Gobe Productive To Be GPLed

Sad - but the source lives on by ghazban · 2002-08-12 00:04 · Score: 4, Informative

It's very noble of Gobe to release the source after the product's financial demise, rather than sell it on for a pittance. Hopefully the clean and bloat-free source will live on.

See osnews for a comment by one of Gobe's developers Tom Hoke.

It's fast software by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-12 00:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

Basically, if OpenOffice is too slow on your machine try Gobe Productive. It has versions on BeOS, Windows, and Linux. The speed is amazing.

I'm rolling out 30 P166s and this will be on it :)

A new name for it. by jukal · 2002-08-12 00:15 · Score: 4, Funny

Bruce Hammond: We are planing to rename it somehow. I would love to get feedback from the community as to what the name should be

gobeProductive...an obvious anagram is: Pivot Core Debug :) and for business users, call it PCD Productivity Suite.

GOBE is a StarOffice world by Dr.+Spork · 2002-08-12 00:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

I should first issue a disclaimer that I haven't tried to hack around with the StarOffice code, nor have I looked at Gobe code. However, just from the mere size and responsiveness of Gobe, I have the impression that it must be a fairly clean bunch of code. It does a lot without being bloated, and it might not turn out to be terribly hard to get it to do more.

In a way, it's a little sad that open source fans can't all get behind one specific office suite. I mean, choice is good, but we also need to hammer in to the minds of office managers (via mantra) that StarOffice is "just as good as" and "a suitable replacement for" MS Office. There are many people doing just this, and there is finally a little bit of buzz in the non-techie world about StarOffice.

Gobe office will complicate this, because in many ways, it's as good as StarOffice (better at some things, worse at others). Techies who advocate a GPL office suite will no longer speak with a single voice, and managers who are contemplating a MS-software purge in their offices get scared because now they must undergo the agony of deciding which suite to train their staff on. This might make them more likely just to say "aw, forget it" and fork up the MS licensing fees. I mean, there will be flames all over the internet to the effect that "Now that GOBE is free, there is no point in maintaining OpenOffice anymore" and others that say "GOBE will die an ungraceful death because OpenOffice is just too far ahead." Managers will freak out and start worrying that the horse they pick will die mid-race, and then they'll have to retrain their staff again. Well, anyway, it's a thing to watch out for.

Having said that, I have a feeling I'll be a GOBE user real soon. I've played with it at a friend's house and I was pretty impressed by the performance.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-08-12 00:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Office Shakedown by peatbakke · 2002-08-12 00:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

Hey, this is great stuff. A couple years ago, people were saying that Linux didn't stand a chance in business computing unless a good office productivity suite was available ... and now we have several in the pipeline, a couple of which are actually quite reasonable. Give 'em another year or two, and I think we'll have some solid cross platform products.

So, I'm curious: Releasing GP under an open source license is certainly The Right Thing To Do, but what specific benefits might we get from it? Are office suites as layered as operating systems, with code on higher levels fairly portable, or are the only standards at the file format level?

Also, is it a "from scratch" rewrite of ClarisWorks, or might there be some sticky licensing issues with Apple popping up in the near future .. ?

Regardless, having different ways of doing the same things, so long as there's open and stable file formats, is always a good thing ...

Re:Office Shakedown by praedor · 2002-08-12 02:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

THE problem with Gobe (and ALL linux office suites, err, the word processor part) is that NONE have the ability to handle citations and references. ONLY Lyx can do this and Lyx is simply not a generally user-friendly app vs standard wordprocessors that virtually everyone on the planet it comfortable and used to. Thus, we will get a pretty suite in Gobe but it will not distinguish itself from StarOffice/OpenOffice, KOffice, or whatever the suite name is for the Gnome equivalent is. None of these suites can do citations and references and thus, if you do ANY sort of research paper writing, scientific writing, ANY writing that requires applying proper attribution, then the only game in town, unfortunately, is Lyx (or straight LaTex for you real nutbars out there).

