RE: Issues with file associations for some users...
> -Original Message- > From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 9:39 AM > To: dev > Subject: Re: Issues with file associations for some users... > > On 18 December 2013 02:09, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Kay Schenk > > wrote: > > > > We have posted Installation Instructions for OpenOffice for some > years. > > > > > > > > However, some users seem to still have issues with the file types that > > > AOO > > > > will assign to itself after installation despite the fact that users > > are > > > > given the opportunity to change this. Please see: > > > > > > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html#fileassoc 7. Select a setup type (we recommend Complete) and click Next. The File Type window is displayed. I just tried a fresh install on one of my test vm's (win7-32 ultimate) where previously only LO 4.21 (updated from LO 3.x) was installed, no Microsoft Office, no earlier version of OOo/AOO. I've used the German installer 'Apache_OpenOffice_4.0.1_Win_x86_install_de.exe', downloaded from sourceforge about 3 months ago. I left setup type to the pre-selected type complete (I don't remember what it said in German). Contrary to the description cited above, there was no File Type window displayed at all, i.e. there was no chance to choose file type associations during install. > > > > > > > > We could use some help with alternate wording or presentation of this > > > > topic. We welcome your suggestions. Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > Presumably the user who had the problem (and reported it to the private > > > list): > > > > > > 1) Did not read the install instructions > > > > > > 2) Did not pay attention to the install wizard panel where associations > > > were set > > > > > > 3) Perhaps is not familiar with what file associations are and that > > > they can be changed by applications or by the user. > > > > > > Looking at Google Analytics it looks like the > > > /download/common/instructions.html page is viewed around 700 times > per > > > day. Since we have around 170K downloads per day, it is clear that > > > very few people consult that page. > > > > > > > > > I wonder this is a topic for a future post-install survey? Questions > > like: > > > > > > Are you aware of the MD5 hashes and detached signatures? Did you use > > them? > > > > > > Are you aware of the install instructions on the website? Did you read > > > them? > > > > > > Are you aware of the release notes? Did you read them? > > > > > > Did you have any install-related questions while installing? > > > > > > Stuff like that. Try to figure out what users actually do when > > > installing AOO. We like to think they read all the material we > > > create. But I bet most of them just "click and pray". > > > > > > > Yeah, I was aware of the divide in downloads vs instruction views quite > > some time ago. :/ Since I've only installed on Linux and know how to do > > that successfully for my needs, it would be nice if we could improve and/or > > clarify the experience for other platforms -- but I don't know what they > > experience. > > > > "click and pray" is probably very descriptive. Assuming some are not likely > > to ever use the Install Instructions, is there anything we can do during > > the install process to assist them in NOT getting unexpected results? > > That's the crux of the matter. > > > > For instance, can 2) above in your list be modified to make them more > aware > > of what this means and what will happen? (I don't see anything like this on > > Linux install). > > > > I believe users only consult these instruction if "click and pray" fails. > If we want to make users aware of hash etc, we should write it on the > initial splash screen. I know that is no guarantee the people actually read > it, but at least it guarantees they have seen it. > > rgds > jan I. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > -Rob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > --- > -- > > > > MzK > > > > > > > > "Cats do not have to be shown how to have a good time, > > > > for they are unfailing ingenious in that respect." > > > >-- James Mason > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > --- > -- > > MzK > > > > "Cats do not have to be shown how to have a good time, > > for they are unfailing ingenious in that respect." > >-- James Mason > > -
RE: Extension toolbar compatibility and 4.0, again
Hi Simon, see comments inline Regards, Hans > -Original Message- > From: Simon Kornblith [mailto:si...@simonster.com] > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:13 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Extension toolbar compatibility and 4.0, again > > Hi, > > I'm a developer with Zotero. We currently distribute a > LibreOffice/OpenOffice.org plugin for our software that provides rich citation > functionality in OpenOffice/LibreOffice/NeoOffice, as well as plugins for > Word for Mac and Word for Windows. > > I've read through the previous thread on changes to the toolbar in 4.0 > (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice- > dev/201302.mbox/%3C51195E5E.304%40laposte.net%3E), but I'd like to > emphasize that the changes to toolbar functionality in AOO 4 are quite > problematic for us, not because the change to Addons.xcu is hard, but > because having a separate extension for AOO 4 is somewhat of a nightmare > from a support and distribution perspective. > > To give some background, users don't install our extension manually. > Instead, it is installed either by an optional Firefox extension (in Zotero for > Firefox) or automatically when our software is opened (in Zotero > Standalone). At the moment, the same extension works with NeoOffice > 3.0+, OpenOffice.org 3.0-3.3, AOO 3.4, LibreOffice 3.4-4.1. > > Unless there's a way to create a single extension that works with AOO 4 and > LibreOffice or earlier versions of OOo, supporting AOO 4 would appear to > require the following