Slashdot Mirror


Abiword: Support Expectations

bockman writes "Abiword developers have put up a letter, explaining what they expect from their user community and what the community should (and should not) expect from a volunteer-based open source software project like theirs. A much needed reality-check in these times when a large number of non-developers have joined the Linux users world." This is a must read for anyone who uses any open source software.

412 comments

  1. Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Flamebait

    If I were Microsoft, I'd link to this letter without comment. As a business user, I'd be sore pressed to consider anything but Commercial software after reading this.

    1. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words. Microsoft. Support. Yes, you may laugh now.

    2. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      microsoft support? isnt that an oxymoron?

      I have NEVER been able to get product support out of microsoft, you have to PAY for it.

      buy that nice new XP? you have to pay for product support too :-)

      and people say that linux fails because there is no support, helll microsoft hasn't had support cince 1976.

    3. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by ethereal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's funny, because it appears to me that the "you get what you pay for" ratio is still in favor of Open Source projects, as opposed to Microsoft. I guess it depends on how happy you are with your last Microsoft purchase versus your last use of software downloaded for free. I know which one I'm happier with.

      See, if AbiSource was like Microsoft, they would be promising a completely secure and easy-to-use product in a couple months, miss their date by almost a year, and have recurring security issues (all of them completely denied, then considered "features", then patched quickly so as to break other parts of the product) up until it was time to release their next bloated version, and then repeat the whole cycle. So I don't really see where AbiSource has anything to be ashamed of, unless complete honesty with your user base is some sort of black mark against you.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    4. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Ardax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I were a business user, and I needed support for a program, I'd pay for it. Whether that's in the form of hiring a coder to be our in-house OSS keep it together geek, or contracting with a company that provides support for said product, or actually getting a piece of commercial software and the support that comes with that (typically little).

      In fact, the support I see for most OSS projects that have some steam rolling is very impressive. People tend to be polite and try to be helpful if you seem to be having a real problem that isn't caused by dismissing the manuals and how-tos. Sure, sometimes there's flame wars, jerks, trolls, and other assorted assholes. That happens. If I'm not paying for the support, I don't mind too much. How many customer service horror stories do we all have? And that's for products and service that we actually paid money for! There's something really wrong when the customer service track record for free stuff is better than that of stuff that I paid for.

      Whoo, I just got trolled. :-)

      --
      Pax, Ardax
    5. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Actually, my experience with MS technical support
      hasn't been too bad, generally.
      Which doesn't exactly cover over the multitude of
      other corporate sins present, but, hey, aren't
      balanced and reasoned arguments the hallmark of /.?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    6. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by sphealey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      As a business user, I'd be sore pressed to consider anything but Commercial software after reading this.
      As a business user and manager, I approve deployment of all kinds of software. Some commercial, some free. Some with support contracts, some without. Some with huge userbases, some with 5 other known users. This page describes pretty much what you will get from any software vendor, free or commercial, with or without a support contract. Calling a commercial tech support line, for which you have paid big bucks, is not much different than spinning a roulette wheel. That's the facts of life in the software industry, paid or otherwise. At least with this product, if I were really deperate I could hire a programmer to take a look at the source code and see if a fix is possible, which isn't the case with closed source products.

      sPh

    7. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Gannoc · · Score: 2
      As a business user, I'd be sore pressed to consider anything but Commercial software after reading this.

      Word charges $339 per copy of Word 2002.

      If 12 people work on it, that means that if only 3000 copies of AbiWord were sold for the same price as Word, all 12 of those programmers would be able to work full time on it with very comfortable salaries.

      Kind of makes you think about the price of software.

    8. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, if AbiSource was like Microsoft, they would be promising a completely secure and easy-to-use product in a couple months, miss their date by almost a year, and have recurring security issues

      The interesting thing is that as time goes by, Microsofts products seem to be getting more stable and secure. Compare the number of security holes in XP to Win2k to NT4

      One day, maybe 3 or 4 years from now, MS products will be as security as linux. BUT, Linux is still not getting any easer to use!

      IE, in 3 or 4 years time Windows will be a secure as Linux, but a lot easer to use. Who do you think will win the server war then?

    9. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're interested in blargityblorg, try here blargityblorg

    10. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by jgerman · · Score: 2

      As a OSS advocate I's tell the business user that he's a moron and link from my page to a description of UCITA without comment. It's almost the same thing, except that software companies under UCITA have made it legal for software you PAY for to not do what you want.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    11. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by rseuhs · · Score: 1
      Kind of makes you think about the price of software.

      The 339$ you spend in 2001 for Word (or Office) are not going into development. There are much more important things to do:

      - Make shareholders happy with 40% net profit margin
      - Pay huge marketing campaign which dwarf development costs.
      - Pay bloated management, lawers and a lot of other people not related to the actual development.

      and most importantly:

      - Pay for loss-leaders like XBox, MSN, WebTV, the "Otto" project, the "HomeR" project, Penwindows, Modular Windows, COOl, Microsoft Bob, MMOSA and Internet Explorer.

      People, let's face it: MS Office is a pretty much finished product. (and is so for a couple of years)

      I think XBox was Microsoft's biggest mistake so far, the chances of success are extremely low and unlike software, a mistake in hardware costs really a lot of money. And most importantly, Microsoft will lose their winner's "they set the standards" image.

      But this is getting offtopic...

    12. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Omerna · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but if you're a cynical person (as everyone should be when reading news from a biased source) you'd wonder why Microsoft is linking this... Obviously it is supposed to make the reader think, "Wow, Open Source sucks! They admit they aren't as good as Microsoft!" But then, as a cynical person, you realize if Microsoft wants you to think this obviously there is some reason- maybe because they feel threatened by Open Source? The way I look at it if MS wants me to read this and think that you have to look behind it and see their true motives- make Open source look bad.

      That's a little disjointed, I hope I came across OK.

      --


      No sig for you.
    13. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck can you say linux is not getting easier to use? Four years ago, I was hard pressed to get linux even installed on a PC, it didn't even default to having a GUI. These days, you can get a click-n-drool package from Mandrake that lets you clicka-clicka your way to setting up a webserver, a mail server, a SQL database, an office desktop, whatever. All almost painfully simple to do!. Linux is progressing an order of magnitude faster than windows.

    14. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      windows, hands down. If in 3 or for years Linux is 10 times easier than windows to use I still say windows. Isn't it great to be MS.

    15. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by DavidJA · · Score: 1

      These days, you can get a click-n-drool package from Mandrake that lets you clicka-clicka your way to setting up a webserver, a mail server, a SQL database, an office desktop, whatever

      The Mandrake install still manages to fuck things up. I've got the Mandrake 8 install, tried to put it on a HP Omnibook 4150 laptop (PII-300, 256mb ram), it took my 2 days of fucking around with a video driver to get X to work - eventually worked out that I needed to fuck with Xconfigurator a bit more.

      Linix still has a LONG LONG LONG way to go before even coming close to Windows usability.

      IMHO, Microsoft has gotten it right, attract the largest userbase possable with an easy to use OS, with heaps to worthless features then work on stability. As apposed to Linux, which is the other way around.

    16. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by vladkrupin · · Score: 1

      I do not care about what you said above (though I agree with you). The part that I really like is... your sig. I'm probably going to borrow it for myself, if yo don't mind...

      --

      Jobs? Which jobs?
    17. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by AiX2 · · Score: 1

      > I guess it depends on how happy you are with
      > your last Microsoft purchase versus your last
      > use of software downloaded for free.

      Microsoft vs the last software I downloaded for free?
      Don't be silly. Thanks to DrinkorDie they're one in the same.

    18. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1
      ...before even coming close to Windows usability



      What you described there was not usability. The majority of PC users work in a corporate environment where "using" a system does not entail installing it. I've never installed Digital UNIX before but using it is simple.


      I'm sure if you took a look at the size of the Linux userbase 2 years ago and compared that to what it is today, you'd notice a big change. And all these people in favour of getting the stability right first before adding the pointles crap. Granted, some of the latest distros for workstations do have a lot of not-so-useful things that hinder performance and stability, but I could put up with X crashing a couple of times a year so that I could avoid viruses, non-intuitive software, unreliable applications and OSes that crash when they run an application they don't like (Yes, I know Win2k does that less now, but it still does it sometimes).

      As for your laptop, sorry to hear you're not having much luck. Perhaps listing the video card make/model would be more useful than telling us the MHz and RAM size. Does Mandrake's site say they support your card fully? If not, then you can only expect a bit of messing around with it before it works.


      Food for thought: out of Linux and Windows, which one is gonna be first to provide support for the iPod MP3 player?

    19. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As a OSS advocate I's tell the business user that he's a moron

      Yeah man - stick it to em!

      That's the exact fucking attitude that gets OSS nowhere! Everyone is a moron except you huh?

    20. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by F452 · · Score: 1

      Let's see, just pulling some numbers out of the air:

      $84,750 (3000 copies X $339 / 12 people)
      - 33,900 (40% taxes -rough but probably conservative
      estimate - you have to consider corporate/
      self-employment/whatever)
      - 6,000 (health insurance)
      ________
      $44,850

      Hmm. We're already down to $44,850 and we haven't even gotten into operating costs.

    21. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, but if you're a cynical person (as everyone should be when reading news from a biased source)

      ...Errm 'biased source'?

      You mean like Slashdot?

    22. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you were installing it on a Laptop. Don't be a fucking dork.

      Sure, Linux has a long way to go (probably impossible) with laptops, due to the fact that so many laptops use unique (unique to brand, model, and sometimes, even build) hardware, unlike non-laptops.

    23. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by ethereal · · Score: 1

      Y'know, I think I saw the link in someone else's sig, so I certainly don't have any sort of claim on it. Share the disillusionment and the cold truth around is what I say.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    24. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, Linux has a long way to go (probably impossible) with laptops, due to the fact that so many laptops use unique (unique to brand, model, and sometimes, even build) hardware, unlike non-laptops.

      Point being Win2k went on without a problem. Just goes to prove that linux sucks.

    25. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is that crap you're spewing? Total FUD that's what. For a pro ONLY current performance matters. AW doesn't measure up. Both Word & WP had crucial features 4-years-ago still missing in the current AW. That's the point, the ONLY important point for any well-heeled serious user of word processing software.
      Fact is, I DO use AW because I cannot afford Word or WP. My tough luck.

    26. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a business owner you would be silly not to investigate the AbiWord product to see what level of maturity the product actually has attained. Not only is it free, but, because the development group is so much smaller, development has to concentrate on the features you are most likely to need at the expense of features you seldom if ever need, but must pay for in a commercial product.

      Many of the hours Microsoft has spent on Word have been spent integrating a graphics program, a very poor web page generator (you can easily hand-delete a good 1/3 of the code it makes and the page will actually work better ... not worse!), spell-checker and so on. AbiWord uses (if I recall correctly) the (separately developed) ispell program already a part of most Linux distributions. Your secretary should not be doing graphics as she writes a letter and your graphics people should not be handling correspondence.



      So, do you need a graphics program embedded in Word? Bear in mind that even though you use it rarely, its presence slows Word down always.



      I don't want to spend a lot of time slamming Word ... or any other MSFT product. That's a job best left to experts. :-) What I do want to point out is that the Wright Brothers did not need a 747 to make history ... and neither do you. If all you want to do is fly from place to place ... or hammer out a stack of letters, then you would be silly not to investigate (fully) the free and freely available alternatives to ultra-expensive commercial packages.



      Sometimes the free packages won't measure up. But you'd be surprised how often they not only measure up but, by some metrics, whizz on by.

    27. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by discogravy · · Score: 1

      Although I don't use abiword (a text editor is a text editor is a text editor, imo,) there's a real simple way to evaluate this: When was the last time you posted to a Windows Word(tm) list and got your ideas considered? Do you know (or at least know how to contact) those responsible for Word's code? feature set? bugs?

      The dictionary easter eggs in Word show that there's humans working the product (check out "Bill Gates should die." or "I hate Bill Gates." in the thesaurus -- it brings up "I'll drink to that!" and "I should certainly think so!" as valid synonyms,) but Word is far removed from the consumer and it's target audience. This doesn't necessarily make it a bad product but it's not the way I deal with people I do business with; this is one of the reasons I like the open source model.

    28. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It provides all the features I need and saves into formats that I am happier with than Word. It suits my needs and having read the page I hope they read this and receive my great appreciation for their efforts and thanks.

      Abi Word has beome my default choice at home because it serves my needs and feels friendly.

    29. Re:Expect to see this linked from Microsoft.com by dbmacg · · Score: 1

      You seem to imply that Microsoft has begun to support their software. Is this true?

  2. Slashdotted.... by Quazion · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, while i read the story and after i looked at the screenshots the Abiword site seems to be down....i was going to try if it would run on my OpenBSD box, but nevertheless maybe slashdot should mirror text only things to decrease load on other people's webservers ?

    Quazion.

    1. Re:Slashdotted.... by hub · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      It is currently up and running. Trust me. My ssh session is still alive :-)

      --
      Hub
    2. Re:Slashdotted.... by sterwill · · Score: 1

      I'm sitting on the same T1 as the AbiSource server and things are snappy for me.

  3. I have ony one request for all developers by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Please oh please update the webpage and test rpm builds.

    If a person were to want to get abiword and downloaded their redhat 7.1 rpm, they'd be instantly ranting on the mailing list as it does not work for any possible install of redhat 7.1.

    In fact they need to remove all rpms except for the gtk version as that is the only rpm that actually works.

    also, add a list of all libs that are needed in order to use the product.

    I am glad they make abiword, but having rpm's or packages that dont work for anyone except the deveopler that made it causes most of the grief I see on the mailing list. 90% of all pissed users are users that cant get it to work because of the bad rpm's and packages.

    hey, if you guys dont have time for keeping the website up-to date, I volunteer to do it.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you might consider going to their mailing list and actually volenteering to do it instead of talking about doing it on slashdot... it would take about the same amount of effort.

    2. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      the rpm point is a very valid. if the package is advertised as a rh 7.1 package, it should install on a clean rh 7.1 box. on the other side though, someone, anyone could submit a "better" rh 7.1 rpm that will work. hell, even RH has problems releasing rpms which work on their system (kde rpm hell anyone?)

    3. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red Hat should have checked that.

      I use a different distro at home but at school they use Red Hat. The version of AbiWord that shipped with Red Hat was just appalling.

      It crashed when you hit the print button. When you hit the print preview button. In fact, it seemed like just about anything you did caused it to crash.

      I have found a lot of programs at school which I know were not tested before they were shipped. It's really discouraging that no one went through and tried to run each program for five minutes before the CD's were burned.

      At home I use Abiword and like it just fine...

    4. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by PD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ABIWord is not even at version 1.0! A user who is pissed because they can't get a nicely packaged thing they can drop into their system should either look for another solution or learn how to deal with a tarball.

      I run a Debian Potato system, and when I tried the *.deb package there were a bunch of errors. No problem, I'll get the source and compile it. There were a bunch of missing liraries, and I had to fix those. Finally, it was compiled. It core dumped. I figured out that it had to do with the fonts not being handled properly on my X server. Did I complain? Hell no! I used CVS to get the latest development release and tried that. It worked. The fonts are screwed up, but am I upset? No, I'm very happy. I have a word processor that is already excellent, and it's getting better every day. When Woody stabilizes, then I'll upgrade. That will give me the right Xserver to allow ABIWord to display and print nice fonts. I can live without them for now.

      The lesson here is that if you are dealing with software that isn't even at version 1.0, then you'd better be prepared to go to the lengths I went to. That's not harsh, that's not mean, that's a fact of life. Versions 1.0 of anything cannot be expected to do anything more than dump core. Less experienced people should see this as an *opportunity* to learn how to get around problems on their box.

    5. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by jred · · Score: 1

      Um, not to try and flame you or anything, but did you even read the text? If you had, I would think you'd be making this comment elsewhere, if at all. And somehow I don't think /. is the appropiate place to volunteer...

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    6. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by Amokscience · · Score: 2

      Excuse me, but as a user and commercial and open source developer I do NOT consider it acceptable that *any* _release_ would break at step 1.

      I can accept this for a CVS snapshot or a beta test build but certainly not anything that is labelled a "release". I would be horrified at the thought that thousands of people were downloading one of my releases only to find it didn't work at all.

      My definition of 1.0 is something I wouldn't mind paying for. Anything before is bound to be buggy on some level but to crash on startup? And to consider that (long-term) acceptable? Unreal.

      --
      Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
    7. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by damiam · · Score: 2

      If I recall correctly, AbiWord *requires* XFree86 > 4.0. The parent is trying to install it on a potato system with the stock 3.3.6 version, which is what is causing the errors.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    8. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by Kiwi · · Score: 2
      If a person were to want to get abiword and downloaded their redhat 7.1 rpm, they'd be instantly ranting on the mailing list as it does not work for any possible install of redhat 7.1.

      Over here, the GTK versions of the Abiword RPMs install and run like a charm on this RedHat 7.1 box.

      - Sam

      --

      The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.

    9. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean that Debian isn't perfect, and that using ancient software can bite you in the ass? Whoa.

    10. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by Kiwi · · Score: 3, Informative
      Unlike proprietary software development (Amokscience appears to be a proprietary software developer who does not understand how the bazaar model of open source development works), where companies go through extensive SQA before making a release available, open-source development releases a pre-1.0 release, which the public SQAs.



      If AbiWord was a proprietary software product, the only people who would be using AbiWord right now would be SQA testers. Thankfully, AbiWord is open-source, which allows people like me to use it before its formal 1.0 release.



      - Sam

      --

      The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.

    11. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by PD · · Score: 1

      You are correct. I wrote that original comment, and I'm aware that the software breakage is expected.

    12. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by PD · · Score: 2

      Linux 0.1 wouldn't even compile. Linux wasn't even stable in many other versions. Hundreds of thousands of people were using Linux before the magic 1.0 release. Hundreds of thousands of people had their systems crash on them. Hundreds of thousands of people understood that they were damned lucky to have something else to fight with other than Windows 3.0 running on top of MS-DOG v. 5.0.

      For pete's sake, my first Linux system was built and maintained by hand, all by my lonesome. If I needed software, I had to find the source somewhere and compile it myself. AND I also had to port it from SunOS, or HPUX, or ATT&T UNIX, or wherever I found the code.

      The situation is the same. This is not commercial software here, and that's the point of the article. Just as Linux wasn't for regular users when it was at 0.99.12, ABIWord isn't for users at version 0.9.6.

    13. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      The GNOME builds rely on the latest Helix GNOME. You don't have that, and it won't work. Personally, I haven't seen the difference between the GNOME and GTK builds, other than the need for Helix.

      The Windows release always seem to be a step up in reliability, though maybe that's because I use Windows so little.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    14. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've convinced me. Going to the extra effort of providing broken RPMs is OK after all. My mistake!

    15. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :-) the GTK version is not labelled as the one for Redhat 7.1.... the gnome version is, and that requires a daily CVS snapshot of Ximian to run... a fact that is not mentioned anywhere

    16. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by Error27 · · Score: 2

      You use debian and not Red Hat so you don't understand how badly broken the Red Hat abiword package was.

      In debian a package that awful would have been fixed within a month at least. It certainly wouldn't have made it to debian stable.

      I think that this is a Red Hat problem rather than a Abiword problem. But it is a problem.

      Abiword no doubt is still getting tons of email from that one really really buggy package that was shipped months ago.

      The solution is:
      Red Hat needs assign someone to test packages before they ship.
      Educating users to post bugs to Red Hat pages instead of to Abiword.
      Make updating to newer version straighforward.

    17. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by bockman · · Score: 2
      Uhm. There are a few projects that do not provide anymore any pre-built packages. Only source code. It may suck to some users, but I think this is the way to go (note that I am an user, not a developer: I'm able to compile my tarballs, but I enjoy pre-built binaries like everybody else).

      Maybe it is time to introduce some specialisation in the open source world: developers write code; distributions build packages.If distribution packages suck (as they sometime do), users can complain with them (after all, they get [not much] payed for it). Better yet, they can create volunteer-based user support sites that distributes better packages for their favorite apps (Debian was born for similar reasons, IIRC). I prefer that developers spend their time fixing bugs and implementing features, rather than building RPMs for me (as a figure of speach: I use Debian and I have got others which build packages for me:-).

      --
      Ciao

      ----

      FB

    18. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by st.n. · · Score: 1
      I run a Debian Potato system, and when I tried the *.deb package there were a bunch of errors.

      Maybe you should upgrade your Debian System. Unfortunately they have very long cycles for "stable" releases, so you have to get the "unstable" release, which really isn't as unstable as the name indicates. And I installed the Abiword .deb package without any problem there.

      I even upgrade my Debian system about once or twice a month since it is so easy (apt-get update && apt-get -uy dist-upgrade), and I very rarely encounter any problems. There is even no need to log out and quit the X session.

      - Stephan.

    19. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by PD · · Score: 2

      My Deb box is at the latest Potato version, so there's nothing to update. Once Woody goes into freeze, I'll probably upgrade to that.

      Running a stable system is far far more important to me than running the latest stuff. I rely on this computer to do my work, and If I break something, it's a bad thing.

    20. Re:I have ony one request for all developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, he says in his first sentence that he's an open source developer. I guess some people can't even read the comments let alone the articles.

  4. Many valid points by DutchSter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Part of the reason many professional groups are unwilling to use open-source programs is because they just don't know what they're getting. If I, as a business owner am told that the product will be supported by a group of volunteers, I may be willing to go spend $100 for a product that will be supported. But, *ahem*, many pay software companies expire out their old versions so you're stuck with the product at some point anyway.

    This is document was very well laid out, and might help to increase the popularity of open source stuff. Sure most of us just know how it all works, but unless Joe Public does, he won't see any reason to consider OSS. Probably the best line of this notice would be "We believe, however, that it's only because most newcomers do not realize what to expect - hopefully this text will set that right." Amen to that. Even if I had never used OSS before, I might be willing to give it a shot after all this has been laid out.

    The text also does a very nice job dispelling the common myth held by regular software users that OSS requires you to be actively involved in the programming to use it. A very welcoming sense of "everybody can join, if you can, please help out in one of several ways."
    If nothing else, this type of text should cut down on the number of bitch-outs directed towards OSS due to false expectations.

  5. RPM Doesn't work? FIX IT.... by TechnoVooDooDaddy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    don't go flaming the programmers, FIX IT! the source is all there ready to be tweaked. You got what you paid for, and that's nothing.. The good part is with a MINOR amount of tweaking, fiddling, etc. (compared to writing something like AmiWord yourself) you can have a FANTASTIC word processor for FREE! Behold the wonders of open-source.

    Then you can post your fixed version and get flamed too..

    joy

  6. I can summarize by Rev.LoveJoy · · Score: 1
    "We all have real jobs, please relax."

    I do pity the open developer community if linux really takes off on the user side of this game.

    Cheers,
    -- RLJ

    1. Re:I can summarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Linux really takes off in the consumer end user market your regular OSS programmers will be pushed out on the application side in favor of corporations (ie MS)who will put out closed source versions of their software. And the masses will buy from the names they know.

      This will happen

    2. Re:I can summarize by acebyte · · Score: 1

      If OpenSource software does become a real competitor to M$ (and we're talking % here, not the quality of the software) then I think the programmers will get paid to write it full time.

      Where will this money come from? Support contracts and manuals. Ask IBM where they make a good wegde of their cash right now. Supporting the crap Mr Gates pedals, that's where.

      --
      --aca
  7. Huh? by FFFish · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "As AbiWord evolves, it becomes a serious alternative to commercial products for more and more people..."

    "As AbiWord is getting more powerful and usable, we attract more and more users who expect the same feature set and product polish as they'll find in a commercial product such as Microsoft Word. Which is, in a simple word, absurd."

    So AbiWord is becoming a serious alternative to commercial products, but doesn't have the same functionality as a commercial product?!?

    Don't mislead the newbies, and you won't have upset newbies. Good motto to live by.

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    1. Re:Huh? by FFFish · · Score: 2

      Oh, it gets better: on the home page itself: "AbiWord is a free word processing program similar to Microsoft® Word. It is suitable for typing papers, letters, reports, memos, and so forth."

      When you compare yourself to the leading commercial product, and then fail to be comparable to that product... well, what would be "absurd" is expecting the newbies to not be disgruntled!

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    2. Re:Huh? by powerlord · · Score: 2

      I think what he's saying is that as AbiWord evolves (gains more features and more people start to know about/use it), its user base grows. A lot of the new users are people coming from a Windows9x/ME/NT/2k/etc system and are expecting to find everything like it was on Windows.

      To put it bluntly, most Open Source projects have not invested anywhere near 1/10th as much time in Documentation and GUI design as their Closed Source counterparts. AbiWord may be gaining in features on MS Word, for instance, but you can also go out to the store and buy "How to use MSWord in 30 Seconds every 10 minutes for total Idiot!". (As well as MS Word's own on-line help, which does work... sort of).

      Until Open Source catches up in terms of GUI Design (ie. making things look preaty to the sheeple) and deals with the "Documentation Divide" then Commercial products will usually (and I'll stress the usually since there are always some exceptions), have Open Source products beat in terms of functionality.

      Open Source will catch up (take a look at the first linux installation routines vs. the current Mandrake or Redhat), but it will take a little bit of time.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    3. Re:Huh? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So AbiWord is becoming a serious alternative to commercial products, but doesn't have the same functionality as a commercial product?!?

      Sure. Much of the so-called "functionality" of modren commerical word processors is, for most users, nothing but bloat.

      All most people need in a word processor s enough to write a letter to grandma, or a twenty-page report for school. And if you need more, you don't want a word processor, you want a document preparation system - LaTeX, Framemaker, DocBook, etcetera.

      Of course, I'm an old (by /. standards) curmudgeon who fondly recalls writing high school papers in Turbo Pascal IDE's editor and printing them out with a "near letter quality" 24-pin dot-matrix printer on tractor-feed paper...

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:Huh? by HiThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which commercial products? It certainly surpasses Notepad. Is that a commercial product? When I checked several months ago it didn't measure up to WordPad, but that was several months ago.

      And in their list of intended goals it is made quite clear that they don't intend to produce the successor to Word.

      Whether it meets your needs depends on what your needs are (and whether or not you can get it up). If you read their list of goals, then you have something valid to compare it against. It you compare it against your hopes ... that may not be what they are TRYING to do. (Small, quick, efficient, portable, ...)
      .

