again, and it turns out that I was fooled by a bug: If you turn off Java, and then choose "Tools->Macros->Run macro..", you're greeted with the dialog box that says: "OpenOffice.org requires a Java runtime environment (JRE) to perform this task. However, use of a JRE has been disabled. Do you want to enable the use of a JRE now? [Yes] [No] [Cancel]". But if you choose "No" or "Cancel", you still get to run your macros! So the dialog box is completely wrong. (Macros linked to menus or keys work without any stupid lying dialog boxes.)
So, I have to correct myself: If you disable Java in OpenOffice.org 2.0 you have to put up with stupid dialog boxes that bug you to turn on Java again.
Please... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Please... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
Bugs (Score:5, Insightful)
My boss has made it a priority to seriously look at replacing MS Office with OpenOffice when that buglist gets below 1000. We shall see if that can happen.
Re:Bugs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bugs (Score:5, Funny)
All of them.
Re:Bugs (Score:5, Informative)
I work in the software industry, and every product ships with bugs. That's just how it works. Most companies put a severity level on bugs. Severity 1: ship blocker. Severity 2: really should fix it. Severity 3: we *might* get around to it.
The bug databases don't necessarily contain just bugs - there can be feature enhancements, documentation errors, etc.
Looking through the link you posted, I see 5603 defects in the "new", "started" or "reopened" categories. Of those, 7 are "P1" (aka Severity 1) defects, 144 are "P2", 4083 are "P3", 1160 are "P4", and 209 are "P5".
I didn't look at exact specifics, but some are probably localization errors - not functionality bugs.
Please learn a little more about the software development life cycle before making a comment like yours. Educating your employer about this would probably be a wonderful idea also.
So, for the bugs that would stop you from getting your job done, I see 151. It looks like it's time for you to evaluate OOo in your organization.
Re:Bugs (Score:3, Funny)
Reminds me of a joke we used to tell internally about some competing software (AFATDS, for any Army artillery guys out there). At one point in its development, I believe AFATDS claimed only 28 open problem reports.
Again? (Score:2, Funny)
Anyway, thumbs up
Private sponsorship of public projects (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Private sponsorship of public projects (Score:5, Funny)
I bet OO7 will be killer!
Re:Private sponsorship of public projects (Score:3, Funny)
So much for Mac support (Score:5, Insightful)
I know Google can't *stop* a Mac port, but they've got an awful track record of supporting Macs. I'm sure they won't direct any of their resources toward the recently announced new effort to build a Cocoa version.
Oh well. Pages is nicer anyway than OpenOffice, even if I do have to pay for it. It's a shame that the businesses and governments that would be willing to consider OpenOffice want it to have every ounce of the feature bloat that MS Office has.
Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So much for Mac support (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, but I won't spare you from a small note that Google isn't the only one who contributes to OO.o. They may not exactly have a stellar record on supporting Mac on their own projects, but here, they're contributing stuff on a cross-platform package backed by folks who want to keep it running on Windows, Linux and (to a very small extent) OS X.
I don't think that sudden appearance of Google programmers makes OO.o Linux and OS X support magically disappear over night! That would be very silly!
Re:So much for Mac support (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming Google does NOTHING to help the MacOSX community, they will still make 00.org smaller, and that will still make it easier for those who do perform the port.
Re:So much for Mac support (Score:5, Informative)
Apple's customers are like no others -- a rich blend of the most sociologically elite with those seeking elegant, simple computing. ... Unlike users of Intel/Windows computers, a significant portion of Apple's users are active, exploratory, avant-garde and early adopters. The activities they enjoy are unique in the the way that they more often incorporate rich media such as video and music as well as more active prosumer behavior than many more passive Windows users.
With above-average household income and education levels, the Mac population [is] very attractive [intellectually as well as physically.]
Re:So much for Mac support (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yet another whining Mac user (Score:5, Informative)
You mean like open-sourcing their Darwin base OS code? Or contributing their improvements to GCC to the world? Or providing the world with a free open source streaming server system? Or making Zeroconf an open standard and releasing a free reference implementation? Or contributing improvements to CUPS? Or to KDE's HTML renderer? Or releasing their unified replacement for cron, init and rc as an open source project?
Right now you are making a fool of yourself in public. Either that or you're trolling.
Okay, under one condition (Score:5, Funny)
Mammoth? (Score:2, Informative)
"mammoth 80MB download size" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"mammoth 80MB download size" (Score:3, Interesting)
Does AppleWorks have all of the features of Microsoft Office? No. But aside from some Excel functions, it has all of the features of Microsoft Office (sans email) that I've actually used.
