LibreOffice 5.2 “fresh” Released, for Windows, Mac OS and GNU/Linux
blog.documentfoundation.org
blog.documentfoundation.org
I've often been drawn to testing out LibreOffice (and OpenOffice), but every single time I open the apps, they always look terrible.
This isn't 1990 anymore - if the kind of UI design that the devs have gone for (have settled on?) alienates a tech-friendly user such as myself, there isn't a hope in hell of people like my parents using it regularly.
Does anyone know why the style they use has persisted for so long? Is it just a case that no one cares about this sort of thing on that project?
(also, I think pessimizer missed the username of the user he replied to. It wasn't me)
Here's how to: https://twitter.com/libreoffice/status/737637299928870912
Look at the embedded video that's linked on the article - see the integrated totp interface for Google auth? An interface that ships that kind of 'it works, it'll do* UI comes across as half-baked to me.
[0] https://youtu.be/EshNTl23liY (38s in)
My issue is that it's ugly as sin, not that it's there. As above, though - I'm well aware that these are opinions from one person.
It makes it feel that, rather than being intentionally designed, all of these features were tacked on.
This seems to be a fundamental design concern. I would love to see "good" examples of how to handle this.
But for the most part, it does look like Word 2k3. And among the people who aren't using Google Docs, Woord 2k3 is pretty enticing.
I also really like the way it looks on Linux Mint: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a8nJUriHD9U/VdC7bojVgpI/AAAAAAAAw...
You mean FE engineers? :P (half kidding)
A lot of tech savvy folks think the old style UI is more usable. So you should take care speaking for a group.
Also, ya I know I'm generalising a lot with my statement. I did give a disclaimer at the start, but as with all opinions ... They're usually wrong
Some dialogs are less stylish (Edit style), but most are just OK. They are not specially fancy but do not look ugly either.
To me, it looks like a solid, functional, tool, without most unnecessary decoration. It won't win the prize for the prettiest UI around, but it's far for being ugly.
So, I guess that the developers are working hard to add features and compatibility filters (Microsoft, Microsoft...), and settled to a timeless design that does not need to be redone from scratch every half a year because it looks so last month...
Maybe, you should try to work with it, instead of just testing it out.
The background of the toolbar looks completely different to native applications, and the input elements try to look like native elements, but are ever so slightly different - which to me really stands out. Even the tooltip is completely different to the native look.
It's not so much the design is bad, it's just it tries to fit into the native style but does a poor job of it. I think if instead it had gone for it's own look (like Telegram or Atom) it would be a lot better.
As you say, it's good the developers are focusing on things that will really improve the product like compatibility, but to everyday users how things look and feel are just as important - if that wasn't the case all web applications would look like Redmine :P
But it's miles away from being ugly...
For menus, I get that some people like menus, but anyone used to a ribbon interface finds menus hard. Hard to convert people. Expectations of a ribbon interface are now standard, a la WPS Office. At least provide a switch. I can get used to new things, like going back to menus, but then I grew up on menus and 65535 rows.
On WPS Office, why does it have much better compatibility with MS Office than Libre/Open Office. One type of document in particular - documents with embedded documents. Libre Office invariable hangs on .pptx or .docx or .xlsx with these, but opens the same document simply re-saved in WPS Office in .ppt or .doc or .xls format seamlessly. This seems odd. What secret sauce do WPS have?
I use LibreOffice daily. But can't solely use it. Love the pop-out side-bar. Cannot switch until PowerPivot is equivalent.
---Alex
(Oh, and they broke DOC in the process too. You know what happens when you save a DOC from a later version of MS Office? OOXML embedded in the DOC. And older MS Office and other programs that read DOC may have problems with it. http://vmiklos.hu/blog/doctok.html#comment-1282339963 )
Open/LibreOffice are basically the index case for what the Open Source community is really bad at: design & UI. Three explanations I see:
- The talent pool of designers working on OSS is too small.
- Design is a problem that is less accessible to a distributed, bottom-up workflow than code.
- The UI is actually 80% of the workload of a software project and therefore the area where OSS's lack of resources is most obvious.
This entirely depends on the project. In my experience, the UI is extremely important to the success of a project, but tends to be 10-20% of total work.
The only office gui better was the Lotus Suite one, where the layout options were much better with palets like in Photoshop, onces that you could move around.
You're in the minority. Context aware UI is superior to most since you only see elements when they're relevant rather than constantly. This creates a much less cluttered interface, but without actually sacrificing any power/functionality.
