Yes, I was referring to Notes, not to Domino. I am aware of the fact that with much coaxing, hammering and cursing, Domino will install on a redhat box. However, they could have done a much better job of it, and as such, running domino on linux adds very little added value. You can't even complete the install without a windows box around.
But you got one thing right, though - IBM will go where the money is, and right now, they think it is in Linux servers. Many people swoon over how much IBM loves open source. They don't. They love money. So far, If you compare the Open Source efforts of Sun, who everyone is bitching and moaning about, and IBM who everybody loves, you'd be amazed. Even without counting OpenOffice.org, the codebase donated by Sun is far greater then the codebase donated by IBM.
Lack of demand my foot. IBM just doesn't want to piss off MS too much - they still get lotsabusiness from MS. Sun, on the other hand, is beholden to no-one.
I've been using SuSE (7.2, 7.3, 8.0) for some time now, both on my work desktop as well as my home systems (yes, I use linux in a windows-only environment, and don't have any windows running anywhere), and I'm fed up it. It is sleek, slick, generally trouble free, and works well. If you do *everything* the SuSE/Yast way. Compiling applications is rather hard, as stuff has to go into many non-standard places. Updating applications comes even harder, as SuSE generally do not like to update application versions for their point releases.
So, I got fed up with all of this, and am now trying to figure out a way to install Gentoo without having my system down for a few days. I already got Gentoo running in a vmware box, and it is sweet.....
Well, not to start a flamewar or anything, but, as another poster pointed out, the SISL is an OSI approved license. Now, I quite agree with you that the GPL is the ultimate in Free Software licenses, but the provision of the GPL are not to everybodies taste. I too would be happier with the GPL, but as things stand today, this is bit better then no OSS license at all.Also, would you care to point out where the SISSL is incompatible with the GPL? or do the words "Commercial Use" just get your panties in a bunch?
Well, there is definetly a market for this kind of thing, it is just about the implementation. Basically, MS said: "give us all your data, you can trust us with it". Everybody fell over laughing, of course. That is why Hailstorm fell through.
The Liberty Alliance is saying: "We don't want your data, we just want to give you the tools".That there is a need for the concept of identity management stands beyond any doubt. How many website logins do *you* have? Exactly. However, how the respective organisation plan to hndle all the data, and plan to implement the concept is what really matters here. That is why the Liberty Alliance has a much better change of actually being used.
Of course, it is an extra kick in the face to MS that the first tool to come out is Open Source.....
"Actually what I mean is it must work like outlook and on whatever the corporation decideds the platform will be...at this point more than likely 2000/XP"
Huh? that is not so sure at all. Get out a bit. Look around a bit. Times are changing.
Server Side: 1. The replacement must support Outlook as a client, people actually like Outlook as an integrated client.
No problem - Outlook supports IMAP.
2. The Replacement must work with the Sendto functions of Microsoft Office
Well, this is a client-side function, handled by Outlook, so doesn't belong in your server list. If you will be using Outlook (or a 100% clone), this will not be an issue.
3. The Replacement must be able to scale to 10's of thousands of users, in geographically diverse locations.
Most serious open source IMAP servers (Courier is nice, as is Cyrus) have no issue with this. Combined with Postfix, MySQL and OpenLDAP, you have a killer core.
4. Must Support Multipule languages
What? A server? Support languages? Pass the crackpipe!! A mail server should *always* be language neutral.
5. Must be easily scannable for Virus protection, and must be able to deny delivery of messages that fit certain criteria.
The core can do this.
6. Easy rules based scripting of mail events stored on the server as part of the user's mail box.
Requires some messing around (and some laxing of security principles - that is how MSExchange pulls it off) but can be done.
7. Must support enterprise calendaring/scheduling.
This is the tricky bit. Do we support standards? Not? Also, if Outlook must be the client, you need to wire-trace the protocol. Not too hard, since Outlook message events are basically specially formatted SMTP messages. (Ximian pulled it off)
8. Must inter-operate with Exchange during migration
No problem - MSX speaks LDAP, IMAP and SMTP. Can even run in parallel for a good amount of time (a requirement often overlooked).
9. Must support server and OS of choice at the company(You know what that means)
No, I don't know what this means. As most Open Source software is, in good engineering fashion, not too hard to port, this shouldn't be an issue.
