Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Interview With Gary Edwards of OpenOffice.org

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:43 PM
from the inside-perspectives dept.
silentbob4 writes "Hot on the heels of yesterdays interview of Sun's Florian Reuter posted on Slashdot comes a two page interview with OpenOffice.org's Gary Edwards. In this installment, Gary discusses the importance of open document formats and hints to the release date of OpenOffice.org 2.0: 'No one knows for certain when OpenOffice.org 2.0 stable will be released, but Mad Penguin's bet is that the stable 2.0 release will come before any recently purchased cartons of milk expire in your refrigerator.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • got milk? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yagu (721525) * <yayagu@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday October 12 2005, @12:44PM (#13774892) Journal

    Excellent article, a bit long of a read but worth it. Read it!

    As for pending relaase of stable OOo 2.0, the article mentions:

    No one knows for certain when OOo 2.0 stable will be released, but Mad Penguin's bet is that the stable 2.0 release will come before any recently purchased cartons of milk expire in your refrigerator.

    I need more specific data. I buy Ultra-Pasteurized milk, and the carton I recently bought has an expiration date of late November! I guess I can wait until then, I've waited this long. But, could I possibly be optimistic enough to hope he only means regular pasteurized milk? That would get me OO a couple weeks sooner!

    Another interesting observation in the article:

    Gary explains, Microsoft's Word ML will only interoperate with its own locked stack, require customers to become complete Microsoft shops if they hope to achieve the same level of fluid information flow available through truly open SOAs.
    Discounting that Gary obviously completely advocating OO and probably had a disdain for Microsoft's XML implementation, I think to the extent that what he is pointing out is true, IT managers should take note . Unfortunately most won't or don't. We live in an age where decision makers chant the "nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft" mantra, and the threat that continued Microsoft upgrade stand to completely lock in a shop to only Microsoft products probably won't frighten them. But with slightly less myopia, IT managers should realize this pending lockin could jeapordize subsequent ability to exchange information and perform transactions with other organizations (factor in the additional pending Trusted Computing technology and this gets downright scary).

    And should you choose not to read the entire article, read this gem of a question and response from page two:

    MP: Is this lock down aimed at blunting the spread of OpenOffice.org 2.0?

    Interesting stuff...

    • Re:got milk? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 12 2005, @01:02PM (#13775052) Homepage
      I think to the extent that what he is pointing out is true, IT managers should take note . Unfortunately most won't or don't.

      I think a lot of IT managers already have taken note. Most people in IT understand that Microsoft doesn't play well with others, which leads to the idea that your best bet is either to use only Microsoft Office or not use Microsoft Office at all. However, there just aren't loads of options there. Microsoft Office is what most businesses use, so if you want to do business with them, you might want to stick with MS. Further, people are accustomed to Microsoft Office, so there's that issue.

      Finally, and this is not unimportant, even though OOo might provide a viable alternative to most of MS Office, they don't offer an Outlook clone. Many businesses are flat-out addicted to Outlook for their scheduling. OOo might do well to integrate Evolution and help Novell port it to Windows/OSX.

      Either way, I doubt that the real problem is that IT managers are oblivious to the vendor lock-in MS represents, but rather that the lock-in has already taken place, and now the question is, how do you get out? The answer may be to push MS to support OASIS.

      • Re:got milk? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by maotx (765127) <maotx@yah o o . c om> on Wednesday October 12 2005, @01:39PM (#13775359)
        ...how do you get out?

        Spread the word and practice what you preach.
        I believe the problem is not as much as people don't listen but the fact that people do not spread what they preach. As a business user, have you ever given an MS Office client an OO.org document? I know I haven't. Reason being is because the recipients do not have OO.org installed nor do they want to install it. And to force clients into downloading a >100MB file to read your document is preposterous!

        What I believe is needed is a light-weight OO.org viewer that is quick to download and quick to open. Then we can give our clients OO.org documents and exclaim to them when they tell us they can't view it that we use OO.org due to its [insert fabulous reason here] and if they like they can download the free viewer here*. That or include the viewer or link with document. That way they know we use OO.org as we prefer the benefits it offers over those of MS and they are not forced to get something they're not comfortable ("opensource? my mcse guy said it's not free!")