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:Huh? by nexthec · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Oh, it gets better: on the home page itself: "AbiWord is a free word processing program similar to Microsoft® Word. It is suitable for typing papers, letters, reports, memos, and so forth."


      Not


      "AbiWord is a free word processing program similar to Microsoft® Word, Including Tech Support It is suitable for typing papers, letters, reports, memos, and so forth."


      I see no problem comparing the software, while tech support is different. Its been the same way with share ware for years, and windows people have been sucking off that for a long while now and dont seem to have a problem.



      Honestly I dont think it is really that important that we make Linux easy, and convienent. I think that we(the linux community) needs to make it what we want, to solve the problems we have, and it will work fine. Linus didnt write the first kernel with the goal of ridding the world of microsoft, but to scratch his itch, and that it has gone this far is very admirable. Now if people want to make it easy and convient, more power to them, they get to charge for tech support, ie RedHat. However, because redhat wants it to be newbie friendly does not require that Abiword makes it so.

    6. Re:Huh? by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      > Which commercial products? It certainly surpasses Notepad.

      It's not in competition with Notepad. Notepad is a text editor, like vim, not a wordprocessor.

      > When I checked several months ago it didn't measure up to WordPad, but that was several months ago.

      But I don't know anyone who uses WordPad as a wordprocessor. Everyone I know uses Works or Word or Wordperfect. The only time I've ever heard of any using WordPad was to test Windows 2000's Unicode systems, not to actually write something. In other words, it doesn't measure up to a program that was so inferior to the competition that no one uses it even though it comes with Windows.

    7. Re:Huh? by dvdeug · · Score: 4, Flamebait

      > Sure. Much of the so-called "functionality" of modren commerical word processors is, for most users, nothing but bloat.

      Like what? The equation editor - I know engineering students who find that very useful for school work. Full Unicode functionality - aka support for 1/5 of the world's population's native languages? Multilingual spellchecking? What?

      >And if you need more, you don't want a word processor, you want a document preparation system

      Most people want a simple, WYSWIG, omnipurpose tool, so that's what they use, regardless of what computer geeks think is right.

    8. Re:Huh? by Neumann · · Score: 1

      Whether it is "bloat" or not doesnt matter. What does matter is that AbiWord claims that it is comparable to Microsoft Word (feature wise), when really it isnt. They then release this disclaimer that says,"You Get what you pay for, so STFU!". I dont care if the development was done by Monkeys and typewriters (no offense to Abiword, in general Open Source development methods make high quality (from a technical point of view) software) as long as I can get the program to do what I want it to. If it doesnt, I am going to email the company whose software it is with a nasty email telling them what I think of their program.

    9. Re:Huh? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      I know engineering students who find that very useful for school work.

      And engineering students make up "most users"? Methinks not.

      For math-heavy texts, one would probably better off with a tool devoted to such things - like maybe TeXmacs.

      Most people want a simple, WYSWIG, omnipurpose tool

      No, people want a tool that lets them do the things they need to do in a simple manner. Omnipurpose means 99% useless. For the "average" user, complexity and price are stronger negatives than lack of features that they never use.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    10. Re:Huh? by sparkyz · · Score: 1

      Claiming to be an alternative to a commercial product in no way obligates them to duplicate every crappy, useless, ill-conceived and under-realized feature stuffed into it's commercial counterparts. The folks writing this letter haven't contradicted themselves at all, they've simply pointed out the compromise involved in using software that has no price tag associated with it.

      --
      Oops
    11. Re:Huh? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      What does matter is that AbiWord claims that it is comparable to Microsoft Word (feature wise), when really it isn't

      If they were, I'd agree; I haven't followed the project too closely (me, when I need dead tree or PDF/Postscript pretty printing, I'm a LaTeX man), but I don't think they are. From their web site:

      "AbiWord is a free word processing program similar to Microsoft® Word. It is suitable for typing papers, letters, reports, memos, and so forth."

      Perhaps "similar" is ambiguous - I think of general look and feel and purpose, not depth of features.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    12. Re:Huh? by jgerman · · Score: 2
      Yes it's true there are a plethora of books on how to use Microsoft product that follow that same boiler plate title I belive the template goes as follows:



      How to Use <low qaulity M$ product that costs a lot of money> in <a smaller amount of time than the smallest amount of time on a book currently published> for $lt;redundant word or phrase desribing a M$ software user>


      <grin>


      I have an IQ of 6,000 that's the same IQ as 3,000 Windows users.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    13. Re:Huh? by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      engineering students make up "most users"? Methinks not.

      Engineers and engineering students make up some users. Home users are another group of users. Linguists and anthropologists and historians are another group. Buisness executives are another group. And each group has their own demands on what they want.

      For math-heavy texts, one would probably better off with a tool devoted to such things

      Sure, if your life is writing articles to the Journal of the AMS, use LyX. But if you want to write up some physics notes one day, type a paper for the Ancient World the next, and write a letter home, it's a lot more convientent to have one tool to learn that does all of them okay, then to learn three.

      Even programmers show this habit. Why do you think most programming on Linux is done in Perl and C? Because they're present on most systems, and you already know them.

      people want a tool that lets them do the things they need to do in a simple manner

      And what do they need to do? There are users for each of the features in Word. Anything you consider superflous in Word, would leave some people calling Microsoft rude things if it disappeared in the next version.

      I'm sure that mediveal Korean support would be considered bloat, but, as I understand it, Word is the only wordprocessor that will handle mediveal Korean characters - it's the only tool that lets Korean historians do the things they need to do in a simple manner. Should Microsoft just blow off that market? How would that help them in other markets?

      complexity and price are stronger negatives than lack of features that they never use

      Complexity, as in making it hard to use and learn, is a strong negative. I've never heard an end user complaint about extra features, and as for me, I like using systems that I'm comfortable can support my needs - that I probably won't be in urgent need to do something that it can't support.

      I'm not sure where price comes in here. For many users, both Word and Abiword are free, legal or not. Price hasn't stopped Word yet.

    14. Re:Huh? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Who in their right mind would use a word processor for equations?

      Anyone in their right mind would use LaTeX for this purpose, as anyone would do for serious document preparation system.

    15. Re:Huh? by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      Who in their right mind would use a word processor for equations?

      The person who wanted to get something done. Come on, I've used Word about as often as I've used TeX. If I want to write something in Word, I open up Word and start working. If I want to write something in TeX, I run to the library for a book on TeX, or load up the Gentle Introduction to TeX. Why should someone who needs to stick one or two equations into a text, not more than two or three times a year, have to dig through a book every time they want to add an equation to something?

      Yes, if you're doing serious equation work, some form of TeX is the tool. That doesn't make it any easier for the person who isn't doing serious equation work.

    16. Re:Huh? by nadaou · · Score: 1

      Like what? The equation editor - I know engineering students who find that very useful for school work.

      As someone who needs an eqn editor in my word processor.. MS Eqn editor is the most god awful peice of crap I have ever had the instense displeasure of coaxing into giving me what I want. And I KNOW how to use it properly. It has apparently been replaced in new versions of Office, but the thing wanted me to pay before I saw it was any better. No thanks. I already paid 500 bucks for this lousy.. grumble.. grumble..

      Multilingual spellchecking?

      Had to set this up for someone recently. Was MUCH easier to get going properly in StarOffice than Word..

      >And if you need more, you don't want a word processor, you want a document preparation system

      Lyx! (it's a GUI LaTeX frontend) [www.lyx.org]

      Most people want a simple, WYSWIG, omnipurpose tool

      Lyx! (it's a GUI LaTeX frontend) [www.lyx.org]
      You have to settle for WYSIWYM, not "WYSWIG"(?) though. [Pissing in fake hair may do it for you, but not me, bub.]

      Not that AbiWord isn't great when I want something fast.

      => Hey- Noticed the website [www.abisource.com] says AbiWord 0.9.6 is out! Hasn't made it to the download page yet though.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    17. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And WHY should we care about what new users want? Don't like Linux? Think it's programs suck? Don't use it! We don't care! You can always switch back to Windows XXX.

    18. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use it all the time.
      In fact , I prefer it to Word which I have installed on my machine.

    19. Re:Huh? by Nygard · · Score: 1

      It's like the man said, the average user only hits 20% of the features. The kicker is that each user hits a different 20%.

      --
      "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
    20. Re:Huh? by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1

      I realize that you probably know this, but I feel compelled to note there's a heckuva lot more to GUI design than "making things look preaty."

      Anyone with Photoshop and some downloaded actions can make shiny widgets and nifty toolbars, but making those bits and pieces into a consistent, stable, usable, and attractive GUI is something much more difficult. And, unfortunately, it's another area in which OS projects tend to lag badly.

    21. Re:Huh? by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1

      Geez. This is NOT a flame. He's absolutely right.

      One man's bloat is another man's essential feature. Everyone who uses mainstream office applications is not a mindless drone hypnotized by checklists of things they'll never use. I never use the mail-merge functionality of Word, and seldom need pivot-tables in Excel. Are those useless, bloatware features? Of course not. If certain developers would stop arguing with the users and start listening they might occasionally learn something.

    22. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Omnipurpose means 99% useless. For the "average" user, complexity and price are stronger negatives than lack of features that they never use.

      Yes, I certainly can't count the number of times I've heard someone say "Photoshop? Why would I ever use Photoshop? It's full of features I will never use! No, it's nothing but Microsoft Paintbrush for me!"

      The difference between the tool that does 100% of what a user needs, and a million things besides, and the tool that does 80% of what they need and nothing more, is that the 80% tool is fucking useless.

  8. Can't have it both ways... by Otter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I can sympathize with the AbiWord guys. Given the volume of stupid emails I get, and that they must get orders of magnitude more, I can see why they're frustrated and it's commendable that they're as courteous as they are.

    Still, it's also easy to see why users have expectations. After all, they've been told by journalists that Linux is Ready For The Desktop. They've read spewing by zealots about how fantastically superior Linux applications are and how there's limitless free, quick support available from The Community. They've read the stuff on the Red Hat or Mandrake box and spent money for it. They've invested time in installing Linux and in creating work on it. I can understand why they're annoyed to be told, "It's free and it's my spare-time hobby so deal with it."

    I accept that dealing with a desktop Linux installation is a hobby in its own right and that you have to spend time to make it work and deal with some things that justa aren't there. But it's easy to see why a lot of users don't realize that.

    Then there are the free software whackos who think that they're owed the world on a silver platter. But that's a whole other issue...

    1. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Smitty825 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can understand why they're annoyed to be told, "It's free and it's my spare-time hobby so deal with it."

      I know which direction you are going, but I don't think that the article is addressing those type of people that go to the local store, see a Red Hat (or insert your favorite retail linux here) Linux display and purchase it.

      Those people get to call Red Hat for support (that's why you *buy* the retail version) and to complain. The article is addressing the people who downloaded a linux-iso, installed it and are now expecting a free version of M$ Word. It's not going to happen, and the article is trying to set those people straight....IMHO :-)

      --

      Doh!
    2. Re:Can't have it both ways... by linzeal · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Um 95% of all problems I've had in the past year have been solved not by companies support staff but by other people like me on official and unofficial forums.

      Their Help page needs a good forum for its users to help each other in. That way anytime you answer a question it is


      1. Able to be searched for by DIY knowledgeable users
      2. Allows the amplification of any official responses to multiple users. Mailing lists are fine and dandy for this but unless someone was subscribed to the list at the time they will never see the message, forum software solved this limitation. Faqs don't have to be updated as often as people can respond "on the fly".
      3. This is the most important by far. Users help each other out the majority of the time and you build a viable support community around your product. 3.

    3. Re:Can't have it both ways... by sheldon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Now wait a minute. Based off your User # you've obviously been reading slashdot for a while.

      Don't you realize you are speaking heresy?

      I think you've hit upon the fundamental problem with Open Source. It's not that Open Source is a bad thing, it can actually be quite good. But it's ridiculous to assume it will ever completely replace the commercial software market. Or even have a signifigant impact upon it because of consumer expectations.

      I've never used AbiWord and don't know what it's like. But imagine what these guys could do if instead of giving it away for free, they sold it for $15 off their website.

      It may not make them rich, but I'll bet that could provide a steady income for a handful of people who could work full time to continuously improve the product.

      Furthermore, by charging $15 for a product, they limit their user base to only those people who feel the product is worth something. But they also will realize that it's substantially cheaper than Word and won't expect quite all the same features.

      I think one of the problems with catering to just the whackos who think everything should be free, is that these people think stuff should be free because they identify no value with the product or really the developers time.

      It's the old complaint about Welfare. When people receive $500/week from the government for not working, they don't see any value in actually working. Now not everybody thinks that way, but there is a substantial sub-culture of the world that does.

    4. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, I really wish there was a law requiring any so-called journalist reporting how great Linux is actually be forced to use it for a month. That'll quickly teach them to think twice before opening their fat mouths again.

    5. Re:Can't have it both ways... by chihowa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, by charging $15 for their product, it ceases to be a free-time/hobby contribution and starts to be a product.

      If they are only making $15 per copy, they can't quit their day jobs, but now they need to cater to the people who want a $15 MS Word replacement. If people are actually shelling out money for a product, they can feel better about demanding support or immediate bug fixes or the like. Small business doesn't get the same benefits of large business (being able to say, "Screw off, we don't want to add those features. They are plenty of other customers, you're no loss.")

      At least until AbiWord get to 1.0, anyways, they really shouldn't charge anything for it. Maybe they could sell support, but I feel that involving money is a bad idea here and will only make things more hairy.

      People really should learn what to expect from things that cost them nothing. When I get something for nothing, I appreciate when it helps me at all, I don't bitch when it doesn't constantly impress me.

      Just my 2c, anyway

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    6. Re:Can't have it both ways... by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      That user # is considered small nowadays? Wow, thats as many digits as my icq #.

    7. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Alan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Now wait a minute. Based off your User # you've obviously been reading slashdot for a while.

      User numbers? Why back in my day we didn't have usernumbers, hell it wasn't even slashdot back then... why I remember when it wasn't even chips'n'dips gosh darnit!

      Seriously though, it scares me when a 6 figure user id is considered "here a while" :) How high are we up to these days Rob?

    8. Re:Can't have it both ways... by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      I made the same mistake as you did. The moved where the user number was and put the message ID number.
      His user number was only 4 digits.

    9. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Otter · · Score: 1
      Um 95% of all problems I've had in the past year have been solved not by companies support staff but by other people like me on official and unofficial forums.

      Oh, 100% of mine have been solved that way. (I tried to use Mandrake paid support but the site wouldn't accept my serial number.) I'm not disputing that there is a tremendous amount of free support out there, just saying that it still doesn't begin to live up to what it's hyped as. Which is why you get angry, disappointed users.

    10. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Otter · · Score: 1
      True, but where did people get the expectation that they can have a desktop operating system superior to Windows or MacOS and comprehensive, real-time support without spending any money or time?

      My point is that if that if Linux advocates, free software zealots, self-interested software makers and journalists who don't actually use Linux (but repeat what Bob Young and Miguel de Icaza tell them) would stop creating unrealistic expectations, there would be a lot less disgruntlement.

    11. Re:Can't have it both ways... by hawk · · Score: 2
      > ([58]User #347 Info) [59]http://arcterex.net/


      and this, of course, is why I didn't call them both newbies :)


      hawk

    12. Re:Can't have it both ways... by rhdwdg · · Score: 2
      But it's ridiculous to assume it will ever completely replace the commercial software market.
      It's not meant to. Watch out for confusing words. Commercial, free software is a success -- it's what Red Hat and others do. Experienced users may not need it, but it can be nice. I know I'm distinctly less happy working through the various non-commercial installers for Linux and {Open,Net}BSD versus a nice commercial, free installer from Red Hat or someone similar.

      On AbiWord specifically, $15 would slow down development due to a lack of users. It's several man-years of development away from being worth that much, given the competition of 1) MS Word being installed on almost all new Windows boxes (and under $100 if it isn't there), 2) WordPad being part of Windows, and 3) KWord being installed on a lot of new Linux desktops. They might get a couple hundred dollars, and lose nearly all users and developers, because if a free GTK+ word processor project didn't exist, it would have to be invented. No offense to anyone who works on AbiWord or thinks it does what it needs to do, but the bar is set too high these days.

      A word processor, like an OS or a web browser, has become a product you have to give away to get more than a handful of users, and freeing your software is the only way to afford its development if it's in one of those categories. Opera seems to be hanging on as an exception, mostly from a rabid fan base built before browsers fell into that category and a lack of diversity in the free choices.

    13. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Otter · · Score: 1
      Ironically, right after posting this I went back to my X-chat window to read the following thoughtful exchange:

      *** jazon (~jazon@cm-24-246-18-5.baycountry.ispchannel.com) has joined #kde-users
      <jazon> I've got a problem
      <jazon> I change the fonts in kcontrol, but to my distaste and disguist, nothing changes
      <jazon> just a new "ksycoca" file placed in ~/.kde2/tmp-linux
      <jazon> it works on my computer at home, but not at my friend's
      *** chris_ (~chris@202-0-37-152.cable.paradise.net.nz) has joined #kde-users
      <chris_> hi, if got a kword problem please could someone help?
      <jazon> listen to me chris
      <jazon> as soon as they help me with my problem
      <jazon> you'll be ok
      <jazon> but until then
      <jazon> FUCK YOU
      *** jazon has quit ("using sirc version 2.211+KSIRC/1.1")
      *** kisielk (kisielk@66.183.61.134) has joined #kde-users
      *** shu (~shu@cn514852-a.frenchtwn1.de.home.com) has joined #kde-users
      <chris_> hi, i've got a kword problem please could someone help?
      *** chris_ (~chris@202-0-37-152.cable.paradise.net.nz) has left #kde-users

      I wish people would at least hang out in the channel for a little while before giving up. I would have been glad to help.

    14. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then there are the free software whackos who think that they're owed the world on a silver platter. But that's a whole other issue...

      Your response was going so well until you added this. What looked like a reasoned, intelligent, non-ad hominem, compassionate response ended with an irrational excercise in name-calling (almost).

      It's unfair that you leave a barb like that undefended so nobody knows if you don't get the underlying philosophy of free software or if you had a bad experience with a free software supporter and this is merely some personal unresolved issue. I hope you'll take the time to either explain what you meant by that or retract it.

      From what I have recently learned about software freedom, free software advocates are not asking for anything unreasonable. They're willing to put a lot of work into making a world of free software and they want society to protect their freedom to share and share alike. Finally, they offer compelling arguments to encourage you to want to share in their view. Their approach doesn't deserve the harsh wording you have offered.

    15. Re:Can't have it both ways... by sheldon · · Score: 2

      "Actually, by charging $15 for their product, it ceases to be a free-time/hobby contribution and starts to be a product. "

      Well this is certainly true.

      I think from the perspective of the AbiWord developers they certainly may not wish to work on a project and are satisfied with working on this as a hobby. I know the few open source projects I have worked on, such is the case. It's a good learning experience, it kills some free time, etc.

      Certainly charging brings forward a certain responsibility that one may not want.

      But therein lies the paradox that is Open Source. If it is a hobby, you have unlimited freedom to do that wish you please. But this is not what consumers are going to accept or expect, they want support and continued improvements, bug fixes and such in a timely manner.

      So it all goes back to the zealotry and overselling that the original poster commented on.

      I simply offered the alternative reality of essentially shareware.

      I think all these models can, and have been, successful and do not see why one model must dominate over others. You evaluate the needs and the risk and use what is acceptable to you.

    16. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Daniel · · Score: 2

      Ah, I was wondering why everyone's user ID had suddenly incremented by..uh..a bunch.

      (obviously I don't read /. much these days :P )

      Daniel

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
    17. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Otter · · Score: 1
      It's unfair that you leave a barb like that undefended so nobody knows if you don't get the underlying philosophy of free software or if you had a bad experience with a free software supporter and this is merely some personal unresolved issue. I hope you'll take the time to either explain what you meant by that or retract it.

      Sorry, I was unclear -- I wasn't talking about free software people in general but about the boneheads who have never actually contributed anything themselves but have taken the free software message to mean that everyone owes them anything they want.

    18. Re:Can't have it both ways... by tester13 · · Score: 1

      Maybe someone could try the netscape/mozilla model in reverse. My company could sellAbiword and support it. If things went well I could even offered to hire some of the actually current developers.



      Couldn't this work

    19. Re:Can't have it both ways... by zonker · · Score: 0

      aren't we cool? us low number people are really 1337 huh? j/k =)

    20. Re:Can't have it both ways... by nmos · · Score: 1

      No matter what kind of product you distribute there are going to be people with unreasonable expectations. I've had customers insist that I'm responsible for fixing some of Yahoo's broken messenger/groups features because "you're the one who put it on the computer" when in fact all I did was include a link to Yahoo in their bookmarks/favorites file. Thank god I didn't put a link to Ebay in there....

    21. Re:Can't have it both ways... by dangermouse · · Score: 2

      Some of us just didn't bother to get an account for a while. ;)

    22. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Shelled · · Score: 1
      It's not that Open Source is a bad thing, it can actually be quite good. But it's ridiculous to assume it will ever completely replace the commercial software market.

      Why? If you mean this to say that Open Source software, not having the development resources of a Microsoft, will never have as many features, I agree completely. However, it's irrelevent. Working closely supporting and developing software gives a false impression of how most people use the product, the majority of office users I supported struggled with the little 'X' in the top right hand corner. Most office and home users don't need or typically aren't aware of the range of features a product such as Word already provides. At some point any addition to commercially developed products will be meaningless to the vast majority.

      Open Source will never advance as quickly, but it does advance. In time its applications will have as many features as anyone cares about, and still be free. Don't be too quick to write it off.

    23. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then, pad're there are people who earn a living banging word-processor keys. They have a need/right to expect current_best_practice in any software they touch. Word is, and WP is ... but AW does NOT display CBP in word processing function. Nuff said.

    24. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, where's the scarcity? I could sell bulk air to fund tree-planting, too, but I don't think I'd get many customers.

    25. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Alex · · Score: 1

      >> ([58]User #347 Info) [59]http://arcterex.net/
      > and this, of course, is why I didn't call them > both newbies :)

      Pah - I can call you all newbies! ;-)

      Seriously though AbiWord is a great product, but does the open source world really need 3 word processors?

      Isn't this divertion of effort from all of their goals? Maybe 2 wordprocessors (OpenOffice's monolithic effort and a lightweigh alternative), but 3?

      Alex

  9. Playing catch up with MS is a losing game w/o corp by bourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think the AbiWord people are in a bind trying to catch up with something as complex (you can read that as crappy) as Word. That's a tough task for such a small group, and it's a thankless task (as their letter indicates has been the case) because you end up with luser unhappiness.

    On the other hand, OpenOffice seems to do a much better job with the Word documents (limited set, mind) that I've worked with. That's probably the result of the corporate heritage of Star/OpenOffice which meant that, for some time, serious resources were thrown at the problem, and someone dug in and did the crap work required.

    In short - AbiWord is getting crap because they bit off more than they can true, on a product whose user base tends to be whiny. They certainly have my condolences.

  10. Users that make an effort are rewarded by bunnyman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In my experience, there is a significant number of users that expect open source software developers to provide free product support. Product support is something from the commerical world. You paid for the software, so you are entitled to get help making it work for you. But open source software does not work that way. The users are expected to make an effort to read the documentation, to try to solve their own problems, and whenever possible, provide patches to fix bugs. You are not paying for the software with your money, so you, as a user, are not entitled to free support, or even software that works right. But when the software is good, and you make an effort to read documentation and solve your own problems, you will be rewarded with the knowledge and experience to solve your own problems again in the future.

    1. Re:Users that make an effort are rewarded by Computer! · · Score: 2

      Yeah, real insightful. No offense, but your post should be photocopied and handed out to any CIO thinking of going open-source at any level, from the server room to the desktop.

      If I offered free house painting, then slopped the wrong color all over your house and yard, and then said to you, "hey, it was free, don't complain", would I be much of a professional? Of course not, and that's why open source will ebb and flow, but never truly dominate modern software.

      --
      If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
    2. Re:Users that make an effort are rewarded by zangdesign · · Score: 2

      And you've just eliminated 95% of the user base for computers. Maybe it's wrong, but it's Reality. We've become accustomed to firing up the machine and it works (mostly) thanks to Windows. Most of Windows is (on average) pretty user-friendly. There are no references to command line utilities (except in extreme special cases) and there might as well not be a command line. This is the reality that users are used to - NOT digging around in source code and learning a computer language to make sense of what has gone wrong with some application.

      The biggest mistake in Open Source is trying to sell it to the common user when you know that they don't need the full power of Linux and never will. So your Joe Sixpack is going to buy Linux eventually and then the same problems that occur in Windows are going to occur even more in Linux (imagine how many people are going to leave their mail repeaters wide open or will accidentally expose it because they don't know not to).

      This is Reality. Get used to it.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    3. Re:Users that make an effort are rewarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess it's not really free then, is it? Unless, as the saying goes, your time has no value. Which apparantly is the case for many Linux zealots.

    4. Re:Users that make an effort are rewarded by William+Tanksley · · Score: 2

      That's an incredibly silly analogy; painting someone else's house doesn't line up with open source in any way I can see.

      Perhaps one could make the analogy that open source is making your own paint to paint your own house, and then giving away the paint (or the recipie). If someone complains about the color of their house, you tell them to complain to whoever selected the paint and color, not you.

      OTOH, if you DID paint their house for them, then you are to some degree responsible for the results -- and if you install Linux on someone's computer, you'd better be sure it'll meet their needs. But Linus isn't responsible if it doesn't; you are.

      -Billy

    5. Re:Users that make an effort are rewarded by Computer! · · Score: 1

      "That's an incredibly silly analogy; painting someone else's house doesn't line up with open source in any way I can see. "

      Just because the price of some OSS is $0.00 doesn't mean someone isn't selling it. The makers are hobbyists, but write products to be used beyond the hobbyist segment. If you design and sell a product, regardless of how cheap it is, it had better work well. Granted, no-one is showing up on anyone's doorstep, but their products are. Those products must meet at least minimal standards of use, or dissatisfied customers result. What the publisher of that letter, and the previous poster are asserting is that the user has no right to be dissatisfied, that if the product does not work to expectations, they shouldn't complain, but merely lower their expectations. Just as a product touted as a word processor had better properly process words, so should a painting service properly paint your house. OSS is not a recipe for anything, it is a product, and by definition, should do what is asked of it, and what it has been sold to do. What you're describing would be instructions for something. Source code is not a set of instructions for your use, but as much software as binaries are. The act of compilation completes delivery, not manufacture.

