FLOSS at The Office Adventure: Mathias Bauer Project Lead Sun Microsystems Inc

FLOSS at the office The OpenOffice.
org adventure
Mathias Bauer Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer Sun Microsystems Inc.
OpenOffice.org: some numbers

Distribution
> > > > > > > >
Downloads >130Mio in total from main site More than 1Mio downloads from main site per week Several millions distributed on CD Included in all important Linux distributions ~850 registered developers Main contributor Sun Microsystems Inc. Others: Novell, RedFlag2000, IBM, Red Hat etc. More developers in smaller groups or individuals
Developers
Localization
> ~100 localization projects
3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008
What is Open Source?

Source
static void vdev_raidz_reconstruct_q(rai dz_map_t *rm, int x) uint64_t *dst, *src, xcount, ccount, count, mask, i; uint8_t *b; int c, j, exp; xcount = rm>rm_col[x].rc_size / sizeof (src[0]); ASSERT(xcount <= rm>rm_col[VDEV_RAIDZ_Q].rc_siz e / sizeof (src
Binary
011011010010000001100010011011110111010 101111001011000010110111001110100001011 100000110100001010000011010000101001010 100011010000110010100100000011011010110 100101101110011001000010000001100010011 011110110011101100111011011000110010101 110011001110110010000001110111011010000 110111100100111011100110010000001100010 011001010110100001101001011011100110010 000100000011101000110100001100101001000 000110011101101111011001110110011101101 100011001010111001100111111010000110110 110001100001011010010111001001110110011 011110111100101100001011011100111010000 111010001000000100100100100111011011010 010000001100010011011110111010101111001 011000010110111001110100001011100000110 110011001110110010000001110111011010000 110111100100111011100110010000001100010
OSI Definition
1. Free Redistribution of Code 2. Source Code Available 3. Allows Derived Works 4. Allows Integrity of Author's Source Code 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor 7. Distribution of License with Code 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
Shared source code Publically available For the use and benefit of all without favour
What is Free Software?

Free Software Definition

i. The freedom to use a program for any purpose ii. The freedom to study how a program works iii. The freedom to modify a program iv. The freedom to redistribute a program
Free as in free speech, not as in free lunch An ethical dimension to software development In practise, similar to Open Source The two are often conflated, FOSS, FLOSS, Free and Open Source...
Three fundamental aspects of FLOSS

Open
> > > >
Access to the code Power to change it - scratch your own itch Unrestricted distribution of code and binaries Non-discriminatory
Free
> Social movement: sharing, communities > No restrictions shall be put on users
No licence costs Free the user's data
Software Market 3.0

Acquisition
ca.1970-1980
Deployment
1.0 Indivisible from hardware

ca.1980-2000
2.0 Sold unbundled

ca.2000-
3.0 Pay at the point of value

Bottom-Up Deployment
People deploy what's accessible to them
Desktop
Datacenter
The Importance of Binary

Platform Developers Application Developers
(Open Source)
Platform
Applications
Distribution
OpenOffice.org GNU/Linux
Application Binaries
1.1
StarOffice Ubuntu
1.2
1.2.1
Binary Distribution
Commercial and Open Source

Dual Licensing
Commercial Distribution
Controlled by Sun Contributor Agreement
Open Source Distribution

Governed by License
(e.g., GPL, CDDL, LGPL)
Community Contributions
Controlled by Governance Affected by License Gated by Committers
Solaris 10 StarOffice Java SE
TM
OpenSolaris OpenOffice OpenJDK

TM
TM
TM
opensolaris.org openoffice.org openjdk.java.net

TM
Where can we find FLOSS in offices?
Bug #1 (liberation)
Microsoft has a majority market share in the new desktop PC marketplace. This is a bug, which Ubuntu is designed to fix. Non-free software is holding back innovation in the IT industry, restricting access to IT to a small part of the world's population and limiting the ability of software developers to reach their full potential, globally. This bug is widely evident in the PC industry. Steps to repeat: > 1. Visit a local PC store. What happens: > 2. Observe that a majority of PCs for sale have non-free software pre-installed. > 3. Observe very few PCs with Ubuntu and free software pre-installed. What should happen:
> > >
1. A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software like Ubuntu. 2. Ubuntu should be marketed in a way such that its amazing features and benefits would be apparent and known by all. 3. The system shall become more and more user friendly as time passes.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/openoffice/+bug/1
Obstacles to FLOSS adoption at the office
Myths
Nobody controls the development and everybody can change the code, making it unstable and insecure. OS is something for hackers and usability is poor.
http://funambol.com/april1st.php
How we fight the myths

Create clear and reliable road maps
> Four feature releases per year > New features in every second release > New features must have a defined, verifiable status
Take usability seriously

> Good balance between innovation and common practice > Innovation on solid ground
Convenience, concerns and FUD

A change is scary It's a risk as you can't calculate everything beforehand. Go with the market leader! 1980: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." V2.0: Nobody will get fired for buying Microsoft. The pain must be big enough to overcome the fear.
Argueing against FUD
The human factor

Look for reference migrations, build trust Do it smoothly Involve the affected people and use their knowledge Educate users Find change agents that drive the migration Use feedback Listen to problems and find the root cause
Training costs
A change can create retraining costs
> > > >
New user interface, new workflows Hard to quantify Expert reports proof what the payer asked for Real life data needed (another hen and egg problem)
Is it a bug or a feature?
A surprisingly large number of people can't tell the difference between the concepts 'different' and 'defective.' They will automatically label anything that doesn't look exactly like Microsoft as 'defective.' Of course, this never applies to changes that Microsoft makes.
Carl Hilton Jones

Accessibility (A11y)
Section 508 requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology, Federal employees with disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use by Federal employees whoare not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency.
section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
AT Support for OpenOffice.org

MSAA on Windows is incomplete
> Full A11y support on Windows needs additional APIs > Special solutions by AT vendors using MS Office API
A11y support for OOo

> Very good on Gnome (ORCA et al.) > But only a few AT vendors support Gnome > OOo A11y support on Mac OSX in 3.0
A glimpse of hope: IAccessible2

> Created by IBM, extends MSAA, builds upon OOo's API > Implemented for OOo on Windows by IBM
Existing infrastructure
Software administration
> Tight integration of MS Office into Windows > Platform independence conflicts with system integration
Server integration
> Exchange > Sharepoint
3rd party tools