changes: > > 1. Adapt the extension to work with Apache OpenOffice. This is actually the > easiest part. > 2. Bundle two extensions with the LibreOffice plugin and Zotero Standalone > (2MB more download size) or modify the extension locally on install to use a > separate Addons.xcu file for AOO 4. > 3. Detect AOO 4 and install a different extension there than we do in > LibreOffice, AOO 3.4, and OOo. > 4. Find a way to make the extension fix itself when AOO is upgraded (is this > possible?), or at least present a dialog telling the user to reinstall the > extension from within Zotero. IF a) end users decide to have their user profile transferred during upgrade, and IF b) your extension is installed per user (= NOT installed in --shared mode), then the answer to question 4 depends on your description.xml, I think. Is there an external link for update-information in your extension's description.xml? Something like
RE: Apache OpenOffice 4.0 is now available
Hi Rob, it may be a bit early, but... Searching for OpenOffice on sourceforge.net gives a result, where the download link still points to AOO 3.4.1 en-US. I've been somewhat puzzled by sourceforge.net when I downloaded AOO 4.0 some minutes ago. Starting from http://www.openoffice.org/download/ the automatic download of the DE version 4.0 was OK in general. But after some minutes into the download, the sourceforge screen changed to a view, where again a big green download button appeared. This download button led to AOO 3.4.1 en-US, not to AOO 4.0 DE. Regards, Hans > -Original Message- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:30 AM > To: us...@openoffice.apache.org; dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Apache OpenOffice 4.0 is now available > > The Apache OpenOffice project is pleased to announce the immediate > availability of OpenOffice 4.0. You can download it from our website [1]. > > Details of new features and enhancements in this release are described in > the Release Notes [2]. > > Those interested in the source code can download this via the links on this > page [3]. > > Regards, > > Rob Weir, Apache OpenOffice Project Management Committee > > > > [1] http://www.openoffice.org/download/ > > [2] > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+ > Notes > > [3] https://openoffice.apache.org/downloads.html > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [AOO 4.0]: migration of AOO 3.4.x/OOo 3.x user profile data - help needed
Andrea, first I'd like to thank you for starting this web-page! OO Developers tend to have a somewhat limited view of the large variety of scenarios, how , why, and by whom extensions are created and maintained. Please note that the extension repository, although it is certainly a great source of extensions, is by far not the only one, even not the most important one. E.g. commercial extensions are mostly not downloadable via the extension repository, but the publishers may be advertising their solution there. But the vast amount of extensions existing will not even be publicly visible/available, because they are created for companies small and large, or privately for a friend/oneself. Therefore I'd like to recommend some additions (sorry for my limited English): For commercial extensions, please contact the publisher for support. In case an extension is not publicly available, but only used privately or in your company/institution, please ask either the author of your extension or a person responsible in your company/institution for help. Please note: If a certain extension is crucial for your personal or professional workflow, you should not install AOO 4.0 before having made sure that this extension will work on AOO 4.0 or that an update of the extension is available. One last time I want to comment on Jürgen Schmidt's recommendation to define a Maxversion. Maybe there are special cases, where this is feasible, e.g. in a (not to small) company where you are able to guarantee availability of support at any time. In some very special cases (from my POV) it may even be vital to do that. So defining a Maxversion may be seen as an important option at hand. That does not say that it has to be recommended as best practice or even mandatory. The word "deprecated" seems to imply the latter. A commercial solution simply cannot afford to define a Maxversion, because users would understand this to be a predetermined breaking point for making more money only. Customers are very suspicious in this regard because of the ever shortening life cycle of technical hardware products nowadays. Or see it this way: For an extension author like me, AOO is functioning similar to another layer of an operating system. So please ask yourself in analogy: Would any of the AOO developers want to define for AOO 4.0 a Maxversion like ? I don't think so. And whatever the reasons may be, the same reasons apply in the reasoning of an extension developers. Kind regards, Hans > -Original Message- > From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:45 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [AOO 4.0]: migration of AOO 3.4.x/OOo 3.x user profile data - > help needed > > On 05/06/2013 Hagar Delest wrote: > > There has been a lot of posts in that discussion, even some proposals > > but we are approaching the 4.0 release and I've not seen a single > > warning for the extensions authors about the changes needed or any > > proposal to warn users. > > I've started a wiki page at > > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions/Extensions_and_Apache_Open > Office_4.0 > > It's still incomplete, and I hope that developers with knowledge may step in > and fill in the gaps. > > It is meant to be a resource that we will want to advertise in the release > notes and make available to users when they seek support, so please have a > look, and feel free to improve and complete it. > > Regards, >Andrea. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Draft blog post: When will OpenOffice version X be released?