      --
      If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
    6. Re:Users that make an effort are rewarded by (void*) · · Score: 2

      What the publisher of that letter, and the previous poster are asserting is that the user has no right to be dissatisfied, that if the product does not work to expectations, they shouldn't complain, but merely lower their expectations.

      That depends on what those expectations are. If you expect integration on the level of MS Word, it may well be too diificult. But if the expectation is something that edits words on an GUI, has a clearly documented XML document format, has relatively few surprises and is customizable, and extensible, then I'll say Abiword already lives up to these so called low expectations! In constrast, MS Word can't even maintain 100% document compatibility between its own different versions. This I learnt from personal experience.
    7. Re:Users that make an effort are rewarded by William+Tanksley · · Score: 2

      Just because the price of some OSS is $0.00 doesn't mean someone isn't selling it. The makers are hobbyists, but write products to be used beyond the hobbyist segment.

      Hmm. My impression was that the makers were (perhaps) hobbyists, and wrote the product, like all hobbies, for the sake of writing it. Getting use "beyond the hobbyist segment" would be a marvelous bonus, but not the goal of any hobbyist.

      Other open source projects are NOT written for the sake of writing them; they aren't hobbies. They're written for the sake of usefulness to the author, and released because releasing doesn't hurt and can sometimes help (by getting other people to improve the product).

      I wasn't describing instructions, by the way, although I did mention a recipie; I was intending the analogy to be to paint, not the recipie for the paint. If I paint my house, you like the results, and I give you the paint I used, am I responsible for whether you choose to paint your house with that paint? Okay, if the paint damages your house and I didn't warn or disclaim, yes. But otherwise, NO.

      This little disclaimer looks like a great example of a hobbyist telling the truth: we're doing this because it's fun, not because it's useful. Don't expect any more from it, unless you can help contribute the "more". Now, after reading this I would still conclude that there are /some/ people working on AbiWord because they need it; those are the people I would trust to /want/ it to work.

      -Billy

    8. Re:Users that make an effort are rewarded by sydb · · Score: 2

      makers are hobbyists, but write products to be used beyond the hobbyist segment

      As I've said before under this article, the term 'hobbyist' is simply incorrect when talking about Free Software developers.

      Sure, perhaps some Free Software is developed by hobbyists idling away some emty hours which they might as well spend watching reruns of Seinfeld.

      But no-one uses their output because it stinks.

      On the other hand, creators of serious Free Software products like Linux, Emacs, Apache, gcc, Galeon, and so on, are not hobbyists. In some instances they are paid by companies. The rest, whom you would call hobbyists, are by and large on a mission. They are missionaries.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    9. Re:Users that make an effort are rewarded by Computer! · · Score: 2

      As I've said before under this article, the term 'hobbyist' is simply incorrect when talking about Free Software developers.

      So they're not doing something in their free time for pleasure? Just because someone is very good at their hobby does not instantly make them a professional. Conversely, being bad at something you do doesn't instantly grant hobbyist status. I'm not saying Free Software shouldn't exist, just that anyone who expects to use it for mission-critical tasks might think twice after reading a letter like that one.

      --
      If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
    10. Re:Users that make an effort are rewarded by sydb · · Score: 2

      So they're not doing something in their free time for pleasure?

      That's right, missionaries are doing it because they believe it's the right thing to do.

      Yes, there are some who do it 'for pleasure'. But, even for them, the word 'hobbyist' is a bad choice. Check out the Merriam Webster definition of 'hobby':

      a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation .

      The Abiword developers are not doing Abiword for relaxation!

      The word 'hobby' indicates a low level of seriousness. Your argument (and similar arguments of others here) depends on this nuance of meaning. I hereby declare it null and void.

      Amateur. There's a good word that's been destroyed by professionals trying to boost their profit margins. Einstein was an amateur scientist. Unfortunately (thanks to the professionals) many people take from the word 'amateur' the same sense as the word 'hobbyist'. It leaves us short of things to call people like him - so I call them missionaries, because they're on a mission.

      Of course, there are incompetent missionaries just as there are incompetent professionals. But missionaries are not about to give up. Professionals will leave you in the lurch when they smell profit elsewhere.

      I hope these ideas don't appear completely alien to you.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    11. Re:Users that make an effort are rewarded by Computer! · · Score: 2

      That's right, missionaries are doing it because they believe it's the right thing to do.

      According to dictionary.com, a missionary is:

      One who is sent on a mission, especially one sent to do religious or charitable work in a territory or foreign country

      Now, there's hardly three words in that definition that you could string together to apply to free software programmers! A missionary is not just someone on a mission, it is someone who is sent on a mission, usually for religious reasons. It's just that sort of argument that both glorifies not-that-noble parts of computer science (writing a word processor), and downplays the sacrifices of those risking their lives, and most certainly their comfort, for their faith. Anyone doing something in their spare time is a hobbyist. Even if they're "on a mission" (that phrase itself a bit of hyperbole used for everything from a professional athelete looking for a victory to someone's mom cleaning the kitchen).

      The Abiword developers are not doing Abiword for relaxation!

      You're right, they do it for something much more serious than that: fun. Seriously, ever put a ship-in-a-bottle together? A big jigsaw puzzle? Sometimes it's frustrating, but it's still a hobby, and until you make your living from it, you're a hobbyist. Just like the people building Battlebots, or re-enacting civil war battles.

      The word 'hobby' indicates a low level of seriousness.

      That letter indicated a low level of seriousness relative to a shrink-wrapped closed-source software shop, too. No big deal. In fact, that's what the letter was trying to say: "we can not be as serious about this as full-time developers could be,".

      Einstein was an amateur scientist.

      How did he make his living, then? From mowing lawns? Einstein did science for a living, therefore he was a professional scientist. Just like monks are professional clergy, even though they don't draw a salary. Sometimes monks are missionaries too, but that's beside the point.

      But missionaries are not about to give up. Professionals will leave you in the lurch when they smell profit elsewhere.

      That's a broad statement. If missionaries never gave up, the Spanish Inquisition would still be going on, and you'd have a few restraining orders out against Jehovah's Witnesses. Professionals are often not allowed to leave you in a lurch, because they have made a contract with you for their services. Free software programmers can leave just because they get bored.

      I hope these ideas don't appear completely alien to you.

      ...

      --
      If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
    12. Re:Users that make an effort are rewarded by sydb · · Score: 2

      A missionary is not just someone on a mission, it is someone who is sent on a mission

      Merriam webster disgrees. Missionary: a person undertaking a mission and especially a religious mission.

      You should be able to see the parallel between religion and the feelings that drive people to write Free Software. Think of all the times you've read the phrase "linux zealot" in this forum.

      Anyway, I wasn't trying to say that "missionary" was the perfect word to describe Free Software developers. I admit it's not. It's a damn sight better than "hobbyist" though.

      You're right, they do it for something much more serious than that: fun

      "Fun" can be interpreted in many different ways. Some people do they're paying dayjob for "fun" (Bill G doesn't have to work any more, does he?). Saying that you are doing something for fun is not the same as saying you are a "hobbyist".

      until you make your living from it, you're a hobbyist

      So Einstein was a hobbyist. And so's Bill Gates. Yes, he gets paid, no it's not his "living", he already has that.

      That letter indicated a low level of seriousness relative to a shrink-wrapped closed-source software shop, too.

      You've never read an EULA, then, or attempted to get support for shrink-wrapped software.

      Einstein did science for a living, therefore he was a professional scientist.

      Please, at least get your facts right. Einstein was a patent clerk. He did his science in his "spare time".

      If missionaries never gave up, the Spanish Inquisition would still be going on

      As I've said, I know the word "missionary" is not perfect. The word "amateur" is in fact the correct word, but thanks to the sustained badmouthing by "professionals", the word now has the same connotations as your "hobbyist". So I still think "missionary" is the more fitting title.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
  11. Tell users what they expect from them? by Xunker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't say I got that from the letter, but it is nice to see developers standing up from themselves. Especially in this day of "Free Software can compete with Pay software" it's great seeing someone telling it like it is. My favourite sentement:


    Microsoft ... can spend a fortune on getting good documentation written, new features, debugging, installation process made smooth and generally polish the thing till it shines. In comparison, AbiWord development is driven solely by a small group's volunteer effort. We work on AbiWord after work and in the weekends when "life" doesn't demand our attention elsewhere. We do it for fun. (emphesis mine)

    The problem here is expecting too much all the time. Many of the more visible free software projects have made huge leaps in the past, and to many users that then makes them expect that sort of delivery to be the norm. If you deliver the best most of the time, it's expected all of the time. And as a developer, I'm flattered that users belive in a product and like it so much that the want to be able use it better. But as much as we love code, we also love just relaxing after work sometimes. The Abiword dev's want the software to get as good as it can be, but they also need to have time to work at their day jobs, cut the grass and walk the dog.

    Perhaps in the future people will start paying for "free" software. That day, my friends, will be a glorious day.

    --
    Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
    1. Re:Tell users what they expect from them? by linzeal · · Score: 1
      Perhaps in the future people will start paying for "free" software. That day, my friends, will be a glorious day.

      If people here on slashdot don't use the paypal donation system setup on numerous open source projects' pages, than who does?

    2. Re:Tell users what they expect from them? by ryantate · · Score: 1

      Perhaps in the future people will start paying for "free" software. That day, my friends, will be a glorious day.

      the next time i need to point out some of the failures of the free software model, i will use a link to your post. you have at once argued that people should not expect free software to be of the same quality as commercial software and that software development is better off when people pay for it.

      and you were modded up to '5' for this by your peers in the open source community.

      you have made Microsoft's points far better than Craig Mundie or anyone else at the company could have.

    3. Re:Tell users what they expect from them? by swillden · · Score: 2

      the next time i need to point out some of the failures of the free software model, i will use a link to your post

      The next time I need to point out why it is that the FSF spends so much time distinguishing between the different meanings of "free" as applied to software, I will use a link to your post.

      Software development is unquestionably better off when people pay for it, because it gives the developers more freedom to focus on it. Software development is also better off when other people can grab the source and hack their own features into it so that they're not dependent on the "official" software developers.

      The two things are by no means mutually exclusive.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Tell users what they expect from them? by Xunker · · Score: 2

      ...you have at once argued that people should not expect free software to be of the same quality as commercial software...

      Really? I'd be tickled pink if you would show me where I said that.

      In fact, what I said is that people sould expect free software to be on the same level as non-free. I also said that it woudld get there but there is a chance it would get there at a much slower pace due to the fact that there is very little in the way of a paid development model and thus cannot throw the manpower that companies who require product prepayment can.

      If people didn't expect quality, no one would ever attempt to deliver it.

      When developers can work on something as their "day job", the software gets progressed quicker, it't that simple -- because then people can give themselves over to developement as a job instead of a hobby.

      "Free" software means many things to many people. To me it means you should pay for software out of a measure of it's usefulness to you (and, of course, your ability to pay).

      --
      Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
  12. Re:RPM Doesn't work? FIX IT.... by snoozerdss · · Score: 1

    I agree with you, if you don't like something then fix it yourself. After all this is open source. But I think the point he was trying to make is that most people don't want to be bothered with source code they just want a program to work. If you want your product to reach a wide group of people then you have to fix these "little things" that most slashdot users don't mind doing themselves. Joe sixpack just wants to install a program and run it. If he can't do that then he'll use something else. This is one of the downfalls of some open source projects.

    --
    Snoozer.
  13. Hurray for Abiword by blkros · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These guys make a great product, and put it out for free (beer and speech). They work hard for no money, and this letter is right on the money. If I don't pay for something, I'm not gonna expect tech support, or changes on my schedule. No one else should, either. It's like someone cooking up a meal for you, and serving it for free, and you picking it apart. This ain't Burger King, baby. If you want to have it your way, you need to help out and be patient. Hurray for Abisource making sure that people know where they stand

    --
    Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
    1. Re: Hurray for Abiword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought about posting the comment to which I'm responding just for the guaranteed karma boost but the argument presented just doesn't hold water.

      The truth is you can't have it both ways. You can't demand to be taken seriously as alternative to Microsoft and then describe yourself as a "group of overworked hobbyists" when people complain.

      This does not advance the Linux cause.

    2. Re: Hurray for Abiword by William+Tanksley · · Score: 2

      In this letter, regardless of what's been said in the past, the group is asking people to readjust their expectations. They're not demanding that people take them "seriously as an alternative to Microsoft;" on the contrary, they're asking that people think less of them.

      And about advancing the Linux cause, isn't truth and honesty a little more effective in the long run than false expectations? And if it isn't, who cares about the Linux Cause?

      -Billy

    3. Re: Hurray for Abiword by geekster · · Score: 1

      Exactly, but it's not a product. It's a piece of software, pure and simple, nothing more. It's a another way of thinking, a way that I think many people don't get.

      It's like when people say that there is no cost in Free software, that's not entirely true. It doesn't take money but it takes pure and simple brain power, passion. Passion for learning and for making an effort in what you do. I know that's a bit too much of you just wanna be a user. But then use, and if you don't like it don't use. If you want it differnt then make it different. Be a part of something. Give something back.

    4. Re: Hurray for Abiword by geekster · · Score: 1

      NOOOOO. I accidently hit submit instead of preview. Now my raw unedited post is out in the wild alone. I give up, no more posting for me today.

    5. Re: Hurray for Abiword by sydb · · Score: 2

      describe yourself as a "group of overworked hobbyists" when people complain.

      The only people who have called the Abiword developers 'hobbyists' are people posting to this Slashdot thread. The developers don't call themselves hobbyists, they call themselves volunteers.

      "Hobbyist" is a demeaning term to apply to people who are devoting passion and large swathes of their time to a cause they obviously believe in. Hobbies are done for relaxation and to pass otherwise empty time, and that's fine.

      But the Abiword developers are not hobbyists. They have a mission - to create a Free, cross-platform word processor. Therefore they are missionaries.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
  14. In Other Words by quakeaddict · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ....you get what you pay for.

    Guess what, the general public doesn't want excuses. Corporate IT folks dont want excuses.

    They just want to get their work done.

    The general public simply does not care that a small group of developers spends an amazing amount of time developing Abiword.

    They just want it to work, and they want to call someone when it breaks. They want some hope that someone will fix it or can tell them how to fix it, or more likely, how to do the same thing in a slightly different way.

    If Linux wants to be on alot of desktops then this type of memo isn't going to get it too far.

    --
    I'm still working on a clever footer.
    1. Re:In Other Words by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Many of the projects would be willing to supply personalized support for a suitable retainer fee. For enough, you can even get your particular gripe moved to the top of the "must fix" queue.

      Or, of course, you could do it yourself.

      AbiSource doesn't gripe me. The ones that gripe me are the ones that charge, and still produce software that doesn't work (on my system). It's worse when they doen't even have a decent way to report bugs.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:In Other Words by reaper20 · · Score: 2

      Guess what, the general public doesn't want excuses. Corporate IT folks dont want excuses.

      This is a fact regardless of whether the software is OSS or commercial.

      When MS Office crashes its not like my PHB can call someone at Microsoft to complain about it and expect great customer support. Do they really listen anyway? Do they have to? No, the EULA makes sure that they are not liable.

      Yes, with OSS you get what you pay for, with commercial software, you don't get what you pay for either.

      Abisource = free, community support.
      Word = Expensive, expensive support, which makes you go get community support anyway.

    3. Re:In Other Words by __past__ · · Score: 2

      Guess what, there are developers out there who couldn't care less
      about what general public and corporate managers want. They care about
      what *they* want - that is a huge difference, and IMHO the key point
      in the success of Free Software.

      The "Free" in Free Software is actually not only about licensing
      issues. That's the part about it that's nice for the users, but FS is
      also about the freedom of the programmers themselves. These guys code
      because they love it, not because some suit won't pay them
      otherwise. That's a huge difference, and this egoism does indeed lead
      to better code. That's why most open source/ Free Software products
      are not the buggy bloated pieces of crap you you would expect from the
      average commercial software company, they can afford to write code
      that is simply *right*, and furthermore *elegant*, instead of caring
      about marketing.

      Of course, after The Hype[tm] there are loads of buggy bloated pieces
      of crap that happen to be open source/ free software - but most of
      them (think of OpenOffice and Mozilla) are free only in terms of
      licensing - the programmers are mostly hired by some "evil" company
      (be it AOL/Netscape, Sun or any hip dot-bomb) and about as free as the
      COBOL grinder at the bank next door.

      Heck, I really think now that users of Free Software are not
      necessarily developers themselves any more, one should really start to
      think more about the freedom of the people *writing* software, not
      just their licensees!

    4. Re:In Other Words by pdqlamb · · Score: 2
      ...you get what you pay for.

      Guess what, the general public doesn't want excuses. Corporate IT folks dont want excuses.

      They just want to get their work done.

      Then pay for it. Don't make excuses. Either fix it yourself, pay some one to fix whatever problems you have, or go whine somewhere else. Use some other WP. If it costs money and requires another OS that costs more, pay up. You just want to get your work done, right?

      I'd suggest you go buy computers with everything you need pre-installed. You're going to have a hell of a time getting Linux installed on 100*N boxes, and then installing AbiWord or anything else on them all. (Although some folks invest the time to learn what they're doing, and replicate clusters in 15-20 minutes per box, it doesn't sound like you want to.) It could be worse. You might have to install Windows and Office on all those boxes yourself.

    5. Re:In Other Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a Linux newbie, and am finding more and more that support for the things I don't know how to do is really easy to get. From what I have found, the same thing goes for all other Open Source. Once you find the big sites, like Linuxnewbie, they point you to the message boards, which take you in the right direction for your particular situation. The problem is those who refuse to trust people that aren't being paid to give them support.

    6. Re:In Other Words by iabervon · · Score: 2

      ....you get what you pay for.

      And MicroSoft is cheap at only a penny for each bug...

      But seriously, the only thing that makes sense is to determine if various packages have the features you want, and then determine which costs the least. If you want only a small set of features, then go for a program that has just the features you want.

      AbiWord does have support, as they mention. It's just that it doesn't work over the phone. The people doing it are probably easier to insult, due to doing it just because they want to, but they're also only motivated by solving your problem, so they care more, assuming you're pleasent about your problem.

    7. Re:In Other Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should they care about more people picking up and using linux? I mean maybe some of them do but in the end I expect most of the developers want to make something they themselves would use and when its done well who cares what the pesky users want. Leeches shouldn't complain about what they get for free.

    8. Re:In Other Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about why Microsoft ships service packs for MS Office (considering they aren't legally required to do so):

      1) They do it for fun and because they love you.
      2) They do it because they've got big corporate customers breathing down their necks about bugs.

      So, in short, you are up your ass. You pay commercial software companies so that they have to listen to you bitch. (And Micrsoft is really a cheap example anyway. IBM will analyze crashdumps for you, for example, even for their crappy word processor.)

    9. Re:In Other Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just want it to work, and they want to call someone when it breaks. They want some hope that someone will fix it or can tell them how to fix it, or more likely, how to do the same thing in a slightly different way.

      I hope you're not implying that Microsoft fills any of these roles? When your program breaks, you can't call Microsoft, unless maybe you have a multimillion dollar support contract with them. And in general when stuff breaks, they don't fix it.

    10. Re:In Other Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. The performance bar (CBP) gets set by WORD & WP, and AW does not get to the bar ... a professional user cannot tolerate a significantly underperforming product at ANY price - even free-as-in-beer.

    11. Re:In Other Words by Nygard · · Score: 1

      If Linux wants to be on alot of desktops then this type of memo isn't going to get it too far.

      Danger! Anthropomorphism dead ahead!

      "Linux" isn't an animate being. It doesn't want anything.

      Even "The Linux Community" is a just a convenient label for a large group of individuals who happen to share an attribute. (And a relatively unimportant one at that.) It is a mistake to assign the ambitions some members of that group to every member of that group.

      Each and every developer, user, and contributor is free to work under their own terms. Nobody can force the Abiword developers to work more hours or provide more end-user support. They'd just stop.

      At the same time, if you are really committed to the idea of commerical-level product support for end-users, you are free to start a company, fork the code, and have your own Abiword.

      --
      "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
  15. low expectations by jodonn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    We seem to have the opposite problem--expectations that are too low. I work as a software consultant doing J2EE applications. Often when we find ourselves dealing with a client who needs a small-scale web application done, we lay out their options for servers and pre-built solutions and they automatically reject all the free ones.

    For some reason they have concerns about reliability. They'd rather pay $30K per CPU for BEA WebLogic then download JBoss for nothing, even if they only plan on supporting 100 users. I don't claim to understand it myself, but in corporate circles open source software has this stigma attached to it.

    1. Re:low expectations by zangdesign · · Score: 1

      It probably has to do with the adage "You get what you pay for." People don't trust free because on the whole (outside the computer world) free is equivalent to "crap". If you pay real money, then you have the expectation of real service and at the very least, when things go to hell, you can sue someone.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    2. Re:low expectations by reaper20 · · Score: 2

      You hit the nail right on the head. OR, they think no alternatives exist. People still think that in order to use email, you need Exchange and Outlook, or that writing webpages without Frontpage is impossible.

      Mention IMAP/LDAP and they do not believe you. Show them Apache, and they think its a frickin' office joke. They look at you like

      "If this stuff is so great, then how come we're not using it?"

      "I dunno buddy, you tell me...."

    3. Re:low expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solution: Charge a thousand bucks per CPU for JBoss. You get rich, your client gets peace of mind.

    4. Re:low expectations by Chuck+Milam · · Score: 5, Insightful
      People don't trust free because on the whole (outside the computer world) free is equivalent to "crap". If you pay real money, then you have the expectation of real service and at the very least, when things go to hell, you can sue someone.

      The funny thing is, people think that paying for software gives them the right to "sue someone." Um, nope. Does the following look familiar? It should. It's attached to just about every commercial software package license agreeement:

      "...PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
      We've all see this verbiage before--Microsoft uses it, even. But, what's really interesting is where I got this legal verbage from: The GPL. At least the Open-Source community is up-front and honest about what you can expect. Sue someone. Hrumph.
    5. Re:low expectations by gol64738 · · Score: 1

      its just like the cabbage patch doll theory.
      sell the doll for $5, and hardly anyone will buy it.
      sell the doll for $150, and everyone wants one.

      bottom line: i didn't buy a cabbage patch doll. i make linux and OSS work for me and my projects.

    6. Re:low expectations by macom · · Score: 1
      >and they automatically reject all the
      >free ones.

      We had a similar situation recently, our design included several well known opensource java libraries. The design was taken to another consultant and the question we got back was suggested not using the opensource libraries as there was no support.

      Our reply was as it is opensource, we can support it for code maintenance and we can be contracted to add any further functionality to the library that the client needs.

      The benefits to the client are obvious, if they dont like our work, they can get another contractor to support the library. Added to that there are no developer seat fees the client has to pay nor any runtime fees, they are way ahead and way empowered.

      macom

    7. Re:low expectations by mattecc · · Score: 1

      You couldn't be more incorrect if you tried. It is not that company A buys a product from company B with the notion that if it sucks A will sue B. A buys from B because they know that if B's product stinks, then all the people working for company B will be out on the street. Therefore the people at B have a motivation for making the product not stink that the people at company A understand, and this gives A confidence.

      People working on open source have no monetary motivation for continuing to work on it. They *could* give it up at any time with the only loss being that their "baby" goes left unfinished. It also works with respect to positive reinforcement. Company A can't promise to buy a lot of copies to encourse Company B to add feature X. It is a question of businesses and open-source people not speaking the same language.

    8. Re:low expectations by K0R$+h4x0r+ru1z · · Score: 0


      If you pay $$, you get a warranty.

    9. Re:low expectations by hobbs · · Score: 1
      People don't trust free because on the whole (outside the computer world) free is equivalent to "crap". If you pay real money, then you have the expectation of real service and at the very least, when things go to hell, you can sue someone.
      The funny thing is, people think that paying for software gives them the right to "sue someone." Um, nope. Does the following look familiar? It should. It's attached to just about every commercial software package license agreeement: [insert standard disclaimer]

      My guess is you've never seen a contract written for one of these 5 or 6 figure sales. You include the above clause, and they put in all the extra clauses that mean they don't have to pay unless they are satisfied - and they really won't pay (lots of cases for that). Sometimes they will sue you anyway, standard disclaimer or no, because in the US legal system, it usually comes down to the best paid lawyer(s) win.

    10. Re:low expectations by RickHunter · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly. The big difference is that, if I'm paying $500+ for a word processor (Microsoft Office), I expect it to be a fscking word processor. If it does not operate as advertised, I want to sue the person who said it did. Thus, said statement is a very bad thing.

      OTOH, its reasonable for a GPLed or BSD licensed piece of software. If you're getting it for free, what do you have to complain about?

    11. Re:low expectations by greenrd · · Score: 1
      You couldn't be more incorrect if you tried.

      S/he was correct. S/he was disproving the parent post's claim that "with proprietary software you have someone to sue". Nothing more, nothing less.

      Company A can't promise to buy a lot of copies to encourse Company B to add feature X.

      No, but they can commission company B to add feature X. What's the problem?

      It is a question of businesses and open-source people not speaking the same language.

      Funny, opensource.org was started to talk about free software in more businesslike terms.

    12. Re:low expectations by edinho · · Score: 1

      Everyone together now: What warranty?

    13. Re:low expectations by Daniel · · Score: 2

      Company A can't promise to buy a lot of copies to encourse Company B to add feature X.

      I'm sure many free software developers would be willing to accept payment in exchange for changing/accelerate their development schedule.

      Daniel

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
    14. Re:low expectations by nmos · · Score: 1
      People working on open source have no monetary motivation for continuing to work on it. They *could* give it up at any time with the only loss being that their "baby" goes left unfinished.

      So what? Propriatary software companies drop products all the time or get bought out by a competitor who just wants to kill the product.

