PDA

View Full Version : I was right. Oracle is really on drugs.



mickie.kext
April 19th, 2010, 06:36 PM
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Oracle-start-charging-for-Sun-s-Office-ODF-plug-in-981132.html

They are charging Windows users $90 for ODF plug-in for MS Office.

Dragonbite
April 19th, 2010, 06:40 PM
So this makes people who want to pass documents to have to rely on MS Office format unless they want to pony-up the cash?


Oracle start charging for Sun's Office ODF plug-in (http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Oracle-start-charging-for-Sun-s-Office-ODF-plug-in-981132.html)
In 2007, Sun released the Sun ODF Plugin for Microsoft Office, as a closed source but free application which allowed Microsoft Office users to export and import documents in Open Document Format. Although the Oracle site still, at the time of writing, offers the software for free with the tagline "Get it now: FREE", users clicking through will find that Oracle are now charging $90, per user, for a right-to-use license for the plug-in and offering support costing $19.80 per user for the first year. Oracle also requires a minimum order of 100 licenses, which means the minimum purchase is $9,000.

Tristam Green
April 19th, 2010, 06:42 PM
I don't understand. I looked at the save menus for my Office install, and I can save in .odt, .ods formats.

What's the issue here? I must be missing something.

swoll1980
April 19th, 2010, 06:44 PM
Good for them. They obviously think they can get people to pay that much for it. I think it's great they can make money off of a free office suite. This is what open source needs. For too long it was thought, and still is by many people, that there is no money to be made in free software. Companies like Mozilla, Red Hat, Novell, Canonical and Oracle will go along way towards killing this myth. They all have found completely different ways to make money with free software.

Dayofswords
April 19th, 2010, 06:48 PM
hell, i didnt even pay $90 for my ms office, like i'd pay that for a plug-in



Oracle also requires a minimum order of 100 licenses, which means the minimum purchase is $9,000.
hell no even more

EDIT:
to swoll:
the plugin is closed source, i dont see how it helps

MaxIBoy
April 19th, 2010, 06:49 PM
That's a bit overpriced in my opinion, but the market will tell in the end.

Still, I'm sure a gratis version will be showing up in short order (if not from Oracle/Sun itself.)

Shpongle
April 19th, 2010, 06:55 PM
its good that they want to make money but , it means most people will not use odf . So I cant see it helping in that respect. Word is the most dominant format so most ms users will just use that and it means the rest of us will have to save in .doc format if they have not got the licences . Just my thoughts on the issue

Dragonbite
April 19th, 2010, 06:58 PM
I don't understand. I looked at the save menus for my Office install, and I can save in .odt, .ods formats.

What's the issue here? I must be missing something.

What version of Office are you running? I think Office 2007 has it, but 2003 and earlier doesn't.

Ahh... here it is, in the article
...Since the release of Service pack 2 for Microsoft Office 2007, Office has been capable of dealing with documents in ODF format 1.0.

-humanaut-
April 19th, 2010, 06:59 PM
its good that they want to make money but , it means most people will not use odf . So I cant see it helping in that respect. Word is the most dominant format so most ms users will just use that and it means the rest of us will have to save in .doc format if they have not got the licences . Just my thoughts on the issue

I disagree big enterprise will need this plugin and there pockets are deep I think its great what Oracle is doing.

CharlesA
April 19th, 2010, 07:04 PM
Ah. So Office 2007 can save as ODT, but not 2003.

Nice job Oracle. Guess they just want the money.

swoll1980
April 19th, 2010, 07:04 PM
hell, i didnt even pay $90 for my ms office, like i'd pay that for a plug-in



hell no even more

EDIT:
to swoll:
the plugin is closed source, i dont see how it helps

They're making money off of a free software project by selling a closed source plugin that makes it compatible with a different program. I don't see how it doesn't help. Anyway you slice it they're making money off a free software project, and in a pretty original way. It's no different than a company like codeweavers. People are making money off of cross platform compatibility. It's a new business model, and a pretty interesting one if you ask me.

Elfy
April 19th, 2010, 07:04 PM
threads merged

Bachstelze
April 19th, 2010, 07:06 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha, is it April 1st already? Now we can tell people "You should use open formats because it's good and all. Oh by the way, it will cost ya 90 bucks, but eh, you'll be free!"

Way to kill Free Software, Oracle! Next year, OpenOffice.

CharlesA
April 19th, 2010, 07:07 PM
I disagree big enterprise will need this plugin and there pockets are deep I think its great what Oracle is doing.

I doubt it would even work that way. They'd just go with a "normal" format, and not touch ODF.

Tristam Green
April 19th, 2010, 07:09 PM
What version of Office are you running? I think Office 2007 has it, but 2003 and earlier doesn't.

Ahh... here it is, in the article


Ah. So Office 2007 can save as ODT, but not 2003.

