The ODF Toolkit and Why It's Important

I’ve often thought that he office suite is a point of departure, not a terminus. As an ensemble of integrated tools that would allow a “knowledge worker” (white collar employee?) to survive in a modern bureaucracy, it is, to be sure, still immensely useful and an important. But it is also, as an ensemble, burdened with the expectations of the last century. One could have, for instance, a set of ad hoc tools that are distinguished from the suite proper and which are invoked as needed. What would anchor these tools, what would allow for things to be done without chaos intervening in the form of proliferating incompatibilities, as each new application saves your files in new ways is, simply, the deployment of an open, standardized, file format, in this case, the ODF.

Oh, I don’t mean to state or imply that OpenOffice.org is a has been; far from it. it is rather only now reaching its maturity, and with the new Extensions project, we expect it--like Firefox--to grow even more usable and more used, as millions of users learn how easy it is to use and customize. But not everyone will want an office suite. Some will want just some elements of it, or an application that has nothing to do with regular office suite functionality but which still--and this is the important part--reads and writes to the ODF. They may want, that is, an application that gives them freedom without sacrificing community. And they may further want for that application to have the some of the power and capability demonstrated by OpenOffice.org.

The new ODF Toolkit Project promises to do this and even more. Go to http://odftoolkit.openoffice.org/ and see what we have. It’s just a start--we are announcing the project today--but it’s a very promising start.

I invite all developers to see what we have and to see what they can do. Let’s move beyond the office suite. It’s been with us a long time and it’s time to make something new.

For other takes on this, see the excellent GullFoss blogs....

MacGeneration Interview with Eric Bachard

Mac users of OpenOffice.org hello! The following is an authorized translation of an excellent interview of Mac OS X port lead Eric Bachard conducted by macgeneration. The original, in French, is at http://www.macgeneration.com/mgnews/depeche.php?aIdDepeche=123941. My thanks to Christophe Laporte, who interviewed Eric Bachard and who has kindly given me permission to publish this translation, and to Eric Bachard.

BTW, there are also some good comments in the original, which I did not include.

---



Is 2007 the year of OpenOffice?

Posted Tuesday with 16:19 per Christophe Laporte

While we are all waiting for the new versions of iWork and Microsoft Office, the developers of OpenOffice have been working overtime. They have as an ambition to finalize this year a version Aqua for OpenOffice. Éric Bachard, one of the leads working on the port, graciously explains for us the advance of this titanic project. We also asked him about the evolution of free software, the position of Apple in this field and on safety issues vis-à-vis Microsoft Office.

- Will 2007 be the year of OpenOffice on Mac?

Without saying that it will be the year of OpenOffice.org on the Mac, the year 2007 will be a great year for the project, and we will do the utmost to prove it. We will produce, for example, a true native version of OpenOffice.org for the Mac (without X11)--one that conforms to the requisite look and feel users expect under Mac OS X.

These two last years were also very important for the port Mac OS X:

- January 2005: first version 2.0 to start under Mac OS X
- January 2006: first version for Intel (which did not use Rosetta). Microsoft has not yet done this.

And we did all this with our slender means.

For the moment, we will continue to work as we have been, because the work remaining to be made is very important, and it is what our resources (human and material) allow for.

But as the number of developers regularly increases, we must adapt our working methods. Thus, our recent meeting in Hamburg was of very great importance. Among other important points, we took stock, and made these considerable advances:

- a list of what we need to implement, for a functional version, was drawn up (this is hardly saying anything)
- assigned to each of the most important tasks a developer
- tested the version Aqua which I had prepared for the occasion and together learned how to use XCode for debugging.

It is incredible what one can learn at the time of such workshops!

What I will retain, is that we are a team which grows each day and which helps itself. Before anything else we are a community.


- In addition to the interface, what are your priorities so that OpenOffice is integrated better into Mac OS X?