      As for company A promising to buy a lot of a product if Company B adds a particular feature, I'd just say that it takes a much bigger Company A to influence any of the major sofware makers than to simply hire a programmer to add feature X themselves (or bribe one of the existing developers to do it).
    15. Re:low expectations by K0R$+h4x0r+ru1z · · Score: 0

      Odd silence to your request. Here's one example.

      Overview
      Sun Microsystems offers comprehensive warranty services to its end-user customers and to its product resellers. Under Sun's general warranty policy, equipment is warranted to be free from defects in workmanship or material for the applicable warranty period. Software is warranted to conform to published specifications for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of delivery. As of August 1, 1999, Sun began implementing a new Global Warranty Program to supercede all local product warranties with new, globally consistent terms for our customers.

      Please refer to Sun's price list or your sales agreement contract for exact terms and conditions concerning the warranty offered.

      Type of Service: Description of Service: Contact Locations:
      Warranty Services System failures, during warranty term of the product or system. Sun Solution Centers
      Online service requests are also available to SunSpectrum customers.
      Customer Return
      For Credit (CRFC) Non-defective sales return issues: misquotes, booking errors, shipping problems or incorrect product shipments. Sun Solution Centers
      In the US/Canada, use auto-reply E-mail or call 1-800-23-RETURN.

      Requesting Warranty Services
      Customers are asked to provide the following information when requesting Warranty or CRFC services:

      Description of problem
      Customer name, address, and contact information
      Description of product and/or system configuration
      Product Identification: Product Number, Model Number, Part Number
      For Software Products: Original P.O. Number and/or Date-of-Purchase
      For Hardware Products: Product Serial Number
      For Corporate or Passport Accounts: Purchase Agreement and/or Passport Agreement Numbers

      Global Warranty Program
      With today's rapidly expanding global economy, multinational corporation have increased requirements for consistent, global warranty coverage from their systems vendors.

      Sun is pleased to announce that effective August 1, 1999, a uniform, globally consistent warranty offering for Sun products has been established to meet our customers' needs. Both Sun and its partners will be engaged to fulfill these global warranty terms, subject to the rollout schedule outlined below.

      Global Warranty Features Matrix by Product
      Global Warranty Term Definitions

      Support Services

      Support Services: Sun Support Programs and SunSpectrum Services
      Information about Sun Global Services: Global Service Programs
      SunSpectrum Pac Warranty Upgrade option is available for purchase with selected product models.

    16. Re:low expectations by K0R$+h4x0r+ru1z · · Score: 0

      Thats ridiculous. Oh, you got it from the GPL. Why don't you look at some warranties. Extensive no, but they are there. It's good you can only feed the fire massive on this site, as opposed to somewhere that mattered, no?

    17. Re:low expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did anyone else understand what this guy is trying to say?

    18. Re:low expectations by sydb · · Score: 2

      Software is warranted to conform to published specifications for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of delivery.

      OK, one company provides a warranty. Let's see the 'published specifications' before we take your argument to mean anything other than 'such a warranty exists'. Wan't we really want to see is, 'and it's worth the paper it's written on.'

      And why only 90 days? Is the installation media subject to bit decay? Or perhaps they know that it might take a bit longer than 90 days for people to realise that the software is defective (according to published specifications).

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    19. Re:low expectations by juliao · · Score: 1
      The real problem about free software is that the message we send isn't clear!

      We cannot complain that people don't take our products seriously and at the same time tell them we can't offer tech support!

      When you buy commercial, you get a few things in return: the software, someone to complain when it doesn't work, someone to call over and make it work, somewhere to go for training, and so on.

      When you choose non-commercial, you get the software. Until we have the rest of the package, we will never be considered a serious option by corporate buyers.

    20. Re:low expectations by DataCannibal · · Score: 1

      This stigma is not apparent among the Telcos. Our TCS product is attracting a lot of interest from the biggest Telcos on the planet in fact some have already signed up. And not just Telcos, some companies whose hardware is doing a good job in Afghanistan are also interested. These are guys who know reliability,

      www.prismtechnologies.com for info on TCS

      --
      No but, yeah but, no but...
  16. Re:RPM Doesn't work? FIX IT.... by HiThere · · Score: 2

    You're pretty much right.

    OTOH, it would be appropriate to replace non-working rpm's with a tarball. And a list of dependancies would certainly be a real useful feature. ...

    That said, I haven't checked. Perhaps they do have a tarball. Perhaps the comment about non-working rpm's was an overstatemtent. And maybe it works on most people's systems (though in that case one wouldn't expect it to cause a full mailing list).
    .

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  17. Re:Playing catch up with MS is a losing game w/o c by waitdyahoo.com · · Score: 1

    OK, lets try this again, I crashed out of my 1st post.

    I also see why the people that make Abiword are trying to make popele understand that it is not a finished product yet.

    I do not agree with them saiying that it will never be as polished of a product as word.. Word is by far a bug free product.. With Abiword what I would do if I were on the project is make what works and what people use work VERY well and take out the features that are not used..

    MSword is full of blaot, espically the newest versions. Don't let Abiword get that way, keep it a small, fast, MSword compatable word processor, not a CLOAN. When one thing works perfectly get then slowly add more features as people request them. Ket it as low on bugs as possable and Show MS that a program can be made with out bugs all over the place.

    But what ever you do, don't give up to MS and say there will alwyas be better or you just as well stop now..

  18. The ABIword java port will fix this issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Java is the way to go for ABIword - less bug.

    1. Re:The ABIword java port will fix this issues by Apostata · · Score: 1


      Java is the WHAT?

      Yeah, just what AbiWord needs: gushing memory leaks and hellish library conflicts.

      --

      This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
  19. Re:RPM Doesn't work? FIX IT.... by phliar · · Score: 2
    I think the point he was trying to make is that most people don't want to be bothered with source code they just want a program to work.
    Indeed; the corollary is that if they "just want a program to work" there are lots of those out there. Of course they might crash all the time, or they might actually cost money.

    Life is full of trade-offs. If you want to use free software because of all its plusses - robustness, freedom to hack it, lack of money, whatever - you might have to put up with some pain like building from source. (Although it could be argued that with a complete set of development tools that every free operating system - all the Linux distributions, all the BSDs - comes with, building from source is no pain at all.)

    Too often we forget that being in the free software world, whether as a user or a developer, involves a slightly different set of rules from the Micros**t world.

    --
    Unlimited growth == Cancer.
  20. Right on! by burtonator · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wish more Open Source projects would do this.

    I mean it is great that Open Source projects exist, and they really help out a lot of people but it is important that those who are benefited reciprocate.

    It is really a tragedy of the commons.

    With successful Open Source projects like Linux, you have TONS of companies which base billions of dollars of business on these products.

    Yet at the same time the Engineers have NO way of making money just by writing code.

    The only way they can pay the bills is by joining a larger company like IBM that can act as a patron so that they can continue their work.

    There are many examples of this:

    - Linus works for Transmeta
    - Alan Cox works for RedHat

    ... etc

    What we really need to see happen is the users directly supporting the developers of these products.

    Instead of downloading AbiWord for free. Why not donate $2-$5 through PayPal.

    This would provide the ability for a few developers to work FULL TIME on AbiWord (or whatever) without having to worry about corporate bias.

    They would be directly working for the client instead of for an intermediary (like IBM or Transmeta).

    Freenet is doing this

    I just wish it would catch on...

    1. Re:Right on! by infiniti99 · · Score: 2

      Instead of downloading AbiWord for free. Why not donate $2-$5 through PayPal.

      Exactly. Even if you were going to donate $100, it would still be better than paying $100 for some closed source software. The advantage here is not only do you get what you want, but you are furthering a cause. You are ensuring that AbiWord will get more attention so that more people can enjoy a free product.

      An interesting license I saw on the web someplace (sorry, I don't remember where) was called the "Ransom License". The idea being, that if enough donations are made to reach the ransom amount (say $1000), then then it becomes free software. I don't know if any unfinished software could carry enough weight to do this, but maybe completed programs could. The important point is that the software remains free for all time. Like a public work.

      Anyway, all I am trying to say is that it is a good thing to pay the programmers when the end result is free software. If all the billions of dollars spent on Microsoft software was instead spent funding open source programmers, I can assure you that they would create products with the same (or better) functionality. The difference? They would all be free software. In a perfect world, the government would pay all programmers to create free works (didn't governments do this for famous painters and artists in the past?) for all the citizens to enjoy. This is how development should be done, and paypal donations are a good first step.

      -Justin

    2. Re:Right on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, in the end, we're all camwhores ... :)

  21. It's open source right.... by BLAG-blast · · Score: 1
    A letter explaining what they expect from their user community.

    If it's open source then you can only "expect" your users to follow the license. Of course the Abi guys haven't put up a list of demands for there community, they have put up some guild lines for there project. Wouldn't have made a slashdot items out of it, but I like to see Abi getting lots of press.

    --
    M0571y H@rml355.
  22. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Are you sure we're talking about the same thing? Abiword isn't a person (and able to have sex) but just a bit of software.

    Perhaps you know a person named Abiword. If so I can understand your confusion!

  23. There Must Be Higher Excpectations by KidSock · · Score: 1, Troll

    I don't believe this for a second. Word is complex, but I've looked at the Microsoft Word 97 Binary File Format spec (and spent a good week starting to write my own parser) and I don't see the big deal. This stuff is not that hard. Parsing it is actually pretty easy (yes Werner, you were right, a yacc parser is useless). The hard part has nothing to do with Word. These guys are trying to write a word processor which is more about rendering and efficient editing than how it serializes it's state. But there going about it in completely the wrong way. The're trying to build a word processor around the Word format. Separate your peas and carrots guys. Don't limit your exectations to the abilities of Word. These guys should be exploring the proven priciples behind rendering and editors, find a good data structure to represent a document and then deserialize and serialize documents to and from that data structure (a tree) into whatever format you want include .doc, .ps, .html, ....

    1. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by dominator · · Score: 5, Informative

      Huh?

      Ok, I'm the author/maintainer of wvWare - another MSWord parsing thing (www.wvware.com) and lead developer/maintainer of AbiWord. What are you talking about?

      AbiWord isn't trying to build a word processor around any particular format. We have an extremely generic import/export mechanism that I co-authored, so that input and output can be trivially done to/from any format. We actually support more unique formats on the market than most common commercial word processors...

      But import/export is a very boring and uniteresting part of a Word Processor. All of the interesting stuff goes on down in our formatting and rendering classes. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

      And by the way, the MSWord document format is insanely difficult for mere mortals to understand. If you are indeed serious about this, come help out Werner and myself on wv or wv2 instead of re-duplicating our efforts.

      Please mod this troll down.

      Dom Lachowicz
      cinamod@hotmail.com
      AbiWord and wvWare Maintainer/Lead Developer

    2. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by JabberWokky · · Score: 2
      While I'm not saying that the abiword *aren't* doing that, I do know that the KWord folk (who are a bit behind, but have a interface metaphor that I like better, IMO) *are* going that route. The native format is a gziped tar of a DTD and XML file.

      The problem, I believe is not only the fact that that documentation that you read wrong at many subtle points, but also that there *is* no possible "correct" documentation. Word files from version to version are not 100% forward compatable, little bugs in the Word code propagate oddities, and some things are "it does it this was on days it feels like it, and this way otherwise". Microsoft works with internal competition, and two teams with divergent code bases will get merged, and the pros and cons show in Word. Read some of the (surprisingly candid) Word for Macintosh team essays, and you'll realize that they can't even get it 100% right - and they have *full* access to all code and documentation, as well as the people who wrote it!

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    3. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by hub · · Score: 2
      Conerning file formats, I encourage you to dig a little deeper than what you seems to have. OK, there is the spec you give us a link to. We know about it, an wvWare use it as reference (wvWare is our Word import back-end). But in this area there is theory and application.


      Theory is that you have some doc (hint, now you have to signe an agreement with Microsoft to get the actual doc for latest versions like XP, otherwise you get nothing). This doc is here, is big and is hard to understand.


      Practice is that given that doc, you try to implement something. Fine the doc looks usable and complete. You code you parser, then when time comes, you test it. You start fidding your parser with sample files and start to find that it does not work: the doc is just plain WRONG (in fact you already discovered inconsistency while throwing up the implementation).


      So please, before predending that this is just a park ball, just do it. And if you really want to work on such beast, either give a hand to Werner or to us (we are joining our effort on the problem).


      And my recent experience in this area is just mainaining and improving AbiWord RTF importer. RTF is documented in a spec written by.... Microsoft.

      --
      Hub
    4. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by pdqlamb · · Score: 2

      I think I just heard KidSock volunteer to write the MSWord 97 import/export module for you.

    5. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't want to hear your lame excuses, you open-source hippie. Just make the fucking thing work right. NOW!

    6. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by John_Booty · · Score: 2

      Word is complex, but I've looked at the Microsoft Word 97 Binary File Format [redbrick.dcu.ie] spec (and spent a good week starting to write my own parser) and I don't see the big deal

      I'll admit that I haven't seen or worked with the spec, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. But from what I've read aout it... yes, the spec isn't too complex, but there's a lot of little gray areas in it and the actual implementation of the spec in Word itself is quirky, making it a bitch to emulate exactly.

      In other words, supporting the Word spec isn't too hard, but getting a complex Word doc to render the same way in your app as it does in Word is hard.

      Could someone qualified comment on this please? :)

      --

      OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
    7. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      Need a solution? Abiword is much nicer than the StarOffice's one.

      I say, hire a few developpers and put a $29.95 price on AbiWord. Why are you giving it away for free? Sooner or later you'll realise that you need more than an average income to accomplish your dreams.

      I'll be one of the first to buy it.

    8. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      And by the way, the MSWord document format is insanely difficult for mere mortals to understand.

      I'm curious about this part, because I often see contradictory claims. MS and the previous poster claim that the 1997 Word spec is completely open and published. Does the difficulty lie in merely interpreting this spec (i.e. it's all there, but hard to implement), or does it lie in undocumented stuff that has to be reverse-engineered? Or is the 97 spec not the problem at all, and catching up to the Word 2000 file format is the major problem?

    9. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Word is complex, but I've looked at the
      > Microsoft Word 97 Binary File Format
      > [redbrick.dcu.ie] spec (and spent a good week
      > starting to write my own parser) and I don't
      > see the big deal. This stuff is not that hard.

      Cool! Where can we download the code?

      1. The spec is not complete. It will get you 80-90% of the way. After that, good luck.
      2. All versions of the format (especially Word 95 + 97) are different.
      3. MSFT won't release details for the format of more recent versions of the product - it waits until everybody has upgraded to the new product, then releases the spec to the older format, says it's helping out developers everywhere, and calls it a day.

      I worked on some Word translation code once. What a nightmare. Just remember the adage: somewhere in a building at Microsoft, there are 10-100 dudes working to do the same thing you, one person, are trying to accomplish.

    10. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Interesting" stuff in your formatting and rendering classes?

      Well, developers always do find broken implementations, bugs and howlers more intersting than functioning, usable software.

      You loser. Fuck off.

    11. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by haggar · · Score: 1

      (here goes my karma. Oh well...)

      As much as I admire your work, I don't think this sort of attitude is conducive to more help:

      If you are indeed serious about this, come help out Werner and myself on wv or wv2 instead of re-duplicating our efforts.

      Please mod this troll down.


      How can you seriously expect someone to help you, while you are asking other people to mod him/her down? Doesn't that seem a bit belligerant to you?

      Don't letyour ego get in the way of your goals, and you'll accomplish much more, and will be more respected.

      --
      Sigged!
    12. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the guy was talking about himself.

    13. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by Cyberfox · · Score: 1

      Greetings,
      Fair warning, I'm mostly talking out of my hat, from the 'user' perspective. (I'm a developer, but I've never looked at the binary word formats.) When I save as a 'Word 97' file in Word 2000, it actually saves in the plain-text RTF format.

      This is, of course, not the binary format used by Word 2K, or even (I believe) Word '97. It's weird, but that's how it's working right now.

      Sure, that RTF file is easy to parse/read, but that's not a format that will be useful at all if you want to interact with Word2K for example... (I know nothing about Office XP.)

      -- Cyberfox!

    14. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by steveha · · Score: 2

      How can you seriously expect someone to help you, while you are asking other people to mod him/her down?

      He doesn't seriously expect help from KidSock. KidSock clearly didn't study the design for Abiword; he clearly didn't know what he was talking about; yet he felt qualified to say what the AbiWord developers should and should not be doing. Guess what, they are already doing those things, and didn't need KidSock to tell them to do it.

      Don't letyour ego get in the way of your goals, and you'll accomplish much more, and will be more respected.

      They have already accomplished so much with AbiWord. They already have my respect.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    15. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by blif · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I concur with Dom. I used to work on a product (EndNote) that had to read Word Doc's, and it was by far the most complicated format I have ever seen. And if the doc was fast-saved? Forget about it! (Of course, we were modifying the file, which is harder).

    16. Re:There Must Be Higher Excpectations by KidSock · · Score: 1, Troll

      AbiWord isn't trying to build a word processor around any particular format.

      Crap. You just pick apart each format and mush it into whatever form you need at that particular moment. If you had an internal tree representation acting as a common denominator for all serialized forms you could load one format and save to any other. The quality of your implementation is dependant on how much information is preserved in the translation. This is an incremental process so the code should still extract useful data even if youre serialization routines are not complete (instead of completely barfing when an unknown structure is encountered like wvware does).

      But import/export is a very boring and uniteresting part of a Word Processor.

      What are you talking about? Serialization and deserialization is the key to releasing the information in a document. Do you really think people care more about the damn styles used? Rendering and formatting is secondary. If you don't support rendering some node in the tree, skip it or put an empty View with no children there as a place holder. Skip the styles you don't quite understand for later.

      And by the way, the MSWord document format is insanely difficult for mere mortals to understand.

      No it's not. I know another MS spec that makes the MSWord97 spec look like a childrens book and it's pretty damn good. They do a good job at communicating the criticals in these "specs". One thing that MS does rather well at is documenting there stuff (e.g. msdn). Yeah, it's not good enough to implement directly from but what do you want; a HOWTO already? Quite frankly it would all be very boring if there was nothing left to be reverse engineered.

      I'm sorry guys, I have looked at your code. And it does not take long to see that you do not have the abstractions I'm talking about. This project is all in the design. I'm not going to write a viewer because I think that is clearly a separable project (I'm just exploring Tree *DOC_decode(FILE *in)/void DOC_encode(FILE *out, Tree *tree)) but if I were I might look at projects like BView from BEOS, the W3C's Scaleable Vector Grphics, and other examples of MVC frameworks that use a tree for a model. Of course I could be a little off here because I've spent so little time on the project but I have a feeling you guys are going to get bogged down with details that transcend your code if you don't separate your peas and carrots.

      I am not a troll.

  24. Not at all. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not that you get what you pay for. That's a lie told us by those selling the more expensive products. It isn't (necessarily) true in general, and more often not in free software.

    It's that if you -do- get what you pay for, you can't complain.

    AbiWord is much more useful than it's cost, but some people take that to mean they can just then start making demands. And people also don't know how to ask for the support that _is_ readily available.

    And seriously, who the hell are these people calling when their software breaks? I've never even heard of someone having Word break and then picking up the phone to dial Microsoft. And if they did and started being beligerent to the person on the line, how much help do you think they'd get?

    Reading this memo as an excuse of any kind is just wrong, because you don't need an "excuse" to not be able to hand the world to people who are irrationaly demanding it of you.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Not at all. by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      AbiWord is free, if all software was free, it's value will go down. If you could have anything that you want in this world, sooner or later you'll get bored.

      Actually yes, some people do pick up the phone to dial MS when a problem with Word occures. Let's say you work for a helpdesk and some important employee who gets paid $100k/year insists that a certain feature in Word is not behaving as it should but you know that they're wrong. Of course, the manager will believe the employee and will ask you to call MS so you can prove that you're telling the truth. This kind of stuff happens in a corporate environment.

    2. Re:Not at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yada yada yada, you're just another Slashdot loser spouting the same lame duck excuses. Face it, open source software is shit, and documents like this AbiWord apologia are just gilding the turd.

      You certainly do need excuses if you put out a shitty product like AbiWord, claim that it's a "word processor" (when the market can clearly see what a word processor is - it's called Microsoft Word and it knocks Ab(ort)i(on)Word into a cocked hat) and then expect people to actually use it.

      What a bunch of crap OSS is.

      What a bunch of crap.

    3. Re:Not at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never even heard of someone having Word break and then picking up the phone to dial Microsoft.

      That's because 99.99% of the time Word at least installs and performs it's basic functions correctly. I got the idea that AbiWord has very narrow platform requrements and doesn't even work for a certain percentage of attempted users.

      Reading this memo as an excuse of any kind is just wrong,

      You need to live up to your tagline. Stop arguing with the people who are saying bad things about Linux. Start arguing with those who are seriously pushing it as a desktop replacement. You heard the Abiword guys, now tell any Linux advocate kiddie to STFU when he suggest Abiword as a replacement for a commercial word processor.

  25. Re:Abiword is doomed. by natersoz · · Score: 1

    This is absolutely true. KOffice and Open/StarOffice are far superior and further along. My preference for word processors and MS Word compatible documents is OpenOffice. It works very well (though not always perfectly) with embedded graphics and foreign imports.

    However, doesn't this beg the question for Abiword: why bother? Why bother getting involved in a project that is so far behind other more promising projects? This is often the case in OpenSource land - too many projects with near 100% functional overlap.

    Oh well...

  26. Not necessarily. by dmaxwell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I use Abiword the way I used to use Wordpad in Windows. The feature set is somewhere between Wordpad and Word and it loads up about as fast as Wordpad did. It works well enough for viewing most docs and knocking out quick little letters and so forth. I have Star and OpenOffice laying around if I have to work with something a little more complex but I don't bother with them that much. There is room for a solid lightweight wordprocessor like Abiword.

  27. Re:Playing catch up with MS is a losing game w/o c by bourne · · Score: 1

    But, by definition, if you're using a Word-compatible word processor, you need enough compatibility to exchange Word documents with Windows/MS-Office users without stripping out 99% of the existing formatting.

    If you want a GOOD word processor - by all means, avoid cloneing Word. But if you want a word processor that works with Word documents, you're playing a different game. If you can't offer a certain degree of compatibility with Word, you might as well not even try.

    As far as Word being buggy bloatware - I agree absolutely. I just want to be able to modify and exchange Word documents created by coworkers without having to run Windows and MS-Office.

  28. Re:Abiword is doomed.. what? by gkuchta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is it "doomed"? Is the mighty fist of corporate America going to come smashing down on them and say, "hahah! you're so far behind us! you can no longer make your hobby word processor!" at which the developers will turn their tails and leave? So what if StarOffice is further along; big deal. Not as many people use the product. Big deal. They're not generating revenue. A large user base, outside of debugging and commentry, is NOT an integral part of the development process.

    --
    when salmon are outlawed, only outlaws will have salmon
  29. Re:Abiword is doomed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you obviously ar no open-source developer... I don't think their aim is to wipe StarOffice or MS-Office off the market: their aim is to have fun developing a product some people like and thank them for. It's a HOBBY, so what's the real problem lagging behind, as long as people need a lean yet effective word processor? I do not see any reason why I would want to use something else than AbiWord for home use for that matter. And I only use MS Word at work to reproduce customer environments...
    Open-Source is not the hype. It's a bunch of people having fun and doing great things for it. MS is rich. Sun is rich. they are by definition broke.

  30. Support System by Ledge · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps the Open Source community needs to impliment some sort of support system to better sort out issues.
    When you call tech support for most commercial products, you get a dingbat on the other end who knows little more than a person who has already read the manual. If this person has no clue about what your problem is, they can escalate your issue to someone more educated in the matter. Has there ever been an email based support system set up to handle something like this? I.E.- an email sent to support@yourproject.org posts a message to a password protected board subscribed to by x number of support volunteers who provide basic support. These volunteers could escalate said issue to a higher authority, yet another board subscribed to by people who have fielded x number of previous questions, or whatever method you would use to define an advanced support person, or answer the issue on thier own. The advanced board could have subsets, say a group who can deal with RPM issues or something. For example, I don't know dick about solving RPM problems, but if someone was having dependency issues or whatever on a RedHat system, I could forward it to the RedHat users board.
    It seems to me that almost any answer regarding most problems with large scale Open Source software can be found if you know where to look. Therein lies the problem. Most newbies / regular users have no clue where to look. Is this whole idea a pipe dream?

    --
    If it ain't a Model M, it's a piece of crap.
    1. Re:Support System by William+Tanksley · · Score: 2

      The #debian IRC channel is astoundingly good for that sort of thing. I'm sure other distros have exact equivalents.

    2. Re:Support System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you call tech support for most commercial products,

      When's the last time you called MS about Word, or a Windows problem? You can't. The best you can do is to call Dell or whoever you bought the PC from; or go hunting around in the MS Knowledge Base (which no newbie would do). And like Dell's going to be helpful with a Word problem. Of course, you can always call their paid support and pay like $50/incident for help, but most people won't do that either.

      I'm not real sure why people _expect_ good support from free software when they don't get it from paid software. If you aren't willing (or able) to go Google for an answer to a problem, or try to fix it yourself, perhaps volunteer-based software is not for you.

  31. Re:So what they're trying to say is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    No, although it certainly could have been better written. It's main goal should have been defining the audience's role in open source software as opposed to the role in proprietary.

    Demanding features is certainly acceptable for customer when talking to a business (perhaps it's not polite - but some customers can be rude and yet the business will still smile back as its in their best interests). Open source is distinct. If you're rude to open source developers they'll tell you to go to hell (or, as the case of the smoothwall developer, he'll tell you to go to hell regardless ;). Clarifying to users that their role in Abiword is one of friendly participation, urging and contribution - is what the article steps around.

    Users need to understand that open source is like a bunch of friends (oh the trolls will have a field day with that) and that demands don't go down well.

  32. Volunteers can provide better-than-pay support by fetta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everything they say in the memo seems reasonable enough, but they could have focussed a bit more on how much support you can get from the user community if you ask nicely. In most cases, I've found that the "community" provides support comparable to, and sometimes superior to, the support that I get for commercial products.

    When I first began installing and using open-source software, for the first time, I was shocked by the high quality of the support that I received from both developers and other users.

