Company that contributes majority of LibreOffice code complains ecosystem is 'beyond utterly broken'
- Reference: 1594891569
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/07/16/libreoffice_ecosystem_beyond_utterly_broken/
- Source link:
The matter is a subject of intense debate within the board of the foundation, set up in 2010 to oversee LibreOffice, a fork of Oracle's OpenOffice. It touches on a question that crops up repeatedly in various contexts: as usage of open-source software continues to grow, what is the right business model to fund its development?
The TDF's [1]manifesto promises "to eliminate the digital divide in society by giving everyone access to office productivity tools free of charge." The document adds that "we encourage corporate participation" but there is nothing about providing an incentive for such companies.
Michael Meeks, managing director at Cambridge-based [2]Collabora , the company that contributes most full-time developers to LibreOffice, has set out the situation in (opinionated) detail [3]here and [4]here .
Meeks is an open-source veteran, having worked on GNOME, OpenOffice, and other prominent projects. Everything was fine at LibreOffice to begin with, and he calls 2012-2014 "the flourishing years."
Alongside Collabora, there were 15 developers from SUSE, five from Red Hat, one from Canonical, seven from the city of Munich (part of its embrace of open source), and some 40 others from various companies. Many of those have now dropped out, or reduced their commitment, leaving around 40 paid developers in total – of whom Collabora provides 25 and [5]CIB , a Munich-based specialist in document management, seven.
Meeks believes "LibreOffice is at serious risk," though the matter is complex. TDF has around €1.5m in the bank, Meeks said, but something that may surprise outsiders is that the foundation cannot and does not use that money to employ developers.
Thorsten Behrens, IT lead for LibreOffice at CIB, told The Register : "The TDF is a charity; it's not in the business of developing software and actually cannot, because that would put it in competition with the commercial ecosystem," as well as threatening its charitable status.
Most donations go to TDF so if the commercial providers of developers reduce their commitment, TDF remains but the development effort diminishes.
This also means that contributing to LibreOffice by paying for support is currently more effective than donating money to TDF.
Could LibreOffice succeed without paid-for developers?
Behrens pointed to Apache OpenOffice as an example of why this does not work. "It is limping," he said. "Every two years they release a new version, but everyone who cares moved on to LibreOffice. OpenOffice is the best argument that we have that we need a commercial ecosystem. If we don't have that, we will end up like them."
Is the fact that LibreOffice is primarily desktop software, in the cloud era, part of the problem, like trying to market music CDs in the age of streaming?
"It's part of the problem insofar as it needs investment," said Behrens. "The notion that software is finished and only needs maintenance is a fallacy. There's LibreOffice online, there's various mobile platform apps, most of that investment was carried by Collabora. That's the problem. We need to generate money to be able to keep up with the rest of the industry."
The current crisis was sparked by a proposal that TDF should do more to package and promote the cloud version of LibreOffice on its site to make it easier for users to self-host rather than going to a provider such as Collabora or CIB. "That was the point where we said, that's going to kill some revenue," said Behrens, particularly since online LibreOffice is the most profitable part of the business for the commercial companies.
Since TDF operates the LibreOffice website, the decisions it makes about how to present it have an immediate impact on the health of the ecosystem, and if it gets it wrong, you can even argue that TDF is acting against the interests of LibreOffice.
Meeks told us that the proposal "would throw TDF into competing head-on with Collabora."
The way the desktop software is offered does not work for the commercial providers, he said, and this was "a proposal to throw this known unsuccessful model into online as well. In terms of self-defeating moves, it seems a pretty epic one" – though note that this proposal now seems to have been abandoned.
Behrens feels that although the LibreOffice site says on the download page that it "strongly recommends support from certified partners," it does not sufficiently emphasise the issues with the free download for business use. "If you use this as an enterprise, you will not get any updates after half a year, so there is no way any large enterprise should use the free version. It takes that long just to get a pilot," he told us.
