Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

StarOffice 6.0 Beta Available

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the for-small-values-of-available dept.

Lumpish Scholar and 753 other people wrote in to let us know that Sun has released its beta of Star Office 6. CNET has a blurb about the release as well. I was hoping that Sun's site might be unclogged enough to try it out myself, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards today.

43 of 465 comments (clear)

  1. MS support... by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    from the article: The new version of StarOffice is simplified to make file exchange easier. The software has support for XML file formats; more robust Microsoft Office import and export filters, including support for Office XP; and redesigned dialog boxes, new templates and graphics.


    will the "more robust support" actually be decent enough for serious transfers between my Word documents? Also an important feature would be importing WordPerfect8 files. I have 100's of papers written in WP8 and for me to switch over would require filters for that. Anyone know anything about that?

    I am going to try it as soon as I see some more information (the website was lacking what I really wanted to know).

    I really hope I can ditch WP8 (although it is still the best for what I need) and run something more up-to-date :)

    Enjoy the download :)

    1. Re:MS support... by EisPick · · Score: 3, Informative

      Everyone is making a big deal at how it doesn't open Word Documents very well.... Well HECK, there isn't ANY support for opening WordPerfect documents.

      Before folks complain about what's missing or doesn't work well, it would pay to spend a few minutes actually installing the software and checking it out.

      I've only used StarOffice for about half an hour so far, but it appears that the import/export filters are actually quite extensive. There is ALL KINDS of support for opening WordPerfect documents from ver 4.1 to ver 7. No, there's no ver 8 filter, but considering the length of the filter list, I'm assuming it's just a matter of time before they write it (there are filters for Xywrite and Wordstar, ferchrissakes).

      Choose "Custom Install" or to to the setup app after installing and pick from their very extensive list of filters.

      As for Word support, Star Office opened a bunch of very complex (but macro-free) documents for me without a burp. I was even able to set Word (and Excel) as my default file types for saving.

      I say so far so good.

  2. It's a hard battle by ryanw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem with StarOffice is that it hasn't completely worked to import/export word/excel documents. Until that day people will never truly be able to switch to it. I would LOVE the company I work for to switch to this software. But until it's completely MSOffice complient nobody can use it.

    And just as it gets good at opening MSOffice 97 docs. They change their document just enough to screw everyone over with the release of Office2000. And just as that starts to work they screw it up enough to not work with XP.

    How hard is it REALLY to parse out Word Documents and have it work???? I haven't been involved in the project, but I would really like to hear some feedback to why nobody can open freaking word documents. The TRUTH .. not our typical "MS Just Sucks".

    1. Re:It's a hard battle by ceswiedler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because Microsoft uses incredibly proprietary formats. These days, it's not even a file format you could call as such, is a serialized COM stream. That means it's dependent on the processor type, OS, etc., and therefore extremely difficult to reverse-engineer.

    2. Re:It's a hard battle by aralin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Its pretty easy. Your are not allowed to reverse engineer the format by the EULA on MS Office license. You can try to do it from the documents since you do not sign any license for these, but then you don't get the whole format. You get just some features used in every document. And its binary and intentionally obfuscated format so its even way harder. I was doing some format conversions earlier and even with DOCUMENTED formats its extremly hard task.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    3. Re:It's a hard battle by dpilot · · Score: 3, Troll

      Because aside from sucking, Microsoft understands that their market grip is in proprietary file formats and protocols.

      I believe it was back in the Halloween documents that they talked about "complex or subtle protocols and file formats" as a means for holding/gaining market share. You simply have to understand the goals in architecting and designing a protocol/format and parser. For most of us, it's simplicity and robustness. For Microsoft, add in the difficulty of reverse-engineering as perhaps more important than robustness, and clearly more important than simplicity. Lest you think that this is just a weapon against lil'old Linux users, don't forget that it's also a prime tool to keep their own users on the upgrade wheel. How often has it been said that the first MS Office user in an office eventually "forces" the whole office to upgrade, simply by passing around files in the latest default format.

      The flip side of this is that the most robust things are generally also simple. IMHO it is inevitable that MS has had to trade off robustness in order to bring these difficult-to-reverse-engineer protocols and formats to market. In other words, it's deliberate foisting of second-rate goods counter to the customers' best interests.