With a plugin architecture, it shouldn't be hard to have a small but functional installer that downlo
the industry? whoever could they mean? (Score:5, Interesting)
should read:
"And we want to make sure open source preserves competitiveness against Microsoft."
Not that there is anything wrong with that, I just find it funny that they don't just come out and say what we all know they are thinking.
Kill Windows (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Kill Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Could Eric's attempts to kill MS be anymore obvious? IIRC 40% of MS' profits are from Office. If people (read: companies) realize that free (and higher quality) is better than $300-600 / license (and lower quality) the open source world could start to get the penetration it needs to hit a tipping point.
Mod parent up. This is a good point.
All competitors of Microsoft - whether or not they're in the office suite business - would do well to consider donating developers and code to OpenOffice.org. It would hit Microsoft right where it hurts - in one of their two major cash cows - making it harder for Microsoft to compete in general (because less money would be flowing from their cash cows into their other divisions).
Outlook (Score:3, Interesting)
-everphilski-
Mammoth size? (Score:4, Insightful)
or its mammoth 80MB download size.
Sure, its memory usage is a bit heavy (though it's worked fine for me), but 80 MB doesn't seem like such a big download, considering what you get. Microsoft Office now spans more than one CD. Even when you omit the media (images, clipart, etc.) that come with MS Office, OOo must still be considerably smaller.
Not that I'm criticising their intentions - if they make it even smaller than 80 MB I won't complain.
Good (Score:2)
Mammoth? (Score:4, Insightful)
Usability? (Score:4, Interesting)
This sounds like a good idea to me. (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, kudos to anybody who steps in and gives the Open Source movement a monetary hand -- and I gotta figure they're one of the top contributors at this point.
This is absolutely the right move. Word processing software has probably the most unnecessary bulk of any class of software on your operating system (the e-mail client placing a close second.) There was a day these things could fit in 640K, and while there are certain advantageous features such as spell check we would all be benefited by a more modular approach to installation that asks you what you need and what you don't.
Really, this seems to be the tip of the iceburg. With the increasing price of oil, I can't help wondering what the face of computing is going to look like five or ten years down the line. The average computer uses as much as 140 jack-o-lanterns worth of coal to run on any given day. Much of this is spent on wasteful peripherals we could do without, such as fancy 3D graphics cards or optical mice, but even more is being spent on processing power well beyond the needs of the average user.
Inefficiencies in microcomponent fabrication mean that a great deal of the electricity that goes into your computer is given off as heat. Techniques such as reversible or quantum computing hold much promise in the future for putting more energy into computation but today it is up to the consumer to safeguard the environment.
In a way, the argument is the same as with vehicles -- most people don't need a SUV or a top-of-the-line system but many choose to get them to compensate for inadequacies or because of marketing -- but with computers at least it is impossible to argue you are "safer" for having a faster system. Indeed, you are more likely to run viruses or worms without realizing it because you don't notice the hit in operating performance.
I've noticed that I've been holding on to computer equipment longer and longer these days. Oh sure, I have to fix a power supply here and a fan there, but besides slack engineering standards from software companies there is little reason to keep up with the hardware treadmill... and at least one compelling reason not to.
But much of the responsibility falls on the software developers to design for efficiency. That's not to say that they don't, but I think that as a priority in particular for software deployment to third-world nations operating efficiency will only rise as part of the software design philosophy.
This has been long predicted as what would happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Now that we are begining to aproach the end of the line for the current computer hardware technology, much much more emphasis is being placed on effeciency instead of raw speed. You can see this change in attitude reflected in everything from processor design, to modular software and operating systems.
In no small part, one of the reasons the *nix's have become so popular(other than low cost) is that they are extremely customizable. So, you can have all the features you need, but toss out everything else you don't. This allows for a much more effecient, secure, and orderly system.
Sizes - Memory, Download (Score:5, Interesting)
The download is not that bad (how big is MS Office?). What is bad is that the update requires a new download rather than an update/service pack type thing.
Can 2.01 be a smaller download to update a 2.0 install, rather than a complete download that'll try to install itself to OpenOffice.org2.01?
Just my list of demands, feel free to ignore
Re:Sizes - Memory, Download (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sizes - Memory, Download (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, a mail client written just to run on Windows can use the system addressbook. A mail client like Thunderbird that runs on many platforms has to implement an addressbook as a component because it can't guarantee the host system will have one it can access / have one at all.
Given the choice between writing code to access equivalent functions on different platforms, considering the differences between Windows, Mac OS and Linux/KDE or Linux/GNO
Re:Sizes - Memory, Download (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not writing cross platform code, it's writing bad code. What it should include is an abstract address book interface. This would be accompanied by instances that wrapped the features of the Windows, OS X / GNUstep, GNOME, KDE, etc. address books, and a fall-back that provided basic address book functiona
Maybe File Sharing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Maybe File Sharing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe File Sharing (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, most of that time I've been using OOo - no significant difference.