10. Must offer web mail capabilities equal too or better than OWA(this includes the ability to secure the web mail client via SecureID)
Yeah - I'm using one of the many webmail clients that leave OWA eating dust right now. It's called IMP, and it rocks. Is the requirement for SecureID all you need, cuz this baby can do lots more. http://www.horde.org
11. Must support massive data stores, on the order of 500GB-1TB(yes exchange can do this)
Yes - Exchange can theoretically do this - finally, after trying for almost 5 years. The core mentioned above places no limits on the size of the underlying datastore. It is irrelevant.
12. Must Integrate with our directory services, like exchange 2000 integrates with AD.
Yup - see under OpenLDAP
13 In short it has to do all the things that exchange can do, and more, and better.
You forgot cheaper - this is cheaper, as well as better, more robust, easier to manage, and requires less nursing. The most requested feature from MSExchange admins to MS is faster reboots of the servers. Reboots? I just smile.
Client Side: 1. Must have a client which supports all the functions of the server side. In short its gotta work like Outlook.
Well, you wanted Outlook, no?
2. Must Support OS, and hardware of choice.
Well, you wanted Outlook, no?
3. Easy Rules based scripting interface to server and client side rules(Think Outlook rules wizard)
Well, you wanted Outlook, no?
4. Must be dead simple for users to use, users don't learn they want everything to work just like it always has, even if you give them a new application to do it.
Well, you wanted Outlook, no?
Even so - there are alternatives to Outlook that work nicely. If you are willing to spend the time on the change management (I know - it requires soft skills and all, and you have to deal with users, but once you try it, you find it is not too hard.) you will see that users are not too hard to persuade to change. You do spend time on change management, no?
Well, at least they promised to improve it - a very good thing that they listen to the community.
http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?msgId=3 87968&listName=discuss
Item 1-b):The Software may include certain plug-in components ("Plug-Ins"), including the Real Networks RealPlayer, Adobe Acrobat Reader, Macromedia Flash. You may only call to or otherwise use such Plug-Ins through the use of the OEone applications. Any direct use of Plug-Ins through a non-OEone proprietary application, including a custom or user-written application is prohibited by this Agreement.
Item 2-c):You may only use the Software for your private, non-commercial use. You may not use the Software in any way to provide, or as part of, any commercial service or application. Copies of content files, including, but not limited to songs and other audio recordings, which are downloaded or copied using the Software, and which are protected by the copyright laws or related laws of any jurisdiction, are for your own personal use only and may not be distributed to third parties or performed outside your normal circle of family and social acquaintances.
Item 5-a): The Software consists of interactive Internet applications which perform a variety of communications over the Internet as part of their normal operation. A number of communications features are automatic and are enabled by default (for example, Auto Update of software for security and bug fixes). Such automatic communications features do not send any personally identifiable information about you without your consent. Most automatic communications features can be changed by you in User Preferences. By installing and/or using the Software, you consent to the Software's communications features. The Software also allows the use of Cookies, similar to an Internet browser. This allows any website to set cookies for you when you view any of the website's content through the Software, unless you have disabled cookies. To learn more, visit the OEone Consumer Software Privacy Statement link on our website at http://www.oeone.com. You are responsible for any telecommunications or other connectivity charges incurred through your use of the Software.
Item 5-b):The Software automatically communicates with OEone's servers on the Internet to check for updates to the Software, such as bug fixes, patches, enhanced functions, and new versions. OEone will notify you when updates are available. If you decide to update, you agree that OEone may upload updates and install them as part of your Software. All such updates to the Software are governed by this Agreement, unless other license terms are provided with the update. Although OEone uses encryption technology to provide security for the autoupdate process, OEone is not responsible for the failure of such security measures.
The whole of item 6):DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ("DRMs"). The Software may include third party DRMs as Plug-in components which are subject to their own license agreements. DRMs are designed to manage and enforce intellectual property rights in digital content purchased over the Internet. You may not take any action to circumvent or defeat the security or content usage rules provided or enforced by either the DRM or the Software. DRMs may be able to revoke your ability to use applicable content. OEone is not responsible for the operation of the DRM in any way, including revocation of your content. OEone is not responsible for any communications to or from any third party DRM provider, or for the collection or use of information by third party DRMs. You consent to the communications enabled and/or performed by the DRM, including automatic updating of the DRM without further notice, despite the provisions of section 5(b). You agree to indemnify and hold harmless OEone for any claim relating to your use of a third party DRM.