      Up until this Fall, the market has LOVED it, too.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    4. Re:It's a hard battle by JahToasted · · Score: 5, Interesting
      They change their document just enough to screw everyone over with the release of Office2000. And just as that starts to work they screw it up enough to not work with XP

      Would you expect Microsoft to do anything less

      How hard is it REALLY to parse out Word Documents and have it work????

      Parsing isn't that hard most of the difficulty comes in getting all the different OLE objects embedded in the document to work. Star/Openoffice, Koffice, AbiWord can all format the fonts, layouts, etc, quite well. The problem comes when you have an Excel Spreadsheet embedded in the word document as a table. Then each cell of the excel table is a word document. Then you gotta think about Macros, VB, etc.

      Getting these things to work right is hard even for microsoft. Where I work now I have an Access database (I should've demanded they use something else, but they already had it installed everywhere) deployed to over 20 sites. I wrote the database in Access 97, but making it work in Access 2000 can be very tricky. Not only that, but at some places some of the Visual Basic Modules won't work in 97... welcome to my hell...

      Anyway the point being, Microsoft has trouble in making THEIR office read previous MS Office files. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for someone who doesn't have the specs to make an app capable of reading them.

    5. Re:It's a hard battle by MindStalker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How often has it been said that the first MS Office user in an office eventually "forces" the whole office to upgrade, simply by passing around files in the latest default format.

      I remember one computer our office got last year, it installed 2000 by default and when I tried to remove it and install a site licensed copy of 97 it installed, but told me I had an invalid license whenever I tried to run any of its programs. I later tried to reinstall with a win98 disk. But I couldn't get the device drivers out of the install disk as it was locked to only be used as a reinstall everything disc from boot. Tried many things, never could get it working perfectly without just letting it be on office 2000. So as our site licenses offered us 2000 Prof for less then 50 dollars a peice I went ahead with the upgrade. I do like office 2000, but still embarrased that I let MS get the best of me :(

  3. Re:Office XP by dsb3 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Whatever happened to it having been released open source?

    See OpenOffice.org for that one.

    --

    Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
  4. Cool! by astroboy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    They lost the desktop, added better font handling, and do XML... this is great.

    One thing I couldn't see -- and I can't get at the downloads to check -- is to see if their Presentation software, Impress, can play movies in slides now. This is actually a big thing; in the hard sciences, where a lot of people use non-Windows and give presentations, one of the major problems for people who want to switch to Linux is that if you have results you want to show in movie form, you're pretty much stuck with using PowerPoint, or exiting your presentation and starting up xanim or something...

  5. Staroffice by mindstrm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To all those who say 'Staroffice isn't 100% compatable, so we can't switch our office'. Well.. I understand the logistics and all.. but.

    To switch to staroffice, you have to instruct your staff to learn to use it, and adapt the workflow to staroffice, not the other way around. The same goes for switching to any product.

    The financial benefits of using staroffice in many cases outweigh the use of OFficeXP

  6. Unix Screenshots? by ceswiedler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All of the screenshots on the Sun site are of the Windows version. What does it look like under X Windows?

    1. Re:Unix Screenshots? by be-fan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They comple cross platform and their toolkits make it all look the same cross platforms.
      >>>>>>>
      That's really brain-dead. People tend to use one platform consistantly, and like it when a particular app looks like the other apps on their system. Eg. no-one cares if a program looks the same on Linux and Windows, as long as all the Linux apps look the same and all the Windows apps look the same.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:Unix Screenshots? by be-fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't fit in with the "native" feel at all, but is fast and easy to use, because the UI fits the application, rather than having the application shoehorned into some ill-fitting paradigm.
      >>>>>>>>>
      Intellectual types are so into paradigms its funny. Here are some facts from reality:

      1) Developers are lazy. If not forced to standardize UIs, they'll simply make crappy UIs that look different. At least by standardizing the look, you get crappy UIs that look the same.

      2) Developers are lazy. If they have some UI guidelines in front of them, then they might be coaxed into using them, and maybe have the hope of making a good UI. If they have no guidelines, they'll not bother to come up with their own, they'll just make a crappy UI. If you don't believe me, take a look at Mac-Land. Most Mac apps look and behave similarly, but the Mac is the home of such great UIs as Adobe's.

