Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
Next » 12
nabbler nabbler
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

Related to an earlier post
(http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@.../msg02677.html),
the following news article hyperlink
(http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2010/11/12/ghanaian-sms-start-up-tackles-fake-drug-scourge/)
is an interesting application of mobile phone technology and provides
further credence to the importance of the future potential mobile
devices market.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

mordocai mordocai
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
jonathon-6 jonathon-6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/17/2010 08:19 AM, Chris Carpenter wrote:

> The first step, IMHO, would be to get a platform agnostic mobile
 interface designed and any platform independent code written.

Platform independent code for mobile devices?

The closest will be keeping the same code in Java, Objective C, and C#.
(Symbian, Android & iPhone, and WinMo7.  I'm leaving Blackberry out of
this equation.)


As far platform agnosticism goes, all data input has to be doable by
keyboard, touch pad, and voice.

> I also think a general web application should have high priority as well.

That would be the Blackberry app.

jonathon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM4/RIAAoJEOpnmQXT8Ln/9HMIALxugXaMmfZgJd22eavJuf16
99E9dJCseCaCxVMUNhLJy+d/T5ajpFq3Wb8u6Cdx8GSAimnDC6PRrmAPsaZ0Xxtr
4SRqYZwkeKmMhnl5QB9SfvTstXTvcEdYrclV0aUGo5PMeYil8ggEOq5ku6NKXrsg
242rw6+G05QQpJz3iRjG8jgEgAp+G57MsKiaS39G6NxbHGMPuPk04qOPagXh58CU
GWYWwaIz4zFIuC7RZuoTwJAoBp93HKDnZKvjtGNp+Qi5n0CVaDm5LhHmNDiARNUT
B2RZhsUKlaHaD0nRwYFl1Oj20w2aK0+IgDmQQyBxqr0uTWPTIXRSjCcWxkrIE1I=
=ZeUr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

mirek2 mirek2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

Hi everyone,

2010/11/17 jonathon <[hidden email]>

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/17/2010 08:19 AM, Chris Carpenter wrote:
>
> > The first step, IMHO, would be to get a platform agnostic mobile
>  interface designed and any platform independent code written.
>
> Platform independent code for mobile devices?
>
> The closest will be keeping the same code in Java, Objective C, and C#.
> (Symbian, Android & iPhone, and WinMo7.  I'm leaving Blackberry out of
> this equation.)
>
>
> As far platform agnosticism goes, all data input has to be doable by
> keyboard, touch pad, and voice.
>
> > I also think a general web application should have high priority as well.
>
> That would be the Blackberry app.
>

I'd say that a web app should have higher priority here, as:
- web apps can work offline and substitute for a desktop app (with HTML5 or
Mozilla Prism technologies)
- web apps work on all platforms with a modern browser (*+ WebKit supports
touch gestures*)
- there's no open source web-based office suite that supports ODF yet *(there's
a discontinued text editor called EtherPad, and there's a suite called Feng
Office that doesn't support ODF)*
- an open-source web app has many more possible uses than a desktop app, as
anyone can use it (*it can be integrated into any web service; this would
really increase the popularity of both ODF and LibO*)

- the mobile OS market is still pretty unstable: there's no clear platform
to develop for. The open-source Android is being sued by Oracle, Apple's app
store rules don't agree with open-source licenses, and all the other mobile
operating systems haven't yet reached the level of marketshare that iOS and
Android have. *(If TDF was to develop a mobile version though, it'd be nice
if it came first for the open-source OS's, like Android and Symbian.)*


> jonathon
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM4/RIAAoJEOpnmQXT8Ln/9HMIALxugXaMmfZgJd22eavJuf16
> 99E9dJCseCaCxVMUNhLJy+d/T5ajpFq3Wb8u6Cdx8GSAimnDC6PRrmAPsaZ0Xxtr
> 4SRqYZwkeKmMhnl5QB9SfvTstXTvcEdYrclV0aUGo5PMeYil8ggEOq5ku6NKXrsg
> 242rw6+G05QQpJz3iRjG8jgEgAp+G57MsKiaS39G6NxbHGMPuPk04qOPagXh58CU
> GWYWwaIz4zFIuC7RZuoTwJAoBp93HKDnZKvjtGNp+Qi5n0CVaDm5LhHmNDiARNUT
> B2RZhsUKlaHaD0nRwYFl1Oj20w2aK0+IgDmQQyBxqr0uTWPTIXRSjCcWxkrIE1I=
> =ZeUr
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]<discuss%[hidden email]>
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Florian Reisinger-2 Florian Reisinger-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

In reply to this post by nabbler

Am 17.11.2010 08:36, schrieb e-letter:

  Related to an earlier post
(http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@.../msg02677.html),
the following news article hyperlink
(http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2010/11/12/ghanaian-sms-start-up-tackles-fake-drug-scourge/)
is an interesting application of mobile phone technology and provides
further credence to the importance of the future potential mobile
devices market.

I don't think a huge Office-Suite is necessary for mobile devices, but a reader for all and the module Writer would be a very nice idea      
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

RGB.ES RGB.ES
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

2010/11/17 Florian Reisinger <[hidden email]>:
>
> I don't think a huge Office-Suite is necessary for mobile devices, but a reader for all and the module Writer would be a very nice idea
> --

Never used it, but look at the VisorODFMovil project:
http://visorodfmovil.morfeo-project.org/archives/androidodf-launched

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

jonathon-6 jonathon-6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

In reply to this post by mirek2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/17/2010 04:25 PM, Mirek M. wrote:

>I'd say that a web app should have higher priority here,

This should be an independent project.

In an ideal world, the code would be modular and clearly commented, so
that any developer could pick up  various pieces, either to port it to a
new platform/OS, or to refine them a specialized function.

