Michael Meeks : LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org drift apart

[henke54]

Michael Meeks, a LibreOffice developer at Novell, compared the codebase of LibreOffice with the OpenOffice.org sources hosted at the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). As he writes in a blog post, the differences are already so great that it will now be hard to exchange new code between the two projects. In light of the several million lines of source code by which the two products now differ, he says users should not assume that code committed to Apache OpenOffice.org will "inevitably and automatically appear in LibreOffice". "Instead I suspect we will end up cherry-picking and porting only those things that justify the effort, as/when/if there is any such thing," added Meeks.

OpenOffice.org Logo Meeks says that LibreOffice developers have removed some 526,000 lines of OpenOffice.org code and added approximately 290,000 new lines, including a filter for Lotus Word Pro, VBA improvements, a new RTF filter and gtk3 code. Code that has been removed includes more than 100 import and export filters that are no longer used for the binary data format in older OpenOffice.org versions (binfilters), along with other unused legacy items, such as operating-system-specific code for OS/2 and code to connect the proprietary Adabas database included in the commercial OpenOffice.org derivative StarOffice.

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/ ... 38511.html

[Villeroy]

Removing some file heritage file filters and OS/2 code may involve many lines of code. Nevertheless, both applications are more than 99% API compatible. They share almost the same document model which is determined by the ODF standard.
<pure speculation of mine>But ODF will be the second next thing they will abandon.</pure speculation of mine>

[DACM]

I just wanted to make sure these statements were included as background for this discussion:

The only issue I see is the divergence of the code in the future that could results in less synergy in this forum.

I'm afraid the code divergence is already significant. Adding to Villeroy's points above...the TDF is undergoing a code clean-up campaign that's already dumped tens of megabytes from the OOo code-base. And the new features just keep coming.

How do those code-bases ever reverse course and converge?

They probably don't. LibreOffice can take and use any part of the Apache ooo they wish to. Apache ooo can't use any of the LibreOffice code.

That's correct. Apache projects are required to use the Apache License which is designed to provide maximum freedom to the end users of our software. LibO primarily uses the GPL, which is not compatible within an Apache project [1]. Thus LibO is free to take Apache OOo code, but Apache OOo may not take any LibO code that is under the GPL.

The Apache Legal Affairs Committee has the official policy and detailed explanation of the differences of GPL and Apache licenses.

[1] Note that Apache projects are free to use GPL software as tools in all cases, or as independent modules in certain cases. The restriction is on source code or major modules included in the products that Apache projects provide for our end users.

Just to be clear about one detail. No substitution of license text has occured so far. If you download the code, right now, from http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/trunk or any place deeper in, it is mostly indistinguishable from the LGPL 3 code at OpenOffice.org. My advise it to honor those licenses if you work with the code in that condition, even though you know it will be revised to have ALv2 licensing in the future.

When the code and related files are explicitly under ALv2 there is much information about how to handle it in the future, whether as part of the project or in some downstream activity built on the ALv2 material.

[Hagar Delest]

But ODF will be the second next thing they will abandon.

I can't believe it will ever happen.
Just unbelievable. I can't see how they could claim afterward any support to FOSS, interoperability, ...

[Villeroy]

There are financial interests: Microsoft -> Novell -> Michael Meeks
Go-oo (now LibreOffice) always struggled for MS interoperability more than anything else: MS Works, OOXML, VBA, some of the new features in LibreOffice 3.4 are inappropriate implementations of MS Office features. They do not hesitate to integrate poorly written code if it only mimics another piece of MS Office. They will implement some missing OOXML features and MSO goodies getting all the crucial implementation details from Microsoft.
IMHO it is just a matter of time when they have only 1 native XML format able to save all the features the software has to offer. This will not be ODF.

[Hagar Delest]

They were just trying to be more compatible with MS Office users than the other applications I think.
I agree this participates in undermining ODF. But abandoning ODF is another story (but perhaps I'm still too naive).

[Villeroy]

Let's wait for the SUMIFS function in LibreOffice. That would be a simple and most obviously missing feature.

[floris v]

I'm not sure on this. I feel somewhat with Villeroy, but I'm not that pessimistic either. Let's face it: if you use an office suite professionally, and you do business with users of MSO, then you're bound to run into docx or xslx files sooner or later. If you can't decently work with them in OOo/LO or whatever, running into compatibility or formatting issues all the time, you'll very quickly find yourself buying MSO.
I found it ironic that governmental people complained about the lack of interoperability. Hey, those people are to blame for that in the first place. If governments would simply issue laws to enforce interoperability (for instance by having a consortium define an industry standard), MS would have to give in.

