Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

New York Times Plugs OpenOffice Suite 411

MrNovember writes "The New York Times (registration blah blah) describes a new choice for office suites. The writer seems a bit slanted toward OpenOffice but it's a fair discussion of its pros and cons. The article has identified some interesting compatibility issues to those who aren't using OpenOffice but might. Again we see major media discussing open source as an actual alternative to a longstanding standard. The article concludes amusingly with 'Every now and then, you get what you don't pay for;' just tack on 'Open Source' to the beginning for the perfect sig." We've gotten numerous submissions recently from people whose [company/school/whatever] is switching to OpenOffice.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New York Times Plugs OpenOffice Suite

Comments Filter:
  • perfect sig? (Score:4, Interesting)

    'Open source every now and then, you get what you don't pay for'

    ;-P
  • OpenOffice XML file (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RickHigh ( 576831 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @12:16PM (#3736614) Homepage
    I like OpenOffice. I like the fact the files are just xml files in a zip file. The fileformat is easy to reverse engineer and use. I am a big fan.
  • by blackeye ( 248653 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @12:18PM (#3736638)
  • by totallygeek ( 263191 ) <sellis@totallygeek.com> on Thursday June 20, 2002 @12:21PM (#3736665) Homepage
    I have been trying for a long time to get my office to consider Star Office, and now Open Office. We have continued licensing issues with Microsoft, and have even received (what I term as) threatening letters from law firms stating that we need to "double check" our licensing. Their suspect? Well, we purchased 300+ copies of MS Office 95, and upgraded them all later to MS Office 97, but we didn't jump to MS Office 2000 and now MS Office XP. So, Microsoft figures that we are using the new version and not paying....


    Long and short, articles like this help my case that Open Office is becoming more mainstream. I love it!

  • Sleeping giant? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Sneftel ( 15416 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @12:22PM (#3736668)
    Interesting that the reviewer chose to focus on the OpenOffice flavor rather than the StarOffice flavor, given that large corporations (Sun's sugar daddies) would be much more likely to stampede for corporate support--and corporate name recognition.

    I think OpenOffice shows a lot of promise in the windows world, but I wonder how long it'll take for Microsoft Word to obfuscate its file format (it's pretty obfuscated as is, but I get the feeling they have not yet begun to fight). Far too often, it's convenience that rules the day; despite the fact that RTF is still a darn good format, people save in Microsoft Word 2008.324 .DOC format and then kvetch when Word 2008.323 can't read it. OpenOffice is trying to beat Word at its own game, but I frankly don't think all of that is sustainable. We will see encrypted document files, and even more draconian EULAs from Microsoft; I only hope that some corporations are willing to take the plunge and become vendor-independent.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20, 2002 @12:22PM (#3736675)
    The nice thing is that Michael Meeks [gnome.org] talked about porting OpenOffice to GTK at FOSDEM [about.com] , also he has mentioned the same thing on one of the GNOME mailing lists (can't be bothered to look this up).

    Miguel de Icaza [ximian.org] too has said that time is better spent on improving OpenOffice rather than working on say Gnumeric (which he wrote part of too).

    So, nothing concrete but who knows, maybe Michael wil work on integrating OpenOffice with GNOME some day. Another possibility is that Sun will do the integration after they switch to GNOME (perhaps they could pay Ximian to do this for them?).
  • by dlur ( 518696 ) <.ten.wi. .ta. .ruld.> on Thursday June 20, 2002 @12:25PM (#3736700) Homepage Journal

    We're a small tier OEM, and myself and another tech have convinced 'those that be' within our company to include Open Office on our low end systems instead of MS Worksuite 2002 OEM.

    Unfortunately the systems still come with MS Windows XP Home on them, but at least it's a step in the right direction. All of us techs now have Open Office installed on our computers and use it for pretty much all of our office app needs except for a few Excel quote sheets that have embedded macros that don't seem to function properly.

    So far we've had no complaints from any customers that have purchased these systems, but then again we've gotten no rave reviews either. I would definately say that it is an option though, at least for people who aren't tied directly into the MS specifics of the different file formats. Anyone who just wants to use a word processor, spreadsheet, presentation software and do thier work from scratch should be more than happy with this software.

  • by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06NO@SPAMemail.com> on Thursday June 20, 2002 @12:35PM (#3736762)
    Has anyone ever done a survey of what percentage of Microsoft Office users fit into the category of "power" users; i.e. consistently using what most consider the obscure tools/scripts/functions?