Plus LibreOffice 5 lacks legitimately useful things like real-time previews of font/size changes (via hover), graph previews, text style template saving (e.g. set up a custom title style, and you can quickly re-use that style later in that same document inc. size/font/color/etc), et al.
Back with Microsoft Office 2003 I'd agree that the then OpenOffice was a legitimate competitor. And Office 2007 had some legit problems that kept that true, but by Office 2010 LibreOffice was bested and 2013/2016 only worsened its position.
I cannot see why I'd use LibreOffice on Windows today. Cost perhaps?
Not so sure about that, I personally hate it too and know of many who have trouble with it. Its main problem is discoverability of features. With menus you could walk from first to the last to find the feature you needed (even if it was grayed out, signaling that you are in a wrong context to use it), while this is very difficult to do with ribbon bar. Especially as sometimes the feature is triggered via button, sometimes it is hidden behind a dropdown arrow, via some link... In Outlook 2010 I learned to search for features on the Internet because it takes too much time to look for them in UI. Awful UI, I hate it with passion.
EDIT: MS Office vs. Libre/OpenOffice: one reason is that I can install LO/OO on OS of my choice (Linux usually). The other is that I can install whatever version I want without licensing issues and cost. Last but not least, it has a normal menu. The only downside is interoperability - if it is important for you to edit MS documents 100% like you would in MS Office, then you really have no choice.
It also means both that it's impossible to see everything that is possible and that there's a hard limit on what can be possible in any context.
The former is a problem with editors like vi or emacs (there's no immediately-obvious list of all the possible actions — although once a beginner learns C-h m things being to change), but the latter is where they shine.
There's also no apparent rhyme or reason to what actions are or are not considered in-context.
Just show me what I can do and let me do it!
Remember that Microsoft Word is entrenched in lots of places for various reasons, and it would take a major screw up before people wouldn't continue using it. I think what happened with the ribbon is that there were somethings that were better, and other things that were not, so people shrugged and went on with their lives.
This doesn't mean the ribbon was better.
Personally, for me, the ribbon is inconsistent. The context-aware part is good, but it's implemented inconsistently. So for me, I prefer the current LO UI even as I see room for improvement.
The upshot is that these discussions of LO "being so far behind the times" strike me as odd, because they come across as assuming that change is necessarily good for change's sake.
There are more serious problems with LO in my mind, such as the equation editing markup system--it's something that used to be light-years ahead of Word with, and now is lagging significantly.
From a UI point of view, if your best idea is to do what the established, dominant, commercial/proprietary software has already had for some time, you obviously can't ever be better than your competition. You're permanently playing catch-up.
If your goal is just to provide a free-as-in-either clone of that established commercial/proprietary software, maybe that's OK.
If your goal is to produce the best software you can to help users get their office work done, to make something better in its own right and not just because of economic or philosophical priorities, then the first thing a good UI designer is going to do is step back and start asking lots of questions about the fundamentals. What work actually needs to be done? How do users want to do it? How can office software help? Are the features and UI of a traditional word processor or spreadsheet or presentation software of 20-30 years ago still useful and relevant in 2016?
Working with textual information and tables is surely still useful, and so is collecting and combining information to form some coherent overall presentation, but office work today is also often about working with information from many different sources, and examining it in different ways, and doing these things collaboratively and in real time. There are many successful online tools based on these ideas today, but a lot of them are an attractive UI on top of simple functionality like storing team to-do lists and providing real-time chat. I'm not sure how many of these systems can cope with larger projects and more demanding work yet, the kind of thing that might be written up in a word processor as a set of 100-page reports that would form the basis for a multi-year project, or managed using spreadsheets with many tables and complicated formulae to derive the information that users need in a convenient format.
Personally, I think there's a lot of potential yet for more powerful and useful and productive office software, but not within the narrow bounds of the traditional model that the likes of MS Office and LibreOffice follow. Unless you have people looking at the big picture and being creative about how to represent information and interact with it, discussions about what colour the chrome should be or whether to use a traditional toolbar or context-sensitive ribbon probably have relatively little value. There is only so much benefit to achieve with cosmetic tweaks, no matter how pretty your icons are.
Having said that, I don't really like LO's actual UX choices. Every time I try to use it, I get infuriated trying to do something relatively easy. (Take setting up different headers/footers on the first page of the document. I appreciate that making these "page styles" is theoretically more flexible, but just about every other word processor I use simply gives me a checkbox labeled "Different First Page.")