This is not very nice and opensource and all - especially 5 and 6 look cool. Also, under strict interpretation of item 2-c, I cannot use OpenOffice.org to create a writer file (content) and send to someone I don't know. I cannot create a webpage with OEone, since I will be distributing content to people I don't know. What the fsck?
Okay - I didn't flesh it out more because I was too lazy to go and look up the references / links.
What I meant was this:
- Tim O'Reilly stating that OSX is really the way to go on the desktop. While I have nothing in particular agains running any OS anywhere (I use Linux, but I'm not so fanatic that *everyone*must* convert to OSS - people are free to run what they like, as far as I am concerned.) anyway, O'Reilly is supposed to be a "posterboy" for the whole OpenSource community, and recently, he has been kicking more and more against certain issues. Witness the "use OSX" rant.
- Redhat has stated, many times, that Linux is not for the desktop.
There are more examples, but as I said, I'm too lazy to look for references.
Now, as part of my work (ICT for a government), I have actually researched the viabillity of Open source software on the corporate desktop, and it makes a lot of sense, from all angles. I am not alone in making this conclusion - witness city of largo, city of turku in finland, telstra, etc.
So, what is going on with these people stating that open source is not for the desktop? They say: "you are better off with OSX, windows, whathaveyounot." It simply doesn't make sense. It is, from an IT perspective, not even very professional to talk about "the desktop". First question is "Who's Desktop"? i.e. what type of user are we talking about? task worker? knowledge worker? management? developer? you get my drift. Second question is: what is the hardware? again, you get my drift. There is no such thing as "the desktop" - there are many different types of desktop. And to say that Linux is not good for any of them is gross generalisation that doesn't do the issue justice, not to mention plain rubbish.
Now, I don't think these people making these statements are idiots, or not professionals, and I think they know these issues I bring up. So my question is: What's going on?
More and more I get the impression that there are people from within the Open Source community that are actively working against Open Source and GNU/Linux on the desktop. What's up with that?
ICANN, Gartner and the other clowns they put up on the adjudication board are *all* on the take. The adjuction process deployed by Gartner is *so* prone to manipulation, it is not even funny. Basically, it allows you to disqualify anybody you don't like, even if they have the best proposal. I am not talking out of my ass - I have actually sat on adjudication boards using the Gartner methodology mentioned, and it only takes one individual with a different agenda to f*ck up the whole thing.
What a farce!
It is not that I particularly agree or disagreee with the final result - I guess I support both the ISOC bid as well as the Vixie bid. The only real problem I have with the ISOC bid is the conflic of interest issue that Karl Auerbach so astutely points out. Besides the conflict of interest, I'd like to know what the *problems* are that surround the ISOC bid.... anyone?
I agree with your final conclusions (OOo should have a lot more developers, and Sun needs to do more work to become more open), but I also know that the situation is more nuanced. There are several barriers to starting development on the OOo codebase, some of which you recognise in your post.
First of all, there is the complexity of the code itself. OOo is written mainly in C++, using all kinds of goodies such as templates etc. With the vast majority of OpenSource developers disliking writing code in C++, this kind of narrows the field a bit. Also, sun has a pretty large team of developers writing OpenOffice.org code, and volunteer coders have to try and fit into a group of devs that all share the same two offices. Many decisions on many levels are made within these offices. This is not on purpose, to keep people out, but simply due to the fact that this type of decision taking is easier. However, to the credit of the devs, 99% of the stuff still passes on the mailing lists. But you are stuck on an issue, it is easier to take a stroll down the hallway to ask someone then it is to wait for a reply to a mail. Even so, there are quite a few successfull volunteer devs, like Kevin B. Hendricks, who do a tremendous job despite the difficulties.
Then there were the legal issues. Before the current JCA, all your work belonged to Sun. Period. This raised the hackles of many, including myself - I am the "vocal critic" quoted in the article - and we have worked hard for a long time to get the current agreement on the table and approved. I really believe that this JCA is the best compromise possible given the circumstances. OpenOffice.org is LGPL, and the copyright of your stuff now remains yours. But you also give Sun the rights to your work, meaning that Sun has some assurance about the future availabillity of your work, if and when it gets included in their commercial product. Microsoft is not very likely to come after volunteers for infringing patents on the MSOffice file format, for example, but it can and will go after Sun for the same. Without copyright assignment, Sun cannot ever mount a legal defense to such a case. So in the end, the current deal is a compromise that should work for all.