Now I have to use MS Office and MS Outlook. I took a simple 1-page Word document, removed the details from it, and emailed it to somebody saying "This is the format you need to use to make this request".
That seemed pretty straightforward - give him the blank version of the document.
Now, whenever he emails me
Revenge (Score:5, Insightful)
The day Google starts to write their own Linux desktop is probably the one where you should really, really get rid of that M$ stock...
Hosted OOo with browser interface (Score:5, Interesting)
Before anyone starts screaming about privacy and Google becoming too powerful, let me say that I find such a prospect very attractive for individuals and for small and medium size businesses. Let Google handle the backup issues and provide appropriate conversion utilities when communicating with others. While I am quite competent to handle such issues myself, I would be tempted to use a Google service such as this myself. It is so convenient having documents stored on a globally accessible server and not having to maintain that server oneself.
Re:Hosted OOo with browser interface (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait... haven't we been here before.
Go Google! (Score:5, Insightful)
Commoditization (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you commoditize an operating system? One way is to make web services that can be accessed by any standards-compliant browser. Check.
How do you commoditize an office suite? By backing and improving a free-of-charge office suite, and by providing coders, money, and publicity to the project. Check.
I wonder what MS will do now? I think that if they have to fight to maintain a monopoly against Google, IBM, Sun, and the entire F/OSS community, they may well have a losing battle.
Eventually.
Doesn't this point to a weakness? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now please let me put on my flame-proof suit before I click "submit".
Re:Doesn't this point to a weakness? (Score:5, Insightful)
One may also say that if companies like Google are willing to hire programmers to work on those aspects, that points out a significant strength in the FOSS development model.
Re:Doesn't this point to a weakness? (Score:3, Insightful)
What part of the FOSS development model requires that all FOSS programmers be volunteers? One of the best parts of FOSS is that a small group of users (individuals or companies) can hire a FOSS developer as a consultant to add a particular feature they need. A proprietary software company might never add tha
You think that Steve Ballmer is mad now... (Score:5, Funny)
Hold the Praise and Hail the Software (Score:4, Insightful)
What we should be really doing is thanking the developers of OO. OO is a great program, especially given that it is relatively young and has to have a lot of functionality. As others have pointed out, 80MB is not at all massive for a program like OO. I am not sure what these speed issues others bring up are, it is quite fast for me. Whether it uses Java or not is irrelevant to the majority of users. You have to understand that most people don't care whether Java is closed or not. It is the final product's functionality that matters most, so quit your bitching.
What I think OO needs is a better interface and more of the lesser-used features that make MS Office such a complete suite. I know many of you think MS Office suffers from feature bloat, but there are always people who make use of a lot of the lesser known features (like Format Painter!) - for the stuff it packs in there, Office is quite blazingly fast. One bad example of bloat would be Eclipse, because when you have lots of features, speed and interface matter a LOT more. Hopefully, OO will get this right.
My 2c.
Different Theory On Why (Score:4, Insightful)
Makes Perfect Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is investing in OO.org for the same reason that Sun, Red Hat, Novell, and even IBM (to a certain extent) are investing in OO.org. If Google can make OO.org a more useful competitor to MS Office for a nominal investment then that investment is definitely money well spent. This has little or nothing to do with Google's use of Free Software, and everything to do with the fact that with Microsoft Office is vulnerable. OO.org is actually pretty competitive, and Microsoft's upcoming format shift means that people are going to have to deal with format incompatibilities no matter what they decide to use.
Google execs know that Microsoft begins to lose sales of its ridiculously profitable office suite to OO.org that investors will demand that Microsoft stop focusing on new endeavors (like MSN) and focus on its bread and butter businesses. Increasing the viability of OO.org is almost certainly Google's most cost effective weapon in its fight against Microsoft.
Philanthropy (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't trust corporations (look at my posting history). But, I've been very impressed with the impression I get from Google. Yes, perhaps they are doing this for the PR, or to turn Microsoft's cash cow into hamburger and yummy, yummy steaks; but might it also be that Google is doing this because it has some extra cash, and since it benefits so greatly from free software, is just trying to give something back?
Maybe?
Anyway, in the end, it doesn't matter, as well *all* benefit.
Throwing bodies? (Score:5, Insightful)
OpenOffice is not self-sustaining. It only exists because people are being paid to work on it. I believe a decent link is the following...
http://www.openoffice.org/editorial/interview_joe
"""What is your role now in OpenOffice.org/StarOffice and what was your role in architecting the OpenOffice.org project at its inception?