> web apps work on all platforms with a modern browser

The Internet is not always available.  And where it is available, it is
not always cheap.
[ The data plan for my smartphone costs double that of my cable
connection, but only offers 1/10,000 of the data transfer that my cable
connection offers. Data transfer surcharges can reach US$1.00 per
kilobyte.  (Data transfer, not data speed.) ]

> an open-source web app has many more possible uses than a desktop app;

The number of potential users is meaningless. What counts is the number
of people that can, and will use it.

> the mobile OS market is still pretty unstable: there's no clear
platform to develop for.

If you are waiting for a clear platform to develop for, you will wait
forever.

At best, there will be three dominant platforms for mobile devices, and
three dominant platforms for desktop devices, and three dominant
platforms for gaming consoles, for a total of ten different platforms to
code for.

The worst case scenario is that there will be five dominant mobile
device platforms, with another five dominant desktop platforms with
another five dominant gaming consoles, for a total of sixteen different
platforms to code for.

In either instance, you are looking at between twenty and thirty
different platforms, in order to support user-expectations, in terms of
cross-platform availability.

>all the other mobile operating systems haven't yet reached the level of
marketshare that iOS and Android have.

2010 2Q Marketshare
Symbian: 41.2%
RIM: 18.2%
Android: 17.2%
iOS: 14.2%
WinMO: 5%
Linux: 2.4%
Other: 1.8%

Source: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1421013 (August 2010)

To call Android and iOS marketshare leaders, when they are more than
twenty percentage points behind the OS with the highest market
penetration reveals a lack of knowledge of mobile device marketshare.

Compared to 2009 2Q the marketshare is not there either:
Symbian: 51.0%
RIM: 19.0%
iOS: 13.0%
WinMo: 9.3%
Linux: 4.6%
Android: 1.8%
Other: 1.2%

* Symbian will probably retain first position, but it won't have the
thirty percentage point advantage in marketshare that it used to have;
* Due to manufacturing issues, iOS won't get above 20% --- if it can
even get that high;
* Android will flatten out at between 20% and 25%.
* Assuming RIM can satisfy the voyeurism that afflicts government
agencies, it should hold steady at between 15% and 20%.
* The other platforms will be holding their breath, wondering if their
oxygen supply will extinguish them;

jonathon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5B16AAoJEOpnmQXT8Ln/ovsH+wXORPcakkt8IBBVDOd9nL4D
8iMcCLjeb6vTiYcsVsmFOET9SEJaYuwSfX9ndqDYpL/nWRQf37CcLrOg8eToNHG2
6gk/kfGhCdHgoB6A10fhUG0SobVAmwtKO1+q2pCg/t4+FKKWGhHIZF0n1+FLJemY
YwNH9KZtKMVtmSWPJQ7PV/9cRL9wMIn6dD8R5pH3AUFFumjsNZrXvCxFdQqStfFc
/D/Wb2ubrj09aD63Wk5yv3MQEnJg4eDpcH6p57AehyjhFEzQT3LKTH2tIzB1hY0I
jO64dlR8Ylek8nzPv2gWTq/hxSpie7h2Kwnumdem7CbN5uUKN9XRaW4DFChHlr0=
=9+SV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Harold Fuchs Harold Fuchs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

On 17/11/2010 18:22, jonathon wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/17/2010 04:25 PM, Mirek M. wrote:
>
>> I'd say that a web app should have higher priority here,
>
> This should be an independent project.
>
> In an ideal world, the code would be modular and clearly commented, so
> that any developer could pick up  various pieces, either to port it to a
> new platform/OS, or to refine them a specialized function.
>
>> web apps work on all platforms with a modern browser
>
> The Internet is not always available.  And where it is available, it is
> not always cheap.
> [ The data plan for my smartphone costs double that of my cable
> connection, but only offers 1/10,000 of the data transfer that my cable
> connection offers. Data transfer surcharges can reach US$1.00 per
> kilobyte.  (Data transfer, not data speed.) ]
>
>> an open-source web app has many more possible uses than a desktop app;
>
> The number of potential users is meaningless. What counts is the number
> of people that can, and will use it.
>
>> the mobile OS market is still pretty unstable: there's no clear
> platform to develop for.
>
> If you are waiting for a clear platform to develop for, you will wait
> forever.
>
> At best, there will be three dominant platforms for mobile devices, and
> three dominant platforms for desktop devices, and three dominant
> platforms for gaming consoles, for a total of ten different platforms to
> code for.
>
> The worst case scenario is that there will be five dominant mobile
> device platforms, with another five dominant desktop platforms with
> another five dominant gaming consoles, for a total of sixteen different
> platforms to code for.
>
> In either instance, you are looking at between twenty and thirty
> different platforms, in order to support user-expectations, in terms of
> cross-platform availability.
>
>> all the other mobile operating systems haven't yet reached the level of
> marketshare that iOS and Android have.
>
> 2010 2Q Marketshare
> Symbian: 41.2%
> RIM: 18.2%
> Android: 17.2%
> iOS: 14.2%
> WinMO: 5%
> Linux: 2.4%
> Other: 1.8%
>
> Source: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1421013 (August 2010)
>
> To call Android and iOS marketshare leaders, when they are more than
> twenty percentage points behind the OS with the highest market
> penetration reveals a lack of knowledge of mobile device marketshare.
>
> Compared to 2009 2Q the marketshare is not there either:
> Symbian: 51.0%
> RIM: 19.0%
> iOS: 13.0%
> WinMo: 9.3%
> Linux: 4.6%
> Android: 1.8%
> Other: 1.2%
>
> * Symbian will probably retain first position, but it won't have the
> thirty percentage point advantage in marketshare that it used to have;
> * Due to manufacturing issues, iOS won't get above 20% --- if it can
> even get that high;
> * Android will flatten out at between 20% and 25%.
> * Assuming RIM can satisfy the voyeurism that afflicts government
> agencies, it should hold steady at between 15% and 20%.
> * The other platforms will be holding their breath, wondering if their
> oxygen supply will extinguish them;
>
> jonathon

I think there's another consideration here: security.

