OpenOffice.org 2.1 Released With New Templates

Several readers wrote in to mention the release of OpenOffice.org 2.1. It includes support for 64-bit Linux and a number of other improvements, including multiple monitor support for Impress, improved Calc HTML export, and automatic notification of updates. Also, all of the templates and clip-art that were submitted for the template contest are available to download.

Comments

My Suggestion to OO Developers

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Make it stable on primary platforms (Windows, Linux, Mac OSX)
2. Make native binaries on Linux AMD64 and Mac OSX.
3. Increase compatibility with all version of MSOffice.
4. Make it less memory hungry.
5. Make it speedier.

Everything else can wait.

Re:My Suggestion to OO Developers

[nine-times]

You make it sound like that's a small list that doesn't encompass much. I don't know, though... I don't really have huge problems with stability. MSOffice compatibility is pretty good, and seems to be getting better all the time. Plus, I somewhat blame Microsoft for the problem, so no point in telling the developers about it-- they know.

By your complaint about OSX-native binaries, I assume you mean a version which doesn't require X11? If that's the case, you should at least check out NeoOffice, which is an attempt to bring a native port of OOo to OSX (including Aqua-fying the interface). It's not perfect, but it's pretty damn good considering their lack of resources. Last I heard, it was a two-man operation. Still, it would be nice if the OOo people would either support the NeoOffice guys, help out, or make some effort toward bringing their own port to OSX.

So I guess we're really left with making it faster and lighter. I can't say I disagree, but it does seem like that might be a difficult task. Someone involved in the project might be able to tell me, would it make the whole thing run faster and use less RAM if you broke the thing out into separate applications? Personally, I can deal with the increase hard drive space, as well as the increased overhead of running multiple concurrent executables, if it means that any given executable can be launched more quickly and with less overhead. But maybe that's just me.

Either way, yes, I'd like to see OOo faster. Also, if I could add to your list, I'd really like to see the whole thing be prettier. I know, it seems like a minor thing, but it's easier to sell people on an application if it's pretty, and I do occasionally try to convert people to using OOo. I guess it'd be more accurate to say, it'd be nice if the Windows and OSX versions of OOo were to blend in better with their perspective operating systems. Running on X11 in OSX is a bit silly, and the icons and toolbars tend to look a little "off" in Windows. They just don't quite fit in with native applications. In Windows, it's a very minor complaint, but a complaint none the less.

Otherwise, I wouldn't want to end the post without being thankful and happy at OpenOffice's continued development. It's a fantastic application, keeping me free from needing Microsoft for most of my day-to-day tasks. And you really can't beat the price! So, if any OOo developers managed to read through all this, and didn't feel like beating the crap out of me for my nit-picking, thank you very much!

Re:My Suggestion to OO Developers

[melikamp]

The OO development is driven by a community, as far as I know. It means that the community actually sees merit in having a free (as in freedom) MS Office clone. In my opinion, they are right. There are already free products which provide different functionality, like AbiWord, Gnumeric, LaTeX and etc. (I, for instance, stopped using word processors altogether after I've discovered LaTeX; does it mean that everyone would benefit from making such a move? I don't think so.) These are all excellent products, but their existence does not alleviate the perceived need for core MSO functionality, and hence we have OO.

Re:My Suggestion to OO Developers

[h4rm0ny]

Amen to that! No more new features. No more wizziness. Stop it freezing and crashing (especially base on Linux which is close to unusable), and make it work. It may not be as exciting as adding on another widget, but it is what OO really, really needs.

Re:My Suggestion to OO Developers

[killjoe]

"Maybe open-source is doomed to try to emulate Excel?"

A spreadsheet is a spreadsheet. Excel was trying to emulate quattro pro and lotus 123, lotus 123 was trying to emulate visicalc.

What else do you want from a spreadsheet?

