Slashdot Mirror
IBM To Publish Java Office Suite
prostoalex writes "The Big Blue will bundle J2EE-based word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation graphics applications in its WebSphere portal. What's more interesting is that the package is server-side, with functionality of the application being delivered to the user over the network. Both CRN (linked above) and The Register considered that a major move against MSFT."
Good job, IBM! It's always nice to see an industry leader promoting competition in the software arena. It forces all candidates to develop a better product. Perhaps this will spark some ideas with M$? (Not that they'll be any good, but still... ;-) )
How does making the application server side help in office applications? These are inherently GUI based applications with the focus on WYSIWYG. Why J2EE, all J2EE would do is save the files?
For all practical purposes when I'm at work and the network is down..so am I. That's where the work is stored, that's where we access important information, that's how we communicate.
Even with desktop apps, when the network goes down - we're doing nothing.
It was slow, and depending on which JAVA VM you used depended on how long it would go before crashing.
It will be remembered as one of the many wasted efforts from the java-craze years.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
I think that people are going to notice that there are other office suites out there... Especially if it comes bundled with the server. I know plenty of people who are tired of the way you have to pay $230+ for MS Office per machine. This definitely is a threat to MS.
Also, I wonder if they will adopt an existing file format, or if they are just going to go on thier own. I would think that people would like it much better, and would be less hesitant to switch to it, if they didn't have to hassle with thier file formats...
I dont think this is quite the same thing. IBM have invested heavily in their Websphere app server technology and this just looks like an attempt to squeeze Weblogic market share. Its more evidence that IBM see Webspere as a platform in and of itself.
It has the convenient side effect of putting the Lotus code base to work instead of sitting around doing nothing and if its well received new markets open on the desktop for IBM.
Personally I dislike Websphere but I think this is very clever idea which will go down well in the corporate sphere.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
If anything, it bodes well for Microsoft, because it gives them another solution to point to as a competitor, dispelling claims about MSOffice being a monopoly.
File formats? Compatible with Office? I doubt it. That means this thing is boat anchor. Either that, or it will join those thousands of boxes of the old Lotus Suite gathering dust in cabinets that companies got for buying Notes.
If there was an award for software distributed that never got used, nobody would ever beat IBM.
If this is tightly integrated with WebSphere, I can see how it would be a benefit to those who have already deployed or decided to deploy WebSphere. But without said tight integration, there's really not much benefit over using OpenOffice or some other freely available office suite. Having the apps served via the network may make it easier to deploy updates, but I still don't believe the suite is going to induce more people to buy Websphere unless it's tightly integrated and truly exceptional relative to other free alternatives.
Java has come a long way since the early days of Core's suite. Performance isn't an issue anymore, *especially* with IBM's SWT toolkit, a blazing alternative to Swing. IMO, one problem Sun has had is not offering enough slick, Java desktop apps. Perhaps the slickest one of all is InstallAnywhere -- something everyone uses and appreciates the slickness of, but doesn't realize that slickness is in no small part due to being written in Java. Maybe this will help get the ball rolling.
Because when the network is down you are down, regardless.
Many business, like manufacturing, are so connected to computers that if the computer network goes down then business grinds to a halt.
I've worked in this type of place. It isn't as tough as you think, considering they only worked 2 shifts, leaving 8 hours for maintenance, etc. It isn't 24x7 but more like 16x5.
The biggest issues were desktop apps having problems. Amazing how much that stuff freezes and crashes when people *insist* on having Outlook, IE, Word, Excel, an SNA client (TN 3270) and possibly a CAD viewer (java applet) and maybe an MS Access database or two running all at once.
Believe it or not, Sun has the right idea. Build the network so that it is so reliable it makes the phone and power companies look like slackers. Then move 90+% of the apps back upstream to a professionally-managed & maintained server.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Not really.
It's possible to prevent java code from being decompiled. This can be done using Obfuscation of the code - basically converts the code so that it is more difficult to decompile (but not impossible).
The names of the variables and functions could be changed by such a tool to make it difficult to understand a program - as if it's already not difficult to understand without any comments.
Think of servers as a fixed cost and clients as a variable cost. With thin client models you only have to support a browser on the client machines. It is the end to a management headache: all those apps configured on all those clients.
Think about all those companies that are paying big bucks for all of those client OS's and Apps. Now they can get, for less than $200, loaded PC's (1.1 GHz PC w/Linux installed, no monitor).
Walmarts $199.98 PC.
Open source development is my way of competing with the low-cost programmers in India...
"Microsoft doesnt care."
But they should. Imagine if IBM does what IBM typically does well, which is deliver high-end computing in large-scale environments, with this product for users...