    The first "real work" I ever did using Linux was replacing an old MS Exchange 5.0 server with QMail. (yes, I know about the debates about Qmail's license or lack thereof, but that's not the point here) Not really understanding what I was doing, I posted some (in retrospect) truly silly questions to some of the qmail mailing lists. I remember one particular email that abused me for being ignorant and asking a question in the wrong mailing list (I didn't realize it at the time, but it was more of a general Linux question than a qmail question), and then continued to very clearly and concisely explain my error and point me in the right direction. Compare that to a similar situation with a commercial vendor, where the response would likely have been something along the lines of "the problem you are describing is caused by some other piece of software and we cannot help you."

    In truth, I don't find the support process to be that different for Microsoft and Linux. If I have a problem with a Microsoft product, I search the Microsoft knowledge base, do a google search (including Usenet), and maybe post a question to the appropriate newsgroup. If I have a problem with a Linux or open source program, I search the LDP, do a google search (including Usenet) and maybe post a question to the appropriate newsgroup. The process is almost identical, and the results are pretty darn similar. If I want more hands on support, I have to pay a vendor (MS, Redhat, VA, etc.)

    --
    ** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**
    1. Re:Volunteers can provide better-than-pay support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, so who among you are going to provide instant, fix it now support to the IT departments you want to win over? For free. Oh look, nobody. Don't throw out the MS Office licenses just yet.

    2. Re:Volunteers can provide better-than-pay support by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1

      "In truth, I don't find the support process to be that different for Microsoft and Linux..."

      Well put. And I think you could substitute the name of almost any commercial software company for "Microsoft" and your statement would be equally true. Commercial one-on-one support is generally abysmal, and many companies seem inexplicably reluctant to dedicate even a single employee to answering questions on newsgroups or message boards. (Or, when they do let an employee respond on a public forum, it's a marketing drone who has to get approval from the legal department before he's allowed to actually answer a question.)

      But, on the other hand, most commercial software comes with pretty good documentation, and most companies have invested in online help and Knowledge Base-like systems which are regularly updated and which are generally accurate and well-written. Google's indespensible, but you can often waste a lot of time searching for obscure issues, and sorting through false leads and incorrect/outdated information.

      FAQs and release notes are great, but they don't substitute for real, comprehensive, cohesive documentation. Whether it's a paper manual or online help, good writing takes time and sustained effort. It's not an afterthought or something you get someone to do once and forget about.

      This kind of stuff is the Achilles heel of Open Source and free software. There are exceptions, but not enough of them. It seems that most programmers just aren't fired up about writing documentation, and many of them aren't very good at it when they're willing to try. That's fine-writing is a skill just like coding, so it's not surprising or insulting to acknowledge that everyone isn't equally adept.

      I know that this issue has been discussed lots of times and that the situation is slowly improving, at least for some projects. But, frankly, I don't think that Open Source advocates do a very good job of soliciting help from good writers, artists, designers, etc. Why? Um, I dunno.

  33. Re:My Experience With Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which I process as an advisor for some companies of the
    fortune 500, and I think that I can bury few light on the climate of
    the opened source community at the moment. I believe that this section of the reason, which opened source created, links to starts
    leaving is and an output of marketing is not quite, since it is
    believed generally however more to an output of the underlying technology.
    know I that the one strong to screen end predicate is, but I
    have the proof for above supporting it! With one this
    Hauptcorps(5000+ Angestellten) advise I for, we wanted Linux into our user pool to integrate. The airs the Muessens all restrictive
    royalties do not pay was excessively to be ignored. I reccomended the
    installation of some boxes, which let the new core 2.4.9 run, and my
    hopes were highly that he would execute Windows 2k up to the Snuff
    with the boxes, were(and still! are), completing an AMAZING work on
    its respective functions of the casing HTTP requests, DNS and the
    Fileservings.
    regard me I, technically bent to be very much programming in
    VB for the last 8 years the horizontally aligned programming of the
    core doing. I do not believe in programming C, because opposite can
    go to the popular faith, VB even as low level, while C and the newest
    VB compiler produce code, which is each point as fast. I took it
    after me, in order to assemble and smooth the system of the scratch
    used an optimized version of GCC 3.1, in order to increase the
    execution rate that binaries. I integrated the 3 machines, which I
    had assembled into the user pool, and I would have to say the results
    was fewer than impressive..., We, whom all that linux not near to its
    ready for the desk even it is but I know, had heard that it should
    execute decently, while a " user " operating system based. All 3
    machines entered in exchanges immediately, and it was obvious that it
    not in the BegriffWAREN to touch in the position zuSEIN, the load in
    this " enterprise " climate. After they had long run fewer than 24
    hours, 2 had transferred caused experienced core by them in panic, by
    them linkage and Apacheabbrachen! Granted, Apache is a voluntary
    created project, which is written to weekend hacker into its back-up
    time, while IIS Microsfts has an actual professional full fledged the
    development crew, which is dedicated to him. the fact that the core
    Linux lacks each possible support for any type tapped file system,
    memory protection, SMP support, etc., but me not for mentioning
    thought that, since Linux is based on such " old " technology, which
    would let it run with any level of stability. After some days of this
    type of the behavior, we decided, to install window 2k on the boxes again to go in order to check that it was not a small article problem,
    which started things, falsely. The machines, those were formed above
    immediately and were reintegrated seamlessly into the user pool also
    even of a Win2K-Maschine, which completes more work than all 3 the
    boxes Linux.
    to say unnecessarily, reccomending I not Linux/FSF to more my
    clients. I am dissappointed that not to the leverege free costs of
    Linux for her advantage in the LageSIND, but in this case I take her
    the old for applicable proverb pending workstations that, " you
    receive, which you pay ", I would have also acces to the source
    program of applications to have liked, we let which run on our
    critical systems of the mission; however of views of it, " divided
    source " of the Microsofts program seems, everything of the same
    freedoms as GPL. -
    to offer, while things are now, I can with Linux in the
    academy understand to compile simple " hello world " of type programs
    and learn c-programming, but I have fear that for all more than a
    hobby OS, Windows 98/NT/2K are their only elections.
    thank you.

  34. Word processing for everyone? by wackysootroom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I will start out by saying that I do not use Abi Word, nor do I plan on using it anytime soon. Being a developer myself, I actually agree with the Abi development team, but by hyping up the project, users get the wrong idea.

    The first thing that caught my eye when I went to the site was the phrase "Word processing for everyone". With a catch-phrase like that, you had better be able to deliver on your promise. "Everyone" includes those rushed business execs who are too busy to become computer literate and need support *now*.

    Maybe Abi should either drop the slogan, or deliver on it, before they give too many people the worng idea.

    1. Re:Word processing for everyone? by hattig · · Score: 2
      Whilst I agree with you, I feel that the aim of open-source software should be to create software that requires no support.

      Word processors are great examples of generic page based document editors. They do tables, graphics, TOCs, indexing, and a lot more. This is hard to program, and hard to learn.

      And most importantly of all, most people don't need that functionality.

      So, perhaps AbiSource could release a version of AbiWord called AbiLetter. This would allow people to write letters in a professional manner. Couple it with templates for various letter styles, a method for generating your own headed letter paper within the application, and loads of example letters for various tasks (job application, complaints, etc) and you have a product with value, even if it is specialised.

      The work would be in the wizards in the end. The editing part of the program would be the body of the text only - a few paragraphs most likely.

      Yes, it isn't as flexible as a word processor. But then again, it isn't a word processor - it is a free bit of software for writing professional letters, saving and loading them, and printing them.

      When the user is proficient with that software, they may feel that they are ready for the whole shebang, so they can enable features as and when they need them, instead of having lots of confusing small icons all over the place. So the user is taught how to use the application by using it, without the hard stuff getting in the way until they need it.

      I am aware that this is even more effort to program - software that adapts to the user's proficiency - but it can do no end of good for the reputation of free software in my opinion. Coupled with some good documentation in PDF, PS, HTML format (etc) which would require a large effort as well, and someone with decent layout software (FrameMaker, for example) to write it.

      All I want it AbiWord to support better fonts and font smoothing. I like the interface, and it looks quite solid. Editing text is not a pleasant experience however with illegible fonts... maybe this has changed in the latest version...

    2. Re:Word processing for everyone? by Watts+Martin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with that approach is the same problem that most "lite word processors" have. You often hear reasonable-if-guessed figures like "90% of word processor users only use 10% of the features." It's almost right. It's more accurate to say that 90% of word processor users use about 15% of the features, and that extra 5% changes from user to user. If you make a word processor with only that 10% everyone uses, almost everyone will applaud you--and they'll keep using Microsoft Word anyway. And just to make things more difficult, to get a significant number of users away from Word, you're going to have to duplicate the majority of its functions, to be able to get as many different "five percents" as you can.

    3. Re:Word processing for everyone? by hattig · · Score: 1
      Yes, but I wasn't advocating using a word processor to write a letter. I was advocating using a letter creation program to write letters.

      It takes time to write a fully fledged Word Processor, such as Word, and the AbiWord, etc, guys and gals have found this. However, they have a good core etc, so release software that is dedicated to a certain application, with value add for that application.

    4. Re:Word processing for everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What an idiotic statement! "I do not use AbiWord..." and then saying AbiWord doesn't deliver....

      I have tried AbiWord, both different versions, and both the Linux and Windows versions. They do deliver an easy to use product. It looks nice, does a fair job of reading MS doc files, runs on several hardware/OS platforms, and has most of the tools an average user needs in a word processor.

      Most users will NOT need support to type a document. And being in the computer field, I know for sure that free support is an oxymoron for nearly every commercial product out there! Even the support you pay for is frequently crap!

      Learn a little before you go spouting off!

  35. Re:My Experience With Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...more of an issue of the underlying technology.


    The x86 instruction set, the BIOS, what?

    programmed in VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming

    As if.

  36. Speaking of support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's an interesting article over here that shows what happens with a lack of support...

  37. What you're really paying by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful
    That's funny, because it appears to me that the "you get what you pay for" ratio is still in favor of Open Source projects, as opposed to Microsoft. I guess it depends on how happy you are with your last Microsoft purchase versus your last use of software downloaded for free. I know which one I'm happier with.

    To each their own. At work, we run several key services on Linux boxes, due in part to the lack of security we've experienced in MS products in the past. However, our IT guys seem to have far more problems with keeping the Linux boxes up and running on a day to day basis. In terms of time spent supporting a product -- which is far more of the cost than the initial purchase -- Linux is lagging waaaaay behind Windows-based systems at our place. We use it for the security, not the cost.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:What you're really paying by jgerman · · Score: 3
      That's most likely a problem with your IT guys or the particular software you are running. You can't throw out a statement like that without qaulification. Odds are your guys are from a Windows support background (you did say that you're using linux now based on Windows expperiences in the past) so they are predisposed to handle Windows problems regularly whereas they don't have the experience with Linux.


      Your also neglecting the fact that your running "key services" on the Linux boxes and not the Windows boxes. How much of a load difference between the two boxes? And while we're talking on load differences, whether you believe you're doing things for the cost or not you are. Those linux boxen are performing more efficiently than the Windows boxes can even dream about, unless of course your S&N guys really botched the install.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    2. Re:What you're really paying by chihowa · · Score: 1

      This is a stupid reply, I know...

      but do your IT folks know what they are doing? If I plopped a Linux server (or MacOS X server or IRIX server...) in front of a trained NT administrator, I wouldn't expect her to know how to keep it up.

      What about dropping a NT server in fromt of a admin who only had UNIX experience? Would I expect amazing results? Of course not!

      Assuming that IT folk can instantly master entire operating systems that they are unfamiliar with is just plain dumb. In no other field is that kind of assumption so commonplace.(I bet I'm wrong there!)

      I don't judge the value of a product by how well it works in the hands of a complete novice. Saying linux isn't stable because an NT administrator can't keep it up is just like saying NT is unstable because a Mac operator can't keep it up.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    3. Re:What you're really paying by jslag · · Score: 1
      However, our IT guys seem to have far more problems with keeping the Linux boxes up and running


      Maybe the IT dept. spends its time with the linux boxes because all the real work is being done via the Linux boxes?

    4. Re:What you're really paying by MadAhab · · Score: 2

      Beats me what kind of IT guys you have. I revamped someone's network and I spent 100 more times patching the 4 NT servers than I did the Linux box. For one thing, RedHat conveniently puts the patches in one place. Microsoft uses about 5000, because there are too many to put in one place. The Linux box, BTW, just stays up. Period. Before I patched it, it had been up for about 180 days without administration of any kind. And the FreeBSD firewall I made just keeps running. Period. I don't want to even think about the number of times those NT machines - well-configured or hellish messes too important to reinstall anytime soon - go up and down.

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    5. Re:What you're really paying by hawk · · Score: 1


      > If I plopped a Linux
      > server (or MacOS X server or IRIX server...) in front of a trained NT
      > administrator, I wouldn't expect her to know how to keep it up.


      and this differs from an NT box in what way?


      :)


      hawk

    6. Re:What you're really paying by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can really expect anyone to keep up an NT box. :)

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    7. Re:What you're really paying by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm going to reply here, although this reply really covers issues mentioned in several of the responses to my previous post.

      First of all, why does everyone assume it's the IT guys' fault here? We're a small software house. Half of the guys here have been playing with computers since they could type and could set up a Linux box in their sleep. And those are the developers. The IT support guys are, obviously enough, much better with sys admin stuff. They certainly aren't MS-trained McSysAdmins.

      It's true that we're running some key services (in our case, public-facing web, FTP, e-mail, CVS, yada yada) on Linux boxes. However, we're also running other key services (file servers, database servers, all our backups, etc) on Windows 2000 boxes. They get way more absolute workload than the Linux boxes, with the possible exception of the CVS host. As I mentioned before, the reason we switched to Linux for the public-facing systems was a "near miss" involving MS security, and a subsequent investigation by management and change of policy.

      I'm sorry to disappoint the Linux advocates here, but I'm comparing several properly set up Linux boxes with several properly set up Windows 2000 boxes, both administered by skilled people. The simple fact is that the Linux boxes aren't staying up for months at a time, and the Windows 2000 boxes don't just fall over every five minutes. Both systems are reasonably reliable, but when the Linux box falls over, it consistently takes longer to track down the problem and get it back up and running.

      In that respect, Linux is costing us more for maintenance than Windows 2000, as I said in contradiction of the first post I replied to. The saving is in terms of reduced security risks, and hence reduced risk of both an expensive-to-fix breach and a priceless loss of customer confidence. We consider this to be worth the extra effort to support the systems.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    8. Re:What you're really paying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit!

      Now you've gone and confused everone by introducing facts and objectivity into the argument!

      Heretic!

    9. Re:What you're really paying by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Oops. Sorry. mea culpa :-)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    10. Re:What you're really paying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just out of curiosity where would this one place be. I know when I update NT, I can get to the patches very easily, (They are effectivly in one place). I have a box running Red Hat 7.0 which is unpatched, I do know my way around linux, I have used it consistantly for almost 2 years now. Yeah I'm still an ameture, but I can write scripts for almost any thing I need to accomplish, which is more then I can say for my NT box. However (getting back to the point) I can also patch my NT server with ease, but I have yet to figure out how to patch my RedHat box. I log into the redhat ftp go to the update folder and I see the latest wu patch, and a patch for up2date. I try to run up2date and it gives me some wierd ass error message. So, I decided I'll do it by hand, I try to locate even a list of need patches for RH7.0 and I cannot locate it (ok I found one, but I would rather all the patches actually be in the place the link points too, and preferably in the same ftp location). I don't need rpm's, I can compile the source, ALL I NEED IS THE FREAKING PATCHES. But where are they, RedHat doesn't seem to wanna let me use up2date.

      The Error:
      [root@localhost local]# up2date --anonymous
      Traceback (innermost last):
      File "/usr/sbin/up2date", line 382, in ?
      main()
      File "/usr/sbin/up2date", line 263, in main
      print "Error parsing command line arguments: %s" % msg
      NameError: msg

    11. Re:What you're really paying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and I don't use pico, or joe either, vi all the way!!

    12. Re:What you're really paying by motorhead · · Score: 0

      You need new IT guys.

      --
      Employee Of the Month - Cyberdyne Systems Corporation - September 1997
    13. Re:What you're really paying by nmos · · Score: 1

      First of all, why does everyone assume it's the IT guys' fault here?

      Because:
      A: It goes against the direct experience who set up and support both WinXX and Linux boxes on a regular basis.
      B: It is the responsibility of whoever implemented your system to make sure it would do the job and to make sure they have a plan for dealing with problems.
      C: Systems administration isn't so much about skills as it is about common sense. I do support for several small businesses and many of the people I've replaced were very skilled but didn't have the common sense to put security and reliability ahead of flash (and eventually got bit one too many times).

      Both systems are reasonably reliable, but when the Linux box falls over, it consistently takes longer to track down the problem and get it back up and running.

      This sentence I can buy. Nine times out of ten when a Windows box fails a simple reboot is all it takes to fix the problem. My Linux boxes fail far less often but when they do it's more likely to be something fairly serious.

    14. Re:What you're really paying by viavr · · Score: 1

      WE have found windows-centric IT personel a) MUST tinker with servers - they can't help themselves. b)pressed in the trenches, we've had some admit they really view Windows OS's as the equivalent of job security c)have tendencies to over-install services on initial linux server-builds - under a "this sounds neat" to put in - (which results in something they can tinker with)

      These behavior patterns result in loose-server builds, and constant tinkering.

      When we deploy a tightly-built and configured linux server - and we can keep tinkerers away from it, it stays up.

      In other words, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

      If you're exercising oversight over IT funtionality, you need to determine how much of the IT problem solving is caused by the IT department itself.

      If your IT guys are having problems keeping servers up on a daily basis, they are being configured from the start the wrong way and /or your IT guys need to stop tinkering with them every day.

    15. Re:What you're really paying by ndogg · · Score: 1
      This sentence I can buy. Nine times out of ten when a Windows box fails a simple reboot is all it takes to fix the problem. My Linux boxes fail far less often but when they do it's more likely to be something fairly serious.


      This is why properly written start up scripts are so important. They should be written so that if something does go awry, you can just reboot and forget about it. People seem to forget to setup their startup scripts because of the illusion that their box will never fail or at least rarely fail.
      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    16. Re:What you're really paying by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      well, if you wanted security.. why didn't you go for OpenBSD then?? Got very good track record

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    17. Re:What you're really paying by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      Tinkering has precious little to do with this, unfortunately. Note that I didn't say we have problems on a day-to-day basis; we don't. But in my experience, claims of Linux running without a hitch for six months are exaggerated, and claims that Win2K falls over daily are unfair. All of our systems, Win2K or Linux, run for weeks at a time. The issue, as I've said before, is that when the Linux boxes fall over, it takes significantly longer to get them back up again.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    18. Re:What you're really paying by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2
      A: It goes against the direct experience who set up and support both WinXX and Linux boxes on a regular basis.

      Is your experience that Win2K falls over every five minutes but Linux boxes run without a hitch indefinitely, as is often implied in these parts? If so, my experience suggests that you've been lucky with Linux and unlucky with Windows. They're both decent enough platforms for most purposes, but they're both subject to occasional hiccoughs, too.

      I think the stability of these platforms is a non-issue for most practical purposes today. Crashes happen, but they happen rarely enough that how fast you can recover from a loss of stability is more important for most applications. If our database's web front end is down for five minutes twice a month, it's no more of a problem than if it's down for five minutes once a month. OTOH, if it's down for half a day once a month, that's serious.

      B: It is the responsibility of whoever implemented your system to make sure it would do the job and to make sure they have a plan for dealing with problems.

      Sure. However, no plan can possibly cope with all eventualities, and even if you have good recovery procedures (from a quick reboot to a full reinstall and restore from backups) they can still take time.

      Nine times out of ten when a Windows box fails a simple reboot is all it takes to fix the problem. My Linux boxes fail far less often but when they do it's more likely to be something fairly serious.

      Thank you! Someone finally gets it.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    19. Re:What you're really paying by sydb · · Score: 2

      Note that I didn't say we have problems on a day-to-day basis; we don't

      Wow! What a u-turn!

      From your earlier post:

      However, our IT guys seem to have far more problems with keeping the Linux boxes up and running on a day to day basis.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    20. Re:What you're really paying by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Possibly ext3 will fix this, but I have occasionally ended up with a "bad magic cookie" message after a catastrophic reboot occured. I may be missing something simple, but I haven't been able to get past it, even when I had a running system to try to mount it on. (This has only occured after an fsck, but it has happened even when the fsck was because of the mount count. That one was a surprise, but I do, now, suspect that the disk might have been bad, as it happened again a few months after a re-format and reinstall.)
      .

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    21. Re:What you're really paying by jgerman · · Score: 2
      Then your boxes just aren't set up right. Our Linux boxes do not go down at all, and they are under the heaviest load in the company. I'm not slamming you but you're obviously doing SOMETHING wrong.


      Maybe you should stop setting up the Linux boxes in your sleep and pay attention to what your doing. You are the only company I have ever heard of that has problems like this.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    22. Re:What you're really paying by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2
      Wow! What a u-turn!

      Sorry, I don't see how. The two quotes you provided aren't contradictory at all. They happen to use the same figure of speech, but even that's in different contexts...

      The earlier quote means (a) that we need to keep our servers up and running on a day to day basis, and (b) that this causes more problems on the Linux boxes than on the Windows ones. The later quote means (c) that we do not have problems every day. (a)+(b) and (c) are not contradictory.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    23. Re:What you're really paying by cyclist1200 · · Score: 0

      "claims of Linux running without a hitch for six months are exaggerated"

      I don't think that's true. Not when there is an Alpha running linux that has been up for 834.9 days, and nine others that have been up continuously for over 400 days. Not to mentionan entire list of machines that have been up over 180 days at counter.li.org

    24. Re:What you're really paying by sydb · · Score: 2

      Then why say 'day to day basis' in (a) at all? It has no semantic content.

      Conciseness prevents confusion; get some.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    25. Re:What you're really paying by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      I'm talking about everyday Linux boxes, however, not showcases for what is possible if everything goes perfectly. I'm sure Microsoft could find you a Windows box somewhere in the world that's been running, but not doing anything, for months without crashing. It's not really very relevant to you and me, though, is it?

      My experience is that a Linux box subject to frequent attacks from the outside world, running less than perfectly robust apps that have less than polite behaviour at times, on real hardware that has real failures every once in a while, won't last six months on average. YMMV, of course.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    26. Re:What you're really paying by psamuels · · Score: 2
      Then your boxes just aren't set up right. Our Linux boxes do not go down at all, and they are under the heaviest load in the company. I'm not slamming you but you're obviously doing SOMETHING wrong.

      Here's my experience: we have a couple Linux servers and a couple NT servers.

      For NT, either an app restart (Exchange server, usually) or a reboot (IIS, which often wedges itself to the point where it won't let you restart it normally) usually does the trick. Our most annoying NT problem by far was a bad Adaptec scsi chip - the driver apparently had poor error handling and bluescreened the box every couple of days. A new Tekram scsi card fixed it.

      Which brings me to my actual point. Many of the Linux failures I've seen appear to be hardware-related. We recycled an old desktop machine for use as our main Linux server. (It will be moving to a server-class motherboard + case soon.) You get what you pay for and I suspect some of the hardware is marginal - IDE disks off a PIIX4 chipset, that sort of thing. And a really cramped case with probably less-than-adequate cooling.

      Linux is often deployed this way, I understand, on an otherwise-obsolete machine and used for little stuff like DNS and POP3. So hardware-related failures are probably more common in Linux than in Windows 2000, which is more often deployed on a brand-new machine.

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
    27. Re:What you're really paying by viavr · · Score: 1

      Once again, it goes to the orginal set-up. It does not sound like you have any thing near an 'everyday' linux box - or more to the point - the appropriate IT personnel to assemble a linux box of any type. Let's call a spade a spade - we have had our share also of IT personnel that shouldn't have built the linux box either. We learned quickly those boxes wouldn't stay up from the get-go. It truly sounds like your people are starting with insufficient foundations. As for attacks -our servers stay under attack numbering tens of hostile hits per second - and the generalities of uptime, our experience is that a proper linux build stays up until we decide to bring it down (6-7-8-9-months uptime), usually these days to pop in more cheap ram. btw, our linux server to windows server ratio is 6:1

  38. WARNING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is now perpetrating THE LIE OF THE CENTURY!

    You have been warned.

  39. The REAL Question? by spatrick_123 · · Score: 1

    All this is very interesting, but let's answer the question potential users are REALLY asking - is there a dancing paper clip to help me through my troubles?

  40. proves my theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just mention "java" on Slashdot and get modded up.
    Writing ABIword in java is ridiculous. Look at what happened to Corel's Java WordPerfect effort - a complete disaster.

  41. man its fink all over again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when will people learn code to help these developers instead of being a pain in one's butt

  42. Abiword sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do think abiword sucks, but then so does MS office. Koffice and Staroffice kick both their asses! But I only write simple documents so I only need a simple editor. Windows users, its time to drag notepad.exe to the recycle bin (or vi(m) to dev/null if your a linux user).

  43. Abi is Great~ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am downloading the .96 relese right now it gests better and better with every realse as far as the minor buggs go and meets most all my needs already. They have as much as said in the past that they re developing simple wordproc for the masses which will never include all the cray featurs in Word that nobody, yes nobody knows how to use. If you already have MS word and are using windows dont swich but if your trying to justify investing ridiculos sums of money in Office to get word you really should give abiword a chance as if you don't have office already most likely you really dont need it. But if some feature you need is not there plesently post in on bugzilla and remember just ecactly how much you paid to use abiword. Great work to all who are developers on the project this is the best pice of Free wordproc software around and a runner up for best wordproc in general. Keep up the good work lots of us users are very happy with it! I just want to say THANKS on behalf of all us users.

  44. Overestimating commercial effort by Proud+Geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of people don't have a clue what goes into a commercial software project. For example, Red Hat has only about 600 people. That is spread out through management, sales, marketing and support, as well as development. Now, Red Hat developers may be more productive than volunteers, since they are able to work on projects full time, but the vast majority of the work that goes into a new release of Red Hat Linux is in software written by the community.

    Microsoft's practices are harder to determine for an outsider, but they don't put in the huge amount of effort that the Abiword people think. For example, the Internet Explorer team is much smaller than the number of people working on Mozilla (in fact, it is smaller than the team working on Mozilla/ Netscape full time). The MS Word team is probably larger than the Abiword team, and support comes from a different group of people. However, if you email them and say, "Get this feature by tomorrow or I'm switching to something else!" they will have the exact same response as Abiword.

