I've often been drawn to testing out LibreOffice (and OpenOffice), but every single time I open the apps, they always look terrible.
This isn't 1990 anymore - if the kind of UI design that the devs have gone for (have settled on?) alienates a tech-friendly user such as myself, there isn't a hope in hell of people like my parents using it regularly.
Does anyone know why the style they use has persisted for so long? Is it just a case that no one cares about this sort of thing on that project?
The UI is actually 80% of the workload of a software project
This may be true for some software projects, but I can’t see how that could be generalized to any project (even any desktop or user facing project).
Specifically for LibreOffice, the amount of work that went into that project is staggering. It’s been worked on for decades, through three different organisations (StarOffice, Sun/Oracle OpenOffice, now LibreOffice), and according to https://www.openhub.net/p/libreoffice/estimated_cost it took thousands of man-years of effort (models are lies, but I’ll believe it as an order-of-magnitude estimate). Surely not 80% of that went to the UI work.
Sadly, my experience is that the number of designers that are willing to contribute is small, even if lot of them are ready to complain about the state of free software.
The saddest part is that when they dare to contribute, they simply create a fast and dirty bitmap / screenshot... With a few arrows and comment here and there.
In the worst case they just provide a screenshot of a similar commercial software: "Do like them."
I've heard it so often. Also in this thread.
Most designers who want contribute are ready to spend half an hour to a couple of hours on the issue. Not more. Then expect the programmers to spend their evenings and weekends programming. Create the proper files. Solve the edge cases.
And they're surprised that the end result does not correspond to what they were proposing.
Very few are ready to spend days or weeks on a dialog (of course not in one shot). Study the use cases, go through the possible interactions, develop proper specifications.
I also noticed that many are loudly asking for nicer UIs, but very few can think about usability and user interaction.
But I've also met some really amazing designers!
Like the one who has learned enough C++ to create a running mockup and could convince the programmers that what he is proposing can be done!
He has been working on it during the past year!
So, dear designers, if you want to contribute to free software, you will probably be facing small teams of very busy programmers!
And, yes, creating free software is hard and dedicated work. For everyone who is involved!
If you want to be taken seriously, you'd better deliver files that are directly usable for the programmers (as an example: high quality individual files in the right format and size(s), not a big PNG/PSD).
You'd also better deliver a document explaining the concepts behind your work, so that the next designer can build upon your work.
And the programmers will know how to use your files.
And don't forget to also provide the sources for generating those files! (If possible, sources that can be further edited with free software!)
You don't have to learn programming, but there is some serious work ahead!
And there are a few designers who managed to achieve amazing results with their contributions! It's worth it!
As a counterpoint, where I have seen designers contribute to open source projects - and where I've done so in the past myself - the push back from developers saying the designers are 'dumbing things down' or 'putting style over substance' is immense. I've even heard developers say they don't want it to be too easy to use otherwise all the noobs might start using it.
Designing in the open is much harder than coding in the open as creating and implementing a consistent ui takes discipline and consensus. The design can't be just a pretty coat of paint over the top, which is what I think a lot of people assume it is.
Also, free software is about providing choice, whereas good design is often about limiting it. If free software users wanted opinionated interfaces they'd be using iOS, not Arch or whatever.
Calibre is a great example. It's an amazingly powerful bit of software, but good grief is it ugly. It'd be fantastic to take it apart and put it back together in a way that doesn't make it look like a taxidermist's sink trap.
I think there's another big part of this, and that's that working on the design is going to open you up to bikeshedding from all the non-designers whose work you're supplanting.
Can you imagine how galling it would be for the designers or marketing team to start sitting in on code reviews? What do they know? But here in this forum, lots of people are dumping on the ribbon interface (which is quite popular, works very well, etc). Who's going to volunteer for that?
> I think there's another big part of this, and that's that working on the design is going to open you up to bikeshedding from all the non-designers whose work you're supplanting.
Or maybe sometimes it isn't bikeshedding but legitimate concerns from longtime users, supporters or even creators of said software.
> Can you imagine how galling it would be for the designers or marketing team to start sitting in on code reviews? What do they know? But here in this forum, lots of people are dumping on the ribbon interface (which is quite popular, works very well, etc). Who's going to volunteer for that?