What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the security of
any document I may store on its server? What prevents the operator's
employees or ex-employees accessing my documents? What prevents drive-by
hackers accessing my documents? What prevents someone targetting me
accessing my documents? What prevents someone targetting the service
provider accessing my documents? Can I set passwords on my documents? I
suppose I could encrypt my document but most people probably don't have
this technology readily available (see below).

What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the backing-up and
subsequent recovery of any document I may store on its server?

What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the availability
of any document I may store on its server?

A large part of the point of a portable app is that I can put the whole
kit and caboodle on an encrypted device if I want. Even without going to
such lengths, the security, availability and back-up/recovery is up to
me, not up to some unknown company whose procedures I cannot trust
(based on fairly recent history in many cases) whatever its policies may
say.

In several cases, storing documents on a server outside the owner's
country (or geographic region) could well be illegal.

I'm not at all convinced that people and, more particularly,
corporations, have really analysed the implications of web apps and
cloud computing. When they do I don't think web apps will prove all that
popular.

Call me a Luddite if you like but ...


--
Harold Fuchs
London, England


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Harold Fuchs Harold Fuchs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

On 17/11/2010 18:54, Harold Fuchs wrote:

> On 17/11/2010 18:22, jonathon wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 11/17/2010 04:25 PM, Mirek M. wrote:
>>
>>> I'd say that a web app should have higher priority here,
>>
>> This should be an independent project.
>>
>> In an ideal world, the code would be modular and clearly commented, so
>> that any developer could pick up various pieces, either to port it to a
>> new platform/OS, or to refine them a specialized function.
>>
>>> web apps work on all platforms with a modern browser
>>
>> The Internet is not always available. And where it is available, it is
>> not always cheap.
>> [ The data plan for my smartphone costs double that of my cable
>> connection, but only offers 1/10,000 of the data transfer that my cable
>> connection offers. Data transfer surcharges can reach US$1.00 per
>> kilobyte. (Data transfer, not data speed.) ]
>>
>>> an open-source web app has many more possible uses than a desktop app;
>>
>> The number of potential users is meaningless. What counts is the number
>> of people that can, and will use it.
>>
>>> the mobile OS market is still pretty unstable: there's no clear
>> platform to develop for.
>>
>> If you are waiting for a clear platform to develop for, you will wait
>> forever.
>>
>> At best, there will be three dominant platforms for mobile devices, and
>> three dominant platforms for desktop devices, and three dominant
>> platforms for gaming consoles, for a total of ten different platforms to
>> code for.
>>
>> The worst case scenario is that there will be five dominant mobile
>> device platforms, with another five dominant desktop platforms with
>> another five dominant gaming consoles, for a total of sixteen different
>> platforms to code for.
>>
>> In either instance, you are looking at between twenty and thirty
>> different platforms, in order to support user-expectations, in terms of
>> cross-platform availability.
>>
>>> all the other mobile operating systems haven't yet reached the level of
>> marketshare that iOS and Android have.
>>
>> 2010 2Q Marketshare
>> Symbian: 41.2%
>> RIM: 18.2%
>> Android: 17.2%
>> iOS: 14.2%
>> WinMO: 5%
>> Linux: 2.4%
>> Other: 1.8%
>>
>> Source: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1421013 (August 2010)
>>
>> To call Android and iOS marketshare leaders, when they are more than
>> twenty percentage points behind the OS with the highest market
>> penetration reveals a lack of knowledge of mobile device marketshare.
>>
>> Compared to 2009 2Q the marketshare is not there either:
>> Symbian: 51.0%
>> RIM: 19.0%
>> iOS: 13.0%
>> WinMo: 9.3%
>> Linux: 4.6%
>> Android: 1.8%
>> Other: 1.2%
>>
>> * Symbian will probably retain first position, but it won't have the
>> thirty percentage point advantage in marketshare that it used to have;
>> * Due to manufacturing issues, iOS won't get above 20% --- if it can
>> even get that high;
>> * Android will flatten out at between 20% and 25%.
>> * Assuming RIM can satisfy the voyeurism that afflicts government
>> agencies, it should hold steady at between 15% and 20%.
>> * The other platforms will be holding their breath, wondering if their
>> oxygen supply will extinguish them;
>>
>> jonathon
>
> I think there's another consideration here: security.
>
> What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the security of
> any document I may store on its server? What prevents the operator's
> employees or ex-employees accessing my documents? What prevents drive-by
> hackers accessing my documents? What prevents someone targetting me
> accessing my documents? What prevents someone targetting the service
> provider accessing my documents? Can I set passwords on my documents? I
> suppose I could encrypt my document but most people probably don't have
> this technology readily available (see below).
>
> What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the backing-up and
> subsequent recovery of any document I may store on its server?
>
> What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the availability
> of any document I may store on its server?
>
> A large part of the point of a portable app is that I can put the whole
> kit and caboodle on an encrypted device if I want. Even without going to
> such lengths, the security, availability and back-up/recovery is up to
> me, not up to some unknown company whose procedures I cannot trust
> (based on fairly recent history in many cases) whatever its policies may
> say.
>
> In several cases, storing documents on a server outside the owner's
> country (or geographic region) could well be illegal.
>
> I'm not at all convinced that people and, more particularly,
> corporations, have really analysed the implications of web apps and
> cloud computing. When they do I don't think web apps will prove all that
> popular.
>
> Call me a Luddite if you like but ...
>
>

Sorry to reply to my own post but there's something I forgot:

What guarantees do I get that a document I prepare today will be
properly processable by the web app provider's software tomorrow? Do I
have any control over the version of the software I use?

