OpenOffice Sucks

[Homer Schwartz]

OpenOffice stinks. Though it has become much better since I started using it
back in 2000, it's still nowhere near what it needs to be to effectively
displace Microsoft Office. Why?

The myth of open source rests on two improbable assumptions. The first is
that a significant proportion of users can fix bugs. That is true at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where the concept of open source was
first formalised in the 1980s by Richard Stallman and others, and it is true
in some of the geekier corners of the internet. But on programs intended for
use by the non-programming public, it's a very different story.

This is important because of the second crucial false assumption: that even
if not all users can fix a bug, they can help find them. They can't. Most
users just think: "The computer isn't doing what I want."

But what about the innumerable volunteers who can download the code and fix
what they like? They take one look at the effort involved and run.
OpenOffice is an extremely complex mountain of source code. As far as I
know, in the five years it has been available as open source, not one
contribution to the program has come from amateurs. The outsiders who have
provided input have been full-time professionals employed by Linux companies
to help make the software credible.

There has been a lot of volunteer effort, but it has gone into
support....ut the overwhelming energy [around OpenOffice development]
seems to go into filling the blogosphere with remarks about the merits of
open source software and getting outraged about inconvenient facts.

So why is OpenOffice so dire? The project claims more than 50m downloads of
the software, so let's assume that 50m people have tried it at least once.

More than 50,000 bugs have been reported. And how many have been fixed by
open source's uniquely efficient processes? According to the (public) bugs
database, at last count, there were more than 6,000 unfixed bugs, and more
than 5,000 feature requests. While the number of bugs discovered seems to
rise with the number of users, the number of fixes doesn't, and the number
of fixers certainly doesn't. Only about 500 people have signed the legalese
that would enable them to submit code to the project; since you need to do
this even to make changes to the website, that will translate to far fewer
than 500 volunteers submitting real code. A reasonable guess would be 50, or
even five.

Meanwhile, there are some simple, hugely irritating bugs that are four years
old. Two obvious ones: notes (or comments, as Word users call them) don't
have word wrap; and spaces typed at the end of a line won't show. It's not
many eyes making bugs shallow; more like many eyes making bugs invisible.

Most software has similar irritations. But complex open source projects seem
uniquely badly placed to fix them. They rely on a very small group of
programmers relative to the user base, and who have no direct incentive to
work on the bugs that are important to users.

So, is the answer to throw out OpenOffice? No, of course not. Rather, we
need to acknowledge its defects and work to fix them. How? Well, I'd
personally recommend that Sun or Novell take on the project as a serious
commercial offering. Sun comes closest to this with StarOffice, but I think
the company would feel more inclination to improve it if it derived unique
benefits from doing so. Arguably, it does today, but I think we could
amplify those.

 

[NotMe]

I have only submitted 2 fixes in 4 years of use, but both were implemented
in future releases...
Geeks-R-Us I guess, but I like it.
I also use MS Office, but it's not something I use everyday, so either one
works fine for me.
For someone who just needs to open an occasional .doc or .xls file; write an
occasional letter or such, OO is fine.
If you need to use the spreadsheets to run a business, you might be able to
justify the cost of the MS product.

--
A Professional Amateur...If anyone knew it all, none of would be here!
(e-mail address removed)
Change Alpha to Numeric to reply

OpenOffice stinks. Though it has become much better since I started using
it back in 2000, it's still nowhere near what it needs to be to
effectively displace Microsoft Office. Why?

The myth of open source rests on two improbable assumptions. The first is
that a significant proportion of users can fix bugs. That is true at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where the concept of open source
was first formalised in the 1980s by Richard Stallman and others, and it
is true in some of the geekier corners of the internet. But on programs
intended for use by the non-programming public, it's a very different
story.

This is important because of the second crucial false assumption: that
even if not all users can fix a bug, they can help find them. They can't.
Most users just think: "The computer isn't doing what I want."

But what about the innumerable volunteers who can download the code and
fix what they like? They take one look at the effort involved and run.
OpenOffice is an extremely complex mountain of source code. As far as I
know, in the five years it has been available as open source, not one
contribution to the program has come from amateurs. The outsiders who have
provided input have been full-time professionals employed by Linux
companies to help make the software credible.

There has been a lot of volunteer effort, but it has gone into
support....ut the overwhelming energy [around OpenOffice development]
seems to go into filling the blogosphere with remarks about the merits of
open source software and getting outraged about inconvenient facts.

So why is OpenOffice so dire? The project claims more than 50m downloads
of the software, so let's assume that 50m people have tried it at least
once.

More than 50,000 bugs have been reported. And how many have been fixed by
open source's uniquely efficient processes? According to the (public) bugs
database, at last count, there were more than 6,000 unfixed bugs, and more
than 5,000 feature requests. While the number of bugs discovered seems to
rise with the number of users, the number of fixes doesn't, and the number
of fixers certainly doesn't. Only about 500 people have signed the
legalese that would enable them to submit code to the project; since you
need to do this even to make changes to the website, that will translate
to far fewer than 500 volunteers submitting real code. A reasonable guess
would be 50, or even five.

