Sun and Apple Team Up for StarOffice for Mac OS X

An anonymous reader writes, "CNET writes about Sun and Apple getting together to create StarOffice for the Mac OS X." Apparently, the Java-based OpenOffice app will be released before year's end (a developer release went out on Thursday), with a commercial StarOffice release sometime next year.

Comments

Re:Java ?!

[stu_coates]

CNet may be partially right... the article talks about Apple engineers having access to StarOffice source and working on moving the UI to Quartz... maybe just the UI work will be done in Java (which has the Quartz UI on MacOS X) with the core functionality being in C/C++ as per the other Star/Open Office platforms. Using JNI this would certainly be possible... as for performance, well, we'll have to wait and see.

Summary

[Dr. JJJ]

The main points of the article are:

1) The relationship between Apple and Microsoft has been strained by the lackluster sales of Office v.X. Apple supports the porting of StarOffice because it doesn't want MacOS X to be cutoff from the ability to interact with the ever-important Microsoft dominated office file formats should Microsoft decide to abandon the platform.

2) Development hurdles that Sun must overcome are removing and redesigning X11 protocol specific code to work with Quartz 2D -- Apple's windowing API -- and redesigning the user interface such that it conforms to the Apple Aqua guidlines. (That's a tall order, especially considering that much of the Aqua guidlines are incomplete and still being formed.) Currently, StarOffice uses its own interface toolkit, built from the ground up.

3) The ever-pressing issue of how to make money by selling an essentially open-source product. Sun plans to do this not by merely offering support, but also adding special enticements to a commercial distribution that wouldn't be available in an open-source distribution. (An example is the bundling of commercial quality fonts with the software).

Java ?

[AdamInParadise]

First I'd like to say that I like Java very much, but I think that this must be a mistake. Let's see. OS X is unix-based, and does support X11. StarOffice (and OpenOffice) runs just fine on X11. Basically their problem is to port the GUI from X11 to Quartz
Porting StarOffice (once the biggest open source project) to Java would be an absolutly huge task. This rules out a full port. It leaves the option of using Java as the GUI. World+dog (including me) agree that Java's GUI is so-so, even if it is better on OS X than anywhere else. Anyway, what would be the point of using Java to interface between C/C++/Objective-C apps? None.

CNET just got it wrong one more time.

Re:Java ?

[overunderunderdone]

World+dog (including me) agree that Java's GUI is so-so,

Yes, but from what I understand Apple has provided hooks for Java to use all of the Cocoa API's in fact they bill Java as being coequal to Objective C for building Cocoa apps. In that case the GUI is not really java, java is just being used to invoke the native cocoa/quartz/aqua GUI. They could use Objective C instead but I would imagine that Sun would like to show off a Java app that surpasses peoples expectations (including the dog's) Also I'd imagine you can find more programmers at Sun that are proficient with Java than are proficient with Objective C.

Java is the way to go

[g4dget]

Even though JVMs improved a lot in the meantime, there's no way a JVM is going to make an app such as OpenOffice as smooth to use as a native version.

Sure there is. Java is quite fast these days and it has gotten a lot more stable and robust. OpenOffice could actually become smaller and simpler if it is written in Java because much of the big and complex stuff in OpenOffice is already taken care of by the Java runtime.

Also, Sun finally needs to put the resources behind Java for client/desktop apps--that means developing large and complex client/desktop apps and fixing whatever problems remain in Java and the Java runtime.

Corel already tried and we all saw the result: slow and dismissed by the market.

Corel didn't know what they were doing and they didn't have the option of hacking the Java runtime much. Besides, there are an awful lot of bad or failed C and C++ applications--should we stop using C and C++ because of that as well?

{Star,Open}Office preinstalled on Windows

[oever]

Sun has been looking for hardware allies in its long-running quest to popularize StarOffice, which competes against Microsoft Office. To date, no major PC makers have pledged to heavily promote StarOffice.

To me, it's incredible that no hardware vendor such as IBM or HP is offering StarOffice or OpenOffice preinstalled on personal computers. I see no reason for them to not install it.

