Posted on 06/30/2005 5:49:09 AM PDT by N3WBI3
I have been exploring the use of free Open Source software as an alternative to Microsoft Software for quite some time now. I have been using Open Office for about 8 months now for my word processing needs. In a nutshell I am satisfied. Last week a new beta was released, I downloaded it as soon as it was made available, on first view, even though the key functionality in version 2.0 Beta remains largely intact, it promises dozens, possibly hundreds, of changes.
NeLogic Content Management System The beta seems complete enough for a preliminary review. Changes to the installation, interface, general functionality, and the applications themselves, there is much that I welcome, but a few changes for the worse as well.
The beta opens on a changed interface. Some of the changes are as simple as a rationalized interface. For example, the Options dialog now refers to applications by name instead of by document type.
However, the most obvious change in the OpenOffice.org editing window is in the treatment of toolbars. The Main toolbar, formerly on the left side of the window, has been done away entirely. Same treatment goes for the sliding toolbars for lists and tables, and the long-click icon trays. Instead, the toolbars pop open when required. Although these toolbars open in the middle of the window, and often have to be dragged to one side before they can be used, on the whole, this new behavior is a much-needed simplification. It means that new users no longer have to learn non-standard interface elements. It also eliminates the confusion that sometimes resulted when two toolbars were needed -- for example, when the list toolbar was used inside a table. All toolbars, too, can now be torn off to form floating windows or docked as desired.
A large number of interface changes seem due chiefly to efforts to make refugees from Microsoft Office more at home. Specifically, the beta imitates Microsoft Office 2003. In theory, there is nothing wrong with this approach. For one thing, the imitation is two-way nowadays, with Office 2003 transferring styles to a floating palette. For another, more than two-thirds of OpenOffice.org users are on Windows, so easing the transition for them makes sense.
However, there are a few changes which are for the worse. For example, in version 1.1.4, the Fontwork tool allows graphical text to be manipulated after it was typed. By contrast, in imitation of Microsoft Office 2003, Fontwork in the beta requires users to select a generic design before typing text. Users must then double-click on the generic design to add their own text, and only then customize the design. Although the earlier version could do with a preview, the new one not only suffers the same lack, but is also far less direct and requires more steps.
Another unwelcome change is the removal of page tabs in favor of Page Panes in Draw and Impress. This change reduces free space on the screen without increasing functionality. The Navigator floating window gives the same functionality while being easy to move as needed. In changes like this, the beta comes close to being the clone that hostile reviewers claim it is, reacting to its rival instead of innovating, and being more concerned with imitation than innovation.
Conclusion
Some features that should have had a makeover in the beta didn't. They include the cross-reference system, which needs to have heading styles available as references by default, and the HTML editor, which needs support for frames and clean HTML output. Also, the entire interface could also be overhauled to give dialog windows a consistent look and feel.
Version 2.0 exhibits a growing dependency on Java. In earlier versions, new users could easily do without Java. By contrast, so many of the new features, including the movie player and wizards, require Java that in version 2.0, it is well on the way to becoming a necessity. The new support for Beanshell as a scripting language reinforces the impression. So does the fact that, in recent developer builds, other data sources such as spreadsheets can no longer be registered -- although probably this is an oversight that will be corrected before the final release. Java apps are hardly known for their speed, and these new features take noticeably longer to open than older ones.
Even without Java, OpenOffice.org is the most full-featured office application for GNU/Linux, and a major alternative to Microsoft Office on Windows. Except for Mozilla, probably no other program has introduced so many people to open source. Despite my misgivings, the beta promises enough enhancements that I'll be using version 2.0 more and more as it slouches towards final release -- just not with Java.
Download open office at http://www.openoffice.org
Which doesn't change the fact that it IS Open Source software.
Really what support do you get with works? can I call someone (without a large charge) when I have a problem?
you get software that doesn't exist in the copy cat world of open source
And the prolem iwth the fact its open soruce is?
What, are you channeling Golden Eagle now?