Large companies, school districts, government organizations, anywhere that has had computers longer than Microsoft has been in full force will be able to appreciate this. It's a support thing. If you can have a platform independent system that is centrally installed and highly available, you'll make it in evironments that have experience with IBM successes like AS/400's, System 370/390's, and RS/6000's, since these groups already trust IBM. In fact, companies that don't have IBM, because they purchased a cheaper competitor's computing platform, like an HP system or a Hitachi might be inclined to add this to their computing systems as well. They don't then have to go out to each PC when some dumbass library breaks, spending the significant amount of time necessary to fix Microsoft Office, they may have to go out and upgrade a web browser or java engine at the most. Then, they can do all of the product support and updates for the productivity suite in a localized area, and NOT have to pay Redmond the blood-money that they currently do for network-wide site licenses.
I'd SO go for it...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It could be argued there are plenty of office suites already, especially word processors and spreadsheets. However, what this huge steaming pile of free and open source officeware lacks is a real alternative to MS Access. There simply is nothing, except for some half-assed iimitators that only run on Windows themselves.
What I'd like to see is something programmed in Java, using an embedded Java RDBMS engine such as McKoi, but also able to be used as a front end to any SQL database -- just like Access. The problem with Acces is, of course, that it only runs on Windows. Wouldn't it be groovy to have a cross-platform, true alternative?
Microsoft was a victim of sun's harh contracts
IIRC, the virtual machine debate was the fault of Microsoft for not upholding its end of a bargain.
Good troll.
We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
I am sure you're trolling, but anyway.
.Net runtime is a Microsoft product that only runs on Microsoft Windows and not on any of IBM's systems?
.Net runtime is slower than current Java runtimes. In fact, on non-Windows platforms the .Net runtime doesn't even exist!
Why did they choose to use java and not the faster and more modern C# ?
Because IBM are heavily into Java (and have VMs for all their platforms)? Because C# and the related
(Microsoft was a victim of sun's harh contracts)
I am sure IBM aren't so stupid they think it's OK to violate a contract, or to sign one they don't intend to honour.
as well as it's lackluster performance
Newsflash: the
From the parent comment: "If there was an award for software distributed that never got used, nobody would ever beat IBM."
Exactly. Remember TopView? It was a way of running multiple programs under DOS. That was the beginning, I guess, of the present software incompetence of IBM. Their failures seem to be a political problem with management.
IBM killed SmartSuite so efficiently! One month they bought it, and the next month it was dead! Awesome!
I remember news reports saying that IBM had lost $1,000,000,000 on OS/2. They gave it a name that means "deform so much as to make unusable": Warp. There were later reports that IBM lost $2 billion on OS/2. It was a better OS than Windows at the time, but IBM wouldn't support it with drivers. I guess IBM management took a hard look at OS/2, and decided losing $1 billion wasn't enough.
Recently, there were those stupid-looking spacemen selling IBM web software.
IBM Linux is one of IBM's few software successes. I suppose that's because IBM management is not able to ruin it.
I agree with the comment above the parent to this one: "The bloat of any even semi-featureful office suite, combined with the horrible, piggish slowness and ugliness of a Java app."
Didn't anyone in IBM management notice that Java does not have good GUI support?
crack? and lots of it
so basically its NOT server side, which is entirely the point of what IBM has done. but oh yeah, MS never encouraged things like comprehension. so lets see, find Microsoft OS enabled thin client, oh yeah, there are not any. then run some IE active X crap and have a HTML editor, or is it a word proc, you bring up both so im not sure what are you refering to.
you manage to compare "shitty java" with asp. hahahhaha
asp is purely junk to begin with, but if the programmer, actually coder in MS terms, is already bad to begin with, asp cruft will just compound the problem.
real programmers write with real langs. asp/vb/activeX
IBM solved the Java GUI support problem. Take a look at Eclipse, based on IBM's SWT (Swing replacement).
- Tal Cohen
Good
1. Finally it would be easier to work on WSAD and a word document opened together. Anyone who has worked with these mammoth applications opened together would know what i am talking about. By making individual PCs dummy terminals, this could free up PReciOus processor power
2. Easier to maintain / Upgrade. The guys at the IT should definitely NOT be happy about this one. They will probably get laid off now that it is easier to upgrade due to the centralization.
Bads
1. The only good thing about a monopoly is the standard that it establishes. The article talks says the J2EE suite has
"80 percent of the Office functionality most people use".
There would now be a possibility for a doc file developed in MS Office to look different on these IBM systems. Imagine your resume getting rejected because of that !
2. Centralization could suck with Network breakdown. Switching PCs will not work !
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
As Ethernet bandwidth increases, the argument for putting the power back in the server farm gets stronger. The server farm is in a controlled environment, it's easier to manage. If you assume in a few years many corporates will have gigabit Ethernet to the desk, and simple, cheap thin clients running XPE or Embedded Linux, the IBM approach makes sense. It is also going to be cheaper for developing countries to do this from the start than to put big, expensive, rapidly obsoleting boxes on every desktop.