The there are the Sun politics. As you have been with HP for some time, I guess you know how this works. Within Sun, there are those who think that OpenSource is cool, and those who think OpenSource sucks. Within Sun, OOo/SO is a large project, and people from both camps work on the project. Tony siress, and his ridiculous statements on the whole MacOS issue are a case in point.Note, however, that Tony publicly apologised about his statements, and Sun claims he spoke out-of-line i.e. the whole MacOS thing is not going to happen, if it ever was. So not all issues that need to be cleared by Sun go as fast. for example, this particular JCA/PDL deal has been on the table for quite some time (months). However, getting cleared by the lawyers and passing through the strata of anti-OpenSource elements inside Sun has really kept it back for much longer then needed.
The Foundation is another sore point inside the community. The whole issue of the foundation has been formally scrapped by Sun, to much discontent form the community. However, we *are* moving in the right direction. This deal is one step, and pretty soon some other developments will move, in terms of project governance. I am sure, that with the right amount of pressure, the Foundation will eventually be set up. The JCA is a critical piece in this issue, since developers can now, potentially, assign copyright to a future Foundation instead of to Sun. This means that Sun is no longer a required (although desired) party to a Foundation.
In the meantime, OOo/SO are MS Office killers, and takeup and interest are massive. This is a good thing. It needs to be better, though, and for that we need more programmers. Unfortunately, the OOo code is hard, and crufty. There are areas *nobody* dares to touch. So in many cases, the true hobbyist programmers back out due to complexity. KOffice were going to use our MSOffice filters. After going through the code, they kindly declined, and started looking at other solutions. On the positive side, we are talking with many groups, commercial as well as non-commercial, about building on the OOo XML file format. More suites using a standard file format is also a good thing. oeone are apperantly working with us on the groupware components - another step in the right direction.
Bruce, Sun has a long ways to go yet in the OpenOffice.org adventure, but I firmly believe that with the right kind of pressure, the right kind of volunteer mentality and the right kind of love, it will become a huge success - both for the OpenSource community as a whole, as well as for Sun. At the end of the day, the focus is on creating a win-win situation for all involved.
Of course Hollywood is out to destroy the digital hub. We know that, we see that, we hear that and we read that. Every day. The question is, what are we going to do about it?
This actually looks like a potential OpenSource killer app. It gives most non-techie users what they need, what they want and what they will use, for a fair price. Like Lindows, but without the crappy attitude and marketing tripe. The screenshots look slick, and the stuff looks easy to use. Not something I would go all that wild over, but I can see my wife, or her parents for that matter, using this without any major hassles. Add OpenOffice.org to the mix, and you are done. Cool stuff!
The Newsforge article states it is not an OS, but a Frontend/Desktop for an OS - in this case RH7.x. Not half bad either, according to Newsforge. when they have a SuSE version, i'll be checking it out.
It is true that the "exodus" has not really happend yet, even though things are going very much in the right direction. OOo and SO are seeing great downloads (OOo in the millions of downloads) and many organisations are seriously looking at it.
However, I think that this will take a few years - Many organisations are in the beginning or middle of their current office version life cycle, and will not be implementing anything, be it MSOffice, OOo/SO, Gobe or whatever, until the end of that lifecycle. But in a few years time, MS *will* implement the OOo/SO filter in Office, because the user base they will have left will need to operate with the file-format of choice for most users: OpenOffice.org XML.
This Visual Basic Script creates an empty text document and inserts text, a table, and a text frame.
'The service manager is always the starting point 'If there is no office running then an office is started up Set objServiceManager= WScript.CreateObject("com.sun.star.ServiceManager" )
'Create the CoreReflection service that is later used to create structs Set objCoreReflection= objServiceManager.createInstance("com.sun.star.ref lection.CoreReflection")
'Create the Desktop Set objDesktop= objServiceManager.createInstance("com.sun.star.fra me.Desktop")
'Open a new empty writer document Dim args() Set objDocument= objDesktop.loadComponentFromURL("private:factory/s writer", "_blank", 0, args)
'Create a text object Set objText= objDocument.getText
'Create a cursor object Set objCursor= objText.createTextCursor
'Inserting some Text objText.insertString objCursor, "The first line in the newly created text document." & vbLf, false
The last line and onwards is automation - the setup (making it work) is done, the rest is functionality implementation. Not really 50 or 500 lines, is it? In fact, I count 6 lines of code for automation.