I'd readily admit to be one of those "dumping" at the ribbon interface as long as you believe me that it is a bit tongue-in-cheek since I'm very open about my colour weakness and lack of education in design. :-)
That said a number of the things that are said about the ribbon thing is IMO legitimate and well argued issues like the use of valuable vertical space and the lack of discoverability. (This is a general problem today as browser etc hide menus so you have to press alt to see them, thereby discriminating against non-power-users. Same goes for removing the context-menu-button on the keyboard completely hiding the feature: who thinks of just trying shift-F10 if they don't know what they are missing and google it?)
Edit: Remove stray sentence at end. Try even harder not to come off as arrogant
First explain what is wrong with the LO 5 design? I find the ribbon gui horrible. The fact that the buttons and menu haven't changed that much since ten years, so what? It does the job.
The only office gui better was the Lotus Suite one, where the layout options were much better with palets like in Photoshop, onces that you could move around.
You're in the minority. Context aware UI is superior to most since you only see elements when they're relevant rather than constantly. This creates a much less cluttered interface, but without actually sacrificing any power/functionality.
Plus LibreOffice 5 lacks legitimately useful things like real-time previews of font/size changes (via hover), graph previews, text style template saving (e.g. set up a custom title style, and you can quickly re-use that style later in that same document inc. size/font/color/etc), et al.
Back with Microsoft Office 2003 I'd agree that the then OpenOffice was a legitimate competitor. And Office 2007 had some legit problems that kept that true, but by Office 2010 LibreOffice was bested and 2013/2016 only worsened its position.
I cannot see why I'd use LibreOffice on Windows today. Cost perhaps?
>> I find the ribbon gui horrible.
> You're in the minority.
Not so sure about that, I personally hate it too and know of many who have trouble with it. Its main problem is discoverability of features. With menus you could walk from first to the last to find the feature you needed (even if it was grayed out, signaling that you are in a wrong context to use it), while this is very difficult to do with ribbon bar. Especially as sometimes the feature is triggered via button, sometimes it is hidden behind a dropdown arrow, via some link... In Outlook 2010 I learned to search for features on the Internet because it takes too much time to look for them in UI. Awful UI, I hate it with passion.
EDIT: MS Office vs. Libre/OpenOffice: one reason is that I can install LO/OO on OS of my choice (Linux usually). The other is that I can install whatever version I want without licensing issues and cost. Last but not least, it has a normal menu. The only downside is interoperability - if it is important for you to edit MS documents 100% like you would in MS Office, then you really have no choice.
Part of what concerns me about the UI discussion with LO is that the choices are held up as either Microsoft ribbon-style UI, or the current UI, as if because Microsoft adopted it and there wasn't a complete mutiny, it was a good idea.
Remember that Microsoft Word is entrenched in lots of places for various reasons, and it would take a major screw up before people wouldn't continue using it. I think what happened with the ribbon is that there were somethings that were better, and other things that were not, so people shrugged and went on with their lives.
This doesn't mean the ribbon was better.
Personally, for me, the ribbon is inconsistent. The context-aware part is good, but it's implemented inconsistently. So for me, I prefer the current LO UI even as I see room for improvement.
The upshot is that these discussions of LO "being so far behind the times" strike me as odd, because they come across as assuming that change is necessarily good for change's sake.
There are more serious problems with LO in my mind, such as the equation editing markup system--it's something that used to be light-years ahead of Word with, and now is lagging significantly.
I suspect a lot of times what people are picking up on when they say that LibreOffice looks antiquated is less the underlying UX choices than the actual aesthetics of the application. The last time I looked at LibreOffice (about a year ago) it had the look and feel of an Office 2003 competitor. As silly as it may sound, it can be hard to get past that perception. A (relatively) simple design refresh might do wonders.
Having said that, I don't really like LO's actual UX choices. Every time I try to use it, I get infuriated trying to do something relatively easy. (Take setting up different headers/footers on the first page of the document. I appreciate that making these "page styles" is theoretically more flexible, but just about every other word processor I use simply gives me a checkbox labeled "Different First Page.")
It's also disappointing, though unfortunately rather characteristic of OSS UI discussions, that the only options most people here are even considering seem to be the traditional (old MS Office) toolbars and the (new MS office) ribbon.
From a UI point of view, if your best idea is to do what the established, dominant, commercial/proprietary software has already had for some time, you obviously can't ever be better than your competition. You're permanently playing catch-up.
If your goal is just to provide a free-as-in-either clone of that established commercial/proprietary software, maybe that's OK.
If your goal is to produce the best software you can to help users get their office work done, to make something better in its own right and not just because of economic or philosophical priorities, then the first thing a good UI designer is going to do is step back and start asking lots of questions about the fundamentals. What work actually needs to be done? How do users want to do it? How can office software help? Are the features and UI of a traditional word processor or spreadsheet or presentation software of 20-30 years ago still useful and relevant in 2016?