To a certain extent too, it leverages the Linux strength in the server versus its perceived weakness in the desktop.
Corporate IT should be about delivering the necessary, usable functionality to end users. Geeks often lose sight of that. Microsoft might lose sight of it. But it's IBM core business.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Didn't IBM try this and fail, via some Lotus Suite of sorts?
When the network is down, other things might grind to a halt but there is no reason my word processing should. Also, what if your server is up but /.'ed? Do I have to wait 15 minutes for my file to save when I have a perfectly good hard drive to hold it? Not to mention that I might want to unplug my notebook and use the same apps on a flight.
The only way it makes sense is if you can also install a local "server" on your PC and synchronize your documents with the real server when network is up. We have a project like that (webtogo, which is part of Oracle Lite) to run servlets a local PC, with access to replicated data in a local database. The same approach could be used for office applications.
" It's called the HTML editing scriptlet and I've personally (with a couple of lines of ASP code and some javascript) developed a fully customized web based word processor, with Word-like toolbars and icons and such. IE has this hidden feature that is basically an integrated HTML editor; the object just needs to be called. You then put the contents of the document into a POST operation to save (natively in HTML format)."
So you are comparing the simple little HTML editor to a full blown office right?.
War is necrophilia.
I mean, really. Who the hell would want that? "Look at this, its just like a regular word processor, but extra laggy!!!"
It would definetly be a lot more laggy then a pure-java word processor, thats for sure.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
And
Now maybe Mono could open up the CLR a bit but I suspect a lot of people consider the project still work in development as well as having the Sword of Damocles hanging over it in the form of MS lawsuits.
I'm not saying you're doing this but I don't understand why people criticize MS over Word's feature set.
It's not like we don't have the processing power or ram to handle these things anymore and your not going to be running UT with a word processor in the background anyways.
And why is it that people always think that because there are 90+ features that they have no use for, that everyone else thinks the same. It may be certain that people only use some features but everyone probably doesn't use the exact same set of features.
Bleh, I'm not a fan of microsoft but I think sometimes people criticize them just because they're microsoft instead of pointing out real anti-competitive behaviour. No one on slashdot would know anything about that though.
If MS wants to put all that stuff in their program, I have no problem with it, it's not like I'll suddenly have to learn something completely different with every version. Even then, Word is still a lot faster than OOo, somebody at OOo should do something about that. Of course, office still costs an assload regardless.
1. It came out recently. It will get faster.
2. It's faster than swing.
3. It's NOT aweful on OSX.
And once someone writes a plugin for the OS, that's it. Nothing else. Look how many times gtk was ported.. or qt? It's not inherently platform itself, but your code itself is since it (swt) uses a fascade pattern to make all the api's common.
--
"I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo
Have you actually tried SWT on anything but Windows? It's awful! SWT is inherently not cross platform so it solves the Java GUI support problem on one platform only.
Actually, yes we are using SWT on a stand-alone application project right now. And no, we haven't had any cross-platform problems with it using the same SWT code for Windows 2000, Mac OS X and Linux (GTK, Red Hat 8) concurrently.
As well I found that Eclipse 2.1 for Mac OS X is just as GUI-sluggish as the rest of the OS X apps, so no big difference there. True, Windows beats it hands down for speed, but that's not SWT's fault - it's Mac OS X's fault.
The Linux GTK version of Eclipse 2.1 performed quite well on my AMD 1.47Ghz -- better than Mac OS X's performance and about 80%-90% as fast as Windows.
SWT was designed to be a "thin" abstraction layer. True, the other platform versions of SWT are a bit behind Windows SWT in terms of features (view dragging in Eclipse comes to mind) and speed but I think they are satisfactory. I'm really looking forward to further SWT developments from IBM.
----- rL
Well, first off there is no IBM Linux. IBM doesn't have its own Linux distribution.
As to IBM's few software successes, they include:
I'd guess you're just a bitter OS/2 fan. Get over it.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
However, the great majority of workers are only mobile within site, where wireless networking is going to be continuous. And to do productive work they usually need to get resources off the network...they should not be relying on possibly obsolete versions of docs while mobile.
In terms of data integrity, it could be highly advantageous to many corporates if many workers could not do certain things without being connected to current data feeds.
So, I understand where you are coming from, but no MBA 101 for you.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Free, 100% Free, when you buy our $580,000 WebSphere Portal software/server combo!
However, just imagine for a moment that you're a company with 1,000+ employees. You probably spend at least $500 per person on MS Office+OS licensing fees per year alone. So... if IBM's product delivers, you could shave $500,000 off that budget. And you're getting WebSphere Portal in the bargain.
Doesn't look so bad.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.