"Laugh it up, and then continue wondering why no one uses free software alternatives to Office."
You are misinformed. Many organisations are using or contemplating the use of free alternatives to Office. My organisation (A European Government) is planning a 10.000 workstation rollout of OpenOffice. I collaborate with other organisations that are planning the same. The Spanish Government is rolling out OpenOffice on 8.000 workstations. And there are many, many more.
Slashdot Mirror
But you got one thing right, though - IBM will go where the money is, and right now, they think it is in Linux servers. Many people swoon over how much IBM loves open source. They don't. They love money. So far, If you compare the Open Source efforts of Sun, who everyone is bitching and moaning about, and IBM who everybody loves, you'd be amazed. Even without counting OpenOffice.org, the codebase donated by Sun is far greater then the codebase donated by IBM.
Lack of demand my foot. IBM just doesn't want to piss off MS too much - they still get lotsabusiness from MS. Sun, on the other hand, is beholden to no-one.
if ibm liked opensource, they'd port lotus notes to linux.
madonna & prince ring a bell? several other out there....
Exactly - that is why Gentoo with Portage is so cool - all source installs, and you can keep track of all of them.... ;-)
So, I got fed up with all of this, and am now trying to figure out a way to install Gentoo without having my system down for a few days. I already got Gentoo running in a vmware box, and it is sweet.....
Ah - thanks, didn't know that. You see, even on /. you learn something new every day ;-)
Well, not to start a flamewar or anything, but, as another poster pointed out, the SISL is an OSI approved license. Now, I quite agree with you that the GPL is the ultimate in Free Software licenses, but the provision of the GPL are not to everybodies taste. I too would be happier with the GPL, but as things stand today, this is bit better then no OSS license at all.Also, would you care to point out where the SISSL is incompatible with the GPL? or do the words "Commercial Use" just get your panties in a bunch?
Well, there is definetly a market for this kind of thing, it is just about the implementation. Basically, MS said: "give us all your data, you can trust us with it". Everybody fell over laughing, of course. That is why Hailstorm fell through.
The Liberty Alliance is saying: "We don't want your data, we just want to give you the tools".That there is a need for the concept of identity management stands beyond any doubt. How many website logins do *you* have? Exactly. However, how the respective organisation plan to hndle all the data, and plan to implement the concept is what really matters here. That is why the Liberty Alliance has a much better change of actually being used.
Of course, it is an extra kick in the face to MS that the first tool to come out is Open Source.....
Huh? that is not so sure at all. Get out a bit. Look around a bit. Times are changing.
Well, I think this not too hard....
Server Side:
1. The replacement must support Outlook as a client, people actually like Outlook as an integrated client.
No problem - Outlook supports IMAP.
2. The Replacement must work with the Sendto functions of Microsoft Office
Well, this is a client-side function, handled by Outlook, so doesn't belong in your server list. If you will be using Outlook (or a 100% clone), this will not be an issue.
3. The Replacement must be able to scale to 10's of thousands of users, in geographically diverse locations.
Most serious open source IMAP servers (Courier is nice, as is Cyrus) have no issue with this. Combined with Postfix, MySQL and OpenLDAP, you have a killer core.
4. Must Support Multipule languages
What? A server? Support languages? Pass the crackpipe!! A mail server should *always* be language neutral.
5. Must be easily scannable for Virus protection, and must be able to deny delivery of messages that fit certain criteria.
The core can do this.
6. Easy rules based scripting of mail events stored on the server as part of the user's mail box.
Requires some messing around (and some laxing of security principles - that is how MSExchange pulls it off) but can be done.
7. Must support enterprise calendaring/scheduling.
This is the tricky bit. Do we support standards? Not? Also, if Outlook must be the client, you need to wire-trace the protocol. Not too hard, since Outlook message events are basically specially formatted SMTP messages. (Ximian pulled it off)
8. Must inter-operate with Exchange during migration
No problem - MSX speaks LDAP, IMAP and SMTP. Can even run in parallel for a good amount of time (a requirement often overlooked).