Working with textual information and tables is surely still useful, and so is collecting and combining information to form some coherent overall presentation, but office work today is also often about working with information from many different sources, and examining it in different ways, and doing these things collaboratively and in real time. There are many successful online tools based on these ideas today, but a lot of them are an attractive UI on top of simple functionality like storing team to-do lists and providing real-time chat. I'm not sure how many of these systems can cope with larger projects and more demanding work yet, the kind of thing that might be written up in a word processor as a set of 100-page reports that would form the basis for a multi-year project, or managed using spreadsheets with many tables and complicated formulae to derive the information that users need in a convenient format.
Personally, I think there's a lot of potential yet for more powerful and useful and productive office software, but not within the narrow bounds of the traditional model that the likes of MS Office and LibreOffice follow. Unless you have people looking at the big picture and being creative about how to represent information and interact with it, discussions about what colour the chrome should be or whether to use a traditional toolbar or context-sensitive ribbon probably have relatively little value. There is only so much benefit to achieve with cosmetic tweaks, no matter how pretty your icons are.
I don't know who's in the minority, but he's not alone. I hate the ribbon element.
I'm all for context aware UIs, but in today's world of 16:9 monitors, a huge ribbon wasting all that precious vertical real estate is a terrible design choice. A good model to follow is Apple's iWork, where they have a single context aware toolbar with the advanced, detailed options managed in the sidebar. For quick edits, they should use a ‘floatbar’, a UI element that appears above selected text with a minimal set of the most commonly used buttons.
If there are any designers here, you can help out by subscribing to the design mailing list.
Some use LibreOffice to maintain compatibility and consistency between Mac, Windows, and Linux. I switch between all three platforms regularly, and it's nice that LO has tri-platform compatibility.
LibreOffice also makes it easy to re-encode files, when saving, into multiple formats by using MultiFormatSave extension. It's useful for saving important documents for "future proofing" purposes [1].
Oh and yes, the cost is nice too. It doesn't hurt that I also don't like the ribbon gui.
> Context aware UI is superior to most since you only see elements when they're relevant rather than constantly.
It also means both that it's impossible to see everything that is possible and that there's a hard limit on what can be possible in any context.
The former is a problem with editors like vi or emacs (there's no immediately-obvious list of all the possible actions — although once a beginner learns C-h m things being to change), but the latter is where they shine.
There's also no apparent rhyme or reason to what actions are or are not considered in-context.
> text style template saving (e.g. set up a custom title style, and you can quickly re-use that style later in that same document inc. size/font/color/etc)
You can create character and paragraph styles in LibreOffice.
Apple's Pages pre-App Store does it right. The new Pages, while decried, has improved from its first iterations and is just immensely more intuitive and efficient than Word/LO. By "intuitive and efficient" I mean to the point that I've seen people organically discover and learn to use styles properly all by themselves.
LO on Mac is just alien: that gray gradient on the toolbar is terrible, and floating modals are legion. It looks fine on Linux due to GTK theme support. I can't speak for Windows. Now that's for the looks, usability is entirely something else: managing styles and setting up headers/footers/table of contents is still ludicrously complex.
I wonder if OSS design can be fixed by holding design contests. Gather donations for small cash prizes, and have the even bigger motivator of continually hosting the designs of winners and runner-ups on the project website. Portfolio building is a big deal for a lot of designers these days.
With a handful of good design mockups, then developers have something to aim for instead of a nebulous idea of what good design is.
I wonder if OSS design can be fixed by holding design contests. [...] Portfolio building is a big deal for a lot of designers these days.
I suspect that would be extremely counter-productive. If you try to run some sort of design contest, and pitch it as being good publicity for the designers but not actually paying professional rates, then most serious designers will consider you a joke. They've heard every variation of this "spec work" argument before, they see right through it, and they will just consider you a time-waster. You should also expect to become a punchline on a lot of online design forums for a while, losing any credibility you might have had with other designers who didn't see the original contest.
The way I see it, if an OSS project wants to improve its presentation, it has the same two basic options as the programming side: either inspire people who genuinely value the project and are willing to volunteer their time and skills because they want to see it succeed, or raise funds somehow and pay professionals at professional rates.
> The UI is actually 80% of the workload of a software project
This entirely depends on the project. In my experience, the UI is extremely important to the success of a project, but tends to be 10-20% of total work.
Frankly, these sound like excuses. The big problem I see with FOSS and UI is that there's a lot of politcal pushback. You can search for terms like "ribbon" on the web, forums, etc and see people lash out and using childish terms like "M$" and such. Its clear the maintainers don't want a UI overhaul.
There's a lot of 'grumpy old men syndrome' with FOSS. Usability, progressive UI thinking, etc in coder led projects takes a backseat to the whiz-bang hard technical stuff. And that's on top of the lack of motivation to change the UI. "If it aint broke, don't fix it" is a common UI dinosaur excuse.
Thankfully, we have google docs, o365, etc. I think the big office suite, outside of business, has killed itself. It just didn't move fast enough, is bloaty and slow, and couldn't keep up with web technologies. I don't know anyone who uses Libre anymore. They've either migrated to the web or have an old version of Office they prefer using. I'm not sure if a better UI would have helped with marketshare, but I can't imagine it hurting.
I have yet to see a maintainer of an open-source project who wasn't hopelessly excited when some UI-person took to their project and tried to do things with it.
Most programmers are aware that they are terrible at GUIs. Heck, a lot of these projects are specifically built without a GUI, so that someone else can create a GUI for it.
And if a maintainer is really opposed to it, then there's always the option to create a fork and see which version people prefer.
Well, the LibreOffice 5.1 (well Writer...) "desktop" looks OK on this Mac...
Some dialogs are less stylish (Edit style), but most are just OK. They are not specially fancy but do not look ugly either.
To me, it looks like a solid, functional, tool, without most unnecessary decoration.
It won't win the prize for the prettiest UI around, but it's far for being ugly.
So, I guess that the developers are working hard to add features and compatibility filters (Microsoft, Microsoft...), and settled to a timeless design that does not need to be redone from scratch every half a year because it looks so last month...
Maybe, you should try to work with it, instead of just testing it out.
The background of the toolbar looks completely different to native applications, and the input elements try to look like native elements, but are ever so slightly different - which to me really stands out. Even the tooltip is completely different to the native look.
It's not so much the design is bad, it's just it tries to fit into the native style but does a poor job of it. I think if instead it had gone for it's own look (like Telegram or Atom) it would be a lot better.
As you say, it's good the developers are focusing on things that will really improve the product like compatibility, but to everyday users how things look and feel are just as important - if that wasn't the case all web applications would look like Redmine :P
Personally, I'm glad they haven't updated it with that "ribbon" nonsense from Microsoft Office. Office suites are kind of a solved problem -- the only reason why Microsoft Office keeps changing is to give people an excuse to upgrade. That was even true in the 1990s, when absurd bloat features like "Word Art" (no, having the word "shark" in the shape of a shark is not useful) were beginning to be added
Totally agree! I find the ribbon gui a total mess. I'm glad I can use LibreOffice, and since version 5 the layout is quite allright. I don't know what should be better. It is exactly like I expect it, buttons are where I want them, menus like we're used to. Why change that?
I'm not a Microsoft fan per se (just forced to use it at work) but what is the issue with the Ribbon? I have seen it complained about (mostly upon release) but not any particularly good reason. Would you care to elucidate me?
Initially I was against it too but have found it to be good for compartmentalising work over time.
I think the biggest problem was that it broke a stablished UI for no apparent reason, but that was 10 years ago. And people still hold a grudge to it, maybe?
Still, I've seen more than a few workplaces that still use pre-ribbon era Office [0], and haven't upgraded because the employees hate the ribbon...
[0] ...on Windows XP, with 12+ year old hardware... the horror!
> I think the biggest problem was that it broke a stablished UI for no apparent reason
The reason was that the existing interface was so overloaded that the Office team was regularly getting feature requests for things that that already existed in the apps for years.
That problem wasn't apparent to the users, and that's probably why people disliked it.
In a personal note, with the ribbon interface more than once I've had to google where a certain functionality ended up, which I could easily find in the old UI.
I hate the ribbon. I can never remember on which tab has the button I want. I just click round the tabs in circles trying to find the appropriate button. The ordering of the buttons on the ribbon seems random too.
Why can't Microsoft implement an optional menu bar? It's ridiculous.
The ribbon is just a non-standard interface that almost no other programs use -- even on Windows, and certainly not on other platforms. It's unneeded. And the thing is, if people did copy it, Microsoft would probably just change it anyway. That's really Microsoft's strategy -- to keep people chasing after it. But why bother? They don't really control the industry any more.
What OS are you on? LibreOffice doesn't have gradients for me. That is on Linux, but with Breeze Dark system style. (Linux doesn't have a default-style, in case you're not aware.)
Ah, that was probably a little while ago, too, then, i.e. still on KDE Plasma 4 instead of Plasma 5. Someone else posted a screenshot of LibreOffice under Plasma 5 (with the non-dark Breeze-style): http://imgur.com/a/H6r0n
I am always fascinated when people complain about OS software and asking that "they" should do better. Who are "they" and why "they" should do something for you? Most often it is individual contributors doing changes and they do it the way they like it (and surprise - there are a lot of open source devs out there who just prefer conservative look.)
So... as old as it is, but still - if you want some change to happen - you have to participate. Or just pay for some other product that already fits your requirements.
I don't want to get drawn into this type of argument - suffice to say that hand-waving me (or anyone) away with a "well why don't you commit code to fix it|make it better?" doesn't make what I'm saying any less valid.
That sort of argument is pointless, and does absolutely nothing for further the discussion.
I have great respect for the creators and contributors to LibreOffice, but in my opinion, the UI is outdated. I even said at the very start of my comment, that this was an opinion. My opinion. One man's opinion.
sorry, but your comment (this one and original one) sounds as a very entitled one, yet it looks like nothing was contributed by you. also, it totally ignores the facts (ones i outlined in my response.)
i understand that it is your opinion - it is always someone's. but you had some intention with publishing it (otherwise you would just talk it to yourself and move on.) and that intention either bashing work of LO team, or steer that work in some direction which would benefit you, who has not invested anything significant into LO, or... idk. (and no - using it to open docs instead of paying for MS Office is not "investment".) Either way it is not cool.
So please, either start project to refactor UI (ideally it should be pluggable, so people who prefer old UI still could get it, forks of project that size are bad in general,) or stop bashing/manipulating project's destiny, and just buy MS Office or some other paid office product which fits your bill.
Look at the embedded video that's linked on the article - see the integrated totp interface for Google auth?
An interface that ships that kind of 'it works, it'll do* UI comes across as half-baked to me.
I'm confused as to what is wrong with the totp interface in the video[0]. You print to file. You select a Google drive with your username and PW. If two factor is required, you get a pop-up to enter your two factor code. What is wrong with that?
I'm not a fan of the modal dialog (Authentication Code) on top of a modal dialog (File Services) on top of a modal dialog (Remote Files) on top of the application window.
It makes it feel that, rather than being intentionally designed, all of these features were tacked on.
I see the aesthetic concern. Although I am not really sure how that should be done. Regarding the totp specifically, if it is a situation that only happens with say 10% of the users of the google drive should it be included in the general dialog box and left blank if not used? Is there an established design for adding typically unused options? Error and highlight if you needed totp? I'm not sure if that is better.
This seems to be a fundamental design concern. I would love to see "good" examples of how to handle this.
This isn't 1990 anymore - if the kind of UI design that the devs have gone for (have settled on?) alienates a tech-friendly user such as myself, there isn't a hope in hell of people like my parents using it regularly.
I bet Microsoft Office and LibreOffice look virtually identical to most lay-people. They probably will look more alike to you than you remember, if you take the time to look honestly. Neither Office's ribbon or the LibreOffice toolbar is really so different from the toolbars of the 1980s. This is much ado about not much.
If these matters of fashion are really so important in terms of distinguishing one piece of software from another, where does that leave the software development crowd? Did we really want to be fashion designers? Is this the way to change the world with software? Through fashionable icons and good font choices?
There's a tremendous amount of talk in this thread about how LibreOffice looks and how Microsoft Office looks, but precious little about how well they work. What does that say about us?
There's been an absolute rat's nest of buttons and other controls at the top of the document for 26 years. The graphic design of the 2013 version is currently more fashionable than the graphic design of the 1990 version, but the 1990 version indisputably has less stuff on it. When someone calls the older fashion "cluttered" I think they've merely learned to habitually overlook the greater clutter of the newer interface.]
> Is it just a case that no one cares about this sort of thing on that project?
I don't personally care. For me, the use case of LibreOffice is to view and sometimes edit Microsoft Office files sent by others, or to be sent to others. The UI is good enough for that (not quite as good as Word 5.1 for Macintosh, but good enough), and so I'm happy enough.
For any actual document that I care about, I'm going to use emacs, and the format I'll be working with will be LaTeX, org-mode, Markdown, HTML, plain text &c. &c. &c.
For any actual data manipulation that I care about, I'm going to use emacs and Common Lisp, Python, shell, awk, Perl, R &c. &c. &c.
It's entirely possible that if I wanted to live in an office suite that LibreOffice wouldn't be good enough, but — I don't want to live in an office suite. I think that they are a fundamentally flawed way of working with information, and am privileged to be able to choose not to use them for much of my work.
I think the point danielhunt is making—and it's a good one—is that people don't want to use software that isn't pretty. Sure it's functional, of course. Vim is functional. But OSS software like LibreOffice consistently have that... sad soviet-like "hey it's functional enough" feel to them.
For icons, I set it to use Breeze as the icon set. Simply as icons look consistent.
For menus, I get that some people like menus, but anyone used to a ribbon interface finds menus hard. Hard to convert people. Expectations of a ribbon interface are now standard, a la WPS Office. At least provide a switch. I can get used to new things, like going back to menus, but then I grew up on menus and 65535 rows.
On WPS Office, why does it have much better compatibility with MS Office than Libre/Open Office. One type of document in particular - documents with embedded documents. Libre Office invariable hangs on .pptx or .docx or .xlsx with these, but opens the same document simply re-saved in WPS Office in .ppt or .doc or .xls format seamlessly. This seems odd. What secret sauce do WPS have?
I use LibreOffice daily. But can't solely use it. Love the pop-out side-bar. Cannot switch until PowerPivot is equivalent.
That's a really good question about compatibility. Microsoft released their OOXML code some time ago and have been updating it regularly since. It even supports build with mono. Doing a quality port of that should (theoretically) be relatively straightforward, and they have a great reference implementation to test against.
No sources on this nor am I a developer on any of this, so take with the appropriate truck-load of salt.
But, from what I remember from when the OOXML debacle was news, is that the OOXML that Microsoft published in the spec is not the OOXML they use for their format. For obvious, (old?) Microsoft interoperability hindrance reasons.
OOXML doesn't exist. There is only the different formats put out by the four versions of MS Office that claim to do a format of that name. None of which are quite the version in any of the specs. You are in a twisty maze of OOXML variants, all somewhat bug-compatible.
(Oh, and they broke DOC in the process too. You know what happens when you save a DOC from a later version of MS Office? OOXML embedded in the DOC. And older MS Office and other programs that read DOC may have problems with it. http://vmiklos.hu/blog/doctok.html#comment-1282339963 )
I feel like Microsoft Office's UI peaked in Office 2004, before the ribbon, and LibreOffice's UI is almost identical to it, except I get lost less in LibreOffice looking for formatting options.
New release has "view -> toolbars -> single mode" (you need to untoggle the other two), so that you get 1 toolbar instead of two now. It looks pretty ok now. Silver background surprises me a bit (could do more macOS-style), but overall looks not that bad IMHO https://i.imgur.com/5v4QRqC.png
Because it just works, year after year. I moved to Linux solely because I was tired of dealing with new interfaces every other year and lack of file version compatibility every new release.
Maybe the solution for LO is not adding a new interface but in removing things from it. Atom is a powerful text editor with lots of features and people don't seem to complain about the ultra-minimalist interface.
I can whole heartedly agree. I really gave OpenOffice a fair chance, but Office is just so much nicer to look at. The untidy interface only adds to the intimidation of the blank page. Sure, the ribbon obfuscates the location of functions - but that's far better than toolbar clutter (of which more was added in this patch).
It looks exactly like google docs and things like that to me. What is the problem? Note that I don't use GUI applications much myself so I may be thoroughly out of the loop.
Troll question, but also really curious: Does the import from MS Office works already? (At least as good as in OSX's Pages). That was the single reason why I couldn't use LibreOffice so far... it just couldn't open files I've got from the "external world", like Microsoft Word, as soon as the document was a slightly more complex.
I became a contributor by accident: I thought it would be interesting to see, if bug reports other than mine also got "silently" fixed.
The bar for joining QA is really low. If a person can use their computer as a working tool and control their emotions most of the time when typing comments on the Internet, they can contribute. I am trying to boost the awareness of FOSS QA in general.
Most of us have work to do. When we receive a document -- which may contain confidential, trade-secret, or even classified information -- that doesn't work in LO, we don't have the time to stop what we're doing, discern what in the document is giving us the problem, and craft a test document that replicates the provlem well enough to fix the bug. Our software needs to support us 100% in our work, which means 100% compatibility with established formats, or it's not going on our computer. Those are the only two choices.
The Ribbon is Microsoft-patented tech. Adopting it in LO would be infringing.
