Linux Development Call To Arms

Hell O'World writes "This ZDNet Article points to the direction that Linux developers need to follow. Many people think that Linux needs an Office clone to gain acceptance, but the truth is that monolithic software is not the future. To get all of the functionality that anyone could possibly need in one place, the Office paradigm is to have everything there at once, and that takes a huge amount of resources to load, and years to learn. Linux will not gain converts by giving users the same thing, that they will then have to relearn. The power of UNIX is in connecting small, fleet-footed tools. What we need now is to create an environment, where users can easily create customized tools for the way they work, and developers can easily add new functionality."

Comments

Bundled/monolithic software

[syates21]

Microsoft killed all other word processor/spreadsheet vendors by having a more integrated package.

What makes anyone think people don't want bundled software?

Plus what he's talking about has already been done. Office is basically a consistently skinned collection of COM controls.

Re:Bundled/monolithic software

[_Quinn]

It's not /bundled/ software, it's software /that works well together/. Traditionally, the only route to integration was a single (or a few very tightly coupled) binaries. Now there's COM, which MS wrote basically because it was painful to make the office apps work together without it. However, the end-user can't choose what parts of office not to install (changing, with the `don't install until used option'), but certainly don't have the ability to to replace a crappy component that MS supplies with a better one from elsewhere.

The problem is more general than office software, though; the tendency in interfaces with GUIs has been to add complexity to the application and make it nearly impossible to use one part of it over another. KDE and GNOME's object models are working to address this; in fact, KOffice is (or shortly will be) `a skinned collection of KParts'. However, it's still hard -- and requires special tools -- to stitch these components together. There's no GUI equivalent to the command-line pipe/redirect paradigm, except for (rarely) in RAD tools for a specific toolkit/OE (e.g. QtBuilder(?), KDevelop); but these don't really function on the user level.

The most important part is that Linux has succeeded, until now, in replacing UNIX systems, because the cost of migration, especially in skills and time, is low (Linux is-a UNIX, runs basically all your standard UNIX tools, runs on commodity on NT-obsolete boxes, etc). The same is NOT true for migrating desktop boxes; I would argue a substantially lower TCO, but to make people /want/ to switch, you have to do _better_ than MS, not just match it/them (as worked for UNIX, except in price :))

-_Quinn

Re:Bundled/monolithic software

[Merk]

That may be the case, but it seems to me that the way those skinned COM controls work isn't the way tools like "grep" and "sort" work. Word isn't an editor that calls up a spell-checker when needed, pipes things to a printing subsystem later, uses a word-counter-tool when needed, etc. It is a monolithic thing that (seemingly at least) runs all those tools at the same time. Something monolithic must be starting, otherwise why does Word take so long to load, even on the fastest machine?

I think what the author is suggesting, and what people would love, is something more unixlike. The main application should be the editor, and it should do only that -- editing. The spell-checker should be a completely different module. If the user wants squigglies underlining mis-spelled words as he/she types then this spell checker could be triggered every time a word is finished to check that new word.

Obviously the pure unix method of truly different applications wouldn't work right for a system like this. Running a spell-checking application every time a word needs to be checked would be too slow and cpu-hogging, but maybe having a spell-checking daemon running waiting to check words would be the way to go.

I think a Linux office suite would need something that could accept word documents, but maybe this could be done with a standalone ms-format-converter program, writing the contents as XML which the main editor can read. I see no need to be able to write word documents directly, though chaining to the ms-format-converter as a convenience might be a nice touch.

A great way to do this would be modules that could be loaded at runtime as needed. Ideally something could even be integrated with 'net access. Say Amy is editing a lab report and wants to add a formula. She goes to a "tools" menu and doesn't see what she wants, so she clicks on "other tools". The system shows her what tools are available on her system. She clicks on "check the web" and a few moments later a list of all tools is displayed by category, she chooses "scientific | formula editor", it seamlessly downloads and installs locally (a la perl / apt get) and a few minutes later she's entering the formula into the editor.

Open source software would have the advantage that a small, basic subset of functionality could be included by default. The software package would be small and the install time would be quick. Then as the user needed additional modules could be downloaded. A university student doing essays would have a spelling, grammar and formatting tools. A chemistry researcher writing papers would have formula editors, grammar, spelling, bibliography, formatting, etc. tools installed. Little girls and script kiddies might have wild fonts, crazy borders, and similar tools installed. But everybody would only have what they need.

There just has to be a way that has a better user experience than the Microsoft Way. I don't want to have to wait 20 seconds to open a ".doc" file that happens to be plain text with a ".doc" extension. I also don't want to have all other programs grind to a halt when I open a word document that contains nested Excel tables, or .AVI movies, or whatever else you can embed in a word document these days.

Is this possible, or am I just dreaming? That's what I want out of an office suite anyhow. Simple tools with numerous plugins/addons. Is that so hard?

Bullsh*t

[barneyfoo]

Im sure microsoft would love us to stop working on office clones. Linux, coupled with star office, koffice, or whatever, might be the only force capable of dethroning microsoft on the desktop.

It's true our clones will never be as full featured as Word, or as monolithic as office, but that defecit is easy to overcome when you add "FREE" into the mix.