    I don't use Word much and I personally probably approach 5% of the potential functionality. I just recently was sharing a Word doc that I had added comments with (using their functionality for, not just writing them in). None of the recipients knew how to find my comments and they wanted to know why I had hilited some words (mousing over the hilite brings up my comment).

  • Not surprised... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pinkpineapple ( 173261 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @12:39PM (#3736794) Homepage
    I spent already a couple of times registring my legit copy of MS Word 2002 talking to MS droids on the phone to get a new activation key. The people were nice and all was done smoothly (for the exception of spelling 2 numbers of 50 digits each on the phone which took 10 minutes each time) but the pain it takes just to be able to reinstall a software I pay for is just one last drop I can think would move people to Open Source. It's this feeling of making me look like a thief begging for a new key that tells me that MS is not making it easy for people to stick with their products. Not to mention the time you have to waste each time just to be "granted" the right to you MS products.

    PPA, the girl next door.
  • by jdgreen7 ( 524066 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @12:39PM (#3736795) Homepage
    There is a slight incompatibility between Excel documents that contain the "VLOOKUP()", "HLOOKUP()", or "LOOKUP()" commands. OpenOffice implements them exactly as Microsoft has described them, however, Excel has a slightly different implementation than described.

    If you're looking for a number in OO, and one of the cells in your range contains text, the LOOKUP command will return an error. But, Excel just ignores it. Since my company has a number of older Excel documents that use that feature, we'd have to change them all in order for OO to work for us. Until then, we have to stick with MS.

    I am working on changing those processes and spreadsheets, but it'll take a while before we're able to switch. I really do like OO, but until they either change the implementation (I submitted a bug, but the closed it as "RESOLVED"), or I change the files, we can't use it company-wide.
  • by joshsnow ( 551754 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @12:42PM (#3736817) Journal
    People are happy to claim OpenOffice as a successful Open Source project, but how many remember that the bulk of code in Open Office was produced as a closed source propritary program? I'm looking forward to the day KOffice becomes as usefully featured as MS word and a little more stable tham it is now. Same for KSpread, KPresenter etc. These are the OpenSource projects people need to get behind. Or perhaps the fact that a product can only be successful against entrenched competition if it has been spawned by a large commercial entity, or is living in the shadow of a product being sold by that entity, tells us alot about the willingness of the Great Unwashed to accept OpenSource software.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20, 2002 @12:43PM (#3736830)
    To be made in implementing, supporting, and customizing open source applications and frameworks, as in programming proprietary systems. I don't see proprietary software disappearing forever; but when there are free alternatives of equal (or equal enough) quality, free will win. I think we'll definitely see this in OS and certian server products (email systems, particularly, once an open source calendar server is available; no, none of the web based workgroup products count).

    Someone will need to run that software, and there's always customization.
  • Economics 101 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @12:44PM (#3736845) Journal
    One wonders why the high-priced lawyers and accountants at MS and the BSA gestapo haven't figured this out.

    Econ 101 - consumers purchase things because they perceive value > total cost. If the VALUE of MS Office lies in its perceived ubiquity (since the software functions of the two products are practially the same), the moment that this "value" the opportunity or real costs of BSA Audits, harrassment, and the fear of that 'disgruntled employee' narc'ing sometime in the future, well DUH people are going to move away from these 'excessive costs' whenever they can.

    It's my conviction that the widespread piracy of Win95 (and thus its widespread adoption) KILLED an arguably better competitor, OS/2. If every single copy of Win95 had to be paid for (the theoretical goal) it would not be the dominant OS. The tighter they squeeze, the more systems will slip through their fingers, indeed.

    Sure piracy costs Microsoft; if IBM had recognized this at the time, and been handing out FREE OS/2 versions MS probably wouldn't have to spend the $$ to buy the Justice Dept today.
  • I'm using mandrake 8.2, and I'm a compulsive font freak (I do web design work). We used to have Windows at work but then switched to linux, and I installed the truetype fonts I had in Windows (hundreds). 95% of them installed correctly and I use them everyday with the gimp. OpenOffice does support antialiased fonts, but for some reason it didn't grab the fonts installed in my system automatically (haven't fixed that yet, since I don't use it that much) and you're right, the fonts it has off-the-shelf are really ugly.


