Hi all -
In case you hadn't heard of this before, the open source community has very good software that is fully compatible with Microsoft Office and is free. The software is called OpenOffice and can be found here:
http://www.openoffice.org/ (be careful - it's not .com)
**Disclaimer** I have NO ties to this organization.
I use this software and like it. It has a spreadsheet and a word processor. There are also open source databases (mysql, for one) if you're interested in that sort of thing. There is support for PC and Mac.
Another good open source project is the web browser Firefox. It's an alternative to Explorer (and Safari) that you can customize with thousands of free 'add-ons'. It makes surfing a lot easier and better. I see firefox innovations, like tabbed windows, showing up months and years later in Explorer.
Just my 2c.
Joe
Open Source Software - an alternative to MS
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
-
Joe Sgambellone
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:55 am
-
Jim O'Bryan
- Posts: 14196
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
- Location: Lakewood
- Contact:
Re: Open Source Software - an alternative to MS
Joe Sgambellone wrote:Hi all -
In case you hadn't heard of this before, the open source community has very good software that is fully compatible with Microsoft Office and is free. The software is called OpenOffice and can be found here:
http://www.openoffice.org/ (be careful - it's not .com)
**Disclaimer** I have NO ties to this organization.
I use this software and like it. It has a spreadsheet and a word processor. There are also open source databases (mysql, for one) if you're interested in that sort of thing. There is support for PC and Mac.
Another good open source project is the web browser Firefox. It's an alternative to Explorer (and Safari) that you can customize with thousands of free 'add-ons'. It makes surfing a lot easier and better. I see firefox innovations, like tabbed windows, showing up months and years later in Explorer.
Just my 2c.
Joe
Joe
I moved this to Global as it was not Lakewoodcentric.
My biggest complaint with open source in general is it almost does what I need it to do.
Currently we are replacing the open source phbb part of this site for proprietary, just because it will not only do exactly what we need, but give us a unique interface.
The end user might not have the same needs, though I always thought Star Office was about 60% as good as Microsoft Office.
But thanks for the info.
.
Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident
"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg
"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
Lakewood Resident
"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg
"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
-
Jim DeVito
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:11 am
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
Jim,
I agree with you to an extent. A lot of open source projects so lack some of the sparkle as there closed counterparts. There is a lot to be said for the total cost of entrance being nothing for open source projects. For instance MySql and PostgreSql are very powerful database servers that rival MSSql. For the hobby web developer that wants to right database driving dynamic web apps. But who can not afford a very expensive MSSql licenses.
As far a functionality goes. I will make one departure. For years the would of Telephony has been closed and controlled buy the big Telcom equipment vendors. You can not buy a PBX now for under $12,000. On top of that since they are proprietary you only have a limited amount of reconfigurability. Along come Asterisk the Open Source PBX. I could go on for days about the benefits of Asterisk. The point is that the cost to enter the world of Telephony is nothing (Unless you want to connect to the PTSN. In that case you need some special hardware. But nothing as expensive and unreliable as something from NorTel, ROLM, or Siemens) With that said I leave you with a couple of passages from
Asterisk: The Future of Telephony
NOTE: The below quoted book was published by O'reilly Media under the Creative Commons Licenses.
[quote] The Problems with Traditional Telephony
Although Alexander Graham Bell is most famously remembered as the father of the
telephone, the reality is that during the latter half of the 1800s, dozens of minds were
working toward the goal of carrying voice over telegraph lines. These people were
mostly business-minded folks, looking to create a product through which they might
make their fortunes.
We have come to think of traditional telephone companies as monopolies, but this was
not true in their early days. The early history of telephone service took place in a very
competitive environment, with new companies springing up all over the world, often
with little or no respect for the patents they might be violating. Many famous monopolies
got their start through the waging (and winning) of patent wars.
It’s interesting to contrast the history of the telephone with the history of Linux and
the Internet. While the telephone was created as a commercial exercise, and the telecom
industry was forged through lawsuits and corporate takeovers, Linux and the Internet
arose out of the academic community, which has always valued the sharing of
knowledge over profit.
317
The cultural differences are obvious. Telecommunications technologies tend to be
closed, confusing, and expensive, while networking technologies are generally open,
well-documented, and competitive.
