Slashdot Mirror


IBM Donates Symphony Code To Apache Software Foundation

CWmike writes "Hoping to further sharpen OpenOffice's competitive viability against Microsoft Office, IBM is donating the code of its Symphony open source office suite to the nonprofit Apache Software Foundation. Apache could fold this code into its own open source office suite OpenOffice, on which Symphony was based. In June, Oracle donated the OpenOffice suite to Apache. 'Prior to Apache's entry, there really hasn't been enough innovation in this area over the past 10 years,' said Kevin Cavanaugh, an IBM vice president. 'It's been constrained because we haven't had a true open source community with a mature governance model.'"

26 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. 10 years without innovation by RackNine · · Score: 2

    10 years without innovation it's an eternity by computer standards. Who is killing innovation, I wonder

    --
    We put you on the Internet map,
    www.racknine.com
    1. Re:10 years without innovation by hey! · · Score: 2

      It depends on your bar for "innovation". If you mean "change" then sure. If you mean new value that would cause customers to adopt the upgrade, it's hard to argue conclusively one way or the other. The sense I have is that upgrades are largely driven by security concerns and keeping the number of versions managed by IT down when the old versions are taken off the market.

      There's probably never been a change that somebody (often in the trade press) doesn't praise, or find intriguing. But the sense I get from most people is that the upgrade treadmill is something they live with, but don't look forward to. They'd be happy with the office suite they had ten years ago if non-feature related quality (stability, speed, rendering consistency etc.) were improved.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:10 years without innovation by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      I was thinking more in the lines of videoconferencing, mobile communications, telecommuting / remote access, collaborating software/groupware, improved GIS packages, improved laptops and portable workstations, tablets, distributed databases, outsourced office applications with IT support (aka "the cloud"), professional networking (like LinkedIn not ethernet), crowd sourcing, wireless high speed internet while traveling, wireless video conferencing, and electronic business banking solutions (aka wire transfers on demand, electronic escrow, credit card processing). These are just things off the top of my head, I'm sure one of the many "road warriors" can come up with more.

      I remember when most of the stuff I mentioned where only conceivable for the wealthiest corporations, and yet now even the modest small business can take advantage of this technology. I know the progression to this current level of tech was slow in today's fast paced environment (ie "boiling the frog") but if you compare the office of 2011 with the office of 2001 the advances are startling.

      So what is Cavanaugh's definition of innovation? I mean how much improvements can you make to a word processor and a spreadsheet?

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    3. Re:10 years without innovation by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And I'd say sadly that thanks to 'free as in beer" and the freeloader effect it is ultimately a loss for FOSS. lets be honest folks...have you LOOKED at the LO/OO code? We are talking this huge monolithic mess that would probably take someone a good year or more to get fully up to speed on. if you don't manage to keep those long term developers that were building it at Sun i'd say you're screwed as it'll take a good 3 years or more to rebuild the thing into a more modular design, which is eternity in software time.

      Meanwhile you have Apple and MSFT with iWork and MS Office spending tons of money on R&D and features so to keep even partially up on features or even have functional compatibility so you can use LO as a drop in replacement is gonna take serious coding. developers of the skill required to do this? NOT cheap and this kind of monolithic project isn't something a coder can just 'pop in on the weekends" and get anything done, its just too massive.

      So I truly believe that unless FOSS projects like this find a stable source of revenue things are only gonna get worse as the economy sours. The "tin cup" model of either donations or support works fine in a healthy economy but that isn't what we've got ATM and companies are gonna cut costs any way they can. if they can have your product without paying a cent why give you anything?

      Sadly this is completely a case of short sighted "damn everything but the quarterly reports!" thinking because without funding LO will fall further behind. Who cares if it is free if in 3 years it can't open the MS Office 2015 Doc files, or open the latest iWork for that matter?

      We've seen that the FOSS model really kicks ass on the "tiny programs piped together" style, as it is easy to maintain and upgrade without needing huge teams of developers well versed in the code. i just don't know how well FOSS is gonna work long term with such a huge monolithic code base and as someone who happily hands out LO to all his home users that does worry me.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:10 years without innovation by Ensign+Nemo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      +1

      Remember when the argument was:
      "But a person only uses 20% of MS Office features"
      "But everybody uses a different 20%."

      Bullocks. Push people on what features they actually use. Most people really do use the roughly the same 20%. The vast majority of people I've talked with and seen what they do, Office 97 is just fine.

    5. Re:10 years without innovation by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bullocks. Push people on what features they actually use. Most people really do use the roughly the same 20%. The vast majority of people I've talked with and seen what they do, Office 97 is just fine.

      Says the guy with a vested interest in agreeing with his own opinion.

