Slashdot Mirror
Google Hiring Programmers to Work on OpenOffice
massysett writes "Google is hiring programmers to work on OpenOffice.org. "We use a fair amount of open-source software at Google. We want to make sure that's a healthy community. And we want to make sure open source preserves competitiveness within the industry," said Google's manager for open-source software. Perhaps Google's work will address an oft-heard complaint about OO.o: "Google believes it can help OpenOffice--perhaps working to pare down the software's memory requirements or its mammoth 80MB download size.""
maybe they can dedicate some Google programming talent to getting an Outlook-killing, cross-platform PIM introduced into the suite. 2.0 introduced a database component, and now it's time to even out the offering. I like Evolution but would like to see a cross-platform PIM in the suite as an alternative.
...since I've installed Office but is 80 MB really mammoth? That doesn't phase me. I only get mildly annoyed when I see a 500 MB or greater install, these days. Pretty crazy when you think back to the size of harddrives ten years ago.
"Whether or not you believe me, I'm right" -RWF
If Google's programmers can get OO.org to open as quickly as google.ca does, I'll find a way to pay for Open Office! That's about my only complaint left with Open Office, is that it should start taking input in a simple text window within seconds, and worry about filling in the rest of the program later. That way I can open it up, start typing, and not have to wait 20 - 70 seconds for the blank sheet of e-paper to show up.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I am not being a troll but hopefully some of these programmers can help fix some of the http://qa.openoffice.org/iz_statistic.html 5721 bugs listed, some of which are from 2002!
My boss has made it a priority to seriously look at replacing MS Office with OpenOffice when that buglist gets below 1000. We shall see if that can happen.
So much for ever getting a real Mac OS X version OpenOffice.org. Spare me your comments about NeoOffice and the X11 version working on OS X.
I know Google can't *stop* a Mac port, but they've got an awful track record of supporting Macs. I'm sure they won't direct any of their resources toward the recently announced new effort to build a Cocoa version.
Oh well. Pages is nicer anyway than OpenOffice, even if I do have to pay for it. It's a shame that the businesses and governments that would be willing to consider OpenOffice want it to have every ounce of the feature bloat that MS Office has.
Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
They have to make a nifty "GOO.ogle" logo.
Maybe it's just me, or does 80MB not seem like that much when you're downloading an office suite? It's been a while since I've download^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hseen people download MS office, but isn't it in the 1+GB range? Granted, it has more features/programs, but in my books, 80MB isn't enough to complain about these days.
There are two types of people in the world: those who divide people into two types and those who don't.
should read:
"And we want to make sure open source preserves competitiveness against Microsoft."
Not that there is anything wrong with that, I just find it funny that they don't just come out and say what we all know they are thinking.
Could Eric's attempts to kill MS be anymore obvious? IIRC 40% of MS' profits are from Office. If people (read: companies) realize that free (and higher quality) is better than $300-600 / license (and lower quality) the open source world could start to get the penetration it needs to hit a tipping point.
"I just installed OO2,"
I bet OO7 will be killer!
First off, kudos to anybody who steps in and gives the Open Source movement a monetary hand -- and I gotta figure they're one of the top contributors at this point.
This is absolutely the right move. Word processing software has probably the most unnecessary bulk of any class of software on your operating system (the e-mail client placing a close second.) There was a day these things could fit in 640K, and while there are certain advantageous features such as spell check we would all be benefited by a more modular approach to installation that asks you what you need and what you don't.
Really, this seems to be the tip of the iceburg. With the increasing price of oil, I can't help wondering what the face of computing is going to look like five or ten years down the line. The average computer uses as much as 140 jack-o-lanterns worth of coal to run on any given day. Much of this is spent on wasteful peripherals we could do without, such as fancy 3D graphics cards or optical mice, but even more is being spent on processing power well beyond the needs of the average user.
Inefficiencies in microcomponent fabrication mean that a great deal of the electricity that goes into your computer is given off as heat. Techniques such as reversible or quantum computing hold much promise in the future for putting more energy into computation but today it is up to the consumer to safeguard the environment.
In a way, the argument is the same as with vehicles -- most people don't need a SUV or a top-of-the-line system but many choose to get them to compensate for inadequacies or because of marketing -- but with computers at least it is impossible to argue you are "safer" for having a faster system. Indeed, you are more likely to run viruses or worms without realizing it because you don't notice the hit in operating performance.
I've noticed that I've been holding on to computer equipment longer and longer these days. Oh sure, I have to fix a power supply here and a fan there, but besides slack engineering standards from software companies there is little reason to keep up with the hardware treadmill... and at least one compelling reason not to.
But much of the responsibility falls on the software developers to design for efficiency. That's not to say that they don't, but I think that as a priority in particular for software deployment to third-world nations operating efficiency will only rise as part of the software design philosophy.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Getting the memory usage down would be a godsend. It seems that 'big' OOS projects seem to have tendancies to hog memory - Firefox, OpenOffice.org - what causes that?
:-)
The download is not that bad (how big is MS Office?). What is bad is that the update requires a new download rather than an update/service pack type thing.
