PDA

View Full Version : OOo 2.0 "A Steaming Pile of Crap"?



polo_step
October 21st, 2005, 02:38 PM
Don't feel so bad about Ubuntu 5.10 -- look what the response is to the new release of Open Office 2.0 (http://www.thewormbook.com/helmintholog/archives/001603.html)... [via RobotWisdom]

Sigh...

Malphas
October 21st, 2005, 02:46 PM
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=119

polo_step
October 21st, 2005, 03:10 PM
5,721 (by actual count) outstanding bugs AND it's slow? Still no grammar check in the WP, either.

OK, so the only question seems to be "pig or poop?"

And this is supposed to be the showboat open-source apps suite, too. :(

In an article I'm writing for publication, I suggest that Linux-for-desktop has already peaked because of the ever-widening chasm between the microscopic financial resources available for Linux/Open-Source major application development compared to the untold billions spent on those for Windows -- especially as software will be larger, more complex and more sophisticated in the next couple of years.

That OOo 2.0 shows up this lame right on cue dazzlingly supports that premise, but gives me no personal satisfaction, I assure you. :(

Master Shake
October 21st, 2005, 03:12 PM
I only have 2 words:

Abi Word

Stormy Eyes
October 21st, 2005, 03:20 PM
In an article I'm writing for publication, I suggest that Linux-for-desktop has already peaked because of the ever-widening chasm between the microscopic financial resources available for Linux/Open-Source major application development compared to the untold billions spent on those for Windows -- especially as software will be larger, more complex and more sophisticated in the next couple of years.

More sophisticated? Not likely. With all the billions Microsoft has, they still keep offering the same old crap, but with shiny new wrappers. And, quite frankly, Microsoft deserves every bit of ridicule it gets. Bill Gates makes Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and Carnegie look like chumps, and with the money Microsoft has and the prices they demand, their software should be damned near perfect.

I don't mind of OpenOffice is a little buggy; it's not like I'm paying for it. I won't forgive bugs in a Windows app, however, because I am expected to pay for it.

Stormy Eyes
October 21st, 2005, 03:21 PM
I only have 2 words:

Abi Word

I have one: $EDITOR

asimon
October 21st, 2005, 03:26 PM
Yes, of course Microsoft Office has less than 5,721 bugs open. And software from Microsoft has no 4 years old bugs. No, of course!

GeneralZod
October 21st, 2005, 03:32 PM
5,721 (by actual count) outstanding bugs AND it's slow? Still no grammar check in the WP, either.

OK, so the only question seems to be "pig or poop?"

And this is supposed to be the showboat open-source apps suite, too. :(

In an article I'm writing for publication, I suggest that Linux-for-desktop has already peaked because of the ever-widening chasm between the microscopic financial resources available for Linux/Open-Source major application development compared to the untold billions spent on those for Windows -- especially as software will be larger, more complex and more sophisticated in the next couple of years.

That OOo 2.0 shows up this lame right on cue dazzlingly supports that premise, but gives me no personal satisfaction, I assure you. :(

Some points that may console you a little :)

1) x.0 releases are usually buggier and less optimised than most; remember, a change in the major version is supposed to represent big, deep changes, and the first release containing changes of this magnitude will almost certainly be rough.

Having said that, OO.o does indeed have a poor record of bug-fixing - it's entirely possible that the codebase is now so shaky and crufty that no one dares to make any changes, which is, in my opinion at least, almost death for a software project :(

2) Throwing bucketloads of time, money and programmers does not guarantee good results (see, e.g., OO.o ;)). Seriously though, a better example might be Vista, which has had incalculable resources poured into it but whose improvements in no way match this expenditure. Even die-hard Windows fans such as Paul Thurrot have derided it as being deeply unspectacular and wondered just what Microsoft have been doing all these years.

3) Even if Windows Vista does indeed make a massive surge ahead of Linux in terms of "quality", this does not mean that Desktop Linux has "peaked", unless you are only willing to gauge an entities quality relative to that of its competitors - a slightly odd metric, if you ask me. Its absolute quality continue to improve by leaps and bounds, and is, if anything, accelerating - I think more progress has been made in getting Linux desktop-ready in the last year and a half than in the entirety of the time before this. Also, Microsoft's glacial release schedule (let's not forget that the gap between XP and Vista will be at least 5 years by the time Vista come out) means that while Windows is ossified for the next who-knows-how-long after Vista's release, Linux will continue to release improved versions everything six months.