Meanwhile, there are some simple, hugely irritating bugs that are four
years old. Two obvious ones: notes (or comments, as Word users call them)
don't have word wrap; and spaces typed at the end of a line won't show.
It's not many eyes making bugs shallow; more like many eyes making bugs
invisible.

Most software has similar irritations. But complex open source projects
seem uniquely badly placed to fix them. They rely on a very small group of
programmers relative to the user base, and who have no direct incentive to
work on the bugs that are important to users.

So, is the answer to throw out OpenOffice? No, of course not. Rather, we
need to acknowledge its defects and work to fix them. How? Well, I'd
personally recommend that Sun or Novell take on the project as a serious
commercial offering. Sun comes closest to this with StarOffice, but I
think the company would feel more inclination to improve it if it derived
unique benefits from doing so. Arguably, it does today, but I think we
could amplify those.

 

[Jeff]

I have used a variety of office programs and ended up with office because of
the feature and now with its redesigned interface (the new "ribbon") because
it is so easy to use. If you don't use it that much then something like
open office (or even wordpad) might do the trick. But if you do a lot of
extensive spreadsheets and documents, take a look at the new office. I was
impressed...

I remember all the way back using Wordstar, PFS, wordperfect... Man have
things changed...

Jeff

I have only submitted 2 fixes in 4 years of use, but both were implemented
in future releases...
Geeks-R-Us I guess, but I like it.
I also use MS Office, but it's not something I use everyday, so either one
works fine for me.
For someone who just needs to open an occasional .doc or .xls file; write
an occasional letter or such, OO is fine.
If you need to use the spreadsheets to run a business, you might be able
to justify the cost of the MS product.

--
A Professional Amateur...If anyone knew it all, none of would be here!
(e-mail address removed)
Change Alpha to Numeric to reply

OpenOffice stinks. Though it has become much better since I started using
it back in 2000, it's still nowhere near what it needs to be to
effectively displace Microsoft Office. Why?

The myth of open source rests on two improbable assumptions. The first is
that a significant proportion of users can fix bugs. That is true at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where the concept of open source
was first formalised in the 1980s by Richard Stallman and others, and it
is true in some of the geekier corners of the internet. But on programs
intended for use by the non-programming public, it's a very different
story.

This is important because of the second crucial false assumption: that
even if not all users can fix a bug, they can help find them. They can't.
Most users just think: "The computer isn't doing what I want."

But what about the innumerable volunteers who can download the code and
fix what they like? They take one look at the effort involved and run.
OpenOffice is an extremely complex mountain of source code. As far as I
know, in the five years it has been available as open source, not one
contribution to the program has come from amateurs. The outsiders who
have provided input have been full-time professionals employed by Linux
companies to help make the software credible.

There has been a lot of volunteer effort, but it has gone into
support....ut the overwhelming energy [around OpenOffice development]
seems to go into filling the blogosphere with remarks about the merits of
open source software and getting outraged about inconvenient facts.

So why is OpenOffice so dire? The project claims more than 50m downloads
of the software, so let's assume that 50m people have tried it at least
once.

More than 50,000 bugs have been reported. And how many have been fixed by
open source's uniquely efficient processes? According to the (public)
bugs database, at last count, there were more than 6,000 unfixed bugs,
and more than 5,000 feature requests. While the number of bugs discovered
seems to rise with the number of users, the number of fixes doesn't, and
the number of fixers certainly doesn't. Only about 500 people have signed
the legalese that would enable them to submit code to the project; since
you need to do this even to make changes to the website, that will
translate to far fewer than 500 volunteers submitting real code. A
reasonable guess would be 50, or even five.

Meanwhile, there are some simple, hugely irritating bugs that are four
years old. Two obvious ones: notes (or comments, as Word users call them)
don't have word wrap; and spaces typed at the end of a line won't show.
It's not many eyes making bugs shallow; more like many eyes making bugs
invisible.

Most software has similar irritations. But complex open source projects
seem uniquely badly placed to fix them. They rely on a very small group
of programmers relative to the user base, and who have no direct
incentive to work on the bugs that are important to users.

So, is the answer to throw out OpenOffice? No, of course not. Rather, we
need to acknowledge its defects and work to fix them. How? Well, I'd
personally recommend that Sun or Novell take on the project as a serious
commercial offering. Sun comes closest to this with StarOffice, but I
think the company would feel more inclination to improve it if it derived
unique benefits from doing so. Arguably, it does today, but I think we
could amplify those.

 

[NotMe]

I was using computers before they ever used the term...Personal Computer.
It used to cost by the minute for terminal time...word processing was a
great development.
At that time, even electric typewriters were not very common.