Nice job Oracle. Guess they just want the money.

Oh, so there's no problem here. They're offering support and functionality for a seven-year older version of software, even if they're offering it at a price.

I mean, it's nice that they offered it free of charge for as long as they did (three years is a long time), but I would hardly accuse Oracle of being "on drugs" for this.

swoll1980
April 19th, 2010, 07:11 PM
I doubt it would even work that way. They'd just go with a "normal" format, and not touch ODF.

Oracle is a huge company that's been around for a long time. It wouldn't surprise me if they knew what they were doing.

Dragonbite
April 19th, 2010, 07:11 PM
Unless they are going to be creating a format-compatibility war it doesn't look like it's a product with a long life or profit margin.

And if people are unwilling to upgrade to Office2007, chances are they are going to be unwilling to pay for this plugin.

The only people they can make money off of are the huge corporations that don't want to pay for the full version of Office 2007 Professional (+) for like 1,000 employees, but the few thousands for compatibility makes sense.

1,000 employees x $300 for upgrade = $300,000
vs.
1,000 employees x $ 90 for compat. = $ 90,000

Kinda makes sense (if you squint).

The question is whether the ODF/ODT format is powerful enough to ransom this way!

CharlesA
April 19th, 2010, 07:17 PM
Oh, so there's no problem here. They're offering support and functionality for a seven-year older version of software, even if they're offering it at a price.

That's pretty much it. If you don't want to upgrade and still use Office 2003 and you use ODF, you can either hack up the cash to get the plugin or switch to OpenOffice.


Unless they are going to be creating a format-compatibility war it doesn't look like it's a product with a long life or profit margin.

And if people are unwilling to upgrade to Office2007, chances are they are going to be unwilling to pay for this plugin.

The only people they can make money off of are the huge corporations that don't want to pay for the full version of Office 2007 Professional (+) for like 1,000 employees, but the few thousands for compatibility makes sense.

They could just use OpenOffice instead. Makes me wonder if they'll make it so that OO isn't free anymore.

Bachstelze
April 19th, 2010, 07:19 PM
That's pretty much it. If you don't want to upgrade and still use Office 2003 and you use ODF, you can either hack up the cash to get the plugin or switch to OpenOffice.

Or swith back to DOC.

CharlesA
April 19th, 2010, 07:24 PM
Or swith back to DOC.

Or that, yeah.

FuturePilot
April 19th, 2010, 07:38 PM
hell, i didnt even pay $90 for my ms office, like i'd pay that for a plug-in


Oracle also requires a minimum order of 100 licenses, which means the minimum purchase is $9,000.

hell no even more

EDIT:
to swoll:
the plugin is closed source, i dont see how it helps

That's not quite over 9000. :lol:

mickie.kext
April 19th, 2010, 07:39 PM
"They are on drugs" was pun to this (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1456279). Buying PhaseForward.

On toppic:

They will hardly make any money serious out of this plugin, and on first look it looks like they are realy threatening popularity of ODF. That is why I said it was crazy.

But when I look it deeper, it looks like they are not so much affter money out of plugin. They are want to raid MS Office 2003 user base (which is huge in enterprises, nobody is exactly eager to upgrade there) and switch them to OpenOffice or StarOffice (if they are keeping "Star" name). And that also might not make them much money but it will break Microsoft's lockin on Office suites, and make Oracle's complete integrated solutions more viable, since people wouald not have to hold Windows machines in their datacenters just because of Office.

gradinaruvasile
April 19th, 2010, 07:40 PM
Maybe this move is to make Office 2003 users use OpenOffice for odf compatibility... Its free after all. And there will be a time when they will be pressed harder by Microsoft to upgrade to 2010-12-14 or whatever version will be then (backwards compatibility will be killed, upgrades ditto, and maybe the future Windows OS itself will not be as friendly to Office 2003 as 7 is right now). And not everyone will want to shell out cash for upgrading to something costly/unfamiliar (small businesses, local authorities, government agencies etc).
So a free alternative (that will be more mature as it is now) that resembles more 2003 than Office 2007 itself may appeal to some.
Its just a theory...

Or, they purely and simply just want their share of cash on Windozers.

Also, the .odf format may have a future if governments start to adopt it - because businesses surely wont do it by themselves.

PS. I installed that plugin on Office 2003/XP and it did not work... And a collegue of mine had the "M$ compatibility pack" installed on 2003/XP and OpenOffice 3 or 3.1 (On Ubuntu) rendered better the .docx/xlsx files than that one...

Tristam Green
April 19th, 2010, 07:49 PM
"They are on drugs" was pun to this (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1456279). Buying PhaseForward.

On toppic:

They will hardly make any money serious out of this plugin, and on first look it looks like they are realy threatening popularity of ODF. That is why I said it was crazy.