I am responsible for the StarOffice engineering and in this role also responsible for all engineering work on OpenOffice.org done by Sun employees. At the time of OpenOffice.org's inception I was responsible for StarOffice's base technology and involved in all the engineering discussions around open sourcing StarOffice. """
IANAOSOSC (I am Not an Open Source Office Software Contributor)... but contrast that statement with AbiWord, KOffice, Evolution, InkScape, etc. (AbiWord and KOffice both had their versions of kernel-traffic-like summaries which allowed me keep up with various development issues and see how their insides worked at one point or another. OpenOffice needing an FTE to manage other FTE's who are writing code is a recipe for "code because we tell you to".
It seems like certain types of companies exist solely to make the most complicated build processes, technology decisions, etc. This is as opposed to the OSS way of "Keep it Simple, Stupid"
http://ooo.ximian.com/hackers-guide.html [ximian.com]:
"""Building and hacking on OpenOffice.org (OO.o) entails climbing a fairly lengthy incline. Hopefully this document will make the learning curve somewhat steeper and more abrupt, and will give you a walking stick to help you out."""
Which isn't to say that having somebody "big" like Sun behind an office suite is all bad. It's because of them that we have the clippy-like thing, the chm-like thing, the templates, wizards, import filters, and all the other mostly boring "feature checkboxes" that we do now in OO.o.
If I could wave my magic wand and have everything the way that I want, I'd split out the OO input filters (seem to get really good reviews and good personal results). Kill the really-tight integration between Presenter, Writer, Drawer, etc... (although if that's the way MSOffice handles embedded tables, etc., maybe it's a necessary evil?). And a healthy helping of de-cruftify, especially the preferences panels. Maybe a FireFox-like project to strip down OpenOffice would be helpful.
Just my outsider's perspective....
--Robert
welcome to open source (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost all open source work is paid for. And there is nothing wrong with that: that's the way open source is supposed to work. The real problem is not that Google pays for OOo, but that not enough people have reason and cause to pay for other useful open source project development.
You are right that OOo's particular heritage and codebase discourages contributions and community development. That is a big problem.
Wait, who just got hired? (Score:5, Funny)
Google Might Be One Of The Few... (Score:3, Interesting)
...companies to pull off one of the few FS/OSS business models that's sound, simply because of Google's size. The model?
1. Release FS/OSS.
2. Short stock of Proprietary competition. Or, drive dollars away from them towards you; since shorting is an unpopular tactic that might cause PR or even legal problems.
3. Profit. Oh yeah, big time!
Hate to burst the bubbles of people who still have them when it comes to the big G, but human attempts to create large, idealistic organizations have a nasty tendancy to end in failure. Exactly what is "not doing evil" when your only choice is the Google office suite?
Re:Please join me in opposing this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They already have (Score:5, Insightful)
California minimum wage laws don't apply in India! Even if the company hiring them is in California.
I don't like outsourcing anymore than you do, and it is the primary reason I boycott Walmart, but it is what it is.
I commend you for being passionate about it and trying to do something about it. But you won't change the nature of outsourcing. You can avoid it, boycott it, and discourage it, but personally I don't think you can change it.
Thomas L. Friedman hits the nail right on the head, and America needs a boot to the head if we're going to survive the new transition.
Otherwise we'll end up just like stage coaches or any other industry that failed to adapt and tried to hang on to old models.
Re:They already have (Score:3, Informative)
1. The math used in the link assumes 40/h weeks for an entire summer? Google paid for the project, NOT for the hours. I could have just as easily worked 5 hours on a project and make several hundred dollars per hour.
2. It was more like a grant, or even a contract. There was no requirement that the participant work X hours, or a particular timeframe. Google paid for the project, not for the hours worked on it.
3. Google Summer of Code != (does not equal for the layman) Curre
Re:Please join me in opposing this. (Score:3, Informative)
Besides what is wrong with rewarding people who most likely would have done that work regardless of the monetary reward? It just enables students like myself to work our crap job/internship less and work on what we love more.
And at least here in New Hampshire, $9.30 an hour is enough for a student job. I made $15 welding in a sheet metal shop but most of my friends were doing worse work at $8 an hour, all before taxes.
Their pay seems decent for students, the
Re:Please join me in opposing this. (Score:2)
Programmers should realize that software companies don't hire programmer A over B just based on salary. They also look at the return. If someone can give you 80% of the quality at 30% of the price, do it.
Do you buy at newegg over your local store? Why?
Re:OpenOffice.org needs... (Score:5, Informative)
OOo is coded in C++, for the most part. A few plugins use Java. I don't know about 2.0, but 1.1 was perfectly usable without a JRE installed.