> Direct integration with MS Office > Based on MS file formats
Interoperability
ca. 22% of all open defects in Writer are interop problems Problems importing or exporting MS Office formats
> Word: .doc, .rtf, .docx > Excel: .xls, .xlsx > Powerpoint: .ppt, .pptx
VBA Macros
> Syntax differences between VB and OOo Basic > Incompatible APIs and concepts
Document conversion
The filter developer's nightmare
Gather round children and hear of a tale that will raise the hairs on the back of your neck this dark halloween night.
Caolan MacNamara
comment in the Word import filter source code explaining Word's file format for polygon wrapping of graphics
OASIS ODF TC Charter
Reuse of Established Standards

Dublin Core SVG MathML XForms XSL:FO XLink SMIL RDF/XML (ODF 1.2) OWL (ODF 1.2)
ODF Enables New Concepts

Online / Browser (Google Docs & Spreadsheets)
Offline / PC (OpenOffice.org)
Freedom of documents
You should have the right to own your own information. It's your intellectual capital and you worked hard to produce it for your citizens. Sun doesn't own it, Microsoft doesn't own it, you own it, and that means it should be living in a nice, long-lived, non-proprietary data format that isn't anyone's competitive weapon.
Tim Bray Sun Microsystems
Perspectives
Modern information technology has turned the world into a village with amazing speed. It links people and builds bridges in a way which even quite recently we would have believed impossible. An open, unhindered exchange of information in all areas of life is of fundamental importance for today's knowledge-based society. It is an important foundation for our shared objective: a peaceful, democratic, pluralistic society. The Open Document Format, as a completely open and ISO-standardized format, is an excellent vehicle for the free exchange of knowledge and information in the globalized age. Frank-Walter Steinmeier Federal Foreign Minister, Germany
Gartner says ...

By 2010, ODF document exchange will be required by 50 percent of government and 20 percent of commercial organizations (0.7 probability).
http://www.gartner.com/resources/140100/140101/iso_approval_of_oasis_opendo_140101.pdf
ODF in the Public Sector

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, USA (ETRM) Belgium (Fedict) Spain / Extremadura Netherlands South Africa (MIOS) Russia Denmark France (RGI) Germany Malaysia (MAMPU) Brasil (e-Ping) ... and counting!
Adoption of OpenOffice.org
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Market_Share_Analysis
Perspectives: The majority of people has not chosen an office suite, yet!
It took more than a quarter of a century to reach the first billion users, but with advancing technology, lower prices, and global demand for a technology-aware population, it will take only seven years to reach the next billion.
Forrester
June 2007
Microsoft annouces ODF support
I love the way Microsoft follows standards. In much the same manner that fish follow migrating caribou.
Paul Tomblin
ODF Programming with ODFDOM

What is ODFDOM?
> Lightweight toolkit (compared to full featured office application) > Allows creating & processing of ODF documents
ODFDOM Features
> Adding / removing file streams from the ODF package (ZIP) > Processing ODF documents on ODF XML element level > ODF elements are represented by Java classes with XML attributes as
attributes, > Generated from the ODF RelaxNG Schema (typed W3C XML DOM, similar to HTML DOM part of Apache Xerces parser) > Common high-level convenience functionality (e.g. add table, add table row, etc.) > Extensibility for customized ODF behavior and embedded user XML
ODFDOM Layer Model

CUSTOMIZED ODF DOCUMENT / EXTENDABLE LAYER (optional layer not part of ODFDOM) ODF DOCUMENT / CONVENIENT FUNCTIONALITY LAYER (frequently used office functionality not standardized) ODF TYPED DOM / XML LAYER (XML structure standardized by OASIS/ISO) ODF PACKAGE / PHYSICAL LAYER (file stream structure standardized by OASIS/ISO)
OOo adoption in the public sector

Brazil, Argentina Freedom for applications, freedom for the whole Ecosystem
Thank you very much for your attention!

Mathias Bauer Mathias.Bauer@sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Perspectives
Success in open source requires you to serve: 1. Those who spend time to save money 2. Those who spend money to save time.
Marten Mickos
CEO, MySQL May 2007
Sun's Contribution to Linux

Ra n k Co m p a n y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sun Microsystems Inc IB M Co rp Re d H a t Co rp S ilic o n G r a p h ic s C o r p SAP AG M y SQ L AB
Es t im a ted $ v a lu e
404 m 116 m 76 m 61 m 60 m 45 m
Estimated Substitution Cost of Suns contribution to Debian GNU/Linux

includes code in
GNOME Linux kernel Mozilla OpenOffice.org X.org and other projects

Commission Economic impact of FLOSS on innovation and competitiveness of the EU ICT sector January 2007
N e t s c a p e C o m m u n i c a t i o n s m o rSource: UNU-MERIT report for the European 41 C p X im ia n I n c R e a lN e t w o r k s I n c AT& T 39 m 35 m 34 m

Community Perspectives
I think Sun...has contributed more than any other company to the free software community in the form of software. It shows leadership. Its an example I hope others will follow.
Free Software Foundation
Richard Stallman
OpenOffice.org
M or e t h an 1 1 0 m illio n d o w n lo a d s 8 0 0 t h o u sa n d d o w n lo a d s ev ery w eek M o r e t h a n 9 0 0 si g n e d Jo i n t C o n t r i b u t o r Ag reem en ts O v er 1 0 0 act iv e p r oject s O p e n D o c u m e n t Fo r m a t (O D F) I S O / I E C s t a n d a r d 2 6 3 0 0 :2 0 0 6
Home of the leading multi-platform open source office suite

ODF: The big change

Application Application Application Application
Information
Information
Old Style
New Style
Virtuous Cycle Model of Open Source

Initial Contribution > Requires ownership > Many possible motivations
Code
Use of Source > Controlled by License > Open to all > OSI Compatible
Source Code Commons
Derived Work > Controlled by Business Model > Affected by License > Affected by Governance Developer
Communities
Contribution > Controlled by Governance > Affected by License > Gated by Committers > Fuelled by Self-Interest
Software Works
Derived Work > Controlled by Business Model > Affected by License > Affected by Governance
FLOSS at the office The OpenOffice.org adventure