I'm all for context aware UIs, but in today's world of 16:9 monitors, a huge ribbon wasting all that precious vertical real estate is a terrible design choice. A good model to follow is Apple's iWork, where they have a single context aware toolbar with the advanced, detailed options managed in the sidebar. For quick edits, they should use a ‘floatbar’, a UI element that appears above selected text with a minimal set of the most commonly used buttons.
If there are any designers here, you can help out by subscribing to the design mailing list.
LibreOffice also makes it easy to re-encode files, when saving, into multiple formats by using MultiFormatSave extension. It's useful for saving important documents for "future proofing" purposes [1].
Oh and yes, the cost is nice too. It doesn't hurt that I also don't like the ribbon gui.
You can create character and paragraph styles in LibreOffice.
Not using latest design fad != horrible gui.
Actually there are a lot of other adjectives that can be used: normal, discoverable, unsurprising are three that easily comes to mind.
LO on Mac is just alien: that gray gradient on the toolbar is terrible, and floating modals are legion. It looks fine on Linux due to GTK theme support. I can't speak for Windows. Now that's for the looks, usability is entirely something else: managing styles and setting up headers/footers/table of contents is still ludicrously complex.
This may be true for some software projects, but I can’t see how that could be generalized to any project (even any desktop or user facing project).
Specifically for LibreOffice, the amount of work that went into that project is staggering. It’s been worked on for decades, through three different organisations (StarOffice, Sun/Oracle OpenOffice, now LibreOffice), and according to https://www.openhub.net/p/libreoffice/estimated_cost it took thousands of man-years of effort (models are lies, but I’ll believe it as an order-of-magnitude estimate). Surely not 80% of that went to the UI work.
With a handful of good design mockups, then developers have something to aim for instead of a nebulous idea of what good design is.
We need designers that are willing to engage in the project and work hand in hand with the programmers.
In close feedback loops.
What you are suggesting will very likely lead to what
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12218307
decided is bad design.
(Well, I don't really agree with him, but his opinion seems to be popular here).
What we need are lot of small incremental improvements based on a solid (evolving) concept, not a full rewrite each time a new UI mode shows up.
I suspect that would be extremely counter-productive. If you try to run some sort of design contest, and pitch it as being good publicity for the designers but not actually paying professional rates, then most serious designers will consider you a joke. They've heard every variation of this "spec work" argument before, they see right through it, and they will just consider you a time-waster. You should also expect to become a punchline on a lot of online design forums for a while, losing any credibility you might have had with other designers who didn't see the original contest.
The way I see it, if an OSS project wants to improve its presentation, it has the same two basic options as the programming side: either inspire people who genuinely value the project and are willing to volunteer their time and skills because they want to see it succeed, or raise funds somehow and pay professionals at professional rates.
There's a lot of 'grumpy old men syndrome' with FOSS. Usability, progressive UI thinking, etc in coder led projects takes a backseat to the whiz-bang hard technical stuff. And that's on top of the lack of motivation to change the UI. "If it aint broke, don't fix it" is a common UI dinosaur excuse.
Thankfully, we have google docs, o365, etc. I think the big office suite, outside of business, has killed itself. It just didn't move fast enough, is bloaty and slow, and couldn't keep up with web technologies. I don't know anyone who uses Libre anymore. They've either migrated to the web or have an old version of Office they prefer using. I'm not sure if a better UI would have helped with marketshare, but I can't imagine it hurting.
You are wrong. Please see my comments in this post.
Most programmers are aware that they are terrible at GUIs. Heck, a lot of these projects are specifically built without a GUI, so that someone else can create a GUI for it.
And if a maintainer is really opposed to it, then there's always the option to create a fork and see which version people prefer.
The saddest part is that when they dare to contribute, they simply create a fast and dirty bitmap / screenshot... With a few arrows and comment here and there.
In the worst case they just provide a screenshot of a similar commercial software: "Do like them."
I've heard it so often. Also in this thread.
Most designers who want contribute are ready to spend half an hour to a couple of hours on the issue. Not more. Then expect the programmers to spend their evenings and weekends programming. Create the proper files. Solve the edge cases.
And they're surprised that the end result does not correspond to what they were proposing.
Very few are ready to spend days or weeks on a dialog (of course not in one shot). Study the use cases, go through the possible interactions, develop proper specifications.
I also noticed that many are loudly asking for nicer UIs, but very few can think about usability and user interaction.
But I've also met some really amazing designers!