Please... proprietary borrows ideas from open source. Open source borrows ideas from proprietary. Proprietary borrows ideas from other proprietary. Open source borrows ideas from other open source. Software is software. It happens all the time, and in the end causes a positive evolution of software across the board.
As a user, choose what works best for you in terms of performance, compatability, ease of use, and price. But don't stand on a soapbox and try to pretend that it's the "one true way" -- and this admonisment is not just directed at you, but to the "open-source only" crowd. There's room for both types of software.
In my own case, I use both all of the time. My desktop system is Windows XP with Office Pro; but I also use Firefox as my web browser, and GIMP as my image editing tool (but for video work, I have the commerical Nero suite). I also have a household server running Linux, Apache, and Samba, for web services and file sharing.
Tell that to MS who was letting ie die on the vine until an open source project forced them to start improving it. OSS is good for closed source software and vice versa..
Good post..
You say that like it's a bad thing! :-)
You're right about software developers borrowing from software everywhere else. Look at GUI development after all of the hard work of the guys at Xerox's PARC to come up with the idea in the first place.
I believe in open source software for the benefit of the country but disagree when it benefits our enemies even more.
The US took software that was given to them and many companies started as small business today that would not exist without it. Some Linux vendors most notably redhat, Some who you might not otherwise know Linksys, RaidZone, and others. But also the small business which is not necessarily an it shop has gained, if for no other reason than expanded competition.
I dont think it benefits the US any less than other nations, and its certainly more of a net plus than NAFTA (thanks Clinton)..
You can't have it both ways, though. It's either open, or it isn't. And keeping it just within the country doesn't always work. As an example, during the 90's, strong cryptography continued to be developed in Norway because of some of the outdated ITAR regulations that made strong cryptography very difficult to be implemented in the US, for fear of prosecution.
They're practically Commies anyway... :-D
There's lot of US and foreign companies that wouldn't exist without the standardization brought about by the popularity of Windows as well though. The problem for Microsoft is how to keep growing when already very large.
I'm willing to concede the correctness of Kevkrom's and your position that Open Source cannot be contained, and that even commercial software (encryption the perfect example) can not be limited.
However, very few of the companies based on Open Source are profitable (IBM makes money with proprietary software and services and uses LINUX to undermine Microsoft) and this will lead to the death of software development in the US.
Redhat while not an overall software industry juggernaut is profitable, Linksys did so well Cisco bought them up, Companies in open source cant make money doing what MS is doing (as you indicated service is who they get paid) unless of course you count BSD as open source (Apple).
There's lot of US and foreign companies that wouldn't exist without the standardization brought about by the popularity of Windows as well though.
What would and would not have happened w/out ms is debatable. All the tools were in place. MS has really not created very much so much as done the same thing OSS has done, take someone else's thing and duplicate it. But MS did fill that role despite themselves (The only standards MS seemed to care about in the 90's was their own) they broke Java, they implemented an awful IMAP in exchange 5.5, they worked *allegedly* to make sure others software would not run well on their platform ....
The problem for Microsoft is how to keep growing when already very large.
I think like in all areas Microsoft is making very smart business decisions, they are going outward from desktop/server into entertainment, and Internet search tech's.
I'm willing to concede the correctness of Kevkrom's and your position that Open Source cannot be contained
Even if it could should it be?
That is possible. Though it is not OSS' fault. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of software development jobs being outsourced to India and China, by companies that have nothing to do with OSS.
Back when I worked on mainframe COBOL systems (and I have no reason to believe it's different now), when a company bought a software product, the source code came with it. This allowed the company to modify and change the product they bought to suit their own needs. This drove the software development profession. Companies hired developers to work on software they developed in-house, or bought from a vendor. Most of my work in the '90's was on vendor packages.
Much of COBOL is OSS combined with a proprietary license. It made a lot of companies very profitable.
The license doesn't concern me as much as the freedom of the code. If the source code doesn't accompany (or is freely available) the product, then I'm not really interested. It's not so much that I, myself, would want to modify it, but that others can, and build improvements on the product that the original vendor didn't think about, doesn't want to implement, or can't implement (for whatever reason).
please prove that..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.