Mathias Bauer Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer Sun Microsystems Inc.
Page 1
First let me thank you for having me here. It's a great pleasure for me to tell you something about working on Office software in the world of FLOSS. The topic FLOSS at the office brings together two terms that didn't go together well for quite some time: Open Source and office. Currently we see them getting together much closer. I see several reasons for this movement and I will present them to you.
OpenOffice.org: some numbers

Distribution
> > > > > > > >
Downloads >130Mio in total from main site More than 1Mio downloads from main site per week Several millions distributed on CD Included in all important Linux distributions ~850 registered developers Main contributor Sun Microsystems Inc. Others: Novell, RedFlag2000, IBM, Red Hat etc. More developers in smaller groups or individuals
Developers
Localization
> ~100 localization projects
Page 2
Not surprisingly OOo is a very importamt factor tor the successf FLOSS in the office. Without an office productivity suite only a few offices could use a desktop with a Free operating system. It seems that OOo was the missing piece in the OS software portfolio on the desktop. Though still the majority of OOo users is using Windows, OOo has given Linux a considerable boost. OOo uses the LGPL and since our 3.0 Beta it's LGPLv3. Now let's talk about a little bit about the words Free and Open. Both words are part of the term FLOSS. In the understanding of most people they belong together but they express two different aspects.
What is Open Source?

Source
static void vdev_raidz_reconstruct_q(rai dz_map_t *rm, int x) uint64_t *dst, *src, xcount, ccount, count, mask, i; uint8_t *b; int c, j, exp; xcount = rm>rm_col[x].rc_size / sizeof (src[0]); ASSERT(xcount <= rm>rm_col[VDEV_RAIDZ_Q].rc_siz e / sizeof (src
Binary
011011010010000001100010011011110111010 101111001011000010110111001110100001011 100000110100001010000011010000101001010 100011010000110010100100000011011010110 100101101110011001000010000001100010011 011110110011101100111011011000110010101 110011001110110010000001110111011010000 110111100100111011100110010000001100010 011001010110100001101001011011100110010 000100000011101000110100001100101001000 000110011101101111011001110110011101101 100011001010111001100111111010000110110 110001100001011010010111001001110110011 011110111100101100001011011100111010000 111010001000000100100100100111011011010 010000001100010011011110111010101111001 011000010110111001110100001011100000110 110011001110110010000001110111011010000 110111100100111011100110010000001100010
OSI Definition
1. Free Redistribution of Code 2. Source Code Available 3. Allows Derived Works 4. Allows Integrity of Author's Source Code 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor 7. Distribution of License with Code 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
Shared source code Publically available For the use and benefit of all without favour
Page 3
In its most simple conception, open source is about sharing the code in which software is written, rather than the binary format, once it has been compiled to run on a machine.
In the passing software market, code was treated like a trade secret, like the recipe for Coca-Cola. Within the open source model, the code, i.e. the workings of the software, is available to all. Some code is simply placed in the public domain, like the workings of language and mathematics. Other code is distributed under license from the owner.
There is a widely-accepted body that defines what is and is not open source: the Open Source Initiative (OSI), defines open source against these 10 criteria and approves (or fails) licenses accordingly. Sun recognizes the OSI as the arbiter of what is and is not open source. The OSI focus is the source code and what you can do with it.
What is Free Software?

Free Software Definition

i. The freedom to use a program for any purpose ii. The freedom to study how a program works iii. The freedom to modify a program iv. The freedom to redistribute a program
Free as in free speech, not as in free lunch An ethical dimension to software development In practise, similar to Open Source The two are often conflated, FOSS, FLOSS, Free and Open Source...
Page 4
The term Free Software is frequently coined but often misunderstood as no cost software, but this is only a side effect, not the primary aspect. The Free Software movement came before the open source movement, and has a strong ethical dimention. The people from the Free Software Foundation emphasize the social aspects, the community building and sharing of ideas and work. While in the short term, the principle of freedom as it relates to consumer electronics may seem esoteric, but in the long term, as digital devices become more commonplace in evey day life, the sense that people are able to control the software they interact with on a daily basis does esonate with many people.
While it is not necessary for Sun to take a moral stance on Free / non-Free software, a demonstration of understanding the concern of Free Software, and of a form of enlightened self-interest which enables us to work with the Free Software community, is very helpful.
In practise, the Free Software and Open Source communities overlap to a large extent. Free software is a concern of the open source community, and Sun is a coprorate patron of the Free Software Foundation.
Three fundamental aspects of FLOSS

Open
> > > >
Access to the code Power to change it - scratch your own itch Unrestricted distribution of code and binaries Non-discriminatory
Free
> Social movement: sharing, communities > No restrictions shall be put on users
No licence costs Free the user's data
Page 5 OS software usually can be used free of charge but that is not an inevitable consequence.
So we have three fundamental aspects here. The first two have a lot in common. Perhaps you won't be surprised to hear that in the world of business and budgets the third aspect usually is much more important, at least at the beginning. This is something that I can deduce from meanwhile 8 years of working on OS office software. But we have put another aspect to it freedom for the user's data and this has changed a lot as we will see later. It has made people think about the freedom aspect of FLOSS. Let's see how OS software fits into today's software market.
Software Market 3.0

Acquisition
ca.1970-1980
Deployment
1.0 Indivisible from hardware

ca.1980-2000
2.0 Sold unbundled

ca.2000-
3.0 Pay at the point of value

Page 6
Software Market 1.0: Software with the system Pay for software with mainframe This was the model of the IBM mainframe etc. Software Market 2.0: Select system & software separately Pay for software at time of acquisition This is the rise of the ISV, even if the software came preinstalled. Software Market 3.0: Select software & features & assemble as needed Pay for software at time of value (if & when needed) This can be software as a service or free (as in free beer) software with paid service. The point is that you don't need to invest money to select and install the software you do it when you actually use it. This easy accessibility aspect of FLOSS is important. And it becomes even more important if you want to assemble a larger system e.g. an office with infrastructure in the backend.
Bottom-Up Deployment
People deploy what's accessible to them
Desktop
Datacenter
Page 7
These things all add Value are Easy to Acquire are familiar to the User Free access to technology reduces need for formal decision processes No one needed to be told to use Google In the datacentre, you didn't need permission to develop and deploy LAMP LAMP carries a preference: No Cost Open Source Familiar as a development platform Development environment predicts deployment environment. The easy accessibility enables IT deciders to try before use and to make prototypes without a major prior investment. Depending of the size of the deployment they might want to get more than the bits at the end. This is where software vendors working on the FLOSS products step in.
The Importance of Binary