Hi, in case someone will still listen to me... 1. In my eyes, the essence of the blog post is a denial of taking responsibility, expressed on a highly abstracted level. The question at hand is concrete, not "version X". Even if the answer is not clear, you can inform the interested reader about a (revision of a) planned schedule. 2. May I politely point out again, that there is a website https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/aoo-40-release-planning.html containing a "Proposed Release Schedule"? Of course I don't take such a schedule for absolutely granted, but it *is* a published schedule. Google search "release aoo 4.0" first rank. For anyone with a busy work life not following the mailing list, random blog posts, twitter, facebook, or anything like that, this seems to be *the* point of easy to find, seemingly official information. With a random multitude of information channels, an "outsider" has to rely on something stable, where yesterday's information is not hidden behind newer entries. If plans are changed, I assume that the information on that website is changed. Does this assumption has some logic to it? If so, why is it not done? Because in an open source project no one is responsible for something he/she doesn't *feel* to be responsible for? Kind regards, Hans > -Original Message- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:21 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Draft blog post: When will OpenOffice version X be released? > > https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=when_will_openoffi > ce_version_x > > Since we get this question frequently, I thought it would be good to have a > canonical response we can point people to. > > It needs some editing, but mainly looking for content feedback initially. > > -Rob > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [AOO 4.0]: migration of AOO 3.4.x/OOo 3.x user profile data - help needed
Hi, I'm sorry, I don't have the time to follow every post on the dev and api mailings lists. Being an add-in and extension developer for Microsoft Office and OpenOffice and having a well working add-in/extension for both in place, I normally only need to scan the lists once a week or so for relevant topics. The whole of my AOO extension activities, including support for users of our extension based product, is planned to take about 3% of my working time, in accordance to how much said extension contributes to my sales numbers and income. That's how my working life is organized. When I happen to read this: > >> small wrap-up at the top: - nobody prefers to migrate extensions from > >> AOO 3.4.x resp. OOo 3.x in conjunction with the obviously outdated and rather crude information about release planning here: https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/aoo-40-release-planning.html it seems totally clear to me that nothing can change your "nobody prefers to migrate extensions" in time. I will be delighted if I'm proved to be wrong, in which case I will gladly test the migration of our extension, and - if needed - open a bug report on bugzilla and help with resolving issues. You know, from my point of view, the whole thread, starting only 5 days *after* the proposed date of RC1, left me speechless for a while, when I detected it. It had never occurred to me that in a project of this dimension one could even think about a new major release without careful and timely consideration of migration processes. The way this is handled looks very much like chaos to me, and I tend to no longer trust in AOO to be a serious, long-term, and reliable project. If this really is the Apache way of project management, it is nothing I want to get used to. As a side note: my Windows and MacOS users don't "migrate", they wouldn't understand this geeky word. They are able to install a new software version, which is sort of a nuisance in itself for most of them. Afterwards, they expect to see everything in place like before. For most of the programs I use, I'm just such an end user myself. I expect those programs to install/update and then look and feel mostly like before or maybe a bit better, if I'm lucky. The last thing I want to be *told* is what I have to *do* for a proper "migration". I realize that my stern remarks go partly to the wrong person. For this I apologize. Regards, Hans > From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann [mailto:orwittm...@googlemail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 12:05 PM > Hi Hans Zybura, > > On 04.06.2013 19:26, Hans Zybura wrote: > > Hi, comments inline... > > > > Crosspost to the api mailing list for a reason. > > > > Regards, Hans Zybura > > > >> -Original Message- From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann > >> [mailto:orwittm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 > >> 10:47 AM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [AOO 4.0]: > >> migration of AOO 3.4.x/OOo 3.x user profile data - help needed > >> > >> Hi, > >> > > > > A couple of month ago there was a heated dispute about introducing > > incompatible changes for extensions in the addons.xcu (for negligible > > benefit). One of the arguments meant to silence the critics was: > > Well, it's no problem because we have an update mechanism for > > extensions. I expressed doubts if the update mechanism would work. > > Now it turns out I was wrong. I shouldn't have worried about the > > update mechanism. Without migration, users