Finally, there are many who would say that Office peaked at '97 and that Windows peaked at XP; the addition of new features that hardly anyone will use does not, in my opinion, contribute to an "ever-widening chasm".

Oh, and while I believe that in general, having paid, full-time developers will lead to better, more polished code, there are examples of very high-quality "hobbiest" projects - gaim and amaroK, for example. I'm sure others can come up with even better examples.

majikstreet
October 21st, 2005, 03:34 PM
I only have 2 words:

Abi Word
I have three words: Abi word rocks.

polo_step
October 21st, 2005, 03:36 PM
More sophisticated? Not likely. With all the billions Microsoft has, they still keep offering the same old crap...
I was referring to third-party apps, primarily.

Still, the complexity of the c.2007 MS Vista OS and software suites will be pretty daunting, I'm sure.

I spent the whole day earlier this week working with three "large" applications for which there simply are no Linux/Open-source equivalents, and there never will be, as there aren't adequate resources to develop them.

What do you figure the ratio of total dollars available worldwide for all MS-based OS, suites and 3rd-party software development is to that for Linux/open-source? I would be very surprised if it was less than 10,000/1.

It's just insanely quixotic to believe that disadvantage can ever be overcome. Even if some arch anti-Gates at Google went nuts and pledged a billion dollars for Linux/open-source software development, it would still be too little too late.

flibble
October 21st, 2005, 03:45 PM
Those articles don't amount to "openoffice is a steaming pile of crap". Not at all.

Point 1.

OO.o is very slow opening huge compressed XML files. Yes, it is; although the 200MB example in that znet blog is a contrived worst case scenario. My day to day experience with OO.o is that, for the spreadsheets I use, it's fast and reliable. It spends far far more time waiting for me, than I spend waiting for it.
These sort of comparisons are moot. Most computers these days are fast enough to do most office things, no problem. So this sort of comparison is like being told you need a bigger fridge because what if you want to have 400 people over for lunch? You don't.

Point 2.

This is really a criticism of the XML open document format. The author has an axe to grind about XML. Whether he's right or wrong, it still doesn't add up to OO.o is total crap.

Point 3. John Carroll, who co-authors that blog, works for microsoft. He may or may not have a bias but this is what he had to say about XML and these kinds of spurious and histrionic "comparisons" involving 200MB spreadsheets:

"a final question might be: is XML a suitable document format? I think it is, because MOST documents fall into the "small" to "medium" sized category. Granted, I've seen some really monstrous Excel spreadsheets, but that's usually a sign of improper use of Excel. Excel is not a database, even though some try to use it that way."
http://blogs.zdnet.com/carroll/?p=1487

He's making the point that it's an unfair and ill-conceived criticism of Excel to claim that it doesn't handle huge XML files quickly because we hardly ever do that. He goes further and suggests we shouldn't even be trying to do that. The same goes for openoffice; it's an "improper use". That makes it an improper use for a benchmark comparison as well.

Point 4.

Openoffice uses more ram than winword. I'm dubious about this because microsoft's intergration of parts of the operating system with msoffice may skew the data. It may be hard to fairly measure memory usage. Even if it's true though, it's not a huge amount larger and it still doesn't add up to an argument for microsoft office. For the price of msoffice, let alone the on-going costs of upgrades, I could buy several gig of ram and a hard drive and setup a 1 gig ram disk and another 512MB of swap in ram and openoffice could sit happily in that. :)

Malphas
October 21st, 2005, 03:47 PM
I was referring to third-party apps, primarily.

Still, the complexity of the c.2007 MS Vista OS and software suites will be pretty daunting, I'm sure.

I spent the whole day earlier this week working with three "large" applications for which there simply are no Linux/Open-source equivalents, and there never will be, as there aren't adequate resources to develop them.

What do you figure the ratio of total dollars available worldwide for all MS-based OS, suites and 3rd-party software development is to that for Linux/open-source? I would be very surprised if it was less than 10,000/1.

It's just insanely quixotic to believe that disadvantage can ever be overcome. Even if some arch anti-Gates at Google went nuts and pledged a billion dollars for Linux/open-source software development, it would still be too little too late.
Agreed. It seems to me that the best way forward for GNU/Linux is for the major distributions to abide by a set of common standards which should hopefully encourage more software companies such as Adobe, Macromedia etc. to release native Linux versions of their applications.

Of course the die-hards and zealots are no doubt completely opposed to any shift in this direction.