        *Said viewer should have link too full version so they have option of downloading OO.org
        • Re:got milk? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 12 2005, @01:47PM (#13775444) Homepage
          What I believe is needed is a light-weight OO.org viewer that is quick to download and quick to open.

          If all you need is for the client to view the document, send a PDF. That's what PDFs are for, and it also diminishes the reliance on Microsoft. Best of all, almost everyone already has a PDF viewer installed.

          • Best of all when that user asks how I create those PDF's I can say I just clicked the PDF button in OO.

            I'm the only one who uses OO at work here (alongside Office) and I send out a lot of PDFs. I've had numerous people ask me how I do that especially when they know I don't have any of the Acrobat stuff...

            Sadly they then say they wish Office had that and go about their day...
          • And... (Score:3, Informative)

            ...when someone asks how you got the full version of Adobe Acrobat, one can just say, "I didn't. I just used OpenOffice.org to export a PDF. Microsoft Office can't do that without that overpriced Adobe thing, but OOo can."

            When they ask how you found that, and then why they are stuck with that $x00-$x000 piece of crap Microsoft calls an office suite, you can look at them and (before answering said questions) smile at them and yourself with pride.

            My new compy has OpenOffice.org, and no version of Micros

          • Resumes (Score:4, Insightful)

            by CrazedWalrus (901897) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @02:45PM (#13776015) Journal
            I distribute my resume as a .PDF. Unfortunately, I almost always get the response: "Could you send this to me as a Word document? It's our standard format." Of course, not owning a copy of MS Word, I must try to use OO.org's converter and *pray* that it looks right on the other side.

            I've especially had this problem with recruiters, since they like to re-format the resume and put it onto their standard letterhead and preferred layout. Since I know that, I'll generally try to get away with sending them an RTF, since it tends to be less dicey.

            Distributing PDFs is a great idea, and if people were less anal about getting Word docs (many times as a matter of company policy or procedure), it'd work great.
            • The company I did intern work for over the summer received a lot of .pdfs. Problem was, their internal resume-searcher system (need a contractor with skill x? Just search for it. Very handy) could only read text, doc, rtf and (I think) html.

              I spent a couple of hours figuring out a system to handle this (hey, I was cheap labour). I ended up using the trial download of this system [solidpdf.com] which worked very well. The bonus was that it has a command line interface so it was easy to do a vbs wrapper to recurse throug
            • Of course, OOo includes an "export to PDF" feature. So, even if you're on Windows and don't have Acrobat (or some other PDF generator), OpenOffice has you covered for read-only portable documents. Someone might argue that you should use OASIS because it's more open, but at least PDF is a lot more open than the Word format, and arguably more supported than Word even.

              It doesn't support editing so well, so that's the real question. When you're sending a document, do you want the recipient to be able to edi

    • Stuff like "I saw some problems recently with MS XML that really discloses everything you need to know about where Microsoft wants to take you. It's not pretty." Well, that's nice to know, without any details.

      Or "To run Microsoft Office Professional 2003 right, you have to have Microsoft servers installed." Which is absolutely not true. I suspect he means that there are various features of Office 2003 that interact with Microsoft server products, but those are two very different claims. There are other to

      • There are a lot of old computers out there that have not been upgraded. Windows 98 is still common, though mostly for kids games these days. (The games don't run on the parent's XP system, but the next kid can enjoy it just as much as the first) Many offices are still running Windows 2000 on the desktop. (NT 4.0 is still a popular server platform, though it is dieing slowly)

        Many home users are using OOo, because it is free and better than whatever came with their system. Many offices are still on Wo