Platform Developers Application Developers
(Open Source)
Platform
Applications
Distribution
OpenOffice.org GNU/Linux
Application Binaries
1.1
StarOffice Ubuntu
1.2
1.2.1
Binary Distribution
Page 8
The importance of the binary distribution is often overlooked. Open source communities grow around a technology platform, such as OpenSolaris or Linux. Applications however run on binaries and are certified against binary distributions. No application is certified to run on Linux or OpenSolaris, but rather Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Solaris. Furthermore, they are certified to a specific release. The binary distirbution is also a trademark. Anyone can compile Linux, but only Red Hat can release RHEL (this is a problem for Oracle with their rival distro). Anyone can compile OpenSolaris, but only Sun can release Solaris: and that's what a binary application will be certified to. Lastly, managing the transition from version to version has value for the customer: the dependencies, specific packages etc. Anyone can compile the source, but managing that over time is a scarce competency.
Commercial and Open Source

Dual Licensing
Commercial Distribution
Controlled by Sun Contributor Agreement
Open Source Distribution

Governed by License
(e.g., GPL, CDDL, LGPL)
Community Contributions
Controlled by Governance Affected by License Gated by Committers
Solaris 10 StarOffice Java SE
TM
OpenSolaris OpenOffice OpenJDK

TM
TM
TM
opensolaris.org openoffice.org openjdk.java.net

TM
Page 9
No cost at the point of acquisition Low barrier to adoption Flexibility at deployment, predictable license costs Vendor lock-in is reduced: Low / no barrier for suppliers to enter the market Low / no barrier to customer to exit a relationship Increased customisability of software Commercial and community support Pay at the point of value
Users use open source because they have freedom to: there is no cost at the point of acquisition and therefore the barrier to adoption is much lower. Anyone who has been involved in large software deployments knows that licensing is always a difficult issue: how to avoid paying too much (only the biggest site in the world wants to buy a site license) without a SNAFU at deployment.
CIOs didn't choose for GNU/Linux, they just found it profligating in their data centres. Why? Because their approval wasn't required to cut a PO.
Where can we find FLOSS in offices?
Page 10 Nowadays software is omnipresent in these workplaces and FLOSS software may be used for many things, not only in real computers, but also in e.g. routers, cell phones or PDAs. OS in embedded systems sometimes is only recognized if vendors using and changing them are found guilty of not applying to its licence terms. If you see where I'm coming from you won't be surprised if I concentrate on real computers here.
Here Open Source software can be used for e.g.
servers (file, mail, web, data base) desktop computers: OS, desktop, applications, especially office productivity suites
While Open Source software already is very strong on the server for quite some time now, it just started to make progress on the desktop in the last 3-5 years. The most important desktop applications at the office are mail client, Internet browser, text processor, spreadsheet and presentation software. Open Source adoption for these applications always faced problems especially in enterprises or in governments. The reasons for these problems are the topic of my next slides. They shall explain why despite the described advantages of FLOSS companies and administrations might hesitate to adopt it.
I'm a software developer. Quite often we start a piece of work by getting a bug report. So let's continue with a bug report also:
Bug #1 (liberation)
Microsoft has a majority market share in the new desktop PC marketplace. This is a bug, which Ubuntu is designed to fix. Non-free software is holding back innovation in the IT industry, restricting access to IT to a small part of the world's population and limiting the ability of software developers to reach their full potential, globally. This bug is widely evident in the PC industry. Steps to repeat: > 1. Visit a local PC store. What happens: > 2. Observe that a majority of PCs for sale have non-free software pre-installed. > 3. Observe very few PCs with Ubuntu and free software pre-installed. What should happen:
> > >
1. A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software like Ubuntu. 2. Ubuntu should be marketed in a way such that its amazing features and benefits would be apparent and known by all. 3. The system shall become more and more user friendly as time passes.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/openoffice/+bug/1
Page 11 This describes nicely the biggest problem for all newcomers in the desktop software market: Microsoft has a vicelike grip on the desktop regarding operating system software and a lot of application software. It seems that this grip is even harder on office users because replacing the software you need for your daily business is seen as a disruptive process and such disruption causes concerns (to say the least).
Obstacles to FLOSS adoption at the office
Page 12 But it doesn't tell the whole story, because there must be some reasons if people still choose proprietary software with considerable licence costs and unfortunate licence conditions it needs a root cause analysis and a strategy to fix it. After several years working on Open Source office software we have collected a lot of experience and knowledge about the reasons and I want to share it with you.
If I had to say in one word what the obstacle is it would be change. I'm not talking about small startup companies it's much easier for them to adopt OS software as they don't have to change something. But existing and especially large companies or public administrations have something they could lose or destroy when they make the change. Now I will present some reasons for change resistance that we have seen, some of them of course are specific for office suites.
First we have some popular myths that stood in the way of FLOSS adoption for quite some time.
As in all myths they are founded on very old experiences and contain a grain of truth. But usually this grain is much smaller than the grain of salt that the statement should be taken with.
Myths
Nobody controls the development and everybody can change the code, making it unstable and insecure. OS is something for hackers and usability is poor.
http://funambol.com/april1st.php
Page 13 Indeed there are many OS projects where these judgements apply. But the same is true for a lot of closed source projects so at least nowadays they are not suitable as differentiators between open and closed source projects.
Quite often these reservations describe a typical hen and egg problems: OS applications often start as small projects, perhaps even done by a single developer. To mature wrt. usability and professsionalism such projects need the user-developer interaction. If the project gains no interest it perhaps won't become mature OTOH it's possible that it first must become mature enough to gain interest. Linux is a good example it's also a shining example for a project that has escaped this vicuous cycle. Admittedly it took quite some time until Linux left the geek sphere and became end-user suitable. But today it's a very mature and powerful desktop operating system. It is a perfect example for a system that developed itself by bootstrapping.
There's another way out of this cycle and it is found in two other very prominent OS projects, Mozilla and OpenOffice.org. Here a very strong development team and even a product already existed at the start of the project. This can help to develop faster and get more acceptance in a shorter time span.
It is important to see that in both ways at the end there is a strong leadership and guidance without that the project would appear as anarchistic and so would not gain credibility in the office world.
How we fight the myths

