Vlákno názorů k článku OpenOffice.org 2.0 od h-cz - Tedy nezlobte se na me, ale k cemu...

Tedy nezlobte se na me, ale k cemu je tento clanek.
Podivejme se na obsah:
1. autor ceka na final. No nevim, nezda se mi, ze by cele cislo v oznaceni verze nejak zvlast prospelo stabilite - spis jde o psychologicky efekt...
2. autor nas uci rozbalovat pomoci taru a pro ty, kteri jeste nevi, ze existuje ftp.linux.cz
3. popis writeru ci calcu v odrazkach - jak vycerpavajici ;-)
4. pod otestovanim kompatibility si opravdu nepredstavuji otevreni par souboru v mailboxu. Co makra, co jednotlive verze MS Officu mezi OO2, doslo ke zmene v knihovnach ? Autor nevi, autor jen ceka na stable 2.0 a pak napise, ze se mu oteviraji soubory. Do ctyrlistku dobre, ale na server venujici se profesionalne linuxu ??
5. export do pdf. Autor opet mimo. Hlavne, ze je export perfektni.. ze pribylo (napriklad) tagovani pdefek, na to chlapec neprisel. To by totiz vyzadovalo neco vic, nez tuknout na ikonu export as pdf a nasledne otevreni v xpdf.
6. Novy format. Open nulova informace: nepise o duvodech a zmenach ve formatu, jen ze jsou tam jiny pismenka a ze je to porad zip; probuh, komu tohle pise ? kdo chce cist takove blaboly ?
7. Base. Ja ho snad ocituju: "kompletní databázový engine, který umožňuje v grafickém prostředí programu Base zpracovávat databázová data. Pro zpříjemnění práce slouží uživatelsky přítulní průvodci.Base je obdobou programu Access z balíku MS Office a nabízí podobnou funkcionalitu." Autor nezna terminologii RDBMS, v celem OOBase si vsiml jen pruvodcu a pro jistotu se schovava za paralelu s Accessem - jen aby nemusel rici neco chytreho nebo nedej boze konkretniho.
8. Poznamka o Jave je zcela mimo. Videl pan kolega zdrojove kody ? Tusi vubec, co vse se v jave dela a taky PROC SE TO DELA PRAVE V JAVE ?
9. Supr benchmark rychlosti spousteni ;-) ale uz mi dochazi invektiva...


co zaverem ? Zajimalo by me, proc se autor rozhodl clanek napsat. Ze by to bylo ze zajmu o OpenOffice, to asi ne. To by toho vedel vic, lepe by formulovat. Ze by to byl nejaky extremni kancelarsky uzivatel, to taky ne: vic by se venoval automatizaci kancelarske prace, makrum, napojeni Base na jine RDBMS a podobne. Zbyva snad uz jen grafomanie.
V tom pripade se rozloucim klasickym cimrmanovym:
nepiste mi a pokud mozno, nepiste vubec

Nezbytne features vazane na jave: * Accessibility tools, such as the Gnopernicus Screen Reader and Magnifier and the GNOME On-Screen Keyboard * The Report Autopilot * JDBC driver support for Java-based databases * XSLT filters * BeanShell, the Netbeans scripting language, and the Java UNO bridge * Export filters to the Aportis.doc (.pdb) format for the Palm or Pocket Word (.psw) format for the Pocket PC * Base, the new Access-like database application * The media player, which adds movie and sound clips to documents * Mail merges to e-mail, which also require Java Mail * All document wizards in Writer * Java allows more rapid development of components for OpenOffice.org, without struggling with the complexity of OpenOffice.org's C++ build environment. * Java is mature enough to use for complex tasks. * To address a common prejudice, Java isn't slow by definition, but Java makes it easy to develop poorly performing code, so developers perhaps need more self-discipline when writing Java code. However, this isn't per se a point against Java. --- coz jsou ulohy, ktere maji napomoci rozsireni OO do oblasti klasickeho kancelarskeho balicku (potencialne velmi zajimava oblast). pod poklickou se ale skryva vic, napriklad transformace (XSLT) pri ukladani, importu a export a podobne; snahy o oprostenou verzi ala GCJ (GNU Compiler for Java) selhavaji na nedostatecne vyspelosti kodu. ---- jeste poznamky vyvojaru k pouziti javy: Simon Phipps: That's a particularly “chewy” issue to get into, because it predicates an understanding of what's happening over in the Java space. One of the difficulties in the OpenOffice.org space is that people are abbreviating the discussion of what's happening over in the Java space. If you look at the history of software, you'll see that the Java community is one of the most free software communities that has ever existed. It doesn't have the same philosophical basis that Richard Stallman approves of, and there's a lot of sounds things to be said of the Stallmanite approach to freedom, but there's more than one way to do software freedom. If you look at its fruits, you'll see that the GPL approach to software freedom is extremely strong, and has given lots of freedom to work with software, but so has the approach that the Java community has taken. The Java community includes millions and millions of end users of Java, who are free from the domination of any vendor, including Sun (a fact reinforced by Meta group recently). That practical outcome, and that delivery of freedom is tangible, and real, and not removable by any party, including Sun. So what doesn't get communicated into the OpenOffice.org community is that this is actually an ideological difference between peers who both have a good point to make. When it is simplified down to the simple equation, evil corporation versus the free world, as some people have tried to do, that's a deep misrepresentation of the real situation. The truth is that if you look in the OpenOffice.org code, there are some features that we could have seen developed longhand, if you will, using C++ or some older approach, or we could have seen them developed much more rapidly, using a platform independent approach. The platform independent approach that a lot of people appreciate in many spheres is to use the Java virtual machine as a virtualization technology. For most of us, that approach is as good as any other approach. All of the approaches to virtualizing software to the platform have pros and cons. When it comes to the Java platform, there are plenty of pros, and there are a few cons, and they can be freely admitted by the people involved in the discussion. There is no sense in which the use of Java in the code there is trying to some way tie the code back to Sun. After all, Java itself is controlled by a democratic community. The specifications are set by individual experts and by corporations that belong to the Java community process. There is no conspiracy, folks. There is just the honest use of an appropriate technology. Importing into that conversation an ideological discussion that is being held elsewhere is a bad thing to happen to OpenOffice.org. From what I've been reading on the postings on the OpenOffice.org discussion lists, most people are aware of that, and are not willing to allow the progression of OpenOffice.org to be dragged into the pit of ideological discussions between ideologues who aren't really willing to compromise or listen to other parties (and those people exist on both sides of the debate)

Ke kritice bych být vámi, Mistře, přidal kýbl vlastní pozitivní iniciativy a sesmolil dílko, které by bylo obtížněji krtizovatelné. Root jistě kvalitní nové autory uvítá!

Článeček mi osobně příliš entropii nesnížil, ale i tak díky za něj, byl velmi rychlou reakcí na podstatné dění.