--
Harold Fuchs
London, England


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

mirek2 mirek2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

2010/11/17 Harold Fuchs <[hidden email]>

> On 17/11/2010 18:54, Harold Fuchs wrote:
>
>> On 17/11/2010 18:22, jonathon wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 11/17/2010 04:25 PM, Mirek M. wrote:
>>>
>>>  I'd say that a web app should have higher priority here,
>>>>
>>>
>>> This should be an independent project.
>>>
>>> In an ideal world, the code would be modular and clearly commented, so
>>> that any developer could pick up various pieces, either to port it to a
>>> new platform/OS, or to refine them a specialized function.
>>>
>>>  web apps work on all platforms with a modern browser
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Internet is not always available. And where it is available, it is
>>> not always cheap.
>>> [ The data plan for my smartphone costs double that of my cable
>>> connection, but only offers 1/10,000 of the data transfer that my cable
>>> connection offers. Data transfer surcharges can reach US$1.00 per
>>> kilobyte. (Data transfer, not data speed.) ]
>>>
>>>  an open-source web app has many more possible uses than a desktop app;
>>>>
>>>
>>> The number of potential users is meaningless. What counts is the number
>>> of people that can, and will use it.
>>>
>>>  the mobile OS market is still pretty unstable: there's no clear
>>>>
>>> platform to develop for.
>>>
>>> If you are waiting for a clear platform to develop for, you will wait
>>> forever.
>>>
>>> At best, there will be three dominant platforms for mobile devices, and
>>> three dominant platforms for desktop devices, and three dominant
>>> platforms for gaming consoles, for a total of ten different platforms to
>>> code for.
>>>
>>> The worst case scenario is that there will be five dominant mobile
>>> device platforms, with another five dominant desktop platforms with
>>> another five dominant gaming consoles, for a total of sixteen different
>>> platforms to code for.
>>>
>>> In either instance, you are looking at between twenty and thirty
>>> different platforms, in order to support user-expectations, in terms of
>>> cross-platform availability.
>>>
>>>  all the other mobile operating systems haven't yet reached the level of
>>>>
>>> marketshare that iOS and Android have.
>>>
>>> 2010 2Q Marketshare
>>> Symbian: 41.2%
>>> RIM: 18.2%
>>> Android: 17.2%
>>> iOS: 14.2%
>>> WinMO: 5%
>>> Linux: 2.4%
>>> Other: 1.8%
>>>
>>> Source: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1421013 (August 2010)
>>>
>>> To call Android and iOS marketshare leaders, when they are more than
>>> twenty percentage points behind the OS with the highest market
>>> penetration reveals a lack of knowledge of mobile device marketshare.
>>>
>>> Compared to 2009 2Q the marketshare is not there either:
>>> Symbian: 51.0%
>>> RIM: 19.0%
>>> iOS: 13.0%
>>> WinMo: 9.3%
>>> Linux: 4.6%
>>> Android: 1.8%
>>> Other: 1.2%
>>>
>>> * Symbian will probably retain first position, but it won't have the
>>> thirty percentage point advantage in marketshare that it used to have;
>>> * Due to manufacturing issues, iOS won't get above 20% --- if it can
>>> even get that high;
>>> * Android will flatten out at between 20% and 25%.
>>> * Assuming RIM can satisfy the voyeurism that afflicts government
>>> agencies, it should hold steady at between 15% and 20%.
>>> * The other platforms will be holding their breath, wondering if their
>>> oxygen supply will extinguish them;
>>>
>>> jonathon
>>
>>
>> I think there's another consideration here: security.
>>
>> What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the security of
>> any document I may store on its server? What prevents the operator's
>> employees or ex-employees accessing my documents? What prevents drive-by
>> hackers accessing my documents? What prevents someone targetting me
>> accessing my documents? What prevents someone targetting the service
>> provider accessing my documents? Can I set passwords on my documents? I
>> suppose I could encrypt my document but most people probably don't have
>> this technology readily available (see below).
>>
>> What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the backing-up and
>> subsequent recovery of any document I may store on its server?
>>
>> What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the availability
>> of any document I may store on its server?
>
>
>
> A large part of the point of a portable app is that I can put the whole
>> kit and caboodle on an encrypted device if I want. Even without going to
>> such lengths, the security, availability and back-up/recovery is up to
>> me, not up to some unknown company whose procedures I cannot trust
>> (based on fairly recent history in many cases) whatever its policies may
>> say.
>
>
I agree -- security is definitely an issue. But it's always going to be an
issue, with everything that's online. There's always going to be a host that
has access to everything you upload.

However, with an open-source web app, you get the options of:
a) hosting the web app yourself, so that no third party has control over
your files
b) downloading the web app and running it offline

>
>> In several cases, storing documents on a server outside the owner's
>> country (or geographic region) could well be illegal.
>>
>> I'm not at all convinced that people and, more particularly,
>> corporations, have really analysed the implications of web apps and
>> cloud computing. When they do I don't think web apps will prove all that
>> popular.
>
>
Companies use web apps to share stuff. They've trusted and used e-mail for
quite a while now, which is just as risky as any other web application.

If you're writing something personal that you're not going to share with
anyone, then you shouldn't be doing it on the web. And if you're writing
something to share with others, there are always going to be security
issues, no matter if you use a web application from the start or just upload
your files to one.

As I said, the benefit of an open source office suite is that a company (or
even an individual) can host and secure the suite itself.

 Call me a Luddite if you like but ...
>>
>>
>>
> Sorry to reply to my own post but there's something I forgot:
>
> What guarantees do I get that a document I prepare today will be properly
> processable by the web app provider's software tomorrow? Do I have any
> control over the version of the software I use?