Like the one who has learned enough C++ to create a running mockup and could convince the programmers that what he is proposing can be done! He has been working on it during the past year!
So, dear designers, if you want to contribute to free software, you will probably be facing small teams of very busy programmers!
And, yes, creating free software is hard and dedicated work. For everyone who is involved!
If you want to be taken seriously, you'd better deliver files that are directly usable for the programmers (as an example: high quality individual files in the right format and size(s), not a big PNG/PSD).
You'd also better deliver a document explaining the concepts behind your work, so that the next designer can build upon your work.
And the programmers will know how to use your files.
And don't forget to also provide the sources for generating those files! (If possible, sources that can be further edited with free software!)
You don't have to learn programming, but there is some serious work ahead!
And there are a few designers who managed to achieve amazing results with their contributions! It's worth it!
Can you imagine how galling it would be for the designers or marketing team to start sitting in on code reviews? What do they know? But here in this forum, lots of people are dumping on the ribbon interface (which is quite popular, works very well, etc). Who's going to volunteer for that?
Or maybe sometimes it isn't bikeshedding but legitimate concerns from longtime users, supporters or even creators of said software.
> Can you imagine how galling it would be for the designers or marketing team to start sitting in on code reviews? What do they know? But here in this forum, lots of people are dumping on the ribbon interface (which is quite popular, works very well, etc). Who's going to volunteer for that?
I'd readily admit to be one of those "dumping" at the ribbon interface as long as you believe me that it is a bit tongue-in-cheek since I'm very open about my colour weakness and lack of education in design. :-)
That said a number of the things that are said about the ribbon thing is IMO legitimate and well argued issues like the use of valuable vertical space and the lack of discoverability. (This is a general problem today as browser etc hide menus so you have to press alt to see them, thereby discriminating against non-power-users. Same goes for removing the context-menu-button on the keyboard completely hiding the feature: who thinks of just trying shift-F10 if they don't know what they are missing and google it?)
Edit: Remove stray sentence at end. Try even harder not to come off as arrogant
Designing in the open is much harder than coding in the open as creating and implementing a consistent ui takes discipline and consensus. The design can't be just a pretty coat of paint over the top, which is what I think a lot of people assume it is.
Also, free software is about providing choice, whereas good design is often about limiting it. If free software users wanted opinionated interfaces they'd be using iOS, not Arch or whatever.
Calibre is a great example. It's an amazingly powerful bit of software, but good grief is it ugly. It'd be fantastic to take it apart and put it back together in a way that doesn't make it look like a taxidermist's sink trap.
Initially I was against it too but have found it to be good for compartmentalising work over time.
Still, I've seen more than a few workplaces that still use pre-ribbon era Office [0], and haven't upgraded because the employees hate the ribbon...
[0] ...on Windows XP, with 12+ year old hardware... the horror!
The reason was that the existing interface was so overloaded that the Office team was regularly getting feature requests for things that that already existed in the apps for years.
In a personal note, with the ribbon interface more than once I've had to google where a certain functionality ended up, which I could easily find in the old UI.
Why can't Microsoft implement an optional menu bar? It's ridiculous.
Not available from Microsoft, but...
https://www.raymond.cc/blog/add-classic-menu-to-microsoft-of...
The current UI was not designed recently and hence shouldn't be used against current FOSS UI designers.
I think lack of resources is the primary reason why the UI hasnt changed to reflect what is currently considered hip.
So... as old as it is, but still - if you want some change to happen - you have to participate. Or just pay for some other product that already fits your requirements.
ps: i like LibreOffice UI.
That sort of argument is pointless, and does absolutely nothing for further the discussion.
I have great respect for the creators and contributors to LibreOffice, but in my opinion, the UI is outdated. I even said at the very start of my comment, that this was an opinion. My opinion. One man's opinion.
i understand that it is your opinion - it is always someone's. but you had some intention with publishing it (otherwise you would just talk it to yourself and move on.) and that intention either bashing work of LO team, or steer that work in some direction which would benefit you, who has not invested anything significant into LO, or... idk. (and no - using it to open docs instead of paying for MS Office is not "investment".) Either way it is not cool.
So please, either start project to refactor UI (ideally it should be pluggable, so people who prefer old UI still could get it, forks of project that size are bad in general,) or stop bashing/manipulating project's destiny, and just buy MS Office or some other paid office product which fits your bill.
Maybe the style persists because some people prefer it over the ribbon? I know I do.
