Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

collaboraonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 184 posts

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#161

Post by refulgentis »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #159
tapoxi wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's using this approach because the EU requires documents to be in an open format, and by him advocating that OOXML is only open by name, he can advance a legal argument that OpenDocument is the only acceptable format. Office supports OpenDocument.l, it just doesn't use it by default.

I understand his approach but it's a dumb approach. OOXML is plenty open, proven by the fact LibreOffice works with it fine. The push to force Europe switch to ODF only serves to suggest LibreOffice isn't capable of replacing Microsoft Office (in a world where most other organizations use Office). This is a conversation I have at work, where people laugh when LibreOffice is mentioned and suggest it's incompatible and…

> The push to force Europe switch to ODF only serves to suggest

No, it doesn't only do that. It also suggests the open xml MS Office format is a mess.*

> This is a conversation I have at work, where people laugh when LibreOffice is mentioned and suggest it's incompatible and we can't consider it.

This is evidence your coworkers are misinformed and you can't correct them. It is not proof that the only thing this blog post does is communicate LibreOffice can't handle Microsoft Office docs.

* this is a tale as old as time, I'm 37, remembering reading about this over and over again on /. when I was a young teen. It was part and parcel with Microsoft's antitrust era. The idea was the open format would help avoid antitrust claims, the complaint was the open format was so byzantine as to be effectively closed.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#162

Post by homebrewer »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #159
tapoxi wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's using this approach because the EU requires documents to be in an open format, and by him advocating that OOXML is only open by name, he can advance a legal argument that OpenDocument is the only acceptable format. Office supports OpenDocument.l, it just doesn't use it by default.

I understand his approach but it's a dumb approach. OOXML is plenty open, proven by the fact LibreOffice works with it fine. The push to force Europe switch to ODF only serves to suggest LibreOffice isn't capable of replacing Microsoft Office (in a world where most other organizations use Office). This is a conversation I have at work, where people laugh when LibreOffice is mentioned and suggest it's incompatible and…

OOXML is a terrible format, significantly overcomplicated and implemented by MS Office in such a way as to make alternative implementations fully compatible with it impossible. It's "open" in the name only, burying it would be the only logical step if wide interoperability and using truly open formats is your real goal.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#163

Post by dangus »

karel-3d wrote: post #157
dangus wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a feeling that the Open Document Foundation is going to end up being the loser here. Collabora is the entity that can fund development with a commercial offering. It sounds like they employ the core contributors to the project as well. Regardless of who "wins," I'm just here to say that I like OnlyOffice a lot better and switched away from LibreOffice. I like that it just looks more like a modern program and o…

OnlyOffice is not really open source. They say they are but they also add impossible conditions to their license. (you are forced to use their logo, but you are also not allowed to use their logo.)

That doesn’t bother me. I’m just looking for a free office program that runs offline and works well.

It looks like the Euro Office suite will improve upon it when it launches and remove the remaining downsides to it.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#164

Post by homebrewer »

dangus wrote: post #146
garciansmith wrote: post #129

There's more context in another HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47602859 As an outsider it's pretty opaque to me. I think the Document Foundation (handling LibreOffice) wanted to (re)release an online office suite that seems to compete with Collabora, which sells one. But the biggest contributors to LibreOffice are Collabora employees. I thought maybe they feared Collabora taking over the org, but it…

I have a feeling that the Open Document Foundation is going to end up being the loser here. Collabora is the entity that can fund development with a commercial offering. It sounds like they employ the core contributors to the project as well. Regardless of who "wins," I'm just here to say that I like OnlyOffice a lot better and switched away from LibreOffice. I like that it just looks more like a modern program and o…

Make sure to backup regularly. I don't know how good OnlyOffice is these days, but it definitely has (had?) a terrible history of quality control. We migrated off it a couple of years ago after losing several days of work due to severe (and, as it turned out, widely known) bugs in how it handled changes/document version tracking.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#165

Post by nobodyandproud »

replooda wrote: post #132
toyg wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I like openbsd the product, but the community culture is notoriously terrible and unwelcoming to newbies.

I find it just the opposite. I can think of few communities nearly as patient or welcoming to anyone who's earnest and willing to put in the work to learn; true, there's no coddling or hand-holding, and, indeed, it tends to be very direct in calling out foolishness or laziness, and can reach epic proportions when it comes to dishonesty or entitlement, but nothing which can't be processed by emotional maturity, nor th…

> I find it just the opposite. I can think of few communities nearly as patient or welcoming to anyone who's earnest and willing to put in the work to learn; true, there's no coddling or hand-holding, and, indeed, it tends to be very direct in calling out foolishness or laziness,

That’s nearly the exact opposite of welcoming newbies.