    The days of 200 people working on a shell script to change directories using a web page went away with the end of the .com era. They are not missed, either by OSS or Free software developers, or by profitable companies.

    --

    Even Slashdot wants to hide some things

  45. If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by skrowl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    at 3 AM at Perkins or Dennys... I'd be rich.

    This is THE major problem with Open Source software. Since you can't make money with it, you can't commit yourself to it full time. Therefore you get a whole bunch of people who sorta work on it rather than a real programming team.

    What does this get you? Products like Abiword that, while nice, admit publically that they can't compete.

    What you linux kids need is a micropayment system or SOME kind of way to support your "Forget capitalism, I must give away the product of hours and hour of my work" attitude. If you could make $40K/year while working on your open project, you could do it full time! THEN we'd see some nice word processors, web browsers, etc. for Linux and *BSD. Please don't moderate this down to troll or flaimbait as it raises very real points.

    --

    Prevent linux based DDOS's!
    http://linux.denialofservice.org/
    1. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by gol64738 · · Score: 1

      you are a moron who doesn't understand the OSS model.
      let me say this again for the hundredth time:

      OPEN SOURCE != FREE (BEER)

      get it? got it? good.

    2. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by skrowl · · Score: 1

      You're a moron who doesn't understand that you can't live in your parents basement for the rest of your life. Eventually you're going to have bills to pay, and giving away all of your work won't pay them.

      My comment wasn't about "Open Source won't support you" my comment was about "Not making any money off of your Open Source software wan't support you". Red Hat (tm) is an Open Source based company, and they (in theory at least) make money.

      Send me an IM when your 21st birthday is coming up, I'll buy you a beer. See if your mom will let you borrow the minivan.... geez... talk about your immature comments. Replying to a serious thread with "You're a moron..."

      --

      Prevent linux based DDOS's!
      http://linux.denialofservice.org/
    3. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      Yes theoricly Open Source isn't necesserily free(beer) but all those thousands and thousands of free Open Source apps showing up on freshmeat and sourceforge prove that in practice, 99% of Open Source software is free.

    4. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this fucker to flamebait.

    5. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by gol64738 · · Score: 1

      hahahaha,
      i make $75k/yr writing OSS.

      please tell me what you do?

    6. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I make over $100K/year. I write software using OSS tools for in-house use at a company. My job depends on the ability to write software at a system level with the ability to implement any level of functionality, so that I can compete with commercial software. My (and my co-workers) salary is about 1/10 the cost to the company of commercial software, and the company gets immediate feedback and bug fixes.

      If MicroSoft has their way, I would be out of a job. Closing or licensing interfaces and hiding implementation is entirely in their interest because it eliminates my ability to compete with them and forces my company to purchase software from them.

      I write Open Source software in my spare time because it is vital to support it to make my own job safe. A lot of people do not realize what a threat MicroSoft is to possibly millions of jobs. Belive me, the profit motive really is driving a lot of OSS.

    7. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by hacker · · Score: 1
      This is THE major problem with Open Source software. Since you can't make money with it, you can't commit yourself to it full time. Therefore you get a whole bunch of people who sorta work on it rather than a real programming team.
      This is how open source works. Welcome to the fold. Linux didn't get where it is today because of any commercial funding. In fact, NO company has yet financially contributed to the development of Linux itself by paying people to work on it. Sure, they donate hardware, rack time, stuff like that, but it's for their own benefit; PR or product work. Development funding for Linux and Linux applications is never given away gratis, ever. This needs to change if people expect professional quality work out of competent developers who are clearly capable of delivering it. These developers do it in their spare time, because the rest of their time is spent earning a living, providing for their families, and working day jobs.
      What you linux kids need is a micropayment system or SOME kind of way to support your "Forget capitalism, I must give away the product of hours and hour of my work" attitude. If you could make $40K/year while working on your open project, you could do it full time! THEN we'd see some nice word processors, web browsers, etc. for Linux and *BSD.
      Let's not forget the other side of your argument... who is going to make these micropayments? Certainly not other developers, otherwise we get back into the same rut, where the same amount of money is just changing hands.

      Companies sure aren't going to make the micropayments, because most companies do not believe in Open Source, and certainly don't believe in it enough to fund it's development, without something else coming back their way to put their own ledgers in the black.. trust me on this one, I just resigned from my employer and this was one of the major reasons for my departure. They believe in Linux,as long as it makes them rich, but they do not believe in returning back to the community that gave them their name, their mission.

      It baffles me why commercial companies continue to rape the Linux and Open Source community in this fashion. We need stricter licensing that forbids this. I'm not on the side of stricter licensing, but..

      Back to the issue at hand. Commercial companies aren't going to fund Linux unless it hits their bottom line.

      Developers aren't going to fund Linux development or applications because they need that money to eat and survive and pay rent.

      Users aren't going to fund the development, because they will (barely) want to send money even if the product is finished, polished, and in a shrinkwrapped box with a manual. They do not want to pay for the development up-front.

      Lastly, Linux is not out to make money. Sure, it makes money for lots of people, but I'm sure I side with Linus, Alan, and hundreds of other Linux developers when I say that we are here to do some cool and interesting stuff. If nobody uses it, oh well. If it's useful, great. If it advances the technology or pushes the envelope, we've done our job.

    8. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by edinho · · Score: 1

      Bad logic, because you over simplified it.

      Let's say you charge money for it, say people buy it, say you have many users. In general, you will _still_ not have enough time and resources to do everything that all your users want: immediate bug fix, immediate feature additions, complete support.

      Could you do a better job if you charge money? Maybe. Maybe not. Say you want to start a company to do a word processor and charge for it. How long do you think you'll be around? Do you think your customers won't bitch and moan and complain?

      Don't believe me? Go work for a few software companies.

      Maybe the Abiword team need to restructure a little. Maybe they need to shield themselves from users more. Maybe they need more coders. Maybe they lack a project-manager like person. Maybe they are (forgive me :-) technically not good enough, like many software teams that work on $$$products. Maybe the users is more like the I'll-buy-it-if-it-has-this-feature type, and since Abiword is free, they try it out and ask for the feature which otherwise they would not ask for in a $$$product because they would not have bought it in the first place and would feel they have no right to ask for features and thus make resulting in more features requests to a free product like Abiword. Or maybe they just need to charge money to fund the development.

      Who knows?

      Nice condescending rant:

      THE major problem with Open Source.

      sorta work on it.

      can't compete [with what?]

      linux kids

      _must_ give away the product (try "would like to")

      Wrong in many places:

      Can't make money with it.

      Can't commit yourself to it full time.

      [Not] a real programming team.

      [Is not] capitalism (perhaps your idea of capitalism is pretty narrow).

      $40k/yr == nice word processors (implying that the product is bug free, featureful, etc., and implying $40k/yr is satisfactory)

      Anyway, check out the GIMP.

      Cheers,

      e.

    9. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by wroot · · Score: 1
      What you linux kids need is a micropayment system...

      I strongly feel that the government(s) should support Open-Source software with grants, the way it is done in science (I'm a scientist and I enjoy doing things I find interesting at taxpayers expense ;-)

      Anyways, it would probably be beneficial for the economy to enhance the base of interoperable standardized open-source products that are readily available for businesses and individuals to use and build upon.

      Wroot

    10. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by nmos · · Score: 1

      Companies sure aren't going to make the micropayments, because most companies do not believe in Open Source, and certainly don't believe in it enough to fund it's development, without something else coming back their way to put their own ledgers in the black.. trust me on this one,

      Some companies already do fund Open Source projects in exactly the same way individuals do, by donating code.

    11. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by epukinsk · · Score: 1

      What you linux kids need is a micropayment system or SOME kind of way to support your "Forget capitalism, I must give away the product of hours and hour of my work" attitude.

      They need no such thing. They write AbiWord as a hobby because they enjoy it, not to make money, not to change the world, not to destroy Microsoft, to have fun doing a little coding on the side, making something of worth.

      Have you ever stopped to think that maybe everyone writing software for Linux doesn't need their software to compete with commercial software or support their families? It's a great hobbyists operating system. If you want it to be something else, write your own word processor.

      -Erik

    12. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by bacchusrx · · Score: 2

      Excellent point!

      Free software, from my perspective, is not in competition with "capitalism," or capitalist software firms, at least in the usual sense.

      "Open source software"* may represent a dubious "guerrilla capitalist" venture, but, free software is markedly unmotivated by the lure of "making money."

      Free software, therefore, articulates a particularly salient social point because it shows plainly how capitalism can be made irrelevant. It demonstrates that work itself can be reclaimed as "a labour of love" -- indistinguishable from play -- done for the sake of it, done because the doing made it important.

      Free software is particularly convincing in this respect, at least as far as debunking its detractors goes, in that it shows how work as play can achieve socially relevant goals (such as producing useful, quality software) without the need for a "profit motivation," a fallacious work ethic, or a heirarchical power structure (i.e. what constitutes the standard corporate business).

      It shows that decentralized, nonheirarchical organizational methods can produce things that are worthwhile.

      It shows that people, ultimately, don't have to be alienated from what they love to do.

      Admirers and apologetics for the capitalist software industry thoroughly miss the point. It's not about making oodles of cash. Bill Gates is debased so vociferously, I find, because he's the antithesis of "work as play." The competition between "free software" and the property based software industry is, if anything, a nearly spiritual matter (said in the hopes that the term "spiritual" hasn't lost all meaning-- devoured by profit-blind cynicism).

      The free software ethic can and should be extrapolated into other industries, and, fundamentally, into the way we live our lives. Free software is an example of how technology can be used to make our lives better by revolutionizing how it is we work, why it is we work, and how we organize and govern ourselves, generally. (It's not so much the technology that the software itself makes possible that's important here, but, the technology that makes free software, itself, possible, if you catch me).

      Free software teaches us that voluntary, libertarian, noncoercive, nonheirarchical -- yes, socialistic (in that it rejects "private property," as such), but most importantly, anarchic -- methods of organization, production, and distribution are not only viable but both socially and psychologically preferrable.

      It's strange to see that, despite all of the anti-corporate sentiment present in the free software community, few are willing to reconize the anarchic, libertarian nature of the community itself.

      bacchusrx.

      * viz., a software development apparatus whereby large, established companies (or small, upstart ones) believe they can entice users to do their jobs for them (read: fixing bugs, coding new features), for free, while concurrently appearing committed to "fairness" and "freedom" in opposition to their more leviathan counterpart, Microsoft (particularly as exemplified by Sun, IBM and Apple)

      --
      Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
    13. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think software should be thought of as a public service. It's akin to roads, water and sewage for houses when thought of in the sense of giving everyone access to information.

      Most of the biggest economies could support it. Save vast duplication of effort and work to open standards. Once the system exists why should its use be limited when the cost per indivdual to have it is miniscule.

      There's a lot of details to consider but...

    14. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

      Ok you're making the same micropayment mistake everyone else is. Making micropayments seems like a good idea but what happens if you fall short of what you expected to make? I'm not gonna work full time on anything if I may or may not get paid for it for that month. And you're forgetting that 40K isn't very much to be making programming in some areas. You're almost below the poverty line in Southern California making 40K a year in some cities. You can't park in Costa Mesa or Irvine unless you make 55K a year. You can't raise a family on a micropayment system either, what happens when one month you make 5$ and the next month you make a thousand? The inconsistancies come from people not upgrading or paying for shit all the time, lets say I download v1.5 and it's a piece of shit. I'm either not going to wait for the bug fixes in v1.6 or I'm going to tell you to go fuck yourself if you want me to pay for the functionality expected from the previous release. Micropayments also cost you a shitload more to impliment than people are donating. You can't have a bunch of 1$ credit card charges. Shit some credit cards cost you more than 1$ per transaction. Checks are expensive to process usually more than some expected micropayment amount.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    15. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by sydb · · Score: 2

      It'd be clearer if you indented (or italicised) the quoted parts of the post you were replying to, instead of indenting your own.

      NO company has yet financially contributed to the development of Linux itself by paying people to work on it. Sure, they donate hardware, rack time, stuff like that, but it's for their own benefit; PR or product work

      Wrong. To pick a ridiculously obvious example, have you heard of RedHat? They pay Alan Cox to code the kernel. They pay Steven Tweedie to do the same (or they used to).

      Have a look at the Linux Kernel mailing list. It's full of people coding Linux as part of their job because the companies they work for want bugs fixed and features added. And I'm not just talking about Linux distribution vendors, I'm talking about end user companies. Of course it's a small proportion of companies who do this, but it had to start somewhere, then grow. That's how Open Source really works. That's how it should work.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    16. Re:If I had a $ for every time I had this argument by hacker · · Score: 1
      Wrong. To pick a ridiculously obvious example, have you heard of RedHat? They pay Alan Cox to code the kernel. They pay Steven Tweedie to do the same (or they used to).
      No, actually they do not. Alan Cox is paid to help solve customer problems, including customers like HP, Amazon.com, and others. He does not have it in his contract with Redhat that his time is "allowed" to be working on the Linux kernel source code, but they know that he does, and part of his time is dedicated to Open Source work. He'd made it a full-time job working on the kernel source code, if Redhat didn't have "real" work for him to do for their paying customers.

      It's the same with all of us who work for companies and are also Linux advocates, developers, and supporters. Linus doesn't work on the Linux kernel during his day job, except of course, when there's slow periods or he is waiting on work at Transmeta. This applies to all the big names you can throw at me.

      Companies do not fund Linux development directly, unless it can be directly attributed to saving their bottom line, or putting them in the black. They pay the salaries of people who work to solve customer or product problems, and when there's spare time, many work on their open source work. Some have it written into their contracts that a percentage of their paid time is to be used for Open Source work, but I have yet to see someone who is directly paid to work on Open Source projects.

  46. You misunderstand Linux by pauljlucas · · Score: 1
    If Linux wants to be on alot of desktops then this type of memo isn't going to get it too far.

    Linux (or rather Linus, since Linux, being an inanimate thing, can't "want" anything) is done for fun by developers. Linus has said words to this effect many times. Linus doesn't care about Microsoft or desktops or whether you or the general public use Linux.

    --
    If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  47. software free, services money... by linuxlover · · Score: 2

    You'd think,
    - give away the software (abiword)
    - then make money by running a support center (bugs / hand holding)

    well, we have seen all the 'services' companies with LInux go down the drain. why? b/c people who use Linux are already clueful. They know if something doesn't work
    - fix it themsleves (this hardly happens)
    - wait for the next release / rpm (this is where 90 % of the people are)

    I don't think any one is converted to Linux just becaseu they saw a shiny 19.95 box on Best Buys.

    There are however successfull LInux desktop deplyoment stories within Slashdot. Just do a search.

    SO how do you make an IT dept adopt Linux? have an IT manager who is clueful. It is like when you choose an ISP, should you go for AOL or some niche isp who would let you run your own sendmail. We are talking about the AOL crowd here. Sure it is easy choice. But you grow out of it soon.

    how do you make money off by offering value-add services to freesoftware? I haven't figured that out yet. If I did, I wouldn't be writing this from my office computer!

    LinuxLover

  48. So sorry, can't compete. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In short, Open Source cannot deliver on the expectations of the average consumer. Hey Linux community, this is why Redmond will always kick your ass on the desktop and in the server room.

  49. Important advice they forgot to give you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When posting a bug to bugzilla, please submit that bug (exact URL please) also to slashdot, so everyone can see it.

  50. Re:RPM Doesn't work? FIX IT.... --- sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft must love having GNU/Linux as the only serious competitor. I can see them laughing all the way to the bank as they hear hoards of nerds suggesting, "if you have a problem, you can always fix it yourself from source!"

    I'm sorry, but even I, a developer, can't think of anything more boring or time-wasting than spending hours every so often fixing the latest breakage in Free software. "Then don't use it!" Thanks for pointing the obvious out to me, that's usually my second move if I can't work out a solution.

    (Of course, I'll also make bug reports or even suggest fixes if I have the time. But you know what? Not everyone can wait the 7-100 days for the fix, or spend the time themselves fixing it. I'd rather use a product that's been through QA or at least a _modicum_ of formal testing. Where do all these Free software developers get their time from anyway? Are they all students with rich parents?)

    The glory of Microsoft desktop software is not that it is wonderfully bug free, although I've found a Microsoft desktop (Office and all) to be a lot more stable than any general X/*nix environment. The glory is that it works well enough for me to get on with my life.

    EORant.

  51. "We do it for fun" by sulli · · Score: 2
    These are the key words in the document, which I found Interesting, Informative, and even Insightful. For fun! They're not trying to cut M$' marketshare; they're not trying to show up StarOffice; they're not trying to build the Next Big Thing and retire gazillionaires; they're just building it because they want a nice, free word processor.

    All y'all who are complaining that this means they're not commercial-grade, etc.: You're right! But it doesn't matter! These guys don't care about that, and they don't need to, because they're spending their own time on it. Use it if you like, don't if you don't, life goes on either way.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:"We do it for fun" by John_Booty · · Score: 2

      It's amazing what people can create for fun, as opposed to what they create because some marketing group said so. I'm a firm believer that when people are having fun creating something, it shows through in the end product, in nearly-always positive ways!

      Remember how Linux got started and Linus' continuing philosophy- he continually says that he's doing Linux for fun and to scratch his personal itches, and not to fuck Microsoft over or because he wants to save the world or something.

      --

      OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
  52. Hmm... by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    I wonder if a fellow could pay the rent with an IRC support channel and a paypal account. I should look into that...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  53. Re:My Experience With Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Linux is used alot at NASA for Scientific work. We do atmospheric satellite data analysis using g77 math libraries and C.

    You do "atmospheric satellite data analysis" but you're too stupid to see a troll when it's slapping you in the face like a huge wet halibut? I'd love to get a job where you're at.

  54. Appearance is everything by kcbrown · · Score: 1
    When you look at how most companies operate and how the users behave, one thing should become clear: quality of support doesn't really matter.

    Let me explain.

    You see, companies that use software aren't truly interested in the quality of the support they get. Rather, what they're really interested in is the appearance of support. That is, all they really care about is that they know that there is someone they theoretically could call for help if they need it. For these people, it's much more important for them to be able to easily identify who that entity is than it is for them to actually be able to get decent support from that entity.

    So the reason that software from Microsoft and other larger software providers is more palatable to the average PHB than open source software is that they immediately know who to call for help, while the same isn't true of some piece of open source software.

    This is true of the users as well. It doesn't matter if the support they get from their IT department sucks. What matters to them is that they know who to call for help, even if the "help" they get is essentially useless.

    So like almost everything else in this world, appearance is much more important than substance.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    1. Re:Appearance is everything by John_Booty · · Score: 2

      You see, companies that use software aren't truly interested in the quality of the support they get. Rather, what they're really interested in is the appearance of support. That is, all they really care about is that they know that there is someone they theoretically could call for help if they need it.

      This is SO insightful (hint hint, moderators). Why don't people understand this? When people diss OSS because of support issues, I ask them to recall for me the last time they got good support (particularly good, FREE support) from a commercial closed-source software vendor. Their answer is usually "never".

      You can get good support for commercial products, but you usually need to pay through the nose for it.

      --

      OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
    2. Re:Appearance is everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You see, companies that use software aren't
      > truly interested in the quality of the support
      > they get. Rather, what they're really
      > interested in is the appearance of support.

      That depends on who is making purchasing decisions: the guy using the tool, or the guy managing the guy managing the guy managing the guy using the tool.

    3. Re:Appearance is everything by HiThere · · Score: 2

      You can get good support for commercial products, but you usually need to pay through the nose for it.


      Are you sure of that? From hardware vendors, yes, but I haven't heard ANY good reports from people about software support. And that includes people who paid for it. (OTOH, smaller vendors do tend to provide better support, so perhaps...)
      .

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Appearance is everything by John_Booty · · Score: 2

      Are you sure of that?

      Even Microsoft offers pretty good support plans if you pay for it. I've opened a few Microsoft developer support incidents in the past couple of years, and yeah, it takes a phone call or two before you get escalated to an actual engineer, but once you do, the support is nice. They'll actually look at your code and send YOU code, and the incident stays open until it's resolved or you get your money back. '

      Now, I don't know how expensive this is, because my company was paying for it (probably expensive, yet cheap compared to the cost of a team of our developers spinning their wheels while stuck on a problem for a week). As much as I like to bash Microsoft, I was pretty satisfied after the incident.

      --

      OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
  55. Just a thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been noticing with the influx of OS X users that the OSS comunity may well be missing out on a damn good oporotunity. Many Mac users new to the OSS world would be very interested in helping out some OSS projects, but very few of them are developers. But what many of them are is something that open source is in dire need of: designers and writers. No offence to any developers, but most open source documentation is pure-a shit and most of the interfaces are design nightmares. But I've seen almost no attempts to bring these folks into the fold so to speak. The condescension so typical of the geek community quickly turns these people off of the movement. We need to do more than bleat at users to provide code and bug reports, we need to woo profesional writers and designers into contributing their time to OSS in the same manner that proffesional developers do.

  56. What who wants? by bluesninja · · Score: 2

    If Linux wants to be on alot of desktops then this type of memo isn't going to get it too far

    Linux doesn't want anything -- it's an operating system, silly! Do you mean "if the programmers who write software for linux want it to be on desktops..."? Guess what: that's a diverse group including companies like Redhat, who undoubtably wants linux to be on a lot of desktops, and the people from Abiword, who just get their rocks off by writing neat software.

    The authors of Abiword aren't responsible to "Linux," or Redhat, or RMS, or anyone else to maximize the user's desktop computing experience. If IT managers and John Q. Public don't want to use it, then fine. No skin of Abiword's back. They aren't after market-share.

    That's the beauty of it. Nobody needs to tow the linux company line. If the author's of Abiword, first and foremost, wanted to make sure that their software was fit for all users and for corporate deployment, then they wouldn't have written their memo, and would quit their jobs and work on Abiword full-time, hire support personnel, etc., etc.,.

    I don't think you should generalize about what the goals of linux programmers are.

    /bluesninja

  57. Money support? Pay pal by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 1
    Someone needs to set up an arbitrator that will help with sending money (via PayPal or another way) directly to a specific product's development team or developer.

    And do not say to just send money to GNU. Because an organization with a monopoly of any market can not be trusted to do what it's consumers wish. This applies to GNU, Microsoft, and RIAA alike, and also to charities (like United Way) and even the government itself. If it is possible to remove the middle organization and pay directly to the entity doing the work, then this should be done.

  58. From a "document analyst" standpoint by cyoung1035 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been working as a typist/word processor/document analyst for years now, and I HATE WORD! Word Perfect in its latest incarnation is nothing more than a Word clone, so it's not an option. I wanted to use only true open-source software, not proprietary like StarOffice, and I didn't need a whole suite. So I chose AbiWord. I'm a Linux newbie, and I was able to install AbiWord from the binaries (on Red Hat 6.0). The simplicity of the software is a refreshing change from all the packaged crap that wants to try to do everything for you (which is why I switched to Linux in the first place -- I've been working in Windows wayyyyy too long)! After reading the AbiSource letter, I signed up for both the developer and user mailing lists. If there are bugs in AbiWord (I haven't found any yet, BTW), I want to help fix 'em, not just whine about 'em -- maybe my years of being an end-user will finally amount to something!

  59. Many of these points apply to all software by iabervon · · Score: 2

    There may not be prebuilt binaries for your platform. There aren't prebuilt binaries of commercial software for most platforms. AbiWord is probably ahead of MicroSoft here, and there's a chance that you can build binaries yourself if you need to, unlike with commercial software.

    Complaining about bugs and missing features to places other than the proper channels will get you nowhere, and being rude about it won't help either. This is certainly true of all OSS. It's not true of MicroSoft, reportedly, but that's just because MicroSoft's proper channels are ignored by their programmers.

    Getting support from programmers is difficult, in general, because they're busy programming. MicroSoft won't even let you talk to them. You can't demand a feature or to have a bug fixed from the makers of any software: what you want may be too difficult, or there may be more important things on the list.

    The reduced functionality is what you'd have to expect from a newer program from a smaller group. It doesn't really matter whether the motivation is financial or not, a small number of people will write a program with fewer features than MS will. Hopefully the features that AbiWord has are the ones you want, and the features that are missing are ones that would just get in your way.

    The letter is particular to AbiWord, but it applies in most of the parts to everyone, including MicroSoft.

  60. Re:So what they're trying to say is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Says something that is true, but anti-OSS, get moderated to troll.

  61. Who can I pay for support? by big.ears · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This rant is totally reasonable. My question is--who can I pay for supporting Abiword? Let's say I'm a business, and want a Free word processor, and Abiword fits the bill perfectly. But, I know that my secretaries will need some questions answered. And occasionally, I might need a feature implemented (e.g., I'll need some document conversion done for my old dos-based word processor WinWord) Let's say I'm willing to pay for this. Who will take my money, and enter into this contract? Dom? Ximian? Who?

    1. Re:Who can I pay for support? by Mongoose · · Score: 2

      Very simple - you'll have to hire in house support. Much of the power of linux is that you can have in house developers and techs add features and support to products w/o any problems like being a licenscee.

      If you think I'm kidding - then ask around how most 'full time' OSS developers get paid. =)

    2. Re:Who can I pay for support? by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

      This is pretty ridiculous for an office that employs only a handful of people. They need to be able to get the software, have it work, and if they happen to run into problems they need someone to call or e-mail to get it working. If you're an office shelling out a couple bucks for Word2000/XP you can call up Microsoft for support. If it comes on your hardware you call up the OEM and it's their problem. I've seen dozens of agencies and organizations that can barely afford to keep the employees they do have let alone house a complete IT department.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    3. Re:Who can I pay for support? by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1

      In house developers? In some places that might work, but most small businesses are lucky if they can afford a couple good books or a single training class, let alone another employee. And if they're attracted to free software because they're short on cash then it's even less likely.

      Employees cost a lot of money. Yeah, contractors can work, but then you're back to searching around for someone who can handle what you need when you need it (and, unless you're paying them under the table, someone who's also willing and able to meet whatever legalities are necessary.)

      Either way someone's gonna want to get paid for their time and trouble. Seems like we're just pushing the problem farther away from the original developers and back toward the potential users.

    4. Re:Who can I pay for support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Answer: Redhat, Mandrake, Suse, etc.

      Get paid support from your distributor.

      btw if you cant get Abiword to open winword (aka MS Write?) documents then send in a sample doc please, some support has recently been added.

    5. Re:Who can I pay for support? by big.ears · · Score: 2

      This was all hypothetical. And winword was a dos-based word processor that got packaged in a department-store computer I got in about 1988.

  62. Re:My Experience With Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your right! I should have known better.

  63. No autoconf == PITA to build by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I downloaded this once with the intention of distributing it as the default word processor on the machines I put together, but the lack of a sane build process made it more trouble than it was worth. IMO the lack of a consistent build procedure plagues the open-source world, seriously hindering the productivity of those who try to build systems around open software.

    On a related note, does anyone know of a word processor that _does_ use autoconf? My time is too valuable to spend hours reading build procedures and resolving dependencies because the developers assume you have all the necessary libraries and header files (and the correct versions) in /usr/include and /usr/lib. On my systems /usr/include and /usr/lib don't even _exist_, and I can usually build autoconf-based packages within minutes. For most other things though, it's hit or miss, and Abiword was a big miss.

  64. Re:Abiword Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this "offtopic?" Abiword does indeed suck, this article is about Abiword, ergo to say Abiword sucks is germaine.

  65. On the other hand... by Madfishmonger · · Score: 1
    On the other hand, besides people expecting too much from Abiword and open-source software in general, when was the last time you didn't see a newsgroup or forum post by a developer praising Abiword or any other open-source project as a fully-functional alternative to their commercial counterparts? Like on MacSlash, one of the Abiword developers regularly advertises Abiword as not only being an alternative to MS Word, but also as having more features... and some wonder where the high expectations come from.

    I think some open-source projects need to keep their developers on a tighter leash to prevent them from causing potential damage to their project in the sense of "But he said I can do the laundry with this spreadsheet, I read it on [insert favorite forum here]..."
    Me, I'm content with any piece of software that does what it claims to do.
    If you look closely at my .sig, you'll see it move, honest.

  66. Please note: development != distributor by ajs · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I keep seeing the same thing:
    • Linux kernel version 2.4.mumble has problems and people ask "how can this be releasable". It's not stable!
    • gcc 3.0 is unstable for the first few releases and folks start whining about how this isn't a production-quality compiler
    • AbiWord says that they're not providing commercial-grade support services and everyone gets honked off and claims that open source software can't work
    Can you all just take a step back, breathe deeply and remind yourselves that in any software organization with more than 10 developers there are two versions of the software (at least):
    • The development snapshot (or mainline, depending one your local terminology). This is a stable release from the developers to inernal customers such as Q/A, release engineering and perhaps alpha testers for integration testing and embeded product testing.
    • The release. This is the ready-for-prime-time code that will be supported and maintained by the company.
    Are you seeing the parallel here? When Linus releases kernel 2.4.57, he's releaseing a snapshot that lets Q/A (made up of Q/A groups in numerous companies that sell Linux-based products) release engineering (the distribution vendors) and alpha integration testers (embedded systems customers) begin their test and release cycle. Same for AbiWord. Ximian, Red Hat and many others release AbiWord, but I doubt that they ever release it absolutely as shipped. Their Q/A process only begins when AbiSource creates a new version.

    So, here's the question of the day: why are people shocked when the developers start acting like developers and say "we're not going to hand-hold you"? Well, there's a few reasons. Obviously there are the folks who just wait for an opportunity to slam OSS. Then there are the people who have become confused and don't realize that the Mozilla developers or the AbiWord developers are just that: developers. Then there are the folks who get their priorities confused. They say that they don't want to deal with "big business software", so they go it alone. This is all well and good, but when you do this, you have to expect the other shoe to drop.

    If you're downloading gcc 3.0 the day it comes out because you want the new features fast, great! But, don't be shocked when your code fails to work correctly because you have a hardware combination that was not well tested. If you'd waited for Red Hat 7.2, you would have found the optional gcc 3.0.x binaries with a big old wad of patches. Why? Because they tested it, patched it, and released it.

    Get over it. Software support is hard, and there are people in the OSS world that do it well. But, to expect every project to come out the gate with good Q/A and support is just silly.

    1. Re:Please note: development != distributor by Enahs · · Score: 2
      If you're downloading gcc 3.0 the day it comes out because you want the new features fast, great! But, don't be shocked when your code fails to work correctly because you have a hardware combination that was not well tested.

      And further, don't run off to kuro5hin or ZDNet writing a bitchy, whiny, ranty editorial about OSS not being "production-ready." It's asinine, wrong-headed (ever heard of filling out a friendly bug report?), and besides, takes away from your credibility when you use language constructs invented by Microsoft's marketing department. ;-)

      But, to expect every project to come out the gate with good Q/A and support is just silly.

      Right, and one thing that people forget (or the newcomers haven't learned yet) is that OSS projects rely on their userbase for QA and support as well.

      I'm personally just glad to see that we're nearing the end of the year-long "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" trollwars. ;-)

      Thanks, ajs; you made my day. :-)

      --
      Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
    2. Re:Please note: development != distributor by esw · · Score: 1

      * Linux kernel version 2.4.mumble has problems and people ask "how can this be releasable". It's not stable!

      My understanding of the development process is that 2.4.whatever should be stable since that _is_ the release branch - 2.3.whatever and 2.5.whatever are the development branches. No one should expect those to be stable, but we should be able to expect the stable branch to be stable.

    3. Re:Please note: development != distributor by psychosystem · · Score: 1

      And ANY MS product IS release quality?? With a new virus of the day for Outlook, IE, etc, how can you say that?? MS refuses even to patch the new IE bug, figuring that if they don't tell you it's there, you won't bitch. IMHO, I'd rather use OSS software any day as at least the community is willing to look at the code, admit there is a problem, and fix it in an orderly, timely fashion. (WUFtpd excluded! :) )

      --
      This is my Sig.
    4. Re:Please note: development != distributor by HiThere · · Score: 2

      His point is that release quality is not equivalent to distribution quality. Linux kernel version 2.4.mumble should be self consistent. Shouldn't have any internal consistency problems. Should work on all standard hardware. But that doesn't mean that it will necessarily work with new hardware. That doesn't mean that it will necessarily work with ... lots of stuff.

      The distributors put in lots of "kernel patches". They package it with installers that examine your hardware, and figure out which patches are right for your hardware. When there are choices to make, the installer frequently asks you questions (or you can tell it "just make your best guess"). But this isn't a part of the Kernel. The kernel doesn't decide which version of X Window you want to use. It doesn't specify your desktop. etc. You roll your own, and you may break any of this, yes, any of this and even more (I've sometimes not even been able to get to a text screen, and I'm less experimental than many).
      .

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:Please note: development != distributor by ajs · · Score: 2

      Yep, there's that word....

      "stable" is perhaps the world's most misunderstood word, when it comes to software. When you release a version and call it "stable", you're not saying that you haven't seen a fatal industrial accident in 29 days. You're saying that a) the interfaces are frozen so that others may rely on them for external dependancies b) the rate of "emergency changes" has slowed to the point that they should no longer interfere with packaging and release of the software.

      That's it. When you buy Red Hat (or SuSe or Debian or whatever), you pay for the NEXT 3-6 months of work, integrating the results of those "stable releases" into a supportable commercial software product. You can roll your own, but if you do you take on a lot of work, and you have to expect that.

  67. 0.9.6 by Amadablam · · Score: 1

    I just checked Abisource's site and it appears that 0.9.6 is on it's way. The site says 0.9.6 but not all the download links are updated. Your best bet is to browse http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/abiword/ and see if what you need is there. Right now I only see the abiword-0.9.6.1.tar(.gz)...I'm sure more will follow soon... Nice timing, /.!

  68. Microsoft Support by WhiteBandit · · Score: 1

    I actually agree with this statement. As much as many of us hate the evil empire, some of their support options are fairly decent.

    I haven't had a wide variety of experience with all of their support services, but what I have used hasn't been too bad.

    I tried the phone route one time which was erm, interesting. Instead of playing chessy hold music, they have like an actual DJ.

    "That was Pink Floyd - The Wall. Currently, there are 14 people waiting on hold for help right now with an average wait of 20 minutes. Next up, Aerosmith."

    I have to admit, it was slightly amusing. So maybe there is a reason for their overpriced software? :)

    One other support service I have done is their online tech support. Once you describe your problem (I'm usually dealing with Access at work), they are pretty good at responding within a short time. Sometimes within a few hours, but never more than a day or so. They do a good job at helping out with solutions. I think there's only been 2 times they haven't been able to help me, but that is only because my company wants to do stuff that Access isn't "l337" enough to support.

    I guess to each his own. There are probably those who have horrible issues with Microsoft support, but I'm sure you can find those same cases among the linux community. (Look at many of the elitist pricks who offer such wonderful advice as formatting hard drives and burning computers to inexperienced users :)

    Dave

  69. Re:Abiword is doomed. by Carik · · Score: 1

    Really? I can't stand KOffice, I've never managed to get OpenOffice to run, and StarOffice is so slow I try not to use it. Abiword, on the other hand, does everything I need, very little that I don't, and is just as fast as starting an eterm to run VI or just starting emacs. So tell me, how is AbiWord inferior?

    Of course, the nice thing about OpenSource is that you can use the version you like, which has lots of features and runs well on your machine, and I can run the version I like, which has almost no features and runs on my machine. For that matter, most of my papers over the past year or so have been written in html, using pine. But whatever.

  70. ...and cars. by DrCode · · Score: 2

    Really, is a $40,000 Mercedes all that much better than a $16,000 VW? It used to be that the more expensive cars had more advanced features like fuel-injection and ABS; but those are standard on almost all cars now.

    Yet I know people who wouldn't even consider buying the cheaper car, even if they have to go into debt for the more expensive brand.

    1. Re:...and cars. by gol64738 · · Score: 1

      wait homie, don't be bustin on volkswagens!
      i got a 2000 GTI/VR6.

      i'll race your mercedes.... heh ehh

    2. Re:...and cars. by zelyan · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention that pair.

      Yes, actually, a Mercedes is actually better than VW, and I say that as an avid VW fan. In my family there are a few cars owned by various people, but all basically taken care of the same. One of them is a 1993 Mercedes, another a 1999 VW Jetta. The Mercedes runs like a dream, handles _much_ better than the Jetta, accelerates faster (and it's an automatic, sadly) both at low speeds and enormously at high speeds, and just drives better.

      Yet the VW drives well, handles beautifully, and accelerates just enough (it's a 1.8T engine with an easy and clean manual). So yes, sometimes money really does matter.

      Now if you asked me if the $99 Canon Inkjet was less good than the $150, I'd have to answer a definite no. But for your choice, I'm going to digress. =)

      Jeff

  71. commercial effort: IE vs Mozilla by studboy · · Score: 1
    For example, the Internet Explorer team is much smaller than the number of people working on Mozilla

    perhaps now, yes; but in the fever-pitch Browser Wars, MS mentioned that the development of IE cost about $500M. That's half a *billion* dollars, for lots of programmers putting in long hours for high-speed development.

    Okay, quick, name any other widely-used project with a budget, say, $1M. None? How about $100,000?

    This Christmas, give the gift that keeps on giving -- a job! my resume is available
    1. Re:commercial effort: IE vs Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Okay, quick, name any other widely-used project with a budget, say, $1M.

      XEmacs.

      "The facts speak for themselves: we have tried very hard to work with the FSF. We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and several man-years on it...." - Jamie Zawinski, March 4, 1993.

      And unless you believe GPL programmer time is completely valueless, that $1 million figure has easily been surpassed by almost every program you use over the course of your day.

  72. ShabbyWord? by JamesOfTheDesert · · Score: 1
    From the letter: There's more people [...]

    I wonder if they used their own grammar-checker.

    --

    Java is the blue pill
    Choose the red pill
  73. The big question... by tyhockett · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At some point in my life as a network administrator, I had to realize that questions from my users were not going to get any smarter. Joe Six Pack is never going to learn how to fix and compile his own software. Never. He will only be able to a) use it or b) complain about it when it doesn't work.

    My heart really goes out to the AbiWord team, and I find myself wondering about a bigger question. Can Open Source software really become mainstream (as in Microsoft/Apple-style mainstream) without help from a for-profit organization to support it? There are tons of new BSD (Mac OS X) users signing up everyday, but it is because Apple is selling it, not because it's great and Free.

    I am not flaming here. I know, however, that as more people download and use AbiWord (or any other OSS), these problems with too-high-expectations are going to get worse, not better. With or without an open letter.

  74. This is the classic error. by SPYvSPY · · Score: 1

    You've given a fairly accurate account of the consumer end user layer, but the parent comment was addressing the corporate purchasing layer. The purchasing departments of big companies only buy one thing from vendors -- accountability. The open source community is deluding itself if it thinks that it can establish an equivalency with the software giants without absorbing post-sale/license accountability for their products. Let me repeat: vendor accountability is the number one criterion for corporate procurement. Any product that isn't supported (or at least APPEARS to be supported) by the vendor is not going to work in a corporate environment, because the last thing that CIO's want is to in-source support for functions. Doing so would make them accountable for failures, and would preclude them from going to the Board of Directors and arguing that Microsoft (or any other IT vendor) sucks.

  75. Re:Playing catch up with MS is a losing game w/o c by waitdyahoo.com · · Score: 1

    I woulds say I have to agree %100..

    I use windows because my OS of Choice BeOS in no longer being mantained.

    I would love to see AbiWord be compatable enough with word that I can do what I need to do, but still be fast and nimble.

  76. How Is This Different Than Commercial Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    You think you can command MS to fix an annoyance in Word before noon tomorrow and have your wishes fulfilled?

    In my experience companies are MORE likely to turn a deaf ear than open source developers, unless you are paying a $30,000+ / yr support contract.

  77. I have many good things to say about AbiWord by Kiwi · · Score: 2
    I would like to take a moment to thank the AbiWord development team for the termendous effort they have put in to making a truly open-source word processor. I use AbiWord to write papers for my Spanish classes, and have seen AbiWord go from being a good to a great word processor.

    There were three bugs which were annoying me in 0.9.4, and all but one of them was fixed on 0.9.5. The one they didn't fix I was able to fix myself--an option that I would not have had if AbiWord was a proprietary product.

    The source code to AbiWord is clean and readily readable, the user interface to AbiWord is very professional-looking, and it is perfect for my Spanish-language compositions.

    Speaking of which, I really should get off Slashdot and start working on tonight's paper.

    - Sam

    --

    The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.

  78. they got what they asked for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    abiword is one of the most over hyped
    pieces of crap out there.

    their motto on the web page is
    'do they care about users'?

  79. Abi by Glanz · · Score: 1

    Good deal!!! I have got (ten) Abi to work with M$ Word by redefining paths. I am sure that total compatibility isn't far if I am capable of that ! lol... They are the best because of their perseverance. They do not say "die" and they are dedicated. As far as plug-ins go, with "wv" one can do wonders.

    --
    Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
  80. Re:RPM Doesn't work? FIX IT.... by drsquare · · Score: 1

    Who gives a fuck what "Joe sixpack" thinks? It works for me and that's all I give a fuck about. I don't care if he goes out and buys every piece of MS software that comes out. He's the one getting shafted up the arse, not me.

    I'll stick to my quality, free, open-source software and everyone else can go fuck themselves.

  81. Re:RPM Doesn't work? FIX IT.... by Trepidity · · Score: 2

    Of course if you have to be able to fix the source to get stuff to work (even if it's only a minor fix), then you can't argue with the people who claim "Linux isn't ready for the desktop - you need to be a programmer to use it." You can't have it both ways.

  82. Don't give out large software in your own name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to give away large pieces of software
    you can't tie your name to it. This exemplifies
    the point. People expect not just support but
    guarantees for mechantilability and fitness
    for a particular purpose. The GPL protects you
    from legal retaliation but not personal
    retaliation. If you give out large programs and
    fail to guarantee support, merchantilability, and
    fitness for a particular purpose you'll never work
    on software for a living again.

    1. Re:Don't give out large software in your own name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree for the most part, but the GPL is a over-glorified piece of (invalid) shit.

  83. Re:Abiword is doomed. by waldoj · · Score: 1

    StarOffice has a much more impressive feature list: multiplatform support, much better support for WordXP/2K import/export, java, international spellchecker etc.

    StarOffice is laughably bloated, and is worthless for mere mortals to make use of. I've tried and tried, and gave up a few months ago.

    KOffice can't work with any document format except for HTML and their own KOffice format. A nice word processor, but worthless without at least RTF.

    Abiword, OTOH, is a simple word processor that does everything well. It's not at the point where it's my daily word processor, but I've watched it come along over the months, and I definitely feel like it's getting there.

    -Waldo Jaquith

  84. Paying zarroo and getting support by jawtheshark · · Score: 1
    It's not exactly true that you don't get support, you just have to *do* something yourself for it. That's the way OSS works. Of course, picking up the phone and calling someone is easier.
    Honestly: if your troubles aren't too complex or too technical in nature, your chances are good that you'll find -after some googeling- a webpage explaining a fix or a workaround. Commercial product support often only give workaround (ever called Oracle?)

    Once even I was stuck on an obscure PCMCIA SCSI card, and I complained about it on slashdot. The next day there was a friendly mail from a fellow slashdot reader that explained me to download the pcmcia-cs package instead of relying on the kernel itself for PCMCIA support. I didn't expect this to happen and for this thanks to the slashdot user that helped me (hope you read this!) And this is actually quite a technical question.

    I think the technical support that normal user needs, has rarely that kind of complexity. I work at a consulting company and if the secretary (or management/marketing type) has a problem they ask the guys in standby. I guess, in more traditional companies, they call the internal helpdesk and/or ask the IT guy when he emerges from the basement to fetch some coffee.
    The home user is another type of animal: I never met anyone who actually called the support of Microsoft for help with installing their printer (for example). I reinstall/troubleshoot people (payment: one case of beer and free beer while I'm helping out) and I have seen home configurations with tons of non-working devices on machines ranging from Windows 3.0 to Windows 2000.

    For one point: Linux is not yet ready for the desktop in the classic sense (I use it as desktop, but that's not important), but in companies that have well-defined installations and platforms it might stand a chance. Home user desktop: not yet, for that it is too complex to manage... I need to say that it gets better, but it's not there yet.

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  85. Brands! by jawtheshark · · Score: 1
    The only reason is brands: cars are status symbols and that is the reason people tend to prefer Audi over VW. I do pick those two brands on purpose (I know you used Mercedes), because they use the same platforms. You buy an Audi A3 or Audi TT, but you have exactly the same chassis as a VW Golf. Not many people know this (well, "many" is relative here) Look up the price difference between the cars. I have to admit the Audi finition looks sleeker (a bit), but everything you get in an Audi, you can get it in a VW often even standard or cheaper.

    Point is: people look at your car and rate you according to it, they don't look at the software you run on your computer as long as it "works". Actually software is even worse: people actually looked at my Linux desktop and the most common exlamation was "Say, that isn't windows, how can you do any work on it?" Mostly I just smile and don't bother, they don't want to listen anyway.

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  86. Re:Abiword is doomed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The KOffice format is XML that is gzip/tarred up. In essence, it's similar to the Abiword format.

  87. truth and honesty (and good engineering) == by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...success.

    "And about advancing the Linux cause, isn't truth and honesty a little more effective in the long run than false expectations?"

    Right on. We need more people thinking this way. Any argument with the above is what's *wrong* with most businesses.

  88. Am I Still Banned?? by Faulty+Dreamer · · Score: 0

    You fucking hypocrite nazi editors.

    --

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

  89. Re:RPM Doesn't work? FIX IT.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, you stick to the quality of open source software.

    The rest of us will laugh at you in the street - 'cos that's where you'll be living, loser.

  90. Why is this under the GNOME heading? by erat · · Score: 2

    Just curious here... A long time ago, the Abiword project refused to become the official (i.e. to the exclusion of "all others") word processor for GNOME. To this day, you can get GNOME and non-GNOME versions of Abiword.

    Why is this assigned to the GNOME topic?

    1. Re:Why is this under the GNOME heading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Abiword is a Gnome application.

      Its portable, its flexible and it chooses not to ignore the largest userbase going unlike other Gnome software that i would love to use on other platforms.

      Not using Gnome on every platform is a pragmatic and reasonded approach.
      That does not make Abiword any less a Gnome Application. When gnome runs on Win32, MacOS and BeOS there will probably be a Gnome native version of Abiword running on it.

      Abiword is a Gnome application.

      No really, it is
      End of story.

  91. Obligitory Simpsons Quote. by orichter · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Last night's 'Itchy & Scratchy' was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever. Rest assured that I was on the Internet within minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world." "As a loyal viewer," he added, "I feel they owe me."

    "What?" said Bart. "They've given you thousands of hours of entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe you? If anything, you owe them."

    The Comic Book Guy's answer: "Worst episode ever."

  92. Dreams Exceed Their Reach? by reallocate · · Score: 1
    This is not an open source issue. It's really about a mis-match between the stated goals of a project and the available resources. Microsoft would have the same problem if they only had a dozen or so folks working on Word.

    Maybe development efforts -- open source or otherwise -- ought to scale their dreams back to something they can do well and finish before they hit retirement age.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Dreams Exceed Their Reach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Speak as they please, what do the mountains care?
      Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"

      -Some Dead Guy, Blake perhaps.

  93. to the abiword crew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, just wanted to tell you that I think you guys are on the right track and I use your app more than any other because its small and does the job I need it too. Star Office is too big and KOffice doesn't do msword. But yours is a great product! Thank-you!

  94. Re:RPM Doesn't work? FIX IT.... by greenrd · · Score: 1
    I think you've missed the crucial distinction here. Linux (e.g. Red Hat Linux bundled with say StarOffice) is ready for (some) desktops.

    AbiWord isn't. It's not even at version 1.0 yet.

  95. Re:RPM Doesn't work? FIX IT.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I think you've missed the crucial distinction here. Linux (e.g. Red Hat Linux bundled with say StarOffice) is
    ready for (some) desktops.



    No it's not. Between Star Office, Koffice and Abiword they're either barly working with missing features, crash when trying to do work or don't even install. Maybe in a couple years...

  96. Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...then Joe Sixpack and the rest of the world can see what assholes we are,and commit to buying from a professional outfit like MS.

  97. Re:RPM Doesn't work? FIX IT.... by snoozerdss · · Score: 1

    I feel the same way you do. But if these companies want to make money they are going to have to start catering to "Joe sixpack". Other wise they'll all go out of business.

    --
    Snoozer.
  98. Cathedral or bazaar? by selan · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I definitely support the hard work of the AbiWord folks and sympathize with what they say in this letter.

    I think that the underlying point is that it's difficult for them to keep up with high expectations when they are such a small group of developers. It seems to me that this is an example of a project that is, unfortunately, not benefitting from the strengths of open source development.

    Ideally, when you have a project whose source is open, all users are free to contribute. The entire user body joins in the development effort and the project almost evolves by itself. That's how I understand the "bazaar" model of development.

    OTOH, from the sound of this letter, AbiWord is not getting the benefit from a large user base. They still only have a small group of their users who contribute to the code or even report bugs through the proper channels. It sounds like they have fallen into the "cathedral" model, even as they are trying to be a bazaar.

    So what's an open source project to do? I think they are on the right track. They need to mobilize their user base to report bugs and encourage more developers to contribute. Again, I don't mean this as criticism at all, but as encouragement. Open source is strong because everybody helps.

  99. Calling Microsoft about their broken software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    And seriously, who the hell are these people calling when their software breaks? I've never even heard of someone having Word break and then picking up the phone to dial Microsoft.

    I have. I found some bugs in the version of Microsoft Word that came with my legally purchased copy of Office 2000 Professional, I called them up and naively expected to be able to talk to someone about the bug I found. Furthermore (and yes, this is just how clueless I was about the process of dealing with Microsoft) I actually expected to get a response that would help me.

    As is probably obvious to those of you who have dealt with Microsoft, I did not get anything close to what I expected. I was not belligerant at all. I was calm and friendly at all times. But I expected bugs in software I paid 100% of the asking price for to be fixed at some indeterminate point in the future. At the least, I expected to be able to tell Microsoft about the bugs. And I expected the fixes to be made available to me either for free (as a way of saying 'thank you' for reporting the bugs) or at a reasonable sum to cover shipping (if the fix required a new CD). I knew nothing about the process of dealing with Microsoft. I was in for a rude awakening.

    I was courteously told that if I wanted to pay them more money per hour to hear my problem, I could do so (in fact I could give them my Visa number right over the phone and continue talking with the operator I was talking to). I told them I thought it was ridiculous of them to expect me to pay them to help them by reporting bugs in their software. I asked if there was a guarantee I'd get the fixes if I paid the hourly fee? "No, there is no guarantee. A fix will either be made available for free as an update or in the next version of Microsoft Word." "Which I'll be expected to pay for?" "Yes.". I told the operator I wasn't mad at them personally (I realize they are just doing their job) but I hope they understood my perspective on this. The operator understood, I then politely declined and we hung up.

    It was then I learned I wasn't going to get any reasonable bug support (not even listening to a bug report) from Microsoft. I began looking at alternative word processors and I ended up learning about AbiWord. It certainly wasn't true for me that you get what you pay for with Microsoft. I could have paid them and never have seen fixes to my problems.

  100. everyone, this is a troll, duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the line "please don't moderate this down as it raises very real points" is a dead giveaway. Who modded this moron up?

  101. Users vs Developers by idontunderstand · · Score: 1

    Let users pay Microsoft, let developers create Linux...

  102. Two Words by raistlinne · · Score: 1

    Auto Summarize.

    --
    They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
  103. Beancounters!! by dmaxwell · · Score: 2

    The staff of these purchasing departments must be populated by illiterates then. The EULA of every single software package I've ever seen disclaims all responsibility for fitness of purpose. Apparently, it must have some legal force because I've also never heard of Microsoft or any other major software house being held accountable for bugs.

    On the other hand, one CAN hold a company accountable for not fulfilling the terms of a service contract. The purchase price of the software is irrelavent compared to the cost of that all important service contract. But guess what?! Most software houses aren't in the business of selling service contracts; they sell licences. It is the VARs and retailers that sell service and some of THEM will even support open/free source.