Can 2.01 be a smaller download to update a 2.0 install, rather than a complete download that'll try to install itself to OpenOffice.org2.01?
Just my list of demands, feel free to ignore
Maybe they'll add some of the file sharing features that are in MS Office. This has been a major stumbling block to bringing OO into small to medium size businesses.
Sounds very much like a "Hey Bill, before you think you can take away our toy, make sure you don't lose yours" move.
The day Google starts to write their own Linux desktop is probably the one where you should really, really get rid of that M$ stock...
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Before anyone starts screaming about privacy and Google becoming too powerful, let me say that I find such a prospect very attractive for individuals and for small and medium size businesses. Let Google handle the backup issues and provide appropriate conversion utilities when communicating with others. While I am quite competent to handle such issues myself, I would be tempted to use a Google service such as this myself. It is so convenient having documents stored on a globally accessible server and not having to maintain that server oneself.
This is a powerfull message to anyone being involved in the decision process over the state of Massachusetts: "We do support the Open Document standard!". A welcome move at a critical time.
How do you commoditize an operating system? One way is to make web services that can be accessed by any standards-compliant browser. Check.
How do you commoditize an office suite? By backing and improving a free-of-charge office suite, and by providing coders, money, and publicity to the project. Check.
I wonder what MS will do now? I think that if they have to fight to maintain a monopoly against Google, IBM, Sun, and the entire F/OSS community, they may well have a losing battle.
Eventually.
You need to read "The World is Flat" by Thomas L. Friedman.
California minimum wage laws don't apply in India! Even if the company hiring them is in California.
I don't like outsourcing anymore than you do, and it is the primary reason I boycott Walmart, but it is what it is.
I commend you for being passionate about it and trying to do something about it. But you won't change the nature of outsourcing. You can avoid it, boycott it, and discourage it, but personally I don't think you can change it.
Thomas L. Friedman hits the nail right on the head, and America needs a boot to the head if we're going to survive the new transition.
Otherwise we'll end up just like stage coaches or any other industry that failed to adapt and tried to hang on to old models.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
It seems to me that if companies like Google need to hire programmers to work on the "less glamorous" aspects of FOSS applications, that points out a significant weakness in the FOSS development model. This has always been a pet peeve of mine regarding FOSS ... the applications never seem *quite* finished, or *quite* up to real commercial standards. True, many are very good, and true, many "commercial" products are lacking. But when you compare the best commercial products with the best that FOSS has to offer, FOSS always seems to come up short.
... OK, fire away!
Now please let me put on my flame-proof suit before I click "submit".
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Just wait till he finds out that Google is hiring people that directly affects his bread and butter software -- Office. He'll throw a couch at the person who tells him the news...
Coderz 4 Life
Why is it that whenever Google does something, everyone is ready to praise them for pushing OSS etc? Google has much to gain from OSS software and advancements in it, because they use so much of it. Like any other company, they want to save where they can and that's all they are doing.
What we should be really doing is thanking the developers of OO. OO is a great program, especially given that it is relatively young and has to have a lot of functionality. As others have pointed out, 80MB is not at all massive for a program like OO. I am not sure what these speed issues others bring up are, it is quite fast for me. Whether it uses Java or not is irrelevant to the majority of users. You have to understand that most people don't care whether Java is closed or not. It is the final product's functionality that matters most, so quit your bitching.
What I think OO needs is a better interface and more of the lesser-used features that make MS Office such a complete suite. I know many of you think MS Office suffers from feature bloat, but there are always people who make use of a lot of the lesser known features (like Format Painter!) - for the stuff it packs in there, Office is quite blazingly fast. One bad example of bloat would be Eclipse, because when you have lots of features, speed and interface matter a LOT more. Hopefully, OO will get this right.
My 2c.
Not the google/OO.o thing I mean, but efficiency in computer software/hardware design. A lot of people have talked over the years about the effects the breaking of Moore's law would have on the computer industry. As long as companies could rely on exponentially increasing computer speeds, efficiency was largely ignored for many years except, perhaps, in certain parts of the server/mega-computer arena.
Now that we are begining to aproach the end of the line for the current computer hardware technology, much much more emphasis is being placed on effeciency instead of raw speed. You can see this change in attitude reflected in everything from processor design, to modular software and operating systems.
In no small part, one of the reasons the *nix's have become so popular(other than low cost) is that they are extremely customizable. So, you can have all the features you need, but toss out everything else you don't. This allows for a much more effecient, secure, and orderly system.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
To be recoded in C/C++.
OOo is coded in C++, for the most part. A few plugins use Java. I don't know about 2.0, but 1.1 was perfectly usable without a JRE installed.
Predictably there are a lot of threads already (and presumably will be many more) about how Google's intent is to either combat Microsoft by offering a free & competetive Office suite, or to further develop Open Office in the interest of some sort of Google offering of Open Office as a hosted application. There could be some truth in both of these, however I think the main reason Google shows some token support for open source initiatives like this is simply so that developers (/.'ers included) will sit around and talk about how cool Google is, since OSS is very en vogue helping it is a very way to stay hip. Why else would Google (and other companies) fund/support initiatives like Wikipedia, etc. Its a method of low cost, and fairly effective, brand advertising.