Closed Thinking
If one compares the culture of the telecommunications industry to that of the Internet,
it is sometimes difficult to believe the two are related. The Internet was designed by
enthusiasts, whereas contributing to the development of the PSTN is impossible for
any individual to contemplate. This is an exclusive club; membership is not open to
just anyone.*
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) clearly exhibits this type of closed
thinking. If you want access to its knowledge, you have to be prepared to pay for it.
Membership requires proof of your qualifications, and you will be expected to pay
thousands of dollars to gain access to its library of publications.
Although the ITU is the United Nations’s sanctioned body responsible for international
telecommunications, many of the VoIP protocols (SIP, MGCP, RTP, STUN) come not
from the hallowed halls of the ITU, but rather from the IETF (which publishes all of
its standards free to all, and allows anyone to submit an Internet Draft for
consideration).
Open protocols such as SIP may have a tactical advantage over ITU protocols, such as
H.323, due to the ease with which one can obtain them. Although H.323 is widely
deployed by carriers as a VoIP protocol in the backbone, it is much more difficult to
find H.323-based endpoints; newer products are far more likely to support SIP.
The success of the IETF’s open approach has not gone unnoticed by the mighty ITU.
It has recently become possible to download up to three documents free of charge from
the ITU web site.†Openness is clearly on its minds. Recent statements by the ITU suggest
that there is a desire to achieve “Greater participation in ITU by civil society and
the academic world.â€Â
I agree with you to an extent. A lot of open source projects so lack some of the sparkle as there closed counterparts. There is a lot to be said for the total cost of entrance being nothing for open source projects. For instance MySql and PostgreSql are very powerful database servers that rival MSSql. For the hobby web developer that wants to right database driving dynamic web apps. But who can not afford a very expensive MSSql licenses.
As far a functionality goes. I will make one departure. For years the would of Telephony has been closed and controlled buy the big Telcom equipment vendors. You can not buy a PBX now for under $12,000. On top of that since they are proprietary you only have a limited amount of reconfigurability. Along come Asterisk the Open Source PBX. I could go on for days about the benefits of Asterisk. The point is that the cost to enter the world of Telephony is nothing (Unless you want to connect to the PTSN. In that case you need some special hardware. But nothing as expensive and unreliable as something from NorTel, ROLM, or Siemens) With that said I leave you with a couple of passages from
Asterisk: The Future of Telephony
NOTE: The below quoted book was published by O'reilly Media under the Creative Commons Licenses.
[quote] The Problems with Traditional Telephony
Although Alexander Graham Bell is most famously remembered as the father of the
telephone, the reality is that during the latter half of the 1800s, dozens of minds were
working toward the goal of carrying voice over telegraph lines. These people were
mostly business-minded folks, looking to create a product through which they might
make their fortunes.
We have come to think of traditional telephone companies as monopolies, but this was
not true in their early days. The early history of telephone service took place in a very
competitive environment, with new companies springing up all over the world, often
with little or no respect for the patents they might be violating. Many famous monopolies
got their start through the waging (and winning) of patent wars.
It’s interesting to contrast the history of the telephone with the history of Linux and
the Internet. While the telephone was created as a commercial exercise, and the telecom
industry was forged through lawsuits and corporate takeovers, Linux and the Internet
arose out of the academic community, which has always valued the sharing of
knowledge over profit.
317
The cultural differences are obvious. Telecommunications technologies tend to be
closed, confusing, and expensive, while networking technologies are generally open,
well-documented, and competitive.
Closed Thinking
If one compares the culture of the telecommunications industry to that of the Internet,
it is sometimes difficult to believe the two are related. The Internet was designed by
enthusiasts, whereas contributing to the development of the PSTN is impossible for
any individual to contemplate. This is an exclusive club; membership is not open to
just anyone.*
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) clearly exhibits this type of closed
thinking. If you want access to its knowledge, you have to be prepared to pay for it.
Membership requires proof of your qualifications, and you will be expected to pay
thousands of dollars to gain access to its library of publications.
Although the ITU is the United Nations’s sanctioned body responsible for international
telecommunications, many of the VoIP protocols (SIP, MGCP, RTP, STUN) come not
from the hallowed halls of the ITU, but rather from the IETF (which publishes all of
its standards free to all, and allows anyone to submit an Internet Draft for
consideration).
Open protocols such as SIP may have a tactical advantage over ITU protocols, such as
H.323, due to the ease with which one can obtain them. Although H.323 is widely
deployed by carriers as a VoIP protocol in the backbone, it is much more difficult to
find H.323-based endpoints; newer products are far more likely to support SIP.
The success of the IETF’s open approach has not gone unnoticed by the mighty ITU.
It has recently become possible to download up to three documents free of charge from
the ITU web site.†Openness is clearly on its minds. Recent statements by the ITU suggest
that there is a desire to achieve “Greater participation in ITU by civil society and
the academic world.â€Â
-
David Lay
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:06 pm
- Location: Washington, DC
- Contact:
Jim DeVito wrote:Jim,
For instance MySql and PostgreSql are very powerful database servers that rival MSSql.
Agreed. My website entirely runs on MySQL/PHP.
New Website/Blog: dlayphoto.com
-
Tim Liston
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 3:10 pm
I’m using OpenOffice right now to create the text for this post. It’s OK, not great. I’ve also used OpenOffice Calc (the spreadsheet) and OpenOffice Impress (the Powerpoint equivalent). Again, OK not great. Won’t catch on because….
I’m becoming a big believer in Google Docs for reasonably simple text documents and spreadsheets. In fact as regards their text processor, I’ve been using it since it was Writely, before Google bought them a couple years back. Both the text and spreadsheet software are functional enough, and the documents are stored online so there is no risk of loss. Best of all (at least for some applications) multiple users can edit Google Docs, again online, at the SAME TIME without colliding with each other. Really cool. But they are not open source, at some point I would presume Google will charge a monthly subscription or some such license fee for the use of Google Docs.
I believe that unless Sun (who owns OpenOffice) turns OO Text, OO Calc and its brethren into web-based products like Google Docs, they will be losers. And so will Microsoft. It will take time but eventually Google Docs will become easy and quick enough for reasonably serious use. Say bye-bye to MS Office and OpenOffice. Too hard to web enable. Get ready for Google Docs.
My business is also a big believer in open source. We are preparing a version of our flagship product, a mortgage origination and processing system, that incorporates all the top OSS available today – Linux, MySQL, Alfresco, Jabber, Jtwian, Jackrabbit, Derby and a whole bunch of other components. I may be dead before it catches on but it’ll be fun trying. BTW in the previous posts, as regards databases both MySQL and Postgres have been mentioned, my company’s favorite has not – the aforementioned Derby. Derby was owned by Informix when IBM bought them, and IBM has since donated Derby to one of the open source groups. Apache I believe. Not Mozilla.
By the way, Sun bought MySQL for a billion plus less than a month ago. They are (heroically?) trying to consolidate OSS. In fact Sun even took Java open source about a year ago. A year or so after they open sourced their Solaris operating system.
And Jim you mention phpbb. Good stuff, but when you use open source you absolutely have to read and understand the license agreements. Phpbb is offered by way of one of the “viralâ€Â
I’m becoming a big believer in Google Docs for reasonably simple text documents and spreadsheets. In fact as regards their text processor, I’ve been using it since it was Writely, before Google bought them a couple years back. Both the text and spreadsheet software are functional enough, and the documents are stored online so there is no risk of loss. Best of all (at least for some applications) multiple users can edit Google Docs, again online, at the SAME TIME without colliding with each other. Really cool. But they are not open source, at some point I would presume Google will charge a monthly subscription or some such license fee for the use of Google Docs.
I believe that unless Sun (who owns OpenOffice) turns OO Text, OO Calc and its brethren into web-based products like Google Docs, they will be losers. And so will Microsoft. It will take time but eventually Google Docs will become easy and quick enough for reasonably serious use. Say bye-bye to MS Office and OpenOffice. Too hard to web enable. Get ready for Google Docs.
My business is also a big believer in open source. We are preparing a version of our flagship product, a mortgage origination and processing system, that incorporates all the top OSS available today – Linux, MySQL, Alfresco, Jabber, Jtwian, Jackrabbit, Derby and a whole bunch of other components. I may be dead before it catches on but it’ll be fun trying. BTW in the previous posts, as regards databases both MySQL and Postgres have been mentioned, my company’s favorite has not – the aforementioned Derby. Derby was owned by Informix when IBM bought them, and IBM has since donated Derby to one of the open source groups. Apache I believe. Not Mozilla.
By the way, Sun bought MySQL for a billion plus less than a month ago. They are (heroically?) trying to consolidate OSS. In fact Sun even took Java open source about a year ago. A year or so after they open sourced their Solaris operating system.