But when I look it deeper, it looks like they are not so much affter money out of plugin. They are want to raid MS Office 2003 user base (which is huge in enterprises, nobody is exactly eager to upgrade there) and switch them to OpenOffice or StarOffice (if they are keeping "Star" name). And that also might not make them much money but it will break Microsoft's lockin on Office suites, and make Oracle's complete integrated solutions more viable, since people wouald not have to hold Windows machines in their datacenters just because of Office.

You contradict yourself. If they're looking for money from the "huge enterprise" MS Office 2003 group, then they'll get it more than likely. This offers a pinch-hit solution rather than negotiating another lengthy MS EA agreement for Office Suites, should those businesses *need* the ODF support (which I doubt anyway).

I don't understand the entire thing about having to have Windows machines in datacenters because of Office. The client and server sides don't have to match, they just have to work. Outlook works with other things than Exchange, and last i checked, OpenOffice doesn't have an email component.

Crunchy the Headcrab
April 19th, 2010, 07:55 PM
I think it's a bad idea because the price is WAY too high.

dragos240
April 19th, 2010, 07:56 PM
hell, i didnt even pay $90 for my ms office, like i'd pay that for a plug-in



hell no even more

EDIT:
to swoll:
the plugin is closed source, i dont see how it helps

What 9000? There's no way that can be right!??!?!

MaxIBoy
April 19th, 2010, 08:27 PM
It's worth noting that Microsoft's implementation of ODF (especially spreadsheet documents) is buggy and incompatible with OpenOffice, whereas Oracle/Sun's plugin works very well (as far as I know.)

CharlesA
April 19th, 2010, 08:32 PM
That's not quite over 9000. :lol:

The cart says it is:


* Oracle ODF Plug-in for Microsoft Office (Application User; Perpetual)
* $9,000.00
* Quantity: 100
*
First Year Support $1,980.00

Total items: 1 $10,980.00Subtotal:

If you just get a 1 yr license, it is still 1,800 dollars.


What 9000? There's no way that can be right!??!?!

Cart says so.. but the math is correct. 90.00 * 100 = 9000.

zekopeko
April 19th, 2010, 08:33 PM
It's worth noting that Microsoft's implementation of ODF (especially spreadsheet documents) is buggy and incompatible with OpenOffice, whereas Oracle/Sun's plugin works very well (as far as I know.)

Thats because ODF is what Sun/Oracle do with it in OpenOffice.

Microsoft's implementation is buggy only because the spec for ODF is buggy and they used that to implement it (as should OO.org).

Its funny considering how much people were up in arms for "MS making ODF look bad" and how "OOXML is what MS implements in MS Office" but when the other side does it its fine and dandy.

Chronon
April 19th, 2010, 08:41 PM
It's worth noting that Microsoft's implementation of ODF (especially spreadsheet documents) is buggy and incompatible with OpenOffice
This does sound like a clever business strategy on their part.

Chronon
April 19th, 2010, 08:52 PM
Microsoft's implementation is buggy only because the spec for ODF is buggy and they used that to implement it (as should OO.org).
I did not know that. Can you point me to where I can read about how the specification for the format is not well defined? I tried a couple of Google searches but I seem to not get very useful results.

The only semi-related thing I could find was a comment on slashdot where someone claimed that MS were following the ODF spec to the letter and would lay the blame for document portability issues at the feet of OOo for compliance bugs.

If this is the case, then Oracle needs to put in some work and conform to their own specification. I am interested to read more about this if you can provide a link.

markbuntu
April 19th, 2010, 09:10 PM
The ODF 1 spec is not as specific as it could be so MS decided to do the opposite of everyone else where the spec was vague so they could blame the spec. Typical MS intransigence. ODF 2 is a lot more specific but MS is not supporting that.

Oracle had to come up with something that just worked since it is the prime supporter of many big business and government IT departments and many goverments are moving to ODF for all government documents and correspondence as they get rid of their MS licenses so more and more businesses need ODF compatibility. I doubt that Oracle charges their own customers anything for it.

This is really a dig at MS to get their act together on ODF and a push to get more businesses away from MS and onto linux/OO front ends which Oracle can provide support for and make more money off with fewer headaches than with MS/Office.

They gave MS 3 years to stop hanging on their coatails and now they are forcing the issue.

zekopeko
April 19th, 2010, 09:33 PM
I did not know that. Can you point me to where I can read about how the specification for the format is not well defined? I tried a couple of Google searches but I seem to not get very useful results.

The only semi-related thing I could find was a comment on slashdot where someone claimed that MS were following the ODF spec to the letter and would lay the blame for document portability issues at the feet of OOo for compliance bugs.

If this is the case, then Oracle needs to put in some work and conform to their own specification. I am interested to read more about this if you can provide a link.