Stormy Eyes
October 21st, 2005, 03:47 PM
It's just insanely quixotic to believe that disadvantage can ever be overcome. Even if some arch anti-Gates at Google went nuts and pledged a billion dollars for Linux/open-source software development, it would still be too little too late.

Too little and too late for what? To out-Microsoft Microsoft? Screw that.

GeneralZod
October 21st, 2005, 03:57 PM
What do you figure the ratio of total dollars available worldwide for all MS-based OS, suites and 3rd-party software development is to that for Linux/open-source? I would be very surprised if it was less than 10,000/1.


What are we expected to infer from this figure? Would you say that the range of Open Source has 1/10000 the quality and feature-sets of commercial apps? Could it be that great software can be created on a shoe-string, whereas throwing more and more money at a project could result in diminishing returns?

zenwhen
October 21st, 2005, 04:29 PM
I love Abiword myself. I use OOO for some things, but I don't need most of what it offers.

Stormy Eyes
October 21st, 2005, 04:30 PM
Could it be that great software can be created on a shoe-string, whereas throwing more and more money at a project could result in diminishing returns?

Indeed. How much money did Bill Joy have when he first wrote vi back at UC Berkeley?

Nu-Buntu
October 21st, 2005, 04:42 PM
OK, let's just all give up on GNU/Linux, Open Source, spend thousands of dollars on buying lots of Windows apps and go home.:rolleyes:

polo_step
October 21st, 2005, 04:47 PM
2) Throwing bucketloads of time, money and programmers does not guarantee good results (see, e.g., OO.o ;)).

The money and the crew were far too small for the job, apparently. That was the original article's point as I understood it. You can't remediate code if you can't pay for the programmer hours to do it, and most of the bugs were old ones.

While big resources of course lead to waste, that's not a problem when you have more than you can burn, and if excessive money, time and programmers don't always translate to excellent results, I can assure you that inadequate money, time and programmers always translate to bad results, and that's the more salient point here -- and it's indisputable.


3) Even if Windows Vista does indeed make a massive surge ahead of Linux in terms of "quality", this does not mean that Desktop Linux has "peaked", unless you are only willing to gauge an entities quality relative to that of its competitors...
What I mean by peaked is by penetration of the general-purpose desktop market. There are too few major third-party applications (never mind functional ones) because they absorb a huge amount of time, cooperation and money to program and make work. It's only going to get worse as programs get bigger, more sophisticated and more complex.

Listen, I used to work at a minor Intel R&D "campus" of a mere 5,000 workers. Microsoft and the major third-party software developers had wads of full-time, highly-paid professional software engineers and programers working there permanently just to keep abreast of hardware and architecture developments a few years down the road so their programming wouldn't be caught napping. There were probably more of those guys just working at the dozens of Intel installations around the world just on that stuff than there are full-time professional programmers working on all aspects of Linux apps.

The amount of resources available for developing Windows-based software is virtually infinite; the amount of resources for developing Linux/open-source software is virtually nil. That's the sad truth. The gap is just too great, and that's the gross understatement of the week.

I doubt very many people here have any conception of the amount of money MS and Third-Party developers spend on making their software. It's absolutely staggering.


Oh, and while I believe that in general, having paid, full-time developers will lead to better, more polished code, there are examples of very high-quality "hobbiest" projects - gaim and amaroK, for example. I'm sure others can come up with even better examples.
These are small apps, though. They aren't even, say, Cubase or even Forte Agent -- two programs I use that have nothing remotely comparable in Linux...and yes, I've looked. I don't know anything about amaroK, but gaim is buggy on my machine.

That's the problem. Lots of cute little apps that might (or might not) work on someone else's machine don't make up a professional-quality working computer for manifold, serious tasks that require big, well-documented, relatively rock-solid major applications that must work on a huge variety of differently-equipped machines. You simply can't do Big Programming without money, and the money's just not there.

Malphas
October 21st, 2005, 04:50 PM
OK, let's just all give up on GNU/Linux, Open Source, spend thousands of dollars on buying lots of Windows apps and go home.:rolleyes:
I don't think anyone is saying that. You could argue that there's a place for both proprietary and open-source software. It's all very well citing examples of where a piece of open-source software has been created using little to no monetary resources but it's foolish to think that that's the case for all software or even that it could ever be the case. Certain segments of the market are always going to require large amounts of funding and resources.

And really, why do you think Ubuntu is so popular and such a fine distribution? It wouldn't be anything to do with Mark Shuttleworth's financial backing would it?