I bet Microsoft Office and LibreOffice look virtually identical to most lay-people. They probably will look more alike to you than you remember, if you take the time to look honestly. Neither Office's ribbon or the LibreOffice toolbar is really so different from the toolbars of the 1980s. This is much ado about not much.
If these matters of fashion are really so important in terms of distinguishing one piece of software from another, where does that leave the software development crowd? Did we really want to be fashion designers? Is this the way to change the world with software? Through fashionable icons and good font choices?
There's a tremendous amount of talk in this thread about how LibreOffice looks and how Microsoft Office looks, but precious little about how well they work. What does that say about us?
[Edit: consider the history of the Office GUI:
http://www.thewindowsclub.com/history-evolution-microsoft-of...
There's been an absolute rat's nest of buttons and other controls at the top of the document for 26 years. The graphic design of the 2013 version is currently more fashionable than the graphic design of the 1990 version, but the 1990 version indisputably has less stuff on it. When someone calls the older fashion "cluttered" I think they've merely learned to habitually overlook the greater clutter of the newer interface.]
I don't personally care. For me, the use case of LibreOffice is to view and sometimes edit Microsoft Office files sent by others, or to be sent to others. The UI is good enough for that (not quite as good as Word 5.1 for Macintosh, but good enough), and so I'm happy enough.
For any actual document that I care about, I'm going to use emacs, and the format I'll be working with will be LaTeX, org-mode, Markdown, HTML, plain text &c. &c. &c.
For any actual data manipulation that I care about, I'm going to use emacs and Common Lisp, Python, shell, awk, Perl, R &c. &c. &c.
It's entirely possible that if I wanted to live in an office suite that LibreOffice wouldn't be good enough, but — I don't want to live in an office suite. I think that they are a fundamentally flawed way of working with information, and am privileged to be able to choose not to use them for much of my work.
As I've said elsewhere, I have a lot of respect for everything that you as a group have pumped out to get LO to where it is right now.
Thank you for everything you've done so far, and what you'll (hopefully) continue to do into the future.
Clear, correct, and discoverable functionality. That's what I want.
Mystery meat UI and the latest "precious" shade of pale blue or whatever? Fuck right off.
Maybe the solution for LO is not adding a new interface but in removing things from it. Atom is a powerful text editor with lots of features and people don't seem to complain about the ultra-minimalist interface.
https://www.libreoffice.org/discover/new-features/
Video demonstration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EshNTl23liY&list=PL0pdzjvYW9...
Do also try searching for existing reports before filing, so you will save me and the rest of the QA gang some work.
The bar for joining QA is really low. If a person can use their computer as a working tool and control their emotions most of the time when typing comments on the Internet, they can contribute. I am trying to boost the awareness of FOSS QA in general.
* an unspecified version of LO is incompatible
* with an unspecified document
* from an unspecified version of MS Office
* in some unspecified manner
* therefore LO is unusable.
The correct answer is: "Bug report with test document, or it didn't happen."
The other standard troll comment is "why don't they have a ribbon yet, it looks so ooooold". Which you'll see on this post too.
(and they are indeed working on this precise thing. https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/NotebookBar )
The Ribbon is Microsoft-patented tech. Adopting it in LO would be infringing.
Yes, all this means Microsoft Office is the only viable solution. Cowboy up and purchase the fucking software.
There's no excuse for literally not even naming the versions of the software in question, let alone describing the actual problem, if one is going to take time out of one's furiously demanding work day to post a troll comment.
Bug report and test document or it didn't happen.
So many wasted manhours...
I remember 10+ years ago I opened an issue requesting that "alt+left" should go back to the last link location... it's never been fixed.
* AOO has pretty much no development going on.
* What few useful commits there are to AOO, get merged. And there aren't many at all. https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/log/?h=aoo/tru...
* What few AOO developers there were ... keep showing up at LO. Because it turns out that's where the paying work is.
Apache insists on holding onto the name, for no useful reason and to the active detriment of the end users who think they're getting a maintained product, rather than a 2010 codebase with a horrible security record (and an open vulnerability in the current download, with no fix date). But it appears nobody at Apache is interested in that.
MS Office is not available on the OS I use (not sure what 'pretty much any' means here), and even if it were I would not feel comfortable stumping up cash for it, or, more to the point, running it on my machines.
Why the pejorative 'old school' appellation? It's younger than Microsoft Office.
Anyway, I wouldn't call this ready for prime time, but there is an online version of LibreOffice:
https://owncloud.org/blog/libreoffice-online-has-arrived-in-...