    Also, have you checked out nautilus? if you don't mind the occasional crash (it's improving) those fonts look nifty!

  • by Yekrats ( 116068 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @12:51PM (#3736895) Homepage
    The article poses the question, "Who do you call for tech support?" if your office suite breaks.

    That's the big bugaboo question with corporations: Who do we blame if something goes wrong? That's the question that MS wants to stick in your craw, to give the perception that open source software is unreliable.

    However, if you're using Microsoft products, when is the last time you got tech support from Microsoft? I've been supporting Microsoft products in a Helpdesk environment for over six years now. I have never even thought of support from Microsoft as much of an option. Am I missing something?

    I do know that every time I have submitted bug reports to Microsoft (which I've done on multiple occasions) the report seems to disappear into a black hole. I've never got even so much as an automatic confirmation or anything. And always, the suggestion to correct the bug has gone unanswered, with no bug fix. Yes, I rather resent the poor service back to me, when I was trying to help them.

    Every open source project I've submitted bug fixes for have almost always sent feedback back to me. Usually in the form of a personal email from the author. Now how's that for service?

    --Yekrats
  • by dslbrian ( 318993 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @12:53PM (#3736908)
    Actually this is quite fitting. MS put Netscape out of business by giving away a web browser for free, which worked directly against their main source of income. Now OpenOffice, by giving away an office suite for free, is going to hit MS right in one of their main sources of income. MS can't complain, after all they proved how well it works! Goes to show - what goes around, comes around...
  • by Rykky ( 533501 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @01:00PM (#3736954) Homepage
    About the uglyness of the fonts. Im a (proud) Red Hat user and the fontserver that comes with it knows how to handle TrueType fonts. M$ distributes some TTF fonts for free (ms-webfonts something) plus you can use the TTF fonts from your windows install (you can technicly, but Im not sure legally). With this setup, I have the exact same fonts as the typical M$ user. Im typing this in Opera thats configured to use the TTF Helvetica font and it looks great.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20, 2002 @01:12PM (#3737076)
    Linux + OO is ready, Windows + OO is not ready really yet.

    The difference? On Linux there is no really other choice as OO is the only reliable and robust office solution.

    The situation on Windows is different. There is still available alternative choice - MS Office, which has the following list of important advantages:

    • Compatibility - OO still gives a lot of headache when you recieve the doc from another person with MS Office, you open it in OO, edit it, save it as MS format, and then send back to that person: footer, headers, images, bullets and especially drawing will not look the same, moreover - ugly;
    • Productivity - Outlook and it's integration with server-side back-office support is still far ahead of (OO + Linux) capabilities
    • Infrastrucure - companies have already invested money to MS Office, including training, MSDN, book
    • Evolution is fixing it a little bit, but not completely - there is no Evolution for Windows while on Linux Evolution is not transparently compatible with Outlook.

      Are there any plans to port GNOME on Windows?

  • by Platinum Dragon ( 34829 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @01:15PM (#3737101) Journal
    A couple quotes from the article that made my jaw drop simply due to their mention:

    OpenOffice can't run macros written in Microsoft's programming language, either. (On the bright side, you're therefore safe from Word and Excel macro viruses.)

    I don't know if macro viruses are still floating around in the wild, but in a computer-illiterate, yet paranoid user culture, this may prove to be an important selling point. Time will tell if StarBasic can be used for similar abuses.

    The article notes a few things that, if I understand correctly, OOo does better than MSO:

    It's nice to have a proper Font menu (showing font names in their actual typefaces) at the top of the window, instead of on a toolbar that may not be open. It's also a pleasure to be able to open any kind of OpenOffice document (text, spreadsheet, presentation, drawing) from the File menu of any of its programs. [...] Both Word and OpenOffice Writer let you set up abbreviations that when typed expand into longer words or phrases. But only OpenOffice offers to complete frequently used long words automatically, which quickly becomes a huge timesaver.

    If you listen to Bill's Legions, MSO is the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world that can do everything you can think of and more. I would appreciate being corrected here if MSO does the above, and I'd be surprised if it didn't.

    Fortunately, the open-source nature of OpenOffice.org holds tantalizing promise for improved versions. Anyone is permitted, even encouraged, to submit bug reports, wish lists of features and other feedback via the Web site. As a new droplet in the tidal wave of the open-source movement, you may even experience the thrill of watching your tiny input have an effect on the next version.

