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."
Subject speaks of the comment.
http://saveie6.com/
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).
I hear the Mozilla crew has finally been thinking about integrating this kick-ass feature. All in all, its integrated with the browser, so no shitty Java code to run in your VM.
IBM has basically released the source of their java applications. Java is *trivial* to decompile. Names of variables, function calls etc are kept intact - you only lose comments.
Don't believe me? Search google for "DJ's Java Decompiler"
I suspect IBM will want to be able to import MS Office files into their system... perhaps they'll share some code with the OpenOffice gang.
The filters in OpenOffice are pretty good... but there's always going to be room for improvement. (plus, those MS file formats are a moving target...) It would be a nice bonus if IBM would open source their filters, or better yet, use the OpenOffice filters and contribute patches. I have no personal experience with recent Lotus packages, but I'm going to guess that OpenOffice filters are more advanced than the Lotus ones by now anyway.
Personally, I'd like to see some basic VBA compatibility... say what you want about VB, but I find it very handy for little custom functions in Excel -- and no, I don't want to rewrite them just to use oO.
Interesting co-opetition if this did happen. IBM working with a group largely supported by Sun, both trying to take a big bite out of MS.
"First it was dumb terminals then network computers and now this. Its dead give it up."
Do you have ANY idea how useful something like this could be to large environments? Where I work, we have 35,000 computers on the supported list. Two or three different platforms worth, PCs, Macs, and some occasional Linux machines. It would be kick ass if we could deploy one version of one productivity suite across the whole network, especially if we could do it with site based central servers rather than having to work on each and every PC on the fucking network.
If this supports server-side file storage, it's even better, since then we don't have to worry about user data any longer. We'll gladly build fault-tolerant servers if we only have to do it for about a hundred machines, and suddenly we can also roll out upgrades to the products with only a few days' work, not months like we currently have to.
The days of dumb terminals rocked. If one broke, we brought another one out, and swapped. If the server broke, we dropped everything and fixed it. Regardless, the user wasn't without a connection or machine for days at a time like which happens in the Windows world. If Microsoft hadn't managed to con everyone into believing that their dumbass standalone workstation idea was the best, we'd probably be using X-Terms now, and have even better centralization of critical data, rather than every user having to know how to copy their data to the network attached storage (and most of them are not interested in learning).
Just because a computing model is old doesn't mean that it's outdated.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
But businesses will see this as an easy way to manage their user's office-suite needs centrally, AND get support from Big Blue when they need it. The guys in suits like having someone to call when things aren't working exactly right...
-- mikeDOTd
I must say I gave up mostly on the alleged compatibility of open-source software with MS Word. There was always something not right in the presentation. Most of the MS Word stuff that I receive is forms from management and outside partners; those people apparently don't know how to make PDF forms.
We have a solution: we use rdesktop to access a single Windows 2000 machine from our Unix desktops, and we run MS Office and Acrobat on them.
only works for x86 boxes. Many of us use PowerPC or Sparc chipsets, and the java version runs a hell of a lot faster than the wine version in bochs!
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
IBM already has a Pure Java database in Cloudscape (www.cloudscape.com). IBM acquired this nifty little toy when they brought Informix in 2001. It is an embedded database that is much more feature rich then McKoi.
I am all for the ASP model, and I really think that something like this has great potential. Esp, if I don't have to fire up Office every time I want to make a change to my .doc documents.
My sketicism is driven by the comment
It's a well known fact, that most people only use something like 10% of Words features. It's also well know that marketers like to exaggerate.
No, Lotus failed in most software they made all on their own. The CEO of Lotus had his title changed to General Manager after a few years of not producing results. I have a hope that Lotus has absolutely nothing to do with this software.
The company itself is strange, a friend of mine did some consulting for them, they have ganja themed commercials on closed circuit tv.
Sleep is for the weak.
> The problem with Access is, of course, that it only runs on Windows. Wouldn't it be groovy to have a cross-platform, true alternative?