Qrk
October 21st, 2005, 04:51 PM
I checked the memory footprint of OO.o in ubuntu and word 2003 in windows on my system. I think that guy was crazy. OO.o has just over half the memory footprint of word on my system. It feels snappier too.

Malphas
October 21st, 2005, 04:57 PM
I checked the memory footprint of OO.o in ubuntu and word 2003 in windows on my system. I think that guy was crazy. OO.o has just over half the memory footprint of word on my system. It feels snappier too.
Yeah, I think that guy was mostly full of ****. There may be some truth to it, I guess, the OpenOffice.org development team have themselves admitted that sluggish performance is an issue that needs to be dealth with.

Nu-Buntu
October 21st, 2005, 04:58 PM
I don't think anyone is saying that. You could argue that there's a place for both proprietary and open-source software. It's all very well citing examples of where a piece of open-source software has been created using little to no monetary resources but it's foolish to think that that's the case for all software or even that it could ever be the case. Certain segments of the market are always going to require large amounts of funding and resources.

And really, why do you think Ubuntu is so popular and such a fine distribution? It wouldn't be anything to do with Mark Shuttleworth's financial backing would it?
My bit of sarcasm aside, I totally agree.

OOo is a great piece of work. Is it perfect? No. Is Microsoft Office perfect? No. Is OOo cross-platform? You bet! MSO? Not in this lifetime.

And look at our choices, all free . . . AbiWord, Gnumeric, KOffice, OOo and others.

polo_step
October 21st, 2005, 06:07 PM
What are we expected to infer from this figure?

When all else fails, you could read what I said. ;)


Would you say that the range of Open Source has 1/10000 the quality and feature-sets of commercial apps?

No, it's done better than that because what utterly microscopic development money it had was used in a more efficient manner, but I'd say with generosity that overall it's probably 1/500 -- though it's hard to really say, because there are a lot of things it simply can't do at all because there's no available application for the task as the sophistication of the necessary software is totally beyond the development resources, some applications that aren't any good and some applications that may be OK for your subset of needs on your box. How do you come up with a single figure? That's not the primary point. Everyone knows there's not enough money to do anything of any significance right with Linux/open-source. Ask anyone who's trying to do it and see if they'd like some more dough.

The point is that it's obviously hopeless to expect that a wide range of high-quality, bug-free major applications that will work on a wide variety of hardware and peripheral combinations are going to materialize out of a budget of coins found under the sofa cusions.


Could it be that great software can be created on a shoe-string, whereas throwing more and more money at a project could result in diminishing returns?
No, because great major software doesn't come from shoestrings.

Period.

Maybe great trifling software (if that isn't an oxymoron), but not great major software. How many times do I have to say it?

There's far more great trifling hobbyist freeware for Windows than there is for Linux, if that's a big issue.

landotter
October 21st, 2005, 06:18 PM
Just tried OOo2 on my XP partition. Starts in less than 15 seconds and "hot" starts are just a couple of seconds or so. Edited a couple documents with it. No complaints, feels great.

Cold start in Ubuntu, albeit not the 2.0 final release, is a crap 45 seconds.

polo_step
October 21st, 2005, 06:32 PM
Agreed. It seems to me that the best way forward for GNU/Linux is for the major distributions to abide by a set of common standards which should hopefully encourage more software companies such as Adobe, Macromedia etc. to release native Linux versions of their applications.
They have no real motivation to, however.

That's the bottom line. If the '90s taught the world anything, it's that you can't spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing free software with nothing to sell and stay solvent. It always amazed me that nominally sane people thought you could, in the face of simple second-grade arithmetic.


Of course the die-hards and zealots are no doubt completely opposed to any shift in this direction.
Linux cranks (or any OS cranks) are negligible. OS cultism is only significant or interesting as a psychiatric symptom.

Reality is about budgets and markets and performance.

I think Linux will gradually revert to what it's always been good for, Unixy sorts of tasks like running networks, specialized industrial applications and a wider range of embedded systems in increasingly complex electronic and telecommunication gadgetry -- uses which are more about the core OS and its stability.

The OS is only the bare frame of a real-world, do-it-all desktop system and is limited by its applications. As major applications expand in complexity to match and absorb the next jump in computer resources, they will be even more expensive to develop than they are now. When there is essentially no budget to begin with, as in the case of Linux, the handwriting is on the wall.

You can't just wish real hard and make big software appear out of a pink cloud of fairy dust.

[BTW, I really like your kitten!]

gray-squirrel
October 21st, 2005, 06:35 PM
OOo is a great piece of work. Is it perfect? No. Is Microsoft Office perfect? No. Is OOo cross-platform? You bet! MSO? Not in this lifetime.

And look at our choices, all free . . . AbiWord, Gnumeric, KOffice, OOo and others.

There's also the option of code forking. Someone on ZDNet was speculating that there would be a code fork in OpenOffice, possibly sometime next year.

The only bottleneck I've had was opening the first document after booting my computer. In Windows, OpenOffice opened slow, even with the Quickstart module running, and it opened documents at inconsistent speeds on my machine. I think it is an operating system issue more than anything else (and what operating system did the author of that article test OpenOffice 2 on?)

I don't put stock in other people's benchmarks; that's why I sometimes run stuff on my machine to measure performance and decide to use it regularly (or even keep it at all) afterwards.

The author also said: "Had this been a lesser CPU, the file load and creation times would have been much lower." This is unbelievable; common sense tells me that on a slower CPU like mine, every task would take a significantly longer amount of time.

As for the unresolved bugs, I will wait a while before upgrading but the 2.0 beta I'm still using appears rather flawless to me. With a thousand bugs, you would expect crashes at least some of the time. I have yet to see a crash (or a feature work other than what was intended), even in the Windows version.

Lord Illidan
October 21st, 2005, 06:42 PM
Open Office does seem slower in Ubuntu. However, even in Windows, it cannot compare to Excel/Word/etc in loading speed. And waiting 1 minute to do a document is not what I want.

Otherwise, it has improved, but I wish they'd improve it further where it comes to speed, rather than features!!!

GeneralZod
October 21st, 2005, 06:43 PM
Otherwise, it has improved, but I wish they'd improve it further where it comes to speed, rather than features!!!

I wish they'd do this for both OO.o and Firefox!

Malphas
October 21st, 2005, 07:07 PM
They have no real motivation to, however.

That's the bottom line. If the '90s taught the world anything, it's that you can't spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing free software with nothing to sell and stay solvent. It always amazed me that nominally sane people thought you could, in the face of simple second-grade arithmetic.
Possibly, but what then what about - for example - NeroLINUX? Also you have Linux increasingly being used as a desktop in the enterprise sector, Disney, Pixar and DreamWorks have started using it pretty heavily, this should increase demand for applications that hobby programmers can't provide alone. As a result, either commercial companies will take advantage of the opportunity or open-source developers could recieve sponsorship and funding from those looking for specialised Linux software.



Linux cranks (or any OS cranks) are negligible. OS cultism is only significant or interesting as a psychiatric symptom.
I'd disagree. Zealotry is far more rife in the GNU/Linux community than almost any other OS, if the developers and communities of the popular distributions are strongly opposed to the concept of standarisation then it won't happen, and if it doesn't happen then commercial third party developers aren't going to waste their time, money and resources creating or porting their software when such an already small market sector is further fragmented through different desktop environments, toolkits, package formats and hundreds of different distributions.

polo_step
October 21st, 2005, 07:09 PM
I wish they'd do this for both OO.o and Firefox!
I'm glad someone mentioned this.

Firefox is slower in Ubuntu than on XP, though my Linux box has a faster CPU, memory and video card. I have them side by side and have fiddled with them enough to confirm it.

Why, I don't know.

polo_step
October 21st, 2005, 07:15 PM
I'd disagree. Zealotry is far more rife in the GNU/Linux community than almost any other OS...
I didn't mean negligilble in numbers but negligible in importance.

They're just a shrill, boring annoyance. They contribute nothing but noise.

blastus
October 21st, 2005, 07:17 PM
They have no real motivation to, however.

The motivation will come from worldwide and aggressive advocacy of open standards. It's a long process, but in the long run, the development/improvement, support, and use of open standards/formats will benefit everyone--not just some crazed and ignorant commercial vendor that seeks to maximize consumers dependence on their products through proprietary standards/formats. Open standards/formats advocacy presents a serious threat to the business models of many commercial vendors. Those that can't adapt their business models to the growing open standards movement will eventually find themselves in a very bad position.


That's the bottom line. If the '90s taught the world anything, it's that you can't spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing free software with nothing to sell and stay solvent. It always amazed me that nominally sane people thought you could, in the face of simple second-grade arithmetic.

That is not entirely true. Take a look a Google. They have developed free software with nothing to sell and they are staying solvent--in fact they have grown to be a stench in Microsoft's nostrils. And if Microsoft is so insistent that the cost of software is like 5%, the remaining 95% being maintenance, training, support (i.e. services), there is no reason why certain software cannot become commoditized and business models supported mainly through services.

Malphas
October 21st, 2005, 07:22 PM
Well, Google sell advertisement space; otherwise I agree, you can have viable business models within an GNU/Linux and even open-source environment.

mrtaber
October 21st, 2005, 07:35 PM
Well, I'm a bit of a crank myself. I use this "high dollar" software every day, all day, and I find it, too, to be a steaming pile. We need a revolution in software design and interface.

But, on the subject at hand, I dislike OO. I admire all the work that's gone into it, but the first thing I do is install AbiWord and Gnumeric. Sure, they're missing some features that heavy-duty office users need, but they suit my needs perfectly.

Mark :)

oldblue
October 21st, 2005, 08:03 PM
On the topic of comparisons, here is an exceelent comparison between Word and Writer that really breaks it all down. Found it to be very fair and informative.
http://nedwolf.com/Word-vs-Writer.html

jerome bettis
October 21st, 2005, 08:38 PM
learn how to use LaTeX

especially if you're a programmer of any sort, you'll love it.

Stormy Eyes
October 21st, 2005, 08:53 PM
learn how to use LaTeX

especially if you're a programmer of any sort, you'll love it.

I've tried LaTeX, but I never could find a way to make it format manuscripts for short stories, novels, etc. in a way that I could submit to publishers without embarrassing myself. So I'll write with Vim and use OpenOffice.org to format.

blastus
October 21st, 2005, 09:06 PM
I've tried LaTeX, but I never could find a way to make it format manuscripts for short stories, novels, etc. in a way that I could submit to publishers without embarrassing myself. So I'll write with Vim and use OpenOffice.org to format.

Try using DocBook.

Stormy Eyes
October 21st, 2005, 09:15 PM
Try using DocBook.

I've looked at DocBook, but publishers usually have specific submission guidelines (http://www.baen.com/FAQS.htm#Manuscript%20Submission%20Guidelines).

poofyhairguy
October 21st, 2005, 09:50 PM
I'm glad someone mentioned this.

Firefox is slower in Ubuntu than on XP, though my Linux box has a faster CPU, memory and video card. I have them side by side and have fiddled with them enough to confirm it.

Why, I don't know.

Because the Windows Firefox version is the flagship and the most used one. But its cool- its the 1.5 beta in Linux. Its equal to the Windows beta.

poofyhairguy
October 21st, 2005, 10:10 PM
In an article I'm writing for publication, I suggest that Linux-for-desktop has already peaked because of the ever-widening chasm between the microscopic financial resources available for Linux/Open-Source major application development compared to the untold billions spent on those for Windows -- especially as software will be larger, more complex and more sophisticated in the next couple of years.

Its already peaked? Not at all, not until Vista is sitting on shelves at the very least. And....just in case you didn't know...despite more money than most world governments Microsoft STILL has trouble getting new Windows releases out the door.

Will MS stay dominant? Sure. Will desktop Linux be "crushed" out of existance? Never say something like that (if thats what you mean) because OSS fanatics will make you eat your words.

Linux might never "rule" the desktop. It might never hit Apple numbers. but oh well, it will always have a place on TiVos, Cell Phones, and a nerd mom's desktop!


5,721 (by actual count) outstanding bugs AND it's slow? Still no grammar check in the WP, either.

OK, so the only question seems to be "pig or poop?"

As of this release, its as good as Office 98. Thats all most people need. Who knows, by the next one it might lap Office 2k.



The point is that it's obviously hopeless to expect that a wide range of high-quality, bug-free major applications that will work on a wide variety of hardware and peripheral combinations are going to materialize out of a budget of coins found under the sofa cusions.

Point taken.



No, because great major software doesn't come from shoestrings.

Tell that to winamp, the dominant MP3 player on Windows for years that had a shoestring budget.



Maybe great trifling software (if that isn't an oxymoron), but not great major software. How many times do I have to say it?

Most of the world does not need major software. Most businesses can get by with openoffice and Firefox and gaim. The features of the MS and Adboe products might be higher, but most people don't use them.

The mistake is to believe that even 2% of the Windows market needs things like Cubase, photoshop, or believe that more than 30% of the Windows market uses it for more than glorified solitare/webbrowsing/wordprocessor.



There's far more great trifling hobbyist freeware for Windows than there is for Linux, if that's a big issue.