      I don't want to use Office 97. If I wanted that, I might as well use OpenOffice (because that's the version it resembles). I want to use Office 2010. I like the ribbon UI and I like many of the other improvements they've made since then.

      I also have various workflows that I have built into Office that I find indispensable. I have an Excel template that I use for invoicing that has not been compatible with any other office suite I've tried, including OpenOffice, LibreOffice, Google Docs, Zoho, and Microsoft's own Office Web Apps. I have a couple VBA macros assigned to hotkeys that make the things I have to do in Word much easier, and I haven't had much luck porting those either. There are other ways that I used Office features that you may consider idiosyncratic, but now that I'm accustomed to working that way, I am reluctant to give them up. I definitely have my own 20%.

      Sorry to disagree with you, though. You clearly had yourself convinced; it must just be me.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    6. Re:10 years without innovation by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      I can answer that as I've had to deal with the crap. HR uses a program that fast indexes Word docs looking for keywords and putting them in categories and the stuff will NOT work on PDF, RTF,ODF, hell I wouldn't be surprised if the crap can't parse .TXT!

      So I can tell you that while "just use PDF" sounds nice in theory, IRL if you are lucky they will ask you to re submit as a .doc for their software, if you aren't lucky they will just toss your PDF and move on. I've also seen handouts at the local college for various classes and they ALL demand .doc for their anti-cheating software.

      This is one of the reasons I truly and sincerely hope LO finds a source of steady funds so they can hire more developers. Right now .doc support is awful unless it is the most simple doc (try it yourself, go to the government websites and find some of their .docs, then open in LO and save back as a .doc and you'll find a mangled word salad) and while I would like nothing more than to not have to warn my customers about using LO for anything but home use after seeing friends get their grades in college dinged for trying to send LO docs I can't in good conscience not warn them.

      As it is if you are just writing for yourself? or you are gonna print it? LO is just great. If you are gonna turn it in for a class, collaborate with someone using MS Office, or worse need to send in resumes? Then you would be insane to trust LO's MS Office compatibility. I really wish it weren't so but I've seen docs mangled before my very eyes by simply opening in LO and saving edits back into a .doc format. talk about a mess!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Maybe... by kakyoin01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...if just about every major company out there wasn't trying to sue the pants off of some other major company over some generic patents, there might be more properly-driven innovation.

    --
    The more you know, the more you have to say and the more you should listen.
    1. Re:Maybe... by KugelKurt · · Score: 2

      LibreOffice is under the SUSE umbrella, not Novell. Mono was dropped because it was part of Novell and not SUSE. SUSE was (if I understood it correctly) free to hire the old Ximian team to continue Mono. SUSE chose not to, although SUSE is still legally obligated to support it for paying SUSE Enterprise customers. So they'll likely have a guy or so to maintain Mono.

  3. The "Apache Software Foundation" Retirement Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's where all obsolete software goes after the original owner can't make any money on it and doesn't want to do maintenance any more.

  4. Re:Hot potato! by RackNine · · Score: 2

    The myth of open source superiority has been proven false time and again.

    How about WordPress? OpenSource and vastly superior to other equivalent commercial CMSs

    --
    We put you on the Internet map,
    www.racknine.com
  5. Re:Hot potato! by cpicon92 · · Score: 3

    How do you explain the popularity of Apache and Linux on enterprise servers, then?

  6. Congratulations Apache and IBM! by crutchy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As much as "big blue" has probably the biggest software patent portfolio and they are possibly only doing out of spite for Microsoft, I applaud IBM for their continued support for the FOSS community, and the Apache Foundation being as good as any representative for it. I hope the resources of IBM are available to support Linux especially, as it continues to face off against patent trolls like Microsoft and SCO (allthough I think SCO is as good as dead). I have nothing against patents being used for what they were intended (protecting the inventor), but when patent trolls use them as an anticompetitive weapon it brings shame to the system as a whole. What would the world be like now if it weren't for the FOSS community (including Apache)? Microsoft would probably rule at least the western world with an iron fist. It would be even more of a mafia organisation than it is today. I use OpenOffice and I'm quite happy with its performance and capabilities (especially since Microsoft brought out those stupid ribbons). I'm sure sales of Microsoft Office are struggling already and would be in dire straits if not for pre-installations and the use of Windows as marketing leverage for OEMs (package deals). Last of all, thanks to Apache for their kick arse web server! I hope you are able to continue your good work till the demise of corporate greed (so till the end of time basically).

  7. Is FOSS innovative? by perpenso · · Score: 2

    10 years without innovation it's an eternity by computer standards. Who is killing innovation, I wonder

    Who is promoting it? I'm not sure FOSS is promoting innovation as much as many advocates would like to believe. When the most popular apps are largely described as "a FOSS reimplementation/alternative to commercial/proprietary XXXX" one could argue that FOSS, like many corporations, is not terribly innovative. Just to be clear, a worthwhile project does not necessarily need to be innovative. I've used and supported FOSS projects that I find useful. I'm just arguing that FOSS advocates are not necessarily the best people to be criticizing others for a lack of innovation.