And Jim you mention phpbb. Good stuff, but when you use open source you absolutely have to read and understand the license agreements. Phpbb is offered by way of one of the “viralâ€Â
-
David Lay
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:06 pm
- Location: Washington, DC
- Contact:
Tim Liston wrote:And of course I use Firefox. Would never use IE.
Well, you know IE stands for Internet Exploder...
New Website/Blog: dlayphoto.com
-
Tim Liston
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 3:10 pm
David, it has always been my opinion that Microsoft has intentionally crippled Internet Explorer in order to preserve the Windows franchise. After all IE is, unfortunately, still the dominant browser. And it’s also been my opinion that ultimately Microsoft will fail to protect IE from competition, especially if MS refuses to make it better.
I mean (1) why has it been relatively easy for the open source community to develop a vastly superior browser (Firefox), (2) how much better is Internet Explorer than it was say five years ago (none) and (3) why won’t Microsoft help IE conform to W3C standards (subjects it to a level playing field)?
The bottom line is this. Web apps do not require Windows. Linux is plenty good enough to run a browser, and thereby web apps. So is Mac OSX of course. So if web apps become generally accepted, say goodbye to Windows and the huge premium you pay for your PC just so that it includes Windows. And like I said with respect to Google Docs, and to the myriad web apps that are being created today, they are becoming quite acceptable, as bandwidth and programming sophistication permit. Notice how much better the Internet works than it did just a couple years ago?
I would never be an owner of MS stock. I believe MS is headed for obscurity. It may take ten years or more, but IMO it is inevitable.
I mean (1) why has it been relatively easy for the open source community to develop a vastly superior browser (Firefox), (2) how much better is Internet Explorer than it was say five years ago (none) and (3) why won’t Microsoft help IE conform to W3C standards (subjects it to a level playing field)?
The bottom line is this. Web apps do not require Windows. Linux is plenty good enough to run a browser, and thereby web apps. So is Mac OSX of course. So if web apps become generally accepted, say goodbye to Windows and the huge premium you pay for your PC just so that it includes Windows. And like I said with respect to Google Docs, and to the myriad web apps that are being created today, they are becoming quite acceptable, as bandwidth and programming sophistication permit. Notice how much better the Internet works than it did just a couple years ago?
I would never be an owner of MS stock. I believe MS is headed for obscurity. It may take ten years or more, but IMO it is inevitable.
-
David Lay
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:06 pm
- Location: Washington, DC
- Contact:
Tim Liston wrote:David, it has always been my opinion that Microsoft has intentionally crippled Internet Explorer in order to preserve the Windows franchise. After all IE is, unfortunately, still the dominant browser. And it’s also been my opinion that ultimately Microsoft will fail to protect IE from competition, especially if MS refuses to make it better.
I've thought the same thing. I've been increasingly using Open Source software. My website runs on Wordpress and Pixelpost, on a LAMP server. I use Adium for instant messaging. Haven't tried Google Docs yet, but now I might give it a shot.
New Website/Blog: dlayphoto.com
-
Tim Liston
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 3:10 pm
David I don't know much about the particular stuff you mention, except....
Re: instant messaging and Adium. I don't know Adium in particular but as you know IM is something of a tower of babel. But as far as I know the emerging "core" IM standard is "XMPP" (Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol, I think). It's what Jabber (what I mentioned above) uses, and is being adopted internationally. If Adium uses XMPP, you're fine. XMPP is being increasingly widely adopted as far as I can tell.
And trust me about Google Docs. Give it a try. Especially for the low-key stuff, and docs you might wanna share with others. I love not updating my software or worrying about losing stored documents.
Re: instant messaging and Adium. I don't know Adium in particular but as you know IM is something of a tower of babel. But as far as I know the emerging "core" IM standard is "XMPP" (Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol, I think). It's what Jabber (what I mentioned above) uses, and is being adopted internationally. If Adium uses XMPP, you're fine. XMPP is being increasingly widely adopted as far as I can tell.
And trust me about Google Docs. Give it a try. Especially for the low-key stuff, and docs you might wanna share with others. I love not updating my software or worrying about losing stored documents.
-
David Lay
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:06 pm
- Location: Washington, DC
- Contact:
-
Tim Liston
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 3:10 pm
-
David Lay
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:06 pm
- Location: Washington, DC
- Contact:
Yeah, I use it for all of my IM accounts...GTalk, AIM, Yahoo, etc. It's nice to be able to handle all of my accounts from one app.