Create clear and reliable road maps
> Four feature releases per year > New features in every second release > New features must have a defined, verifiable status
Take usability seriously

> Good balance between innovation and common practice > Innovation on solid ground
Page 14
Everytime we talked to the IT people of larger companies or governments they asked for road maps. This helped to make them accept if a particular feature they needed was not available the assurance to implement it in a dedicated and scheduled version can be enough to get over it. Large companies tend to make long-term plans for IT investments, so a road map may be more important than the status quo. To stay flexible we must be able to deliver new features in an acceptable time frame, thus we have feature releases in a 6 month cycle. To stay reliable we need final quality in each release and this sometimes contradicts with the release early, release often principle of OS development. New development doesn't need to deliver complete and finished features but they must have a defined and verifiable quality. Usability is a challenge. OS developers like to be innovative sometimes at all costs. Professional users OTOH value a well-known operation that helps them to get their work done fast. It's not easy to find a good balance, sometimes you have to make a compromise and hope that it doesn't create losers on both sides. But sometimes you are lucky and you can give users what they want but make it better this really can make your day. A good example is the famous Format paint brush ... There is a lot of interest in our community to create radically different user interface concepts. I think this can be done by a 80-90% market leader, but it's questionable if an application in the remaining 10-20% segment can do that and still stay competitive in the office. IMHO there is enough room for cool features and innovations without that and admittedly we have a lot of room for improvements.
Convenience, concerns and FUD

A change is scary It's a risk as you can't calculate everything beforehand. Go with the market leader! 1980: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." V2.0: Nobody will get fired for buying Microsoft. The pain must be big enough to overcome the fear.
Page 15
As people can't foresee everything they start to get scary and convince themselves that the unclear situation destroys the expected advantages for switching to FLOSS. They don't want to take the risk. [Taking risk is something people at the office might consider in their own market struggles but not in their office work. You might say no risk, no fun but indeed office sosftware is meant to work not to be funny. ] So people must have good reasons to reconsider their software environment. Usually it starts when budgets are very tight. But before companies might reach that point there is some inertance that prevents them from trying something different: it's FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt. Even the younger ones amongst us might know this famous saying. It describes very well that people tend not to take risks except if they feel enough pain and that FUD is the perfect strategy to foster this behavior.
Argueing against FUD
Page 16 There are no arguments against FUD FUD is illogical. Its main idea is if I have the choice between A and B and I'm afraid of choosing B I better choose A. FUD is a social problem and as the saying goes you can't solve social problems with technical means. So as a technician you are at a loss.
The human factor

Look for reference migrations, build trust Do it smoothly Involve the affected people and use their knowledge Educate users Find change agents that drive the migration Use feedback Listen to problems and find the root cause
Page 17 We need successful migrations and create some trust. So early adopters can be those who drive further adoption. This is what we see happening at the moment. We can also lower the fear by making the migration less scary do it smoothly, not everything at once. Start with the browser, then the mail client etc. It helps that now FLOSS has
good offerings for all applications. This is a crucial point for the success of OS applications: be good on Windows! Once the desktop applications became Free software, it may be easier to do the last step and exchange the OS also especially as it seems that especially enterprises hesitate to move to Vista. And never neglect the human factor: a successful migration must be managed as every change: involve the affected, address their concerns, have people driving the change, take care for feedback. But FUD perhaps would be a smaller problem if there wheren't any real issues unfortunately there are some. And FUD just builds upon them and makes it easier for the IT deciders to choose option A. So let's see which real problems people can have if they consider a migration from MS Office to OpenOffice.org or StarOffice.
Training costs
A change can create retraining costs
> > > >
New user interface, new workflows Hard to quantify Expert reports proof what the payer asked for Real life data needed (another hen and egg problem)
Page 18
A very popular argument used in the software business is retraining cost. This is something that sounds very reasonable because changing complex user interfaces or workflows surely will need some time to train users. The problem is that it is very hard to quantify exact costs. So accomodation expertises are prospering. While some retraining is undoubtfully necessary often users just resist to do things differently though it wouldn't be hard.
Is it a bug or a feature?
A surprisingly large number of people can't tell the difference between the concepts 'different' and 'defective.' They will automatically label anything that doesn't look exactly like Microsoft as 'defective.' Of course, this never applies to changes that Microsoft makes.
Carl Hilton Jones

Page 19
A good prrof for this is how many people welcomed the new user interface in Office 2007 though this surely will create tremendous retraining costs. At least this seems to turns the retraining arguments against OOo down. If you see that from another side you will see a problem that goes to the heart of the OS movement. To make it clear please let me exaggerate a bit. Free software developers like to be creative, they like to invent. So if they design a feature it's important that it has a Wow factor, it should be cool. Following our experience with Office software in the past was that this would be the best way to put you out of business. So we always must try to find the right balance between the extremes of being new, cool and creative on one side and copying the market leader on the other side. Let's hope that the increasing market share of OOo changes this situation considerably! A related problem are missing features. Undoubtfully there are things you can do with Worxelpoint but not with OOo (and vice versa). It becomes a problem if such a feature is important for the company. So every large OOo pilot will bring up some features that seem to be important or even essential but this is not our biggest problem. Let's see, what's there also.
Accessibility (A11y)
Section 508 requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology, Federal employees with disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use by Federal employees whoare not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency.
section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Page 20 In the US you can't use any software in the public administration that does not comply with the section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. FLOSS is taking this serious and there is a lot of support for it in Java, Gnome and OpenOffice.org. But unfortunely to a large extent this is true only for the applications to become accessed, not entirely for the tools the users must need (screen readers, special input devices etc.). These tools again are tailored to Worxelpoint.
AT Support for OpenOffice.org

MSAA on Windows is incomplete
> Full A11y support on Windows needs additional APIs > Special solutions by AT vendors using MS Office API
A11y support for OOo

> Very good on Gnome (ORCA et al.) > But only a few AT vendors support Gnome > OOo A11y support on Mac OSX in 3.0
A glimpse of hope: IAccessible2