will have to find and > > reinstall all of their extensions anyway "by hand". > > > > May be I should have said: > "Until now, nobody prefers to migrate extensions from AOO 3.4.x resp. > OOo 3.x". > > > The current update mechanism for extensions simply looks for a newer > > version of the extension by use of a link provided by the extension > > developer himself. We did that for our extension, but didn't have to > > make use of it until now. > > > > OO developers decided not to take into account compatibility issues > > caused by introducing incompatible changes in addons.xcu. OK, so we > > have to deal with it. To prevent any trouble for our customers, we > > could very likely have provided an automatic update, so that an end > > user wouldn't have noticed any problem at all after a successful > > migration. > > > > Now OO developers are about to make it impossible for extension > > developers to simply provide an automatic update before or after the > > migration to AOO 4.0. Without migrating extensions, there is no > > automatic update path anymore. > > > > Great use
RE: [AOO 4.0]: migration of AOO 3.4.x/OOo 3.x user profile data - help needed
> From: Juergen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 8:27 PM > Am Dienstag, 4. Juni 2013 um 19:26 schrieb Hans Zybura: > > Hi, comments inline... > > > > Crosspost to the api mailing list for a reason. > > > > Regards, Hans Zybura > > > > > From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann [mailto:orwittm...@googlemail.com] > > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:47 AM > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > small wrap-up at the top: > > > - nobody prefers to migrate extensions from AOO 3.4.x resp. OOo 3.x > > > > > > > > > A couple of month ago there was a heated dispute about introducing > incompatible changes for extensions in the addons.xcu (for negligible > benefit). One of the arguments meant to silence the critics was: Well, it's no > problem because we have an update mechanism for extensions. I expressed > doubts if the update mechanism would work. Now it turns out I was wrong. I > shouldn't have worried about the update mechanism. Without migration, > users will have to find and reinstall all of their extensions anyway "by > hand". > > > > The current update mechanism for extensions simply looks for a newer > version of the extension by use of a link provided by the extension > developer himself. We did that for our extension, but didn't have to make > use of it until now. > it is of course an open issue that the update mechanism for extensions from > the repo doesn't work. We have to address this with our friends from > sourgeforge. I didn't speak about the repository. We don't rely on the repository, we are using our own server. > > > > OO developers decided not to take into account compatibility issues caused > by introducing incompatible changes in addons.xcu. OK, so we have to deal > with it. To prevent any trouble for our customers, we could very likely have > provided an automatic update, so that an end user wouldn't have noticed > any problem at all after a successful migration. > the decision to do no migration of extension is based on the fact that we had > problems with the user profile for AOO 3.4.x. We simply take this root to get > a clean new profile for the future. > > > > Now OO developers are about to make it impossible for extension > developers to simply provide an automatic update before or after the > migration to AOO 4.0. Without migrating extensions, there is no automatic > update path anymore. > this is not optimal but a one time shot only > > > > Great user experience! Great experience for extension developers and > support folks! > no it isn't but sometimes unpopular decision are useful to move forward. > And a major release is the chance for such changes. > > > > > > I remember much talk about the "eco system of AOO" on this mailing list. Is > this what the talk was about? > instead of complaining and requesting you could have joined the > development and could have worked on one or more of your addressed > issues. This is the way how open source works. The code is available and you > can help to improve it. In my professional role as an extension developer I am perfectly able to deal with the consequences of your decisions, only that this doesn't make them any better. I'm not complaining, I'm not requesting "that things get be done". Please stop using such a lame line of defense for your lack of leadership with respect to endorsing user friendliness. I'm just pointing out consequences for user experience and extension development. All I ever really did request was: Don't break things that work Open source project or not, any kind of project needs leadership. Your position makes you a leader, but with respect to user friendliness you are not up to it. Hans Zybura > > Juergen > > > > > > > > more comments inline. > > > > > > On 02.06.2013 13:17, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > > > On 29/05/2013 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: > > > > > On 28.05.2013 18:23, Rob Weir wrote: > > > > > > Do we need to worry about the "messy" profiles that occurred > > > > > > from OOo > > > > > > 3.3.0 upgrades to AOO 3.4.0? That was when we saw spell > > > > > > checking breaking, missing dictionaries, and crashes. One of > > > > > > the nice things about a "clean start" with AOO 4.0 was that we > > > > > > avoid these kinds of problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From my point of view AOO 3.4.x users which had problems due to > >