On the other hand, Office and Wordperfect (I don't know about AppleWorks) CAN deal with citations and references via third party addons like EndNote. Thus, virtually everyon in my biochem department uses either word or wordperfect on macs or PCs to write their scientific papers because they can handle citations. None would even consider any other suite because of their glaring lack in this regard.

First question out of a graduate student co-worker's mouth to me when I was talking to her about my use of linux was "Can it run EndNote?" No EndNote, no linux. Now linux doesn't need EndNote, mind you, just the same functionality of EndNote either organic to a wordprocessor OR the ability for each wordprocessor to accept simple addons with the capability of EndNote (Pybliographic or Sixpack in combination with Lyx, for instance, via the bibtex intermediary).

Until a linux office product can handle citations and references in its wordprocessor, they are mere toys for fluff writing (letters to mom, resumes, recipes, etc), not useful for professional technical/scientific writing.

--
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.

Re:You can find trial ver on download.com by Freedom+Bug · 2002-08-12 00:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Another example where open source software has a missing feature it doesn't need simply because it's open.

At least for your example, you don't want an automation interface. OpenOffice has an open file format: just write out the files from scratch. It may be slightly more work up front, but you'll save tons in support costs, run way faster, and be generally way cleaner.

Bryan

But they did sell it by phr2 · 2002-08-12 01:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

According to the article, Free Radical paid for the code and then GPL'd it. It doesn't say how much they paid so I don't know whether it was a pittance. The GPL'ing does not appear to have been done as an act of charity. Rather, it looks like they want the Internet to be their unpaid porting, QA, and feature-addition department. The program will be dual licensed which means there will probably be proprietary versions, possibly including contributions from those same unpaid programmers. I'm not terribly thrilled with that kind of arrangement.

Mozilla is licensed sort of similarly (the MPL gives Netscape special rights to the code) and it's not attracting so many volunteers either. I'm not real surprised. While the letter of the GPL doesn't prevent dual licensing, it's not really in the GPL spirit, which is that the original author of a piece of code doesn't have special rights that others don't have.

If I add features to an FSF GPL'd program, I'm doing volunteer work for the free software community and it makes me happy. If I add features to a BSD-licensed program, I become an unpaid employee of anyone who feels like forking the code--I don't find that so attractive. If I add features to Gobe Office, I possibly become an unpaid employee of just one company, Free Radical. Once again, life's too short for that.

I'm not a total free software zealot and I am willing to work on proprietary code. But when I do that, I expect to get paid, just as the vendor expects to get paid. So I'm not terribly impressed by these commercial dual licensed semi-GPL projects.

(Man, topic drift inside a single post! Forgive me.)

Re:But they did sell it by Inoshiro · 2002-08-12 06:17 · Score: 3, Informative

"Mozilla is licensed sort of similarly (the MPL gives Netscape special rights to the code) and it's not attracting so many volunteers either."

I don't think that's because of the licencing so much as it's a factor of a C++ application which has a many hundred meg source tree, uses its own meta-description language for its interface (which is implemented in its own rendering core), has its own cross-platform COM interface for dynamic object meshing, and in general is a very, very, very complex and advanced piece of work.

It's not exactly something you sit down and build a patch for over lunch. It's more complex than the Linux kernel in many respects. How many people hack on the kernel full time?

I can take an OS design class that teaches me enough about how kernels should work that I can work on the Linux kernel; Mozilla requires that you know C++ well, code engineering, and also go on to know the project well (its class libraries, inheritance trees, XPCOM, etc, etc). It's more of a fusion of all your CS classes with a healthy helping of learning the project itself.

--
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Re:But they did sell it by HiThere · 2002-08-12 08:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

I believe that the claim is that because of the licensing, he didn't even consider working on the code.

I sort of agree with that, though more to the point, that's not the place that I want to put my energy ... I've got a different project in mind. When I do it, it will be GPL. And it may interface with, say, Apache, but it won't be a part of Apache... but then it wouldn't anyway.

A large part of what goes on is "What itch are you scratching?" Most people would be willing to put up with a license that they didn't totally agree with to work on the project that they wanted. There are limits, but I don't really feel that any of the open source projects go outside of them. BSD tends to be more for people who just want the code to get out there, and GPL more for people who don't want to be required to buy back the code that they wrote ...

Still, the "part commercial" licenses are special cases. They don't really seem unfair to me, at least not necessarily unfair. The Mozilla-Netscape connection seems to work out alright. Anyone can use it, but only Netscape is allowed to sell it (outside of GPL constraints .. anyone can sell it if they follow GPL rules).

The thing is, most software projects really are small teams. The folks in charge are the folks in charge, and you may be able to join with them, but it may be years before you become a core member. If then. But this is just human small group dynamics, so it shouldn't be surprising. Of course the Netscape in group remained the major coders on Mozilla. They worked together, they got to know each other. Of course it was hard for outside coders to get in. For one think, they worked on the project full time, and the outside coder who did that was quite rare, but for another, they knew each other. They were "us".

The Linux kernel group is more open, but that's partly because they are more dispersed. And that has negative as well as positive effects. Still, the core group of coders doesn't change rapidly. Anyone can earn a place, but the criteria aren't any hard and inflexible kind of thing. If the other members don't like you, they won't let you in. If they do, the entrance bar is lower. And this isn't a bad thing. Groups need social cohesion to work well. And this, be it remembered, is with a maximally "FSF approved" license.

If you wanted to nit pick, I suppose that you could claim that if you were working on the kernel you were laboring on behalf of Red Hat (though other commercial entities would also benefit). Nothing wrong with that. They pick up their fair share of the tab, no reason they shouldn't benefit.

Back to Netscape, and the work on Mozilla. Netscape picks up most of the tab, not reason they shouldn't benefit. This isn't like MS snaffeling the TCP stack from BSD. MS is just a sponger, but that doesn't describe Netscape. And I doubt that it will describe Free Radical. (If it does, then they've just wasted their money on a bad bet. They're going to need to put a lot more push behind it than just opening the code if they want to get decent development in any reasonable time frame, when KOffice and OpenOffice are looking so good.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:GOBE is a StarOffice world by foobar104 · 2002-08-12 01:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

I mean, choice is good, but we also need to hammer in to the minds of office managers (via mantra) that StarOffice is "just as good as" and "a suitable replacement for" MS Office.

The only problem with this idea is that StarOffice-- as anybody who has actually tried to use it in a business setting knows-- isn't "just as good as" or "a suitable replacement for" MS Office.

Evangelizing about StarOffice-- or any of the open source office software products-- right now would do serious damage to the reputation of open source software. When serious business users look at an open source office suite, they're not going to say, "This software, while unfinished, has a lot of potential. I'm excited and intrigued!" Instead, they're going to say, "Those open source nuts clearly don't get it. I've tried their software, and found it wanting. I will ignore them from now on and stick with what works: good old Office XP."

Evangelizing a new product or technology too early can result in its failure rather than its adoption.

Re:You can find trial ver on download.com by foobar104 · 2002-08-12 01:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, he was right the first time. Spending a fortune rewriting components that are already available is an incredibly stupid idea. The only possible motivation for doing something like that would be the precise sort of FUD that you're slinging: "when Microsoft made it too legally difficult to extend their applications..." Please. You can't base a business plan on unfounded speculation about what Microsoft might do, despite their repeated statements that the won't do it, and the fact that there's no sound reason for them to do it.

We all know you hate Microsoft. That doesn't mean this guy's business plan of using COM components to build their application is a bad idea.

Look at it this way: they're out there selling products, while the open source guys are still figuring out how to build the human interfaces for their various word processors. Which one of those approaches is more sound?