Because Google Docs' word processor and spreadsheet are absolutely terrible for anything beyond the basics, and unlike GDocs, LO can decode OOXML with pretty good fidelity. Everyone goes on about LO and OOXML - you'll see a standard troll comment elsewhere on this HN post - but nobody ever mentions what a hash GDocs makes of even quite basic OOXML. I keep having to open email attachments with LO instead.
(I filed bug 87938, which was to get Google two-factor working. I am enormously happy with this. https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87938 )
Neither Google Docs nor Microsoft Office's web offering are terribly powerful. Neither respects its users' privacy. Using neither is particularly wise should one wish to compete with either company, nor if one is doing anything which any country those two companies operate in might object to.
So yeah, a local office suite is necessary if one wants to do office-suite-style computing.
I'd argue that style of computing is inappropriate, but others are free to disagree and do what they wish.
As far as being available on any OS, MS office has a browser based version of their office suite, as well as native apps for Windows, MacOS, iOS, and Android. I believe that covers a "pretty much any OS" description.
Of course if you want to stay offline, there is no question. And I guess LibreOffice is still very relevant for the places where ubiquitous Internet access hasn't happened yet. But I would argue that the average consumer in the developed world has already overwhelmingly voted for the cloud, and outside of some communities such as HN, the question of "does Google read my docs/email/etc.?" has been completely dropped.
I don't believe it has happened, but that it can — and because it can, eventually it will.
> As far as being available on any OS, MS office has a browser based version of their office suite, as well as native apps for Windows, MacOS, iOS, and Android.
It's a convenient browser-based augmentation of an Office installation, but no more than that; there are far too many features missing. It can't even completely edit a Word document; for some things you have to open the document in Word itself to edit certain parts!
> I believe that covers a "pretty much any OS" description.
There's Linux …
> the question of "does Google read my docs/email/etc.?" has been completely dropped.
The question has been dropped, but reality remains the same. That folks don't discuss the elephant in the room doesn't make it disappear.
Can't it also happen because you view a document on your Android device? I mean, ultimately either Google discloses in their ToS that they will snoop on people's docs, or they don't disclose it and do it anyways. The former is pretty clear-cut: if Google says so publicly, we can collectively ditch it. The latter... well I guess you'll never know until someone catches them and sues their pants off.
> It's a convenient browser-based augmentation of an Office installation, but no more than that; there are far too many features missing. It can't even completely edit a Word document; for some things you have to open the document in Word itself to edit certain parts!
I have no first hand experience with it, which is why I asked the question. Yes, if it's not a compete implementation of Office, then it's not super useful for existing documents. Then again, if you mostly use Web-based MS Office, then isn't the desktop version a complete superset of the features of it?
My experience is limited to Google Drive office stuff as well as some Apple office web stuff. Both have served me so well over the years that I haven't opened LibreOffice or MS Office since roughly 2007.
> There's Linux …
I was saying that the web version covers Linux, but see previous paragraphs about how I can see that it might not be complete.
> The question has been dropped, but reality remains the same. That folks don't discuss the elephant in the room doesn't make it disappear.
I personally think that it's a big concern. Privacy is being swept under the rug in favor of usability. My point is that the question of whether people will want to use cloud services or not has been answered. The next question is possibly "how do we use/provide cloud based services while respecting users' privacy?"
There's a difference between a breach which would need to happen on your phone (where you may be able to detect it) and a breach which can happen remotely, in such a manner that you are never aware.
A sufficiently-paranoid organisation could store a binary of every system update its devices receive, and in case of a suspected breach examine them forensically; nothing they can do remotely can determine if someone silently copied data.
> The latter... well I guess you'll never know until someone catches them and sues their pants off.
So demand a system in which not knowing is impossible!
> The next question is possibly "how do we use/provide cloud based services while respecting users' privacy?"
My answer is that plaintext must only be visible on the customers' devices: providers should only be able to see chunks of data moving around, not the content of those chunks. They would make their money by providing price, reliability and services like 'send this chunk of data to that person.'
In the time a lot of European governments become more open (open data, mandating the use of true open standards etc.), TDF has correctly recognised this as their competitive edge. Also, because they very often are willing to (at least partially) finance that work.
For the benefit of all LO users!
Not sure this is the most performant way to do it, but the project itself sure is impressive.
Open Source mainly works by maintenance and "gardening" - aka cutting away unwanted growth. Instead of finding a UI-Approach that is compatible with this development form, just ignore it and go on with business as usual?