An Antic Disposition

You are here: Home / Archives for OpenOffice

OpenOffice

LibreOffice’s Dubious Claims: Part I, Download Counts

By

(This post represents my personal opinion only.  The standard disclaimer applies.)

Part II is here and Part III is here.

The Claims

I’ve recently read some implausible claims from the LibreOffice project,  concerning their stats for downloads and users.  (These two different statistics are unfortunately conflated in their publicity campaigns, but more about that later).   Their claims fall apart if given any scrutiny and placed against comparable numbers from Apache OpenOffice.  I think you’ll agree by the time you are done reading my analysis .

If this were merely yet another case of puffery from the LibreOffice marketing department then I might just let it go, as I have with many other similar claims in the past couple of years.  But to the extent that some people seem  take these claims as facts, and are repeating, them, then I hope I will be forgiven for giving truth a chance to be heard.  I’ll  lay out the numbers as I know them and let you be the judge.

First, what do we have on the Apache OpenOffice side?  Most of our downloads are from our download site hosted by SourceForge.  The download stats are public and exposed by SourceForge via their REST API.    We gather these stats with a Python script (also public here) and that data is saved to a data file, which is then plotted on our website.  So everything is open and transparent here.  The downloads are counted by a respected 3rd party and the entire processing of these numbers is open for inspection.    It is all there, day-to-day, including breakdown by country and operating system.  We have nothing to hide.

The LibreOffice numbers, on the other hand, we only know from download claims in press releases, and then only at long intervals.  We have no idea what exactly they are counting.  They have never made the detailed stats public.  This does not mean that the numbers are incorrect of course.  It just means that no one outside of their project’s leadership is able to verify the claims.

Actual Numbers

But taken for what its worth, let’s look the recent LibreOffice claims and compare it to the actual data posted by Apache.

  • On Sept 27th, LibreOffice claimed “Downloads since January 25, 2011, the date of the first stable release, have just exceeded 18 million”.
  • On that same day, OpenOffice had accumulated 18,207,610 download via SourceForge.  (Per the posted data file, which you can verify against SourceForge’s Stats API if you wish)

So both projects are doing equally well, yes?

Well, no, not at all.  You need to take the time interval into consideration.  The LibreOffice counts were from January, 2011.  The OpenOffice counts were from May, 2012.  So in just a few months OpenOffice was downloaded as many times as LibreOffice was in its first two years.

If we convert to an average daily download rate we see:

  • LibreOffice:   18,000,000/611 days = 29, 460 /day
  • Apache OpenOffice:  18,207,610/143 days = 127, 326 /day

So the download rate has been 4x greater for Apache OpenOffice, and shows no sign of slowing.

A chart might make this clearer, showing the actually OpenOffice download figures (that is why the line is a little wavy) and the claimed LibreOffice trend.  (Anyone want to guess on what this chart will look like six months from now?)

Downloads versus Users

It is important when looking at download numbers that one does not equate download counts with user counts.  This is especially true when you are dealing with upgrade cycles.  As you probably know, neither OpenOffice nor LibreOffice have an incremental update facility.  If you want to update, say from Apache OpenOffice 3.4.0 to 3.4.1 then you need to download a complete copy of 3.4.1 and install it over your 3.4.0.

This complicates things.  Upgrades tend to inflate the download counts, since an upgraded user is counted twice: once for their original download and a second time for their upgrade.    This makes estimating the number of users from the number of downloads tricky.  So to be fair, when estimating the number of Apache OpenOffice users we must not neglect the impact of having a minor maintenance release on causing two downloads for users who upgraded.

But if this is an impact on OpenOffice, which had only two releases to reach 18,207,610 downloads, then how much greater must be the impact for LibreOffice?  For example, their 3.5.x series had 7 releases to fix critical bugs.  Their download counts included downloads from 3.3.x,  3.4.x  and 3.6.x series as well, each one with its own set of bug fix releases.  One must assume, due to the long duration of this reporting interval (nearly two years) and the instability of the early releases within each series, that LibreOffice users have upgraded numerous times each, causing numerous duplicate download counts, and leading the aggregate download count to reflect several times the number of actual users.

In other words, having a rapid release cycle with no incremental update facility will juice your download numbers since each real user will end up downloading many copies of your product.  Since LibreOffice had a dozen or more releases, and OpenOffice only two, it is logical to conclude that the LibreOffice user numbers are far less than suggested by their download numbers, perhaps lower by a factor of 4 or 5.