You can start here I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Criticism

zekopeko
April 19th, 2010, 09:40 PM
The ODF 1 spec is not as specific as it could be so MS decided to do the opposite of everyone else where the spec was vague so they could blame the spec. Typical MS intransigence. ODF 2 is a lot more specific but MS is not supporting that.

So let me get this straight. The spec isn't specific enough so MS takes freedom in implementing it (an analogy if I may: HTML standards and the "every browser renders my page differently" argument" is relevant here). But somehow its MS fault for the spec being incomplete?


Oracle had to come up with something that just worked since it is the prime supporter of many big business and government IT departments and many goverments are moving to ODF for all government documents and correspondence as they get rid of their MS licenses so more and more businesses need ODF compatibility. I doubt that Oracle charges their own customers anything for it.

This is really a dig at MS to get their act together on ODF and a push to get more businesses away from MS and onto linux/OO front ends which Oracle can provide support for and make more money off with fewer headaches than with MS/Office.

They gave MS 3 years to stop hanging on their coatails and now they are forcing the issue.

I'd say that the OASIS group that is pushing for ODF should get their act together since ODF is and ISO standard since 2006 and it still depends on how OpenOffice implements it and not on the spec itself. Not to mention that it's still buggy.

jpeddicord
April 19th, 2010, 09:40 PM
I've got to say, Office 2007/2010's ODF support is pretty good. I've been using it on university computers at OSU and haven't had problems. I've even been turning in ODF documents for credit without issue.

I can't see why Oracle would need to create their own solution.

Chronon
April 19th, 2010, 09:48 PM
You can start here I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Criticism

I see. As markbuntu suggests, those criticisms seem aimed at OASIS ODF 1.0, 1.1. It appears as if ODF 1.2 will address most of those criticisms.

Chronon
April 19th, 2010, 09:50 PM
I've got to say, Office 2007/2010's ODF support is pretty good. I've been using it on university computers at OSU and haven't had problems. I've even been turning in ODF documents for credit without issue.

I can't see why Oracle would need to create their own solution.

I think the plugin is mainly for Office 2003, isn't it?

P1umb3r
April 19th, 2010, 10:25 PM
The cart says it is:



If you just get a 1 yr license, it is still 1,800 dollars.



Cart says so.. but the math is correct. 90.00 * 100 = 9000.

You don't get it...:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiMHTK15Pik

the8thstar
April 19th, 2010, 10:32 PM
Didn't Microsoft buy Oracle?

Dayofswords
April 19th, 2010, 10:45 PM
no

zekopeko
April 19th, 2010, 11:48 PM
I see. As markbuntu suggests, those criticisms seem aimed at OASIS ODF 1.0, 1.1. It appears as if ODF 1.2 will address most of those criticisms.

Well the spec isn't out yet. I would say that absolves Microsoft of any wrong doings. And even if MS did play dirty with the ODF implementation at least it means the spec will be fixed sooner.

MooPi
April 20th, 2010, 12:02 AM
The famous circus king P.T. Barnum put it best," there's a sucker born every minute". I guess Oracle has the same opinion.

newbie2
April 20th, 2010, 05:40 PM
Bold , but risky action of oracle ... maybe too soon...ODF isn't yet common enough .... my 2 cents...:rolleyes:

forrestcupp
April 20th, 2010, 06:10 PM
I'd say about 99% of people using MS Office don't give a rat's butt about odf or even know what it is. Do they really think people are going to pay $90 for that?

We'll just keep using Office's defaults like everyone else in the world.

Dragonbite
April 20th, 2010, 06:49 PM
Bold , but risky action of oracle ... maybe too soon...ODF isn't yet common enough .... my 2 cents...:rolleyes:

I think Oracle needs to hit it ASAP because this seems more focused to the pre-2007 Office users and they aren't really selling non-2007 Office suites at any rate (compared to 2007).

If this is something that is deemed required by the government then now is also the time to strike, before companies who have to provide for it start placing in their budget the moola to upgrade to 2007.

Of course the alternative that is unspoken, but is a way out is to install the full, free OpenOffice.org.

whiskeylover
April 20th, 2010, 07:07 PM
* buys oracle stock *

Steven_S
April 20th, 2010, 08:42 PM
I don't get it.

Governments move to .odf because it sounds good, is (was) usable in a mixed environment, avoids lock-in and avoids that the software and hardware infrastructure everywhere, in any office, needs to keep a same minimum pace. Throw on that the annoyance of not being able to open MS2007 documents with earlier versions, and you get the idea.

Now, something that just works gets turned into something that needs to be paid for.

All of a sudden, .odf seems highly impractical, doesn't it? Maybe better still all to use the old .doc, since everyone can deal with that, right? We'll all agree to publish things in .odf (conversion is easy), and we're done.

How is that going to help .odf or Oracle?