That used to be a big benefit of Windows to me, back in the 98 days. Now I can't even LOOK at download.com without spyware running all over my machine. The great freeware and shareware market in Windows is dying, and a "paid for by spyware" market is taking its place. And I'm on Linux for taht exact reason. OSS exists on Windows, but it gets lost in the noise of better advertised spyware pushers! Never before have I seen a piece of software ERODE in quality like XP has done over its life span. All because of "more complex" attacks on the platform.



That OOo 2.0 shows up this lame right on cue dazzlingly supports that premise, but gives me no personal satisfaction, I assure you. :(

Its a x.0 release. OpenOffice's x.0 releases always are buggy. It might not be the flagship for the open desktop that fans want it to be, but until Firefox is passed by Internet Explorer (after playing with the 7 beta I can tell that will take a LONG time) we still have one superior piece.

Your analysis is flawed because you overestimate the value of expensive, powerful and complicated apps for a platform, and underestimate the gains to be had by providing "best of" versions of the simple apps in everyday lives. Not everyone wants more complicated software like you predict the future would bring. Most have computer problems now! More would rather something like a computer appliance- TiVo style- and that is a great strength of Linux.

By the way, GAIM is superior to the AIM client in almost every way. Feature by feature. Sorry if flaked on you once- the Breezy version is rock solid for me. Since AIM is still the most popular client on the Windows platform (despite the great tricks the MSN client and Trillian can do), that the bar GAIM has to step over. Stop looking at it from a nerds point of view- better and more complicated does not always mean more popular! The success of iPod proves that!

KiwiNZ
October 21st, 2005, 10:27 PM
I ask myself one simple question about an Office Suite .

Is the $1223(NZ Dollars) price deference between Microsoft Office and OO.O worth it for the feature gain by buying MS Office ?

The answer for me is no . I will stay with OO.O

Emerzen
October 21st, 2005, 10:28 PM
At the beginning of the thread, you come up w/ the relationship that more $ = better software. I think you assume that more$ = more developers, which may or may not be the case for any given project. Opensource projects often have more developers, distributed, and can work on code more prodigiously. More importantly, I think you assume that more $ = better developers, which I disagree w/ wholeheartedly. I think people who are "computer creative" and love what they are doing, invest much more time and energy into their projects than those doing it for the $. The fact that people code for free indicates where their heart is. People who code for money could be either. (And of course, many do both).

BWF89
October 21st, 2005, 10:35 PM
I don't care what anyone says. I liked the OpenOffice 1.x series. Then they released OpenOffice 2.0 and I liked it even more. Did anyone else see that the OpenDocument files that OOo now uses are around 2.5 times smaller than the OpenOffice files (atleast in Writer)?

The only gripe I have about OOo is that the spellcheck is goofed up. When I was useing OOo 1.x series the red underline spellcheck would never work and I had to go to options and manually set it to English (USA) which you think would have allready been the default since I downloaded the English version. English (USA) was set as the default of OOo2.0 which I was much impressed at but the day after I downloaded it I had to go to options and change the default language to English (USA) yet again.

How hard would it be to make sure that English is set as the default spellcheck language evertime you start OOo? This would be very frustrating for new users.

Malphas
October 21st, 2005, 10:38 PM
I ask myself one simple question about an Office Suite .

Is the $1223(NZ Dollars) price deference between Microsoft Office and OO.O worth it for the feature gain by buying MS Office ?

The answer for me is no . I will stay with OO.O
Doesn't this propagate, or even affirm, the "how good can it be if it's free?" myths about open-source software?

gray-squirrel
October 21st, 2005, 10:43 PM
You all may want to read some of these comments after the article/blog entry listed in the first post to this thread. One actually has an explanation (http://www.zdnet.com/5208-10533-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=14404&messageID=289441&start=21) for why OpenOffice files open slower than Excel files.

Now, if XML validation is important to you, why worry? Once again Microsoft software does not concern itself with accepted standards.

poofyhairguy
October 21st, 2005, 11:46 PM
Doesn't this propagate, or even affirm, the "how good can it be if it's free?" myths about open-source software?