Re:Wasted effort potentially damaging to all by jvmatthe · 2002-08-12 01:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Wasted effort? You're very enthusiastic about determining what other people should be doing with their time -- how would you feel if someone told you what to do with yours, and you didn't have a choice?

This effort is not wasted if the people expending the effort don't feel that it is. 'Wasted' is a value judgement that you're making, not an objective statement of fact.

Perhaps you'd have been happier if I used the word "redundant"? It is redundant effort and my post is a comment on the possible results of the release of Yet Another Free Office Suite. However, I never "told" anyone what to do. Reread my post: I say here is a possible outcome of this kind of community dilution. If people have suddenly decided to take my opinions on what the future holds as orders for how to run their lives, then it sure doesn't manifest itself very often. I could see that on the highway to work this morning...they all blithely ignored my suggestions for better driving.

And, quite frankly, I do think we should criticize the things we get for "free". I complain about how my taxes are spent on "free" services for myself and other citizens every day. And my vote is my key to push those free things towards the places I think they're necessary. Coming here to /. and expressing my opinion and then voting with my download and bug reports and (if it comes to it) my code patches is how I'll vote for my favorite free office software.

So yes I've got balls to complain about free stuff. Do you? Or are you simply another one of those sheeple that feels that free software is also "free" of fault simply because it's got a free license?

If we, the free software community, aren't critical of ourselves and take appropriate actions then surely others will be, and they will be a lot less constructive about it.

--
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy

Re:GOBE is a StarOffice world by ReconRich · 2002-08-12 01:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

In a way, it's a little sad that open source fans can't all get behind one specific office suite.
This attitude, that "There can be only one" is a sure fire recipe for making Open Source software suck as badly as closed source software. The competition between KDE and Gnome has been nothing but good for both sides. M$ succeeded in the first place by the desire that many people had 10 years ago for 1 OS, 1 Word Processor and so on. Well, we have it now, and only people with an MCSE like it.
The desire for a single Office Suite, Desktop System, etc. comes from the desire to "Beat Microsoft". We have one strength over M$ - They are a marketing machine, not a technology machine. If we try to beat them at their own game, we will lose. If we play our own game - Free software competing with ITSELF, then we will win. And we won't get stuck with software that was developed for its marketing value. The idea that we ought to all work together is rubbish; for all its ugliness the KDE vs. Gnome war made both sides better. And they will continue to get better because of the competition. The same chance exists with Office Suites. Don't tell me we ought to "work together" ; tell me why "yours" is great, and mine "sucks". "Mine" will be better for it. And so will "yours"

-- Recon

--
Free your mind and your Ass will follow -- George Clinton

Re:I've used it, and it is really great. by praedor · 2002-08-12 01:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

My question for pdf format saving...can you edit it after it is in pdf format? No other linux office app that can save to (well, actually print to) pdf format can then open and edit same pdf. It is one way.

I like pdf generally but for the inability to edit it (unless one has windoze or a mac and shells out for the Adobe pdf suite.

--
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.

Get gobeProductive Demo here by snarfer · 2002-08-12 02:04 · Score: 3, Informative

You can get the 14-day demo of gobeProductive here. (Windows version.)

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-08-12 02:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The number of free office suites is exploding by homer_ca · 2002-08-12 08:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

"there's no compelling reason for anyone who's happy using Office to switch to a "wannabe" package"

Microsoft faces the same problem with their Office. If someone is happy using Office 2000 (or even Office 97) what reason would they have to pay to upgrade to Office XP? They really just have two choices to maintain their revenue stream: force upgrades by breaking compatibility or push for subscription licensing.

The best hope for a sale (either MS Office or an alternative) is an OEM preinstall. Antitrust settlement or not, MS still has the big OEMS by the balls, so the mom and pop white box vendors are the best hope for a preinstall of free software like Openoffice.org or Gobe.

19 of 239 comments (clear)