Slashdot Mirror
OpenOffice.org V3.0 Sets Download Record, 80% Windows
thefickler writes "The newest version of OpenOffice, version 3.0, has set a download record in its first week of availability. Most surprising is the fact that over 80% of downloads were from Windows users. As one commentator noted, when it comes to a choice between almost identical software (e.g. Microsoft Office and OpenOffice), price is the determining factor."
The question here is do the download numbers also reflect copies downloaded with package managers such in Linux distros such as Gentoo and Ubuntu, or does it only count people that only actually go to the webpage to download? The way Windows users and Linux users tend to get software these days tends to be a little different, where windows users expect going to the website, downloading, and using an something like Install Shield to install.
x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
Why is 80% surprising? The article makes it sound like that's high, but Windows has more than 80% of the desktop market, so it's still a lower percentage.
I would guess that a lot of Linux users will wait for OO.o to show up in their distro packaging system, and not download it directly. For the systems that I actually need to use to get work done, I am *very* reluctant to go outside the packaging system, because the many extra hassles are rarely worth it. If I wanted to have to monitor external web sites and manually do unpgrades on all my apps I'd still be using Windows. (OK, no not really, but you get the point.) I use Ubuntu on the desktop because, for me, it Just Works, with many fewer hassles than Windows.
Is that like saying a cordless phone and a cell phone is *almost* identical because they both make phone calls?
Or did I just get trolled by the summary?
I've been using it since the .sxw days, and used StarOffice way back when they first released it for free. I find this news heartening given the recent announcements about OSS's supposed impending doom. Give it time; I bet by 4.0, OOo will be as popular as Firefox.
Unless you are a veteran user of the 97-2003 line who used the suite for basic stuff. Then OpenOffice.org looks far more attractive.
I'm not a huge fan of OpenOffice (which I refuse to call 'OpenOffice.org, because it's an office suite, not a webserver), but I'll say one thing - their main page is exactly right.
Go to www.openoffice.org and take a look. What do you see? A list of things to do, in big text, impossible to miss. I wanted to download. Normally I hunt for a link. Now, it takes me 5 seconds to grab what I want.
No wonder they got so many downloads - they didn't hide them three pages deep.
But it will (presumably) be added to the repository much sooner, right? It just won't be included on any Ubuntu discs until next April's release.
Unfortunately OpenOffice and Word are not identical pieces of software. Not by a long shot.
You should have sent a PDF instead and avoid all the problems.
I used OO to write my CV (resume) and saved it as a .doc.
You sent in your CV as a Word file? I, for sure, wouldn't hire anyone who did that, nor would I want to apply for a job where they required such applications. It's a sign of cluelessness.
Exactly. I have used Word and Excel for ~15 years. I'm not what I'd consider a "power user," but I've grown comfortable with the UI and basic features over this time. Since approximately version 2.0 or 2.1, I haven't felt the need to use the real Word or Excel even once. The Oo equivalents have been able to replicate the functionality of Word/Excel without fail to the point that I don't even bother installing Office anymore. I have also switched over various family members and a few small businesses (sub-50 employees) with nary a complain about missing functionality.
I'm sure there are folks out there that can point to some obscure features of M$ Office products that they rely on, but I think the vast majority of us fit into the mold of users that just use the basic features. I can't imagine needing or wanting to spring for another M$ Office license again.
Cheers,
This bogus statistic keeps resurfacing. Having x downloads doesn't mean you have x users.
The statistic I'm interested in is the percentage of people that downloaded it and then later updated - that's a much better representation of satisfied customers. The time between update release and downloaded update by a user is correlated to how much that user relies on the software package, especially so for OSS which is typically low in pre-release testing on different boxes compared to commercial software.
"Violence is the last refuge of the competent, and, generally, the first refuge of the incompetent" - Thing_1
Oh I'd love to, with something with spikes on it. They just match up keywords in return for 10% of your starting salary. If they're looking for MS-SQL and you've only put down SQL Server experience you're not qualified. If you've got 10 years experience and know Perl and Python you're a worse candidate for a Ruby job than some guy fresh out of college who once wrote a 100 line Ruby script. Because, you know, he knows Ruby and you don't.
I only ever hear bad things about recruitment agents. I really don't know why more companies don't advertise directly. It can't be that much hassle to take a few phone calls and read a few emails.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Microsoft may have shot themselves in the foot with their "ribbon" idea. The similarities(read: less of a learning curve) between OO and older versions of Office become more apparent.
retrain users [...] how to support this new application ([...] train support people), then figure out how to deploy this
And none of this happens during the switch from Office 2003 to Office 2007? Poor users.