Before anything else, our top priority is to have a true application for Mac OS X--one that behaves and is used like any other--easily--and which functions in a reliable and stable way. It has been necessary to move from X11 (which is what is used now); we then had to make an inventory of work to be done for the true port--and to find enough people to make a true port.

I’d like to recall for you our context: we use Carbon, which does not change anything about the look and feel of the application. The code, the result - i.e., appearance - is the same.

Now, the following, and with the same degree of importance:

- The ' Look': to respect, as much as possible, conformity with the standard defined by Apple, called "' Aqua Human Guidelines' Interfaces, because the visual impression is very important.

For that, we are implementing the Aqua look, such as all possible native controls, which will have a behavior identical to that of controls of a true Mac application. The Mac native fonts are already usable with ATS.

- The ' Feel': to progressively implement all that makes the Mac 'feel'. For example, for the opening of the files, to use the ' native FilePicker', to implement true drag and drop (implementation in progress), to use the same short cuts as any Mac OS X application, to have the same behavior in a similar situation (color of the selected buttons, when the mouse flies over the zone, etc.)

But it is also envisaged (though this will come a little later):

- the integration of Spotlight
- the integration of the player using QuickTime
- native impression (in progress)

To illustrate the difficulty we face, it has been necessary, first of all:

- to move completely from X11, once again,
- to rewrite ALL the missing code: we created a new version, a complete port (it is obviously not finished)
- to marry the event loops of OpenOffice.org with those of Mac OS X (this is done)
- to implement the Mac OS X windowing system (done)
- to implement the native menus (done)


The following stage:

To create a new set of icons, in conformity with the Aqua look (a set carried out under the GPL is not usable by OpenOffice.org).

The whole continuously to be synchronized with the last version of the code of OpenOffice.org.


- These last weeks, several faults relating to the Word documents, were discovered. Can the users of OpenOffice suffer from these faults?


With respect, a software free from bugs does not exist: -)

The fact that the historical owner of the .doc file format does not correctly document the file formats does not help. What is more, security by dissimulation (by claiming security only), is not a guarantee of security.

If you refer to the fault [in OpenOffice.org] recently discovered, this one causes a crash, but nothing more in fact. And it was corrected like all such, almost immediately after being reported.

In addition, no software always secure: certain security faults are discovered from time to time, but they are corrected as quickly as possible.


- Firefox is an important success. Are there repercussions for other free software ? Is there to some extent a halo effect?


I do not know if it is a question of an halo effect. Perhaps it’s more a question of communication efforts concerning free software, the lack of money for some management, and then the publicity about some “forced” changes which make it so that free software begins to have both visibility and more and more users.

To cite just the school in which I work (the UTBM), free software is more and more installed, especially because there is a lack of means to continue paying for proprietary software. We have in fact done very little to assert the true value of free software as justification of its use.


- What is, according to you, the true value of free software?

All free software has in common respect for the user, constantly evolving quality, and especially, sharing of knowledge.


- How do you see the evolution of free software?


Seemingly all is well: free software is taking a share of the market, it is getting better, and it is being used a little more each day.

But that picture is not entirely true; in my humble opinion, we should discuss the ethics and economy of free software, so that things are clearly enunciated.

As the person in charge for the Mac port, I am constantly in search of solutions for our visibility, our development, etc.; and it is really a headache to renew our resources.


- What do you think of the Macintosh as a platform for free software?

Today, it is possible to port the majority of free software, that is to say, to adapt the source so that the software functions under Mac OS X, and many programs have already been ported.

The developmental tools offered are formidable, and make it possible to develop under excellent conditions. As a result, the port to Mac OS X of applications often coming from Linux, but also from Windows, is greatly facilitated.

Because they really merit it, here are just two examples of free software of quality which have been just ported to Mac OS X : OpenArena and SuperTux (0.3). They required few changes (in terms of code), to adapt this software to Mac OS X, and they really function very well on my MacBook Pro. In short, the Mac is an excellent platform as an operating system for free software.


- Do you think that could that be a selling point for Apple?