Nope. Just because one product is not as good as the best product it its class does not mean its not a good product. OpenOffice is more than good enough for many. If the myth you claim held true, it would be worthless- as free things are implied to be!

drizek
October 22nd, 2005, 12:34 AM
i was actually reading pcmag today, and they had charts of desktop OS use. linux was a good bit ahead of OSX, and it grew from 2004 to 2005.

also, i think that OOo is a pretty good piece of software. a few months from now, 2.0.1 will ship and fix a lot of the improtant bugs. however, IMO, porjects like koffice and gnome office will soon rule the linux world. kinda like how firefox is being replaced by konqueror/epiphany as those projects gain momentum. just cause OOo sucks, doesnt mean that linux will be wiped off the face of teh earth

also, even if it did suck, it wont lose any market share. it is a huge improvement over 1.0, so if people were willing to use version 1 over MS office, then they will continue to use version 2. linux users dont have much choice. it is the best linux office suite right now. and its pretty safe to argue that there will be a lot of new converts from MS office to OOo because it is free and is still a prtety darn good office suite.

Malphas
October 22nd, 2005, 12:34 AM
Nope. Just because one product is not as good as the best product it its class does not mean its not a good product. OpenOffice is more than good enough for many. If the myth you claim held true, it would be worthless- as free things are implied to be!
I don't claim that myth is true, personally I think OpenOffice.org is either as good or possibly superior to Microsoft Office.

poofyhairguy
October 22nd, 2005, 12:39 AM
i was actually reading pcmag today, and they had charts of desktop OS use. linux was a good bit ahead of OSX, and it grew from 2004 to 2005.

also, i think that OOo is a pretty good piece of software. a few months from now, 2.0.1 will ship and fix a lot of the improtant bugs. however, IMO, porjects like koffice and gnome office will soon rule the linux world. kinda like how firefox is being replaced by konqueror/epiphany as those projects gain momentum. just cause OOo sucks, doesnt mean that linux will be wiped off the face of teh earth


Abiword rocks!

brentoboy
October 22nd, 2005, 02:29 AM
Funny thing, I donwloaded the windows torrent for OOo2 today, and left it avaialble to "all the folks out there" hoping maybe it would give people a better stream down, and my ubuntu breezy iso is getting more download action than the OOo2 download.

odd.

drizek
October 22nd, 2005, 07:04 AM
windows users download OOo from ftp and MS office from bittorrent....

agger
October 22nd, 2005, 09:24 AM
Just tried OOo2 on my XP partition. Starts in less than 15 seconds and "hot" starts are just a couple of seconds or so. Edited a couple documents with it. No complaints, feels great.

Cold start in Ubuntu, albeit not the 2.0 final release, is a crap 45 seconds.

Cold start of OO.o2 Writer on my Ubuntu Breezy box
(a 1.4 GHz Centrino laptop with 512Megs of RAM):
15 seconds, with several other programs running and seven tabs open in Firefox.

I think I can live with that :-)

tseliot
October 22nd, 2005, 09:44 AM
Cold start of OO.o2 Writer on my Ubuntu Breezy box
(a 1.4 GHz Centrino laptop with 512Megs of RAM):
15 seconds, with several other programs running and seven tabs open in Firefox.

I think I can live with that :-)
Did you compile it from source or did you use alien for the rpms instead?

agger
October 23rd, 2005, 09:50 PM
No, it was the version supplied with Breezy. Standard Ubuntu OO.o, I suppose.

Qrk
October 24th, 2005, 01:28 AM
Yup. Writer takes 9 seconds on my system, thats with firefox running (browsing this page and 6 others), evolution, and a few other apps on other desktops. That seems downright fast to me, really.

Of course Abiword takes only three seconds. Six seconds is worth the extra features to me. Of course, if I had a slower computer; and say it took 60 seconds vs 20 seconds, I'd probably use Abiword.

landotter
October 24th, 2005, 06:00 AM
OOo2 Writer on XP opens in 15-20 seconds on my 1.1ghz and 5 seconds if hot (Quickstarter disabled)

With Ubuntu the stock version of writer takes 35 seconds cold and 25 hot.
OOo2 Final from the site takes 40 seconds and 30 :banghead: AND the icons are ugly.

WTF?

The 1.1x series took 15 seconds to load and 5-6 when "hot"

geokker
October 24th, 2005, 10:30 AM
Everything Sun touch turns to doggy dumplings. I was surprised with Abi 2.4.1 - it's pretty good. I wish I could figure out how to install the MS fonts on Breezy though...

Sirin
October 24th, 2005, 10:58 AM
I only have 2 words:

Abi Word

I have one:

KOffice. ;)

nocturn
October 24th, 2005, 11:00 AM
I have three words: Abi word rocks.

I have used Abi, and it is nice. But it has big problems handling large documents (even on my 512 MB system).