    1. Re:Is FOSS innovative? by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. It doesn't sound like much but it's better than what we've seen from the commercial realm. There are no proprietary tiling window managers. There are other desktops with a cube. There are no proprietary file managers that encompass the breadth of information that kio-slaves can access. There are no proprietary minimalist browsers. And there sure as hell isn't anything as extensible as Bioconductor.

      It's true, there is nothing new under the sun. Any innovation you wish to point to, from open source or proprietary development can be traced to something that preceded it. So sure, you can glibly dismiss any list of innovations if you're predisposed to do so.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Is FOSS innovative? by perpenso · · Score: 2

      You've got your history backwards, compiz beat the rest to market by a mile on using 3d hardware for window managment.

      Wiki says that Mac OS X 10.2 was using the GPU in 2002 and that compiz was first released in 2006.

  8. A pity Framework isn't revived this way by victor50 · · Score: 2

    Most of you will probably wonder: Framework? Framework was and in some ways still is the most superior integrated suite ever developed. Unfortunately they where slain by Wordperfect (4.2) and probably some bad marketing from Ashton Tate. It is in the obscure hands of a firm called "Selections & Functions" who really hasn't done much for it. It looks like they have abandoned it all together.

    1. Re:A pity Framework isn't revived this way by haruchai · · Score: 2

      Really? They seem to have spent quite some time and effort on making it buzzwordy and still offer it for sale.

      I'd be grateful is someone could translate this gobbledegook into English:
      From www.framework.com

      What is FRAMEWORK ?

      Framework is a unified computing architecture encompassing an operating system, API, GUI, applications, interactive programmability, RTOS sensor handling and information management. It is developed and maintained as a semiconductor design with a parallel software version which runs with the help of simulation and virtualization on other operating systems. Framework's design aim is to provide full hardware based computing functionality with no additional software but it does support running x86 programs on an x86 simulator.

      While maintaining backward compatibility and following the original design principles of the Ashton-Tate product Framework was rebuilt as an architectural computing concept based on linguistic principles and path based automata. The new architecture overcomes the inherent limitations of parallel processing that the inherently serial CPU-based arithmetic computing imposed. Framework's architectural building blocks are channels that handle its perceptible, inherently selectable and ordered contextual objects. The result is not only an efficiency that cannot be matched in CPU based computing but also a generic highly ergonomic interface which can be internalized with no visual support. Framework employes RAM-based state machines on operating systems such as Windows while taking advantage of massive parallelism on its FPGA based system to provide an instantaneous data handling with Big-O of one. The Big-O of one technology supports SATA based storage available to users as well as Framework's own internal content-based memory and dependency management system. This enables the Framework's inherent parallelism and its extendable interpretation available with the FRED language. Simply put, there is no practical limit on the number of uniquely named FRED functions, nor a delay penalty associated with increase in that number or with an increase in the size of data stored on hard drives.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:A pity Framework isn't revived this way by lennier · · Score: 2

      I'd be grateful is someone could translate this gobbledegook into English:

      Neat! Framework, like the original Lotus Symphony (not the current IBM OO.org-derived suite which is entirely unrelated) and then Lotus Notes, was a very cool idea in integrated applications which sadly, the world didn't follow. Basically, as far as I can grok that text, it's a one-tool-to-rule-the-world kind of application (of the kind that EMACS only dreams of being). I still hold out hopes that this is the direction the Web will eventually evolve into - something more like Ted Nelson's Xanadu than the multi-tier monstrosity we have today.

      You have "frames" or windows representing datasets and views/transformations over that data; you link them together again and again until you get one big distributed dataspace showing all your stuff, and all your views of your stuff. Like a spreadsheet, but not limited to rows and columns. Like SQL views, but not limited to one database at a time.

      An architecture like this, like Lotus Notes, might look like an "office application" but really it's something much more powerful; more of a kind of a generalised model of a computing network. As such, it would be the logical candidate for making run on parallel hardware, which I think is what they're talking about here. Since each "frame" is really a parallel function, and your application is your database is also a dataflow network, you could split chunks of your database onto separate machines, and keep doing that indefinitely. At least that's my guess.

      I really, really wanted Framework to succeed in the 1980s. It was about the only "office" type program which I believed in and saw as the future of computing. But it wasn't to be, at least not then.

      I would be interested to know what customers would actually buy something like this today, because it woud probably be incompatible with most ordinary databases. It would maybe have to be something very large that you would want to run on this. Governmental/military apps, maybe? Just a thought, possibly wrong.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  9. World without FOSS? by perpenso · · Score: 2

    ... What would the world be like now if it weren't for the FOSS community (including Apache)? ...