Personally I think spreadsheets are the most dangerous software on the market. At my last company we routinely lost millions of dollars because know nothing sales people used spreadsheets without understanding the math or the relationships between the data and gave wrong prices to customers. Eventually (I am not kidding) the CIO forbade the use of spreadsheets by the sales people and made them go through accounting instead. Eventually he had the IT staff write a custom app to do the pricing so that business rules could be enforced properly.

Re:My Suggestion to OO Developers

[massysett]

I do agree that Excel kicks ass--or at least that nothing else has come close to it. Every other spreadsheet I have used for Linux is inferior.

But I think it's futile to try to create an Excel knockoff. No one is going to beat Excel at its own game. Look at all the top-notch Linux and open-source software:

* text editors, like Vim and Emacs. These both come from a long Unix tradition. They're not trying to mimic a proprietary app. Both have unique features you can't find anywhere else.
* Firefox. It didn't try to mimic IE. It introduced tabbed browsing (before IE did, anyway--yes, Opera had it first) and has a thriving extensions scene (which Opera and IE do not.)
* Apache. There was and is nothing comparable.
* text procesing, like LaTeX. Has a long Unix tradition; isn't trying to mimic anything.
* X. I know of nothing else that has its robust network transparency. That certainly isn't mimicking Windows.

Now, what top-shelf open source programs got there by trying to emulate a dominant proprietary application? Maybe Samba. Any others?

If Gnumeric, OOo, and Kspread are any indication, cloning Excel is a futile exercise.

I think the best thing that might happen to all these programs is the new MS Office ribbons. If open source doesn't try to emulate ribbons, but instead goes off in a new direction, there might be hope. If they try to clone ribbons, we're doomed.

Re:My Suggestion to OO Developers

[killjoe]

Price, no vendor lock in, open file formats.

Three big pluses.

Re:my failed attempt to evangelize

[bob65]

My wife's reaction when I suggested trying OOo was that she wasn't interested, because she'd tried importing complex Word documents, and sometimes it lost some of the formatting. Well, actually, this is an extremely rational reason not to switch to OOo.

Actually based on my experience with even the latest version of OOo, importing very simple MS Word documents almost always never works in terms of formatting. And that's enough of a reason for me to not switch. Not saying that OOo should aim to support MS Office formats entirely, but people I work with use MS Word and send me MS Word documents. I have better things to do than encourage them all to switch to OOo.

Also, I have used MS Word, Powerpoint, and Excel for years. I know how to do what I need to do in them, and I am too lazy to learn how to do the equivalent in OOo. I have a version of MS Office 2000 that works fine for everything I need to do, and I see no reason to use anything else. Heck, I'm reluctant to switch to newer versions of MS Office just because I don't want to learn a new interface.

Re:OpenOffice could use some innovation.

[PCM2]

OpenOffice in my opinion is simply a clone of MS Office suite. Instead of trying to mimic MS' product. It should innovate. Try things. Risk things. Experiment. Do something crazy. Remove all features that isn't useful or doesn't add to the experience and add features that rock. Don't let feature creep come in. Don't worry if the competitors got this many features. Until OpenOffice finally have a reason for me to use it(Such as killer UI or killer implementations of features), I will continue to use other word proccessor.

I agree about the need for innovation. I just recently started using Office 2007 and, though I thought I wouldn't like it at first, the new UI really is a breath of fresh air. But as far as feature creep is concerned, I think you're looking at the wrong problem. Joel Spolsky maybe said it best...

A lot of software developers are seduced by the old '80/20' rule. It seems to make a lot of sense: 80% of the people use 20% of the features. So you convince yourself that you only need to implement 20% of the features, and you can still sell 80% as many copies. Unfortunately, it's never the same 20%.

Criticism Where Due - But Appreciation is Due

[Smackintosh]

I look at what's been done here...who knows how many endless hours of coding, several different platforms supported, an entire clone of the MS Office suite. What basically amounts to a very large commercial software product offering.

For free.

What's the benefit? It's FREE people! You don't have to spend a dime on it.

It'd be nice to hear a kind word or two in appreciation every once in a while instead of a bunch of ingrate whiney bitches.