And this little peice is even more BULLSH*T because what the hell does this guy presume? That we are all working to make linux the #1 OS, to make it a Super UNIX? People hack on shit that they want to. Including free word processors and office components. I think it's pretty arrogant to presume you know what's best for people's volunteer time. Keep up the good work office hackers. This kind of shit is pretty worthless.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Include the User

[jjr]

That is a novel idea. The fact about linux/unix the "User" tends to be more knowledge able so he can get around things the "avereage user" might not. The way to Linux more mainstream is for people to start studies on the features the user really need and want. The GUI designs that really work. What is needed input back from users on what works and how things can be improved. We are doing some of these things now. I hope this research continues

The *real* call to arms

[rknop]

Just a few weeks ago I used to think that it was important to figure out how to get Linux to compete with Microsoft, so that Microsoft's dominance might be broken, so that those of us who use Linux wouldn't be stuck with people sending us things in proprietary Microsoft formats, and telling us to boot into Windows to configure this or that piece of hardware. I would have thought that strategic questions of what sort of office aps free software developers were working on was very important.

And they are important. But that's not the primary call to arms any more. The issue is no longer whether Linux can compete with Microsoft. The issue is how long those of us in the USA will still be able to legally use Linux at all. The front has changed. It's not dominance; it's survival.

See the article on slashdot a few days back about the SSSCA. See this week's Linux Weekly News (September 13). There's a law out there about to be proposed which would make it illegal for those of us in the USA to continue to use Linux (at least connected to the internet) or any other free software as we know it.

To heck with the Microsoft monopoloy. It's a terrible thing, but at least we can use Linux now. We have to make sure we don't lose that. This is the call to arms that every Linux, BSD, Perl, Apache, or other free software has to heed. Write your congressmen. Write your senators. Don't sit back and let apathy win the day, as it did three years ago with the DMCA. We have to fight this fight, and we have to fight it now, or soon we won't have the luxury of debating what sort of office software will be best to strategically position Linux.

-Rob

Re:The *real* call to arms

[xtal]

If your country is so messed up that they're going to ban you from using linux.. maybe you have worse things to worry about than the dominance of the microsoft empire. Move someplace with sane politicians, and fight those laws before they go into place. Unless you go see your elected reprentatives in person, take some time out of your day to stop these things, then they'll happen. Politicians cater to those who want change, and if nobody objects, or not enough people object, things become law. It's not a dictatorship you live in.

It's not that bad to immigrate to Canada, or even countries in Europe where software patents aren't applicable. If running linux and "free" software ever actually became illegal and people were arrested for it, then I would hazard a guess the American claim to be a "Free" nation went down the drain, too.

I don't think so

[elmegil]

What we need now is to create an environment, where users can easily create customized tools for the way they work

No. Not any more than we need to create an environment where users can easily create customized furniture, cars, or whatnot. The mass users you need to attract to make Linux *really* popular want these things built for them and delivered to them--they are not do-it-yourselfers like most of us who read Slashdot are. That is why, despite all their bugs, Microsoft continues to sell.

About the Topic

[rjamestaylor]

It is inappropriately worded. Period.

Re:False. Wrong. Nope.

[dgp]

Linux needs more GUI innovation. We should not try to be a windows work-alike. That would be a mistake.

I see the basis of change happening in a replacement for X windows. A new graphical layer that makes it easy to create a whole new paradigm of graphical computing. The idea that a screen is equal to a hardwood desktop and applications are pieces of paper that are shuffed around the desktop worked well. Linux can be the foundation for a whole new paradigm. Hopefully something that is always in '3d' mode. Something where visual programming is always part of the UI. UIs have always needed a visual scripting language. I think even 'novices' and 'daily users' will be greatly stimulated and entertained by making small functional changes to their apps as they use them.

At the same time, we need to get behind a distributed object system. You gave some great examples like CORBA and XML RPC. Add to this the 'mobile code' idea. A virtual machine - hopefully Parrot will fill this gap. Then a framework or at least coding standards for distributed objects, like EJB. Then service discovery, like JINI. God, Java does so many things right :).

I think this is where .net is going, a VM with a standard for object interfaces plus SOAP calls. I think its where Linux needs to go, too.

Re:Office is not a big monolithic blob

[BitwizeGHC]

COM != OOP DCOM != OOP

I beg to differ. The COM code I have seen quite remarkably resembles instantiation of and passing messages to objects in an object-oriented paradigm. Let's not forget the giveaway: the acronym itself. Component Object Model. Microsoft has been a big booster of the "object-orientedness" of its component architecture.

Unix "programs" have standard interfaces as well. Data is piped via stdin and returned via stdout. The input data is expected in a certain format. The output data is returned in a predefined format.
Hmmm.. sounds like an interface to me!

Yes, but that interface is both trivially simple and completely transparent. It makes coding and debugging the "components" and the applications which use them much faster and easier. It also allows you to fit the pieces together in new and intriguing ways. You lose a bit of flexibility at the component level (only one simple interface) but gain flexibility when your scope is the overall application.

COM is nothing more than a standard which defines the call stack for any "components" function call.

Most object-oriented paradigms are simply this: they simply associate this chunk of data with that bundle of operations. This is usually veiled very carefully to force the programmer to think in terms of magical function-data aggregates ("objects") instead of seperate data and function calls (which is how computers work, at least those using von Neumann architecture).

This is not necessarily a disadvantage in itself; sometimes it's desirable. Games and GUI widgets are best expressed in object-oriented style, for instance. However, the disadvantages of the COM approach (bloat, complexity hell, vendor lock) make it a mess to deal with.

Those that haven't used COM in a real-world environment shouldn't knock it.

I have used it in a real world environment. And there are times when I would have much rather simply piped my data through a perl script.

Re:Office is not a big monolithic blob

[jfunk]

it would be nice if you reported the difference between that and your alternative.

I take it you've never used TeX.

I recommend trying out LyX, an advanced frontend. After going through the tutorial, I promise that you will be forever annoyed with all other "word processors."

Unfortunately, due to marketing forces, I had to stop using LyX at work some time ago. Every time I write a document now, I feel like I'm using a frigging hammer-and-chisel.

Sigh.