    These idiot beancounters need to realize they should be paying for service not software. The software is just bits on a disk, a eula, and a Certificate of Authenticity. The service is what truly costs something regardless of whether the solution is proprietary or open source.

    If the beancounters don't want to in-source support then they can buy it. Sheesh! but can beancounters be really dumb!

  104. There's Vigor! by dmaxwell · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    http://www.red-bean.com/~joelh/vigor/screenshots/

    Heh. Heh.

  105. openosx and problems with open source by pneuma_66 · · Score: 2

    I think one problem with the open source philosophy is that is opens the door for companies like openosx. The people at openosx simply repackage unix apps to run on osx. however, they seem to make no mention of who wrote the software. for example if you look at this page they make no mention that they didnt write any of the software. Then they decide to charge $30 for their repackaging, and give nothing back to the community.

    you can make the argument that the various linux distros do the same, but any of the good ones always give back to the community.

    I feel that this practice will become even more of a problem in the future when a lot of the major open source apps come to maturity.

  106. And I liked it! by zelyan · · Score: 1

    I had to walk uphill both ways to school through 3 feet of snow, without shoes. And there was broken glass on the sidewalk under that snow, and the wind was always blowing in my face, never once a tailwind, and when I got to school, it was 12 hours long, and there was never any daylight when I got out, to walk back, uphill again, through more snow and hail in the evening and that driving wind. And when I got home my father beat me, because that's the way he did it.

    And I liked it, goddamnit!

  107. Oh yeah... by Raistlin99 · · Score: 1

    So who do you work for? It sounds like a good place to land a job.

    --
    I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
  108. Just depends on the license by Raistlin99 · · Score: 1

    Not GPL, not BSD, Public Domain. Just like it is done in science.

    --
    I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
    1. Re:Just depends on the license by wroot · · Score: 1
      Not GPL, not BSD, Public Domain. Just like it is done in science.

      Yes, IRC it's the law (in the US) that all publicly funded software (probably with limitations) should be released into the public domain (learned this while reading comments in the source of something from *.gov)

      What I was saying was that the government should specifically fund through grants and on a competitive basis (as in science) certain Open-Source projects. I would personally like to see things like Linux kernel, Debian, wine, Qt and KDE funded.

      Wroot

  109. Re:RPM Doesn't work? FIX IT.... by Error27 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The problem is that a gazillion people bought the CD with the broken RPM. That means that it has to be fixed a gazillion different times.

    What should have happenned is that the distro shouldn't have been sent out with a broken RPM.

    But given that it was, what Abiword should have done was put a big bold link on their web page saying that "Red Hat 7.1 shipped with a completely broken RPM. Click here to fix it." That link would take you to a page with two instructions.

    1) download _this_ ( with a link )
    2) rpm -i /path/to/file/

    Instead users poke around wonderring what the problem is and how to fix it. The version of Abiword online is much more recent but it talks about all these depends and stuff and so people aren't sure if it will work for Red Hat 7.1 or if they will have to mess around to fix it. Users don't want to screw around with that and so they just decide to save often and hope that it doesn't crash.

    Also, it could be that Red Hat packaged that software themselves, I don't know.

    And Red Hat's bug tracking site is not as easy to navigate as debian's.

    And Red Hat doesn't do enough to educate users about how to update their packages automatically. With Debian it is the first thing that users learn how to do.

    I respect Red Hat a lot. They hire many great programmers. They have done a lot for the Linux community. But they really need to work on user interface issues better.

  110. To Moderators: Example of a successful troll by extrasolar · · Score: 2
    Don't you realize you are speaking heresy?

    Thanks for poisoning the well...

    I think you've hit upon the fundamental problem with Open Source. It's not that Open Source is a bad thing, it can actually be quite good. But it's ridiculous to assume it will ever completely replace the commercial software market. Or even have a signifigant impact upon it because of consumer expectations.

    Hmm...I am beginning to wonder if there is anyway of declaring fundamental problems and not trolling. Its just like declaring the fundamental problems of politics, capitalism, and anything else I can think of. Fundamental problems simply do not exist in reasonable arguments.

    I've never used AbiWord and don't know what it's like. But imagine what these guys could do if instead of giving it away for free, they sold it for $15 off their website.

    Okay, Moderators? If by now you can't tell this is a troll then you really shouldn't be moderating. Given that this post is rated +4, there needs to be a reworking on who gets moderator privilidges...

    Okay...I'm done with this article. Its just not worth it.

  111. Re:My Experience With Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. This is 100% correct. Linux is only free for those whose time is worthless.

    Thankyou for showing that MS is the best way to go.

  112. Well they would have to change the license by Raistlin99 · · Score: 1

    Which probably won't fly real well with the developers.

    --
    I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
  113. Re:Abiword is doomed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has nothing to do with OpenSource.
    I can run Windows and use Word, which has lots of features, and I can run included WordPad ,which has almost no features ( comparable to Abiword.)

  114. Why is everyone down on open source today? by pchown · · Score: 1

    I don't know why there are so many posts criticising the Abiword team, or saying that open source won't work. It doesn't make sense to say that open source won't work because it already has: it is the dominant web server platform for example. Have a look at the Apache web site—there isn't a toll-free number that you can call if you get stuck.

    I run a software business; we use some commercial software and some open source software. We don't really use open source software because of the price, though that is a factor. We use it because the best open source products are better than their commercial counterparts. Apache is a good case in point; our web server hasn't been 0wn3d yet.

    Also if we use commercial software, it is written for the supplier's benefit. OpenOffice writes files in a (rather complicated) XML format, so if we need to do something else with the documents it's possible. Word, probably deliberately, writes files in an opaque format that keeps changing. We use Word at the moment but we would like to change, so we keep control of the business and not Microsoft. We may well make the change when the new StarOffice release ships. (Sorry Abiword; but I am downloading the latest version now so you are in with a chance. :-) )

    Open source gives you flexibility. There is something I would like to do to the Mozilla composer, which would make it into a completely different tool. With open source I can do that. Even with "free beer" Internet Explorer I couldn't because the interface exported by Microsoft isn't enough to do what I want.

  115. What you pay for? I don't need to pay! by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Windows+Office: several hundred dollars to write a letter once in a while, or my CV or whatever.

    Linux+Abiword: 10 dollars (cheap Debian CD distro, including posting and handling) to write a letter once in a while, or my CV or whatever.

    Now, convince me: why I should use MS software?

    I don't need to pay: all what I need is free and open, so even if the Abiword team decides to call it a day and stop development that does not mean all my documents all of the sudden become all crap and then I need to upgrade or else.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  116. "Please read this guide on writing good Bugs." by I+am+Jack's+username · · Score: 1
    From the letter: "Please read this guide on writing good Bugs."

    I don't need no stinkin' guide to write good bugs - my fellow programmers say I write the best bugs, and I never read any guides!

  117. Suuuweeeet! by doggo · · Score: 1

    All I can say is, what a well written and straightforward explanation. Kudos! This should be appended to the GPL. Too many people using OpenSource or GPL software are whiners and flamers about features and stability. Hey, you get what you pay for. Most of these projects are a gift to the world at large. And often, as in the case of AbiWord, it's a truly nice gift.

    I'm a proponent of free, as in no cost, software, having been poverty stricken for most of my life. To find free software that works has always been great, but some free software out there is more valuable, elegant, and featureful than commercial software. For that I'm grateful.

    In fact I've always felt great appreciation for the developers who've released free software for people to use, and given what I could to support them. (Think NewsWatcher and the Mac anti-virus software that John Norstad gave to the Mac community)

    Ever since I first discovered AbiWord I've been amazed at how nicely done it is, and have recommended it to my Windows users who cannot afford MS Word, or who hate MS and are trying to without their products as much as possible.

    So, if you've read the letter. Follow it to the letter. And keep it in mind when you download/install/use other free/opensource/GPL stuff.

  118. with bugreports, users become developers by Pflipp · · Score: 2
    Have a complaint? File a bug report. Almost every greater OSS project works like this. Now understand me right, I am not totally against this system. But I try to elaborate here that it doesn't work 100% natural to users.

    Because, what happens? You have an installed version of the system, but you would like fearture this-and-that. You go to (e.g.) IRC, to find out if you're the only one having this bug or feature request. Together with other IRC enthousiasts, you formulate quite an exact description of the problem. Next thing, you're reffered to the bug system.

    You read the instructions on the bug system. Says: always get the very latest version before filing a complaint. Makes you use CVS and stuff instead of this simple Debian package you used earlier.

    Now try to imagine that you, as a normal user, didn't give up at this point. Amazing, but OK. You checked out CVS, built the darn thing [got root access] and installed it. Bug still there, but sy least you're now free to file it.

    Next, enter Bugzilla. To everyone who has ever seen Bugzilla I bet it's needless to say more. To those who haven't: it's like the cockpit of a plain. And I can't fly. Actually, AFAIK, I never got to filing a Bugzilla bugreport.

    The core of this problem is, that for the sake of smooth functioning, the user has become part of the development system. And not just that, but it has become part of this in quite a high level, at least for some. Lots of people give up filing bugreports when they're confronted with all the protocol. It's like filling in your tax forms is easier. Often their bug might already been filed, but its hard to find it back, exactly.

    Now of course this isn't a problem in itself. It gets problematic when:
    1. People get around the bureaucracy and complain in other ways (the AbiWord problem)
    2. Lots of people give up testing because it's for the elite (the Linux Kernel problem)

    Question is of course: where is the solution? I've found that many bug databases do function as a healthy discussion board. BugZilla does. But for many people it still feels like your bug is bound to get lost somewhere within the bureaucracy.

    Some say they don't want to make bugfiling more attractive, because this keeps the quality of the bugs that do come through, high. This way, the AbiWord problem remains, of course.

    I don't know. Maybe some kewl combination of a discussion board and bug system, where you can e.g. just discuss everything, and when you've found you've reached an important topic, you can mark it as a bugreport or feature request, and from there do the same things as in other BTSes (e.g. merge it with another report, etc.)

    I think most current BTSes are modeled after the idea of maintaining bugs within a company, the closed source way. Being open, there might be need for another approach. I might be wrong, though.
    --
    "We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
  119. A new $15 word processor.... by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2

    ... simply wouldn't sell enough to pay for the administrative overhead. None of the cheaer alternatives to MS Word is doing well on the market, even before StarOffice was bought by Sun and made available gratis.

    The only price that can compete with a market leader for office applications is $0, or a clearly superior product.

  120. Re:RPM Doesn't work? FIX IT.... by Grab · · Score: 2

    I guess I'll let myself be trolled...

    My credentials: I'm a software engineer writing code for car engine controllers, and before that I wrote code for power station control systems, and before that I was at uni with a final-year project writing a 2-D CAD package using Xt. So I'm not completely clueless. If I so chose, I could spend all my free time over the next few months learning how to put this stuff together from step 1.

    Thing is, I don't so choose. My PC is a tool, in the same way as my soldering iron is. If I have the choice of spending every evening for the next 6 months learning how to do a kernel recompile, or spending the money and having time free to spend with my wife, I'll choose the MS option every time. Sorry, but I've got a life to live, and spending the time learning stuff that's ultimately irrelevant to my actual interests is less important to me than getting on with my other interests (for the record, my current spare-time project is an open-source, open-hardware universal chip programmer).

    To take an example, is your car a kit car? If you buy a kit car from a manufacturer, you've got a box of bits which with the application of maybe 6 months work, you can turn into a serious performance sportscar that's incredibly reliable, and all for half the price of the real thing. If you're really dedicated, you can even buy yourself just a load of sheet metal and tubing and build it completely from scratch! But most ppl don't - they buy a Ford or a Honda or something like that. They're not paying for a better car, they're paying for a car which they can drive off the forecourt and will take them where they want to go. It depends whether your car is a way of life, and you're prepared to spend every waking hour underneath it getting your hands dirty, or whether it's just transport. Some production cars are a more pleasant means of transport, but it's still just a way of getting from A to B.

    And that's how software is for most ppl - it's a tool to do a job. If the tool claims to do the job but doesn't (or if the tool is welded into the box! :-) then you're shooting yourself in the foot.

    Grab.

  121. Thank you, Abi Word.....Keep up the good work! by scharkalvin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been using abiword to write letters, and I don't have the latest version (what ever debian package is current for potato...). Anyway it does have some flaws but it gets the job done. It still can't compete with word for real fancy jobs (but word drives me NUTS when it comes to paragraph formating! Give me WP's reveal codes, PLEASE!!!)

    I've also used WP on both windows and Linux. The Linux version is a little buggy, but at least it exchanges files with the windows version in both directions.

    For the causual user Abi Word is more than usable right now. For the enterprise, Star Office might be a better choice. I like Abi Word's method of coding future features, they give the source file and line where to go to add the feature that is not yet there! (I bet they have received quite a few patches for new features!).

    If more people would READ the text of the GPL license maybe they would stop flamming products like Abi Word. "This software is released in the hope that it may be usefull" or something like that. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
    Thank you Abi Word, keep up the good work.

  122. Re:RPM Doesn't work? FIX IT.... --- sigh by bockman · · Score: 2
    Microsoft must love having GNU/Linux as the only serious competitor.

    GNU/Linux is not a [commercial] competitor of Microsoft. Mandrake, Caldera, Red-Hat are. They sell packaged open-source software for money, so they shall be worried not to release shitty packages, if they want to keep their customers.

    GNU/Linux is a _technical_ competitor of Windows ...but this is another story.

    --
    Ciao

    ----

    FB

  123. I disagree! by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

    Slamming Word or any other MSFT product is something that everyone should be able to indulge in freely. Why let the experts have all the fun?

    --
    No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  124. How about LyX by jellybear · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who thinks LyX is a far better way of producing documents than *Word or *Office? While granted the LaTeX-based paradigm is substantially different, LyX manages to shield the user from a most of the really hairy details of LaTeX itself.

    So, with all this warring about *Word and *Office, I'd like to know whether there are many slashdotters using LyX who are just keeping silent about it, or skipping this (to them) irrelevant topic.

  125. Software as a public service? by zangdesign · · Score: 1

    Why? This assumes that everyone wants or needs a computer and this is a fallacy sold to you by the manufacturers of computer hardware and the hard-core nerds that use them.

    Software as a public service would require that the government regulate not only the price, but the features and functions available (minimum standards) and the interoperability. There is very little wiggle room when dealing with government standards. Not to mention the fact that the software for one OS would probably need to run on every other OS (which does away with the need for multiple OS's).

    Public service software requires public service hardware as well. Once again, the requirements of minimum standards. Government regulation usually requires that a product be dumbed down for the average user, rather than allowing any kind of degree of control.

    Plus, you have the regulation on usage, deployment, and content; the inevitable lawsuits because someone can't use aforementioned public service software and hardware, etc., plus the costs and bureaucracy associated with maintaining public standards.

    Government usually lags behind the public sector in knowledge and technology, so your public service machines would always be at least two to three years out of date.

    The idea of software as a public service raises a whole lot more problems than it solves, in my opinion. If you want to produce free software and call it a public service that's one thing, but don't start asking for it to be the equivalent of roads, water, and sewage.

    Leave the government out of it, please. We have enough problems already.

    --
    To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
  126. Multiple viewpoints by HiThere · · Score: 2

    Free Software/Open Source Software is not a homogenous group of developers. Even calling it a community is wrong... it's both more and less than a community*.

    Different software developers have different goals as members of the FS/OSS community. (Of course, they have different goals in other contexts, also.) This means that to expect everyone to do things for the same reason is to be disappointed. Some are, indeed, out to destroy capitalism. Others are trying to grow a consulting business (the essence of capitalism). Others are after fame. Others are doing term projects. Others... well, I don't know all of the reasons. I don't even remember all of the ones that I've encountered.

    To assert that FS/OSS programmers are doing something for some particular reason is to guarantee that is both wrong and right. Some of them are doing it for that reason. (And I say this without even knowing what reason you are proposing. [OK, so it's a bit of an exaggeration.])

    * It's less than a community because it doesn't deal with the full range of human activity. E.g., thought members of the community may die, none of them are born (that happens in high school or college, and is hidden -- they are born elsewhere, and then migrate into the community).
    .

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    1. Re:Multiple viewpoints by bacchusrx · · Score: 2

      Different software developers have different goals as members of the FS/OSS community. (Of course, they have different goals in other contexts, also.) This means that to expect everyone to do things for the same reason is to be disappointed. Some are, indeed, out to destroy capitalism. Others are trying to grow a consulting business (the essence of capitalism). Others are after fame. Others are doing term projects. Others... well, I don't know all of the reasons. I don't even remember all of the ones that I've encountered.

      Oh, absolutely. I'm not suggesting that the free software "movement" (if not a community) poses a fully organized and coherent resistance to capitalism (or, even, that it presents us with a unified ideology at all).

      However, I do believe that the free software phenominon evidences both anarchic and left libertarian trends, overall and in general. The fact that it is more likely such trends are spontaneous than they are an issue of "conscious dogma" is particularly compelling, at least, for me.

      To assert that FS/OSS programmers are doing something for some particular reason is to guarantee that is both wrong and right. Some of them are doing it for that reason. (And I say this without even knowing what reason you are proposing. [OK, so it's a bit of an exaggeration.])

      I'm not asserting that there's a unified ideological reason behind free software as a phenominon (while there are a certain set of ground rules on which most participants would agree, even the most outspoken proponents of FS/OSS tend to disagree on some of the fundamentals)... merely that it serves as an example of how work in our society could be better organized. Organized, that is to say, in ways that fulfill our humanity, rather than simply driving our capacity to act as living machines.

      bacchusrx.

      --
      Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
  127. The Help Line? by HiThere · · Score: 2

    It sounds like you've never called the help line. Most people who answer them are ... sometimes I wonder if they have ever used the product that they are advising on. About a decade ago I decided that paying for commercial support was a waste of money. The companies were treating it as a profit center rather than a user resource.

    And talk about not thinking your time was worth anything! I've spent hours on hold and gotten essentially zero in return. Well, this was toward the end of the time, after everyone started outsourcing their help desks. In the earlier period there would sometimes be someone at the other end who knew what he was talking about.

    I admit that I don't find e-mail lists to be spectacularly helpful either, but at least I don't feel ripped off. It doesn't cost anything to ask for help, sometimes you get it, if you don't, it might get to the attention of the developer, and one doesn't need to spend hours on hold. Commercial support tends to lack all of those virtues.
    .

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  128. Re:RPM Doesn't work? FIX IT.... by HiThere · · Score: 2

    That's how I felt last year, but now...

    Have you looked at this month's version of Open Office? On windows I'm starting to consider migrating to it from MS Office. I will need to try it on Linux first, though. If I were on Win98, NT, etc. I'd probably consider KWord, but I can't get that to run on my Win95 box. What I find really missing is a good Netware connection, but Netware 6 is supposed to fix that. At that point I may just switch away from Windows ... as long as I can co-exist with the rest of the office. That's the hang up. I hope to do cross-platform development using wxWindows (but again, I'll need to check this out more on the Linux end). But until I can log onto the LAN, there's no use. Afterwards, I just need compatible applications. So I'm looking into programs that run on both platforms. And Open Office is starting to look pretty good.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  129. Re:LINK by Mr+Teddy+Bear · · Score: 1

    A word of warning for this link. Two words: Gay Porn.

    Lots of windows opened, almost killed my poor Win98 box. (Linux could've handeled it!) hehehe

  130. Otter and Sheldon, Slashdot Trolls. by Erris · · Score: 1, Troll
    Otter:Then there are the free software whackos who think that they're owed the world on a silver platter. But that's a whole other issue...

    Gee, thanks for that and all the talk about "Zelots" "spewing". You must get a kick out of abusing the whole free software movement at Slashdot's expense. You even seem to enjoy abusing slashdot itself.

    Otter again:I accept that dealing with a desktop Linux installation is a hobby in its own right and that you have to spend time to make it work and deal with some things that justa aren't there.

    How insightful. You seemed to have missed the whole point of free software, that superior software comes from sharing the development of common tasks. I'll have to point people who might be misled by you to the free software foundation where they can mull freedom for themselves.

    Your comment expresses the existance of something I'm not aware of. Just what is missing from Abi Word, Star Office, KDE Word, or vi/ispell/Latex, for that matter? I use M$ Word everyday because the company forces it on me. Of it's vast capability, 90% is useless fluff that gets broken at each "upgrade", 5% is anoying and must be turned off again at each "upgrade", and the remaining 5% produces spellchecked text with funny characters in a disgusting binary format that gets broken with each "upgrade". I used to use Word Perfect, until M$ broke it ruining their platform. Comercial software has mostly provide me with headaches, and their adverts are bad jokes. I'd like to see the comercial OS that does all that you imply Linux should do before it's ready for the desktop.

    Sheldon now:I think you've hit upon the fundamental problem with Open Source. It's not that Open Source is a bad thing, it can actually be quite good. But it's ridiculous to assume it will ever completely replace the commercial software market.

    Oh my, there's an echo in this room. Thanks for the recomendation. Now I know just how to get my work done. I'd better throw all that good free software I have at home away fast.

    You two virtual people need to get real jobs. I'm really sick of running into you two bullshitters while I'm trying to catch up on news.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    1. Re:Otter and Sheldon, Slashdot Trolls. by Otter · · Score: 1
      Otter and Sheldon, Slashdot Trolls....You two virtual people need to get real jobs. I'm really sick of running into you two bullshitters while I'm trying to catch up on news.

      Lessee -- (3800+2322)/531066 = you've got a uid 1.15% of his and mine put together and you're lecturing us on what we're allowed to say here?

      Look, it's obviously really important to you to believe that free software is superior in any and every respect. But the rest of us aren't under any obligation to avoid saying anything that might disturb your peace of mind. (Incidentally, I'm guessing that you have a lot more of my work on your hard drive than I have of yours.)

      How insightful. You seemed to have missed the whole point of free software, that superior software comes from sharing the development of common tasks. I'll have to point people who might be misled by you to the free software foundation [fsf.org] where they can mull freedom for themselves.

      Nope, that's the Open Source people. You might want to read the FSF site a little more carefully, especially the stuff distinguishing "Free" from "Open Source". If you're going to be one of those boring drones who drops into every discussion to enforce FSF correctness, that'll be a crucial thing to get right.

      Meanwhile, it's over-exuberant (is that polite enough?) advocates like yourself who tell users that AbiWord and vi is a seamless replacement for Word that create many of the headaches the AbiWord devs are trying to fend off with this statement. Thank you for illustrating my point so beautifully.

  131. Re:LINK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netscape 4 on Linux has some built-in protection against anything more than ten windows. Lunix roolz!

  132. Quality and testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The development snapshot (or mainline, depending one your local terminology). This is a stable release from the developers to inernal customers such as Q/A, release engineering and perhaps alpha testers for integration testing and embeded product testing.



    Thats where you would be wrong. Abiword undergoes quite a lot of testing before releases, there is a small group of people providing and/or running nighlty builds and evil sadists doing strange things to abiword that the developers never expected (think ants + magnifying glass + sunshine).

    There would be more testing too if the binaries were not made available within a day or two of the code tree being tagged for release.




    Also, abiword follows the

    odd = unstable

    even = stable

    numbering system and has NEVER released nor claimed to have released a stable and supported version.

    v1.0 will be the first stable supported version.



    AFAIK there will be a Paypal (or something similar) account open soon.




    --

    AC because i cant waste my mod points, but damn im feeling like ill miss out on some karma for this one.

  133. it's easy to lecture Trolls. by Erris · · Score: 1
    Eris said:You seemed to have missed the whole point of free software, that superior software comes from sharin g the development of common tasks.

    Otter said:Nope, that's the Open Source people. You might want to read the FSF site a little more carefully, especially the stuff distinguishing "Free" from "Open Source"

    Not a problem. I love reading FSF pages.

    Implicit in all free speech is the public good. In the clasic case of speech, free publication is frank and honest discource. Without it truth does not emerge. In the software case, freedom is the ability to modify and distribute improved code for any purpose. Without it software can not improve. The goal is better software, freedom is the means. It can be argued that freedom is a goal in and of itself, but it's more sensible to see it as it is. Freedom is not cheap, it is not easy, but it is the only way to assure the public good. Let's have a look at some of the things the FSF has to say:

    How about RMS's clasic Why sofware should be free
    "The existence of software inevitably raises the question of how decisions about its use should be made. ... I would like to consider the same question using a different criterion: the prosperity and freedom of the public in general."

    and " In other words, we should perform a cost-benefit analysis on behalf of society as a whole, taking account of individual freedom as well as production of material goods. In this essay, I will describe the effects of having owners, and show that the results are detrimental. My conclusion is that programmers have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute, study and improve the software we write: in other words, to write ``free'' software.(1)"

    From "Why software should not have owners".
    "What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens---for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate."

    It seems that they only way to get the software you want, which we will call "best", is to have free software. Software optimization is a FSF goal as well. Indeed "bad" software part of the material harm non free software and bogus laws cause us all.

    Now go jump in a lake with a raft the size of your UID.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  134. LyX: What you see is what you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    If you are used to the LyX way of doing it then there is currently work underway to allow you to "Lock Styles", which should be effectively the same as the "What you see is what you want" philosphy that LyX has.
    I expect it will be available soon after v1.0.

    if you are worried about the stability of abiword then wait for the official stable releases, v1.0 and then v1.2, all the existing builds are odd numbered and to be considered unstable (although thankfully there are still quite stable).

    i find LyX difficult to use, i dont like be told what i want.
    One mans meat is another mans poison.

    You dont have to be a developer to contribute.
    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org

  135. you definately wont get it if you dont ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you definately wont get the feature you want if you dont ask in the right place.

    submit a Request for Enhancement to abiwords bugzilla
    http://bugzilla.abisource.com

    or better yet, convince/bribe/hire a developer to do it for you.
    Dont expect the lead developers to add any new features until post v1.0, but the flexible plugin architecture might suit the feauture you want (or possible hiding behind an #ifdef DEBUG would allow your new feature to be added).

    but definately submit a full description of what exactly "WP reveal codes" means to Bugzilla. Submitting to Bugzilla ensure that your suggesting will not get forgotten in the mailing list archives, mailing the developers is not as good as submitting it to Bugzilla.

    that link one more time:
    http://bugzilla.abisource.com.

    (damn if i didn't have mod points id be getting karma for this for sure)