https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163664

--- Comment #4 from Kush Srivastava <[email protected]> ---
Disclaimer: I am an assoc. member for the FSF, and genuinely believe in libre
software. I am also new to understanding more on how Libreoffice works, but I
have been a long time user (since 2015, at least), and use it on all my
platforms (Alpine, Windows, and Mac). I am also new to contributing here. 

I second this bug, and the opinion that Apple Intelligence features should be
implemented (which really just require Libreoffice to implement view windows
that can be detected by the system). I do not know how feasible this is with
Libreoffice, given that it uses it's own rendering engine, but having the
feature available will be very beneficial to the vast majority of people
wanting to use Libre software suites on Mac. 

On top of the comments mentioned above:

* All writing tools on Apple Intelligence are on-device, and private. You get
an option for when you want to send data to Apple's servers, but even then,
this is the best server implementation I have seen. Refer to
(https://security.apple.com/blog/private-cloud-compute/), where it can be seen
that data is private, removed, and the servers themselves have zero privileged
access or a shell.

Also the server architecture and code is open to all for research purposes.
(https://security.apple.com/blog/pcc-security-research/)

* Writing tools do not explicitly need to be "implemented" in Libreoffice. As
long as we're using a native way of rendering text, or making sure the system
can detect text in our rendering engine.

Clearly, there are steps taken from Apple to actually showcase that data is not
stored/mined, users explicitly send data to the server if needed (and only for
complex tasks like image generation), and writing tools are 100% locally run
and stored, with their back-end open for scrutiny...I would love to see why
this may not be viable. Especially, if it is something regarding how
LibreOffice renders the UI, or how it runs on the Mac. 

I also believe that if we were to go down this route, a good option would be to
have this be an opt in feature, instead of opt out. Open to hearing new
thoughts on this matter.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

Reply via email to