      3) Developers are lazy. If they are given the freedom to do whatever they want with the UI, they'll go through the path of least resistance, or of personal preferences.

      No, I do not mean to *all* characterize developers as lazy (just most). Some of them do work quite hard to come up with good user interfaces and applications by these developers stand out, even when those apps look exactly like all the other apps on the desktop. The fundemental error that most of the "developer UI freedom" people make is that the *look* of the UI has very little to do with its efficiency/ease of use. There are many UIs on Windows (3D Studio MAX, for example, or Maya) that look like standard Windows apps, but have incredible workflow. Take StarOffice or Mozilla, for an opposing example. There is nothing special in their UIs that makes them more functional than Word or IE. They simply *look* different.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  7. Huge Improvement by jmkaza · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I first tried StarOffice my intent was to use it for a week to see if it was a viable alternative to MS Office. I didn't make it through the day. Kudos to Sun for finally taking the hint and creating a product that any Office user can use with little to no relearning curve. With Microsoft's new subscription licensing program, this couldn't have come at a better time. Hopefully 6.0 will prove to be a competitive product.

  8. Mirror up by rveety · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here it is:
    Star office 6.0 beta, linux x86, english

  9. Re:Office XP by Steve+Luzynski · · Score: 5, Informative

    Scant amounts of ram?

    Someone mod this +1, Funny, please.

    I'm running Office XP right now. Outlook is currently using 23M of RAM. Word is using 28M. (Windows 2000 + Office XP)

    Word doesn't even have a file open, not even a blank file.

    I don't count that as 'scant amounts'.

    And it loads quick because that "Microsoft Office" icon in your startup menu preloads most of the thing during your boot/login process where you think it's normal for your disk to be thrashing itself apart.

  10. Simple answer: Simple text! by jiheison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, there are few things that annoy me more than receiving a Word document from someone. Rarely, if ever, is there any justification for not simply using a plain old ASCII text file. They are smaller, platform independant and if formatted correctly, no harder to read.

    1. Re:Simple answer: Simple text! by anomaly · · Score: 5, Funny

      With all due respect, doesn't it seem a bit odd that a person demanding ASCII format would have a .sig that's an ideogram?

      --
      But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
    2. Re:Simple answer: Simple text! by Raul+Acevedo · · Score: 3

      I agree that the flexibility of alternate typefaces, font sizes, and basic formatting are often useful. Unfortunately, 9/10 times I see HTML used is to simply be annoying. I.e. stupid banners, flowery fonts, all sorts of bs that clutters up any real message.

      I still use Emacs to read email in large part precisely for this reason. (Actually, Emacs can do HTML also, but I prefer not to.) Plain text messages are easier to read and deal with than their HTML counterparts. In fact, the only HTML-only messages I get are 100% of the time spam, and the only time someone sends me something that truly needs to be formatted, they send it as a separate Word attachment, which is easy enough to open.

      --
      In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
  11. Sigh by JediTrainer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Any idea of we'll be seeing a compatible implementation of something that can do everything Outlook can do (including connecting to an Exchange server)? I don't mean just email, but I mean Calendar, Tasks, Contacts booking meetings etc.

    As soon as I can get something that would replace this one last piece, then I can switch away from Windows in my company (as I have at home). Unfortunately, the company relies very much on Outlook's functionality, and will not move away from Exchange server, so if I want to move it's up to me to find and install a compatible alternative, but so compatible that the REST of the users can stay on Outlook if they choose to.

    In my opinion, this is one thing that any true Office suite needs before MS-Office can be truly replaced. As buggy and insecure as Outlook is, it organizes the company that I work for, and it can not be removed from my desktop until a fully compatible replacement is available. It's the one last thing that ties me to Windows.

    --

    You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
    1. Re:Sigh by jermz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Try Insight from bynari[bynari.net]. They make both a client (Insight) and a server (Insight Server). The client can talk to an Exchange server, and includes calendar, addressbook, and email, just like outlook, but on Linux. The server is feature-compatible with Exchange, and is built on exim, openldap, and cyrus IMAP/POP. Outlook clients can talk to the Insight server just fine, even transparently. I am demoing it right now, and it might just replace Exchange here, and allow me to run Linux exclusively.