    • >> OOo 2.0

      I just want to know if the primordial version was called OOo 0.0.
  • milk (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bradee-oh! (459922) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @12:47PM (#13774922)
    I have a carton of non-fat powdered milk I keep in my fridge cause I have no cabinet space... *sigh* that stuff lasts forever.
  • by adavies42 (746183) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @12:49PM (#13774937)
    I hereby proclaim the lacto-expiration the pseudo-unit of time. This fills an important gap in the pseudo-unit lineup, which includes the football field (length), the Library of Congress (data), and the Hiroshima bomb (energy).
  • by Short Circuit (52384) * <mikemol@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 12 2005, @12:50PM (#13774941) Homepage Journal
    ...to joke about milk. But, after reading the other posts, that topic's already soured.
  • I just hope... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jamesgamble (917138) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @12:54PM (#13774979)
    I just hope the OO developers aren't rushing OpenOffice v2 just to give the public a version update. I would gladly wait another two months if it meant OpenOffice would have fewer issues. If milk expires, you can always buy another carton. If the product is sour when it comes out, then it's time to switch to a different brand.
    • Seconded! This is one reason that I both love and hate OSS. The developers are doing what they can to make sure they produce a stable product. When it's ready, it gets released. Although I'd rather not generalize, most closed-source products are pushed to release by manangement, based on a release date - and it usually doesn't matter if it's ready to play out in userland. Most OSS releases can be held back until it's ready to go - good for them.

      However, continuous waiting for the "X" release can make

      • Why wait? (Score:3, Insightful)

        Why do you have to wait until some specific version is released? Most major open source projects make frequent builds available of their development sources or before stable releases. Go ahead and use the betas or pre-release builds. Chances are the quality is suitable enough for you.

  • Monday! (Score:5, Funny)

    by slashflood (697891) <flow@howflo[ ]om ['w.c' in gap]> on Wednesday October 12 2005, @12:54PM (#13774982) Homepage Journal
    2005-10-17
  • Netcraft just confirmed it- your milk's expired.
  • Dang. (Score:5, Funny)

    by halivar (535827) <bfelger@nOSpam.gmail.com> on Wednesday October 12 2005, @01:01PM (#13775041) Homepage
    I just remembered I had milk in the office fridge from 03/05. I guess that was the Longhorn countdown milk. Here's hoping OO.o can do better!
  • Fantastic (Score:5, Informative)

    by MaestroSartori (146297) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @01:02PM (#13775048) Homepage
    He's finally explained in clear terms why the MS-touted XML stuff in Office 2003 isn't useful to anyone else. I'd been idly wondering for a while, and other articles/interviews seem to take it for granted. Anyone else who's curious, the answer is on page 2:

    ...the problem is the well-known binary key in the Microsoft's XML header of every Microsoft XML document. That binary key holds a great deal of the information that we need about the layout definitions of the Microsoft XML file format. We can do a content-based transformation very well. Microsoft's content is in perfect XML file format. Their styles, though, are locked up in that binary key.


    So yeah, MS have taken a completely transparent and useful XML format and munged evil hidden data into it. It can probably be reverse engineered, but still it manages to miss the entire point of having an XML data format in the first place :(
    • Re:Fantastic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rlp (11898) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @01:08PM (#13775093)
      Yeah, but Microsoft defines 'interoperable' as 'able to work across a range of (current) Microsoft products'. So, by that definition XML with an embedded proprietary binary key is 'interoperable'.
    • by CyricZ (887944) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @01:19PM (#13775164)
      Why has everyone suddenly gone googoo over XML? As all this interoperability nonsense shows, it often is far from the perfect solution.

      At the firm I used to work at we had a rather sane policy: send short memos as plain text files, and larger documents as PDFs. Of course, the PDFs were generated via LaTeX, so the LaTeX source to the document could also be sent, too. We didn't have to worry about all this crap with MS Office.

      We'd often hear stories from new employees about the troubles they'd gone through with documents at their previous place of employment. So we were always quite glad that we avoided all that. It does take some time to use LaTeX, for instance, but after the initial learning curve (which is far shallower for most people than is widely thought) its users were far more productive.