    *jumps up and down like a moron on speed*

    This is what keeps me coming back to OSS efforts. I may not be able to program worth a lick, but I can still directly contribute to the improvement of a program I use and interact with the programmers as if they're human beings, instead of distant gods on top of a mountain of C code somewhere. I think this aspect of the Mozilla project should have been screamed to the heavens even more than it was to the users, the idea that Joe User could make a solid, tangible contribution to making their computers easier and better, rather than waiting for God Gates to bestow His latest Blessings upon the unwashed masses. Maybe it's due to my anarchist leanings, but I think we're better when we work together and listen to the people affected by our decisions and our work, instead of assuming I, and I alone, know what's best for everyone else.

    Give a person a taste of the power, freedom, and agency s/he can have as an individual among many, and that person will never want to give it up. It's a liberating feeling.
  • by marian ( 127443 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @01:17PM (#3737124)

    Admittedly this is just my own experiences, but all of the users I've had to support in an office environment, as well as my own use of office suites says that the functionality in OpenOffice and StarOffice should completely replace MS-Office with about zero user impact. It's good to see that OpenOffice is getting the kind of press coverage needed to make it a real challenger to Microsoft's dominance. The NY Times article is exactly the type of thing any product (not just open source) needs to become accepted as mainstream. Bravo!

  • databases and OO (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jd142 ( 129673 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @02:21PM (#3737731) Homepage
    Yes, it is technically true that OO doesn't ship with a database program.

    However, it has some darn nice database features. If you have existing odbc sources defined in windows, you can access them. However, unlike word, which let's you access them via the mail merge function only, OO goes one better: you can see and edit the tables as tables. You can create new queries, that are then available to all the OO components.

    Let me say that again another way. You get everything MS Access gives you except for the ability to create custom forms. And they say that OO doesn't have a database.

    You can also use jdbc or just link to an existing excel file. That's right, you can access an excel file as if it were a set of records and columns. I just linked to an excel spreadsheet with 17,000 rows and 30 columns, viewed it as if it were a table in a database, wrote a custom query that will now be available to all the OO components.

    And they call this not having a database.

    I've got users using OO to edit mysql tables that hold data for our website because MS Access couldn't work correctly with the myodbc drivers.

    I really wish people would cover that aspect more in their reviews. It's a very important feature to us here. Our hidebound faculty will never move to it of course, but for some tasks like basic mysql database entry, that's what I'm going to have them use.

  • by johnnyb ( 4816 ) <jonathan@bartlettpublishing.com> on Thursday June 20, 2002 @05:45PM (#3739420) Homepage
    The interesting thing about Microsoft is that until now, they've been able to beat their competitors without talking about them. They always compare the new releases of each software package to _their_ old releases, and just pretend the competitor doesn't exist.

    Until now, the customer has had little way of knowing there is competition.

    Now, with Linux/Open-source, Microsoft is in a position where they have to compete directly. This means their marketing material will probably have to mention Linux. And with each mention, Linux will gain more and more headway, because it is big enough to be in Microsoft's marketing material.

    It's pretty sweet for those of us in open-source.
  • Re:databases and OO (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Micah ( 278 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @06:09PM (#3739682) Homepage Journal
    > If you have existing odbc sources defined in windows, you can access them

    or with unixODBC in Linux. I had never touched unixODBC before, but there's a HOWTO PDF (I don't remember the URL, but it was in LinuxToday last week) that explained the process. I had OpenOffice.org talking to my Postgres database in minutes! (And the Howto was for mysql!)

    > You get everything MS Access gives you except for the ability to create custom forms.

    BZZT. File | AutoPilot | Form...

    ok, it might not be quite as complete as Access (maybe it is, I don't know how they compare), but it's there! I know you can write events for DB updates from StarBasic, and they can supposedly access form widgets, so it probably has all the functionality of Access. No reports though, that I'm aware of -- Access may lead there.

    > I really wish people would cover that aspect more in their reviews.

    Agree 100%.

    Really, OpenOffice.org is SOOO close to being The MS Office Killer it's not even funny. It just needs 1) more end user documentation, especially for the macro language (which is quite powerful), 2) maybe a reports system like Access has, 3) fixes for a few little bugs that have been mentioned here and elsewhere.

    All this should be done in a few months. Combine OOo for most uses and LaTeX for books and technical writings, and there will be absolutely no reason whatsoever to pay for MS Office.

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Working...