      --
      Hi-Technical Excellent Taste and Flavor!
    2. Re:Sigh by ryanvm · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Any idea of we'll be seeing a compatible implementation of something that can do everything Outlook can do (including connecting to an Exchange server)?

      At the other end of the problem, the free software community is in dire need of a Samba-like clone of Exchange's MAPI abilities.

      Right now, Linux still makes a better server than it does a desktop. I've replaced NT file/print servers with Samba+Linux; I've used PostgreSQL+Linux instead of MS SQL Server; but there is no way to replace an NT Exchange server with anything and still take advantage of Outlook's sweet MAPI groupware functionality.

      I just don't understand why there isn't a free software Exchange clone out there. I'll tell you what - Exchange aint cheap; if a stable replacement existed for *nix, it would be one less reason for anyone to run NT Server.

      Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to do it.

  12. Competitor by Red+Aardvark+House · · Score: 3, Insightful

    StarOffice could be a strong competitor to Office if for nothing other than the price. At $479.00 a head, this adds up awfully quickly. Not to mention saving on upgrade fees in the future.

    We shall see if corporations are ready to give up some functionality (admittedly, MS Office is still the one to beat there) to save on costs.

    With MS raising the price, it might come to pass.

    --

    I like fire ants. They are very spicy!

  13. Re:My first question by corky6921 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Have they gotten rid of that "integrated desktop"?

    Yes. I think that was everyone's single biggest complaint about StarOffice. They have also gotten rid of the "memory hog" problem with 5.2, which was that it loaded all five applications into memory and used up about 64MB of physical RAM whenever you wanted to load it.

    Their big new feature is using an open XML format for documents. I also believe they have killed the problem where StarOffice took over all of your email clients, other text editors, etc.

    I think this version of StarOffice is honestly the first one that will be a real competitor to MS Office, but I think it will really only be used by small businesses and individuals. Large corporations are already dependent on Outlook/Exchange/macros to do their work, and I don't see any large corporations switching off of those anytime soon (especially since there is no real groupware solution that Sun offers that compares with Exchange.)

  14. Re:Office XP by John+Fulmer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please note that Office (any flavor) does not take "scant amounts of ram". Rather, it hides ram used in the system memory used column, and actually preloads many if not most of the Office specific DLL's on boot up, whether you want them or not. The memory that appears to be used by Office, is only the glue code that links the DLL/OLE/NET components together.

    The reason that Office appears to launch almost instantanously, is that most of it was already loaded on bootup.

    Just a clarification...

    jf

  15. Office 2000 just as good by SilentChris · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'm an ardent support of Office itself (one of three really good MS products nowadays, along with the latest version of IE and the service pack 2 release of Windows 2000). However, I was sorely disappointed by the "improvements" offered by Office XP.

    A lot of what was in it was already offered in Office 2000 (an underrated application suite) without the messy product activation. I recommend if you can get a copy of Office 2000, do so. It's very stable and runs like a champ.

  16. MS Word format really does suck by mj6798 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    How hard is it REALLY to parse out Word Documents and have it work???? I haven't been involved in the project, but I would really like to hear some feedback to why nobody can open freaking word documents. The TRUTH .. not our typical "MS Just Sucks".

    Word format not only is a complex binary format requiring documentation at multiple levels, it has significant undocumented portions. Worse yet, it allows executable content which can call on a lot of Windows-specific facilities. MS Word format really does suck, and that's not an accident: Microsoft likes it that way. The implications for users aren't good, though: vendor lock-in, viruses, and data that becomes inaccessible in a few years are only some of the problems resulting from the way MS Word stores its documents.

  17. Re:Office XP by Hadean · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just checked on my system, and Word XP is using 11.1 megs... And it loads in a few seconds... and NO, I don't have anything preloading for me (I hate things loading at bootup). I have a Duron 800 w/ 192 megs of RAM, too... Not that big of a system...