      • by Bogtha (906264) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @02:56PM (#13776105)

        Why has everyone suddenly gone googoo over XML? As all this interoperability nonsense shows, it often is far from the perfect solution.

        Well no, it shows that if you try hard enough, you can undo the interoperability benefits of XML.

        Yes, it's not perfect, but it solves a number of problems:

        • Parsing into structure (XML)
        • Escaping special characters (XML)
        • Multilingual documents (XML)
        • Character encoding issues (XML)
        • Addressing parts of the document (XPath, xml:id)
        • Transforming the document into other formats (XSLT)
        • Web formatting (convert into HTML with XSLT on the client or server)
        • Print presentation/PDF output (XSL:FO)
        • Styling (CSS)
        • Scripting (DOM)

        ...and lots more that I can't remember off the top of my head. The point is, a lot of things you would normally have to think about when creating a new format, you don't have to think about with XML because it's all done in a standard way, and there's a huge amount of software that you can reuse in your applications.

        And, of sheer practical benefit, if you start what seems to be a "small, simple" format, you don't have to hack these things on afterwards when reality kicks in and your "small, simple" format balloons in complexity.

        XML certainly isn't a silver bullet, but it's a hell of a lot better than creating a format by hand.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2005, @01:06PM (#13775077)
    Please do something about the OpenOffice documentation, especially for developers. Right now it ranges from nonexistance to horrible. Attempting to do anything, and i mean ANYTHING using OpenOffice.Basic, requires hours upon hours of digging through forums, obscure, incomplete or outdated documents. I realize that the everyday user is the main target of the suite, but right now people who want to do just a little scripting are left with virtually no choice but use MS Office. I'm an above average programmer, and this lack of documentation has left me helpless and frustrated. Some kind of tutorial, or even an updated, consistent documentation from an individual developer's point of view (not someone's who has been developing Ooo for years and knows the code by heart) would be a perfect addition to an otherwise great product.

    • by CyricZ (887944) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @01:26PM (#13775219)
      It's not just the OpenOffice project that suffers from a complete lack of quality developer documentation. I recently was doing some work with embedding Mozilla's Gecko engine, and I ran into the same problems that you did. Assuming you can even find documentation, it is often years old and out of date. Sure, there are examples, but they're horribly commented and not very useful to learn from.

      We don't have time to go digging through the Mozilla source to find out each and every little nuance that wasn't mentioned in the three-year-old documentation. So please, Mozilla and OpenOffice.org developers, provide us with some recent, useful documentation and examples! That is perhaps the greatest favour you could do at this time.

        • by CyricZ (887944) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @02:30PM (#13775888)
          The cost is irrelevant. Microsoft provides Internet Explorer for free, too. And the documentation for their MSHTML control is superb. I would expect the Mozilla group to be able to provide similar, if not better, documentation.

          In the case of Mozilla, it would greatly benefit them if their product were to be embedded all over the place. Of course, non-Mozilla developers need solid documentation and solid examples in order to learn how to embed Gecko. Such documentation and examples currently do not exist.

          The same goes for OpenOffice. If these products want to be seriously used, then they will need to provide sufficient documentation. It's as simple as that. The price they're charging for their software is irrelevant.

  • Stable sort in calc (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dbhankins (688931) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @01:11PM (#13775114)
    It may seem like a nit, but I believe one of the factors slowing acceptance of OpenOffice in many departments and small businesses is that Calc doesn't have a stable sort (i.e. a sort that preserves the order of rows that are unaffected by the sort) while Excel does.

    Many shops use spreadsheets as a kind of quick-and-dirty database, and they rely on the ability to sort on 4 or more columns. Calc can only support sorting on 3.

    Unfortunately, 2.0 won't fix this as the bug was marked as a "do later".
        • It would have been nice if it supported header rows locked for scrolling like the other two (Calc, Excel), but it doesn't. That, I can live with.

          Sure it does. Position your cursor in the top left cell of the section you wish to scroll. Then View->Freeze Panes and everything above and to the left of that cell will be locked.