    It would probably be pretty much the same as it is now, we'd have to pay a little more for workstations and servers as they would still be coming from Sun, SGI and other traditional Unix vendors. It wasn't Microsoft that killed these platforms, it was Linux. Maybe Mac OS X would have caught on a little faster?

    1. Re:World without FOSS? by perpenso · · Score: 2

      If it weren't for FOSS, the development tools would have still been expensive. And with expensive dev tools, you get little innovation and/or small number of applications.

      That's not true. Linux and other FOSS software did not only displace the traditional unix vendors, they also displaced a lot of consumer and small/home office oriented software. For example we had inexpensive development suites like TurboPascal and TurboC under MS-DOS.

  10. Re:Hot potato! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    Please tell me you are joking. Linux is huge on enterprise servers. Normally there are windows boxes in the server room as well, but linux is very common in the server room. Do you think oracle is uncommon? What do you think those oracle servers are running on?

  11. Innovation and Polishing by improfane · · Score: 3, Informative

    Freely available code, be it open source or academic are the original innovators. They seed ideas. They are not constrained by funding or time.

    Businesses adopt these ideas, invest into them and produce viable and profitable software. They create products, not innovations. They are restricted by time and profits.

    It would have been hard for the internet to be what it is today without freely available code.

    --
    Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
  12. What Uses Does Microsoft Office Have? by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All right, I'll bite. I'm curious. What exactly is it that Microsoft Office gets done? Besides lock your data into a proprietary format. I don't use it myself, so I'm sure there's *some* use for it that I'm not aware of, but here's some of the technologies I use instead.

    I only use a word processor to generate blog posts, fiction, and documents where I don't care about layout too strongly, since it's sort of inherent in a word processor that they will adjust the layout somewhat before e.g. printing it. There's very little reason to save in either .docx or .doc as far as I am aware, since the former does not currently conform to the OOXML format and the latter is more akin to a memory dump of Word.

    For text that I really don't care about, I use a text editor. I also use this for small notes to myself, or simple lists. I don't need my notes indexed, thank you, grep will do just fine.

    For layout documents, I generally use Scribus, InDesign, Inkscape, or Illustrator, and save in svg or pdf, dependent on whether or not I want a working format or a presentation format. If I can count on being the only one to edit it, or that any collaborators will be using the same software, it makes sense to use each program's native format. For bitmaps I use GIMP and Photoshop, and generally prefer GIMP, except for the name and the text-related tools. It runs on more systems that I use, and takes far less time to download and install, and similarly uses a fraction of the disk space. I usually have the most recent version of Adobe's software on a disk.

    For my own personal artwork I have found a nice balance of features in the painting program MyPaint, which runs on Linux and Windows.

    I do not generate 3D images or models, or animation, or music. Neither, as far as I'm aware, does Office.

    I create web pages with Netbeans or Bluefish, or a text editor. If I did not know how to write markup I suppose I might have more use for Word. Similarly, for storing and retrieving and processing data I use a database and a scripting language, or XML if I don't need a full-on database. For keeping track of financial data, an accounting program or package is useful for even small projects, and vital for any business-related endeavor.

    I've used web-based email since hotmail became available. I have no idea what, given all of the above, Outlook would be useful to me for. It seems like an adequate if bloated email application, though I've never enjoyed trying to move data out of it.

    That's my current toolset. I'm not particularly attached to any of them, and obviously quite used to using both the tools at hand and, when I have the luxury, the best tool for the job. Office has not to date been in the latter category in my experience. Why is Office a good tool? At what task does it uniquely excel at? What combination of features am I missing out on?

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  13. Re:Donating open source? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can't they do that anyway? I thought that was the whole point of "open source".

    Lotus Symphony is not open source, it's a proprietary fork from an early version of OpenOffice with a license that permitted this. IBM has been offering it as freeware, so by offering this code to the Apache foundation they're looking to mend the old fork between OpenOffice and Symphony. It still would not mend the fork between OpenOffice and LibreOffice, but as far as IBM is concerned their Symphony code can now be used in both versions under the Apache license. This is a direct consequence of Oracle giving OpenOffice to Apache, IBM wasn't willing to give Symphony to Sun or Oracle, but they are willing to share it as an Apache project. So good move by IBM, another open source contribution from them.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  14. Re:Donating open source? by Nursie · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oh hell yes!

    It's not got any of that old code in it, it's simply the name. It's (as previously mentioned) an OO.o fork ported to the eclipse framework.

    Compared to mainline OO.o or Libre Office I'm really not a fan. It seems slow and heavyweight. But apparently it does bring some good stuff to the table, specifically there are supposed to have been a lot of improvements on the way it imports and exports various file formats.