"Free software has an unfortunate connotation of gratis, free of price," Meeks said. "The FSF (Free Software Foundation) has tried for many years to explain that it is all about freedom. LibreOffice has the word Libre in it. But there's quite a strong sense of gratis in its statutes, which is unfortunate."
Like Behrens, Meeks is keen to emphasise the value of support. "Enterprises deploy LibreOffice without any support and services. They fall over small problems like documents that don't work. After a year or so they say, this is rubbish, and wander off. If you do the migration and training right, you win."
Behrens told us there is an ethical dimension too. "If you are an enterprise, there is at least a moral obligation to contribute back, either by contracting support or let your staff contribute time. There are givers and takers and the largest enterprises who have the deepest pockets are contributing the least."
For Meeks, the solution is simple. "Differentiate the marketing. Tell people this is the version for personal use and this is the version for enterprise use."
It is a principle that works well for Red Hat, which has [6]Red Hat Enterprise Linux alongside Fedora and CentOS. For LibreOffice, however, this idea has gone down badly with users, who do not want to see the free version diminished in status.
TDF's Italo Vignoli told us that the input of Meeks and Behrens is the reason for "a new strategic marketing plan, mostly focused on how we communicate to the outside world. A situation which is the result of different level of compromise inside TDF board, where in the past there have been some frictions on the topic of providing support to ecosystem members."
He added that Meeks' opinion "is not shared by all members of TDF board (of which Michael Meeks is a member since day one), which is rather normal in a complex and diverse organisation of global size."
Vignoli confirmed that "TDF has a large cash reserve" but is constrained in how it uses it because of "German law regulating foundations." He added that some concerns on the board were based on "a very restrictive interpretation of the German law, which seems to be solved now."
"The current discussion about the strategy is going in the right direction, and will provide a solid foundation for the years to come," Vignoli said. ®
Get our [7]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/overview/
[2] https://www.collaboraoffice.com/
[3] https://lwn.net/Articles/825602/
[4] https://people.gnome.org/~michael/data/vendor-neutral-marketing.html
[5] https://www.cib.de/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2017/11/14/red_hat_opens_arms_to_linux/
[7] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: It's quite clear where the money is:
Serious question: why would a commercial organization pay for support on a "free" product, instead of just using a commercial one like Office 365 that almost everyone else uses?
Is it not done yet? Like... how many decades does it take to finish a clone of word and excel?
More than a clone
LO Writer is actually much better than Word in some areas, even if it doesn't have all of the features (better control over heading numbering formats, for one).
Do you mean that Multiplan clone with a whiff of Lotus Quatro, or the Multi-Tool Word for Xenix base? Or are going back al the way to for example the Alto or VisiCalc? After all, the greatest asset of the human species is its ability to learn...
I can still happily use the version of LibreOffice from the first day it was forked. I am beginning to suspect that the features that they have been adding are superfluous and useless for a vast majority of users. Perhaps they should put the project into maintenance mode.
And by maintenance mode, I don't mean how Nvidia does is and drop support. I simply mean no new features; just fix bugs, build issues and generally make the whole software really polished. Only open-source can do this because they don't need to continuously rake in cash and new customers.
If you look at the amount of changes that have been made since the fork just to improve compatibility with non-LibreOffice file formats (which are a given until LO achieves world domination) I would not want to exchange LO 6.4 for a version from years ago.
I am also quite pleased with the UI changes in [1]LibreOffice 7rc1.
[1] https://www.libreoffice.org/download/download/?version=7.0.0&lang=en-GB
Long-standing issue with volunteer development
This is a long-standing issue with many Open Source developments that largely rely on volunteer developers.
It's relatively easy to get users to work on glamorous or often used features. It's a lot harder to get people to work on necessary but largely invisible plumbing. Mozilla solves this by having a serious amount of developers on the payroll to oversee work, work on 'plumbing' and push through the project while taking in lots of code in from volunteers or outside coders. They can afford that because Mozilla Inc. is a multimillion dollar corporation. The Document Foundation is not.
You can see the challenges quite clearly in LibreOffice. Writer is clearly the most used application in the office suite and receives the most code submissions, changes and new features. The further down the popularity chain you go, the less work you see.