It should be possible to make this web app run offline. Ideally, you should
be able to download the web app and run it in a browser from your own
computer. No security issues there, because nothing's being sent online.

>
>
> --
> Harold Fuchs
> London, England
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]<discuss%[hidden email]>
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Harold Fuchs Harold Fuchs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

On 17/11/2010 21:45, Mirek M. wrote:

> 2010/11/17 Harold Fuchs<[hidden email]>
>
>> On 17/11/2010 18:54, Harold Fuchs wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/11/2010 18:22, jonathon wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2010 04:25 PM, Mirek M. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   I'd say that a web app should have higher priority here,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This should be an independent project.
>>>>
>>>> In an ideal world, the code would be modular and clearly commented, so
>>>> that any developer could pick up various pieces, either to port it to a
>>>> new platform/OS, or to refine them a specialized function.
>>>>
>>>>   web apps work on all platforms with a modern browser
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Internet is not always available. And where it is available, it is
>>>> not always cheap.
>>>> [ The data plan for my smartphone costs double that of my cable
>>>> connection, but only offers 1/10,000 of the data transfer that my cable
>>>> connection offers. Data transfer surcharges can reach US$1.00 per
>>>> kilobyte. (Data transfer, not data speed.) ]
>>>>
>>>>   an open-source web app has many more possible uses than a desktop app;
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The number of potential users is meaningless. What counts is the number
>>>> of people that can, and will use it.
>>>>
>>>>   the mobile OS market is still pretty unstable: there's no clear
>>>>>
>>>> platform to develop for.
>>>>
>>>> If you are waiting for a clear platform to develop for, you will wait
>>>> forever.
>>>>
>>>> At best, there will be three dominant platforms for mobile devices, and
>>>> three dominant platforms for desktop devices, and three dominant
>>>> platforms for gaming consoles, for a total of ten different platforms to
>>>> code for.
>>>>
>>>> The worst case scenario is that there will be five dominant mobile
>>>> device platforms, with another five dominant desktop platforms with
>>>> another five dominant gaming consoles, for a total of sixteen different
>>>> platforms to code for.
>>>>
>>>> In either instance, you are looking at between twenty and thirty
>>>> different platforms, in order to support user-expectations, in terms of
>>>> cross-platform availability.
>>>>
>>>>   all the other mobile operating systems haven't yet reached the level of
>>>>>
>>>> marketshare that iOS and Android have.
>>>>
>>>> 2010 2Q Marketshare
>>>> Symbian: 41.2%
>>>> RIM: 18.2%
>>>> Android: 17.2%
>>>> iOS: 14.2%
>>>> WinMO: 5%
>>>> Linux: 2.4%
>>>> Other: 1.8%
>>>>
>>>> Source: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1421013 (August 2010)
>>>>
>>>> To call Android and iOS marketshare leaders, when they are more than
>>>> twenty percentage points behind the OS with the highest market
>>>> penetration reveals a lack of knowledge of mobile device marketshare.
>>>>
>>>> Compared to 2009 2Q the marketshare is not there either:
>>>> Symbian: 51.0%
>>>> RIM: 19.0%
>>>> iOS: 13.0%
>>>> WinMo: 9.3%
>>>> Linux: 4.6%
>>>> Android: 1.8%
>>>> Other: 1.2%
>>>>
>>>> * Symbian will probably retain first position, but it won't have the
>>>> thirty percentage point advantage in marketshare that it used to have;
>>>> * Due to manufacturing issues, iOS won't get above 20% --- if it can
>>>> even get that high;
>>>> * Android will flatten out at between 20% and 25%.
>>>> * Assuming RIM can satisfy the voyeurism that afflicts government
>>>> agencies, it should hold steady at between 15% and 20%.
>>>> * The other platforms will be holding their breath, wondering if their
>>>> oxygen supply will extinguish them;
>>>>
>>>> jonathon
>>>
>>>
>>> I think there's another consideration here: security.
>>>
>>> What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the security of
>>> any document I may store on its server? What prevents the operator's
>>> employees or ex-employees accessing my documents? What prevents drive-by
>>> hackers accessing my documents? What prevents someone targetting me
>>> accessing my documents? What prevents someone targetting the service
>>> provider accessing my documents? Can I set passwords on my documents? I
>>> suppose I could encrypt my document but most people probably don't have
>>> this technology readily available (see below).
>>>
>>> What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the backing-up and
>>> subsequent recovery of any document I may store on its server?
>>>
>>> What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the availability
>>> of any document I may store on its server?
>>
>>
>>
>> A large part of the point of a portable app is that I can put the whole
>>> kit and caboodle on an encrypted device if I want. Even without going to
>>> such lengths, the security, availability and back-up/recovery is up to
>>> me, not up to some unknown company whose procedures I cannot trust
>>> (based on fairly recent history in many cases) whatever its policies may
>>> say.
>>
>>
> I agree -- security is definitely an issue. But it's always going to be an
> issue, with everything that's online. There's always going to be a host that
> has access to everything you upload.
>
> However, with an open-source web app, you get the options of:
> a) hosting the web app yourself, so that no third party has control over
> your files
> b) downloading the web app and running it offline
>
>>
>>> In several cases, storing documents on a server outside the owner's
>>> country (or geographic region) could well be illegal.
>>>
>>> I'm not at all convinced that people and, more particularly,
>>> corporations, have really analysed the implications of web apps and
>>> cloud computing. When they do I don't think web apps will prove all that
>>> popular.
>>
>>
> Companies use web apps to share stuff. They've trusted and used e-mail for
> quite a while now, which is just as risky as any other web application.
>
> If you're writing something personal that you're not going to share with
> anyone, then you shouldn't be doing it on the web. And if you're writing
> something to share with others, there are always going to be security
> issues, no matter if you use a web application from the start or just upload
> your files to one.
>
> As I said, the benefit of an open source office suite is that a company (or
> even an individual) can host and secure the suite itself.
>
>   Call me a Luddite if you like but ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Sorry to reply to my own post but there's something I forgot:
>>
>> What guarantees do I get that a document I prepare today will be properly
>> processable by the web app provider's software tomorrow? Do I have any
>> control over the version of the software I use?
>
>
> It should be possible to make this web app run offline. Ideally, you should
> be able to download the web app and run it in a browser from your own
> computer. No security issues there, because nothing's being sent online.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Harold Fuchs
>> London, England
>>