Yes, all this means Microsoft Office is the only viable solution. Cowboy up and purchase the fucking software.
This would be an argument if MS Office were compatible to this degree with its own previous versions, which it just isn't.
There's no excuse for literally not even naming the versions of the software in question, let alone describing the actual problem, if one is going to take time out of one's furiously demanding work day to post a troll comment.
The article said, it improved support. Additionally there is some serious corporate bullshit speak in there, so we can hope they will win more big organizations over to strengthen open standards.
Try it out. I forget which release it was specifically (it was over a year ago), but one day I updated and things looked better aligned in Word documents in Libreoffice.
* What few AOO developers there were ... keep showing up at LO. Because it turns out that's where the paying work is.
Apache insists on holding onto the name, for no useful reason and to the active detriment of the end users who think they're getting a maintained product, rather than a 2010 codebase with a horrible security record (and an open vulnerability in the current download, with no fix date). But it appears nobody at Apache is interested in that.
On the bright side, competition may be helpful for open source projects. Example: postfix and exim. Other example - squid: no competitors, slow development and ugly bugs.
Which then begs the question, why does Apache even bother? Can't they just re-gift the trademarks, etc over to TDF? Or at the very least be upfront and honest that OpenOffice is now abandon-ware?
Honest question: is LibreOffice still relevant? In the days of Google Drive and MS Office being available on pretty much any OS and device, do we still need an old school desktop office suite?
Depends on how passionate people are about keeping their information out of the hands of Google & Microsoft. I would say that, for anyone using linux as their daily driver, LibreOffice is still very relevant.
I'm on a personal mission to get my stuff off Google which is why I use LibreOffice on my home computer, but for work, there are some documents I could get in trouble for uploading to the cloud. I've used nothing but LibreOffice for over a year and haven't had to fall back on Office even once. To be fair, I don't usually author spreadsheets or docs for other people to see, so I can only attest to how well it opens files.
Speaking as someone who uses Google Docs at work, I am delighted that LO 5.2 works seamlessly with Google Drive and two-factor authentication.
Because Google Docs' word processor and spreadsheet are absolutely terrible for anything beyond the basics, and unlike GDocs, LO can decode OOXML with pretty good fidelity. Everyone goes on about LO and OOXML - you'll see a standard troll comment elsewhere on this HN post - but nobody ever mentions what a hash GDocs makes of even quite basic OOXML. I keep having to open email attachments with LO instead.
> In the days of Google Drive and MS Office being available on pretty much any OS and device, do we still need an old school desktop office suite?
Neither Google Docs nor Microsoft Office's web offering are terribly powerful. Neither respects its users' privacy. Using neither is particularly wise should one wish to compete with either company, nor if one is doing anything which any country those two companies operate in might object to.
So yeah, a local office suite is necessary if one wants to do office-suite-style computing.
I'd argue that style of computing is inappropriate, but others are free to disagree and do what they wish.
I am honestly not familiar with the ToS for either of these services, but I can't imagine a situation where Google would steal trade secrets from a competitor via Google Drive and not get into a carapton of trouble for it. Has this actually happened? Also, have there been cases of Google or MS snooping into users' documents? I honestly don't know.
As far as being available on any OS, MS office has a browser based version of their office suite, as well as native apps for Windows, MacOS, iOS, and Android. I believe that covers a "pretty much any OS" description.
Of course if you want to stay offline, there is no question. And I guess LibreOffice is still very relevant for the places where ubiquitous Internet access hasn't happened yet. But I would argue that the average consumer in the developed world has already overwhelmingly voted for the cloud, and outside of some communities such as HN, the question of "does Google read my docs/email/etc.?" has been completely dropped.
> I can't imagine a situation where Google would steal trade secrets from a competitor via Google Drive and not get into a carapton of trouble for it. Has this actually happened?
I don't believe it has happened, but that it can — and because it can, eventually it will.
> As far as being available on any OS, MS office has a browser based version of their office suite, as well as native apps for Windows, MacOS, iOS, and Android.
It's a convenient browser-based augmentation of an Office installation, but no more than that; there are far too many features missing. It can't even completely edit a Word document; for some things you have to open the document in Word itself to edit certain parts!
> I believe that covers a "pretty much any OS" description.
There's Linux …
> the question of "does Google read my docs/email/etc.?" has been completely dropped.
The question has been dropped, but reality remains the same. That folks don't discuss the elephant in the room doesn't make it disappear.
> I don't believe it has happened, but that it can — and because it can, eventually it will.