Objection: External Sites

I anticipate several objections against the above analysis, so let’s treat those one by one.

First, one might note that LibreOffice has claimed an additional two million downloads from “external sites offering the same package”.  Since these claims are not backed with names or numbers, I cannot say much other than the fact that OpenOffice is downloaded from external websites as well.  But we don’t count those in our main download counts.   But suppose we wanted to, and wanted to do apples-to- apples comparison with LibreOffice, with numbers from a 3rd party neutral source?

Let’s take Download.com, CNET’s software download repository, one of the most popular download sites around, as an example.  Here are the download numbers for the 3-month period from 7/28/12 through 10/28/12:

In this case the OpenOffice download numbers are greater by a factor of 18x.

So I don’t think the external download sites changes things much.  The numbers are small overall, but per day the OpenOffice numbers are far higher than LibreOffice’s.

Objection: Linux users

On top of the 20 million users LibreOffice claims on Windows and Mac, they also stick a finger in the air and decide they have 30 million Linux users as well.  This leads to extravagant claims like, “As of today, LibreOffice is being used by close to 60 million people”.  They don’t detail how they arrive at this number, but it appears to be the culmination of a series of implausible assumptions:

  • Take the highest of the several estimates for the number of Linux desktops
  • Assume that everyone is using their Linux desktop for  document editing
  • Conveniently ignore AbiWord, KOffice, Gnumeric, Calligra, Google Docs or even MS Office under Wine, and assume that everyone on Linux uses LibreOffice.
  • Ignore the many Linux users who are displeased with LibreOffice and who have uninstalled it and replaced it with OpenOffice instead.

They make these assumptions and then claim another 30 million LibreOffice users on top of their inflated claim of 20 million Windows/Mac users.

But this really misses the point.  The trajectory is what matters.  In a long race you bet on the faster horse, not the one who has a small head start.  You can have 100% of the 3% Linux desktop market and even under the rosiest assumptions that is only 3%.    And that number is decreasing, as desktop users move to tablets, where Android is the player and the  Apache License is preferred for userspace code.  And I doubt Google will prefer LibreOffice in this space over their own recent QuickOffice acquisition, which already has an app supporting Android (and iOS).

Another point is that one should not equate users who intentionally download and install a product  with users who have it automatically installed as part of an OS, without their knowledge.  These are not the same thing, and to treat them as such is to confuse a downhill skier with someone who fell down a snowy hill.  The one does something intentionally;  the other has something done to them.

That is not to say that Linux users are not important.  We certainly treat Linux as a first-class platform within the project.  I’d like to see us do the packaging work necessary to make Apache OpenOffice available to users on Linux, via their distros.   Users should have choice, even on Linux.  If you’re interested in helping with this,  send me an email.

Objection: All numbers are incomparable

Another objection is to say that all projects live in a different context, with a different user base and that the numbers can never be compared against each other in a fair way.  All is relative, subjective, and LibreOffice is justified in making any claim it feels like, since it is its own reference and base of comparison.

There are several counters to this objection.  First, when LibreOffice publishes numbers, in press releases and blog posts, it has an obligation not to deceive its readers.  This is basic professional ethics.   When you claim a certain number of users, there should be some solid basis for making that claim, not merely the absence of contradictory information.  In any case, I’ve provided adequate contradictory data in this post.

Another counter is to point out that some comparisons are closest to an apples-to-apples comparison.  For example, the number of Windows downloads directly from a project’s website.  OOr downloads from a neutral 3rd party website like CNet’s Download.com.   Of course we can debate the fine details and nuances to the right of the decimal place.  But that does not provide an excuse for conflating download numbers with user numbers in a  press release.  You may not know everything, but you should know that this is not right.

Summary

Apache OpenOffice makes available detailed download statistics in near-realtime for inspection.   LibreOffice makes download claims in press releases at wide intervals with no supporting data.

If you do an apples-to-apples comparison, of Windows and Mac users, which together constitute 97% of the desktop market,  Apache OpenOffice, although it took a while to make its first release,  3.4.0, has taken off like a rocket, and has eliminated any head-start advantage LibreOffice had, and is racing ahead with 4x the downloads that LibreOffice is reporting. And since the LibreOffice numbers are inflated by duplicate counting of upgrade downloads, OpenOffice is probably already ahead of LibreOffice in users on these platforms by a factor of 10 or more.