Your argument in rebuttal of mine seems to depend almost entirely on the
user running the web app on his/her own computer. Then what's the point
of a web app? We run LibO or MS Office on our own computers today.
What's the difference? If the only way to provide adequate
security/back-up/etc is to host the software locally then you've just
killed the web app and you are on my team :-)

--
Harold Fuchs
London, England


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

jonathon-6 jonathon-6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

In reply to this post by Harold Fuchs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/17/2010 06:54 PM, Harold Fuchs wrote:

> What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the security of
 any document I may store on its server?

Personal cloud servers: The cloud that _you_ run in your home, office,
or SOHO.

> What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the backing-up and
 subsequent recovery of any document I may store on its server?

Any individual or organization that thinks that a non-personal cloud
offers viable long term storage of anything is delusional.

> A large part of the point of a portable app is that I can put the whole
 kit and caboodle on an encrypted device if I want.

The point of the web application is to _supplement_ existing apps, not
replace them.

>corporations, have really analysed the implications of web apps and
cloud computing.

Corporations have been using cloud apps for decades. The only thing that
is new about them is a sexier name.

jonathon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5FYZAAoJEOpnmQXT8Ln/2VoIAJZDuZB6VsRfXyYcgyw4d/SL
6dZJv0yqhCmKdgF+hYTDtnriyl/LywF8Ah3WOj+0pyH2zhuBzF2sFFAuuS/VdZqJ
kiwMbcFnzfdarkz6h+4ogjDglO4DzjluDONm2CG3XyZW5pRc7q9dO8fSpJF6Yrh9
w2DoHrbiRlaMzhzlJy5PCrOcnc28svPp7JGifa2b/N6IU6MseIlR1fSuBOU0I+X3
XFdc/foOhXdIK1qmHAeibwsmlI+L8H1UhhgaCkD5CLmhpS3TisIUFirdGNHxseuB
Ig2Af+a0mw7zzNxQ4H1nFGXVxkERFmOFCtUFMIi7iVFfN+xB9CM6j64E3M2YoSs=
=fPn3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Harold Fuchs Harold Fuchs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

On 17/11/2010 22:24, jonathon wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/17/2010 06:54 PM, Harold Fuchs wrote:
>
>> What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the security of
>   any document I may store on its server?
>
> Personal cloud servers: The cloud that _you_ run in your home, office,
> or SOHO.

Name one.

>
>> What guarantees do cloud service operators give about the backing-up and
>   subsequent recovery of any document I may store on its server?
>
> Any individual or organization that thinks that a non-personal cloud
> offers viable long term storage of anything is delusional.

Tell that to Google.

>
>> A large part of the point of a portable app is that I can put the whole
>   kit and caboodle on an encrypted device if I want.
>
> The point of the web application is to _supplement_ existing apps, not
> replace them.

It will be a minor supplement for trivial uses. I might generate my
Christmas cards using a web app but I wouldn't trust one with my CV.
Christmas cards perhaps, Christmas card list, no. Many of the people I
know wouldn't want me putting their names and addresses, or the names of
their kids, on the web.

>
>> corporations, have really analysed the implications of web apps and
> cloud computing.
>
> Corporations have been using cloud apps for decades. The only thing that
> is new about them is a sexier name.

Yes. I worked for 27 years for a company offering cloud services. We had
to give all sorts of guarantees, including having bonded employees in
the server centres. It was a huge problem. Since then privacy laws
relating to exporting data outside national boundaries have been
introduced that would have killed the business had they been in force at
the time. Also, I doubt it could be made profitable at the sort of price
being touted nowadays, and if those prices were increased to profitable
levels, people would refuse to pay.

One of the major pushes towards cloud computing is the idea of the thin
client - a user's device that really has no operating system and is
actually incapable of running local applications; it can only run a web
server. This concept completely negates the idea of a local cloud.

>
> jonathon



--
Harold Fuchs
London, England


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

jonathon-6 jonathon-6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/18/2010 12:00 AM, Harold Fuchs wrote:

>> Personal cloud servers: The cloud that _you_ run in your home, office, or SOHO.
> Name one.

Ubuntu for one
In Synaptic, select "mark packages by task", then scroll down to "cloud
computing cluster" and "cloud computing node".

>> offers viable long term storage of anything is delusional.
> Tell that to Google.

Google is acutely aware of the problems with long term storage in the cloud.

> or the names of their kids, on the web.

Not the Internet, but your _personal_ cloud.   The thing that you access
at home using your PDA, e-Book reader and the like.

> This concept completely negates the idea of a local cloud.

Thin clients almost mandate a local cloud.