MS Access is supposedly designed for small businesses and for small groups in big companies, but after I worked with a small company who uses MS Access to manage their customer records, I've come to conclude that any database does not belong to a small business. There is no reliable or economical way to manage any database for small (very small) business. The only alternative I see is out sourcing, utility model. Perhaps something like, they subscribe a service and they manage all their customer records using web. Something like that.
I read some article or interview saying that developers who work on non-MS office suite are having very difficult time implementing their version of personal database like MS Access, but I don't think that it is the only reason why we don't see any software like MS Access. It is just not a software model that works in real world; though we see number of MS Access users today, I do not think that it is a model that has future.
Writing yet another windowing system based on the same concepts as the original is not the answer to the problem, taking the time to optimise the existing code is the answer to the problem.
True, IBM has experience killing off retail software, like SmartSuite.
But they also have experience dealing well with server software, like Websphere.
This is not competition for today's bloated Microsoft Office running on your desktop. This is competition for tomorrow's subscription Microsoft Office running on your company's big iron server.
Bloat is a not that much of an issue there (and at the Websphere price scale), and I don't expect it to be that bloated, memory-wise. It's likely to have less graphic candy, wizards, and certainly less "covert OS upgrade components" than MS Office.
GUI support is almost certainly a non-issue too. This is Websphere we're talking about: thin-clients, J2EE, Servlets, EJB and Web Services... that kind of stuff. If IBM chooses Applets for their GUI they should be beaten to a pulp literally, and probably will metaphorically. But that is doubtful, unless SWT is much better than it looks right now.
They'll likely use a big, complex Web interface and just require all users to use IE or Mozilla 18.whatever (probably the later for flexibility's sake), which is certainly less than a requirement to install some other custom client OR an Office suite.
I can already hear the complaints: "What? They force me to install a particular browser instead of a 1GB Office Suite? Oh no!". I'm just speculating, but that sounds to me like the sensible solution.
There's a broad market of options for Web-based interfaces that work quite well if you don't have to deal with compatibility issues, your application logic is not the issue, and you have the resources to debug them properly as an application (as opposed to as 'just a website').
This passes the GUI requirements to the browser support of whatever you're using for GUI: Javascript and DHTML works fine. Or maybe they could go for one of those new fancy XML-based 'web-app GUI' projects that one keeps hearing about in Slashdot. Or they can go the plug-in way.
Whatever they find works best for their Websphere market, which is what matters to them here.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
That's your typical Slashdot idiocy. Most Slashdotters don't know the percentages of Fortune 500 companies that are already using WebSphere that will be more than happy to have a unified system for their whole business.
.Net.
From then on, they only have to upgrade one product every year instead of 2. For some businesses, buy WebSphere for there network may turn out to be cheaper than 400$/machine with Office.
I guess there aren't many Slashdotters that actually think about the possibilities before the make sweeping remarks like "Microsoft doesn't care."
IBM has billions of dollars that say MS will care. In fact, I would expect the next logical step for MS is to port MS Office to
Karma Clown
This is also interesting for another reason. Back when people shared CPU cycles, there was actually some interest in writing efficient software. You waste tons of cycles, Johnny down the hall runs slower, and people are going to be looking at the CPU statistics with the evil eye.
When workstations became popular, things changed. If you don't use cycles, they're simply wasted. So you might as well suck down most of the cycles on the machine. Efficient software stops becoming worthwhile.
Moving to server-based software again might mean that programmers actually have to write decent software again.
May we never see th
I think that where this is a bona-fide threat to MS is in changing the paradigm.
change may take place in two ways. The first is as mentioned by some other posters, you would get centralized management of the app and be able to reduce your TCO by not having to install/upgrade on every machine.
the second possible shift is where the real potential is. People don't just buy websphere and drop it in, they customize it to do something for them... so, now that there's going to be an office suite in websphere, companies that make customizations to websphere and have custom apps running on it can count on a standardized, cross application office suite being there that they can wrap their application around.
I think that's where the most potential for this is to truly change things.