[Hagar Delest]

I found it ironic that governmental people complained about the lack of interoperability. Hey, those people are to blame for that in the first place. If governments would simply issue laws to enforce interoperability (for instance by having a consortium define an industry standard), MS would have to give in.

But there is an industry standard, even ISO standard! It's ODF.
The problem is that $ are raining from MS to insure they can stay in the course! The European Union has done a bad trick to the draft of the paper about digital formats: (from memory) they allowed a de facto standard (read MS Office file formats) to be accepted whereas the first draft was about true interoperable formats like ODF.
Politics can't do anything it seems. Even some big firms have been offered MS Office license at 12€ for a home installation for the employees.

[floris v]

An industry standard that doesn't have to be supported by the industry is just a piece of paper. What if Phillips would start making electrical devices that can't be attached to the industry standard sockets because they have their own format and other manufacturers would do the same? You'd end up with all kinds of sockets in your homes, or you would accept a vendor lock-in. Manufacturers of consumers' goods are enforced by law to stick to the industry standard to protect the consumers. There's no such enforcement or protection in the software market. American law is so crooked that lawyers there can even ignore MS's very evident near-monopoly position and vendor lock-in strategy.

[RoryOF]

What if Phillips would start making electrical devices that can't be attached to the industry standard sockets because they have their own format and other manufacturers would do the same? You'd end up with all kinds of sockets in your homes, or you would accept a vendor lock-in.

There is an apocryphal story which my father told me (so obviously it must be true!). The Siemens company often supplied complete electrification schemes for countries. Years ago, before international standardisation was as widespread as it is today, one South American country contracted with Siemens to supply a complete scheme for the country; so that they would not have vendor lock-in, they specified that the light bulbs should all have ES27 threads, thinking that they would buy cheap light bulbs from USA. No problem. When the first shipment of USA bulbs arrived, they wouldn't work! Siemens had made their bulbs one thread longer.

For many years Ireland had four types of domestic electrical plug: Continental Schuko type plugs (now gone), 15 Amp three pin, 5Amp three pin (both gone) and finally fused 13Amp UK type plugs.

[Hagar Delest]

Take the metric system: it is the standard for International System. Of course the Imperial system is still in use but scientific works are done in metric system.

But well, that would not be the first stupid inheritance. Companies have plenty of examples about weird thing that are still in place because... that's the way it is.

[floris v]

Yes and no. I gave an example to make clear what industry standards are for. You know what I mean of course, but anyway, industry standards are there for a reason: to be used by all participants. If insignificant participants ignore them, that's too bad for them, they will make themselves irrelevant by it. But the industry standards become irrelevant if major participants ignore them, as MS does. The only way to force MS to accept the ODF industry standard is to make it a law that all office suites have to support it. Make an ISO or DIN standard for office suites with mandatory support for ODF, and then MS will have to sell its suite without the ISO label on it.

[Hagar Delest]

I think that the problem is that the participants are the customers! And they don't see the relevance of a standard for office documents because of inheritance of the past. It used to work very nice before so why bother with that? As long as you haven't been trapped in the vendor lock-in policy, there is no issue.
The MS lobby is too powerful to allow the laws we are waiting for. They reversed the French and European administrations orientations. Perhaps one day a guy will have the balls to decline the bucks and get that law passed...

[floris v]

I see the participants as the manufacturers. They have an interest in vendor lock-in. And software development for small platforms just isn't very profitable, so the developers tend to support the big ones.

[floris v]

I chatted with Eric Bachard today, who pointed me at some links with claims that OOo is dying and that LO will take over. There was one French site, then there was a zealot on Wikipedia who removed OOo from a list of open source programs in the Open source article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =449112103.

I don't take all that so seriously. As soon as Apache starts bringing out new updates for OOo, the rumours will probably die.

[Hagar Delest]

Well, I've been very disappointed by this guy (his attacks on the ML about users like me who don't want to give their real name in public). He seems to be quite hot-headed. He can't stand LibO because of the team running it (not supporting his products OOo4kids and OOoLight). If he thinks that OOo will die, another one who will stop his activity...

[floris v]

Well, I discussed that too, he said that he didn't object to people who want to remain incognito in public (I am that on the ooo4Kids wiki, but I told him my real name after reporting some errors in the Dutch language interface), as long as they reveal their real name in private, when they enter.