Re:{Star,Open}Office preinstalled on Windows

[squiggleslash]

The Findings of Fact in the Microsoft trial gives an answer to that. Back in 1995, IBM did ship PCs with Windows/Lotus Suite bundles, as well as OS/2 equivalents. Microsoft told IBM if they didn't stop bundling OS/2 or Lotus with their PCs they would not be licenced to offer Windows 95 IBM didn't back down until the last moment, which lead to a situation where IBM didn't even get a copy of the final version to test with their hardware until the hour before Windows 95 was released.

Result: IBM, knowing a PC manufacturer who didn't support Win95 at that particular point in time, would sell virtually no PCs, stopped bundling both the Lotus software and OS/2 from that point on, affectively killing the commercial chances of both.

I doubt any PC manufacturer is going to consider shipping a rival office suite for many years to come unless either they're so small they cannot expect decent treatment from MS anyway, or else the penalties levelled against Microsoft actually have some effect.

Re:Apple Convert

[technomancerX]

Switch, you won't regret it. I've used Linux exclusively for the last 3 years (including for Java development at work) and I recently got an iBook and haven't looked back. I think I've booted my Linux workstation twice since making the purchase.

I develop 4 open source PHP/MySQL utilities, and have moved development of all of them over to OS X. Project Builder is pretty good, or if you use Vim or Emacs you can install X11 (I did). KDE is now in Fink, and Trolltech has also release an OS X native version of Qt.

One recommendation: put in a lot of RAM. When I first got the iBook (700MHz) I though it was kind of slow, but now that I maxed out the RAM (640MB), it's very nice. Also, my wife has one of the 800MHz 15" iMacs, and it's really nice as well.

(Good news but...) Amusing and Ironic

[occam]

When I went to WWDC this year for the first time ever, I went as a Java programmer interesting in learning how to program OS X (and Quartz GUI stuff) in Java. I was told by the "java evangelist" in no uncertain terms that I was "not Apple's target market". Java was its own platform, not to be crossplatformed to OS X and Quartz.

WWDC did not have a single session on programming Quartz in Java. In the only mildly interesting session on Java, it was like pulling teeth to get concrete information out of the presenters in Q&A, and yet the presenters (Apple JVM guys) were incredibly arrogant about their work and how advanced it was (which in some ways it is) and how even Sun was considering incorporating their JVM innovations.

What was boggling was Apple's Java guys didn't _get_ that they should want Java to become a first class citizen on OS X (rather than a poor stepchild to OS X's (and NeXTstep's vaunted in their eyes) objective-c. Sure, I could see the obj-c guys being protective of their baby (even though it's basically stillborn by the time its reached OS X), but why would the Java guys be so lousy sharing information on Cocoa (OS X) programming in Java.

On the side, I got contradictory information about how to program in Cocoa using two different bridges across obj-c and java. In sum, neither really works so Apple doesn't support either really. (In particular, obj-c's reference counting doesn't mix well with Java's garbage collection.) Unfortunately, despite Apple's migration of WebObjects to Java (from obj-c), The rest of OS X and Cocoa (GUI) stayed in obj-c. Doh.

I even spoke with their then new head of software tools and engineering. As a smalltalk guy (skeptical of java and obj-c), he claimed that obj-c won him over. No love for Java there. Just more "not Apple's target market". It's hard to swallow paying thousands to go to a developer conference and have some pinheaded honcho tell you that despite Apple's "best platform for Java" campaign, that Java programmers are not allowed to program in Cocoa (OS X native) since Java Cocoa is not Apple's target market. What arrogance!

Unfortunately, one of Apple's catchy banners did not mean what I wanted it to mean: "Come for the Java, Stay for the Cocoa". Instead of providing the means to program Cocoa in Java, the banner really means come to learn about Java on OS X (and be profoundly disappointed), and we'll (try to) lure you to objective-c every step, session, and discussion along the way.

Cough-cough.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), I'm an ex NeXT enthusiast, so I've already tasted obj-c (not to my liking), reasonably informed about its strengths and weaknesses, and happy with Java.

-=-

So, why is Apple, its head of engineering so obstinate. I assume it's because he's in love with smalltalk and obj-c caters (a la obj-c tenuous lease on life) to smalltalk, his desired language. Fair enough (but too bad for Apple and its Java shortcomings).