Also keep in mind that we are talking about office documents. Being able to read the electronic format letters sent within a company or administration is in many cases not mission critical. And where it is (where there is an electronic document management system, for example), different standards are chosen if interoperability is an issue.

In other words, I honestly don't get it. Where is the business? Where is the PR interest? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

beetleman64
April 20th, 2010, 08:50 PM
I'm sorry, I costs nothing to get MS Office formats on the free OpenOffice, even although MS formats are proprietary yet you have to pay $90 (around £60) to get an open format on MS software. That said, given how Novell advertises MS/Linux inter-operability I can very much see them releasing an open source plugin for MS Office.

It just goes to prove that the Oracle buyout of Sun maybe wasn't for the better. Solaris now being offered as a 30 day trial before you have to pay, OpenSolaris teetering between life and death and now this. What's next? I'd rather not think about that...

forrestcupp
April 20th, 2010, 08:53 PM
I don't get it.

Governments move to .odf because it sounds good, is (was) usable in a mixed environment, avoids lock-in and avoids that the software and hardware infrastructure everywhere, in any office, needs to keep a same minimum pace. Throw on that the annoyance of not being able to open MS2007 documents with earlier versions, and you get the idea.
The free updates to the old versions of Office include a plugin to be able to work with the new Office 2007 formats. The new OpenOffice.org can work with the new Office 2007 formats. So everyone can work with docx for free no matter if they're using any version of MS Office or OpenOffice.org.

I have the ability to save documents as odt's in Office 2007. I haven't used that format once, and I probably never will. I can't see this being a big moneymaker for Oracle. It looks like they're on the road to trashing everything they bought from Sun.

Dragonbite
April 20th, 2010, 09:18 PM
I'm sorry, I costs nothing to get MS Office formats on the free OpenOffice, even although MS formats are proprietary yet you have to pay $90 (around £60) to get an open format on MS software. That said, given how Novell advertises MS/Linux inter-operability I can very much see them releasing an open source plugin for MS Office.

Doubt it. Novell seems to want to make Linux play nice with Windows, not the other way around.

For example, even the Mono Tools that allow Visual Studio to be used to make Mono applications easier, is paid-for. I asked and they didn't say they charge it because they are covering any licensing with Microsoft for Visual Studio either.. their response wasn't really any answer to "why"
Thanks for your interest and support of Mono. There are several motivations
for keeping Mono Tools for Visual Studio as a commercial application. Here
are a few:

1) MonoDevelop is our preferred IDE. It is open source, freely available, and
we are still investing heavily in improving it.
2) Visual Studio is a commercial IDE. Third party Visual Studio extensions,
including Mono Tools, may only be installed in the non-Express versions
(i.e., the non-free versions).
3) Commercialization of Mono Tools provides us the means and mechanism
to market Mono within the Visual Studio ecosystem.Only #3 has anything to do with the "why", the rest is just a rehash of what things are.


It just goes to prove that the Oracle buyout of Sun maybe wasn't for the better. Solaris now being offered as a 30 day trial before you have to pay, OpenSolaris teetering between life and death and now this. What's next? I'd rather not think about that...

What's next? MySQL, Java, OpenOffice, Glassfish, NetBeans, ZFS, ... it's starting to look really scary.

forrestcupp
April 20th, 2010, 09:23 PM
What's next? MySQL, Java, OpenOffice, Glassfish, NetBeans, ZFS, ... it's starting to look really scary.I'm not worried about OpenOffice because the forks will just continue to be developed, and there's nothing Oracle can do about that.

Java is the one I'm worried about. There is a lot that depends on Java. I doubt if they would be dumb enough to charge for their JVM, but they might do like others (Flash) and start charging for the ability to develop in Java.

Dragonbite
April 21st, 2010, 03:28 AM
I'm not worried about OpenOffice because the forks will just continue to be developed, and there's nothing Oracle can do about that.

Java is the one I'm worried about. There is a lot that depends on Java. I doubt if they would be dumb enough to charge for their JVM, but they might do like others (Flash) and start charging for the ability to develop in Java.

But IBM's Symphony (OpenOffice alternative) is somehow based on Eclipse, which is based on Java..

CharlesA
April 21st, 2010, 04:33 AM
If Virtualbox goes paid, I'll be switching to VMWare.

Isn't that how buyouts of companies go? Buy them out then rip off their ideas to make money.

matt-j99
April 21st, 2010, 08:47 AM
I don't get it. If you need ODF support in MS Office this why not download this http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/index.html this project is co-ordinated by MS and involves several big companies. Plus its open source. Seems like a no-brainer.

forrestcupp
April 21st, 2010, 02:03 PM
But IBM's Symphony (OpenOffice alternative) is somehow based on Eclipse, which is based on Java..

I was thinking more of Go-OO and Novell's fork of it.

But that's a good point. I think all versions of OpenOffice rely on Java.

