OOo VBA compatibility injected by Novell?
I just read about a Novell developer posting a "patch" to OpenOffice: http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/11/08/1726205
Let's look at the code in the OOo Basic Editor. Go to the OpenOffice.org menu and click on Tools -> Macros -> Organize Macros -> OpenOffice.org Basic.
Sub VBA_Library
Rem Sub openWorkbooks (iFiles())
Rem Dim wBook as Workbook
Rem Dim wList as String
Rem Dim iFile as String
Rem
Rem For Each iFile in iFiles
Rem Workbooks.Open iFile
Rem Next iFile
Rem
Rem For Each wBook In Workbooks
Rem wList = wList & wBook.Name & chr(13)
Rem Next wBook
Rem Worksheets("Sheet2").Range("A1") = Now()
Rem msgbox Workbooks.Count & " files open:" & chr(13) & chr(13) & wList
Rem End Sub
End Sub
You'll see that standard OpenOffice.org handles VBA code in a module. The VBA code all gets turned into comments, and then is encapsulated into a new subroutine (which is given the same name as the module).
However, if you're using OpenOffice.org with VBA support, you'll see a different picture:
Option VBASupport 1
Sub openWorkbooks (iFiles())
Dim wBook as Workbook
Dim wList as String
Dim iFile as String
For Each iFile in iFiles
Workbooks.Open iFile
Next iFile
For Each wBook in Workbooks
wList = wList & wBook.Name & chr( 13 )
Next wBook
Worksheets( "Sheet2" ).Range("A1") = Now()
msgbox Workbooks.Count & " files open:" & chr(13) & chr(13) & wList
End Sub
One reader posted an "ac" response:
You're walking with Novell, everything is ok.
Linux is not tainted by M$ IP.
Now Novell comes up with some good-looking food and says "Wanna try?", after taking a bite itself.
"Hmm, ok", you say. After just one piece, you realize it's poison, but Novell was immune because of the deal.
But you, being Red Hat, or Xandros, or Linspire or any other commercial Linux cannot any longer go where Novell goes. They can now breath underwater, but you must remain at the beach.
Novell gets differentiated, walks freely in M$ environments, and M$ has just made one single company more powerful. A single company which will be friends with M$...
One cannot help but wonder whether this is analogous to the technique used in Africa (IIRC, about hutu and tutsi): favoring one ethnic group while persecuting another, until there is hate between them.
Hate and segregation lead to secession. In a time when Gnome and KDE are finally establishing common rules in free desktop, M$ tries their final move to divide the free software movement, because divided we are weak.
Alas, as other M$ past initiatives -- Linux as a joke, cancer, viral, not ready -- this will also backfire.
I've been using OOo exclusively on both my W2K workstation at work and on my MEPIS-6.0 and have had no need for Excel macro VBA compatibility.
Personally, I think it would be a good thing to leave this "MS IP Exploit", as one slashdotter phrased it, OUT of MEPIS.
Those who want the feature can buy StarOffice.
re: I read that same article
I've dumped everything SuSE, novell, ximian, MONO, Evolution, and am scrutinizing everything that comes across the wire on the whole novell-ms debacle.
I've been recuperating from surgery since 11/8 and won't return to work till 11/27. But, when I return at least 3 SUSE servers will be history.
--
GreyGeek
It's A Shame
Yes, it's a shame. I liked SuSE. Shortly after trying Mandrake (not Mandriva) many years ago, and not being real thrilled with it, I tried SuSE that I purchased. I think the earliest version was 7.2. It loaded onto my desktop, and onto my laptop, and it was easy to configure, and keep up-to-date. I subsequently BOUGHT each new version (the PROFESSIONAL version, at close to USD 100 a pop) so that I had a complete distribution in a box. I don't like buying "upgrade" versions of operating systems because I worry that if I had to go back and do a complete re-install, I'd have to load 38 different "upgrades" to come up to present. That's the paranoia that I developed with MS operating systems 
But up until I tried Mepis, I considered staying with SuSE as my "Official OS". I will still play with downloads of OpenSUSE, but only to watch what happens. But I will not recommend installing SuSE on any production box until this issue changes.
I find this move by MS not at all surprising, but I find Novell's acceptance reprehensible. And GOSH I'm glad that MS is helping the Open Source community to "fix its bugs". It's not like all of those developers in the world cannot do it (sorry, I couldn't find the "sarcasm" tags). I just hope that whoever adds or modifies code in OpenOffice for the purpose of Microsoft "compatibility" signs their code. Isn't that a requirement (of the GPL)? That if someone goes in and adds/modifies/deletes someone else's code that they have to not only maintain original attribution, but also show what they have changed so that if something goes wrong that it can be quickly spotted and possibly removed?
Could SAMBA.org be next, I fear?
Jon
The Samba Team has already denounced it
Could SAMBA.org be next, I fear?
The Samba team has already denounced the deal.
Public Letter to Novell from Samba Team
Jim C.
Thanks Jim
Thanks Jim for the link.