RE: [AOO 4.0]: migration of AOO 3.4.x/OOo 3.x user profile data - help needed
Hi, comments inline... Crosspost to the api mailing list for a reason. Regards, Hans Zybura > -Original Message- > From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann [mailto:orwittm...@googlemail.com] > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:47 AM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [AOO 4.0]: migration of AOO 3.4.x/OOo 3.x user profile data - > help needed > > Hi, > > small wrap-up at the top: > - nobody prefers to migrate extensions from AOO 3.4.x resp. OOo 3.x A couple of month ago there was a heated dispute about introducing incompatible changes for extensions in the addons.xcu (for negligible benefit). One of the arguments meant to silence the critics was: Well, it's no problem because we have an update mechanism for extensions. I expressed doubts if the update mechanism would work. Now it turns out I was wrong. I shouldn't have worried about the update mechanism. Without migration, users will have to find and reinstall all of their extensions anyway "by hand". The current update mechanism for extensions simply looks for a newer version of the extension by use of a link provided by the extension developer himself. We did that for our extension, but didn't have to make use of it until now. OO developers decided not to take into account compatibility issues caused by introducing incompatible changes in addons.xcu. OK, so we have to deal with it. To prevent any trouble for our customers, we could very likely have provided an automatic update, so that an end user wouldn't have noticed any problem at all after a successful migration. Now OO developers are about to make it impossible for extension developers to simply provide an automatic update before or after the migration to AOO 4.0. Without migrating extensions, there is no automatic update path anymore. Great user experience! Great experience for extension developers and support folks! I remember much talk about the "eco system of AOO" on this mailing list. Is this what the talk was about? > > more comments inline. > > On 02.06.2013 13:17, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > On 29/05/2013 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: > >> On 28.05.2013 18:23, Rob Weir wrote: > >>> Do we need to worry about the "messy" profiles that occurred from > >>> OOo > >>> 3.3.0 upgrades to AOO 3.4.0? That was when we saw spell checking > >>> breaking, missing dictionaries, and crashes. One of the nice things > >>> about a "clean start" with AOO 4.0 was that we avoid these kinds of > >>> problems. > >> From my point of view AOO 3.4.x users which had problems due to a > >> "messy" profile and had solved these problems, can migrate their > >> profile to AOO 4.0. AOO 3.4.x users which does not had solved their > >> problems are able to suppress the migration of their existing profile > >> - see the corresponding FirstStartWizard page for the user profile > migration. > > > > I agree with Rob here that, since we had only a few widely reported > > bugs in OpenOffice 3.4.1 and one of them depended on the profile > > migration, we should be rather conservative. > > > > I agree it's better not to migrate extensions, since some of them > > might not work in OpenOffice 4 and their description.xml file in most > > cases will only state that they need "OpenOffice 3.0 or later". > > > >> Yes, an easy reset of the user profile would be great. > > > > This would be a very welcome improvement. Maybe technically this could > > invalidate the current profile and ask the user to restart OpenOffice, > > which would start on a clean profile. This would offer a good user > > experience (not optimal, since the optimal one would be triggered by a > > reinstallation too), and the right moment for the cleanup would be > > just after the code that checks if FirstStartWizard must be run and > > just before the profile is loaded and locked (which means that the > > "invalidate" bit must be set in a way that does not require profile > > access but probably a simple filesystem access... OK, I'll stop here!). > > > >> Thus, I assume that the risk of a defect or a regression is low when > >> solving issue 122398 and 122397 for AOO 4.0, except the issue which > >> would be "copied" from a "messy" user profile. > > > > This is a case to consider. So I would suggest to set the default > > answer to "Don't migrate" for extra safety, especially if we don't > > have an easy profile reset mechanism in place. > > I agree. > But it will cause translation effort - see screenshot of FirstStartWizard &g
RE: Size of the Community
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:34 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Size of the Community
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Roberto Galoppini
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Hans Zybura
> wrote:
> >
> >> Don't forget extension developers, please! I do think they deserve to
> >> be a group of their own. Difficult to count, though. ;-)
> >>
I wrote "difficult to count" with respect to those extension developers in
homes/businesses/schools etc. who do not publish their solutions. I think that
this group outnumbers the extension developers publishing on the extension
website by far.
