Go-oo vs. OOo - Opinions?
dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun Jul 18 18:17:02 PDT 2010
On 07/16/2010 11:19 PM, William Immendorf wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:33 PM, DJ Lucas <dj at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> I don't really think we should put Go-OO in the book. First off, it's
> maintained by a company that I don't trust (Novell, after the deal
> with M$), it seems like it promotes OOXML over ODF (ODF is the better
> format here), and it increases Mono dependence (Mono, for those who
> don't know, is a patent trap disguised as a C#/VB compiler). Even
> though there is a speed up over plain OO.org, over the other issues,
> I'd take plain OpenOffice.org and not use GoOO. Also, if I want
> OpenOffice to speed up, I may just create a patch for that someday.
William, I am sorry. I had meant to reply directly to you on this...not
sure what happened there. Thought I had sent it, but it's not in my
sent items. Anyway, as Matt pointed out, I don't use the mono
additions. Code for Go-oo is dual licensed under both LGPL and CDDL.
As far as format goes, Microsoft has pretty much lost that war in most
of Europe (the world? Probably anywhere but here in the US), and already
supports the OpenDoc format in Office 2007 SP2+. As inconvenient as it
is (which really isn't much), I personally must remain compatible with
people sending me documents, as well as sending back to them, and I'd
imagine this goes for anybody who uses their machines for anything more
The rest of this message is really OT, all opinion, but as far as
trust/distrust, I probably don't have a chance to change your mind as we
each have our own experiences and values, but I'll throw in my 2 cents
anyway for everyone's benefit.
For the mono thing, let the mono developers deal with that bucket of
worms. I just don't really see much of a need for it on my systems, and
probably not many here do. I really don't like using Mono as an
argument against an otherwise good project. Yes, it's a little bit
messy (the licensing) and while I'm not a lawyer, I've read the licenses
and don't see anything that can affect end users directly, at least as
far as money goes, only the project itself. Last time I looked into it,
you do have the option of building only the unprotected parts of Mono if
you so desire.
Concerning your distrust of Novell, I don't get where it comes from, but
again, you have different experiences to draw from. Probably a little
too personal, but I've worked with them in the past and have no ill will
towards them. Additionally, IMO, they did the open source community
_fairly_ well concerning the SCO issues in the past, granted they were
protecting their own interests, and it cost them a pretty penny to do
so, but they've certainly added a lot to the pot under clearly free
licenses as well. Plus they get to stay in business and make money from
the services side of Open Source as well. Great example of give and
For Microsoft, yeah, I understand the hesitation. They have a bad track
record, look up their use of MIT Krb5 and lack of action for a very good
example, yet I've never been bitten by them myself, and have actually
had good experiences WRT working for them. But for an alternate vantage
point, take a look at their input on Samba4 (which kind-of completes the
abused part of their MIT agreement, only a decade late)...that wouldn't
be happening near as fast if not for Microsoft and that is GPLv3.
Again, however, that is something that helps to keep Microsoft viable as
well, so the give and take model does work to some extent, even with
Microsoft and their spotty history. They too are beginning to realize
the importance of interoperability and being able to see the potential
for profit by working with, not against.
-- DJ Lucas
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
More information about the blfs-dev