I tried Office 11, I didn't like the interface.
Like anything, it is a matter of personal preference.
If you're using many of the features of a program like Office, you can
justify the cost.
For casual users, it's just WAY too expensive.

 

[Jeff]

I agree with that... If you are a casual user your better off getting the
student version or using whatever came with your PC...

Jeff

 

[Val]

And this has what to do with Vista?

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:07:46 -0700, "Homer Schwartz"

OpenOffice stinks.

(discussion more about open source development process and its
failings snipped - there wasn't much about Open Office itself)

Yep, open source may not be keeping up with software complexity, and
those who code for free won't bother to fix what dosen't bother them
personally. But on the MS Office side of the fence, the teeth of
closed source feeware are getting sharper, too.

I'm not referring to obstacles to piracy here, i.e. that increasingly,
if you want to use feeware, you have to (gasp!) pay for it. Rather,
I'm referring to trends that force you to have a close relationship
with (or dependency on) your feeware or hardware vendor.

Unlike previous versions of MS Office, generic OEM MS Office 2007 does
NOT ship with installable disks. So if your bought-with-the-PC Office
falls over, you're obliged to go back to your PC reseller and beg.

I'm using MS Office 2003 and Open Office 2.1; mostly I work in MS
Office, but I use Open Office whenever I want to create a .PDF

Usually, if you're familiar with MS Office, moving to the next version
offers less "UI change shock" than switching to Open Office. But now,
MS Office 2007 offers even more UI unfamiliarity than Open Office to
those moving from older MS Office, and that makes Open Office an
easier move, especially on older (pre-Vista-spec) systems (as MS
Office 2007 is a significant disk space hog).

But the new "air-box" generic OEM sinks MS Office for me, below the
point atr which I'd either recommend it, or be advice-neutral. I now
recommend ditching MS Office altogether, with switching to Open Office
as a preferable option if staying with what you have is not an option.

-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...

 

[Snuff]

OpenOffice stinks. Though it has become much better since I started using it
back in 2000, it's still nowhere near what it needs to be to effectively
displace Microsoft Office. Why?

The myth of open source rests on two improbable assumptions. The first is
that a significant proportion of users can fix bugs. That is true at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where the concept of open source was
first formalised in the 1980s by Richard Stallman and others, and it is true
in some of the geekier corners of the internet. But on programs intended for
use by the non-programming public, it's a very different story.

This is important because of the second crucial false assumption: that even
if not all users can fix a bug, they can help find them. They can't. Most
users just think: "The computer isn't doing what I want."

But what about the innumerable volunteers who can download the code and fix
what they like? They take one look at the effort involved and run.
OpenOffice is an extremely complex mountain of source code. As far as I
know, in the five years it has been available as open source, not one
contribution to the program has come from amateurs. The outsiders who have
provided input have been full-time professionals employed by Linux companies
to help make the software credible.

There has been a lot of volunteer effort, but it has gone into
support....ut the overwhelming energy [around OpenOffice development]
seems to go into filling the blogosphere with remarks about the merits of
open source software and getting outraged about inconvenient facts.

So why is OpenOffice so dire? The project claims more than 50m downloads of
the software, so let's assume that 50m people have tried it at least once.

More than 50,000 bugs have been reported. And how many have been fixed by
open source's uniquely efficient processes? According to the (public) bugs
database, at last count, there were more than 6,000 unfixed bugs, and more
than 5,000 feature requests. While the number of bugs discovered seems to
rise with the number of users, the number of fixes doesn't, and the number
of fixers certainly doesn't. Only about 500 people have signed the legalese
that would enable them to submit code to the project; since you need to do
this even to make changes to the website, that will translate to far fewer
than 500 volunteers submitting real code. A reasonable guess would be 50, or
even five.

Meanwhile, there are some simple, hugely irritating bugs that are four years
old. Two obvious ones: notes (or comments, as Word users call them) don't
have word wrap; and spaces typed at the end of a line won't show. It's not
many eyes making bugs shallow; more like many eyes making bugs invisible.

Most software has similar irritations. But complex open source projects seem
uniquely badly placed to fix them. They rely on a very small group of
programmers relative to the user base, and who have no direct incentive to
work on the bugs that are important to users.

So, is the answer to throw out OpenOffice? No, of course not. Rather, we
need to acknowledge its defects and work to fix them. How? Well, I'd
personally recommend that Sun or Novell take on the project as a serious
commercial offering. Sun comes closest to this with StarOffice, but I think
the company would feel more inclination to improve it if it derived unique
benefits from doing so. Arguably, it does today, but I think we could
amplify those.

As far as I can see, it works alright and it is free. In my Linux days
it also allowed me to see what Windows users sent me and it did a good
job of creating documents that they could use and read. If something
was not working, I could report it to them and it usually got fixed.

What is it precisely that you want fixed apart from the speed of
start up?