Dragonbite
April 21st, 2010, 02:26 PM
I was thinking more of Go-OO and Novell's fork of it.

But that's a good point. I think all versions of OpenOffice rely on Java.

Yeah, was thinking Go-OO may be a hope.

Otherwise there is more work being done to integrate ZoHo Office (cloud office suite) into the desktop so it looks and feels like a local client version with future Ubuntu distributions (maybe netbooks, or ARM releases?). From the looks of it this will be more integrated than just using Mozilla Prism. I look forward to it.

But, back to the point.. is there ANY of Sun's products that isn't based on or interconnected with Java? VirtualBox is the only one I can think of at this point.

CharlesA
April 21st, 2010, 03:53 PM
VBox is the only one I can think of that doesn't require Java.

whiskeylover
April 21st, 2010, 03:55 PM
I would be glad if Java dies a slow painful death.

CharlesA
April 21st, 2010, 04:02 PM
I would too, if the software that I support didn't require java to run. Bleh.

Dragonbite
April 21st, 2010, 04:23 PM
Even Google included Java as an optional language for their projects I believe.

To destroy Java only really benefits Microsoft's .NET at this point of the game. Python and alternative languages are not big enough yet. They are growing, but they aren't "there" yet.

More and more applications move to being cloud-based and isn't the internet one of Java's strong points?

whiskeylover
April 21st, 2010, 04:27 PM
Even Google included Java as an optional language for their projects I believe.

To destroy Java only really benefits Microsoft's .NET at this point of the game. Python and alternative languages are not big enough yet. They are growing, but they aren't "there" yet.

More and more applications move to being cloud-based and isn't the internet one of Java's strong points?

I see nothing wrong with .NET. At least programs developed in .NET are fast.

I have to use Oracle's products on a regular basis (Oracle makes all their UIs in Java) and they suck big donkey balls. First of all, they're ugly. Secondly, just after 30 minutes of use, they start getting sluggish due to tremendous amount of memory they hog.

I despise Java.

dragos240
April 21st, 2010, 04:28 PM
I would be glad if Flash dies a slow painful death.

Fix'd.

whiskeylover
April 21st, 2010, 04:29 PM
(Forced my opinion by cleverly editing someone else's comment)'d.

Fix'd

RiceMonster
April 21st, 2010, 04:35 PM
Fix'd.

What does Flash have to do with anything?

dragos240
April 21st, 2010, 04:38 PM
What does Flash have to do with anything?

I don't feel java is evil. Flash is just awful though.

whiskeylover
April 21st, 2010, 04:49 PM
I don't feel java is evil. Flash is just awful though.

And I think peanut butter is awful. But this thread is about Oracle.

dragos240
April 21st, 2010, 04:51 PM
Yes. Yes it is.

Dragonbite
April 21st, 2010, 04:59 PM
I see nothing wrong with .NET. At least programs developed in .NET are fast.

I have to use Oracle's products on a regular basis (Oracle makes all their UIs in Java) and they suck big donkey balls. First of all, they're ugly. Secondly, just after 30 minutes of use, they start getting sluggish due to tremendous amount of memory they hog.

I despise Java.

.NET isn't all that bad, but we've seen what happens with Microsoft when there is a lack of competition!

I would love to see Java getting cleaned up and improved so as to become a one-to-one competitor with .NET and Mono. Not because I have anything against .NET or Mono (I use it here at work), just because I like seeing competition. It makes products improve or die!

Not to mention, I like Java's icon (coffee cup) much better than .NET's :lolflag:

HunterThomson
May 10th, 2010, 03:30 AM
To ensure delivery directly to your inbox, please add replies@oracle-mail.com to your address book today.
View this message in a browser.
Oracle Store Call +1.800.633.0738 for Customer Service
Expand Your Productivity at a Fraction of the Cost Oracle Open Office Is Available at the Oracle Store—Buy Now and Save 15% SHOP NOW
Dear Sir / Madam,

Oracle Open Office is available now at the Oracle Store. OpenOffice.org and Oracle Solaris operating system registered users save an additional 15% when you buy the latest release now from the Oracle Store.

Oracle Open Office Standard Edition is a complete, feature-rich office productivity suite that lists for a fraction of the cost of similar office suites. It includes powerful programs for word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, drawing, database, Web publishing, and more.

The user interface is intuitive and easy to use, and new features include improved compatibility, blog and wiki publishing capabilities, and the ability to edit PDF files. Oracle Open Office is available for Oracle Solaris, MS Windows, Macintosh OS X, and Linux platforms. You get up to five installations per user, each one providing complete functionality designed to meet a broad range of office productivity needs across homes and businesses of every size.