To be perfectly honest, that’s fine: OpenBSD demands a steep learning curve and that you know what you’re doing.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#166

Post by nobodyandproud »

alexgieg wrote: post #131
bee_rider wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think LibreOffice ever really took over the mindspace of OpenOffice anyway. Maybe they can a more distinct split will give it a more independent identity. Since Collabora already has an online version, maybe they should fork completely and call this offline version something that implies independence. So, I suggest: SolOffice. Haha.

I checked the numbers. OpenOffice reports about 230,000 downloads a week. LibreOffice, in contrast, reports about 1,000,000 downloads a week. Those are both direct downloads from their respective websites, thus not counting Linux distributions, in which the default office suite is LibreOffice. AFAIK, no distribution comes with OpenOffice as its default; it's always LibreOffice. I also checked Google Trends for the la…

You have to ask yourself how does a dead project yield 230k downloads a week?

OpenOffice is by far the better name and has a potential brand recognition that LibreOffice never will.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#167

Post by ocdtrekkie »

homebrewer wrote: post #162
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand his approach but it's a dumb approach. OOXML is plenty open, proven by the fact LibreOffice works with it fine. The push to force Europe switch to ODF only serves to suggest LibreOffice isn't capable of replacing Microsoft Office (in a world where most other organizations use Office). This is a conversation I have at work, where people laugh when LibreOffice is mentioned and suggest it's incompatible and…

OOXML is a terrible format, significantly overcomplicated and implemented by MS Office in such a way as to make alternative implementations fully compatible with it impossible. It's "open" in the name only, burying it would be the only logical step if wide interoperability and using truly open formats is your real goal.

And Italo's bad marketing strategy will only ensure OOXML wins. That's what you're missing, it's just a bad way to make the case or foster change.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#168

Post by senorrib »

advisedwang wrote: post #10

OK here's my understanding: - LibreOfficeOnLine (LOOL) was created within The Document Foundation (TDF) but largely developed by Collabora. It was source only and suggested users pay a company to host for them. - Some within TDF wanted to offer LOOL as a binary offering. - Collabora moved their contributions to Collabora Online, which they controlled. - LOOL was archived. - More recently, LOOL was revived - Collabora…

The company in question profits heavily from the open source nature of LibreOffice. They're a big government vendor in Europe, mainly because their codebase is perceived as open source.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#169

Post by dangus »

homebrewer wrote: post #164
dangus wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a feeling that the Open Document Foundation is going to end up being the loser here. Collabora is the entity that can fund development with a commercial offering. It sounds like they employ the core contributors to the project as well. Regardless of who "wins," I'm just here to say that I like OnlyOffice a lot better and switched away from LibreOffice. I like that it just looks more like a modern program and o…

Make sure to backup regularly. I don't know how good OnlyOffice is these days, but it definitely has (had?) a terrible history of quality control. We migrated off it a couple of years ago after losing several days of work due to severe (and, as it turned out, widely known) bugs in how it handled changes/document version tracking.

I only work with local files and I’m really not doing anything mission critical. Employer has the Microsoft office license. I just need a free thing to open the occasional thing.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#170

Post by replooda »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #165
replooda wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it just the opposite. I can think of few communities nearly as patient or welcoming to anyone who's earnest and willing to put in the work to learn; true, there's no coddling or hand-holding, and, indeed, it tends to be very direct in calling out foolishness or laziness, and can reach epic proportions when it comes to dishonesty or entitlement, but nothing which can't be processed by emotional maturity, nor th…

> I find it just the opposite. I can think of few communities nearly as patient or welcoming to anyone who's earnest and willing to put in the work to learn; true, there's no coddling or hand-holding, and, indeed, it tends to be very direct in calling out foolishness or laziness, That’s nearly the exact opposite of welcoming newbies. To be perfectly honest, that’s fine: OpenBSD demands a steep learning curve and that…

What is? No coddling? Little tolerance toward laziness? Zero toward entitlement? That's closer to the opposite of being patronizing, I would say.

They point to documentation in response to the kind of request I've seen closed with RTFMs elsewhere. They'll expect one to read it, and try one's hand at whatever one is trying to accomplish — and they'll feel slighted by a refusal, given how much work they put into it.

And yet, they go to great, unexpected (given the fame) lengths to help someone actually making the effort; they don't try to put anyone down in order to feel bigger than they are, but they don't sugar coat things to appear more likable either.

In short, no, knowing what one is doing isn't a prerequisite; it's more about not foisting onto others the responsibility for the effort required to move from where one is to where one wants to be — whether in knowledge, maturity or tools.

Post reply on HN