Under a series of implausible assumptions, LibreOffice claims an additional 30 million users on Linux.  The actual number is unknown, but likely far less.  But since Linux desktops are only 3% of the desktop market, and that market is shrinking, this is not a realistic growth opportunity for LibreOffice.

(This post represents my personal opinion only.  The standard disclaimer applies.)

From the Whispers of ApacheCon…

By 10 Comments

From the whispers of ApacheCon, OpenOffice.org may never leave the incubator project. The intention may be to do a thorough code audit and produce one last, clean release that the rival LibreOffice can absorb.

That was what you may have heard 10 months ago,  if you listened to the rumormongers.   Certainly there were a lot of rumors being spread.  (Or should we call it FUD?)  Whatever you call it, the whispers continued, in a negative propaganda campaign that the open source community should be ashamed to be associated with.   Even just a few weeks ago I heard from one LibreOffice lead that he was certain that the Apache OpenOffice podling would never graduate and that we’d fail, give up, shut down the project and give the OpenOffice trademarks to LibreOffice.  I’m sorry to disappoint, but this kind of FUD has an expiration date, and that date is now.

From the whispers of ApacheCon…

Yes, you will hear talk of OpenOffice at ApacheCon next month, a lot of it, but it will be quite in the open, no whispers there.  The Apache OpenOffice Project, no longer a “podling”, (Did I neglect to mention that we graduated from the Apache Incubator in a unanimous ASF Board resolution?) will be running a track dedicated to OpenOffice and related technologies.

And as for a clean release that LibreOffice can “absorb”, they are welcome to it.  In fact they have for several months now been merging (“rebasing” is there preferred term) Apache OpenOffice code into LibreOffice, and I couldn’t be happier about it.    Ironically, after demonizing the permissive Apache License,  it is for this very reason that LibreOffice is doing this “rebasing”, to escape from the constraints of LGPL.   After all the demagoguery, their source files will now carry an Apache License notice.

I need not repeat the long list of other false predictions and rumors: that we would never be able to bring the product’s IP up to Apache standards (we did), that we would not be able to issue security patches for OpenOffice (we did),  that we would never get a release out the door (we did, twice), that we had delayed too long in our release and were thus irrelevant (we had more downloads in 4 months than LibreOffice has had  in 2 years), that we would never contribute developers to the OpenOffice effort (we have), that we would never donate Symphony to Apache (we did), that we would dominate the project (we don’t) or that we would force Symphony to be the new base of OpenOffice (we didn’t), etc.  The FUD went on and on and continues even today, combined with exaggerations of their own modest achievements.

It is probably a vain hope to expect the FUD to stop now that we’ve graduated, though I would be happy to be wrong.  But at the very least I think we’ve established a record of accomplishment that stands in stark contrast to the repeated false predictions of the anti-Apache whisper campaign.  And it is worth noting this,  and preserving some skepticism when hearing further FUD from these same sources.   And this is something worth saying louder than a whisper.

Perspectives on Apache OpenOffice 3.4 download numbers

By 1 Comment

You may have read, on the Apache OpenOffice blog, news that the project has had 5 million downloads in the first 6 weeks since the release of version 3.4.  And as the above chart shows, the download rate has increased in the past two weeks, as we’ve started to roll out the upgrade notifications to OpenOffice.org 3.3 users.

When I mention the “5 million” achievement, the reaction is generally along the lines of, “That’s excellent !!!  Right?  That is good, isn’t it?”  The fact is the number is large, but without comparison or context, it is hard to gauge.     I think I can provide some comparisons and context to put these numbers in perspective.

First, let’s look at OpenOffice.org 3, and their famous claim of 100 million downloads.  That was in the time period from October 13, 2008 to October 28, 2009, so 380 days.  That averages out to around 260K downloads/day.   I’m not quite sure what they counted as a “download”, whether just full installers, or language packs as well.   And that time period overlaps with several releases (3.0.0, 3.0.1, 3.1.0 and 3.1.1, so there is some double, triple and quadruple counting of users due to upgrades.

For another comparison, let’s take a look at LibreOffice.  They claimed 7.5 million downloads between January 2011 and October 2011.  That averages out to 27K downloads/day.    And again, it is not clear if that counts all downloads, including multiple downloads by the same user as they update from release to release.

So how does Apache OpenOffice 3.4 compare?  Let’s state the numbers as conservatively as we can.  We’ll count only installer downloads, not language packs or SDK’s.  And we’re counting only for a single release, AOO 3.4, so there is no double counting due to upgrades.  Based on these assumptions, our average download rate has been 118K downloads/day.  (But as the chart shows, since we enabled the update notifications, the rate is now more like 170K downloads/day.