In my view, unpublished extensions and templates are an important part of the
material ecosystem because they make a large contribution to the present
utilization value of OpenOffice for their respective user environments.
Hans
>
> Good point. The ecosystem of those making templates, extensions for AOO,
> or writing books or offering consulting services, is important to count.
>
>
> >
> > AOOE. Over 350 authors created over 700 extensions.
> > AOOT. Over 700 authors created over 2500 templates.
> >
>
> Thanks. I've started a wiki page for this "community census" and added your
> numbers, as well as some others I've been able to find:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Size+of+Apache+O
> penOffice+Community
>
> I'd encourage anyone who has some other figures to add them to the page.
> Or, if you have an idea for something measurable, add that as well.
>
> -Rob
>
> > Please note that this is not incremental, but the total count.
> >
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Regards, Hans
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > -Original Message-
> >> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
> >> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:06 PM
> >> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> >> > Subject: Size of the Community
> >> >
> >> > I came across this old post from the Django project, "Measuring the
> >> Django
> >> > Community: Circles of Django"
> >> >
> >> > http://jacobian.org/writing/django-community/circles-of-django/
> >> >
> >> > It looks like an interesting approach and worth doing on a periodic
> >> basis, once
> >> > or twice a year, a census of sorts.
> >> >
> >> > Obviously participation in the project comes in various ways and in
> >> various
> >> > degrees of engagement. I think of it as a pyramid:
> >> >
> >> > Users -- at the based of the pyramid we have the users of OpenOffice.
> >> > This can be estimated from our download numbers.
> >> >
> >> > Engaged users -- Next level of the pyramid are users who have
> >> > engaged
> >> with
> >> > the project at one level or another. This might be by following us
> >> > on
> >> Twitter,
> >> > by signing up for a mailing list, posting a question to the forums, etc.
> >> These
> >> > can all be measured. It is probably on the order of 15,000. (We
> >> > have
> >> over
> >> > 9000 users signed up for our announcement mailing list, for
> >> > example)
> >> >
> >> > Contributors -- These are those who have contributed to the project.
> >> > This includes code contributions, obviously, but beyond patches
> >> > also bug reports, translations strings, wiki edits, helping others
> >> > on support
> >> forum or
> >> > user list, contributing logos and ideas on marketing list. These
> >> > can
> >> all be
> >> > measured, though it is harder since it is spread across many
> >> > systems and there is duplication across these systems. This is
> >> > probably on the
> >> order of
> >> > 500.
> >> >
> >> > Committers -- those who have made sustained contributions of merit
> >> > and have been voted in as committers. We have 122 committers.
> >> >
> >> > This could be visualized as pyramid, or concentric circles ("onion
> >> > diagram") or maybe some other ways. Could make a good blog post.
> >> >
> >> > From a recruitment perspective, it also makes sense to consider
> >> > what is required to encourage progress, e.g., converting users into
> >> > engaged
> >> users, or
> >> > engaged users into contributors, etc.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > -Rob
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> >
> > This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s)
> > above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you
> > are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
> > dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any
> > attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
> > in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this
> > e-mail and delete the message and any
> > attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
> >
RE: Size of the Community
Don't forget extension developers, please! I do think they deserve to be a
group of their own. Difficult to count, though. ;-)
Regards, Hans
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:06 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Size of the Community
>
> I came across this old post from the Django project, "Measuring the Django
> Community: Circles of Django"
>
> http://jacobian.org/writing/django-community/circles-of-django/
>
> It looks like an interesting approach and worth doing on a periodic basis,
> once
> or twice a year, a census of sorts.
>
> Obviously participation in the project comes in various ways and in various
> degrees of engagement. I think of it as a pyramid:
>
> Users -- at the based of the pyramid we have the users of OpenOffice.
> This can be estimated from our download numbers.
>
> Engaged users -- Next level of the pyramid are users who have engaged with
> the project at one level or another. This might be by following us on
> Twitter,
> by signing up for a mailing list, posting a question to the forums, etc.
> These
> can all be measured. It is probably on the order of 15,000. (We have over
> 9000 users signed up for our announcement mailing list, for example)
>
> Contributors -- These are those who have contributed to the project.