  18. Microsoft will not allow perfect importing by nuetrino · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If there is one thing we know, M$ thrives on subtle incompatibility, even within their own product lines. It is these incompatibilities that drive the upgrade process and allow them to retain market share. It is the subtleness of these incompatibilities that allow the claim of fair competition even if they are purposefully sabotaging other people's products.

    For instance, if I give someone a M$ Word document created on the Macintosh, the opening of that document will sometimes crash a windows machine. There is no reason for this as I am simply transferring a document from MS Word to MS Word. I suppose that such problems are tolerated because it limit the appeal of MacOS machines, and may indicate that I need to upgrade to the latest Office.

    So, naive folks, do not wait for the day when MS Office documents will seamlessly integrate with Star Office. And do not blame Star Office for the problems. History provides nearly 20 years of evidence, all the way back to incomplete specifications for system calls in DOS, that M$ will do whatever it can to insure that integration does not occur.

  19. MSOffice & XML by ryanw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's Microsoft's Plans for XML. I think it's very interesting how they word things:

    http://www.microsoft.com/Office/developer/platform /xmloffice.htm

    Because of the many benefits associated with the use of XML, customers have demanded easy, robust support for XML, and Microsoft has answered them. Currently, Microsoft is concentrating on Microsoft Access and Excel--the applications in which XML can have the biggest impact.

    Access and EXCEL? They just want to keep Word as proprietary as possible. Word is the one people can't get in or out of. Of course they don't want to focus on XML for Word. Jeash .. People have been able to export Access & Excel documents to tab deliminated files for years now. Thats why they're not worried about XLM for those apps. People can already do whatever they want to spreadsheet files, etc.. Customers need to be more pissed off at Microsoft so they force Word to use XML.

  20. Re:Office XP by John+Fulmer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Tell you what...do what I did a few years ago, when I wanted to know why my nice beefy NT workstation was eating most of my memory, with no services running:

    Install NT4. Note the available memory on bootup, before doing anything.

    Install Office. Note the available memory after bootup, but before doing anything.

    Do the math and wonder why JUST installing Office significantly decreased the available memory on bootup.

    Start Office. Wonder why the used memory doesn't increase much at all. Hmmmmm.

    A black box approach to be sure, but still very interesting.

    jf

  21. Yes, it's called Ximian Evolution by Raul+Acevedo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ximian is coming out with Evolution, which is essentially an open source Outlook replacement. It's still in beta but should be reaching 1.0 before the end of the year (I think).

    So far, Evolution's main shortcoming is it doesn't understand Exchange protocols, so Linux clients can't use it to talk to Exchange for shared calendaring. I realize that is one of the main points you need. I believe it is a fatal flaw for evolution, but Ximian apparently doesn't think it's such a big deal, saying that such support will come "eventually, but not high priority". Nonetheless, it can do IMAP, POP, LDAP, and a bunch of other open protocols.

    --
    In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
  22. Re:Openoffice vs Staroffice by Eslyjah · · Score: 3, Informative
    From the openoffice faq:

    The source code available at OpenOffice.org does not consist of all of the StarOffice code. Usually, the reason for this is that Sun pays to license third party code to include in StarOffice that which it does not have permission to make available in OpenOffice.org. Those things which are or will be present in StarOffice but are not available on OpenOffice.org include:
    • Spell checking
    • Certain fonts (including, especially, Asian language fonts)
    • Help
    • The database component (Adabas D)
    • Templates
    • Extensive Clip Art Gallery
    • Some sorting functionality (Asian versions)
    • Certain file filters


    Looks like Sun is giving away everything that doesn't cost them money to give away.
  23. Re:Double Standards by cr0sh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Personally, I wouldn't even say bundling is the issue with me - for me it is their shoddy business practices (rolls back to 1994 or so):

    1. The internet is slowly being brought to the masses. Windows 3.1 exists, but need the WinSock TCP/IP stack to get in the net - fortunately, a free version is available, and is included by ISPs. Mosaic is also included...

    2. Netscape builds and releases a much improved "Mosaic", called Navigator. Microsoft yawns, sees it all as a "fad", that the consumer won't embrace.

    3. 1995 rolls around, and the consumer is raving mad for the net - Bill looks around and screams WTF!? Netscape is raking in money from sales of Navigator, creates Communicator which adds email, news, and web site creation tools.