Yes, I really said "poor users". What do you mean "you're not a real sysadmin"? ;)
... but not enough to pay $500 for it. I like it better than OOo, but not THAT much better.
Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
Why on earth would you send someone an electronic copy of your resume in a *any* editable word processor format? Especially when different wrd processors, or even different versions of the same word processor will render the same document in completely different ways.
PDF would be the way to go, regardless of the tool you originally use to enter it.
I assume you don't work in the systems administration field, or IT security. If you do I feel sorry for whatever company hired you (both due to the idiocy in accepting such a format, and because they've hired someone incompetent enough to send it that way in the first place)
I made the switch to Linux (including Kubuntu, Xubuntu, DSL, Kanotix, Knoppix) due to the high quality alternatives provided by Open Office, Firefox, and Thunderbird.
I know a lot of people that switched to OO just to get the pdf output format. Sun continues to do an amazing job with the open source community on OO.
People are going to flame you and call you stupid, so let me just head off some of their inevitable criticisms:
You should have checked!
No, you shouldn't have had to have checked. Besides, this assumes that you still have to have MS Office and OO.o, and isn't the whole point of this bru-ha-ha to say that you don't need MS Office if you have the free and wonderful OO.o? No, Word did not screw up your CV. OO.o does not export to Word correctly. It's OO.o's responsibility to properly support the de facto industry standard.
You should have sent a PDF!
Okay, smart guys, you try sending PDFs instead of Word documents. There are still lots of moronic HR departments (well, are there any other kind?) who don't even know what they are. The first time I started sending those, I got a call back from an angry HR person saying "We don't take scanned CVs!" I was honestly confused. "I'm sorry, but that is just a PDF of my CV. It's not scanned." "We have to be able to search the text. Please send us the original Word document."
Well you know, and I know that you can very well search the text of a PDF, but that isn't the point; the point is whether HR knows, and, as I think I've already established, those people are borderline retarded.
Also, a lot of places actually request .docs. If OO.o can't produce them correctly, then you look like an idiot. In my case in the above story, where I was requested to send a .doc? It meant I had to get ahold of MS Office, because I'd been using (and liking) OO.o for a year.
Hell, the next problem I had was that I had my "letterhead" in my header in Word, and an HR guy called me complaining that I'd used a "gray font," and that it was no wonder I didn't have a job if I didn't know how to format a Word document correctly. "It's conventional to make your name and address legibile to the person looking at your CV," he said. So I went back and reformatted all of that stuff by hand, like an idiot who can't use software.
In all of these cases, I did the right thing. In none of these cases was the company itself really to blame. They might have been nice places to work. But when you're applying for a job, you first have to get through the imbeciles in HR who stand guard at the gate. Anything that they don't understand--and that's a lot, it turns out--is going to get your CV tossed in the bin.
Why would you want to work somewhere that wants .docs and doesn't worship at the throne of OSS???
Because he needs a job so he can, you know, eat.
OO.o is damn nice for being free, and I really liked some of its features that are missing in Office. But, in all honestly, Office does more better and is the industry standard.
And finally, to all the people going on about having to pay for PDF export? Um, sourceforge up yourself some PDFcreator. It's free. I've been using it for years without issue.
I wouldn't be surprised of #3 captured the essential truth of the situation. OOo is one of the worst pieces of OSS I use. I've searched systematically for something better, and haven't found it. At this point, I feel like OOo was a dead end that had the unfortunate effect of killing off interest in competing OSS office software.
While I'm inclined to agree that OO is one of the worst pieces of software out there (open source or otherwise), office suites tend to suck period, OO's crapiness reflects that it is in fact trying to duplicate something which needs to be rebuilt from concept up, or perhaps done away with entirely, except the user base is too firmly entrenched into ideas about what productivity software should do.
Note that I don't lay this blame on Microsoft (which is strange...) the business world expects a lot of things that are either misplaced, or a waste of time. Database like functions from a spreadsheet, fancy document layout tools (not useless, but not really suitable for a program with the primary purpose of writing letters and memos), powerpoint (the whole thing). About the only thing in the entire office suite set that doesn't need a complete rework would be email clients, and even then I've had users complain that the email client doesn't render javascript...
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
Because OO is free there is no cost to downloading it. So even if you have MS Office on your box you might as well download.
For this reason, the statement in the post that price point is a factor is tremendously stupid. You could make a statement like that if you surveyed users and found out how many of them used ONLY OO. But knowing how many downloaded a free application does not tell you how many purchased a pay-for application.
-- Henry