> This includes code contributions, obviously, but beyond patches also bug
> reports, translations strings, wiki edits, helping others on support forum or
> user list, contributing logos and ideas on marketing list. These can all be
> measured, though it is harder since it is spread across many systems and
> there is duplication across these systems. This is probably on the order of
> 500.
>
> Committers -- those who have made sustained contributions of merit and
> have been voted in as committers. We have 122 committers.
>
> This could be visualized as pyramid, or concentric circles ("onion
> diagram") or maybe some other ways. Could make a good blog post.
>
> From a recruitment perspective, it also makes sense to consider what is
> required to encourage progress, e.g., converting users into engaged users, or
> engaged users into contributors, etc.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
RE: Draft blog post: $21 million per day
Excellent blog post! I'll write about and link to it in my own blog and will continue to recommend AOO to my customers (schools/teachers/speech and clinical therapists). In my view, it is absolutely essential to have an adequate competitor to Microsoft Office - for many reasons: quality, development, long-time reliability(!), user friendliness, and of course price. So the value to the public you are providing goes far beyond what the money value can express. Perhaps you could add something along the line that for AOO to be a competitor to be reckoned with is probably the most valuable contribution to the world of professional productivity, valuable even for users that stay with Microsoft Office. Hans > -Original Message- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 1:40 AM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Cc: Sally Khudairi > Subject: Draft blog post: $21 million per day > > https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=21_million_per_day > > Hoping to publish early next week. > > Regards, > > -Rob
RE: $21 million per day
> -Original Message- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 1:14 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; hzyb...@zybura.com > Subject: Re: $21 million per day > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Hans Zybura wrote: > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:43 PM > >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; market...@openoffice.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: $21 million per day > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> > Yes, yes, we're a non-profit organization. We don't charge for Apache > >> > OpenOffice. We don't pay developers.But we still do produce > >> > something of value, and that value can be estimated. > >> > > >> > People need office productivity software. The main alternative to > >> > OpenOffice is Microsoft Office, perhaps the "Home and Student" > >> > edition. The latest version (2013) sells for $139.99 on Amazon. > >> > This is for the downloadable version. > >> > > >> > >> So I'm thinking more on this, and there is an assumption here that > >> the price I pay for Office in the US is the same as anyone else pays around > the world. > >> But this is unlikely to be true. This is a classic example of where > >> the fixed costs are in the development and are high, and the variable > >> costs are in the media and distribution and are very low. So a > >> global vendor's optimal strategy is to adjust the pricing > >> country-by-country or region-by-region, to maximize their profits. > >> They can drop the prince in some countries and raise it in others > >> based on ability to pay. > >> > >> I'd love to have some help exploring the magnitude of these > >> differences, to see if they are significant. Let's use the price > >> Microsoft quotes for "Home and Student 2013". We want the 1PC > >> perpetual license, not the per-year subscription price. > >> > >> Start from here: http://office.microsoft.com. I had to then go to > >> "Products", "For Home" and "Learn more". > >> > >> When I check the US price I get $139.99 > >> > >> When I check the German site (http://office.microsoft.com/de-de) I am > >> quoted 139,00 €. That is $188.04 today. > >> > >> When I check the Australian website I am quoted $169.00 which is > >> $174.42 USD. > >> > >> The Russian website quotes 3499.00 rubles, which is $116.30. > >> > >> So I'm seeing some higher and some lower. Does anyone see pricing > >> that is outside of the range USD 116.30 - 188.04 ? > >> > >> This complicates the analysis, but I don't think it changes the story much. > >> > >> -Rob > > > > You can buy Microsoft products considerably below their "official" prices > quoted on Microsoft's web sites. > > > > On http://geizhals.de/eu/894430 > > you can compare real market prices for different European languages in > different countries and from different vendors. > > > > Microsoft Office Home and Student (1 computer) sample best prices (VAT > > included, shipment excluded) as of Feb. 7th > > > > Germany: 105,11 Euro > > Poland: 110,11 Euro = PLN 460 > > Italy: 108,04 Euro > > > > Differences are mostly due to differences in VAT percentage, e.g. Germany > 19%, Poland 23%. > > > > Ah, good observation. That would explain the difference in the US price. In > the US most internet sales are free of sales tax. And even where there is tax > it is not listed in the "sticker price", but is added after. When a price tag is published on a web site/publication/catalogue/in a brick-and-mortar shop aimed at the general public, this is not allowed in Europe. Only in a distinct b2b context one is allowed to publish a so called net price (Nettopreis) where sales tax is not included. And even then the fact has to be explicitly stated and clearly visible. Sales people are usually careful in this respect - one could get sued quite easily, otherwise. Hans > > -Rob > > > Sample Amazon prices > > Amazon.de: 112,69 Euro > > Amazon.at: 112,69 Euro > > Amazon.it: 114,24 Euro > > Amazon.co.uk: £96.50 = 111,50 EUR > > surprisingly expensive > > Amazon.es: 127,35 Euro > > Amazon.fr: 129,90 Euro > > > > In gener
RE: $21 million per day
> -Original Message- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:43 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; market...@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: $21 million per day > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > > Yes, yes, we're a non-profit organization. We don't charge for Apache > > OpenOffice. We don't pay developers.But we still do produce > > something of value, and that value can be estimated. > > > > People need office productivity software. The main alternative to > > OpenOffice is Microsoft Office, perhaps the "Home and Student" > > edition. The latest version (2013) sells for $139.99 on Amazon. This > > is for the downloadable version. > > > > So I'm thinking more on this, and there is an assumption here that the price I > pay for Office in the US is the same as anyone else pays around the world. > But this is unlikely to be true. This is a classic example of where the fixed > costs are in the development and are high, and the variable costs are in the > media and distribution and are very low. So a global vendor's optimal > strategy is to adjust the pricing country-by-country or region-by-region, to > maximize their profits. > They can drop the prince in some countries and raise it in others based on > ability to pay. > > I'd love to have some help exploring the magnitude of these differences, to > see if they are significant. Let's use the price Microsoft quotes for "Home > and Student 2013". We want the 1PC perpetual license, not the per-year > subscription price. > > Start from here: http://office.microsoft.com. I had to then go to > "Products", > "For Home" and "Learn more". > > When I check the US price I get $139.99 > > When I check the German site (http://office.microsoft.com/de-de) I am > quoted 139,00 €. That is $188.04 today. > > When I check the Australian website I am quoted $169.00 which is $174.42 > USD. > > The Russian website quotes 3499.00 rubles, which is $116.30. > > So I'm seeing some higher and some lower. Does anyone see pricing that is > outside of the range USD 116.30 - 188.04 ? > > This complicates the analysis, but I don't think it changes the story much. > > -Rob You can buy Microsoft products considerably below their "official" prices quoted on Microsoft's web sites. On http://geizhals.de/eu/894430 you can compare real market prices for different European languages in different countries and from different vendors. Microsoft Office Home and Student (1 computer) sample best prices (VAT included, shipment excluded) as of Feb. 7th Germany: 105,11 Euro Poland: 110,11 Euro = PLN 460 Italy: 108,04 Euro Differences are mostly due to differences in VAT percentage, e.g. Germany 19%, Poland 23%. Sample Amazon prices Amazon.de: 112,69 Euro Amazon.at: 112,69 Euro Amazon.it: 114,24 Euro Amazon.co.uk: £96.50 = 111,50 EUR surprisingly expensive Amazon.es: 127,35 Euro Amazon.fr: 129,90 Euro In general, the real market price in European countries seems to be mostly in the range of 110,00 Euro to 115,00 Euro Hans > > > > > > We have averaged 153K downloads per day of Apace OpenOffice over the > > last week. That is an average value to the public of $21.5 million > > per day. Or $7.833 billion (7.833 thousand million) per year. > > > > To put that in perspective, here are comparable annual sales figures > > for some familiar companies: > > > > -- Campbell Soup Company: $7.882 billion > > -- Royal Caribbean Cruises: $7.657 billion > > -- Mastercard, Inc:$7.391 billion > > -- OfficeMax:$7.094 billion > > > > > > So we're providing tremendous value to the public. We should be proud > > of what we've accomplished over the past decade. > > > > Note: We could certainly debate the exact value provided to users. > > Determining what a user would do if they did not get AOO for free is > > tricky. But the logic above is similar to how the BSA estimates > > losses to Microsoft from software piracy. They assume that the person > > who pirates Office would buy it if they did not pirate it. So it > > seems fair to use that same logic to estimate the value provided to > > users by a legal free alternative like Apache OpenOffice. > > > > Regards, > > > > -Rob