#####

Computers for home and SOHO usage are going in two contradictory directions:
* Smaller -> thin client only;
* Bigger -> network clusters/Beowulf clusters;

The thin client is what you'll take when you go out.
The network cluster that functions as your cloud, where your real data
will be stored.

jonathon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5Ho1AAoJEOpnmQXT8Ln/WDwH/2/r2zCV16xwqoLCgDZDiCQF
jxOrlkFhFcrjcmlZ05tN1SrMwq3Jk/tH0hTGhFancD8fpxaIZ+DwXBOK2ONLVVvK
Us9J9bCQcarrXi+ziHjtKZmEJQnE8frguLnqJe3S+D6VbWf7hZVihzQ6LZIv5FaK
IoFjrxIIDVw97a/ZeYi3pXabHydn+tZMvbmjDaasGxVnllt+r40YZZHuZJ/Vf1Ev
IjYrHoxWEr7pYpoBWF5tmSNYvMrHC3FYSQC9ohX/QIWGVmocxBqQ9I222LC8/lIC
rXKtOMmvIDYAlv0ilj1TJ6b9fis6X0piSlVHKPHQPzTsHZA3Xu53koajMuA8Whk=
=YDet
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Harold Fuchs Harold Fuchs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored


"jonathon" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...

<snip>

> Not the Internet, but your _personal_ cloud.   The thing that you access
> at home using your PDA, e-Book reader and the like.
>

This isn't local in any sense of the word I understand. It used to be; it
isn't now. My 7-year old Palm syncs to my PC via a cable (I'd be happy with
Wi-Fi). That's local. Today I can't find a single PDA/Smart-phone that lets
me sync my data with a local device such as a PC. All of them sync via an
internet-based cloud and/or *require* the use of Microsoft Outlook which,
frankly, I refuse to allow in the house.

Oh, and by the way, that Palm syncs data belonging to third-party apps as
well as to its native ones. That's because of a clever idea called
"conduits" to which no current smartphone has come even close.

This whole business with "local clouds" is nonsense as far as something like
LibO is concerned which is primarily used by individual users and small
organisations.

Coming back to the original point, the market would be much more impressed
with a mobile/portable version than with a cloud-based version. I've said it
before: that same 7-year old Palm has from day 1 been able to read and edit
(and *sync*) MS Word/Excel compatible documents using software from a
company called DataViz. If it was doable then with MS formats and Word/Excel
it's certainly doable today with ODF and LibO.

Has anyone "in authority" asked the PortableApps folk if they'd do a
portable LibO? Can't hurt to ask ...

Has anyone "in authority" asked the Android and/or Apple and/or Symbian folk
if they'd do a mobile LibO? Can't hurt to ask ...

<snip>

--
Harold Fuchs
London, England



--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Florian Reisinger-2 Florian Reisinger-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored




> Has anyone "in authority" asked the PortableApps folk if they'd do a
> portable LibO? Can't hurt to ask ...
>
> Has anyone "in authority" asked the Android and/or Apple and/or Symbian folk
> if they'd do a mobile LibO? Can't hurt to ask ...
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Harold Fuchs
> London, England


That would be a great idea.    
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Ian Lynch Ian Lynch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

On 18 November 2010 14:27, Florian Reisinger <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > Has anyone "in authority" asked the PortableApps folk if they'd do a
> > portable LibO? Can't hurt to ask ...
> >
> > Has anyone "in authority" asked the Android and/or Apple and/or Symbian
> folk
> > if they'd do a mobile LibO? Can't hurt to ask ...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > --
> > Harold Fuchs
> > London, England
>
>
> That would be a great idea.
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]<discuss%[hidden email]>
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
> I'd be surprised if Google hadn't already thought about it and so they
probably rejected it. After all they already have Google Docs and my Android
phone has ThinkFree Office. Symbian is using K-office. The barrier of the
size of LO is a significant issue. If it is slimmed and phones get more
powerful it can happen but the longer that takes the moore likely it will be
that it is too late :-(. Even a light weight WP based on Writer from a
workflow point of view and supporting odf would be better than nothing. 90%
of people simply don't need all the functions for the things they do most
often and this likely what they would do on phone technology.
--
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQwww.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Harold Fuchs Harold Fuchs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

On 18/11/2010 19:39, Ian Lynch wrote:

> On 18 November 2010 14:27, Florian Reisinger<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>>
>>> Has anyone "in authority" asked the PortableApps folk if they'd do a
>>> portable LibO? Can't hurt to ask ...
>>>
>>> Has anyone "in authority" asked the Android and/or Apple and/or Symbian
>> folk
>>> if they'd do a mobile LibO? Can't hurt to ask ...
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Harold Fuchs
>>> London, England
>>
>>
>> That would be a great idea.
>> --
>> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]<discuss%[hidden email]>
>> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
>> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
>> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>>
>> I'd be surprised if Google hadn't already thought about it and so they
> probably rejected it. After all they already have Google Docs and my Android
> phone has ThinkFree Office. Symbian is using K-office. The barrier of the
> size of LO is a significant issue. If it is slimmed and phones get more
> powerful it can happen but the longer that takes the moore likely it will be
> that it is too late :-(. Even a light weight WP based on Writer from a
> workflow point of view and supporting odf would be better than nothing. 90%
> of people simply don't need all the functions for the things they do most
> often and this likely what they would do on phone technology.

Your comment about the size of LibO is highly relevant. I've been amazed
ever since I first encountered OOo that it isn't in separately
installable modules. Perhaps, if it is to make significant inroads into
the developing markets, it needs a complete re-design to conform to the
Unix philosophy of making small tools that each do one job well but can
be easily combined.

ThinkFree seems do do MS Office format only :-( It seems to be able to
handle doc, xls etc. but *not* docx, xlsx etc.

K-Office seems to be able to handle ODF.

Perhaps LibO is too late for the mobile market, which would be a shame,
but I still think a *portable* version would be an excellent "seller".