[floris v]

He was quite open about his poor English, maybe that, and something more caused you two to clash. Rather sad really, because you're both in the same party.

[RoryOF]

Well, I discussed that too, he said that he didn't object to people who want to remain incognito in public (I am that on the ooo4Kids wiki, but I told him my real name after reporting some errors in the Dutch language interface), as long as they reveal their real name in private, when they enter.

He is premature in assuming that anyone won't obey the rules _when they become applicable, which is not yet._

[Hagar Delest]

he said that he didn't object to people who want to remain incognito in public (...), as long as they reveal their real name in private, when they enter.

Then he has not read my comments. I've said that I didn't mind giving my identity when required (admins here and orcmid from ASF do know my identity).
He's stepping backward then, because when mentors clearly explained that ASF had no problems with the current situation (give the identity to a limited circle only, even if very few do it), he still continued to rant. Not sure he is even still subscribed.

[floris v]

He told me that he stepped out, reason being that he felt it was unfair that some people publish their names and others don't. He didn't want to block further talks, but he was opposed to people staying incog so he preferred to step out instead of voting against - if you said you were willing to tell him your name, he probably missed that.

[Ed2]

But ODF will be the second next thing they will abandon.

Can you provide a link to the press release where TDF announced that they will abandon ODF?

Without seeing the actual press release concerned, this sounds like just another malicious rumour that has materialised from nowhere, and is not even vaguely plausible. ODF is and has always been major goal of TDF, as well as of the entire open-souce movement.

[Villeroy]

But ODF will be the second next thing they will abandon.

Can you provide a link to the press release where TDF announced that they will abandon ODF?

Without seeing the actual press release concerned, this sounds like just another malicious rumour that has materialised from nowhere, and is not even vaguely plausible. ODF is and has always been major goal of TDF, as well as of the entire open-souce movement.

Pure speculation of mine.

[Hagar Delest]

He told me that he stepped out, reason being that he felt it was unfair that some people publish their names and others don't. He didn't want to block further talks, but he was opposed to people staying incog so he preferred to step out instead of voting against - if you said you were willing to tell him your name, he probably missed that.

I haven't said I would tell him my name but to whom it would be required. I don't trust such guy. The funny thing is that when he asked why OOo4kids and OOoLight were not in the banner of this forum, I'm the one who added them after discussion in the admin section...
Note that his rant has had quite no echo on the list. And his rationale is definitively ridiculous. Had I register under a plausible name (say a dead grandfather of mine without any visibility on the web), would someone have cared or even noticed? OTOH, what tells us there is not a team behind his own account?...

[/a3]

But ODF will be the second next thing they will abandon.

Can you provide a link to the press release where TDF announced that they will abandon ODF?

Or the opposite? LibreOffice OOXML.

By the way, I'm not suggesting I agree with TDF. When Apache OpenOffice.org comes out I'll be switching anyway (better license).

[Ed2]

But ODF will be the second next thing they will abandon.

Can you provide a link to the press release where TDF announced that they will abandon ODF?

Without seeing the actual press release concerned, this sounds like just another malicious rumour that has materialised from nowhere, and is not even vaguely plausible. ODF is and has always been major goal of TDF, as well as of the entire open-souce movement.

Pure speculation of mine.

I wouldn't describe making a completely false statement that TDF is going to do something which it isn't, and would not even consider doing, as "speculation".

Posting complete misinformation and attempting to start malicious rumours is not the same thing as speculation at all.

[Hagar Delest]

Well, Villeroy, could you be more clear when you post such speculation? The regular users here can guess when you're speculating but your comments in such cases can also easily be misleading.
Thanks.

[PGAGA]

Monday, September 12, 2011

On a slightly different tack - as an OS/2 user - I wonder how removing OS/2 code will affect future OS/2 releases of OOo, especially of AOOo follows suit.

Phil

[Villeroy]

Monday, September 12, 2011

On a slightly different tack - as an OS/2 user - I wonder how removing OS/2 code will affect future OS/2 releases of OOo, especially of AOOo follows suit.

Phil

IBM will be the main commercial contributor, so I think the OS/2 and eComStation will be supported for some time if the OS/2 community notifies enough interest.

I think (hope!) that the radical dumb down to MS "standards" is a LibreOffice phenomenon. Ironically, they try to make a the difference by imitating another product.