But why oh why would lowly Apple Java grunts be so against first-class java support on OS X for Cocoa? That really confused the heck out of me, until I discovered that the very arrogant presenter(s) of JVM breakthroughs (yada yada yada about Apple innovations) was really the obj-c kernel team doing side work on the JVM. Doh!

Java not obj-c. Obj-c >> Java. You know?

There are not Java evangelists at Apple. The keepers of the Java VM are obj-c hacks. Their baby (albeit on life support) is obj-c. OUCH.

When I figured that out, beat around the bush at the top to discover the smalltalk allegiance, and just generally got stonewalled by too many (certainly not all) of the small team of java(obj-c) insiders, I just gave up.

Besides, the Quartz Extreme team had awesome presentations, was extremely humble despite their awesome GUI architectural innovations, and was just generally the real mccoy from an engineering point of view. My WWDC became a GUI tour rather than a deep tour of Java (as intended and paid for, as far as I was concerned).

One final note: my impression is that Java on OS X is good --- but only for Java only apps (i.e., use Swing, not Apple's Cocoa). Their target market (as I gathered anyway) is pure Java (as opposed to Java Cocoa apps). So, if you want to port and run pure Java on OS X, they (should) love you. FYI.

-=-

So, it's amusing and ironic to see Apple spending any resources on Java for Cocoa now as I assume (fingers crossed) they'll do for OpenOffice after telling me that's not their target market!

What happened to all the arrogance? Disdain? Curt political marketroid answers to basic engineering questions? Yada yada yada.

Too painfully amusing and ironic.

So I guess I am crossing my fingers that Apple separates the JVM team from their obj-c team, fires (or at least reassigns to obj-c only) their so-called "java evangelist", and gives java its own first-class political and technical citizenship at Apple.

Maybe next year's WWDC can have a banner which says (and means) "Come for the Java, and Stay for the Mocha". That would be a dream worth having.

= Joe =

Re:(Good news but...) Amusing and Ironic

[BlueGecko]

I honestly think that this entire post is well-written flamebait. Here's why:

WWDC did not have a single session on programming Quartz in Java.

True, but that's due to the combination of the fact that Quartz is C-based at low-level (we're talking device drivers here) and the fact that ObjC and Java share exactly the same API at the high level, so both languages are discussed in any particular session. Part of the whole deal with Java and ObjC on OS X is that they share practically identical APIs wherever possible, meaning that once you are familiar with Cocoa, you very rarely need to worry about the documentation to see what the Java version of a particular Cocoa function call is. So, for example, to access Quartz' bezier curves, you would just do

NSBezier myBezier = NSBezier.bezierPathWithOvalInRect(new NSRect(10.0, 10.0, 50.0, 50.0));

For comparison, the Objective-C version of this exact Quartz call is

NSBezier *myBezier = [NSBezier bezierPathWithOvalInRect: NSMakeRect(10.0, 10.0, 50.0, 50.0)];

The rest of the Cocoa API is similarly exposed. Further, in practically all of the documentation, they either alternate between ObjC and Java examples, or else, show both side by side. Quartz, Cocoa, AppleScript, QuickTime, etc. are all completely supported. Interface Builder can directly generate Java Controller classes to handle UI events and can tie the GUI to those methods, and Apple is working on a version that will be able to natively handle Swing as well. What, specifically, did you find lacking?

On the side, I got contradictory information about how to program in Cocoa using two different bridges across obj-c and java.

There are exactly two Cocoa-Java bridges: Apple's and GNUstep's. Both use JNI to call out to their respective APIs. I fail to see how you could be confused about which bridge to use on which platform...

The rest of OS X and Cocoa (GUI) stayed in obj-c. Doh.

Again, all of Cocoa is available from Java. Did you want them to actually rewrite Cocoa in Java? What's your complaint here?

I even spoke with their then new head of software tools and engineering. As a smalltalk guy (skeptical of java and obj-c), he claimed that obj-c won him over. No love for Java there. Just more "not Apple's target market". It's hard to swallow paying thousands to go to a developer conference and have some pinheaded honcho tell you that despite Apple's "best platform for Java" campaign, that Java programmers are not allowed to program in Cocoa (OS X native) since Java Cocoa is not Apple's target market. What arrogance!

