Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gnumeric 1.0 Has Arrived

Posted by timothy on from the good-gnews dept.

plastercast writes: "Gnumeric 1.0 is now out, which makes the Gnome desktop even more 1.0-tastic, with the recent milestones of Galeon and Evolution. ... For those that do not know, Gnumeric is a spreadsheet program with the ability to include all sorts of neat bonobo objects, and also can create graphs through guppi, the Gnome graping program. Enjoy!" Update: 12/31 20:08 GMT by T : That's "graphing." Graping is for the stroke of twelve. Update: 12/31 21:01 GMT by T : Jody Goldberg writes "You folks posted the story a touch too quickly. The release announcement just went out 5 minutes ago."

2 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. It's the apps! by GRH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I would love to see a mass migration to Linux, it won't happen without the apps. Granted, this is hardly a revelation.

    However, what if the Windows desktop domination can be chipped away at by utilizing <flamesuit> Linux apps compiled for Windows </flamesuit>?

    Conceivably, a number of folks who currently use Excel could probably work just as well in a Windows version of Gnumeric (or pick your Open Source equivalent).

    Over time, as people migrate from Windows apps to Linux for Windows apps, they may eventually reach the point where they ask "why am I still running Windows?" and move to Linux.

    Although Gnumeric may not be the best example of this, one of the touted advantages of GUI tookits for X are their cross-platform availablility (I'm specifically taking about Qt, and yes, I know Gnumeric is not Qt).

    Lowering the transistional pain to small steps seems the only way I can see Linux eventually having a presence on the desktop.

    Anybody else think this makes sense, or am I having a lapse of reason on the last day of 2001?

    Happy New Year,
    Greg

    1. Re:It's the apps! by lkaos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But gcc is not the Holy Grail of code generation. Not anymore. IBM and CodeWarrior both beat it senseless on PowerPC; Intel has something that apparently does better on x86, and a lot better on Itanium; DEC has kicked its butt on Alpha for years.

      (Of course, gcc probably has more CPU backends than any other C compiler out there - but within a single architecture it often is not the best.)

      Well, that's really the trade off one makes. The difference is speed of generated code is not extreme though and in comparision with other main stream compilers (what would /. be without bashing MS) such as MSVC, it just blows the competition away.

      GCC's nice because it tends to be more standards compliant then alot of compilers. It's funny that you mention the HP-UX compiler because that is what we were formerly using and when we started a new project, I insisted on using a version of GCC-2.95.2 that just happened to be laying around.

      I can't even begin to tell you how much hassle it saved. Pair it with GDB and the other utilities (such as gprof) and it's just incredible.

      The best part is, to get the GCC installed on a machine, all it takes is a phone call since there are no licensing issues. I definitely have to give you some credit if you take care of Licensing, because that is definitely a bitch. I would do anything to avoid having to deal with it.

      Unfortunately, I have to say I have encountered quite a bit of bugs in GCC :) That's ok though, it's not with the C compiler it's with the C++ compiler and the C++ specs suck so much, how can anyone blame GCC for messing up a bit ;-)

      --
      int func(int a);
      func((b += 3, b));