So overall I think we’re doing quite well.   There is room for improvement, but it is a good baseline against which we can show progress.  One thing we can do to grow these numbers to increase the native language support, to restore some of the key translations.   If you are interested in volunteering with Apache OpenOffice, you should read this page, and then send an email to our mailing list to introduce yourself and your interest.

A quick side note:  Some readers will observe that Linux users get their software from the distros, not from downloading from a website.  This is a safe assumption for most, but not all Linux users.  But that doesn’t really change the math much.  Assume that none of the LibreOffice downloads are from Linux users.  Assume that the entire 27K/day are entirely Windows and Mac users.   Then, we can do an apples-to-apples comparison to the Apache OpenOffice numbers, where we know that only 3% of the downloads are from Linux users.  So the better comparison would then be to compare  a very conservative 0.97 * 118K = 114 K/day versus LO’s best-case 27K/day for Windows and Mac.    A similar calculation could be done on the legacy OOo 3 figure, with similar results.

Ending the Symphony Fork

By

What is a fork?

A fork is a form of software reuse.  I like your software module.  It meets some or many of my needs, but I need some additional features.

When I want to reuse existing functionality from another software product, I generally have four choices:

  1. If your module is nicely designed and extensible, then I might be able to simply use your code as-is and write new code to extend it.
  2. I can convince you to modify your module so it meets my needs.
  3. I can work with you in your open source project to make the module (“our” module in this case) meet our mutual needs.
  4. I can copy the source code of your module and change the code in my copy, and integrate that modified module into my product.

Note that options #1 and #2 are the only options available with most proprietary modules, since these techniques don’t require access to the module’s source code.  Options #3 and #4 are the additional options made possible by open source.  Option #4 is what we mean by “forking” .  Forking is enabled by open source software and is fundamental to open source ecosystems.  It is neither good nor bad.  It is a tool, part social, part technological, for overcoming an inability or unwillingness to collaborate.  The problem is not with forking.  The problem is the conditions that lead to forking.

Why do forks come about and how do they end?

Forks can come about for many reasons, including leadership conflicts, ideological differences and other political issues, as well as differences in vision and technical direction of the project.

Generally, a fork ends when the conditions that necessitated the formation of the fork have been resolved.  At least that is true for rational participants who are merely trying to optimize outcomes.  But intransigent ideological forks can continue indefinitely, and often do.

The technical side of ending a fork is typically a code merge, as different branches of the project are brought back together again.  This can be laborious, but it is a one-time task.

Ending the Symphony Fork

With the move of OpenOffice to Apache, this open source project has made the critical move from a corporate-led open source project under asymmetrical licensing terms, to a community-led open source project under a single permissive license.  This is a tremendous change and one that should lead all forks of OpenOffice,  and all those who wanted to get involved with OpenOffice before but never did,  to reexamine their orientation to the project.

John Maynard Keynes, when criticized for reversing his position in a dispute, famously quipped, “When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?”  The “facts” of OpenOffice have changed, with the move to Apache, and this change of venue has made a huge impact on the Symphony team, which recently announced that it was ending its fork and committing to contribute their code to Apache and to work with that community going forward.

This does not mean that Symphony enhancements are going away.  Far from it.   We’re very proud of the UI work and other innovations in performance, accessibility and interoperability we’ve brought to Symphony and we will be offering the source code of these enhancements to Apache, and if accepted, will work within that project to merge these changes into Apache OpenOffice.  The DNA of Symphony is not going away.  What is going away is Symphony as a fork, as a divided effort.  The Symphony DNA, the cool work the Symphony team has worked so hard on, will live on, in Apache OpenOffice, combined with other ongoing contributions from the community, in a larger, stronger development effort.

Now that the Symphony fork is ending, the obvious question is:    Who will be next?    If we can end a four-year old fork and merge in our work with Apache, then so much easier it should be for forks that have been around for far less time.  “When the facts change, I change my opinion.  What do you do, sir?”

If you are interested in learning more about the Apache OpenOffice project, I recommend browsing the project’s website and blog.  If you want to get involved, you can sign up for the ooo-dev mailing list and post a note to introduce yourself.  As we push closer to our 3.4 release candidate we’re in particular need of volunteers to help us test this release, on Windows, Mac or Linux.  If you are interested in helping with that, be sure to say so in your note.

(This post has also been translated into Serb-Croatian by Anja Skrba.)