> Created by IBM, extends MSAA, builds upon OOo's API > Implemented for OOo on Windows by IBM
Page 21 Microsofts has not provided a complete A11y API on Windows. So all tool vendors created hand-crafted solutions that only work with Microsoft Office. So nowadays all screen readers, input devices etc. have good support for Microsoft Office but only a few of them support Gnome, Java and OpenOffice.org. This is a major blocker for the FLOSS adoption in offices in the US. You might have heard about Massachussets: they wanted to adopt ODF and OpenOffice.org but the plan was to keep some machines equipped with MS Office for people with disabilities. When IBM joined the OpenOffice.org community they promised to solve that by extending the existing but incomplete A11y API of Windows and implementing it for OpenOffice.org. The fact that it builds upon the existing MSAA hopefully makes it easier for tool vendors to support it and in fact some of them already started to do so. This still is a Windows based solution but when A11y is adopted at least a complete migration to OOo no longer will be blocked by A11y requirements, even if at least some machines in the deployment migjht need Windows to have support for the available tools. No reason to keep some Worxelpoint machines for that.
Existing infrastructure
Software administration
> Tight integration of MS Office into Windows > Platform independence conflicts with system integration
Server integration
> Exchange > Sharepoint
3rd party tools

> Direct integration with MS Office > Based on MS file formats
Page 22 system integration: platform independency sometimes makes compromises necessary administration problems: especially for admins of large deployments missing Exchange: Microsoft has built a huge system around Outlook and the Exchange server and many companies rely on it. It's hard for them to migrate to any other mail and calendaring system. Unfortunately the Exchange support in FLOSS is not good enough. Evolution has some support but its Windows version is unusable in a professional environment. The question is whether a company keeps Outlook but throws out the rest of MSO I think this is quite improbable. Sharepoint is another proprietary service from MS. Though it also has a WebDAV API many advanced features don't work with it. If companies were fine with using WebDAV only OOo supported it right away. ISV support: many business solutions have an integration with MS Office and use it for creating documents, reports, spread sheets etc. Some of them integrate it using the COM or .NET API of the applications, others use RTF or CVS files to create documents that can be loaded into MSOffice. While the first integration of course won't work with OOo the prospects are better in the second case. RTF as an exchange format can create some problems I will talk about later. Did you know that RTF is not only a MS format but more exactly just a different way to describe the doc format? Sometimes I could read on the net that people think it's a kind of open format it isn't. It's just a different (textual) encoding of the binary Word document. I will come back to ISV support later. So in fact some of these reasons can definitely make it impossible for a company to switch at least to switch completely. But there is still an option to exchange only parts of the software stack. In the cases we might be involved in that could be keeping Windows but switching to OpenOffice.org. But admittedly even then people can find some hurdles that are specific for the office software. Let's have a look on them.
Interoperability
ca. 22% of all open defects in Writer are interop problems Problems importing or exporting MS Office formats
> Word: .doc, .rtf, .docx > Excel: .xls, .xlsx > Powerpoint: .ppt, .pptx
VBA Macros
> Syntax differences between VB and OOo Basic > Incompatible APIs and concepts
Page 23 Interop is keeping us really busy. It's about the ability to exchange documents with MS Office. A rough calculation in our Issue Tracker showed me that approximately 25% of our open defects in the Writer project are interop problems. And if we are talking with people that evaluate the deployment of OOo in their office we usually see an even higher percentage. We rarely talk about retraining, performance or stability, the major concerns are how can I migrate my existing documents, templates and workflows and how can I interact with other offices that don't use OOo. I will talk about that in closer detail. VBA macros are an even bigger problem. While in Word they are mainly used for automation in Excel they often build real applications inside a document. What makes them so different to our own macros isn't the programming language. VB and OOo Basic are very similar, remaining differences could be reduced considerably. But the problem lies in the A of VBA: VBA and OOo Basic allow applications to expose their API in Basic, using a component technology that in Worxelpoint is COM and in OOo is UNO. And these APIs are radically different. We tried to emulate parts of the Word and Excel APIs using wrapper classes but in relation to the effort - didn't get enough coverage to make it a real replacement for VBA. There is still some work going on, especially for adapting the Excel API to Calc, but we still have to see if this can help us in large deployments that used Excel macros a lot. Currently it looks as if when a company really relied on heavy Excel macros in the past and is not willing to reimplement them migrating to OOo is not an option for them.
Document conversion
Click to add an outline
Page 24 In large offices there are usually thousands of documents that may need to be imported or converted. In the best case they all have been created from a known set of templates and so the IT departement of the company can describe potential problems pretty exactly. In the worst case you have to find a way to analyse the documents. From our many years of experience we have a list of features that usually can be found in MS Office documents and create known problems in import. Based on that list we can analyze the documents and create reports that count the found problems and give estimations for the amount of time needed to fix the problems. Usually converting all documents isn't necessary. If the company is able to identify their killer documents (e.g. most important or most widely used templates) concentrating on them and fix other problems on demand is a good strategy.
The filter developer's nightmare
Gather round children and hear of a tale that will raise the hairs on the back of your neck this dark halloween night.
Caolan MacNamara
comment in the Word import filter source code explaining Word's file format for polygon wrapping of graphics
Page 25 Here you can read the desperate cry of a poor software developer that tried to implement the import of a particular part of the Word file format. - the import of polygons used for contour wrapping of graphics embedded in text. It shows that it is not always easy to find out what exactly the bits mean that you can find in a Word document. Quite often it's a lengthy and tedious procedure to find that out by trial and error and you never know if you really got it or if it just works by luck for the document you have at hand. The file formats of MS Office are a straight memory dump of the internal structures that make up the document. They are not designed to be readable and understandable. Meanwhile MS has published a specification of the so called OOXML format that again is just a different encoding for still the same content. So in case of Word rtf, doc and docx are just different representations of the same model the internal document core model of Word. While docx uses an XML notation with start and end tags the two others are postfix notations. Having yet another notation doesn't solve the underlying problem: there are still parts of the file format fhat either can't be understood with insider knowledge or can only be implemented by MS itself. Many of these points have been mentioned in the ISO standardization process for the OOXML file format. But I already went overboard before we talk about the recent development of file format standardization let's talk about the brave project that started all this and radically changed the software business in the office: ODF.
OASIS ODF TC Charter
Page 26 Here's the charter of the committee that is charged with the ODF specification. As you can see the primary design goal of this format was not to dump OOo's core document model into an XML notation but to find a description of the content that should be accessible and easy to process for as much applications as possible. Reusing existing standards and so enabling software vendors on building upon existing knowledge, code or tools also was very important.
Reuse of Established Standards