Look at an issue such as using the Firebird database as the embedded database in an Base .odb file. Hardly the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of LibreOffice. The Document Foundation moved from the ancient HSQLDB 1.8 to Firebird 3.0 as a means to rid themselves of a Java dependency and to use a more modern and better supported database. At the moment [1]it's not working great as the talent you need to make this work properly is someone who ideally understands Java (for the legacy stuff), C/C++, databases in general and Firebird in particular. Quite an ask. There is currently one person (Julien Nabet) who can work on this and he is swamped. (If you are someone who can work on this, [2] please get stuck in )
To get things like this working again you'll have to have a combination of commercial companies submitting code to scratch their own itch (works well for Linux), an army of volunteers and a number of paid developers in the centre at The Document Foundation to oversee all this. And that costs money.
I would think the first thing the TDF should do now is set up a bounty programme. People who run into a certain issue that they like to see fixed (but can't as they are not coders) can donate to have that fixed. Volunteer coders that want to earn some money can go through the list and see which ones they can fix. All that needs is a few people from TDF to oversee the list of bounty issues (as not all issues qualify for an easy bounty), to vet whether the submitted code indeed fixes the issue, and release the funds to the volunteer developer.
[1] http://document-foundation-mail-archive.969070.n3.nabble.com/About-putting-Firebird-creation-option-experimental-tt4274028.html
[2] https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134526
Re: Long-standing issue with volunteer development
"I would think the first thing the TDF should do now is set up a bounty programme."
It's clear from the interview is that one problem is that TDF has some money but can't spend it, at least not directly, on development because of its charitable status.
Perhaps a bounty programme would be one way round this. Like many I tend to pay a contribution when downloading a new version. This isn't much use if it goes into a fund that can't be used productively. To be given the option of paying into a bounty fund administered but not owned by TDF would be better. Better still would be if TDF were able to match bounty payments if it has more money than it actually needs.
This...
Is the fact that LibreOffice is primarily desktop software, in the cloud era, part of the problem, like trying to market music CDs in the age of streaming?
made me laugh.
Not everyone wants to be sucked into 'all things cloudy'. I really don't wany to have to be connected to the Internet to do [insert operation here].
The System I do most of my writing on (164,000 words this year so far is not connected and hasn't been for several years. I move the data I need via USB sticks.
I have another system that I use for research that normally runs alongside the former. I don't do SAAS and will refuse to do so for as long as possible.
To me it is the same as a protection racket. Keep on paying or... you lose access to your (that is YOURS not THEIRS) data.
Cloudy stuff is only as good as your internet connection. If that is crap then what can you do eh?
you are stuck up shit creek without a paddle and funds keep on draining from your wallet.
Re: This...
To be honest, I think that’s a bit of a straw man argument. Just because some companies use cloud software (the means) as a way to achieve vendor lockin (the end) does not mean that The Document Foundation would have the same goal.
There is clearly a lot of demand for cloud solutions, even if it’s just for the seamless transition between working on a document on your desktop, adding some things to it from your laptop while at a client and making that little ‘brainwave’ change on your phone from the supermarket aisle.
If packages such as LibreOffice don’t go down that way you are leaving a popular use case solely to the paid for/closed source companies. To prevent that is precisely what LibreOffice should be for.
Re: This...
It's probably not either/or.
There are clearly use cases for collaborative authoring and shared address books, document templates, etc. that could be paid-for services that supplement a standalone application. It's a question of whether there's enough of a demand for commercial services that aren't Microsoft or Google - it's a difficult space in which to set up as a competitor to industry behemoths.
Re: This...
You raise a good point. It seems like TDF are pining to go this route.
https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-online/
Even here they are clear that the default ability for web deployment will be permanently crippled (and a nag dialog if more than 20 users try to log in). For that, "enterprise" distributions will be where they will focus their attention.
Someone in this project can see money in making a cloud version and they are not quite prepared to let this one go, even if it reduces the quality of the project.
