Hagar Delest schreef op 03-10-2016 0:27:
In fact, I came to OOo in 2006 because I used to use MS Word to
compile data and one day a file got corrupted for an unknown reason. I
discovered that there was no way to recover the file because it was
proprietary. I think that at that time the .doc format was not
disclosed yet (but I may be wrong). What is sure is that I could not
get my file back. So I searched the net and found OOo and ODF. And I
adopted OOo because of the file format (I had already tried OOo 1 but
did not like it).
If OOo had not gained popularity, I'm not sure MS would have created
something similar with their OOXML. And if the vendor lock-in policy
is less an issue now, OOo and ODF may be for something. What it would
be if they hadn't been there?
Just to precise something: I'm not complaining, and I don't say Linux
people are the best or whatever. I just say that file format is an
issue. I admit that I think MS do not play fair (but that's logical,
else, they would certainly lose users).
Up to the user to decide what is more important for him.
But if the focus is the application and not the file format, then
what? Make a free clone of MS Office?
You mean to stick with their format? No, if you are creative you will
create your own format to suit your needs, but you don't create your new
format for external reasons that have nothing to do with creating an
application.
The format is useless without application, and since application is its
only reason to be the focus is always on the application and not on the
format, because the format merely serves that other thing.
So I'm only saying that ideological reasons are not a good reason to do
anything. It has to have a use also.
And I only wanted to indicate, as I discover, that no matter how big of
a mouth people have, in the end they are only doing stuff because it
works for /them/ also. I think that in the end you find that ideological
reasons are what people SAY but not what they DO.
The whole Linux ecosystem is so similar to the corporate world that I
have started seeing them as the same thing.
In this case, there is a point supporting OOXML. But it would slightly
become a de facto standard (what was .doc, ...). But would never be
fully implemented in all the applications due to the references to the
proprietary functions.
Well you know that is the façade of open source: that there is any kind
of guarantee that the thing /would/ be implemented if the thing was
entirely non-proprietary. Without proprietariness there is usually not
much of a reason to do anything.
I am just saying that open source nature gives no guarantees at all even
though they are often projected (but never realized). To go back to
GIMP, it is a disorganized whole, there is no organisation almost to its
parts. This lack of organisation (both in the developers and the product
itself) creates a disorganized picture that is fragmented. Without
leadership you cannot do anything.
A visionary needs to charge forward himself (or herself, perhaps) and
not wait for what others do, but Linux developing is 80% waiting for
what others think and do. Before you can do anything. Some people call
this "design by committee". It is the death (and dearth) of creativity.
I thought back in the day that OpenOffice (certainly under Sun) was an
inspired project and it certainly was, I believe. We see today that
people like mr. Hamilton would probably not survive the bitterness and
alienation and ghastliness of the rock-steady but hostile approach the
LibreOffice developers have. There are, in those communities, no elder
people that have a bit of wisdom to go with: it is all youth and
normally youth that doesn't know much. I am very grateful people such as
himself are here.
The only older people in such communities are new weds (to the system)
that actually know a lot less than the young ones.
It is youth and arrogance of youth for the most part, what I see. In
communities like what LibreOffice is today...
But as mr. Hamilton just said; ODF is not fully implemented in anything.
Proprietariness doesn't necessarily mean closed source; it means it is
controlled by a single party (for example).
It means that single party does not have to suffer design by committee
issues.
That can also mean people are less likely to adopt it (what you do) but
this is a balance by how much you want to cooperate with people and how
much you want to plow ahead yourself. Waiting too much for the approval
of others creates a dead product.
And the only thing LibreOffice is doing is they are improving the
/technical/ nature of the code (they are all technical people) and they
only promise (better code checking tools and the like) stuff that
doesn't mean a better user experience for users, it only means a better
user experience for developers.
Maybe then after a while they start to focus on the good stuff but thus
far they have only done developer-oriented stuff as far as I can see.
They feel like the borg to me. Some ant colony.
And usually quite aggressive ants. It seems people are recreating the
ant mindset in their own lives. Maybe they should rebrand their product
"Black Ant Warfare" and then people would think they are really cool.
There are ants that sting and their are ants that only spray. I think
LibreOffice is more of the spraying kind (black ants). Lol, anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