--
Harold Fuchs
London, England


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Ian Lynch Ian Lynch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

On 18 November 2010 23:05, Harold Fuchs <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 18/11/2010 19:39, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
>> On 18 November 2010 14:27, Florian Reisinger<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  Has anyone "in authority" asked the PortableApps folk if they'd do a
>>>> portable LibO? Can't hurt to ask ...
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone "in authority" asked the Android and/or Apple and/or Symbian
>>>>
>>> folk
>>>
>>>> if they'd do a mobile LibO? Can't hurt to ask ...
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Harold Fuchs
>>>> London, England
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That would be a great idea.
>>> --
>>> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]<discuss%[hidden email]>
>>> <discuss%[hidden email]<discuss%[hidden email]>
>>> >
>>>
>>> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
>>> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
>>> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>>>
>>> I'd be surprised if Google hadn't already thought about it and so they
>>>
>> probably rejected it. After all they already have Google Docs and my
>> Android
>> phone has ThinkFree Office. Symbian is using K-office. The barrier of the
>> size of LO is a significant issue. If it is slimmed and phones get more
>> powerful it can happen but the longer that takes the moore likely it will
>> be
>> that it is too late :-(. Even a light weight WP based on Writer from a
>> workflow point of view and supporting odf would be better than nothing.
>> 90%
>> of people simply don't need all the functions for the things they do most
>> often and this likely what they would do on phone technology.
>>
>
> Your comment about the size of LibO is highly relevant. I've been amazed
> ever since I first encountered OOo that it isn't in separately installable
> modules. Perhaps, if it is to make significant inroads into the developing
> markets, it needs a complete re-design to conform to the Unix philosophy of
> making small tools that each do one job well but can be easily combined.
>
> ThinkFree seems do do MS Office format only :-( It seems to be able to
> handle doc, xls etc. but *not* docx, xlsx etc.
>
> K-Office seems to be able to handle ODF.
>
> Perhaps LibO is too late for the mobile market, which would be a shame, but
> I still think a *portable* version would be an excellent "seller".
>
> --
> Harold Fuchs
> London, England


Really it's down to the Star Office heritage. Star Office originated at a
time when megalithic apps were the "in" thing. (at least with MSFT) You can
see why. Ever increasing size forces people to upgrade their hardware. New
computer new Windows sale. There was absolutely no incentive to do things
differently. Of course the developers of Star Office didn't have to do it
that way but they probably thought this is the model that is accepted by end
users so we have to have highly integrated to compete. Once it is in the
millions of lines of code it is very difficult to get off that treadmlll.
Personally I'd rather have seen the engineering effort going first for
efficiency with a set of features good enough for 90% of the market starting
10 years ago but we can't turn the clock back. And of course there is the
argument that without certain features some of the large public sector
switches might not have happened.

--
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQwww.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Alexandro Colorado Alexandro Colorado
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

In reply to this post by Harold Fuchs
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:05:03 -0600, Harold Fuchs  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 18/11/2010 19:39, Ian Lynch wrote:
>> On 18 November 2010 14:27, Florian Reisinger<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Has anyone "in authority" asked the PortableApps folk if they'd do a
>>>> portable LibO? Can't hurt to ask ...
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone "in authority" asked the Android and/or Apple and/or  
>>>> Symbian
>>> folk
>>>> if they'd do a mobile LibO? Can't hurt to ask ...
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Harold Fuchs
>>>> London, England
>>>
>>>
>>> That would be a great idea.
>>> --
>>> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to  
>>> [hidden email]<discuss%[hidden email]>
>>> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
>>> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
>>> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>>>
>>> I'd be surprised if Google hadn't already thought about it and so they
>> probably rejected it. After all they already have Google Docs and my  
>> Android
>> phone has ThinkFree Office. Symbian is using K-office. The barrier of  
>> the
>> size of LO is a significant issue. If it is slimmed and phones get more
>> powerful it can happen but the longer that takes the moore likely it  
>> will be
>> that it is too late :-(. Even a light weight WP based on Writer from a
>> workflow point of view and supporting odf would be better than nothing.  
>> 90%
>> of people simply don't need all the functions for the things they do  
>> most
>> often and this likely what they would do on phone technology.
>
> Your comment about the size of LibO is highly relevant. I've been amazed  
> ever since I first encountered OOo that it isn't in separately  
> installable modules. Perhaps, if it is to make significant inroads into  
> the developing markets, it needs a complete re-design to conform to the  
> Unix philosophy of making small tools that each do one job well but can  
> be easily combined.

OOo is in different modules, but is a bit irrelevant since the core still  
ocuppies 90% of the overal size.
When you install in linux you  are faced with a folder with up to 17  
different rpm packages. Also a distro will upgrade on different package  
set. Then again the same is true if you want a KDE app, the core libs will  
take a very large and pulverized ammount of packages.

> ThinkFree seems do do MS Office format only :-( It seems to be able to  
> handle doc, xls etc. but *not* docx, xlsx etc.

Google Docs do ODF there is a whole list of apps that handle ODF. This is  
more of an ODF conversation but the level of adoption is very big now.

Check this graph:  
http://216.220.37.188/uploadedImages/About_Adlib/Adlib_Software_Blog/http---www.odfalliance.org-resources-ODF5yr_050110.pdf%20-%20Adobe%20Reader.jpg

>
> K-Office seems to be able to handle ODF.
>
> Perhaps LibO is too late for the mobile market, which would be a shame,  
> but I still think a *portable* version would be an excellent "seller".
>

LibO is already being targeted to be bundled with the WeTab which is a  
meego driven app. I think mobile development will soon reach the computer  
specs faster than developing for a mobile specs. There are remote desktop  
solutions to manage apps from your mobile as well. Mobile custom OS don't  
allow new toolkits like the one of OOo/LibO which makes it practically  
impossible to port. As opposed to open OS that allow you to just compile  
the new toolkit for it.

Android might allow our toolkit but the lack of support of big  
dependencies like X11 might make it hard to compile for it.

Open mobile platforms like Meego/maemo might have a better choice for the  
port.

--
Alexandro Colorado

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Next » 12