Buy now at the Oracle Store and save an additional 15% off the already low price. Enter OfficeSAVE at checkout. Hurry, this offer is valid through May 31.
Oracle Open Office Buy Oracle Open Office Today
$49.95
$41.95
per application user
Buy Now
Enter OfficeSAVE at checkout.
All prices shown are in U.S. dollars. Terms and conditions apply.
Oracle Logo
SOFTWARE. HARDWARE. COMPLETE.

Contact Us | Legal Notices and Terms of Use | Privacy Statement
Copyright © 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates.
All rights reserved.

47981

Oracle Corporation - Worldwide Headquarters, 500 Oracle Parkway, OPL - E-mail Services, Redwood Shores, CA 94065, United States

Update your profile to receive customized e-mail about Oracle products and services.

If you want to completely unsubscribe from any e-mail communication from Oracle, please send an e-mail to: unsubscribe@oracle-mail.com with the following in the subject line:MyEmailAddress@email.com

Hum, and check this out...
https://shop.oracle.com/pls/ostore/product?p1=oracleoffice&sc=ocom_openoffice

Is Oracle charging for OpenOffice now? I'd think I would be hearing all about this if it was true. So, I guess I am just confused.

--------------

Sure, I really have no problem with people charging for Open Source Projects. Just as long as they pay there Open Source Dev's and the project is really good. The main thing is that I want all my software to be Open Source so it will not run like crap, or if it dose run like crap I can fix it or someone ells can fix it. Everyone is free to add in whatever functionality they would need. Owe, and most of all, Security! I want to know what the code is doing.

I mean really, if some one doesn't want to pay for software it is easy enough to crack or get a cracked copy. All that having the source code unavailable dose is prevent developers form fixing the software, and security professionals from finding and fixing the security holes. I mean really, closed source software runs like crap, and 99% of the time everyone knows how to fix the problem, but the developing company doesn't want to spend the money to fix it.

---------------

The one problem I see with charging for Open Office is that I think the only way to compete with M$ Office is to give it away for free.

I was under the impression that Sun gave away Open Office for free because they wanted business to use their OS, and there for, their Hardware and Servers. One big problem with getting people to use any OS other then Window for desktops, in a business environment, was that everyone was learning M$ office in school, so when they got to the workplace the IT department had to install Windows and M$ office for them. It would have cost the company to much money to train all their employees to use a different office suit. Sure maybe the company would come out ahead financially in the end, but it was more of a sure bet to just pay for Windows and M$ office. However, sens Sun started giving away Sun Office as OpenOffice, schools and users have started using OpenOffice. Now in the workplace the IT department is free to install whatever OS they want on the desktops, because the users already use OpenOffice.... Or at least it is one less hurdle.

However, if they are going to charge for OpenOffice I see the intensive slipping away, and more schools and users may start to use M$ Office again.

CharlesA
May 10th, 2010, 03:46 AM
Looks like you can still get OpenOffice for free at their site: openoffice.org. I didn't notice any news about it being pay-to-use and the versions listed on Oracle's store seem to be more geared toward enterprise.

Dragonbite
May 10th, 2010, 04:13 AM
I would hope that "Oracle Open Office" could be a replacement for "Sun Star Office" and that nothing has really changed.

Steven_S
May 10th, 2010, 07:33 AM
Indeed. OpenOffice.org and Oracle Open Office are different products.

Oracle Open Office is the previous Star Office. In its core, it is the same as OpenOffice.org, but there are extras that (are supposed to) make it more attractive to business users. See also here: http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/mostfaqs.html#7

HunterThomson
May 10th, 2010, 08:14 AM
Owe okay, I understand now. I didn't know Sun had "Sun Star Office" that they still charged for.

Would be super cool if Orical GPL'd ZFS :p BTRFS is cool but ZFS still looks better to me, with the limited knowledge I have of BTRFS. Like, from the video I watched on Oracle's BTRFS, I think he was saying that BTRFS doesn't snapshot "everything" like ZFS dose.

If Linux had a FS that did the full native snapshotting like ZFS dose (More like what Solaris dose with the GRUB integration), then that would solve boatloads of problems people have running Linux. Such as, upgrading braking stuff, and how it can be a pain to roll back to the previous state.

----------------------------
Just Imagen this wonderful dream. . . . :)

You get a call at 11pm Monday night... "I accidentally deleted my term paper!!! and then I did a update and now Xserver will not start!!! I need my paper back and my computer fixed NOW!!! HELP!!!"

"No problem, Just reboot... Then click on the snapshot in the menu.
Don't upgrade again until I have looked into that problem, and gotten back to you. Have a nice night."
----------------------------

Also, the software RAID implementation ZFS has is super nice. However, I know BTRFS has many software RAID options as well, and they seem to work vary well too.

Still, BTRFS is super cool and props to Oracle for starting that project.

rasmus91
May 10th, 2010, 09:36 AM
They are charging Windows users $90 for ODF plug-in for MS Office.

haha... Well, they might as well also install OOo...