    4. In a mad dash, Bill throws out Windows 95, which had been worked on for a while, but had no internet capability (AFAIK). Rushes to make a TCP/IP stack (probably bought WinSock, knowing him).

    5. Bill then sees that the internet explosion isn't a fad, and that he must "posess" it - rapidly IE is created, and is released for free to the masses.

    At this point, things go crazy - because while Netscape isn't free - it is, sorta - but people for some reason are too stupid (or honest?) to figure it out: Netscape is "free" for students - simply check the student box on the download form, and you can download it for free - no authentication or anything required. Still, most people see it as expensive, and the marketing/FUD is done for IE to point out how expensive Netscape was (which it really wasn't that expensive - $70.00 or so for the deluxe version).

    6. MS then "bundles" IE with later copies of 95, then fully integrates it into 98 - thus sealing the fate of Netscape, which went on to become a footnote (yes, I know it still exists, etc - but in the whole scheme of things, Netscape is just the tool, and not the company it was any longer).

    It is this major undercutting that is a bad business practice - they saw that such software was cheap and easy to make, and thus had no "real" value, unlike an office package. But that doing so would leverage them into a whole new market, a much larger possible market - to market that office software to.

    Now, Sun is doing the same thing - who knows if it is for revenge over Java or what - or if _they_ have some ulterior motive (which they probably do), which would allow them to leverage into another market...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  24. Why not do it like OpenDWG? by mikael · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't understand why the makers of Office-like applications haven't done like the CAD-business. They created the OpenDWG alliance in order to reverse-engineer Autodesk's proprietary .dwg-format for storing CAD-drawings and succeeded with the task. Mabye an OpenDOC (no pun intended, Apple) alliance would speed up the acceptance and usability of open alternatives to MS-Office.

    Mikael

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  25. Re:a modest proposal by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem is, if you're trying to move away from needing MS Office because you want to switch platforms or save $$, you can't use Word for translation. ----> Sure you can. Set it up as a server app. "MS Word Translating Server". One Winders box sitting off in the dusty corner. Got a Word file? Just tell your box to blast it over to the translating server, The translating server will send it back to you in a moment and off you go.

    Net cost: One Windows computer, one copy of Office-whatever. And a few hours/days of fiddling around with Word macros.

    Everyone in your office can be running whatever you want.

    --
    If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  26. An easy doc - txt filter by Starship+Trooper · · Score: 5, Funny
    Hey, this filter even comes bundled with every Unix distribution! Check it out:

    $ strings WordFile.doc > WordFile.txt
    $ less WordFile.txt

    --
    Loneliness is a power that we possess to give or take away forever
  27. almost there... by xeno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's nice to see some reasonable competition for MS Office. I alternate between Office2K and Openoffice (633) with reasonable success, but there are a few things left to complete the puzzle:

    1. Where's the Mac OSX version? OS10.1 is getting great reviews, but this is even more critical from a general marketing standpoint than from a Mac-head view. Why? Cross-platform compatibility is a great marketing lever, not because of a possible massive platform shift (unlikely) but because of uncertainty about platforms and compatiblity over the long term. (See #4 below.)

    2. Some major features are not quite there: imho outlining is the biggest hole; people who write large documents or like structure really need it. Instead of just copying the MS interface, perhaps the existing SO/Navigator tool could be extended to provide a killer structure interface similar to Framemaker+SGML. That would be pretty compelling. Likewise, a quickstart feature (as just implemented in Mozilla) would help to silence the yelps about quick startup ( after long preload) of MS Office XP.

    3. Sun/OpenOffice needs migration documentation & tools. For example, it would be nice to have a short whitepaper from Sun that describes (or better yet, provides a one-click tool) that reconfigures MS Office to save in known cross-compatible formats. Word files should be saved in RTF or a reasonably-documented .DOC/95/97 format. Picking XLS/97 wouldn't be that difficult, but it's important to nail down the multitude of inconsistent PPT formats in a way that retains all content.

