| |||||||||||||
It is on!It is on!Posted Jul 14, 2011 16:33 UTC (Thu) by kragilkragil2 (guest, #76172)Parent article: IBM to contribute Symphony to OpenOffice.org
OK, now it seems like the Apache/IBM and the TDF are going to duke it out.
If OO.o really integrates most of what IBM is offering then it will be getting harder for LibrOffice to keep up with integrating changes.
IMO Apache should just integrate most of what IBM has to offer, sure it would make OO.o essentially Synphony, but if you want OO.o just use LibreOffice. Having 2 Office suites that are more or less identical serves no purpose.
(Log in to post comments)
It is on! Posted Jul 14, 2011 18:01 UTC (Thu) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
Yes, it will be interesting to see who will catch up to who. On the one hand OpenOffice/Apache Office has basically not seen any development for the last 2 months, while TDF/LibO has seen 3 releases in that same timeframe. On the other hand maybe IBM will finally kickstart Apache into action.
Does anybody understand what exactly is offered though?
Wondering about the name Posted Jul 14, 2011 18:05 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] "Apache Symphony" has a certain ring to it. OpenOffice.org has always been a clunky name, since there are too many things called "Open.*" and the ".org" (required to avoid a trademark conflict with some other "Open.*" thing) is confusing. Will Apache be able to use the "Symphony" name?
Wondering about the name Posted Jul 14, 2011 18:11 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Dunno about Symphony, but an ongoing conversation suggests that ".org", at least, will go. "Apache OpenOffice" is apparently good enough to be a distinct name.
Wondering about the name Posted Jul 18, 2011 18:02 UTC (Mon) by xorbe (subscriber, #3165) [Link]
I thought .org was tacked on because another pre-existing commercial Open Office got upset.
It is on! Posted Jul 15, 2011 0:32 UTC (Fri) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that Lotus Symphony was actually quite rubbish. At least those were the reviews that went out when it was launched.
This may have changed, but for OpenOffice to benefit from this, then Lotus Symphony must actually include some features and functionality that is considered quite desirable.
It is on! Posted Jul 15, 2011 5:28 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
Even if there is the apache license is compatible with the LO licenses. That means LO can simply take the code they like and plunk it into LO. This has always been the problem with the fork for the OO side, the code can go only one way and that's into LO, LO's improvements can't go back to Apache OO.
Either way I doubt there is much to worry about. I just don't see the momentum in OO. IBM is going to throw over the fence some code but they aren't committing to keep contributing.
It is on! Posted Jul 16, 2011 18:31 UTC (Sat) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Which Symphony?
First of all, *most* office suites were rubbished in the late 90s / early 2000s because they weren't Microsoft Office. And if you're talking Symphony of the early 90s or the 80s, surely it evolved a lot after that?
Secondly, IBM Lotus Symphony is not Lotus Symphony. I don't know the details, but from what I can make out, IBM killed the original Lotus Symphony, and replaced it with their own version of OOwriter called Lotus Symphony.
Cheers,
It is on! Posted Jul 15, 2011 9:51 UTC (Fri) by njwhite (subscriber, #51848) [Link]
Indeed, IBM powered OpenOffice can continue to build the codebase in the direction it has a reputation for; large, java-y, slow, etc. And that may well work for their customers.
Meanwhile LibreOffice can work towards creating an office suite which is usable and faster.
The two projects diverging is to my mind a good thing; I want a free, community governed office suite (LibreOffice), and the less "brand confusion" the better.
It is on! Posted Jul 16, 2011 14:39 UTC (Sat) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Don't forget. LibreOffice will probably have a much easier time of it integrating Symphony than will OOo!
MOST of the effort in the first few releases of LO has been directed towards removing dead code, refactoring redundant code, translating the comments into English, and a whole host of *programmer* *friendly* changes.
OTOH, OOo was (still is?) a pretty ugly spaghetti monster. Okay, they could probably take and use a whole host of patches that are basically just "delete this useless code, delete that useless code", but it's probably almost more effort to review it than just redo it from scratch.
That's a good reason why LO is likely to start leaving OOo in the dust - it's far more developer-friendly, and once you get a commanding lead, it's hard for the other people to catch up ...
Cheers,
|
|||||||||||||