I have always said that free software encourages sales, because it is synonymous with quality today and of reliability, and Apple would have much to gain.

Thus, yes, that would constitute an additional sales point. But beyond free software, I would suggest that Apple takes the route of open formats, and there, the profit would be even larger, for everyone.
        •        

Expectations--2007-01-02

It's conventional to make predictions this time of year: around the first. It's equally the case for those predictions to fail in coming to pass. The future, fortunately, is a little more exciting than conventional pundits' imagination would let on and things happen that not only would no one expect but in ways that defy expectations. In a word, it's a trap. So I'll refrain from plunging into the prediction trap and rather list what I would like see occur.

(Well, time passed from the above and I re-read Samuel R. Delany's excellent essays in Shorter Views, in particular, his "Politics of Paraliterary Criticism," which I refer to in my essay on his Atlantis stories. That, and it was exceptionally warm today, well over 45° F, probably close to 50, and so despite the general damp and dark, a perfect day for running through Mt. Pleasant Cemetery. Then night, and we rented Sympathy for Lady Vengeance," which I highly recommend, if only for the beauty of the scenes, a beauty that owes as much to their naïve presentation as to their allusiveness.)

But to wishfuls:

...well, even here it is hard to dive into the simplified bullet points. After all, if I'm thinking wishfuls, then why not wish for Microsoft to abandon its monopolistic practices? Why not wish for it even to open source Windows (something I once asked Jason Mutasow and Bill Hilf about; no, it's not going to happen, I was informed, too complicated) or Office? Why not wish for universal peace? And so on.

So to expectations. I’m afraid these are very obvious, but still:

• ODF will take off. Right now, numerous governments are considering ODF implementations--applications that use it. They haven't committed yet, at least not publicly, but will as the year progresses and as they come to understand the shortcomings of the alternatives. Those shortcomings: With ODF, one is able to use a range of applications and have more say in the design and configuration of them. With the alternatives (or alternative), OOXML (or whatever it's called now), one is left with Microsoft. That's a limiting option. The future, we have seen, lies in add ons and ad hoc innovations. ODF implementations support these, Microsoft Office does not, afaik.

• OpenOffice.org extensions will continue to grow. I fully expect to see us have as many extensions available for download as Firebox--if not more. Arguably, there is even more commercial interest in devising these extensions. And I would certainly hope to see a greater convergence of our extensions and Firebox's.

• OpenOffice.org passes 100 million downloads. Of course the problem is counting them all. The thing about open source downloads is that unless one designs it right, there is no way of knowing how many people are using your application. Sure, some applications, such as Firefox, can be more easily measured, as it’s easy to tell what sort of Web browser one is using. But for OOo, the issue is a lot more complicated. You can find out by seeing how many ODF attachments have been passed around, but that, obviously, doesn’t tell you much, as OOo saves as .doc or whatever. And then there is the fact that many users may have both MS Office and OOo....

I don't expect that all 100M downloads will be by new users; most will probably be by people who are simply upgrading--one has to download the entire thing, after all. And this raises the (often asked) question: how many users are there of OOo? Who can say? I routinely use the number from our registered users (about 6.85M) or hits to the primary download page (35.3M) and Gartner and IDC estimate the number in the double digits of all office suite users. Figure it's somewhere north of 10M and south of 50M, for every Linux user gets OOo free and not all register who do. It gets more fun. One disc is enough for a company--for thousands--and do they register? Nope.

What else? Well, the other expectations have more to do with politics--another blog. I would see a coincidence, though. A lot of governments have expressed interest in ODF/OOo, in part for political reasons: OOo/ODF is cheap(er) or free, and is an antidote to monopoly; it offers a local not quasi-colonialist solution and roadmap to future development. That is, a country using FOSS/OOo/ODF is not selling its future out. It is rather ensuring it will own it. This is a political statement, as much an economic and technical one. And I tend to believe that the politics of the discussion will get even clearer, as the money involved, the issues at stake, are made manifest.