    4. Marketing!! Star/OpenOffice has such potential, and if handled properly, can deliver a very compelling message. I'm no marketing guru, but imagine turning some heads with these advert leaders:

    • "StarOffice: Full-featured software for free. You pay for the support you use. You control when and how you upgrade. Isn't that how it should be?"
    • "The software license for Microsoft Office XP says you're prohibited from figuring out the .DOC format your own documents are stored in. Do you think you should pay a license for your own data? Try StarOffice - open formats, full compatibility, and lower costs."
    • "StarOffice is compatible with 99.xxx% of all systems worldwide. Freedom to choose."
    • "StarOffice is available on every major operating system in your company, from the systems guru to the graphics geek, and the secretary to the CEO. Shouldn't your company communicate like this?"
    • "The arrival of MS Office XP forces you to pay more for your licenses, and forces company-wide upgrades by introducing yet another data format. StarOffice reduces TCO by allowing you the flexibility of running any desktop OS you choose (even the free ones), and doesn't commit you to costly upgrades in the future."
    • "Running Office XP? That's great, as long as renew your licenses to the new, more expensive program, can support the increased hardware requirements, upgrade everyone in your organization at the same time, or are willing to take the productivity hit by introducing yet another document format. Oh, and you can't take it back for a refund. Try StarOffice for free."

    Jon (insertmyslashdotname@jetcity.com)
    --
    I think not...(*poof*)
    1. Re:almost there... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From what I've heard, Sun doesn't feel that SO is a real MSO competitor yet (on a features level), so they are resisting marketing it very heavily. and instead letting it spread by word of mouth or have it be discovered by cost conscious purchasers. Ultimately they are doing this to fuck with MS and not to make any real money, so it's understandable that you won't see a heavy marketing campaign.

      Note that WordPerfect and Lotus have 100x the name recognition of StarOffice and competitive products and they've failed to compete on price. It's good to see Sun not fall into the same trap and not embarrass themselves by pushing SO before it's ready.

      Also, at this point there is no plan for a Mac port. That gives MSO "99.xxx%" market coverage and StarOffice only 95% or so. :)

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
  28. How long before free CD's appear by rleyton · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh, don't you just hate it:

    * Day 1 - You must register to download product, but server overloaded due to demand and /. effect.

    * Day 2 - You must still register to download product, but server takes ages to allow you to download. Give up.

    * Day 3 - You've forgotten your password, re-register, to find that server's been misconfigured by some Sun intern SA who doesn't know his apache rewrites from his linux rawrite.

    * Day 4 - You get registered, get the software, and find the file got corrupted in the download.

    * Day 5 - Internet connection down, so nothing to do but work.

    * Day 6 - Internet connection up, remembered password, downloaded product, ran of out of disk space.

    * Day 7 - Having mentioned the product was out to your colleagues, a week ago now (without having seen it), you are ridiculed when they realise
    you're still using MS-Office on the sly.

    * Day 8 - Hurrah! Downloaded, installed and running. Success. Treat yourself to visit a conference that's on in town. Some bloke hands you a "special edition CD", featuring beta of staroffice 6. Go home to weep.

    *WHY* is there this damn registration. *WHY* aren't there loads of mirrors (sunsite!!!!). You know they'll be dishing out the damn CD's eventually.

    And they say the network is the computer....

    and after all that, my downloads working, on day one.

    strange things are afoot at the circle-k.

    (no, i don't work weekends these days)

    --
    ooooooh! What does this button do? - DeeDee, Dexters Lab.
  29. Re:Multiuser installation? by Moritz+Moeller+-+Her · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do a /net install. Has been that way with SO since version 4.0 on linux (the first I used).

    And it is pointed out several times in the detailed installation guide.

    Sometimes I think the difference between computer gurus and guys like Lehtyos and other normal computer users is the ability and willingness to read a manual....

    --
    Moritz
  30. You must mean LaTeX. by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Insightful
    With all due respect, LyX's primary function is to provide a gentle migration path from GUI typewriters like Word, to a real document production system called [La]TeX.

    When I started using Linux, I first used LyX for a couple of projects. Fortunately I tried out 'pure' LaTeX (itself a set of macros for TeX) and found it so much better.

    There are several GUI frontends to LaTeX, one being LyX, and you can only harness so much power of the actual system via those interfaces. It's like coding C++ via a point n' click interface. You will only realize the point of LaTeX when using it natively.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.