To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=45709
User utomo99 changed the following:
What |Old value |New value
================================================================================
CC|'' |'mmeeks'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL| |http://software.newsforge.
| |com/article.pl?sid=05/03/2
| |2/204244
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 29 02:43:13 -0800
2005 -------
http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/03/22/204244
What are the objections to using Java?
Some might argue against SchÃnheit's characterization of C++ as complex or
Java as being not slow. However, technical arguments are in many ways beside
the point. Objections to Java tend to be based less on technical merits than
on FOSS philosophy on the one hand and the possible consequences for the
future of OpenOffice.org on the other.
One of the few technical arguments against OpenOffice.org's use of Java is
that it undermines the project's goal to be a cross-platform office suite.
Many operating systems currently supported, including FreeBSD and GNU/Linux
for the PowerPC, have no official version of Java. Those who wish to use OOo
2.0 on such platforms must use GNU/Linux emulation or work with an often
incomplete free Java implementation. Either way, the new requirement places
new pressures on the already overworked teams of OpenOffice.org volunteers
working on these ports.
Other arguments against using Java focus on the possible consequences for
OpenOffice.org itself. Marco Fioretti, journalist and OpenOffice.org
volunteer, worries that the increased dependency on Java may destroy the
project's credibility, thereby slowing its adaptation. When asked to explain
misgivings hinted at on the OOo Discuss list, Fioretti says the abrupt move
toward Java undermines claims that OpenOffice.org is a mature platform.
Fioretti also points out that, in jurisdictions where requirements for
government use require openness, OpenOffice.org may no longer qualify.
Corporate managers or lawmakers, Fioretti worries, may conclude that project
members "are incompetents who produced OpenOffice.org by pure accident" and
wonder, "Can I trust them?"
Just as importantly, the dependence on Java threatens OpenOffice.org's
credibility with the rest of the FOSS community. Several anonymous
commentators on NewsForge's recent review of the version 2.0 expressed doubts
about continuing to use OpenOffice.org. "Maybe I should stop promoting it,"
one anonymous poster wrote. Several others wished that alternatives such as
KOffice, AbiWord, and Gnumeric would develop faster so that they could become
full replacements for OpenOffice.org.
Among FOSS contributors, the reaction was much the same. The responses on the
debian-openoffice.org, the mailing list for those involved with integrating
OpenOffice.org into the Debian distribution, are typical of ones in other
pockets of the community. Anders Breindahl, for example, writes, "I find it
increasingly worrying that Sun to some extent considers Java to be okay for a
free office suite.... I think this makes OpenOffice.org less optimal for the
Free Software community." Similarly, in the same discussion, Sam Hiser, the
former marketing lead for OpenOffice.org, characterized the change as
a "challenge" that the FOSS community must answer with other software that's
more compatible with its philosophy.
Such comments suggest that little if any dialog is ocurring between those who
decided to use Java and those who object to the decision. Each camp has a
focus that is different from the other's. To date, neither seems to have
responded to the other side's concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