Basically it has outgrown itself again. It probably needs another "free" fork.
Re: This...
I entirely agree. The primary benefit of SaaS is the subscription required to keep using it, and that's not a user benefit. And "cloud" is increasingly frequently breaking down, preventing work being done on time.
The biggest problem with Libre Office (and previously Open Office) is still incompatibility with MS. I still can't create a slide presentation on LO and be assured it won't break when presented on PowerPoint at my speaking venue. If such problems were assuredly fixed, there'd be little question that LO would largely take over from MS office.
But as to funding development, there should be a way for TDF to channel donations to developers. Many charities here in the UK have commercial side-services that don't jeopardise their charitable status.
Re: This...
Yes, a commercial side service should not be too difficult. They could set up “The Document Company” next to the Foundation and have in the articles of association of the Company that the directors of the Company are always and only the same people that are in charge of the Foundation. You’d have legal separation without risking the Company from going rogue.
Re: This...
You can run the online version on your own server. While that might not be a good use case for you - it isn't for me either - I can see circumstances where there might be. A lightweight front end like a Chromebook and an in-house server might fit very well into an educational context for example.
Disagree with this
Behrens said: "The notion that software is finished and only needs maintenance is a fallacy."
To the contrary, I believe the notion that software cannot be finished is a fallacy. It is far better to fix bugs than to always shoot for the next pie-in-the-sky improvement. People do not want change for the sake of change. That thinking is what gave us the horrible Windows 10. I remember that some "experts" are critical of Roku for not updating their UI. But why should something that is efficient, elegant, and well-understood be updated? It is finished, it works well, just leave it alone! TiVo updated their UI, and the new "improved" update is miles worse than the original. This thinking is giving us software and interfaces that are always broken because the programmers are too busy chasing the next big thing instead of fixing the current thing.
Re: Disagree with this
The thing is, though, that with a broad product suite such as LibreOffice that runs on multiple underlying OS-es that change all the time your product stops working if you don’t keep up with changes to the OS. You can keep the same features but if Windows, macOS or Linux deprecates an API you will still need to put in dev work. In this case even standing still requires running.
Payment workaround?
I have been donating annually in the mistaken belief the funds went to devs. Disappointed.
Maybe TDF can 'pay' individual/smaller devs through a hardship fund type payments?
I have been using since 2004 and has enough features for what I want. Unfortunately, many of my customers are locked into financial apps that can only export via MS Office/Excel. I have contacted a few of the financial app companies in the past and asked if would consider developing export via LibreOffice. Told no demand. Usual chicken/egg scenario I'm afraid.
Similarly disappointed OSS based Google never supported ODF in Docs and only natively support OOXML. Had Google gone with ODF, that might have promoted LibreOffice uptake.
Re: Payment workaround?
It’s been a long time since I used Google Docs but I recall you could save to “OpenOffice” format. Did they remove that?
Re: Payment workaround?
Yes, this seems particularly stupid. If charity rules don't allow them to hire developers... maybe they don't qualify as, and shouldn't be, a charity?
I'm sure that there are a lot of companies who would pay for LibreOffice support and additional features. Maybe it's time for them to do deals with Google/Apple/Samsung and the rest of the industry to build up a proper foundation...
Personally...
...I would be quite happy to pay a monthly subscription - two or three ponds a month - a relatively trivial amount for an individual to sustain over years, and covering the majority of socio-economic circumstances. Don't even make it compulsory, just make it clear that if you value what LO offers then it depends on most users willingness to contribute, if not their time and IT chops, then at least the price of a coffee to keep the show on the road.
If it dies then we get what we clearly deserve and it clearly didn't mean much to us anyway; if it lives then it lives because many users actually do value what they are being given and are willing to demonstrate that value by giving something back.
Re: Personally...
You gotta be careful though. A pond here, a pond there... pretty soon you find yourself bogged down.
It's quite clear where the money is:
Sell the software for £0 and charge for support, retraining and consultancy in replacing current commercial office "productivity" products with open source ones.