  • by digitaldc (879047) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @01:26PM (#13775216)
    Tell him that that his new workplace is casual dress.
  • Non-free? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Markus Registrada (642224) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @01:31PM (#13775271)
    I'd like to hear about Java-free builds. In particular, I wonder whether anyone has made progress plugging in SQLite in place of their Java-dependent database engine. Database access seems to be the only important feature in 2.0 that depends on Java.

    While an OOo built with Gcj and Classpath is, apparently, legally unencumbered, the future of the language is uncertain. Some us would prefer, for a variety of reasons, to have OOo not dependent on Java for core features.
  • ETA 2005/10/20 (Score:5, Informative)

    by hexene (68121) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @01:41PM (#13775379) Homepage
    A showstopper (#i55330#) has come up, and as a result there will be a third Release Candidate. So estimated time of arrival has gone from 13 October to the 20th.
  • by Lispy (136512) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @03:04PM (#13776182) Homepage
    Personally I'd be happy if my milk woulnd't get sour everytime I fire the beast up.
    OO.orgs speed issues is the major showstopper for me. And I am running it on Windows AND on Linux. Linux is even worse, sadly. Not exactly good advertising when trying to talk someone into switching OSes.
    • Re:Geez (Score:5, Insightful)

      by chill (34294) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @02:18PM (#13775770) Journal
      This just isn't true. Frequently Microsoft products can't open previous versions of Microsoft documents without formatting issues, and this doesn't seem to stop anyone.

      When Word 97 was released they claimed it could read/write Word 95 documents. They lied. Their "Word 95" export was really a munged RTF saver and it caused no end of headaches for Word 95 users. It wasn't fixed for months, until SP1 for Office 97 was released.

      Try using Office 2003 to open MS Works or Office 4.x files and see what happens. If it even tries at all, you better hope it is a plain-Jane file with nothing fancy, or it is all going to be screwed up.

      Most documents convert fine. Other can be handled the same way ANY legacy format has been handled in the digital age -- stop using it and keep a couple copies of the old software around just in case someone needs to access the legacy data. I've managed document transistions at a couple large companies moving from RF-Flow to Visio; Wordstar to WordPerfect to Word; Lotus 1-2-3 to Word; and dBase 3 to dBase 4 to Access 95, 97, 2000 then finally Postgres.

      The arguments are always the same.

      Q. "What about all my old data?"
      A. "Batch convert what you can. Hand convert what you use, as you use it. Leave the old stuff to decay and keep a copy of the old software."

      Hell, most times we also needed to set aside some old PCs with the old OS just to run the legacy software. CLIX, OS/9000, OS/2, Windows 3.11, DOS 4.1. We had a legacy document room with a bunch of old computers at one facility. It was a working museum.

      THAT is why open document formats are important. To avoid the necessity of working museums.

        -Charles
        • Re:Geez (Score:3, Insightful)

          You do realize that was, like, eight years ago, right? And then they fixed it ("months"? Good lord!). Are there hiccups? I'm sure there are. But in practice, very few people moan about incompatibility issues.

          It was November/December of 1997, so yes about 8 years ago. And I was working at a Fortune 500 company who's Executive VP (pre-CIO days) insisted on immediately upgrading half the company to Office 97 to "standardize". That was 3,000+ desktops on one version and 3,000+ on the older version. It was a
    • Re:Geez (Score:4, Insightful)

      by shis-ka-bob (595298) on Wednesday October 12 2005, @02:25PM (#13775833)
      Please look at the Florian Reuter interview [madpenguin.org] with Mad Penguin. He is in charge of importing Microsoft Office format, which seems to make him the person you believe to not being 'clued in':
      FR: If you have a Word document in .doc or .rtf or Word ML, and you use the current filter, and something goes wrong, even something not very noticeable, please submit the document as a bug document to OpenOffice.org, so that we can get a critical mass of documents that we can look at.
      He then goes on to describe how you can help in more detail. So please get yourself clued in and submit all the bug reports you can about document inport/export. Do some good or stop whining.