Can't it also happen because you view a document on your Android device? I mean, ultimately either Google discloses in their ToS that they will snoop on people's docs, or they don't disclose it and do it anyways. The former is pretty clear-cut: if Google says so publicly, we can collectively ditch it. The latter... well I guess you'll never know until someone catches them and sues their pants off.
> It's a convenient browser-based augmentation of an Office installation, but no more than that; there are far too many features missing. It can't even completely edit a Word document; for some things you have to open the document in Word itself to edit certain parts!
I have no first hand experience with it, which is why I asked the question. Yes, if it's not a compete implementation of Office, then it's not super useful for existing documents. Then again, if you mostly use Web-based MS Office, then isn't the desktop version a complete superset of the features of it?
My experience is limited to Google Drive office stuff as well as some Apple office web stuff. Both have served me so well over the years that I haven't opened LibreOffice or MS Office since roughly 2007.
> There's Linux …
I was saying that the web version covers Linux, but see previous paragraphs about how I can see that it might not be complete.
> The question has been dropped, but reality remains the same. That folks don't discuss the elephant in the room doesn't make it disappear.
I personally think that it's a big concern. Privacy is being swept under the rug in favor of usability. My point is that the question of whether people will want to use cloud services or not has been answered. The next question is possibly "how do we use/provide cloud based services while respecting users' privacy?"
> Can't it also happen because you view a document on your Android device?
There's a difference between a breach which would need to happen on your phone (where you may be able to detect it) and a breach which can happen remotely, in such a manner that you are never aware.
A sufficiently-paranoid organisation could store a binary of every system update its devices receive, and in case of a suspected breach examine them forensically; nothing they can do remotely can determine if someone silently copied data.
> The latter... well I guess you'll never know until someone catches them and sues their pants off.
So demand a system in which not knowing is impossible!
> The next question is possibly "how do we use/provide cloud based services while respecting users' privacy?"
My answer is that plaintext must only be visible on the customers' devices: providers should only be able to see chunks of data moving around, not the content of those chunks. They would make their money by providing price, reliability and services like 'send this chunk of data to that person.'
I agree with all that you are saying. I try to make sure that stuff I care about that goes online is encrypted before leaving my device and only I own the key. Still, I don't think I have quite the same reservations about putting some less sensitive content online.
There are plenty of times that you're not attached to the network, or people who don't wish to be attached to a network in order to edit a document, or don't want Google owning their work, or even having access to it.
MS Office is not available on the OS I use (not sure what 'pretty much any' means here), and even if it were I would not feel comfortable stumping up cash for it, or, more to the point, running it on my machines.
Why the pejorative 'old school' appellation? It's younger than Microsoft Office.
A little off topic but I've been in the market for a libre standalone desktop calendar with an API similar to what Google Calendar has. I've been surprised to see that no other Office-like suite of products (including MS Office) has added calendars to their stack. Is there just no demand for such a thing?
I know, and it's not like it's just a simple date picker, so I'm sort of surprised they don't break it out into a standalone app to compete with Google Calendar. I wouldn't use MS's calendar either but if they made one I think LO would follow suit and then I'd get my libre calendar :)
Because TDF highly targets one market, MSO isn't that interested about at anymore: government agencies.
In the time a lot of European governments become more open (open data, mandating the use of true open standards etc.), TDF has correctly recognised this as their competitive edge. Also, because they very often are willing to (at least partially) finance that work.
You can select the modules you want when installing. Just deselect then in the NSIS installer or don't run the package files (in Linux). It's that easy.
LibreOffice Online does not use Broadway. The server side uses LibreOfficeKit and the client side tile rendering is based on http://leafletjs.com/ (heavily modified).
Check out http://open365.io, which is sort of like ownCloud/nextCloud but also has a web-based LibreOffice interface. It's still in beta and the entire thing is rough though. I haven't had much time to play around with it.
I still dont get how a solid fact of reality stated is down voted. This should be a point of discussion.
Open Source mainly works by maintenance and "gardening" - aka cutting away unwanted growth. Instead of finding a UI-Approach that is compatible with this development form, just ignore it and go on with business as usual?
I've often been drawn to testing out LibreOffice (and OpenOffice), but every single time I open the apps, they always look terrible.
This isn't 1990 anymore - if the kind of UI design that the devs have gone for (have settled on?) alienates a tech-friendly user such as myself, there isn't a hope in hell of people like my parents using it regularly.
Does anyone know why the style they use has persisted for so long? Is it just a case that no one cares about this sort of thing on that project?