Dublin Core SVG MathML XForms XSL:FO XLink SMIL RDF/XML (ODF 1.2) OWL (ODF 1.2)
Page 27 Here's a list of some standards that have been used to build ODF. This is an imporant difference to the OOXML format that Microsoft has created shortly to counter the ODF effort. This format just is an XML dump of the internal document core structure of Worxelpoint .
ODF Enables New Concepts

Online / Browser (Google Docs & Spreadsheets)
Offline / PC (OpenOffice.org)
Page 28 ODF goes beyond what we know as the current Office applications. It's a format that starts to become widely adopted.
Freedom of documents
You should have the right to own your own information. It's your intellectual capital and you worked hard to produce it for your citizens. Sun doesn't own it, Microsoft doesn't own it, you own it, and that means it should be living in a nice, long-lived, non-proprietary data format that isn't anyone's competitive weapon.
Tim Bray Sun Microsystems
Page 29 Microsoft has a long history of disregarding, violating or even destroying standards. We will have to see if they do it differently this time. They also announced to join the OASIS ODF TC.
Perspectives
Modern information technology has turned the world into a village with amazing speed. It links people and builds bridges in a way which even quite recently we would have believed impossible. An open, unhindered exchange of information in all areas of life is of fundamental importance for today's knowledge-based society. It is an important foundation for our shared objective: a peaceful, democratic, pluralistic society. The Open Document Format, as a completely open and ISO-standardized format, is an excellent vehicle for the free exchange of knowledge and information in the globalized age. Frank-Walter Steinmeier Federal Foreign Minister, Germany
Page 30 So far I talked about the technical aspects of ODF. But ODF has more: it has political and social implications that make its adoption a real movement.
Gartner says ...

By 2010, ODF document exchange will be required by 50 percent of government and 20 percent of commercial organizations (0.7 probability).
http://www.gartner.com/resources/140100/140101/iso_approval_of_oasis_opendo_140101.pdf
Page 31 Even analysts and consultants see that there is something going on. I don't know how good 70% probability is but in fact we can see this movement going on:
ODF in the Public Sector

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, USA (ETRM) Belgium (Fedict) Spain / Extremadura Netherlands South Africa (MIOS) Russia Denmark France (RGI) Germany Malaysia (MAMPU) Brasil (e-Ping) ... and counting!
Page 32 Especially the Public Sector shows great interest. They recognize that the combination of FLOSS and Free and Open standards not only free their applications but also can create a whole new ecosystem that no longer is controlled by a single vendor. Though OOo nowadays is the most important Office application supporting ODF it is not the only player. But at least currently ODF adoption will also mean OOo adoption.
Adoption of OpenOffice.org
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Market_Share_Analysis
Page 33 You can watch the increasing adoption in our Wiki. We try to keep the data as curent as possible. This list does contain a lot of deployments in the Public sector but also several smaller or larger companies with up to 35000 seats per deployment. But it is very probable that also the number of companies and the size of the deployments will increase. Don't expect to get exact market share data as you can get from the analysts. It's hard to calculate the market share of OS software. You have no paid licences or activations you can count, just downloads. And you don't know on how many computers a download gest installed or if it is used at all. So people have problems giving exact numbers for the market share of FLOSS. I found numbers for OOo between 10 and 20% but I can't say how good these estimatios are. It's easier to give numbers for e.g. Internet browsers as they identify themselve at the Web servers they are browsing. Based on such data Firefox has a market share of ~15% world wide, but 25-28% in Europe. According to Forrester it even has an 18% market share in the enterprise market. Very impressive numbers. But looking on current IT trends may tell us that the status quo or the past is not so imporant for what will happen in the future. Emerging nations and markets will change a lot.
Perspectives: The majority of people has not chosen an office suite, yet!
It took more than a quarter of a century to reach the first billion users, but with advancing technology, lower prices, and global demand for a technology-aware population, it will take only seven years to reach the next billion.
Forrester
June 2007
Page 34 If you look on the current trends it seems that especially the emerging nations are enthusiastic about OS in general. Of course they like the low costs but they also see that not being locked-in into the software portfolio of a single vendor is good for them. And often they don't have the problems to switch I showed you before. So let's put it that way: if MS claims to have 95% market share in the Office market, we take the other 95%. But it seems that even Microsoft has seen the writing on the wall. As you might have heard they announced to support ODF at least partially in their next version of Worxelpoint. This is a huge success for ODF but it leaves an interesting question:
Microsoft annouces ODF support
I love the way Microsoft follows standards. In much the same manner that fish follow migrating caribou.
Paul Tomblin
Page 35 Microsoft has a long history of disregarding, violating or even destroying standards. We will have to see if they do it differently this time. They also announced to join the OASIS ODF TC.
ODF Programming with ODFDOM

What is ODFDOM?
> Lightweight toolkit (compared to full featured office application) > Allows creating & processing of ODF documents
ODFDOM Features
> Adding / removing file streams from the ODF package (ZIP) > Processing ODF documents on ODF XML element level > ODF elements are represented by Java classes with XML attributes as
attributes, > Generated from the ODF RelaxNG Schema (typed W3C XML DOM, similar to HTML DOM part of Apache Xerces parser) > Common high-level convenience functionality (e.g. add table, add table row, etc.) > Extensibility for customized ODF behavior and embedded user XML
Page 36
ODFDOM Layer Model

CUSTOMIZED ODF DOCUMENT / EXTENDABLE LAYER (optional layer not part of ODFDOM) ODF DOCUMENT / CONVENIENT FUNCTIONALITY LAYER (frequently used office functionality not standardized) ODF TYPED DOM / XML LAYER (XML structure standardized by OASIS/ISO) ODF PACKAGE / PHYSICAL LAYER (file stream structure standardized by OASIS/ISO)
Page 37
OOo adoption in the public sector

Brazil, Argentina Freedom for applications, freedom for the whole Ecosystem
Page 38
Thank you very much for your attention!