HunterThomson
May 11th, 2010, 11:39 AM
haha... Well, they might as well also install OOo...

Hum, ya well that is a good point.

There are many businesses using Open Office now. If a partner business that uses M$ Office wants to read the ODF documents form the OpenOffice guys then they will have to install OpenOffice, because it would be stupid to pay the $90 for compatibility with M$ Office. Then at that point they may as-well just get rid of M$ office (no need to have two office suites), and move to Open Office. Hell, Open Office can save in .doc format anyway.

This may be a good move. It mite push businesses to just stop spending crazy amounts of licensing for M$ Office and just use OpenOffice because it can do more anyway.

m4tic
May 11th, 2010, 11:57 AM
Why didn't Sun Microsystems ever think of this, Genius

ukripper
May 11th, 2010, 12:09 PM
Why didn't Sun Microsystems ever think of this, Genius

Time will tell whether idea is Genius or useless. How firms react

HunterThomson
May 11th, 2010, 12:32 PM
Ya, I hope it all works out. OpenOffice is really good so I can't see it going away completely. I am sure Oracle is better at thinking of the angles then I,... and I guess better then Sun Microsystems too :-k

HunterThomson
May 11th, 2010, 01:33 PM
Ya ! cool.

Btrfs DOSE support the rollback GRUB feature like ZFS/OpenSolaris has. Fedora 13 supports it :) Boy, I think I am going to look a little more into it, and become and early adopter of Btrfs. The Btrfs Dev's are saying that as of 2.6.33 they are not going to brake compatibility, and are going to try hard to keep it stable for early adopters.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemRollbackWithBtrfs

Go Oracle

Dragonbite
May 11th, 2010, 01:42 PM
haha... Well, they might as well also install OOo...

If Oracle is smart, they'll make Star Office even MORE compatible and/or add features MS Office and OpenOffice does not have (without stopping what OpenOffice improves) to make it a true alternative to MS Office ($$$) and OpenOffice (free).

With MS Office, Google Docs and Zoho gaining popularity, maybe Sun should take the Star/OpenOffice building blocks and change it into a Cloud-based Office suite they can charge for (sell so corporations can install on their own systems?) while continuing with OpenOffice for free. The combination of the two, and if the two systems are compatible with each other, would really eat away at MS Office's dominance.

I mean, Google Docs and Zoho are great, but requires a network connection. MS Office is full-featured but (not sure about 2010) requires installing and upgrades.

If OpenOffice is for the desktop, and StarOffice is in the cloud and especially if OpenOffice can be made to open StarOffice files from the cloud but lets you work on them locally, I think that would kick some ****!


Why didn't Sun Microsystems ever think of this, Genius

Sun was great at innovation, just not so great at making a buck from it. The best-case scenario is Oracle takes Sun's technology and turns it into a profit-creating venture (while still community developed )which helps ensure it will continue to be around for a long time!

That's why the "big 3*" distributions are corporate backed; Fedora (Red Hat), openSUSE (Novell) and Ubuntu (Canonical). With income comes resources to develop and improve.


------------------------------------------------------
* I define the "big 3" as the three most influential distributions and the 3 that are most consistently in the top 5 of distrowatch. Distributions like Mint, PCLinuxOS and etc. pop up into the top 5 but don't always stay there for long, consistent releases.

Pjotr123
May 11th, 2010, 01:51 PM
Get the ODF plugin for free (while it lasts):
http://download.cnet.com/StarOffice-8-Conversion-Technology-Preview/3000-18483_4-10644522.html?tag=mncol

:)

Steven_S
May 11th, 2010, 01:57 PM
I just wish OOo would get better compatibility with MSOffice. Importing a .doc file from one application to another does not work flawlessly. Quite often, formatting is lost, and embedded images are a disaster alltogether.

I'm not very confident StarOffice does any better.

Dragonbite
May 11th, 2010, 02:22 PM
I just wish OOo would get better compatibility with MSOffice. Importing a .doc file from one application to another does not work flawlessly. Quite often, formatting is lost, and embedded images are a disaster alltogether.

I'm not very confident StarOffice does any better.

Not only that, just like MS Office to get the latest features you have to upgrade. With OpenOffice we're spoiled with getting the enhancements and improvements and not having to pay for an "upgrade".

HunterThomson
May 11th, 2010, 02:53 PM
Hum, I guess it is a good idea with having a Client/Server setup for Paid Oracle OpenOffice. Surly the only way to get anyone to pay for Open Office is to give away a full featured Open Office for home and school use. Businesses will by whatever their employees need.

However, a better to just develop Linux application servers. This is the way things will be in the end anyway. So, in the end the Client/Server OOo would end up having a target of Med to small business, and they would probably just use desktop OpenOffice.

But again, I could not be less qualified to be developing strategic business plans :p These are just my thoughts at 3:52am.