New Website/Blog: dlayphoto.com
-
Bryan Schwegler
- Posts: 963
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:23 pm
- Location: Lakewood
I have a love/hate relationship with open source. I often find it has great benefits and is of course free, but it also suffers at times from a scattered focus, poor upgrade pathing, and often just up and dies due to lack of eventual interest or infighting with the core development team. In short, open source software often lacks an air of professionalism in their products and design.
There are notable exceptions to this, but overall I tend to support proprietary software more often than open source. I also like being able to support small developers, and the Mac platform has its share of outstanding small development companies.
I prefer Office on Windows, I like iWork on the Mac. Also, while online office suites seem to be all the latest tech rage right now, I can probably bet they won't take off for the mainstream business environment any time soon.
There are notable exceptions to this, but overall I tend to support proprietary software more often than open source. I also like being able to support small developers, and the Mac platform has its share of outstanding small development companies.
I prefer Office on Windows, I like iWork on the Mac. Also, while online office suites seem to be all the latest tech rage right now, I can probably bet they won't take off for the mainstream business environment any time soon.
-
ryan costa
- Posts: 2486
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm
xp
I purchased a new computer recently. It came loaded with Windows Vista! Windows Vista is terrible! Every little action results in some kind of animation and sound effect. It chews up an immense amount of RAM! I will look instructions to uninstall it and install XP later.
One of the big Bankers was speaking at the City Club once on WCLV. someone asked him how America is supposed to compete with cheaper overseas labor. He said when you add in the costs of logistics, administration, communication, and shipping, it is only about 10 percent cheaper manufacturing overseas.
It would be great if all these components of computers were made in the U.S.A, and then Assembled here. That would probably provide a few hundred thousand jobs for Industrial workers downsized by Productivity Gains or Outsourcing.
Most computer users don't do anything with computers they weren't already doing on Windows 98 or 2000. Cheaper foreign manufacturing is a way to subsidize Microsoft's continual output of new upgrades and programs and operating systems with little marginal improvement and giant growth in system requirements. It may be absurd, but Software Engineers are more important than production workers, plant managers, and factory administrative staff. It is ok: newly obsolete hardware is junked and shipped back to china, where peasants strip out the copper in cottage industry sized vats of toxic solvents.
One of the big Bankers was speaking at the City Club once on WCLV. someone asked him how America is supposed to compete with cheaper overseas labor. He said when you add in the costs of logistics, administration, communication, and shipping, it is only about 10 percent cheaper manufacturing overseas.
It would be great if all these components of computers were made in the U.S.A, and then Assembled here. That would probably provide a few hundred thousand jobs for Industrial workers downsized by Productivity Gains or Outsourcing.
Most computer users don't do anything with computers they weren't already doing on Windows 98 or 2000. Cheaper foreign manufacturing is a way to subsidize Microsoft's continual output of new upgrades and programs and operating systems with little marginal improvement and giant growth in system requirements. It may be absurd, but Software Engineers are more important than production workers, plant managers, and factory administrative staff. It is ok: newly obsolete hardware is junked and shipped back to china, where peasants strip out the copper in cottage industry sized vats of toxic solvents.
-
Joe Sgambellone
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:55 am
Bryan Schwegler wrote:I have a love/hate relationship with open source. I often find it has great benefits and is of course free, but it also suffers at times from a scattered focus, poor upgrade pathing, and often just up and dies due to lack of eventual interest or infighting with the core development team. In short, open source software often lacks an air of professionalism in their products and design.
There are notable exceptions to this, but overall I tend to support proprietary software more often than open source. I also like being able to support small developers, and the Mac platform has its share of outstanding small development companies.
I prefer Office on Windows, I like iWork on the Mac. Also, while online office suites seem to be all the latest tech rage right now, I can probably bet they won't take off for the mainstream business environment any time soon.
I won't disagree with you on any of these points - and agree that larger businesses would be *very* reluctant to get away from the tried and true proprietary software.
I recently received an email with an .rtf attachment which is what prompted me to start this thread. I wouldn't expect something like OpenOffice to have all the bells and whistles that MS Office has, but it's close enough for the day to day word processing that the vast majority of computer users do.
I'm hoping that people who might not know about open source can at least know there is an alternative that won't break the bank - particularly if their moral code wouldn't allow them to pirate a copy.