9. Must support server and OS of choice at the company(You know what that means)
No, I don't know what this means. As most Open Source software is, in good engineering fashion, not too hard to port, this shouldn't be an issue.
10. Must offer web mail capabilities equal too or better than OWA(this includes the ability to secure the web mail client via SecureID)
Yeah - I'm using one of the many webmail clients that leave OWA eating dust right now. It's called IMP, and it rocks. Is the requirement for SecureID all you need, cuz this baby can do lots more. http://www.horde.org
11. Must support massive data stores, on the order of 500GB-1TB(yes exchange can do this)
Yes - Exchange can theoretically do this - finally, after trying for almost 5 years. The core mentioned above places no limits on the size of the underlying datastore. It is irrelevant.
12. Must Integrate with our directory services, like exchange 2000 integrates with AD.
Yup - see under OpenLDAP
13 In short it has to do all the things that exchange can do, and more, and better.
You forgot cheaper - this is cheaper, as well as better, more robust, easier to manage, and requires less nursing. The most requested feature from MSExchange admins to MS is faster reboots of the servers. Reboots? I just smile.
Client Side:
1. Must have a client which supports all the functions of the server side. In short its gotta work like Outlook.
Well, you wanted Outlook, no?
2. Must Support OS, and hardware of choice.
Well, you wanted Outlook, no?
3. Easy Rules based scripting interface to server and client side rules(Think Outlook rules wizard)
Well, you wanted Outlook, no?
4. Must be dead simple for users to use, users don't learn they want everything to work just like it always has, even if you give them a new application to do it.
Well, you wanted Outlook, no?
Even so - there are alternatives to Outlook that work nicely. If you are willing to spend the time on the change management (I know - it requires soft skills and all, and you have to deal with users, but once you try it, you find it is not too hard.) you will see that users are not too hard to persuade to change. You do spend time on change management, no?
Cheers.
Well, at least they promised to improve it - a very good thing that they listen to the community. http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?msgId=3 87968&listName=discuss
- Item 1-b):The Software may include certain plug-in components ("Plug-Ins"), including the Real Networks RealPlayer, Adobe Acrobat Reader, Macromedia Flash. You may only call to or otherwise use such Plug-Ins through the use of the OEone applications. Any direct use of Plug-Ins through a non-OEone proprietary application, including a custom or user-written application is prohibited by this Agreement.
- Item 2-c):You may only use the Software for your private, non-commercial use. You may not use the Software in any way to provide, or as part of, any commercial service or application. Copies of content files, including, but not limited to songs and other audio recordings, which are downloaded or copied using the Software, and which are protected by the copyright laws or related laws of any jurisdiction, are for your own personal use only and may not be distributed to third parties or performed outside your normal circle of family and social acquaintances.
- Item 5-a): The Software consists of interactive Internet applications which perform a variety of communications over the Internet as part of their normal operation. A number of communications features are automatic and are enabled by default (for example, Auto Update of software for security and bug fixes). Such automatic communications features do not send any personally identifiable information about you without your consent. Most automatic communications features can be changed by you in User Preferences. By installing and/or using the Software, you consent to the Software's communications features. The Software also allows the use of Cookies, similar to an Internet browser. This allows any website to set cookies for you when you view any of the website's content through the Software, unless you have disabled cookies. To learn more, visit the OEone Consumer Software Privacy Statement link on our website at http://www.oeone.com. You are responsible for any telecommunications or other connectivity charges incurred through your use of the Software.
- Item 5-b):The Software automatically communicates with OEone's servers on the Internet to check for updates to the Software, such as bug fixes, patches, enhanced functions, and new versions. OEone will notify you when updates are available. If you decide to update, you agree that OEone may upload updates and install them as part of your Software. All such updates to the Software are governed by this Agreement, unless other license terms are provided with the update. Although OEone uses encryption technology to provide security for the autoupdate process, OEone is not responsible for the failure of such security measures.