That's right, but for the wrong reason. Programmers at Apple aren't supposed to write in 100% Pure Java for what I hope are obvious reasons (they wouldn't take full advantage of the OS X user experience). Most (but not all) applications at Apple destined for OS X, meanwhile, are not written in Java due to the fact that users find the speed unacceptable. That's why Apple's VM team is so arrogant: specifically in order to allow Apple and others to write OS X-specific apps in Java using the Cocoa bindings without a performance penalty, Apple's been trying to squeeze every last ounce of performance they can out of the VM. They aren't there yet, and, unlike some companies, they care enough about the end-user experience to keep Java off the front line until the 15% performance gap can be closed.

Most of your post sounds essentially like you didn't read up sufficiently before going to get the most out of the conference, quite frankly. I encourage you to take another look at Java in OS X.

Themes are only skin-deep, Quartz goes to the core

[maggard]

Apple's windowing API -- and redesigning the user interface such that it conforms to the Apple Aqua guidlines. (That's a tall order, especially considering that much of the Aqua guidlines are incomplete and still being formed.) Currently, StarOffice uses its own interface toolkit, built from the ground up.

I don't think supporting an aqua Look'nFeel would be too hard. OOo already is themable to MacOs9 look (and Windows, OS/2 and XWindows). Look at Tools->Options->OpenOffice.org->View.

Probably all it would take would be a new "theme" for the Toolkit OOo uses. Maybe they would have to extend the theming

Making something look like Aqua doesn't make it work like Aqua, or work with Quartz.

One of the beauties of the Mac OS is that there's a unform, consistant, and universal interface and scratchpad model. IBM pioneered the idea of a standard interface and Apple brought it to the GUI and applications with a vengance.

Not only do the MacOS and applications follow the same behaviors they also allow universal cut-and-paste. Anything you see that's editable on a Mac can be cut-and-pasted anywhere else that is editable and supports the medium (eg no sound-for-text.) Styled text, QuickTime multimedia, everything. This is more thoroughly plumbed then on Windows and certainly more extensive then on X and traditionial Unix applications.

It has always frustrated me when someone puts together a Theme and presents it as being the same as another OS. No. There's more to an interface then window-dressing. Another misbegotten kinda-sorta-looks-like-Aqua (but doesn't use the System Services or Quartz engine etc.) is exactly the sort of half-assed implementation Apple is selling the alternative to. Without a doubt if Apple ships an Apple/Open Office it'll be as high-gloss and thoroughly native as any of the iApps. That they've chosen Java as the platform to work from rather then Cocoa is a "Good Thing" for everyone else.

Yes Java is a completely peer layer in MacOS but it is portable and so anything Apple & Sun produce is instantly applicable to all of the other Open Office platforms (if not as nicely as the Apple implementation - think of this as payback for Apple having really committed to making Java a native portion of their OS.) This will also allow all of those other wonderful Java libraries to be leveraged in a consistant manner and become directly usable by Open Office.

Is this worthwhile for Apple? Yes. They get the only robust MS Office alternative to run suh-weet on their OS, now the best-selling Unix out there. Sun gets a partner in melding Open Office and Java, pusing their jewels out into the marketplace. The Users gets a better GUI on Open Office, one that can build on lots of other work rather then being another home-grown roll-your-own deal. They also get an infusion of all of those new MacOS X (Unix) desktops all using and supporting and developing further Open Office.

Win-Win-Win.

Re:Apple Convert

[askien]

I've used PC's since the original IBM PC came out, OS/2 from 87 to 98 and Linux from 95-present.

I got an iBook because I thought the hardware was sexy. I tought about installing Yellow Dog and a two button mouse. Guess what happened?

I ditched Linux for MacOS X but kept using my old apps, like mutt and so on. I kept writing C code with vi, et all

After 3 months, I found myself using the Mail app that comes with MacOS X, Project Builder, and Objective C.

Cocoa is wonderfull -- get the Hillegrass book, it's good beginning stuff.

I never intended to make the switch. It was the hardware that got me. Then, slowly I got hooked. I highly recommend the platform. I would never ever use a mac before MacOS X, but now I think of it as the NeXT box that I never got.

Sometimes I think of the non-free nature of the whole thing, but the fact that Darwin, gcc, and a lot of other stuff is Open Source/Free, it makes me feel a little better. Besides you can run Darwin, X and GNUStep.