Yes, I agree that it is hard for the "Average Joe" to understand "what's all the fuss about?". If a person buys a car, they get in it, turn the key, and drive off. They don't need to know anything about all the mechanics, and physics (and laws, and agreements), that were required to design, build, distribute, and sell the car. "It just drives". Hopefully, they at least know how to drive
But where the old "automobile analogies" start to break down when discussing computer stuff is that computers comprise more than just hardware. They involve software, and the software does not physically exist but there are laws, copyrights, trademarks, and patents that try to treat software as a physical thing.
It is also difficult for the "Average Joe" to understand why there are people like us who get all riled up about "something that doesn't cost any money". Dare I say "freedom"? Yes, to step on my soapbox, freedom is both the cheapest thing to buy, since it costs no money, yet the most valuable thing to have, because it costs so much to gain and maintain. It may seem silly to some, to go on and on about "some software", but I'm sure the same thing has been said about a book or two also
There was a post on Linux Weekly News recently, that is a pretty decent description of why these freedoms are important. The topic focuses on the other controversy of providing proprietary, binary, video drivers in various Linux distributions. So rather than creating another thread (Bad Jon!) I'll create the link here.
LWN: Resisting the binary blob
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/209175/0a04432678a67270/
And here is a quotation from that article:
The fact that many of these users worry little about software freedom now does not mean that they will never care, however. Very few of us were born knowing that free software is a better solution, that using free software is an important part of being free in general. Just like most of us have learned, over time, that saving some of the money we earn, while perhaps being inconvenient in the short term, brings long-term benefits, we have also learned that using free software - and helping to improve that software - is better in the long term. Certainly some subset of the new users coming to Linux will come to understand this fact as well.But it will not matter how well these users understand the fine points of software freedom if, by the time they have figured it out, there are no free operating systems for them to run. If we want free systems then, we have to build and use free systems now. There can be a place for a binary blob which enables a specific bit of hardware to work; your editor would argue that running such a blob is not an inherently immoral act. But it is not necessarily a wise act, and a distribution which quietly installs such blobs on an unsuspecting user's system in the name of "it just works" is not necessarily doing that user any favors.
Jon
Incremental progress
will be achieved, I think, every time somebody with lots of technical knowledge about open source software gives patient and clear help to those of us who hardly know which side of the keyboard to type on.
Of course, theoretical declarations and manifestos are important and need to filter into the mainstream. But it's the grunt work of helping individual new users that energizes broader understanding of what's at stake. The problem is that the incremental progress may seem at times like no progress at all....
RE:It's A Shame
Yes, it's a shame. I liked SuSE. Shortly after trying Mandrake (not Mandriva) many years ago, and not being real thrilled with it, I tried SuSE that I purchased. I think the earliest version was 7.2. It loaded onto my desktop, and onto my laptop, and it was easy to configure, and keep up-to-date. I subsequently BOUGHT each new version (the PROFESSIONAL version, at close to USD 100 a pop) so that I had a complete distribution in a box.
Jon
I started using Linux using RH 5.0 in May of 1998. In September of that year I discovered SuSE 5.3. I purchased 22 boxed sets o SuSE between 5.3 and 9.0, when Novell bought it. I left SuSE because when Novell first released SuSE under their management they posted a SuSE EULA on their website which said that it could be installed ONLY ON ONE PC, and that to make archival copies one had to contact Novell and get written permission. I brought this fact to the Novell user newsgroup and created a firestorm.
Novell backed down after a few days but I had already scrubbed it off my system and replaced it with Mandrake. As it turned out Mandrake was, IMO, MUCH better and faster than SuSE. After using Madrake between 7.0 and 8.2 I tried MEPIS 3.4.3 and have stayed with it every since.
I support MEPIS by purchasing a subscription.
--
GreyGeek
Quote:Fortunately, I only
Fortunately, I only had a single desktop that ran SuSE, and it got it's little self reformatted and a MEPIS installation a few months back, so I can go to church with a clear conscience.
I've got one SuSE install left at work - i won't be able to go to church / mosque / temple this weekend (we're a multicultural/multireligious company)
I read the same article last
I read the same article last night, GG.
It's my opinion that ms will attempt to insert, through novell, proprietary code and modules into open source applications--the kernel itself, if they can manage that much.
It's my belief that there, at this time, exists no so-called ms-IP in Linux/Open Source at all, but they are going to do their best to make sure that it ends-up there in five years time...and turn around and say that it was there the entire time.
I've dumped everything SuSE, novell, ximian, MONO, Evolution, and am scrutinizing everything that comes across the wire on the whole novell-ms debacle.
Remember, though, lots of us were saying that this would be the ultimate club used by ms, back when SCO was a new thing to talk about. We just didn't realize that it would be novell to play the coward in this one.
I've already contacted all of my customers (the few that do use anything novell) and informed them of the advisability of dumping those applications and development tools--immediately.
The reception has been quite positive, as a matter of fact. I will have just about a 100% novell abandonment rate by the first of the year.
Fortunately, I only had a single desktop that ran SuSE, and it got it's little self reformatted and a MEPIS installation a few months back, so I can go to church with a clear conscience.
My occupation?
Well, computer geek-stuff, mostly. I could tell you all about it; but, then I would have to delete you.