- The whole of item 6):DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ("DRMs"). The Software may include third party DRMs as Plug-in components which are subject to their own license agreements. DRMs are designed to manage and enforce intellectual property rights in digital content purchased over the Internet. You may not take any action to circumvent or defeat the security or content usage rules provided or enforced by either the DRM or the Software. DRMs may be able to revoke your ability to use applicable content. OEone is not responsible for the operation of the DRM in any way, including revocation of your content. OEone is not responsible for any communications to or from any third party DRM provider, or for the collection or use of information by third party DRMs. You consent to the communications enabled and/or performed by the DRM, including automatic updating of the DRM without further notice, despite the provisions of section 5(b). You agree to indemnify and hold harmless OEone for any claim relating to your use of a third party DRM.
This is not very nice and opensource and all - especially 5 and 6 look cool. Also, under strict interpretation of item 2-c, I cannot use OpenOffice.org to create a writer file (content) and send to someone I don't know. I cannot create a webpage with OEone, since I will be distributing content to people I don't know. What the fsck?Okay - I didn't flesh it out more because I was too lazy to go and look up the references / links.
What I meant was this:
- Tim O'Reilly stating that OSX is really the way to go on the desktop. While I have nothing in particular agains running any OS anywhere (I use Linux, but I'm not so fanatic that *everyone*must* convert to OSS - people are free to run what they like, as far as I am concerned.) anyway, O'Reilly is supposed to be a "posterboy" for the whole OpenSource community, and recently, he has been kicking more and more against certain issues. Witness the "use OSX" rant.
- Redhat has stated, many times, that Linux is not for the desktop.
There are more examples, but as I said, I'm too lazy to look for references.
Now, as part of my work (ICT for a government), I have actually researched the viabillity of Open source software on the corporate desktop, and it makes a lot of sense, from all angles. I am not alone in making this conclusion - witness city of largo, city of turku in finland, telstra, etc.
So, what is going on with these people stating that open source is not for the desktop? They say: "you are better off with OSX, windows, whathaveyounot." It simply doesn't make sense. It is, from an IT perspective, not even very professional to talk about "the desktop". First question is "Who's Desktop"? i.e. what type of user are we talking about? task worker? knowledge worker? management? developer? you get my drift. Second question is: what is the hardware? again, you get my drift. There is no such thing as "the desktop" - there are many different types of desktop. And to say that Linux is not good for any of them is gross generalisation that doesn't do the issue justice, not to mention plain rubbish.
Now, I don't think these people making these statements are idiots, or not professionals, and I think they know these issues I bring up. So my question is: What's going on?
More and more I get the impression that there are people from within the Open Source community that are actively working against Open Source and GNU/Linux on the desktop. What's up with that?
What a farce!
It is not that I particularly agree or disagreee with the final result - I guess I support both the ISOC bid as well as the Vixie bid. The only real problem I have with the ISOC bid is the conflic of interest issue that Karl Auerbach so astutely points out. Besides the conflict of interest, I'd like to know what the *problems* are that surround the ISOC bid.... anyone?
References, please. AFAIK, if I want to resell a GPL'ed piece of software for $ 100.000,00 I am free to do so.
I agree with your final conclusions (OOo should have a lot more developers, and Sun needs to do more work to become more open), but I also know that the situation is more nuanced. There are several barriers to starting development on the OOo codebase, some of which you recognise in your post.
First of all, there is the complexity of the code itself. OOo is written mainly in C++, using all kinds of goodies such as templates etc. With the vast majority of OpenSource developers disliking writing code in C++, this kind of narrows the field a bit. Also, sun has a pretty large team of developers writing OpenOffice.org code, and volunteer coders have to try and fit into a group of devs that all share the same two offices. Many decisions on many levels are made within these offices. This is not on purpose, to keep people out, but simply due to the fact that this type of decision taking is easier. However, to the credit of the devs, 99% of the stuff still passes on the mailing lists. But you are stuck on an issue, it is easier to take a stroll down the hallway to ask someone then it is to wait for a reply to a mail.
Even so, there are quite a few successfull volunteer devs, like Kevin B. Hendricks, who do a tremendous job despite the difficulties.
Then there were the legal issues. Before the current JCA, all your work belonged to Sun. Period. This raised the hackles of many, including myself - I am the "vocal critic" quoted in the article - and we have worked hard for a long time to get the current agreement on the table and approved. I really believe that this JCA is the best compromise possible given the circumstances. OpenOffice.org is LGPL, and the copyright of your stuff now remains yours. But you also give Sun the rights to your work, meaning that Sun has some assurance about the future availabillity of your work, if and when it gets included in their commercial product. Microsoft is not very likely to come after volunteers for infringing patents on the MSOffice file format, for example, but it can and will go after Sun for the same. Without copyright assignment, Sun cannot ever mount a legal defense to such a case. So in the end, the current deal is a compromise that should work for all.
The there are the Sun politics. As you have been with HP for some time, I guess you know how this works. Within Sun, there are those who think that OpenSource is cool, and those who think OpenSource sucks. Within Sun, OOo/SO is a large project, and people from both camps work on the project. Tony siress, and his ridiculous statements on the whole MacOS issue are a case in point.Note, however, that Tony publicly apologised about his statements, and Sun claims he spoke out-of-line i.e. the whole MacOS thing is not going to happen, if it ever was. So not all issues that need to be cleared by Sun go as fast. for example, this particular JCA/PDL deal has been on the table for quite some time (months). However, getting cleared by the lawyers and passing through the strata of anti-OpenSource elements inside Sun has really kept it back for much longer then needed.
The Foundation is another sore point inside the community. The whole issue of the foundation has been formally scrapped by Sun, to much discontent form the community. However, we *are* moving in the right direction. This deal is one step, and pretty soon some other developments will move, in terms of project governance. I am sure, that with the right amount of pressure, the Foundation will eventually be set up. The JCA is a critical piece in this issue, since developers can now, potentially, assign copyright to a future Foundation instead of to Sun. This means that Sun is no longer a required (although desired) party to a Foundation.
In the meantime, OOo/SO are MS Office killers, and takeup and interest are massive. This is a good thing. It needs to be better, though, and for that we need more programmers. Unfortunately, the OOo code is hard, and crufty. There are areas *nobody* dares to touch. So in many cases, the true hobbyist programmers back out due to complexity. KOffice were going to use our MSOffice filters. After going through the code, they kindly declined, and started looking at other solutions. On the positive side, we are talking with many groups, commercial as well as non-commercial, about building on the OOo XML file format. More suites using a standard file format is also a good thing. oeone are apperantly working with us on the groupware components - another step in the right direction.
Bruce, Sun has a long ways to go yet in the OpenOffice.org adventure, but I firmly believe that with the right kind of pressure, the right kind of volunteer mentality and the right kind of love, it will become a huge success - both for the OpenSource community as a whole, as well as for Sun. At the end of the day, the focus is on creating a win-win situation for all involved.
Link here - already submitted this as a story, but have to wait 2.3 more minutes before pressing submit
That's because IBM and Sourceforge are announing a deal for SF.net to run using closed IBM software
Of course Hollywood is out to destroy the digital hub. We know that, we see that, we hear that and we read that. Every day. The question is, what are we going to do about it?
This actually looks like a potential OpenSource killer app. It gives most non-techie users what they need, what they want and what they will use, for a fair price. Like Lindows, but without the crappy attitude and marketing tripe. The screenshots look slick, and the stuff looks easy to use. Not something I would go all that wild over, but I can see my wife, or her parents for that matter, using this without any major hassles. Add OpenOffice.org to the mix, and you are done. Cool stuff!
Hi,
The Newsforge article states it is not an OS, but a Frontend/Desktop for an OS - in this case RH7.x. Not half bad either, according to Newsforge. when they have a SuSE version, i'll be checking it out.
However, I think that this will take a few years - Many organisations are in the beginning or middle of their current office version life cycle, and will not be implementing anything, be it MSOffice, OOo/SO, Gobe or whatever, until the end of that lifecycle. But in a few years time, MS *will* implement the OOo/SO filter in Office, because the user base they will have left will need to operate with the file-format of choice for most users: OpenOffice.org XML.
From the UNO samples page:
The last line and onwards is automation - the setup (making it work) is done, the rest is functionality implementation. Not really 50 or 500 lines, is it? In fact, I count 6 lines of code for automation.
You are misinformed. Many organisations are using or contemplating the use of free alternatives to Office. My organisation (A European Government) is planning a 10.000 workstation rollout of OpenOffice. I collaborate with other organisations that are planning the same. The Spanish Government is rolling out OpenOffice on 8.000 workstations. And there are many, many more.