Mathias Bauer Mathias.Bauer@sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Page 39
Perspectives
Success in open source requires you to serve: 1. Those who spend time to save money 2. Those who spend money to save time.
Marten Mickos
CEO, MySQL May 2007
Page 40
Some of the best open source technology out there Responsible, fair, OSI-approved licensing Protection from patent exposure Record of community building Consolidated copyright ownership Ongoing commitment to transparent governance Open source ombudsman
No organisation has innovated like Sun, and then opened that innovation: Solaris 10 UltraSPARC T1 ...and soon Java This, combined with Sun's approach to open source licensing, creates a wealth of opportunities for open source developers . Sun recognises developers needs to build their own business, to have protection from the various threats of litigation, and to have trust in their community.
Sun's Contribution to Linux

Ra n k Co m p a n y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sun Microsystems Inc IB M Co rp Re d H a t Corp
Es t im a ted $ v a lu e
GNOME S ilic o n G r a p h ic s C o r p 6 1 m Linux kernel Mozilla SAP AG 6 0 m OpenOffice.org X.org M y SQ L AB 4 5 m and other projects N e t s c a p e C o m m u n i c a t i o n s m o rSource: UNU-MERIT report for the European 41 C p
X im ia n I n c R e a lN e t w o r k s I n c 39 m 35 m 34 m
404 m 116 m 7 6 m includes code in
Estimated Substitution Cost of Suns contribution to Debian GNU/Linux
Commission Economic impact of FLOSS on innovation and competitiveness of the EU ICT sector January 2007
1 0 AT& T
Page 41
Sun is key to GNU/Linux and GNU/Linux is key to Sun.
The GNU/Linux operating system and Solaris have a common heritage, and because of Sun's commitment to open standards, there is a lot of code maintained by Sun which is used in the GNU/Linux operating system today.
Sun contributed most of the documentation and online help to the GNOME desktop project. Sun's contribution of the accessibility framework to GNOME allows desktop Linux to achieve Section 508 compliance (to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities).
Sun has been a long term contributor to the X.Org project developing the widely-used X Windows system. Sun hosted the X.Org Developer Conference on its campus this year and a Sun employee serves on the X.Org Board of directors.
Lastly, Sun has been a major contributor to the work of the Mozilla foundation. Sun has developers have been working on Section 508 compliance and internationalization (I18N). Sun has also provided funding to this end.
Community Perspectives
I think Sun...has contributed more than any other company to the free software community in the form of software. It shows leadership. Its an example I hope others will follow.
Free Software Foundation
Richard Stallman
Page 42
This talks to the size of Sun contribution from the leader of the Free Software Movement.
Richard Stallman had been a fierce critic of Sun, writing a paper The Java Trap, where he crticised the Java platform for appearing to be Free but actually being closed.
He restracted this position in November 2006, when Sun announced it was releasing the source code to its implementation of Java SE.
OpenOffice.org
M o r e t h a n 1 1 0 m illio n d o w n lo a d s 8 0 0 t h o u sa n d d o w n lo a d s ev ery w eek M o r e t h a n 9 0 0 sig n e d Jo i n t C o n t r i b u t o r Ag reem en ts O v e r 1 0 0 a c t iv e p r o je c t s O p e n D o c u m e n t Fo r m a t (O D F) I S O / I E C s t a n d a r d 2 6 3 0 0 :2 0 0 6
Home of the leading multi-platform open source office suite

Page 43
ODF: The big change

Application Application Application Application
Information
Information
Old Style
New Style
Page 44 This picture depicts the general idea behind ODF: have a format to store the data in a way that enables all applications to work with them. Using open standards works quite well in many areas of the IT industry. The Internet wouldn't be such a big success without the standards it builds upon. So why not having an open standard for Office documents?
Virtuous Cycle Model of Open Source

Initial Contribution > Requires ownership > Many possible motivations
Code
Use of Source > Controlled by License > Open to all > OSI Compatible
Source Code Commons
Derived Work > Controlled by Business Model > Affected by License > Affected by Governance Developer
Communities
Contribution > Controlled by Governance > Affected by License > Gated by Committers > Fuelled by Self-Interest
Software Works
Derived Work > Controlled by Business Model > Affected by License > Affected by Governance
Page 45
Emphasis that more code goes from the commons to the communities than the communities to the wors, than from the works back to the commons.
Diversirty is the key to health in a community: it has three components, geographic, sector and motivational model.
People join communities to create wealth (like pay the bills wealth). If you make it impossible thru your licensing scheme for them to create wealth, they will not join. Wealth is different to different people and can be financial, personal recognition, social wealth etc...
Users contribute to the commons because it reduces their cost of development. Common elements of code that does not differentiate the product are best developed in the commons because all users can benefit from them there is no competition at this level.
Individuals create differentiated software by developing unique features on top of the commons and it is thru these features they can create wealth.
If after a year, you don't have external contributors, your community probably has a problem.

FLOSS at The Office Adventure: Mathias Bauer Project Lead Sun Microsystems Inc

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FLOSS at The Office Adventure: Mathias Bauer Project Lead Sun Microsystems Inc

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FLOSS at the office The OpenOffice.

OpenOffice.org: some numbers

What is Open Source?

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

What is Free Software?

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

Three fundamental aspects of FLOSS

No licence costs Free the user's data

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

Software Market 3.0

1.0 Indivisible from hardware

2.0 Sold unbundled

3.0 Pay at the point of value

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

The Importance of Binary

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

Commercial and Open Source

Open Source Distribution

Solaris 10 StarOffice Java SE

OpenSolaris OpenOffice OpenJDK

opensolaris.org openoffice.org openjdk.java.net

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

Where can we find FLOSS in offices?

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

Obstacles to FLOSS adoption at the office

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

How we fight the myths

Take usability seriously

Convenience, concerns and FUD

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

Argueing against FUD

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

The human factor

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

Carl Hilton Jones

AT Support for OpenOffice.org

A11y support for OOo

A glimpse of hope: IAccessible2

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

3rd party tools

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

The filter developer's nightmare

OASIS ODF TC Charter

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

Reuse of Established Standards

ODF Enables New Concepts

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

Gartner says ...

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

ODF in the Public Sector

Microsoft annouces ODF support

ODF Programming with ODFDOM

ODFDOM Layer Model

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

OOo adoption in the public sector

3rd FLOSS Conference Athens 2008

Thank you very much for your attention!