Google is investing in OO.org for the same reason that Sun, Red Hat, Novell, and even IBM (to a certain extent) are investing in OO.org. If Google can make OO.org a more useful competitor to MS Office for a nominal investment then that investment is definitely money well spent. This has little or nothing to do with Google's use of Free Software, and everything to do with the fact that with Microsoft Office is vulnerable. OO.org is actually pretty competitive, and Microsoft's upcoming format shift means that people are going to have to deal with format incompatibilities no matter what they decide to use.
Google execs know that Microsoft begins to lose sales of its ridiculously profitable office suite to OO.org that investors will demand that Microsoft stop focusing on new endeavors (like MSN) and focus on its bread and butter businesses. Increasing the viability of OO.org is almost certainly Google's most cost effective weapon in its fight against Microsoft.
So you're really going to be bummed when the resulting product is called GOO.ogle?
As pointed out many times, turn off Java in the OOo options. It will start a *lot* faster.
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
Excuse me for being contrarian (and I don't have all the links), but TFA's headline is a good example of what's wrong: "Google throws bodies at OpenOffice"
r g_heilig.html:
... when you start making it complex with $n+1 dependencies and steps the project either gets refactored or dies (and "Large(tm)" corporate invovlement generally has higher resistance to both the refactor and die options, as some areas seem to be personal vanity areas or have other political rather than technical motivations ... aka: Java).
OpenOffice is not self-sustaining. It only exists because people are being paid to work on it. I believe a decent link is the following...
http://www.openoffice.org/editorial/interview_joe
"""What is your role now in OpenOffice.org/StarOffice and what was your role in architecting the OpenOffice.org project at its inception?
I am responsible for the StarOffice engineering and in this role also responsible for all engineering work on OpenOffice.org done by Sun employees. At the time of OpenOffice.org's inception I was responsible for StarOffice's base technology and involved in all the engineering discussions around open sourcing StarOffice. """
IANAOSOSC (I am Not an Open Source Office Software Contributor)... but contrast that statement with AbiWord, KOffice, Evolution, InkScape, etc. (AbiWord and KOffice both had their versions of kernel-traffic-like summaries which allowed me keep up with various development issues and see how their insides worked at one point or another. OpenOffice needing an FTE to manage other FTE's who are writing code is a recipe for "code because we tell you to".
It seems like certain types of companies exist solely to make the most complicated build processes, technology decisions, etc. This is as opposed to the OSS way of "Keep it Simple, Stupid"
http://ooo.ximian.com/hackers-guide.html:
"""Building and hacking on OpenOffice.org (OO.o) entails climbing a fairly lengthy incline. Hopefully this document will make the learning curve somewhat steeper and more abrupt, and will give you a walking stick to help you out."""
Which isn't to say that having somebody "big" like Sun behind an office suite is all bad. It's because of them that we have the clippy-like thing, the chm-like thing, the templates, wizards, import filters, and all the other mostly boring "feature checkboxes" that we do now in OO.o.
If I could wave my magic wand and have everything the way that I want, I'd split out the OO input filters (seem to get really good reviews and good personal results). Kill the really-tight integration between Presenter, Writer, Drawer, etc... (although if that's the way MSOffice handles embedded tables, etc., maybe it's a necessary evil?). And a healthy helping of de-cruftify, especially the preferences panels. Maybe a FireFox-like project to strip down OpenOffice would be helpful.
Just my outsider's perspective....
--Robert
Apparently, an aged Richard Stallman has been recruited by Google to help them in their efforts. After taking one glimpse at the code, Stallman said he "recoiled in morbid disgust". "Jesus f***," he said, "I'm going to have to re-code this thing from the ground up... using LISP." Stallman's project is said to be under the codename "emacs" and will be useful for everything.
Thanks for asking. I went back and checked again, and it turns out that I was fooled by a bug: If you turn off Java, and then choose "Tools->Macros->Run macro..", you're greeted with the dialog box that says: "OpenOffice.org requires a Java runtime environment (JRE) to perform this task. However, use of a JRE has been disabled. Do you want to enable the use of a JRE now? [Yes] [No] [Cancel]". But if you choose "No" or "Cancel", you still get to run your macros! So the dialog box is completely wrong. (Macros linked to menus or keys work without any stupid lying dialog boxes.)
So, I have to correct myself: If you disable Java in OpenOffice.org 2.0 you have to put up with stupid dialog boxes that bug you to turn on Java again.
You mean like open-sourcing their Darwin base OS code? Or contributing their improvements to GCC to the world? Or providing the world with a free open source streaming server system? Or making Zeroconf an open standard and releasing a free reference implementation? Or contributing improvements to CUPS? Or to KDE's HTML renderer? Or releasing their unified replacement for cron, init and rc as an open source project?
Right now you are making a fool of yourself in public. Either that or you're trolling.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak