User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 10, 2013 20:40 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888)
In reply to: Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey by khim
Parent article: Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

How many professionals work full-time on Gimp?

It is meaningless to talk about "contributors" in the abstract without acknowledging that some projects have more full-time dedicated programmers, and others don't. Code size matters, yes. But so experience. And so does hours/week working on the project.

We're fortunate with Apache OpenOffice to have developers working on the code with experience dating back before Oracle, before Sun, back to the StarDivision days, as well as programmers with years of experience with IBM Lotus Symphony.

An interesting ratio to look at is the average commits/contributor. If you look at that and compare AOO and LO you will see nearly a 2:1 ratio. In other words, on average each of the AOO contributors does twice as many commits.

Whatever the reason for that (and I could imagine several theories) the fact that there is that disparity across two otherwise similar open source projects suggests it is hazardous to make comparisons based on naive application of statistics. You might use the word "commit" and "contributor" and think the mean the same thing in both projects, but if the ratio is that different, this suggests that these two populations are different in some other interesting ways.


(Log in to post comments)

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 10, 2013 21:16 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]

> An interesting ratio to look at is the average commits/contributor. If you look at that and compare AOO and LO you will see nearly a 2:1 ratio. In other words, on average each of the AOO contributors does twice as many commits.

That is an interesting ratio to look at, but without the actual numbers hard to interpret. Maybe one side has many more contributors who work together to make up for the lower number of commits per person? If we take the data from ohloh for the last 12 months (which for openoffice also includes contributors who only edit the website) then we get:

openoffice: 6195 Commits / 57 Contributors = ~108 commits/contributor
libreoffice: 20813 Commits / 332 Contributors = ~62 commits/contributor

It might be interesting to also look at the ratio of just the code contributions (or also add all website edits to the libreoffice side) for the top 20 contributors to see if it is just the long tail that is responsible for the ratio difference. Or maybe those who just hack on HTML are more prolific committers.

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 10, 2013 21:41 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

You'd need to do a lot more corrections. For example, with git Ohloh lists all contributors for LO, but with SVN AOO gets credit only for core committers. All contributor patches go through them.

Ohloh also doesn't track AOO branches, where we do most of the work (Ohloh asked us not to include our branches due to the additional load it would put on them). For example, our entire sidebar feature, the cornerstone of the AOO 4.0 work, showed up in Ohloh as a single commit, when the work was integrated into the trunk. But it was a work of many programmers over several months.

Aside from different treatment of HTML editors (which you noticed) there is also differences in how translation work is accounted for, which inflates LO's numbers in Ohloh.

You would also need to consider size of commits, etc. KLoC differences are also hard to compare, since LO did a huge number of very small changes, things translating comments from German to English. Not that this is a bad thing, but it does frustrate simplistic attempts at comparing metrics.

Function points, anyone? No, LO removed a lot of code as well, so you can't compare that.

Or seriously, just realize and accept that these are two different projects and success is what comes out of the project, not what goes into it. And based on that I'm very pleased by our progress. We'll hit 50 million downloads next week. So in terms of the value we bring users, this is huge.

In commercial spaces, no company would brag about how many employees they had or how hard they tried. Bragging rights go to sales. We're not commercial, of course, but it still makes sense to focus on results.

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 11, 2013 23:49 UTC (Sat) by shmget (subscriber, #58347) [Link]

"there is also differences in how translation work is accounted for, which inflates LO's numbers in Ohloh."

I call bull:
in the last 12 month the 'translation repo' has had about 100 commits.
that is because the work is done in pottle and integrated in the git repo in 'batch'... but you know that very well, since IBM also has setup a pottle server... so you know the workflow.

in comparison you are credited of 910 commits or about 15% of all the commit done (#1 committer) in the last 12 months, none of them touching the code.

"since LO did a huge number of very small changes, things translating comments from German to English."
Bull again:
a quick grep from the log find about 130 commit in lo that are 'translate german' related in the last 12 months... or 0.65%, even if that simplistic grep approach missed half of them... that would still not account for any significant share of the 20K+ commits.

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 12, 2013 1:20 UTC (Sun) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

I think you are mixing up commits with committers. The root of this thread was a claim about committer counts. If you search for "long tail" you'll see my assertion that the long tail doesn't actually account for many commits at all. What you report supports that assertion. Thank you.

The difference between LO and AOO in the case of translators is that LO, by using git, individually lists many of their translators in the logs. (Look at the l10n and dictionaries repos as well). AOO's translators don't touch Subversion. So when you do naive comparisons using log-based reports you count LO translators but not AOO ones.

You'll run into dozens of traps like that when you try to do a naive comparison of LO and AOO, of the type that LO proponents like to propagate. The tool sets and the processes differ enough that such comparisons are very messy. (And looking at the LO clone of AOO's tree in git doesn't solve anything, since that still leaves the process differences, including who checks in code.)

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 12, 2013 2:49 UTC (Sun) by shmget (subscriber, #58347) [Link]

"Look at the l10n and dictionaries repos as well"
First the l10n git repo is obsolete, has been for quite a while
this is now called translations.git
and as I said: "in the last 12 month the 'translation repo' has had about 100 commits."
and since the beginning of the year: 24.

dictionaries which contain... languages dictionaries and thesaurus, has had 34 commits since the beginning of the year.
out of 8200+ commit on master... so both of these represent 0.7% of the commits... not the 'bias' you claim.
btw: the 'translate german comment' stuff represent less than 20 commits this year... all together the 3 things you claim distort the number represent at most 1% of the commits...

"AOO's translators don't touch Subversion."
LO translator do not touch git either...
as I said:
"that is because the work is done in pottle and integrated in the git repo in 'batch'... but you know that very well, since IBM also has setup a pottle server... so you know the workflow."

"You'll run into dozens of traps like that when you try to do a naive comparison of LO and AOO"
no not really... the only things that makes thing harder is _your_ willful attempt to obfuscate things, when, a bit less than a year ago, you decided to _add_ your wiki and website to ohloh as 'source'.
Ironically a few month after having written a blog about how a project can 'boost' their numbers... I guess that is called dog-fooding.

"And looking at the LO clone of AOO's tree in git doesn't solve anything, since that still leaves the process differences, including who checks in code"
yes that does not favor 'over-the-fence' developing...
but the theory that there is a vast variety of author, they are just not committer... well is just a myth. either that or you do not credit the author at all....

Since you choose to use 'since the beginning of the year...

Since the beginning of the year there has been 14 commit in svn that reference
'Patch by' credit (which you said 3 days ago was the way to find these, and I quote: "It might be worth also
looking at names in the SVN commit memo for "Patch by:"

3 of them are credited to people that _are_ committers.
5 of them are credited to the same person, (a paid dev btw)
1 was a helcontent patch
1 was a re-license of an embedded extension
(I mentioned the later 2 because of the claim you made that LO has a lot of small meat-less patches)
1 of them was a dig of an old patch from 2009 out of bugzilla

so all in all a tail length of 6 non-committer authors. that would be missed by looking at git... with a distribution of 5-1-1-1-1-1.

But you already knew all that, since you have discussed it on your dev ML recently...
So as usual you are just hoping that no-one will notice, and purposefully trying to mislead less up-to-date public.

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 12, 2013 13:03 UTC (Sun) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

You are still mixing up commits and committers. Remember, when LibreOffice claims the number of developers, they measure it from the beginning of the project, cumulatively. So even with a trivial % of work (which proves my point about the not-existent long tail)it biases their developer count.

You seem to take offense that we track website content and design changes in Subversion. That's useful for our internal tracking, and we use tools like Ohloh to make that tracking easier. But we have never put that info into a blog post or press release or any other public communication. LibreOffice, on the other hand, frequently promotes data they know is meaningless or deceptive. If you talk to their developers on this, one-on-one, they dismiss it as "the marketing guys doing their thing".

Some examples: LibreOffice claimed, when promoting their community size, the number of wiki accounts they had, even though most of them were never used or just spam accounts:

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/11/libreoffices-dubious-...

And similar misrepresentations that inflate their developer counts:

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/11/libreoffices-dubious-...

I see how you are trying to accuse AOO of something by tracking website changes, but that argument falls flat because we never promote that number. Only LO supporters promote that number, when trying to draw attention away from their own deceptions.

Finally, but not understanding the process and our use of Subversion you will continue to make false representation of AOO activity. I think the core LO marketing team is smarter in that regard. They avoid doing actual analysis and merely quite Ohloh, which gives them a plausible excuse if their claims are wrong.

Consider this. When LO quotes commits and developers they include the history of whatever code the import into the project from related projects. So when they merge in old branches from OpenOffice.org they count the Oracle developers who worked on that code before LibreOffice even existed. And they count the AOO developers when they merge in their work. We can argue about whether this makes their claimed community statistics more or less accurate, but I hope we agree that an apples-to-apples comparison must credit the merge of 3rd party code similarly.

With AOO 4.0 we have a huge new feature, the sidebar UI, from IBM Lotus Symphony. It was developed over several years by over 50 developers at IBM. But it was done behind the firewall, using proprietary VCS, and when imported into Apache Subversion it lost the entire version history. When it was merged into AOO the work was done over several months and developers in a SVN branch. When the work was done it was them merged into the trunk. How is this work credited by Ohloh, which looks at only our trunk? Yup, it was seen as a single commit by a single developer. But the same kind of merge would, in LibreOffice, be treated as thousands of commits by 50 developers. The fact that LibreOffice lacks partnership with corporations who have significant code to offer is a good thing, but naive log-based reporting misses this fact.

Also, do you have any logo questions? Out of respect for the Lwn.net authors and paying subscribers I feel that we should try discussing the parent article at least a little, rather then rehash the same tired old LibreOffice claims. I realize it burns, burns like acid, to hear someone talking about something other than LibreOffice. But it is best to get used to this.

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 12, 2013 17:47 UTC (Sun) by shmget (subscriber, #58347) [Link]

"You seem to take offense that we track website content and design changes in Subversion."
Not at all, I take offense are your attempt to, last year, starting to have these count as 'code', in a desperate attempt to boost your ohloh stats.

" That's useful for our internal tracking, and we use tools like Ohloh to make that tracking easier. "
you did not have them under ohloh for the first year of your existance... and, by your own admission, you forgot to update ohloh 'subscription' after your graduation for many months... so much for 'we use tools like ohloh to make that tracking easier'. When you find yourself in a hole... stop digging.

"But it was done behind the firewall, using proprietary VCS, "

I'm sorry ? are you asking for credit for a failed proprietary fork attempt ?

", and when imported into Apache Subversion it lost the entire version history. "
That was a choice not a fatality.

"With AOO 4.0 we have a huge new feature, the sidebar UI, from IBM Lotus Symphony.[..] When it was merged into AOO the work was done over several months and developers in a SVN branch. When the work was done it was them merged into the trunk. How is this work credited by Ohloh, which looks at only our trunk? "
that account for 105 commits in branches/sidebar, prior to it being merged in trunk.

"It was developed over several years by over 50 developers at IBM."
for a patch that boils down to
1007 files changed, 67109 insertions(+), 18482 deletions(-)

Whoaa 'over' 50 devs over several years... for that ?
No wonder you deliberately squashed the change history...

"Novell had been behaving badly toward OpenOffice.org for many years and waiting for the opportunity."

You may consider that was 'behaving badly' toward Sun, but certainly not toward OpenOffice.org... especially when you try to get credit for a _Proprietary_ fork of the same code base at the same time that happened... the later was not behaving badly toward 'Sun' -- since IBM got their consent for an undisclosed amount of money, thanks to Copyright Assignment -- but certainly behaving badly toward OpenOffice.org the project.

"You are still mixing up commits and committers."

No I'm not. 'still' or otherwise.

"So even with a trivial % of work (which proves my point about the not-existent long tail)"
making a assertion does not prove anything, especially in the face of facts (the so-called non-existent long tail is very very real... you may argue about its value, but not about its existence) in any case ohloh numbers shows trailing 12 months and trailing 30 days numbers... and and LO git repo are there for all to look, nothing done behind firewall and thrown over the fence from time to time...

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 12, 2013 18:29 UTC (Sun) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

You can't have it both ways. You are arguing that we simultaneously use Ohloh for promotional purposes and try to boost the numbers while also arguing that we neglect the numbers and fail to keep them up to date. You seem to want to argue both sides of this.

But the truth is far less sinister than you imply. The data from Ohloh is worth something, but not much, and we spend some time, but not much, maintaining it. That's our business, not yours. We don't quote the data in press releases. LibreOffice does. I know the limitations and weaknesses of the data and use it accordingly. LibreOffice either doesn't know, or doesn't care.

This is just basic intellectual honesty. If you want to compare things then you need to get them on an equal basis for comparison. I've pointed out the numerous ways in which the processes, history, tooling, etc., of the two projects differ to an extent that the naive comparisons that LibreOffice regularly publishes are deceptive and do not give an accurate view of the activities of either project. Nevertheless, I'm sure it is useful for propagandist purposes and that you, and others will promote it for that purpose. But let's call it for what it is. If you had a product then you'd lead with results.

In-process metrics have their place, of course, but even then you need to be careful. For example LibreOffice is always talking about how many bugs they fixed, but not how many they added. I've looked at many of the bugs and they simply never existed in AOO. Similarly, they quote great performance improvements. But the one I looked at was simply fixing a performance regression they had introduced in a previous version. So 50% performance improvements and bug fixes are promoted, but that is just marketing, not reality. In the end those who pay for the LibreOffice developers will expect results, real results, not just bogus statistics.

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 12, 2013 19:09 UTC (Sun) by shmget (subscriber, #58347) [Link]

"You can't have it both ways. You are arguing that we simultaneously use Ohloh for promotional purposes"
No I'm saying you tried to make ohloh number look less bad... bit that you bragged about it... and it is not an 'argument' it is a fact that you decided to add your internal wiki and website to ohloh as part of your project in June 2012.

"while also arguing that we neglect the numbers and fail to keep them up to date. "
Again that is not an 'argument' that is a fact that you yourself expressed earlier.

Beside wanting to mislead people and being bad at it is not incompatible, and clearly your goal was not to 'look good' on ohloh, you know you can't, but to fudge the numbers and make them harder to use... to then try to discredit them. Which is exactly your entire line of argument.

"I know the limitations and weaknesses of the data and use it accordingly"
Of course you know, you are doing your darn best to make them as hard to use as you can.

"LibreOffice either doesn't know, or doesn't care."
Libreoffice does not fudge with Ohloh. We did not add our website or wiki to ohloh 'sources', heck not even our dev-tools repo, contrary to what you did. We do not do 'over-the-fence' development, and yes, we credit the authors of works, regardless of who they are.

"This is just basic intellectual honesty"
you talking of intellectual honesty is like Fox News talking about 'Fair and Balanced'

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 12, 2013 20:00 UTC (Sun) by efraim (guest, #65977) [Link]

You can please keep your politics out of LWN discussions. I try not to bring mine. And as an impartial observer of AOO vs. LO debate your attacks on AOO don't inspire confidence in LO. I would not expect this from a person working for a successful project sure in its future.

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 19, 2013 8:20 UTC (Sun) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]

Fully agreed. By now I changed my mind about Apache oo vs LO - and not in favor of the latter. Mostly because being unreasonable while arguing makes me doubt the arguments.

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 19, 2013 17:31 UTC (Sun) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link]

Ah then it's incredibly easy to convince you – it's just enough to start challenging the very point someone wants to convince you about.

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 10, 2013 22:02 UTC (Fri) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

A long tail is what you'd expect for an active project. A lot of people using the software, some find one problem they can't live with, some fix it, some contribute the fix.

You'd expect to see this even more if the (mostly time) cost of making a small fix AND contributing it is very low. Compiled code hurts you a little, big unwieldy build systems hurt more, difficult contributor environments hurt most of all. Few people want to wait (more than a few seconds) for a compilation step. Scarcely any want to put hours into just learning how to make a running binary. Nobody at all wants to spend their spare time doing somebody else's stupid paperwork.

One thing a big project can do is make it easier to contribute at the fringes. Are there parts of the project which are easier to build, or don't in fact need compilation at all? Expose them to the power user and encourage improvements to be contributed back to the project. Lots of people write a Gimp Script-Fu that does something useful to them (and perhaps useful to others) without even owning a C compiler let alone knowing how to use it

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 10, 2013 22:28 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

Long tail is overrated. I've looked at that claim in LibreOffice and they doesn't hold water. Yes, there is a long tail, but as a whole it contributes very little, and there is almost no progression from "long tail" contributor to "core contributor" over time. The development work there is still almost all done by professional developers, either ex-Oracle engineers now working for Redhat, or ex-Novell OpenOffice developers now working for Attachmate.

Remember, long tail has a cost as well, in terms of time to educate, to review, the hit to quality (which LO continues to suffer from), etc.

Put it this way: who creates the better product, 1 person with 15 years experience with the code base working 40 hours a week? Or 50 inexperienced people working 1 hour a week? It is a rhetorical question and the answer is obvious. Of course, we all hope that some in the long tail progress, gain experience and spend more time hacking. It sometimes happens also. But not as often as it does in open source fairy tales.

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 11, 2013 3:49 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Put it this way: who creates the better product, 1 person with 15 years experience with the code base working 40 hours a week? Or 50 inexperienced people working 1 hour a week? It is a rhetorical question and the answer is obvious.

You're kidding.

Of course, we all hope that some in the long tail progress, gain experience and spend more time hacking. It sometimes happens also. But not as often as it does in open source fairy tales.

OK, you're not kidding. You're just disconnected from what happens in non-corporate-operated Open Source projects.

We learned all of this way back when the Open Source Applications Foundation brought professional development processes and the commitment of full-time employees to Open Source, along with the management of known top-performer Mitch Kapor and his hand-picked team. That didn't work out so well. But they were very good at eating money that should have gone to more worthy projects.

The 15-year-experienced guy who works 40 hours a week has a queue of things to work on that's written by someone in management and he doesn't get a chance to do much that's serendipitous or even innovative. He started with StarDivision and he's been through so many ownership changes and general corporate nonsense on the way that motivation isn't easy any longer.

The 50 inexperienced people put in more than an hour, some of them much more. They are full of fresh ideas and they have their own agendas. They come up with things that nobody expected, but which gain a following rapidly.

We're all waiting for IBM and Oracle to return to their own kernels because Linux development just can't keep up :-)

Funny how those committers who are writing twice as much code as the other project aren't actually keeping up when it comes to user-desirable features. Are they doing stuff that IBM and Oracle want and nobody else cares about? Are they writing for a living and not for love the way the other guys are? Or is this just what should be expected from corporate-run Open Source?

Perhaps those Open Source folks are not the only ones who have bought into fairy tales.

Results of the Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Logo Survey

Posted May 11, 2013 11:18 UTC (Sat) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

My point, which I'll keep brief so you might read it, is that the LibreOffice long tail is a fiction. For example, earlier in this thread it was said that there were "only" 18 active committers on OpenOffice.

But if we look at the top 18 active committers on LibreOffice we see that they combined do over 80% of the commits. So the vaunted "long tail" is actually very, very thin.

And guess what, this core 80% of LO are almost all corporate-sponsored developers. And many of them have the same tired career path and the same corporate direction same questionable motivations that you accuse us of. So your disdain is a bit stronger than your logic here.

Lets check the numbers ...

Posted May 11, 2013 19:42 UTC (Sat) by mmeeks (subscriber, #56090) [Link]

Just a quick injection of a few facts; if people want to generate them, we publish a full affiliation database ( and welcome corrections ) here: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/contrib/gitdm-config/ Sadly there is as far as I know, no public, accurate affiliation database for apache committers; so it is hard to corporately credit their patches 100% correctly. > But if we look at the top 18 active committers on LibreOffice we see > that they combined do over 80% of the commits. So the vaunted "long > tail" is actually very, very thin. At LibreOffice we -welcome- -enthusiastically- contributions, no matter how small. We encourage people to get involved, and appreciate that the code-base makes large demands on them and their time. I was personally thrilled last week to see a new-contributor create a one-line patch that fixed bug with seven+ duplicates: that makes me happy. Since I did a gitdm run a few days ago here is the data for the top 18 guys (your cut-off point):
Developers with the most changesets
Caolán McNamara          8099 (14.1%) RedHat
Tor Lillqvist             4382 (7.6%) SUSE
Kohei Yoshida             3068 (5.3%) SUSE
sb                        2300 (4.0%) RedHat
David Tardon              2276 (4.0%) RedHat
Michael Stahl             2065 (3.6%) RedHat
Miklos Vajna              1788 (3.1%) SUSE
Markus Mohrhard           1663 (2.9%) Volunteer
Norbert Thiebaud          1467 (2.5%) Volunteer
Thomas Arnhold            1406 (2.4%) Volunteer
Michael Meeks             1278 (2.2%) SUSE
Luboš Luňák               1240 (2.2%) SUSE
Andras Timar              1103 (1.9%) SUSE
Fridrich Štrba            1090 (1.9%) SUSE
Bjoern Michaelsen         1040 (1.8%) Canonical
julien                     925 (1.6%) Volunteer
Matus Kukan                916 (1.6%) LibreOffice contract developer
Noel Grandin               828 (1.4%) Volunteer
Personally - I'm thrilled to see so many volunteers keeping up and out-pacing full-time payed employees (that are after slot 18) there - we have some simply awesome contributors ! Hopefully that leave some space for the gitdm output of changesets by employer:
Top changeset contributors by employer
Volunteers                17188 (29.9%)
SUSE                      17045 (29.6%)
RedHat                    14742 (25.6%)
Oracle                    5410 (9.4%)
Known contributors        1313 (2.3%)
Canonical                  708 (1.2%)
Assigned                   234 (0.4%)
IBM                        180 (0.3%)
ALTA                       158 (0.3%)
Lanedo                     106 (0.2%)
KACST                      100 (0.2%)
Igalia                      75 (0.1%)
Aentos                      68 (0.1%)
Collabora                   52 (0.1%)
SIL                         40 (0.1%)
Tata Consultancy Services   34 (0.1%)
Apache Volunteer            27 (0.0%)
Linagora                    26 (0.0%)
Openismus                   13 (0.0%)
Bobiciel                     8 (0.0%)
Nou and Off                  7 (0.0%)
Munich                       2 (0.0%)
Funky                        2 (0.0%)
CodeWeavers                  1 (0.0%)
CodeThink                    1 (0.0%)
Intel                        1 (0.0%)
Hope that helps the deliberations.

Lets check the numbers ...

Posted May 11, 2013 20:46 UTC (Sat) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

My numbers differ, since I don't count phantom developers who are not involved in the project in any way, such as the ones you claim from Oracle, IBM, etc. A little intellectual honesty would go a long way here. The fact that you take code and merge it does not make the author of the code a member of your community.

Lets check the numbers ...

Posted May 11, 2013 21:13 UTC (Sat) by luya (subscriber, #50741) [Link]

Would you mind to show your own stat then so readers can view them? Thank you.

Lets check the numbers ...

Posted May 11, 2013 21:45 UTC (Sat) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

Certainly. Here are the LO numbers for the core repo for this year. (I assume we're more interested in the present than ancient history.)

Here's for the top 18:

Commits Engineer % Cum%
780 Tor Lillqvist SUSE 9.50% 9.50%
716 Caolán McNamara REDHAT 8.72% 18.23%
521 Stephan Bergmann REDHAT 6.35% 24.58%
502 Kohei Yoshida SUSE 6.12% 30.69%
441 Michael Stahl REDHAT 5.37% 36.07%
399 Markus Mohrhard Volunteer 4.86% 40.93%
373 David Tardon REDHAT 4.54% 45.47%
295 Miklos Vajna SUSE 3.59% 49.07%
289 Julien Nabet Volunteer 3.52% 52.59%
228 Noel Grandin Volunteer 2.78% 55.37%
221 Lubos Lunak SUSE 2.69% 58.06%
218 Andras Timar SUSE 2.66% 60.72%
198 Thomas Arnhold Volunteer 2.41% 63.13%
186 Peter Foley ??? 2.27% 65.40%
180 Eike Rathke REDHAT 2.19% 67.59%
138 Michael Meeks SUSE 1.68% 69.27%
135 Matúš Kukan LibreOffice Contractor 1.64% 70.92%
134 Fridrich Štrba SUSE 1.63% 72.55%

Other time periods will obviously given you other numbers. If you back out the Apache codesets, which LO gets merely via their status as a downstream consumer of AOO, the relative contribution of the top 18 goes even higher. (Since we're talking about community trends, not code, it makes no sense to count code contributions that did not originate within the community. Otherwise we'd count every author of every 3rd party library we use, right?)

So however you slice it, the "long tail" may be long, but it is very, very thin. This is the way it has always been with OpenOffice, from the earliest days. Most of the development work is done by professionals, and the community mainly works on translation and marketing. LO has not really changed this fundamentally. The "long tail" is just a myth they tell their SUSE and RedHat executives to convince them to continue pouring in cash to prop up the project. But with declining PC sales, and the niche Linux desktop market, I really don't see that continuing for much longer.

Lets check the numbers ...

Posted May 11, 2013 23:27 UTC (Sat) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]

What are both your methods, please? Code is best.

Thanks!

Lets check the numbers ...

Posted May 12, 2013 0:35 UTC (Sun) by shmget (subscriber, #58347) [Link]

so the arbitrarily set at 18-core is 72.55% not 80%, and
and you own number shows volunteer = 16% of the total + part of volunteer out of the rest : the 27.45% 'tail'.

ok so now, what are the similar numbers for your project ? (that is code change, not web-page edit)

Lets check the numbers ...

Posted May 12, 2013 1:50 UTC (Sun) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

If it is not clear from my other posts, I don't think these comparisons are worth the effort spent gathering them. I know LO supporters think otherwise. They expend time making gathering numbers, publishing colorful charts, etc. They love comparing their numbers to AOO. In fact, when Ohloh was not updating AOO numbers I received quite a few emails from LO supporters complaining that the AOO numbers were not being updated. They even complained to Ohloh! (Oh no, how can we create our colorful charts if the AOO numbers are not there!)

But in the end, I think what counts is what comes out, the product that gets into the end of users, the features and quality that they receive. That is the value of an open source project. That's the difference between an open source project and a political party.

Maybe you don't see that in the insular world of the Linux desktop, but in the broader world Apache OpenOffice, the product, is doing very well. Our 4.0 release will be out soon, and we're soon going to hit the 50 million download mark in a few days. We're not just hanging on. We're advancing. Download are growing. Name recognition is growing. On the commercial side (and I apologize for not being able to give very many details here) AOO is also doing extremely well. I'm solidly focused on results, not on claims of community size. What did the Bard say, "The fewer men, the greater share of honor" ?

Of course, that's my personal view, and I realize there are other views as well, but those who promote those views have not (IMHO) delivered commensurate results.

Lets check the numbers ...

Posted May 12, 2013 4:01 UTC (Sun) by shmget (subscriber, #58347) [Link]

for reference, it is amusing to put the 'present' Rob in context with the Rob of 2 1/2 year ago:

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/09/libreoffice-newest-me...

" The key milestone I think will be if someday the Document Foundation can claim a headcount of developers that equals or exceeds that which Oracle has working on OpenOffice.org. In the end code talks, and developers write code."

I guess committers and commits where a 'key' milestone then... but not now...

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/11/the-legacy-of-openoff...
is interesting too. first it contain a graph, supposedly published in early November 2010, that reference Lo 3.3 and 3.4 and their date of GA in the future by 3 and 6 month respectively...
but also in the comment Rob put the emphasis once again on dev head-count:

"I’ve gone through the logs and the LO number shrinks from 150 to approximately 30 coders. That is a respectable number for a new open source project. I think LO should give a good, but realistic number, rather than trying to dazzle with the extremely improbably “150 developers” number. "

So back then, _that_ was an important metrics... and guess want, rob _could_ go to the logs again, and I bet you he did... but the numbers don't line up with his communication agenda... so let's pretend they do not matter anymore...

"it is not very surprising that Suse/Redhat/Ubuntu are distributing LO instead of OOo. Weren’t they distributing the “Novell Edition” (GoOo) all along?"

Remeber how Today's Rob talk about Linux distribution 'silently replacing OOo by LO'... well Rob from 2 1/2 year ago knew exactly what the situation was... he 'forgot' since then...

Rob from 1 year ago wrote a blog about such metrics...

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/04/free-software-marketi...

"Don’t just count those who are writing code. Almost anyone can be called a “developer” these days. Translators (“Localization Engineers”), build lab guys (“Configuration Management Engineers”), testers (Software Quality Engineers), etc. Include all of their contributions."

at first glance one may think that was a sarcastic blog, or maybe an April Fools joke... but no. 2 months later Rob applied his own advice and modified the 'subscription' in ohloh to get every modification of their website and internal wiki to count as 'dev' commit.
http://www.ohloh.net/p/openoffice/edits?page=6

"But be warned: use of these advanced techniques might open you up to criticism of promoting numbers that are meaningless,"

Well Today's Rob is meta-gaming ... he is now using the very criticism that he foretold about against his own shenanigan, to then declare that _any_ such numbers are meaningless... because he cooked his owns...
Genius!

"For example, suppose you have 400 developers, and 10 of them do 90% of the work, and they are employed by a single company. Avoid the naive mistake of saying that one company was responsible for 90% of the contributions. "

Which is pretty much the situation in Rob's project... except for the 400 dev part...
But he has preempted that problem quite a while ago, by declaring that IBM employee paid to work on aoo are 'volunteer' just like anyone else... and therefore it is irrelevant to figure out IBM % in the project...
(yes, yes he even went as far as arguing that since IBM employee are at-will employee and could quit if they wish, that make the case that they are 'volunteers.
but somehow that logic does not apply outside of his project... I guess he is taking the concept of 'fuzzy' logic to a whole new level...

"we're soon going to hit the 50 million download mark"
I guess it is best to let people see for themselves:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/file...

Lets check the numbers ...

Posted May 12, 2013 13:18 UTC (Sun) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

First, your link to the AOO download stats was to the English version only. if you want the localized versions as well the URL us here:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/file...

That link overstates downloads, since it includes Language Packs, as well as full installs, intermixed in the same directory. I have no idea whether LO includes these in their counts, since they have never disclosed their methodology. But we give full details of ours, include access to the raw data and Python script for getting the data yourself here:

http://www.openoffice.org/stats/downloads.html

Second, although it is good to remind readers about the development effort under Sun and compare it to what is occurring today, you make the error of confusing "headcount" with "counts of contributors". Actual headcount, the effort on the project is measured in Full-time Equivalents (FTEs). It is entirely meaningless to look a contributor counts to gauge the effort being applied to a project. That is like counting pieces of currency without looking at the denomination.

The rest of your complaints I have either addressed elsewhere.

And do let me know if you have any comments or questions related to the parent article, the one about the logo selection process for AOO 4.0.

Lets check the numbers ...

Posted May 16, 2013 11:51 UTC (Thu) by dag- (subscriber, #30207) [Link]

It must be the long tail that's spending all the time gathering numbers, publishing colorful charts, etc...

Oh wait, all that has not been accounted for in the statistics :-)

Lets check the numbers ...

Posted May 12, 2013 0:18 UTC (Sun) by shmget (subscriber, #58347) [Link]

"My numbers differ, since I don't count phantom developers who are not involved in the project in any way, such as the ones you claim from Oracle, IBM, etc. "

Since these developers are certainly not 'volonteer', that actually works against your argument...
I also encourage you to read LWN. They recently published a graph about another project that fail to produce anything of value -- based on your long tail argument --

https://lwn.net/Articles/547073/

Note that that project also has a very low rate of conversion to core-dev...
but more to the point, without a tail you can't convert any at all.

"A little intellectual honesty "

That is rich coming from you.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds