Slashdot Mirror


Native KOffice for Mac OS X

bsharitt writes "A preliminary version of KOffice has been built natively on Mac OS X. It looks like a lot of the hard part is over, and now a lot of cleaning up and bug fixes stand between Mac OS X and a free full featured office suite." There's also a story on the dot.

335 comments

  1. OpenOffice.org by Valegor · · Score: 5, Informative

    There already is free full-featured office suite that runs on Mac OS X. Openoffice.org has run on Mac for a couple releases now. Having used both open office and Koffice(koffice on Linux, openoffice on Linux and Windows), I find openoffice to be more versatile. It is all a matter of opinion though

    1. Re:OpenOffice.org by Hanji · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, OOo is a `` free full-featured office suite that runs on Mac OS X''. However, the important difference is that this port of KOffice runs natively on OS X - it does not require you to be running an X11 server.

      For some people, that may not be a big deal, but most of us on OS X hate to have to use X11, and would *much* rather use native apps if we can at all avoid X11. It's not that it's bad, it's just that it's an inconvenience and doesn't blend in well with the rest of the environment.

      --
      A Minesweeper clone that doesn't suck
    2. Re:OpenOffice.org by ir0b0t · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OpenOffice is the best! I use it in my office every day to produce tons of heavily formatted documents. It saved me. I'm never going back to Microsoft Office. Koffice was not as useful as OpenOffice when I tried to switch before. Why not just concentrate on making OpenOffice better and better?

      --
      I'm laughing at clouds.
    3. Re:OpenOffice.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      When I judge on a pruely objective basis, regarding the abilities of various office products (not I am looking at the product only) then MS Office wins every time, every application.

    4. Re:OpenOffice.org by Valegor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunately I posted that before reading the fine print on OpenOffice's website about having to load X Server. I admittingly have never tried to use openoffice on Mac. Ok, even more honestly I haven't been able to use a mac more than 10 minutes without wanting to throw it out a window. I am curious about OS X so it does bother me that I get so annoyed by it.

    5. Re:OpenOffice.org by aergern · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, since there is a project underway to develop a QT interface for OO then OO/QT will compile natively on OSX and all is well. KOffice never seemed to deal well with MS Office docs as far as saving them correctly but OO rocks..and with a QT UI for OO then QT/Mac will be the God sent for OSX users. :)

      --
      Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
    6. Re:OpenOffice.org by Valegor · · Score: 5, Funny

      When I judge on a pruely objective basis, regarding the abilities of various office products (not I am looking at the product only) then MS Office wins every time, every application.

      When I judge a post based on proper spelling and punctuation vs. the message you are trying to get across, your post loses every time.

    7. Re:OpenOffice.org by big+tex · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, once they get a QT interface they still have to hack it to remove the X deps, much in the same way that KDE had to be hacked to run natively on OSX. So, 2 steps away from working, much further from 'rocks'.

      --
      I think I need a new sig here.
    8. Re:OpenOffice.org by j-pimp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What annoys you about it? Granted, it took me a while to get used to my iBook, but I love it now. Sure its a little weird not having a differentiation between a maximized window and one thats just the size of the screen. However, once you embrace the Jobs way its useable.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    9. Re:OpenOffice.org by WatertonMan · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'm not sure what you mean by "KDE had to be hacked to run natively on OSX." So far as I know KDE doesn't run "natively" on OSX. Unless you mean the KDE that is part of Fink and runs under X11. I'm not sure what dependencies were there. I know Fink still doesn't have the latest version of Gnome running yet. (Although I believe DarwinPorts does) So I admittedly am not familiar with other low-level features.

      The port of Konquerer and KOffice is using the native QT/Mac port. This is great for two reasons. For one it helps find bugs and missing features in QT/Mac. That'll make porting future projects easier and make using QT/Mac for cross platform development better. Secondly it will enable a lot of fairly good programs to run native.

      I agree that KOffice isn't that great, although it holds promise. But having it native is a big deal. Open Office might be more powerful, but because it is an X11 app, it really doesn't have an Aqua look and feel. Further cutting and pasting of graphics or drag and drop don't work. That's a rather large failing with Open Office. (I also think Open Office is weak compared to MS Office and further Apple is expected by some to be releasing its office suite this winter or spring)

      I'd kind of like to have a native Konquerer, if only to deal with directories with lots of files. Something the Finder doesn't deal well with. Using it to organize my web directories would be very nice as well...

    10. Re:OpenOffice.org by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Well if X11 has to be running, but the interface is AQUA/QT/Carbon and feels like a native then thats half the battle. My OSX OO experience would be so much better if the Menu was on the top bar of the screen and there was a real seperate OO icon in the dock. And lets keep things in perspective here. Free office suite that reads and writes MS OFFICE Files.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    11. Re:OpenOffice.org by geoffspear · · Score: 5, Informative

      Projected OS X native availability of OpenOffice.org 2.0 is currently Q1 2006. - from porting.openoffice.org. I'm not holding my breath.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    12. Re:OpenOffice.org by fastidious+edward · · Score: 1

      Cut them some slack! Clippy probably ate their dictionary, or maybe VBA decompiled their syntax.

      Seriously, I am not a fan of MS as a company (mainly due to the Windows product/philosophy/attitude surrounding it), but Office (Word, Excel, Access) are good productivity apps.

      In word processing (cum report presentation) I see little functional difference in MS Word and OO's wordporcessor, good on you OO for doing so well. MS's Access database is a powerful relational database which is very well documented and well supported, there is not an OO alternative and things like mySQL are better compared to products like Oracle (i.e., 'real' databases, not a non-expert development environment, though Access can also act heavy when front/back are split). As an intensive spreadsheet user (OK, spreadsheets only manipulate data, I use Mathematica for real math) I assure you OO's spreadsheet isn't there yet (no multi-dimensional pivot tables and poor integration wih 3rd party services, but the 3rd party thing being a bit of a chicken and an egg). VBA isn't the nicest language but it does get a task done fast and migration to another language is a massive headache (I considered it once, but decided to leave it to the next lemming).

      --

      karma karma karma karma karma chameleon, you come and go, you come and go.
    13. Re:OpenOffice.org by j-pimp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of my favorite aspects of Open source is this just because it can be done interoptability. Alot of people like KDE and also like OSX. Now they can have both. Some people like their bash prompt, but want win32 functionality. They have cygwin. Like playing diablo II but Run SuSE, WineX. While sometimes this type of thing is just a pointless academic exercise like running wine in cygwin, sometimes it gives us a genuine increase in choice liek this.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    14. Re:OpenOffice.org by ctxspy · · Score: 0, Troll

      HAHAHAHAH It's you!!! :)

    15. Re:OpenOffice.org by jafac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Why not just concentrate on making OpenOffice better and better?"

      Because we're all much better off when three or four teams of talented programmers compete with eachother to make ALL of their solutions better and better.

      With your logic, one could just as easily say; "Microsoft Office is the best! I use it in my office every day to produce tons of heavily formatted documentss. It saved me. I'm never going back to Open Office. KOffice was not as useful as Microsoft Office when I tried to switch before. Why not just concentrate on making Microsoft Office better and better?"

      see?

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    16. Re:OpenOffice.org by JDWTopGuy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm not dissing KOffice/OpenOffice, nor QT/Mac, but I'd like to see a native (as in Cocoa) free word processor for OS X. I believe the AbiWord people are planning something like this, although I could be wrong.

      By the way, I think X11 on OS X rules, in fact I use rxvt instead of Terminal.app because Terminal.app makes a slug look fast. (I'm still on Jaguar, is it any better in Panther?)

      --
      Ron Paul 2012
    17. Re:OpenOffice.org by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Interesting
      While this version of KOffice does, indeed, not require X11, I hesitate to agree that it is a "native" port. A quick look at the buttons, scrollbars, etc, suggests that this version of KOffice does not use the OS X widgets. In other words, this is as native as, say, Mozilla, rather than, say, Camino.

      Which is odd because I thought the QT for Mac was supposed to use the OS X native widgets.

      I don't want to suggest this means it's useless. Obviously, having an application you can place anywhere in the file system, double click to run, associate with files (with a file, as the default for a type of file where the file isn't associated, and used for Open With...), etc, is infinitely better than an X11 version, but, well, I suspect most of those with MS Office or even AppleWorks will probably stick with their proprietary apps for now. Which is a shame.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    18. Re:OpenOffice.org by ir0b0t · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There would be nothing wrong with how you altered the statement if MS Office were open source. Since MS isn't open source, non-programmer type folks who work daily with a word processor on heavily formatted documents have limited choices if they care about trying to implement open source in a professional office. OO is the sole open source application that currently stands up to the proprietary competition. It would be great if it could be improved further.

      --
      I'm laughing at clouds.
    19. Re:OpenOffice.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The odd thing is, was that 'purely' or 'prudely'?

    20. Re:OpenOffice.org by crisco · · Score: 4, Informative
      OOo does have a relational database with forms and reporting capability, unfotunately it is buried in the Writer and Spreadsheet components and doesn't yet have its own icon in the menu.

      OOo 2.0 will have a full fledged database application to better compete with Access.

      --

      Bleh!

    21. Re:OpenOffice.org by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      It will be. But competition necessarily forces improvement. Unless there is *only* a single evolutionary path (I doubt it) in office suites (which would also imply that we might as well adopt Microsoft Office since it too *has* to be on the same path) then having 3 Office programs (MS, KDE, and Sun) means you can optimize the three to different needs.

      Right? They can attack different needs. Not *everyone needs a 20mb Word program (MS Word), or a 300mb Office program (OpenOffice). Some of us like 3mb Word programs (KWord).

    22. Re:OpenOffice.org by ir0b0t · · Score: 1

      In the case of Microsoft, competition has sometimes inhibited improvement. . . . But I agree with you that people should be generally free in their pursuit of word processor happiness.

      --
      I'm laughing at clouds.
    23. Re:OpenOffice.org by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, but this is BETA. The main goal of this project is to get KOffice working on MacOS X using native file and print dialogues, and desktop themes, and other features that would allow KOffice to integrate well with the Mac OS X Desktop.

      The reason this is possible is because QT/Mac was released under the GPL, and so KOffice can be ported using the native QT Themes provided on the OS X platform. All the work is pretty much done for them via QT. Now they just need to get them to play well together.

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
    24. Re:OpenOffice.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact of the matter is, MS Office is the best.

      It don't run on Linux tho. Yeah, yeah, you can trixie it with one of the Wines but it still ain't the same as a native app (it doesn't match your KDE/GNOME theme for one thing).

      So, yes, dammit, I'd use MS Office if it worked on my system. Commercial, open-source, or not. I use what works the best.

    25. Re:OpenOffice.org by samdaone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People also look at the price. For poor people like me price is still a big factor in what influences my decisions to run what software.

      --

      Make me your friend. All my friends get +1 modifier and I need friends :)

    26. Re:OpenOffice.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment might make sense if there was SOURCE ACCESS to ms office, which there isnt. So your anaology is bad.

      The anaology police

    27. Re:OpenOffice.org by javax · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but Access is NOT a relational database. It may use a crippled SQL-dialect, but that's it. Ever heard of ACID? There are no transactions in Access. Hell, not even database functions! And the Integer is 16 Bit long! *argl*

      Thank god that Access does NOT run on MacOS!!!

    28. Re:OpenOffice.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Native to me does not mean native widgets. Native to me means "if I download this, it will run smoothly without parts of another operating system installed for emulation (or X11)." Once this is running smoothly, it will satisfy my criteria for "native."

    29. Re:OpenOffice.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does TextEdit (which comes with the OS X system) qualify? If not, what would it need to be usable for you?

    30. Re:OpenOffice.org by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OO is the sole open source application that currently stands up to the proprietary competition. It would be great if it could be improved further.

      Fine, go improve it. Improve it to your heart's content. Be happy, be free.

      But don't tell others they can't go improve other open source office tools.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    31. Re:OpenOffice.org by fault0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Which is odd because I thought the QT for Mac was supposed to use the OS X native widgets.

      It is using Native widgets and such, but:

      - the Qt version in use is BETA
      - they just made the native widget style code work two days ago. Very little work has been put in that direction yet.

    32. Re:OpenOffice.org by asm0deu5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm yet to see a Qt/Mac app that doesn't look like ass. Though I've only tried a couple (LyX, Psi, and some game), all the "native" widgets were bad emulations that fit in worse than a Java Swing application, and in some cases didn't really work.

    33. Re:OpenOffice.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > QT/Mac

      The point is that Qt/Mac *is* native. It uses the Appearance Manager just like Cocoa and Carbon apps do. The current koffice apps don't look terribly native to OSX, since the Qt version in use is in beta and there has been a rush to get things working.

    34. Re:OpenOffice.org by xcham · · Score: 1

      EXACTLY! My first impressions (and all impressions since) of KOffice, even aside from my general detest for KDE, has been "what the hell is this garbage, and what good is it if I can't swap docs with other [non-KOffice] users?" Perhaps porting KOffice to native QT/Mac will prove useful as an academic exercise, but honestly, until KOffice can import/export in useful formats I don't see KOffice itself gaining any wide acceptance.

      In contrast, AbiWord and Gnumeric should get their acts together for OSX.

      --
      When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
    35. Re:OpenOffice.org by rixstep · · Score: 1

      But it's not NATIVE, Herr von Plank. That's the issue. The Mac crowd don' like da X11 much.

    36. Re:OpenOffice.org by JDWTopGuy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I don't feel like installing another UI library (along with any KDE libraries that are needed) when there are already two full-featured API sets (Cocoa and Carbon) that come with OS X.

      On Linux/BSD/whatever, it makes sense, because those platforms don't have a native GUI API. But here on OS X, we have two of them, and IMNSHO a port of a GUI app should use those APIs.

      Furthermore, my comment was not redundant. (Stupid moderators!)

      --
      Ron Paul 2012
    37. Re:OpenOffice.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why not just concentrate on making OpenOffice better and better?


      Because the port of OpenOffice .Org is stalled while the main development tree is being totally re-written with new API's.
  2. I'm ignorant... by Aviancer · · Score: 0

    Isn't there a build of OpenOffice.org for osX? Wouldn't that be considered a "free, full-featured office suite"?

    1. Re:I'm ignorant... by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is a build of OpenOffice under X11 on OS X.

      KOffice doesn't require X11. KWord, for example, runs natively under OS X.

    2. Re:I'm ignorant... by Boltronics · · Score: 5, Informative

      OpenOffice on OSX has fallen behind. They are only up to 1.0.3, when other supported platforms are up to 1.1

      The installation process on the Mac is much harder than other platforms also. X11 (and a few other dependencies) are included in the download, making it a whopping 173MB! That's roughly 100MB more than Windows and GNU/Linux versions.

      I'm certain if KOffice was ported better than OpenOffice on OSX, it would be a more popular choice for those looking for a free office suite.

      --
      It's GNU/Linux dammit!
    3. Re:I'm ignorant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you had ever used OpenOffice, you would understand why people are still seeking alternatives to it.

    4. Re:I'm ignorant... by Aviancer · · Score: 1

      I do use OOo -- on a regular basis. It may be imperfect, but it's a far cry better than MSOffice in many ways and defecient in only unimportant features. It definately comes out ahead in the cost-benefit calculation.

    5. Re:I'm ignorant... by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes there is an openoffice port for OS X, well sort off. As other people has said there is only a X11 dependent version of version 1.03. There is no plan to port version 1.1, instead they are working to get the necessary hooks into version 2.0 port for a native port, maybe by 2005 -2006. Till then it's a long wait.

      Now that porting KDE apps is seemingly straight forward it may be easier for the OS X porters to piggy back on the KDE intergration effort so things will shift along a bit faster.

    6. Re:I'm ignorant... by Alex+Reynolds · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the developer list, most of the bugs have been worked out and OO team are fairly close to finishing an installer for 1.1 for OS X. I wouldn't be surprised at a release next week for the SF expo.

      -Alex

    7. Re:I'm ignorant... by j-pimp · · Score: 2, Informative

      OpenOffice on OSX has fallen behind. They are only up to 1.0.3, when other supported platforms are up to 1.1 It was a loss cutting measure. 2.0 is going to be the first carbon port. For now deal with 1.03 or use whatever you've been using.
      I don't knwo about you, but I for one will welcome our carbon OO overlords at that time.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    8. Re:I'm ignorant... by hubertus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is not entirely true. You can grab 1.1 binaries (not 1.1-release though) from most of the ftp mirrors. They are in the same directory as the 1.0.3 build you are referring to. I use and outdated ooo1_1_mac_01-1 on a daily basis. It's stable, and installation is only a matter of running the setup script. The file is 80MB in size, which is still a lot but less than half of the 173MB for 1.0.3

      I'm running 10.3.2 on a tiny PB12" with X11 from Apple, and it's working just fine. Give it a try, report back and help it develop.

    9. Re:I'm ignorant... by kitzilla · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There certainly is a version of Open Office for OS X -- but, damn, it's huge. I have an older iBook with a small HD, and would prefer a more compact office suite to Open Office for that machine.

      As other posters have pointed out, Open Office requires a running X server. I like the idea of a native Koffice. Would probably be a better alternative than Appleworks, which is what I currently use on OS X.

      I think Koffice is under-appreciated. Though I prefer the power of Open Office on Linux machines with sufficient resources, Koffice is faster and looks good. It's also more intuitive. Hooray for more choices.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    10. Re:I'm ignorant... by j-pimp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      it's a far cry better than MSOffice in many ways and defecient in only unimportant features
      So your telling me that I can script openoffice documents in a high level language in an event driven and object based way. Sure I could leanr the schemas and write XML manipulating programs, but thats not as easy as a VB script.

      Yes for the 95% of us, VBA is unused, but in that 5% you have enterprises that thrive upon it, programmers that do it for a living and authors that have written books about it.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    11. Re:I'm ignorant... by ubernostrum · · Score: 1
      making it a whopping 173MB! That's roughly 100MB more than Windows and GNU/Linux versions.

      I happened to have Synaptic open when I read this, so I glanced at my OO.o install size (Linux, of course):

      • openoffice 1.0.2-4 80.0M
      • openoffice-i18n 1.0.2-4 131M
      • openoffice-libs 1.0.2-4 100M

      So on this Linux system, at least, the total size (all three packages are required in order to install OO.o) is 310MB. If only it were as small as the Mac's installation...

      Of course I'll still use it, because while KOffice is flashy and pretty and will embed in the KDE Solitaire game if I like, it still can't handle MS Office files worth anything.

    12. Re:I'm ignorant... by con · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, of course you can. What makes you think that OpenOffice.org does not have a macro language with a complex object model available behind it ?
      Not sure, well check out the complete (if somewhat involved) developers guide at OpenOffice.org API project.

    13. Re:I'm ignorant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So your telling me that I can script openoffice documents in a high level language in an event driven and object based way.

      Yes, I am... OpenOffice.Org Basic is pretty good, from what little I've seen of it.

    14. Re:I'm ignorant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough to buy 3,496 licenses of Open Office!

    15. Re:I'm ignorant... by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction. I'll be sure to check it out.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    16. Re:I'm ignorant... by jrockway · · Score: 1

      I don't think you need i18n. So you're probably at 180M, which is not that bad. (200000M is $150 these days).

      --
      My other car is first.
    17. Re:I'm ignorant... by wathead · · Score: 0

      Yes but apparantly you must have X11 running on the mac to use it. I only have one old mac powerbook that I bought used and forgot to get an OS 9 Cd for and then I found out you cant remove programs without the CD. ( Think I will call that guy today). Anyway I have never really used the mac.t All of my OOo 1.03 and 1.1 CDs have a mac version on them. Maybe I should wipe the mac and put Linux PPC on it??

    18. Re:I'm ignorant... by ubernostrum · · Score: 1
      I don't think you need i18n.
      Well I don't think I need it either, but apt has its own opinion on the matter:
      apt-get remove openoffice-i18n
      Reading Package Lists... Done
      Building Dependency Tree... Done
      The following packages will be REMOVED:
      openoffice openoffice-i18n
      0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 2 removed and 0 not upgraded.
      Need to get 0B of archives.
      After unpacking 211MB disk space will be freed.
      Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
  3. I really expected OpenOffice.org to be first... by Fortunato_NC · · Score: 5, Informative

    But no, a version that requires you to load an X server doesn't count.

    Congratulations to everyone who's worked on this.

    --
    Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
    1. Re:I really expected OpenOffice.org to be first... by Greger47 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please enlighten me, why do they insist on calling it Mac OS X if it doesn't even include a X server...

      /greger

    2. Re:I really expected OpenOffice.org to be first... by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know you're joking, but(*) ...

      In any case, the latest two versions of OS X *do* include an X server (Xfree variant). You can run it in rootless mode, which is quite functional and nice.

      (*) in the event you're not, we'd have to start with ancient history, when Mac OS was sold for clone systems, when the NeXTStep version of Mac OS was called OS 8, and ... er ... well, other things too far lost in the haze of Steve-induced fog to recall.

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    3. Re:I really expected OpenOffice.org to be first... by HeghmoH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It does. But it's optional, since none of the programs that an average user will ever see need it, and not installed by default. And even if it were acceptable to make the user dig out their OS CDs and install another piece of software just to use an office program, it's X11, which means it takes a certain amount of expertise to use it. Apple has made it as simple as possible, but in this case, when the unstoppable force met the immovable object, the immovable X server won the usability battle.

      As for the name (I'm hoping your post was sarcastic on that point, but you never know) X is the roman numeral for 10. Mac OS X came after Mac OS 9.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    4. Re:I really expected OpenOffice.org to be first... by Raffaello · · Score: 2, Informative

      The X Mac OS X is a roman numeral ten. Mac OS X is pronounced "Mac OS Ten." If you have been calling Mac OS X "Mac OS Ex," stop, because that is *not* how it is pronounced.

      Just for complete clarity, the X in X server, and X-free86, etc. is *not* a roman numeral, and *is* pronounced "Ex."

    5. Re:I really expected OpenOffice.org to be first... by aldoman · · Score: 1

      Because X is the roman numeral for 10. The last major release was numbered... 9.

      Also, 'Panther' or OSX 10.3 contains X11 as a default install.

    6. Re:I really expected OpenOffice.org to be first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roman numeral system is clearly outdated
      Please upgrade to the improved arabic numeral system which include as new feature the number 0 "zero"!

    7. Re:I really expected OpenOffice.org to be first... by Raffaello · · Score: 1

      Anonymous posting clearly cowardly. Please upgrade to logged in posts which include, as a new feature "accountability."

    8. Re:I really expected OpenOffice.org to be first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Raffaello, you little fag. Apple launched the OS X name as "ex" they later switched to announcing it as "ten" when they realised that it would be easier to swallow for old time Apple users and dweebs such as yourself.

    9. Re:I really expected OpenOffice.org to be first... by Tukla · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was numbered "9", not "IX". Will there someday be a "MacOS XI"? (Or would that be mistaken for the Greek "xi"? Aagh!)

    10. Re:I really expected OpenOffice.org to be first... by log0n · · Score: 1

      Actually, X11 isn't a default when doing a fresh install (nor an upgrade unless you upgrade w/ a previous X11). You have to click Customize and select it from the available packages. It *is* a default on new hardware with 10.3 pre-installed though.

  4. I'VE GOT A TURD THAT'S COMING OUT SIDEWAYS! OUCH! by Subject+Line+Troll · · Score: 0, Informative
  5. Re:Free not important? by RatBastard · · Score: 1

    Why shouldn't Mac users be able to get free software? Or is this some bullshit class warfare?

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  6. looks nice... by alienhazard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    it looks nice but why would they use kde toolbar icons if they're porting it to OSX?

    --
    > "I allege that SCO is full of it" -Linus
    1. Re:looks nice... by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      Because iconography takes time and money

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    2. Re:looks nice... by baryon351 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They very may well do, in time. I suppose the question to ask back would be "why would you edit ANY icons if you're just trying to get an app working". That's the state KOffice is in for now, it's like a kid who showed up at a party without getting changed from his school uniform, and yeah, we're all laughing, but the hard work's done and he's travelled there - he has some neat threads upstairs and just needs to have a shower & change and he'll be mingling with the crowd like everyone else.

      That being said, after seeing a few other ported apps between linux, windows, and OSX (in whichever direction) it wouldn't surprise me one bit if nobody with the ability to do so actually fixes those icons :)

    3. Re:looks nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he has some neat threads upstairs

      Unless it was his own party, why would he already have some of his clothes upstairs? Did he plan that far in advance that he came over to the house and left his clothes there? Pretty vain. Of course, if it was his party (his house) then he probably wouldn't be late anyway, and the person hosting the party can pretty much wear/do whatever they like. Anyway, tell him I said hi.

    4. Re:looks nice... by fault0 · · Score: 1

      Because Koffice has only been *working* on OSX for less than a few days..

  7. The plot thickens... by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    So, will Microsoft continue to snub the Mac or is will Redmond try to counter this move? Free software on Linux is one thing, spreading to other platforms is another. We could hope they will take the opportunity to improve their products and approach, but I'm rather cynical these days, I expect dirty tricks -- maybe they'll invest in some company hanging on by a thread who claims some intellectual property made it's way into KDE/KOffice and start suing.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:The plot thickens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS gave up on Mac after Apple announced their own product line. Apple is probably more worried than MS about lost revenue on the Mac platform due to free software.

    2. Re:The plot thickens... by Andy_R · · Score: 3, Informative

      Snub the mac??!?!? Office for OSX has a better feature list than the PC version.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    3. Re:The plot thickens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. In a way, this is good news for Microsoft. I say this because ultimately Microsoft's major enemy is hardly Apple, it is the very concept of "open source". On this front, Apple corporation and Microsoft corporation are really on the same side. They both use closed source code to leverage sales in their user base, and anything that increases the use of OS X (still a closed source operating system, despite the existence of Darwin) decreases the possibility of people using an open source operating system, which is very good news for Microsoft.

    4. Re:The plot thickens... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      Office for OSX has a better feature list than the PC version.

      I remember Word being far better on Macs than on Windows years ago, back when people were still on 286's. I figure M$ sharpened their claws on the best windowing OS at the time and then rolled it all out on Win 95. Probably a good core of Mac developers still at M$, but only to keep their finger in the pie. Whatever else you think is the goal of M$, their bread and butter is office automation. The spread of other tools in that line is a threat and they treat it as such.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:The plot thickens... by ixplodestuff8 · · Score: 1

      Spreading to another platform has already happend, and worse for Microsoft, it's windows that its spreading to, I'm on windows and use openoffice, cygwin, friebird, x-chat, gaim, gimp, and more.

    6. Re:The plot thickens... by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

      Office for OSX has a better feature list than the PC version.

      Except for Hebrew support.

      --
      You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
    7. Re:The plot thickens... by cbreaker · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yea, all ten of you Hebrew-speaking Macintosh users should boycot this blasphemy!

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    8. Re:The plot thickens... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      they are such Schlemiels.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    9. Re:The plot thickens... by dadragon · · Score: 1

      While I agree the Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Entourage are better on the Mac (well, Entourage is better then Outlook, it's not on PC), there is no Access.

      Give me Access damn it!

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    10. Re:The plot thickens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make that 11. And what about Farsi and Arabic rtl users as well?

    11. Re:The plot thickens... by xcham · · Score: 1

      Give me Access damn it!

      Just go to Redmond and yell this repeatedly outside some company building. You'll confuse the hell out of the security guards! "Access to what?!!?"

      --
      When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
    12. Re:The plot thickens... by xcham · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but OS X ports are generally more easily accomplished, I'd think (porting from one Unix to another). Firebird for Windows is great, Gaim and Win-Gimp have a loooong way to come though.

      --
      When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
    13. Re:The plot thickens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...yes, iBook take a note... TO DO TODAY: One. Must kill Palestinians Two. order more kosher salamis." ... Hershel look at my computer go!

    14. Re:The plot thickens... by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

      My original post was supposed to be a witty reference to the recent fuss resulting in the Israeli govt ditching MS-Office for OOo.
      Why did no-one laugh (or mod me +1 funny)?
      Sheesh, you guys are way too serious.

      --
      You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
    15. Re:The plot thickens... by cbreaker · · Score: 1

      Well, my post wasn't too serious =) It was a joke!

      I guess your comment was a little too witty for it's own good. I didn't make the connection, if I did I probably wouldn't have made my joke.

      Oh well, no big deal.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    16. Re:The plot thickens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And proper support for Icelandic. Powerpoint is still a problem.

  8. OSX Theme by IceFox · · Score: 5, Informative
    And the *really* important feature: The native OSX theme I got working the other day: here

    So even thought some of the other screenshots are in the ugly Motif theme they will soon be all re-taken using the OSX theme.

    Also notice how in the Dock the KDE applications icons show up (and scale wonderfully!). We have a script that generates OS X .app directories of the KDE applications and also generates those directories with the proper icons. You can see some of them in the background of the screenshot in Finder.

    -Benjamin Meyer

    --
    Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?
    1. Re:OSX Theme by akac · · Score: 1

      What would your opinion be if you saw Apple release "iWrite" based of kWord?

    2. Re:OSX Theme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple already has their own word processor program... And it's relatively rea$onable, compared to MS Word(R)

    3. Re:OSX Theme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?
      Yes.

    4. Re:OSX Theme by Refrag · · Score: 1

      Directory? It's called an application package, you heathen! ;)

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    5. Re:OSX Theme by xcham · · Score: 1

      Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?

      Yes, but more when I turn into a truck.

      --
      When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
    6. Re:OSX Theme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "using the OSX theme"

      Are we talking "theming" here? Or native OS widgets?

    7. Re:OSX Theme by zpok · · Score: 1

      Looks really really great!

      I don't know in how many detail you can set up things like alignment and such, but in order to get it totally right, you should make sure your distances are right - eg. distance between widgets and text. The Apple documentation (GUI guidelines) is perfectly, anally precise in this and should be a great help.

      But, back to the important comment: looks really really great! I am praying the kexi database will be included in the port.

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
  9. Funny? by Libor+Vanek · · Score: 4, Funny

    "...hard part is over, and now a lot of cleaning up and bug fixes..."

    Does only me finds this funny? NOW the hard BORING part starts...

    1. Re:Funny? by ackthpt · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      "...hard part is over, and now a lot of cleaning up and bug fixes..."

      Does only me finds this funny? NOW the hard BORING part starts...

      Be glad it's not written in asp.net, that's pure unadulterated aggrevation.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  10. Opportunity by blackmonday · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Perfect opportunity for Apple to do what they did with Safari and Darwin. Extend it, make it better, include it as an Apple branded product, and give the changes back to the community.

    I wonder how long it will be before Appleworks is nixed in favor of a kOffice - based product. Microsoft Office for the Mac is actually a really good product, and Appleworks doesn't touch it. Get to work Apple!

    1. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      On the other hand, AppleWorks includes a database manager (flat file, though) whereas the Mac version of Office does not. MS Access is Windows only....

    2. Re:Opportunity by Nermal6693 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple has to be careful though, they don't want MS to stop development of Office. Look what happened after Safari was released - MS announced that they were halting development of IE for Mac.

    3. Re:Opportunity by Spintronic · · Score: 1

      I thought embrace and extend is bad?

    4. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IE? WTF needs it anyway?

    5. Re:Opportunity by K8Fan · · Score: 1

      I hope Apple gets behind this and helps - maybe devote a few engineers to cleaning up stuff and help "mac-ify" the interface. It's reasonable enough - I've never believed that Jobs wanted to be in the software business anyway; he's a lot more interested in making cool-looking hardware. I mean, as far as I can tell, Apple is now the world's #1 *NIX retailer.

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    6. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look what happened after Safari was released - MS announced that they were halting development of IE for Mac.

      You got it backassward -- Microsoft privately told Apple that they were killing IE, and Apple scrambled to get Safari out.

    7. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Look what happened after Safari was released - MS announced that they were halting development of IE for Mac.

      More like they announced that the stopped development wouldn't be resumed. IE:Mac was powerful, but it was already moribund by the time Camino hit the scene, let alone Safari.

    8. Re:Opportunity by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 1

      Now that KOffice has decided to go with the same file format as OpenOffice.org, this is actually not that far fetched. I can see this port becoming a really big deal on the Mac platform as a MS Office replacement that is compatible with PC's using OpenOffice.org (obviously there are features in either suite that aren't implemented in the other but at least they both use the same base specification of file format, unlike MS Office)

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
    9. Re:Opportunity by burns210 · · Score: 1

      I doubt this will happen. Appleworks, formerly Clarisworks goes back to System 7(6?) days... that is a lot of code that Apple has tried and invested in, why would they throw it out? I expect a major updating of Appleworks, splitting it to 3(Document, Spreadsheet, Keynote) applications that all use a similar XML(keynote started this way) file format.

      I just don't see Jobs throwing out Appleworks, and moving to KOffice(or OpenOffice.org, which is just as possible an alternative). It wouldn't make a lot of sense.

  11. Wow! by K8Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is going to potentially have more impact on the popularity of Open Source software than anything to date. Office X on OS X has some really annoying "features" like the finking on it's self through a LAN. If this is solid and "Mac-like" it could prove to be a very popular alternative for Mac users who want to be free of Redmond.

    --
    "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    1. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And see how Scribus will be received, it soon will be on OS X too. I'm looking forward to messing with it.

    2. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (And I'm not even Orthodoc)

      Slightly offtopic, but wasn't Ortho always your favourite character in the old He-man cartoon? The way he was always running around babbling "Attaboy Herc! Attaboy Herc!". Ahhh, crazy old Ortho...

    3. Re:Wow! by Lispy · · Score: 1

      SLIGHTLY offtopic? *lol* ;.-)

    4. Re:Wow! by bpbond · · Score: 1

      Gee, if you have Office X installed legally, that "finking" is not a problem.

      And if you have it installed on your laptop and desktop which are occasionally on the LAN together (not a situation that makes me personally lose sleep over illegality), blocking a single port (udp 2222) via ipfw will take away the problem.

      --
      "Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible" -Jacob Bronowski
    5. Re:Wow! by K8Fan · · Score: 1
      Gee, if you have Office X installed legally, that "finking" is not a problem.

      "Legally"? Does Microsoft's marketing department now write the law? Yes, I'm talking about the situation where someone has a legally purchased copy of Office X on a desktop and a laptop. She has Word open on the desktop. And she cannot even open Outlook to check her e-mail!

      This is not about preventing "piracy", this is about the old monopolists problem - "How do you sell more copies when you already have nearly 100% of the market?" Answer: Force your existing owners to buy additional copies.

      PS: Yes, I have that script, but a lot of Mac users don't. It's a sleezy marketing move and nothing more.

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    6. Re:Wow! by bpbond · · Score: 1

      No, Microsoft marketing doesn't write the law. But Microsoft legal does write the contract under which we use their software, and that--like it or not--has so far been enforceable in the courts. So I think "installed legally" is pretty accurate. That is, they can demand that you have only one serial number running at a time on a network.

      But I agree, the situation you and I both describe in the above posts is stupid, and asinine of Microsoft. You'd think that the checking code would (for instance) allow for 5 minutes of use before giving a warning, then another 5 before demanding a shutdown. Since it doesn't, I'm comfortable, ethically, with using ipfw on it.

      Finally: come on, it is somewhat about preventing piracy. Sure, they also would like to force users to buy multiple copies, but it's not like the piracy thing is complete fiction.

      --
      "Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible" -Jacob Bronowski
    7. Re:Wow! by K8Fan · · Score: 1
      Finally: come on, it is somewhat about preventing piracy. Sure, they also would like to force users to buy multiple copies, but it's not like the piracy thing is complete fiction.

      Not a complete fiction, but the reality is this: People wo have already bought legal copies are the ones most likely to buy additional legal copies. This system is designed to compel them to do so. People who are not using legit copies are more likely to figure out some way to avoid purchasing legal copies.

      This does nothing to prevent usage at different sites (imagine the effect on the net of every copy of Word pinging every IP address looking for it's self. Eek!) This is "anti-piracy" that only works inside of a single business or home. Pretty weird definition of "piracy".

      No, this is 99% "revenue enhancement", maybe 1% "anti-piracy".

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
  12. HOW DO YOU DO THAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  13. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This feels like an early christmas present to me.

    (And I'm not even Orthodoc)

  14. Re:Free not important? by Queuetue · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You're using the wrong definition of free.

  15. Koffice for OSX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a Mac user I like it that these apps don't require X-windows and that they already look quite a bit like native OSX applications.

    really, excellent work.

    A friend of mine has Openoffice running on his powerbook, indeed it "works" but since it doesn't look as slick as the native OSX apps, I am not that eager to try it.

    I hope that now a lot of other K-software will be ported!

    best regards, Tom

  16. 90/10 rule in effect by MrEd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It looks like a lot of the hard part is over, and now a lot of cleaning up and bug fixes stand between Mac OS X and a free full featured office suite.


    Unfortunately, in almost all Open Source projects the 'hard' and 'easy' parts are reversed...


    The challenge and glory is done, now all that's left is methodical, monotonous bug chasing. Who's up? :)

    --

    Wah!

    1. Re:90/10 rule in effect by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      if they do it right, they can package a beta of it for mac users, and then have an error reporting system for it so that Bugs are easy to squash. besides, there are always people who like the challenge of finding and squashing bugs.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:90/10 rule in effect by bsd+troll · · Score: 0

      This isn't some open source company, Apple doesn't use its customers as guinea pigs.

    3. Re:90/10 rule in effect by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      are you stupid?

      I was referring to the group making the port...people will download it dork.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    4. Re:90/10 rule in effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you so angry? Is it because you use Linux? Do girls ignore you now? Do you not get any sex? Do you take out your frustration on strangers on the internet? Does it make you feel better? Even though, deep down you know you are still going to be masturbaing to porn on Kazaa, on your dual boot installation of Windows XP Professional.

  17. Re:Free not important? by ahbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, you do have a point there. Most people who buy a Mac could afford MS Office. But here's my question, do you want to use MS Office? And this is my point. I us a Mac (I'm on my 12" PB right now) because I DO NOT want anything from Microsoft! I personally intend to give what I can (I'm poor after all) to help support the KOffice team. I really appreciate the hard work they guys and gals have done to make this happen. In the Mac world a native non MS full featured office suite is huge.

  18. Re:Free not important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    An eMac costs 899 . Office:Mac costs 509 . So, yes.

  19. Why KOffice for OS X? I'll tell you why by W32.Klez.A · · Score: 1, Informative

    Well, the reasons for porting KOffice to Mac OS X natively and the reasons why someone would want to use Konqueror on OS X may be different.

    Konqueror is not just a browser. It is also a file manager (kind of like Windows Explorer on SuperMan steroids). It suppors io-slaves, which gives Konqueror network transparency that I do not think is paralleled by any other file browser right now. Also, some people dislike the OS X Finder and would prefer to use Konqueror instead.

    Konqueror is pretty cool - it has all the latest features such as tabbed browsing, but it also allows to split any view into two (and then again) - you can make it look like Norton Commander if you like.

    Konqueror also supports archiving web pages as .war files (I do not know if this is an exclusive Konqueror feature or not, and I don't care - it is extremely useful).

    So, there are many reasons someone would want to use Konqueror, and not just on OS X or Linux.

    The reason to port to OS X could be so that KOffice were less dependent on X11 hacks and used Qt API more thoroughly, I don't know. The thing is - the more portable the code is, the fewer bugs there are (unless of course they start #ifdef-ing everywhere, then it just turns into a mess of duplicated non-portable code).

    Paul.

    1. Re:Why KOffice for OS X? I'll tell you why by Negative+Response · · Score: 1
      Hmm, something about your post is not right...

      Oh I got it, you forgot to copy his sig, you silly troll.

    2. Re:Why KOffice for OS X? I'll tell you why by __aajqwr7439 · · Score: 1

      Re:Before everyone say WHY BOTHER? (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02, @06:06PM (#7863874)

      sure is a lot of post copying lately [slashdot.org]

  20. Re:My take on KOffice, and how it might be on OSX by big+tex · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yet another troll.

    Even a 3-year old reposting from a October 2000 review of Koffice in KDE 2. A for style, F for brains.

    --
    I think I need a new sig here.
  21. Re:My take on KOffice, and how it might be on OSX by gwernol · · Score: 2, Informative

    KOffice comprises the customary litany of applications...

    This posting is plagarism of the worst sort. Cut and paste in its entirety from: LinuxPlanet. Taking someone else's work and presenting it as your own without attribution is simply dishonest. It is not informative or insightful.

    --
    Sailing over the event horizon
  22. Apple should take care of this project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "now all that's left is methodical, monotonous bug chasing. Who's up?"

    Apple? Like they did with khtml.

    1. Re:Apple should take care of this project by burns210 · · Score: 1
      "Apple? Like they did with khtml."

      Not gonna happen. Two reasons really:

      1. they have AppleWorks, if any office suite gets its backing, it will be this first... i honestly expect the next major app will be an uberupgrade to this... seperating it to a word processor and a spreadsheet program, to work well with Keynote. This would be the best move for apple, and would be a great addition to their iApps.
      HINT: there were rumors the WP would be called(of all things) 'Document'.

      2. Openoffice.org is much wider used and more featureful. It is more likely they would turn here, with its features and name recognition, if they wanted an opensource office app.

    2. Re:Apple should take care of this project by dn15 · · Score: 1

      1. It seems feasible that something based on KOffice could be the fancy new AppleWorks you mentioned. (This is speculation only, on my part.)

      2. OpenOffice is more widely recognized, sure. But so is Mozilla and that didn't keep them from using KHTML instead for Safari.

      Not trying to be overly critical. You have decent points there. Just something to think about. :)

    3. Re:Apple should take care of this project by burns210 · · Score: 1

      re: 1. ya, it could be the new basis, i just don't think they would be gaining enough to justify 'throwing out' the old appleworks code... ofcourse, there is the possibility of some sort of merger, a half KOffice/Appleworks hybrid. Possible, but i am still leaning toward the inhouse, closed source solution as being most likely, though either would make me happy:)

      re 2. Very good point. I agree totally. I just haven't used KOffice (minimal use of it) to know how fast it compares and if the core design is 'cleaner' enough to warrant going to a less featureful OSS solution... remember, Mozzila had more features, but they chose KHTML because it was SO much faster, that it was worth having to add certain features afterward.

  23. Re:Free not important? by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given the price of a Mac, is *free* that big of a deal? Open source I understand, but it doesn't seem that anyone who can afford a Mac can't afford an office suite.

    Consider the example of lack of Hebrew support in Microsoft Office for Mac. There is no technical reason for it; the Unicode-based MacOS X is ready to support Hebrew out-of-the-box. It's just a political decision of the vendor of this particular office suite trying to force Israeli Mac users to abandon their platform of choice. I think this example is enough for you to understand why *free* (as in speech) office suite is a big deal indeed, after all.

  24. Re:Before everyone say WHY BOTHER? by CoolMoDee · · Score: 1

    except that Openoffice on mac requires an X server...

    --
    Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
  25. Re:Free not important? by Robotdog · · Score: 1

    I was working with a self-publishing physics professor over the summer who used Macs exclusively and used Adobe software. While not exactly the same, it worked similarly. I'm saying that having more choice or a free option is a bad thing, just perhaps not an important thing.

  26. Re:Free not important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Man, is that ever an uniformed post. How does being able to afford a Mac equate to being able to afford Microsoft Office too? After paying $2600 for a Powerbook, the last thing I need is to pay another $400 for software I rarely use. Just to make it perfectly clear to you, the idea of people who buy Macs being rich is a STEREOTYPE. I'm not rich, but I did get a Mac, because it is a very worthwhile expense. Every aspect of it is well designed, from the hardware to the software. Based on what I've heard from people using sub-500 MHz Macs, and from what I've seen with Panther, I fully expect this system to only improve over time. I bought a Mac because I want a high quality computer, not because I had pocket change to burn.

    I expect I'll use a word processor on my personal system four or five times a year. Therefore, spending $230 on Word would be a complete waste. I welcome a free word processor.

  27. Re:Free not important? by Robotdog · · Score: 1

    Errr... that should say "not saying"

  28. ahh yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    what a great marraige... finnally the world renouned ease of use and power of KDE Office gets the wide distribution it deserves on the market dominating OS X platform.... oh wait...

    1. Re:ahh yes... by xcham · · Score: 1

      Ease of use, maybe. Power? Pfft.

      It is nice to see that something useful is coming out of KDE, god knows it's not doing too well as a Linux desktop, with all the standardization initiatives favouring GNOME because of it's close ties to the FSF (that's purely my conjecture but I think there's some truth to it... who am I to complain, I prefer GNOME too). Anyway, this should keep the K developers busy. And maybe, JUST MAYBE, they'll be getting some money thrown at them by Apple.

      --
      When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
  29. Re:Free not important? by InternationalCow · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    You're ignorant. Macs are NOT more expensive than peecees, get that misconception out of your head. Go to the Applestore and configure a nice PB. The configure a comparable Dell and see who's more expensive. Second: why should OSX (= a BSD UNIX lest you forget) users not want to participate in Open Source? I know I want to.

    And by the way - I can afford a Mac but I refuse to buy Office to go with it - it would raise the price of my current mac by as much as 30-40 percent! I do not want to pay such an insane amount of money for a piece of crap. I guess many more mac users think that way.

    --
    ----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
  30. Widgets need updating... by Kaypro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a great milestone but...

    Trolltech needs desperately to update the OSX port of QT. The widget have a cumbersome appearance and need to be updated to Panther style. Text alignment is in need of some fixing up. This isn't a complaint... the OSX version is still in its infancy and I'm sure time will allow a more integrated look... I'm just anxious.. because QT really is a great toolkit / API.

    Good Job!

    1. Re:Widgets need updating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TrollTech is partly owned by the Canopy Group.

      Like it or not, widespread adoption of K-apps only fuels the SCO lawsuit machine, if only indirectly.

      No, I don't support SCO. Anyone who uses KOffice, however, does support SCO. It's really that simple.

    2. Re:Widgets need updating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a flying fuck. The Canopy group. The Canopy group. Every slashbot, now sing together!! The Canopy group causes cancer in lab rodents. The Canopy group is responsible for wars, famine and pestilence. The Canopy Group financed the Third Reich. The fucking Canopy Group is the best thing that ever happened to the software industry.

    3. Re:Widgets need updating... by aldoman · · Score: 1

      I don't understand. TrollTech does not get 1 cent from KDE because KDE uses the GPL license and not the commercial one.

      The only way you would be supporting this is by using it as a demo to pursue developers to develop QT commercial apps.

      Also, it's a very indirect chain so probably only a small amount of the money you would spend on a commercial license goes upstream to SCO.

      Also, does anyone think SCO will be around along enough to really make any impact =)...

    4. Re:Widgets need updating... by javax · · Score: 1

      If you want to develop a non-opensource program for KDE, you'll have to pay Trolltech for a non-GPL QT lib;

      in case of e. g. Gnome the core-libs are LGPL... guess why Sun prefers Gnome over KDE for Solaris?

    5. Re:Widgets need updating... by be-fan · · Score: 3, Informative

      guess why Sun prefers Gnome over KDE for Solaris?
      -----------
      Actuall, according to Sun's own statements, Sun chose GNOME over KDE for a few reasons, none of them licensing related:

      1) GNOME's architecture is more traditional. It uses CORBA, for example, instead of using its own mechanism (DCOP).

      2) GNOME uses C, while KDE uses C++. It was only recently that KDE compiled with Sun's Forte C++ compiler. If the KDE libraries were compiled with GCC, then you couldn't use Sun's pro-leve development tools to build apps, because those use Forte. Sun developers were also much more comfortable with C rather than KDE's C++.

      3) GNOME didn't have an HIG when Sun came onboard, so Sun had a major hand in building GNOME 2.x's UI. Meanwhile, KDE was pretty well-solidified by the time Sun came along.

      Never have they said that licensing had anything to do with the choice. Indeed, no commercial developer has ever said they chose GTK/GNOME over Qt/KDE because of licensing issues.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    6. Re:Widgets need updating... by xcham · · Score: 1

      You're really not making sense. GPL'ed Qt isn't paying anybody's legal bills, nor are GPL'ed K-apps that use GPL'ed Qt. There is something to this whole "free" concept that you're just not wrapping your head around. Think things through before you post, would you?

      --
      When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
  31. Re:My take on KOffice, and how it might be on OSX by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    (I'd bet money that more companies use databases than make charts and presentations or, for that matter, draw pictures)

    I'd take that bet.

    There are plenty of executives and managers that could go without the need of a database, but do without their Powerpoint presentations and charts? Never! That would be like suggesting that they do without pointlessly long meetings which everybody is required to attend even if they aren't allowed to contribute..

  32. OpenOffice by r2q2 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Hasn't Openoffice been released for mac os x? Doesn't that count as a open office suite or am I missing something?

    --
    My UID is prime is yours?
    1. Re:OpenOffice by Down8 · · Score: 1

      I think the release for OOo has been delayed for quite some time.

      -bZj

      --
      .sig
    2. Re:OpenOffice by hrbrmstr · · Score: 1

      The last I checked, it's not native. Take a look @ here for more info.

      A KOffice native port is a Very Big Deal. With Konqueror and this now ported (thanks to the kdelibs patch), many other KDE apps will be forthcoming (I've seen the screen shots of them running natively with the pre-release libs). More apps is a Good Thing.

      --
      Mind the gap...
  33. Look and FEEL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even more important than the look is the feel though, and one example of something that needs to be fixed is the position of the OK and Cancel buttons in dialogs.

    I know it's Gnome that uses the Mac style and KDE uses the Windows style, and that's fine on Linux when working with other apps in the same DE, but that won't fly in a native Mac app.

    I'll bet these guys already have there inboxes filled with mail from Mac users about this.

    1. Re:Look and FEEL by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree about "OK" and "Cancel" buttons. However, in KDE none of this is hardcoded (for most dialogues, some are but they are not the norm and are of depreciated status)

      For most KDE applications using KDE guidelines, the OK and Cancel buttons can be switched just by changing 1 line of code. For the random dialog that doesn't swap the buttons properly, it is a bug and should be reported to the bug tracking system. As far as this particular port, it is Beta and so I would assume this hasn't been fixed yet but it is only a matter of time before that line of code is adjusted to match. Afterall, that is the whole idea of porting applications, so they look at least reasonably native.

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
    2. Re:Look and FEEL by Refrag · · Score: 1

      Actually, if it is on the Mac, it shouldn't have an OK button at all. "OK" should be replaced with a meaningful verb like "save" or whatever you're doing in that dialog.

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    3. Re:Look and FEEL by Bertie · · Score: 1

      It's a very small thing, this, but "OK" and "Cancel" buttons really get on my nerves. A lot of the time they appear in response to a question, and usually the appropriate response to this question will be either "yes" or "no". I mean, if Johnny No-Stars asks you whether you want fries with that in McDonald's, you don't say "cancel" in reply, do you? So can we be dispensing with the herd mentality which forces people to give essentially nonsensical answers to questions posed by computers? It'll help me sleep better.

    4. Re:Look and FEEL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but it's not always a question is it. And then you will have to do more reading, won't you. Cause you've gotta read the words to make sense of the options. It shouldn't be like that. Less reading, more clicking on what you know does what.

      So what about statements... "This will move all your files from WiggledyPoop to Dorfenganger."

      --
      OK / Cancel

      I think that is fine. The computer is acting upon my request. If I don't like it, I can 'cancel' the request.

      Sometimes it makes more sense to reply with 'yes' or 'no', but who really gives a WiggledyPoop? Are you suggesting that you want completely different words on the buttons for each scenario, in each app? Cause that's what it'd have to be. That's terribly inconsistent. After anyone uses a computer for a little while, consistency is what makes 'em easy to use. You stop thinking and reading words on buttons, and just click what you know.

      Anyway the worst is the really descriptive buttons, like in GNOME.

      "Do you want to save this document"

      --
      Yes, I would like to confirm that it is OK, I mean er just Yes, Yes! I want to save THIS DOCUMENT.
      --
      No, I don't want to save this document, in so far as I do not want the contents of the document to be stored onto my disk, or in more abstract terms, the thing that can be used to store my documents.

      All that text is really inside GNOME buttons these days. It's hard.

    5. Re:Look and FEEL by Bertie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, "OK" and "Cancel" are fine with statements, but not (well, not always) with questions. Maybe we could rewrite the statements to make them questions in every case? Just to keep me off the Night Nurse, you understand. I'm getting terrible bags under my eyes these days.

    6. Re:Look and FEEL by xcham · · Score: 1

      Anyway the worst is the really descriptive buttons, like in GNOME.

      "Do you want to save this document" ... snip snip...

      All that text is really inside GNOME buttons these days. It's hard.


      That is one hell of an exaggeration my friend, I've notice no such thing. Are you sure you haven't been using, like, BeOS or something?

      --
      When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
  34. I'm afraid you have it backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An unreleased partial hack port doesn't count. what counts is a fully funcitonal version, tested and available to the general public. ie, its OO.o who was first. a few quotes: "Bits of KOffice work now!" *bits* ... ie: not the whole thing. "For those of you wondering how to get it, there's no binaries yet, probably won't be for a bit until things get cleaned up more." sorry... who was first??

  35. Re:Standardization is what is needed by leonscape · · Score: 1

    KOffice will be using the same file format as OO, in the near future.

    --


    If a first you don't succeed, your a programmer...
  36. *twirls finger in the air* by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, and look how it 'devastated' the Mac community. :)
    I'd say MS needs Apple more than the other way around - I've heard the Mac business unit at MS is among the most profitable, compared to how much they spend on development. Probably a lot less piracy going on in Mac-land.

  37. Re:Free not important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Macs are NOT more expensive than peecees, get that misconception out of your head.

    Maybe it's just me, but I sincerely and truly hate it when Mac users call PCs "peecees". And I'm a 100% Mac user myself. But about your comments on the pricing, I agree. The only market in where Apple cannot currently compete with PCs pricewise is the /$ ~700 pricegroup, where cheap self-assembled mongrels are the only real choise.
  38. Re:Dosen't really matter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I submitted a story about this -- it's been pending for a day and a half now...

    Odd that /. should sit on it like this..

  39. "The dot" is dot.kde.org news site by infolib · · Score: 4, Informative

    Michael wrote: There's also a story on the dot.

    He really should have linked to the story on dot.kde.org

    "The dot" is "news for KDE-freaks - stuff that matters" so to speak. Hop on over, it's a nice place :-)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
    1. Re:"The dot" is dot.kde.org news site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Michael wrote: There's also a story on the dot. [sic]

      He really should have linked to the story on dot.kde.org
      He did. What's your point?!?
  40. lets be nice,hehehe by nakedsource · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lets be nice and send fresh underwear to all the product executives at MS. They need it after this news.

    1. Re:lets be nice,hehehe by xcham · · Score: 1

      No, they really don't, since KWord can't read MS Word properly, and most people still use MS Word, they're happy.

      --
      When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
  41. Re:Free not important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another ignorant Mac Users strikes again. Macs are more expensive to comparably fast PC's. Of course you can buy a PC at any price range you want. You really think Apple can get away with the margin that Dell can? They *MUST* sell at a higher price. If you think they are worth the extra cost, good for you, but to say they are the same price is absurd. Now go back to hugging your lime green 'puter and let the adults talk about computers. The origional parent post was correct in the general sense, if you are going to spend extra money for the 'features' of a Mac, you might
    also go ahead and spend extra money for the 'features' of MS Office.

  42. Twirl this by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If MS loses the Mac marketplace, they lose a tiny percentage of their cash flow. I often wonder why they even bother. Makes them look less monopolistic?

    If the Mac platform loses MS Office, they lose any chance of selling systems where reliable interoperability is an issue. By which I mean, where people need to be able open and edit Office files natively, without getting the formatting all munged up by import/export filters. This means no more workplace Macs (except maybe the art department) and no Macs purchased by people who need to take their work home. The pundits says this would probably mean the end of the Mac, and I don't see any flaw in their logic.

    And yeah, you'll have reliable interoperability when all those PCs get Windows and Office overwritten by Linux, KDE, and KOffice. Which would be a nice change but one I'm not holding my breath for.

    1. Re:Twirl this by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > This means no more workplace Macs (except maybe the art department) and no Macs purchased by people who need to take their work home.

      Yes, such a huge percentage of Mac sales, I'm sure. Also, 'MS Office' file formats don't always necessitate .doc - you can use .rtf just fine with most things, and the importer/exporter features of many MS Office competitors work just fine for the vast majority of files.

      I say that Apple should learn their lesson from IBM and OS/2 - don't go for a 'compatible' solution - go for an ALTERNATIVE solution. Ditch MS and go your own way! OS/2's biggest problem was trying to work WITH Windows, and it killed them. Noone wanted to make OS/2-native software when OS/2 could run Windows software. Why have crappy MS software for the Mac when it doesn't gain them any noticable marketshare?

    2. Re:Twirl this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Agree.

      However, remember that MS is somewhat in hot water about interoperability already. If Apple loses Word for Mac, I'd expect them to be first in line for file specs and what not when litigation comes about.

    3. Re:Twirl this by madmancarman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why have crappy MS software for the Mac when it doesn't gain them any noticable marketshare?

      Because, as the parent pointed out, NOT having crappy MS software will LOSE them noticeable marketshare. That's one of the evils of an illegal monopoly in the software industry.

      Before Steve Jobs returned to Apple, Netscape was the default web browser for Mac OS installations. In the findings against Microsoft in their antitrust case, it's mentioned that Bill Gates threatened then-CEO Gil Amelio with cancelling MS Office for Macintosh:

      349. A few days after the exchange with Waldman, Gates informed those Microsoft executives most closely involved in the negotiations with Apple that the discussions "have not been going well at all." One of the several reasons for this, Gates wrote, was that "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office . . . ."

      So, until there's office software out there that's used at anywhere near the frequency MS Office is used, Apple can't afford to dabble seriously in the office suite market for fear of losing their PC compatibility. After all, Microsoft cancelled Internet Explorer for Macintosh before Safari was even at 1.0. I'm surprised they haven't blown up over Keynote. The only thing that's saving Apple at this point is that Appleworks (aka Clarisworks) still sucks.

      --
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
    4. Re:Twirl this by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you're right. Can't imagine why else they'd bother to do any Mac software at all.

    5. Re:Twirl this by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      they bother because there are about 100 million macs world wide and that is no market to sneeze at. software is a fixed cost to develop, once it is done, distribution is cheap. so porting a really good product to a platform that has millions of desktop users will turn a nice profit.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    6. Re:Twirl this by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      IE was not making money so why have it? you don't need IE to run web pages. Office makes money for them, no company would cancel a money maker unless they were a monopoly and acting illegally under anti-trust laws

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    7. Re:Twirl this by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      perhaps because it makes a lot of money for them.

      best of bread apps have always made lots of money for the developers on mac. 2% market share translates into about 100 million Macs world wide.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    8. Re:Twirl this by Junta · · Score: 1

      Easy, they could complain that their market was so devastated by the new offering that it would no longer be profitable to compete.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    9. Re:Twirl this by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Yes, such a huge percentage of Mac sales, I'm sure
      That was sarcasm, I assume? Jeez, what do you think people buy computers for? I don't mean people like you, I mean real people.
      ...the importer/exporter features of many MS Office competitors work just fine for the vast majority of files
      Yes, I've read read the blurbs for StarOffice and KOffice too. I've also tried to use these filters to move documents back and forth -- something you obviously haven't done, or you wouldn't spout such glib nonsense.
    10. Re:Twirl this by Nevyn · · Score: 1
      I say that Apple should learn their lesson from IBM and OS/2 - don't go for a 'compatible' solution - go for an ALTERNATIVE solution.

      So I guess if you try really hard, you can imagine that BeOS (and Acorn etc.) didn't happen. Alas, I can't.

      --
      ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
    11. Re:Twirl this by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      >> I often wonder why they even bother. Makes them look less monopolistic?

      Because Microsoft is a software company. They are not Intel, nor AMD. They have no reason not to sell their software on all platforms they can. The PC platform is open, so they can release their OS for it. Apple's platform isn't, but they can release software for it, and they do.

      Microsoft is not stupid. People are so fast to equate "PC" with "Microsoft", but that can change very fast. Microsoft is smart enough not to paint themselves into a corner. You might think this silly, given how huge MS is, but they know how fast success can come crashing down, and you can bet they've got business plans for such contingencies.

    12. Re:Twirl this by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Because Microsoft is a software company.
      And all software companies target all platforms. Oh, wait...

      Creating, maintaining, and supporting a port for a separate platform is expensive. Not to mention the planning and marketing hassle for upper management, which always has to worry about spreading its attention too thinly. That's why nobody but open-source zealots has a "runs on everything" policy. Microsoft can certainly afford to make their software run every platform that could conceivable support it, but they have to have some motivation.

      There are two reasons to go to so much trouble. The obvious one is to make money. This is obviously not a pressing concern when your annual profit is $1.3 billion and your cash reserves are $40 billion. I don't suppose they ignore every chance to turn a buck, but it has to be worth their trouble. Is a platform that accounts for less than 3% of all desktop computers worth the trouble? I'm skeptical. Not when Microsoft's investments in Windows development typically returns a 200% profit! Microsoft often complains that Mac Office sales are "below expectations". Which might not be honest, but certainly doesn't imply a positive attitude.

      The other reason to target a platform is to grab market share. So MS gave away Internet Explorer, hoping that this would eliminate their lagging position in Internet technology -- which it did, and then some. And they sell X-Boxes at a loss, hoping that this will lead to future dominance in the hypothetical "computing appliance" market -- which could be a big money-maker, or a total boondoggle, like UltimateTV or those stupid "smart displays".

      Microsoft has had a lot of expensive boondoggles, and they'll have a lot more. But that's not a problem for them. They'll gladly spend money if it buys them a place in a growing market for emerging technology. Which definitely does not describe the Mac!

  43. Re:Free not important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course there isn't a technical reason, it's a COST reason. Office for Mac sold very poorly, let alone relatively little used versions in languages like Hebrew. It would cost them more in development to add it than the sales justify, so why bother? M$ (note the oh-so-clever dollar sign Linux and Apple trolls like to use) is a CORPORATION, not a charity, despite all the good work that Bill Gates does with his personal fortune.

  44. Hasn't anyone heard of APPLE WORKS???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I've used KOffice, and Open Office and the Full Featured Free Office Suite that was installed the first time you turned your MAC on! Oh yeah and Apple Works runs natively. On OS9 too!

    It's great to port *nix apps to OS X. It is. It's great for many reasons, one being to make *nix heads more comfortable on a mac. Really though, is Apple Works that bad? I think it's far superior to MS Office for mac.

    1. Re:Hasn't anyone heard of APPLE WORKS???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you, I happen to like AppleWorks. It's funny there is so much press about how great it is that a "Free Full Featured Office Suite" may be/has come to the Mac, yet I never see any gripes about why AppleWorks is lacking. Where does AppleWorks come up short? What can KOffice and openoffice do that Apple Works can't?

      For those of you that are totaly lost, click the sheet of paper icon with the "A" and the pencil on it, the one on your doc. You've had a "Full Featured Office Suite" on your mac since you bought it, regardless of what OS Mac you've been using.

    2. Re:Hasn't anyone heard of APPLE WORKS???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have AppleWorks, on any of my Macs.. Did it come with Panther? Or did I lose it when I did "clean" installs of Panther... I only use it once and a while, so I may have just missed it during the upgrade....

    3. Re:Hasn't anyone heard of APPLE WORKS???? by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      AppleWorks is quite simply the worst office software suite that I have used in the past few years. I don't want to say it "sucks", because it could be far worse. But compared to KOffice or OpenOffice, it just isn't good enough (for me).

      I'm using the less-than-fast Mac/X11 OpenOffice instead. Not a peach either (a native port would be a different story). I am dying to give KOffice a shot on my PowerBook.

    4. Re:Hasn't anyone heard of APPLE WORKS???? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      AppleWorks hasn't come with new Macs for quite a while now (except, I believe, the eMac). I had to pay extra for it to come with my PowerBook. I bought it mainly out of nostalgia; I'd used it back when it was ClarisWorks 1.0 running on Windows 3.10, an it hasn't changed a bit from what I remember. Back then, it was the best office suite I'd used by far (and half the size of MS Word for an entire office suite). Now, it feels like an OS 9 app (which is not very comfortable for me, since I've never really used pre-X MacOS), and doesn't seem to fit nicely with the rest of the OS. Oh, and it sucks at importing even simple word documents. I keep it around, since I use TeXShop for document processing, and only really use AppleWorks for the odd bit of simple spreadsheet work. After all, in spite of its faults it looks and feels more like a Mac app than the OS X port of OOo.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Hasn't anyone heard of APPLE WORKS???? by ricosalomar · · Score: 0

      Apple Works? You gotta be kidding! I PAID for it when I switched to Mac 2 yrs ago and I can fairly say that it's better than MS Works. But text edit is better that both of those. I've had to go to MS Word for now, though I use OOo occasionally. OOo is a real pig, MS Word crashes, gimmie KOffice!

    6. Re:Hasn't anyone heard of APPLE WORKS???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really own a mac? Not only does it come with them, but if you buy a new OS, like say Jaguar or Panther, it comes bundled with them as well. Think of it like wordpad for MS win, but A fullfeatured office siute. And yes it does have it's limitations. It could use the attention that is given to the "i" apps. If KOffice is that great Apple could use the resources that it could have spent retooling office to something else. I hope KOffice is all it's cracked up to be, can't wait to try it.

    7. Re:Hasn't anyone heard of APPLE WORKS???? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I really do own a Mac, and yes I really did have to pay extra for AppleWorks. Perhaps it's only bundled for US customers, since it wasn't pre-installed on my AlBook. I can't comment on whether it was on my Panther CDs, since I did an upgrade install, with AppleWorks already on the disk.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Hasn't anyone heard of APPLE WORKS???? by horigath · · Score: 1

      Appleworks only comes on the "consumer" model macs: that is, the iMac, the eMac and the iBook. The "pro" macs (the powermac towers and the powerbooks) don't have it, as it assumed that those people can buy it if they want it, but most likely that they will use word, which is more likely in a work or office situation, the type that these computers are aimed at. Of course, the version of textedit that ships with panther can import word documents and can do a decent job itself in rtf. However, it is not as streamlined in terms of usage as the real office solutions. That, and it doesn't like me using it to edit html - it seems to want to try to render it all.

    9. Re:Hasn't anyone heard of APPLE WORKS???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, and it doesn't like me using it to edit html - it seems to want to try to render it all.

      Open the TextEdit preferences and check "Ignore rich text commands in HTML files". I was confused about that too, until just yesterday I actually read a built-in help file, for once! The ones for TE aren't that bad--I learned how to insert a page break as well (control-Q, then control-L).

      HTH

  45. $PC $Mac by Down8 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes they are.

    Please stop trying to equate laptops and desktops. Even if we do use laptops:
    Dell Inspiron 5100: $1,860 (15" LCD/2.66GHz P4/512MB/DVD-CD-RW)
    Apple PowerBook: $2,198.00 (15" LCD/1GHz G4/512MB/DVD-CD-RW)
    I'll even allow that the G4 may be more powrful than the P4, but not 2.66 times as powerful, so the PC wins power and price (though arguably loses in both cool-factor and the ethereal 'usability').

    Build me a very powerful desktop Mac for less than $1000, inculding a 19" CRT. I did this 2 months ago. PCs are cheaper b/c there is more than 1 vendor - and isn't that why everyone hates MS? They only have one monolith to bitch at? As usual w/the Apple crowd, there's a double standard.

    -bZj

    PS: I hate MS just as much as anyone who uses computers for hours a day, but facts are facts.

    --
    .sig
  46. Good Job by mkiwi · · Score: 1

    I'm glad that Ben and Ben (and if you're in the Fink project, Ben and Ben and Ben and Ben) have finally succeeded with their port. Good job Bens!

  47. Re:$PC $Mac by self+assembled+struc · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but does your Dell have:
    A built-in dual head video card?
    Built-in firewire 400 AND 800?
    Built-in USB 2.0?
    An internal antenna for a wireless card and a dedicated slot for it so you don't have to use up a PC Card slot?
    A back-lit keboard?
    4 hours of battery life?

    No, the Dell (with the exception of the USB 2.0 and Firewire 400, POSSIBLY) doesn't have those. Let's make sure our systems match in comparison.

    I just bought a new Powerbook G4 after comparing systems from PC vendors, and since the Apple delievered on all those (It's replacing a dual-head system and I have a wireless set up at home) PLUS came with the best Unix desktop I've ever used in my life, the Mac won hands down. And yes, I'm a linux and *bsd user as well, but let's face, the Mac seriously, JUST WORKS.

  48. Re:Free not important? by plj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Valid point, and there are other issues too, even, if you're no entirely anti-MS. For example, if you'd be willing to write right-to left languages like Hebrew or Arabic, you'd be completely out of luck.

    I have a bit similar issue, as it is currently impossible to get any native word processor for OS X with Finnish language tools (there are classic and X11 alternatives) - MS has them for Windows, but not for Mac. This make me unwilling to buy Office X, even though I like Excel, because I don't want to pay for word processor without support for my native language, and the sole Excel without other office programs would be more expensive for me than the whole suite, as there are no academic editions of the separate programs.

    Currently I'm running OOo 1.0.3 on top of X11, but now I'm looking forward for KOffice to replace it soon.

    --
    “Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
  49. Re:$PC $Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dell Inspiron 5100: $1,860 (15" LCD/2.66GHz P4/512MB/DVD-CD-RW)
    Apple PowerBook: $2,198.00 (15" LCD/1GHz G4/512MB/DVD-CD-RW)

    Well, from the Dell website: "Weight: From 3.3 kg", Apple: 2.5 kg (sorry, I don't understand non-metric measurements).

    Battery life: Dell: "Approximate operating time: Up to 1.5-3 hours per battery (depends on usage)", Apple: "46-watt-hour lithium-ion battery (with integrated charge indicator LEDs) providing up to 4.5 hours of battery life (15-inch models".

    A year ago I made the mistake of thinking that an "inexpensive" PC laptop with a shitload of MHz would be a good choice. 11 months later, my back still aching and driven insane by the practically nonexistant driver support for their lowspec hardware (let alone support for alternative OSes), I admitted my mistake and made the best decision in my life: I went and bought a Powerbook. At least for me, it's not all about speed/buck.
  50. Re:Free not important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Macs are NOT more expensive than peecees, get that misconception out of your head.

    They're not? Please point me to where I can buy a $200 mac running OS X at a good speed.

  51. Re:My take on KOffice, and how it might be on OSX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you mean sh_t for brains?

  52. Bug reporting system? by eLoco · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I intend to give this suite a try regardless, but just curious: is there an automated system a la Mozilla to provide bug info back to the development team when an application crashes? I'd like to help further this development along, but this is about the extent of what I could provide right now.

    --
    sig != null
  53. Re:Free not important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I love about MAC is that it does come with just about all the software anyone needs, Oh and for FREE. Such as AppleWorks, the FREE Full Featured Office Suite. Wonder if they can port that to run on Linux,.

  54. Value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Objectively, price is a factor too -- in which case MS Office loses every time.

  55. Nice effort, but . . . by droleary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    . . . the hard part is over . . .

    Not by a long shot. It's hard to say this without sounding like a troll, but what most open source developers just don't get is that the hard part isn't the coding, but putting on the polish so that the app is useful to someone else. Looking at the screenshot, I can pretty much tell you that no Mac user is going to be comfortable using what clearly is not a well-designed Mac app. The fake widgets are out of place. The nested tab views (or two rows of tabs, depending on how you see it) is a terrible interface error straight out of Windows. I imagine trying to use this thing would show it to be even more clunky than the X11 version, where a user would more understand what they're getting into.

    Apple gave a very public lesson on the proper way to port OSS when they did Safari. This port clearly took nothing from that lesson. I don't really want to come down on the developers who got it working, because I know the kinds of efforts involved, but I have to say that if anyone thinks this will be of real help to the average Mac user, they are very much mistaken.

    1. Re:Nice effort, but . . . by Compuser · · Score: 1

      I am guessing it will work the other way around.
      Mac people have a sense of good UI so they will
      drive this part of the app which will then be
      ported back to X11. At least that's the sensible
      way things should evolve and may be the strongest
      reason to port K?>*&):"(&^ stuff to the Mac.

    2. Re:Nice effort, but . . . by amanpatelhotmail.com · · Score: 1
      I can't agree with you more.

      Here's a link to Apple's Human Interface Guidelines (Online version, PDF Version). It gives very detailed information on how to design GUI applications for the Mac, it also gives plenty of examples that contrast the difference between Windows & Mac.

      Here's another link: Switching from Windows to Mac OS X.

      The biggest Interface error that I see in the KOffice screenshots, is the one of fonts. The fonts look different, perhaps they are not antialiased properly. They also look out of place (their widgets don't appear to change with respect to the amount of text inside the widget).

    3. Re:Nice effort, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They took KHTML. It's not possible for them to remove the 'O', that's what the whole licence debates are all about. So they didn't 'kind of' drop the O. They O'd what was already O.

      but the interface they built around the engine is entirely non-open.

      I like O software, but to be honest I'm GLAD that the interface to KHTML (ie. Safari) isn't open. Let's face it. Open source software just ain't that grand. Could you really have seen or imagined Apple released an open-source browser? Why? What for? That's kinda silly and unnecessary.

      So, a proprietary skin on an open core. Kind of like OSX itself for that matter.

      Yes. And it works BRILLIANTLY!

      perfecting the standard *nix/X11 desktop

      There'll ever be one?

    4. Re:Nice effort, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what's it like in your fantasy world over there... must be pretty fantastical.

    5. Re:Nice effort, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's face it. Open source software just ain't that grand

      Oops, I meant only of the graphical kind. I love my getmail/maildrop/exim/courier-imap/mutt setup. But open-source graphical apps and desktops... no thankyou maam.

    6. Re:Nice effort, but . . . by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      why does the interface need to be open? the workhorse of the code is the engine. why port konq in full when it is not even a mac style app?

      and what help would an Open interface be to KDE developers? really? the interface is EASY to make, it is the underlying code that is harder.

      stop trolling.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    7. Re:Nice effort, but . . . by babbage · · Score: 1, Redundant
      I like O software, but to be honest I'm GLAD that the interface to KHTML (ie Safari) isn't open. Let's face it. Open source software just ain't that grand. Could you really have seen or imagined Apple released an open-source browser? Why? What for? That's kinda silly and unnecessary.

      Err, I didn't mean to disparage OSX -- I'm typing this from my iBook, using Safari, and I quite enjoy using both the machine, the operaring system, and the browser. I'm not quite sure why I was moderated as, and replied to, as if I were trolling, because I really wasn't. But whatever.

      Since you bring it up, I can't see Apple open sourcing Safari, but it's not because the quality of open source GUI software tends to be sub-par. Rather, it's because Safari is, or could be, good enough to sell people Macs, and so it's in their best economic interests to play their cards close & not allow the browser to be ported to, say, Linux or Windows.

      But, that said, I don't think that code quality or usability of open source GUIs is at all relevant. I think the problem there isn't that the interfaces are designed in an open way, but that they are designed by committee, and a for that matter a committee of people that don't agree on anything, can't find people to help work on the hardest parts of the system, and have absolutely no sense of focus on either the overall design goals of the system (because generally there aren't any) nor on the needs of average end users (because generally they assume that the average user is a tinkerer or developer).

      But the committee design is the problem, not the fact that the development was done in the open. If Apple wanted to -- and I can't see that they would, but just for the sake of argument let's assume that they might -- I don't see any reason why open sourcing would impair the quality of either Safari or OSX itself. As long as they kept a tight oversight of the software's evolution, they could maintain the focus that a well managed proprietary system tends to have while also benefiting from the potential rapid development of new features and bugfixes that open development has come to be known for. The trick, I think, would be for Apple to be vigilant about keeping development on track at all points, probably aided by clear roadmaps of where the software needs to grow.

      Unfortunately, that kind of openness is exactly what Apple has never done, and will never do. And you can't really blame them, either: giving away future product plans can cannibalize current sales while giving a heads-up to competitors, and as an underdog in the market, they can't afford either of those risks. So Apple maybe isn't the strongest candidate for this kind of development.

      On the other hand, maybe someone like Sun could, with OpenOffice/StarOffice, or Novell/Ximian/SuSE could, with any of Evolution, Gnome, Yast, etc. The source for these projects is already out in the open, all that would be needed would be to provide the focus (and, admittedly, manpower if it comes down to having to pay someone to work on the non-fun parts of the system in question).

      Admittedly, this has never really happened in a successful way so far, but I don't think it's impossible. The problem, as I see it, isn't that open source just can't do GUIs, but that a GUI developed without a clear focus on the needs of the end user is never going to come together the way it should. If the right organization decided to take on the effort, I suspect that it could happen. Maybe Apple will give it a try at some point; maybe Sun or Novell will bring focus & resources to one of their GUI projects; maybe a nonprofit like Mitch Kapor's OSAF will be the one to succeed. Who knows? Not me. But I don't think it's impossible, we just haven't found the right recipie yet...

    8. Re:Nice effort, but . . . by babbage · · Score: 1

      I wasn't trying to be a troll, honest. Sorry if I came across that way.

      The earlier post held up Safari as an example of how an OSS project should work. I think that's an oxymoron, considering that the part of the system being held up as an example is not, in fact, open. I'm not saying it doesn't work -- clearly, it does -- but to me it sounds like what the person I was replying to was suggesting is that the open source folks should focus on the behind the scenes software (KHTML/Gecko, Apache, the Linux kernel, etc) but they should leave the GUI components of the system to the pros at a place like Apple. I find that a bit pessimisstic.

      And if the interface is so easy to make, how come no open source browser has half the refinement that Safari does, and no open source desktop package has half the polish that Aqua did, even back when each was in public beta? It's not like projects like Mozilla, KDE & Gnome didn't have a head start or anything. Slapping together a quick interface may be easy, but crafting a good interface takes a lot of careful thought & focus.

      Maybe a good UI programmer can glean what's needed just by studying how a good GUI works, and doesn't actually have to see the code to copy the ideas. Maybe. But then again, it hasn't come together very often, has it? Maybe there's more to it than that. The KDE group may not need to see Safari's source code in order to write the perfect browser, but it certainly couldn't hurt to get some good, fresh, well-implemented ideas for comparison.

      I understand why it's not in Apple's interest to open up Safari, and that it'll probably never happen, but I also see that it would be a boon to the KDE project, if not also Mozilla and other projects as well. Is that such a controversial idea? Apparently I'm being a troll for pointing it out, but I really just thought I was stating the obvious: being able to see the source code of a well designed browser like Safari has the potential to be tremendously useful to people working on other open source browsers.

    9. Re:Nice effort, but . . . by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 0

      interface development is as much an art as it is a science.

      making an interface is easy...making a GOOD interface is hard.

      see the diffrence?

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    10. Re:Nice effort, but . . . by babbage · · Score: 1
      see the diffrence?

      Yes, I see the difference. Don't you?

      What were we arguing about again? It sounds like you just came over to my side and I'm left confused as to what your point was...

    11. Re:Nice effort, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > The fake widgets are out of place.

      Qt/Mac doesn't use fake widgets, but uses the Appearance manager, just like Cocoa and Carbon. *However*:

      - Qt 3.3, which is currently a pre-release beta, and isn't detecting the new tab widgets and such in Panther, and thus falling back to older versions. Cocoa and Carbon were of course changed between Jaguar->Panther by Apple.
      - The current port isn't meant to be pretty. It's meant to get things *working*.

      One of the "Ben's" spearheading this effort had to say elsewhere:

      "Colin, I'm with ya.

      It's not like we don't know about the HIG, it's just that we only got things to *run* in the last week or two. Tweaking look and feel is still a long way off (Not to mention we're using a Qt beta. Some of it could be just the fault of incomplete Qt code.) If we were writing new code, it would be easy to start out fitting into the HIG, but since we're starting from existing code written for X11, we'll have to work up to it.

      Making it fit in better is certainly on the TODO, but the first goal is to make it functional. So people, chill. ;)"

    12. Re:Nice effort, but . . . by rixstep · · Score: 1

      >the hard part isn't the coding

      Oh give me a break, brainiac. You sit and hack it out with BR, and see how far you get.

      I am so sick and tired of all these lusers lording it over everyone.

      You want form? And flash? Fine. Don't underestimate the programmer ever again. Next thing you know, you won't have a toy to play with.

    13. Re:Nice effort, but . . . by Roberto · · Score: 1

      If you really believe the hard part of writting an office suite is not the coding, dude, you are insane.

  56. Re:Fuck Apple in the mouth by Rimbo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    How is it a company with 3% market share can get 80% of the fucking press?


    Because they're more interesting. They've had a hell of a year.

    Besides, Microsoft has been sitting on their laurels. Groklaw has an interesting bit where PJ notes that Investor's Business Daily made up their "Top Ten Tech Stories of the Year" list without mentioning Microsoft a single time in any context. This isn't because the "regular" PC world is losing relevance, but more just that there isn't much going on in the "regular" PC world.

    But... that's what happens when one company is in charge of most of what people do: Nothing. Why should they do anything? They've got 80% of the world using their stuff.
  57. Re:Free not important? by WatertonMan · · Score: 1

    Appleworks isn't free, merely bundled with many Macs. It wasn't bundled with mine (a dual 867 last year) and I made the mistake of purchasing it. While not bad for casual users, the interface is a poor Carbon port. Still better than OpenOffice on the Mac, but not as good as MS Office. Apple supposedly has a new version coming out soon. Some have it being released this month. We'll see how it looks and works along with the cost...

  58. the hardest part is cleaning up and bug fixes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes

  59. they had to do a complete rewrite by alfredo · · Score: 1

    That is what is holding it up.

    --
    photosMy Photostream
  60. Close, but not perfect by Down8 · · Score: 1

    I was, in fact, trying to keep this as similar as possible. Included on the Dell:
    "IEEE 1394 integrated port;
    2-USB 2.0 (Universal Serial Bus);
    Video: 15-pin monitor connector;
    S-Video: 7-pin mini-DIN connector;
    Internal TrueMobile 1400 Dual Band Mini-PCI card".

    Can't find an estimate time for the Dell battery. The PowerBook didn't have the backlit keyboard option. So, all you got was FireWire800 for your extra $342 (as far as hardware goes).

    Again, nothing against the Mac, but facts are facts. Macs cost more. (And I'll even ignore the software availability issue.)

    And you're still ignoring the desktop issue, which is not insignificant, since most personal computers are desktops (though that too is changing).

    -bZj

    --
    .sig
    1. Re:Close, but not perfect by falcon5768 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      thats cause unless its the 12 inch model which doesnt have it, the backlite keyboard is standard.

      and available software is NOT an issue unless you use AutoCAD, cause just about every other package out there, there is a version for the mac, unless its a very propitary. that plus TONS of unix software kills that argument. Of and did I mention VPC5 whihc works great for your few windows programs. My girlfriends dad even runs OS 2 warp software on his mac with no problems.

      and I wont go into the nature of prossesors cause to this day PC users cant get it into their heads that prossesor speeds mean absolutly NOTHING if your computer cant give it info fast enough.

      I could go on but as someone who works in a IT enviroment and repairs computers and intigrates them into networks for a living, i would chose a Mac over a PC ANY DAY on our network.

      and given the fact that we have 800 macs and only 200 PC's on our network because maintaining them is cheaper (our mac budget is 5,000 our PC budget 15,000 and this is including computer purchasing since our PC side has to replace its Dells almost every year because they had catostrophic failures due to continuous use)

      Trust me Macs might cost more on the onset but you look in any major IT industry newspaper and they all say that in the long run you spend more maintaining a PC.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  61. Have you tried NeoOffice? by VValdo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since partially completed ports apparently count, I recommend checking out the developer Aqua release of OpenOffice.org, Neoffice. Downloads of a test binary have been here for awhile.

    Moreover, just yesterday, lead developer Dan Williams posted this state-of-the-port message on what still needs to be done to have a complete port of OO.o in Aqua:

    All in all, these aren't problems that require all that much technical expertise, just a lot of trial and error, and a bunch of debugging. A lot of the issues that we have had for a long time, like the widgets and menus and the event loop, are actually solved; we simply need to convert our old hacks over to the new frameworks or clean up the code as it is. We can of course do this, but as always it requires more manpower.

    So? Volunteers?

    W

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  62. Re:Free not important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That wasn't trolling; that was flaming.

  63. Re:$PC $Mac by Down8 · · Score: 1
    ...driven insane by the practically nonexistant driver support for their lowspec hardware (let alone support for alternative OSes), I admitted my mistake and made the best decision in my life: I went and bought a Powerbook.

    Sidenote: how does the PowerBook hardware stand up to that 'alternative OS' test? Are there working drivers for the Mac hardware for those alternative OSes, or have you tried?
    -bZj
    --
    .sig
  64. Native, but not standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    In other words, this is as native as, say, Mozilla, rather than, say, Camino. Which is odd because I thought the QT for Mac was supposed to use the OS X native widgets.
    The Windows and Mac ports of Qt use the native theme engines to draw custom widgets.
    1. Re:Native, but not standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Native, but not standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From the corresponding log entry:
      Also, yes, I know it's a bit ugly, KDE styles are a bit messed up. When you run anything it always complains "KThemeStyle cache seems corrupt!"
      When that happens, it falls back to a default theme, one which does not use the Appearance Manager.
  65. Depends on execution by kjd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bad: "embracing" an existing standard, extending it incompatibly behind closed doors, flooding the marketplace with incompatible software and claiming it supports the standard.

    Appropriating existing application software (not exactly standard in the same was as, say, TCP/IP), developing it thoroughly, and contributing the useful changes back to the original development teams is a bit different. It could be done badly, yes, but Apple doesn't seem to have a poor track record lately in this respect.

  66. Re:OpenOffice.org ... wash repeat rinse by Timmeh · · Score: 1

    When I judge a post based on proper spelling and punctuation vs. the message you are trying to get across, your post loses every time. When I see a post citicising another for spelling (and incorrectly for grammar) then I see they have little contribution other than to bait the parent. Certainly nothing valuable, on topic or intelligent.

    When I see a post piggy-backing on another one by copying the format and changing around certain words and I see they have fucked up trying to close the italics tag, umm, fuck you :D?

  67. Re:$PC $Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    how does the PowerBook hardware stand up to that 'alternative OS' test? Are there working drivers for the Mac hardware for those alternative OSes, or have you tried?

    Apart from Airport Extreme (currently a common problem with about any .g card on the PC side, also) and the OpenGL hardware acceleration of the newest display adapters, very nicely, actually. Most notably, of course, Yellow Dog Linux, but also other Linux distros + NetBSD & OpenBSD (I have no experience of *BSDs on Mac hardware, but from what I've heard, things works quite well).

    Of course this is simply because those targetting Apple laptops have exactly two product lines to support (as opposed to the n+1 manufacturers with n+2 models).

    But now that I have a decent, vendor-supported *nix, I don't really care all that much about alt. support anymore. On the PC side, they were simply a must, because Windows actually made some of my work (most notably unix software development on the go) practically impossible.
  68. Re:Dosen't really matter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Steve,
    Micheal Dell is laughing in your fscking face right now...

  69. PARENT is a karma-whoring COPY-Troll by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    As the other reply noticed this is a copy from the last article on Konqueror for OS X.

  70. Re:OpenOffice.org (Aqua State Of The Port) by VValdo · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not holding my breath.

    You might not need to. See The State of the Aqua Port 2004 message from developer Dan Williams.

    W

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  71. Re:Fuck Apple in the mouth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that Apple's percentage of users is going to go down, once everyone realizes that Apple dosen't not give a flying flip about their customers...

  72. Where can I donate? by Gryphon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Where can I donate specifically to the team of programmers working to bring KOffice up to finished, final release quality on OS X?

    I would gladly pay to encourage their efforts.

    1. Re:Where can I donate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Where can I donate specifically to the team of programmers working to bring KOffice up to finished, final release quality on OS X

      Since everything which arrives down at Mac OS X depends on what happens "upstream", use this:

      http://www.kde.org/support/donations.php

    2. Re:Where can I donate? by xcham · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just a thought - you might try e-mailing those in charge of the port and asking them? ;)

      --
      When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
  73. Re:Fuck Apple in the mouth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    that's what happens when one company is in charge of most of what people do: Nothing. Why should they do anything? They've got 80% of the world using their stuff.

    They should work hard to get the remaining 20%.

  74. Windows vs Lindows & KOffice vs Office by mjensen · · Score: 1

    How long until MS starts suing for using "Office"???

    Can't we find better names for projects that won't get sued?????

  75. Re:Don't forget... by cbreaker · · Score: 1

    Again, you're lame.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  76. Re:Free not important? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    MS office is a carbon port too moron.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  77. You can see how they build the gui by CoolMoDee · · Score: 1

    You can easily see how they build the gui. Ctrl-click on Safari->Show Package Contents->Contents->Resouces and double click on any .nib file you see..look its part of the gui..the toolkit that they use is closed but other than that it is pretty damn open. There is nothing stopping you from modifing the gui to suite your tastes either..distributing it however might pose to be a problem.

    --
    Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
  78. it's not free, it's open by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

    the problem i have with office is simply the closed file formats. i couldn't care less if the program is closed source. i use keynote everyday in my class. it is an awesome program. however, it uses an xml-based file format. and other programs can generate xml files, and can extract the data. in fact, apple publishes the specs. yet keynote is closed. word's format is designed to make you use word. and they change it to make you upgrade. that i have a problem with. free is a pipe dream. sure, it'd be nice, but open is the key.

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    1. Re:it's not free, it's open by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Excellent point. I tried mucking about with my Entourage plist file, and caused all kinds of havoc. My mail plist is in XML. yeah, I can still cause all kinds of havoc, because I don't know what the hell I'm doing, but I can actually learn and figure it out. With entourage, that option is foreclosed.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    2. Re:it's not free, it's open by ahbe · · Score: 1

      You have made a very valid and excellent point. One of my favorite things about computers are their ability to archive a huge number of things. I keep everything I have ever written archived on my computer. On occasion I want to go back and retrieve something. If you saved everything in MS Word, who's to say you will still be able to open it 20 years from now? At least if it's in XML and the specs are published, I know I can get back to my data without an big problems.

  79. Re:$PC $Mac by Down8 · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the info.

    -bZj

    --
    .sig
  80. The hard part is over, really by zpok · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OK, I've done GUI's and am usually totally anal about compliance, but here I have to agree with the post: the hard part is over.

    You have here a free and native alternative for Office.

    No money. People will use it if it is reliable. Because it's free. That's great!

    Maybe, if the programmers want to have more people use it and everybody to stop bitching, yes, it would be a good - no, a great idea to make it more Mac-compliant, but they don't have to, really. They've already made it FREE.

    People will be plenty happy already when the bugs and kinks are worked out.

    So congratulations!

    BTW, now please give us a free and easy (meaning no coding) database program and we're in HEAVEN!

    xxx

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
    1. Re:The hard part is over, really by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

      A few random thoughts...

      Id like to add to that , the more OSX programmers that discover the open source way of doing things the better. It strengthens OSX and it strengthens the other free *nixes such as Linux. Mac people tend to have a better eye for UI's and graphic design than tech-head linux dudes (like me) a bit of cross pollonation here would definitely be advantageous.

      I personally use OpenOffice, although its a bit clunky at times, when you are applying for jobs and sending CV's of you need a good MSWord File export. While its been a while since i tested KOffice out Im still not if its MSWord export is up to scratch (tell me if i'm wrong here). I do keep an eye on KOffice and will continue to do so, and perhaps the widening of the user base will encourage development of the package.

      Does anyone know if the file export parts of OpenOffice have a license compatible with KOffice? and if so why does KOffice not look to OpenOffice for, at the very least an API to work from?

      Something else that just occurred to me, does the fact that the Mac widget set/OSX QT has now been opensourced now mean that we are likely to see an OSX theme as standard in later verions of KDE for linux?

      --
      Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  81. Re:Why not 100% MS compatible office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This thing called copyright sure is a pain though.

  82. Re:Free not important? by xcham · · Score: 1

    I'm a student. Apple offers something that a lot of PC vendors haven't heard of, it's called a student discount, you know, where you give students a bit of a break on the price in order to build customer loyalty. Dell's idea of a student discount (in partnership with my university) is "offer them cheaper shit".

    In this respect, your "anyone who can afford a Mac" argument is null. It turns out that a G4 iBook is more affordable to me than a Celeron notebook.

    --
    When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
  83. Re:Free not important? by xcham · · Score: 1

    Well, no, he isn't. KOffice is free as in beer (just download it) and free as in speech. Though he is wrong, I'll give you that, for many many reasons.

    --
    When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
  84. Re:Free not important? by xcham · · Score: 1

    a) There are quality of workmanship issues, especially in the laptop department
    b) You're a troll of the worst kind to be throwing about insults about "ignorant Mac user" and "lime green 'puter". Who says 'puter anyway? Did you just watch Hackers or something?

    I guess there really is something to the title assigned you. Anonymous Coward.

    --
    When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
  85. Re:Free not important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, I bought my li'l brother a $699 2.4 GHz Celeron laptop with DVD/CDRW and 10/100 network, modem, and wireless, 40GB hdd, and got an extra 256MB from newegg for $43 for xmas. I'm sure I'll do that again in 4 years as he heads off to college. How is $2600 a good deal? Hell I still have $1850 left over.

  86. Re:Free not important? by xcham · · Score: 1

    That doesn't make it right to discriminate against part of their user base. And your post serves only to illustrate the advantages of free software - developers tend to cater to what people want/need rather than what is economical to include.

    --
    When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
  87. Re:Free not important? by xcham · · Score: 1

    News-worthy event? It's a forum post, get over yourself. If you paid any attention to the parent thread it would be obvious that the software could've included it since Unicode is already in OSX, they just chose to ignore Hebrew.

    While I tend to agree with your opinion of Israel (not because I'm anti-Semetic but because I'm pro-secularism and pro-human rights), Middle-East politics and Israeli history is non-sequitur in this topic, not to mention you're just begging to be called a racist or something silly like that. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, Hebrew is a widely spoken language , there's no reason that an office suite shouldn't include support for it.

    --
    When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
  88. Re:Free not important? by xcham · · Score: 1

    Celeron - As in. Piece of garbage. Low-end-as-they-come.

    G4 - high quality, RISC.

    This has been covered elsewhere, but firewire, USB 2.0, a highly durable aluminum casing (you'll probably need to buy another one sooner than college if it gets any real on-the-road use), lightweight, long battery life (I'll bet you get maybe 2 hours max out of that celery laptop, probably more like 1.5 if using wireless) vs. 5 hours+ from the Powerbook.

    Like you say, you'll probably grab another PC laptop in 4 years, The Powerbook will probably outlast that and keep doing it's job for a good while longer.

    --
    When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
  89. Re:Free not important? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    Actually, we'll know in a few days. Steve is scheduled to give the keynote at our bi-annual kool aid drinking fest this Tuesday. If there is an update to Appleworks, he'll announce it. For those attending the keynote, there might be a gift copy under the seat. Alas, I have an exhibits only pass.

    As someone else pointed out, MS Office is also a carbon app, although clearly it is a lot more functional than Appleworks. For many, though, Appleworks is good enough.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  90. Re:If Apple ported OS X to x86, I'd migrate now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Apple already plans to do just that. They have a project called 'Marklar' they've been supporting since OS X was first released.

    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.a sp

  91. Have you USED APPLE WORKS???? by CountBrass · · Score: 2, Informative

    I tried and it is AWFUL!

    Working on my Master's coursework I wrote some documents using Apple Works. Saved them in MSWord format (only format the Univeristy officially accepts - although I later discovered my tutor is also a Mac-head and would accept PDF), anyway, saved it in MSWord format. Came back to edit it later. All the formatting has been lost !!! OK so put it all back, cross fingers, save in Word format again. Come back later to edit, this time AppleWorks crashes each and every time I try to load a file IT HAD WRITTEN! That was the last straw so I went and bought MSOffice- and discovered the Entourage is actually quite a good email client (although now Mail has folders I've switched back to that).

    Edward

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  92. Re:Why not 100% MS compatible office? by xcham · · Score: 1

    That sure didn't stop the folks over at KDevelop.

    --
    When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
  93. Re:My take on KOffice, and how it might be on OSX by xcham · · Score: 1

    Or do without saying "didn't you get the memo?" once a day. Scandalous!

    --
    When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
  94. Re:If Apple ported OS X to x86, I'd migrate now. by xcham · · Score: 1

    It'd be hard to port because there's really only one set of hardware that OSX currently has to support: Apple hardware. There are more cards that do the same fscking thing on the x86 than you can shake a stick at. Drivers, drivers, more drivers. Also, I can't see Apple pushing this too hard - they'd lose money on the hardware they're not selling.

    --
    When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
  95. Re:Opportunity (Greetings from 1996) by dustpuppy_de · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I doubt this will happen. Mac OS, formerly System 7, goes back to the days of the Lisa... that is a lot of code that Apple has tried and invested in, why would they throw it out? I expect a major updating of the Mac OS, splitting it to 2(Client / Server) OSes that all use a similar GUI.

    I just don't see Jobs throwing out Mac OS, and moving to NextStep (or BeOS, which is just as possible an alternative). It wouldn't make a lot of sense.

  96. Re:Free not important? by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1

    Of course there isn't a technical reason, it's a COST reason. Office for Mac sold very poorly, let alone relatively little used versions in languages like Hebrew. It would cost them more in development to add it than the sales justify, so why bother?

    The whole cost in this case would be an option like "enable right to left writing". That's all - the rest is built-in into the MacOS X.

  97. Re:Free not important? by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1

    ugh.. I can't stand why the argument that a native language for a nation fabricated out of nowhere in the last century is some kind of news-worthy event. The same program probably doesn't support a zillion other native languages. Why continue to make noise over these few thousand users?

    Some languages write from left to right. Some others write from right to left. Microsoft Office for Mac discriminates all the rtl languages.

  98. Re:If Apple ported OS X to x86, I'd migrate now. by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If Apple charged the same price as Windows XP Professional (~$250+). I'm sure many people would be happy to choose the Apple OS over Microsoft and Apple would be making a pretty good margin.

    It wouldn't. Befere 1997 Apple had authorized clones and the clonemakers paid flat rate of $50 for each Mac-compatible machine sold. It was a bad deal for Apple. It's always better to have a $500 margin selling a single PowerMac (and their margin on G5's is obviously much higher) rather than sell 5 copies of OEM MacOS for $50. They traded their market share (that plummeted) for profitability (that rocketed), but that's a wise choice - commericial companies go for profit, not for market share.

  99. Rebuttle by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    1. The AppleWorks is greatly out of data in many areas. Including good interface, features, and coding. I normally go to Text Edit to write any documents then AppleWorks because Text Edit has more features and is easier to use. AppleWorks is an Ugly program and Apple should be ashamed to have it with their logo attached to it. I think Apple is letting it die and replacing it with a new better one. Probably based off Koffice or some other type.

    2. OpenOffice.org, has the features But it works and feels to Unix Like. Which is good on a unix system but OS X (although based off of a unix core) is not setup like a Unix system. OpenOffice.org need a complete new interface to it and many design changes to it so it works like a new program.

    Koffice and KDE itself is more Mac Like then any other active project out there, so most of the code is better designed to be prorted to Mac.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  100. How Native is Native? by polyp2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a great thing for sure, but I have to question the Nativeness of Native here. For one thing I would have least expected it to use the native OSX widget set instead of a themed QT... and does it run without the need to have an X server running atop of aqua?

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  101. Re:Windows vs Lindows & KOffice vs Office by zpok · · Score: 1

    Can't we find better names for projects that won't get sued?????

    What, and miss out on all the free advertising?

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  102. Re:Free not important? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
    Based on what I've heard from people using sub-500 MHz Macs, and from what I've seen with Panther, I fully expect this system to only improve over time.

    I think what finally convinced me to get an AlBook was `borrowing' my head of department's 500MHz G3 iBook and realising just how fast it felt (even running Jagwyre). Panther on a 1.25GHz G4 screams along, I fully expect it to continue to do so for several years to come. Oh, and 3.5 hours real-world battery while using a wireless network is nice as well.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  103. Re:Free not important? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    When I got my AlBook, they were also offering 10 months interest free credit to students (and other academic staff). This made it just that little bit easier to afford.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  104. Re:Free not important? by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

    PowerPC is a better instructionset then the ugly x86
    hack, BUT the celeron in question is much faster then the G4. And x86 is only a problem for compilers and the few people who really like to write asm.

  105. Yes it does by Cpt_Corelli · · Score: 1

    I bought an iBook for my wife's mom for christmas and it came with AppleWorks installed and ready to use. It also came woth the PowerBook my friend bought two months ago.

  106. It's called OpenOffice.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at it, it's basically Microsoft office in sheep's clothing.

    I used OOo to write a few rather lenghty works and it's more or less the same approach. Ok, some stuff is moved around but I bet if you wanted to you could move them so they're in the exact same places as in Microsoft. It basically has all the same buttons and does all the same things. There's no difference in my book.

    This is mainly why I deleted OOo and just installed that $5 copy of MS Office I get from the University. It's just as "functional," arguably more stable because of code maturity, and vastly faster on my low end machine. Plus it doesn't FUX up file formatting for when I want to take a copy to print in the computer lab. Sure, OOo makes super small files and can save to PDF which looks all professional. But those are more novelties than anything else.

    I think OOo needs something like the Firebird project for us normal people. Take the engine and strip out the entire interface. Rewrite it in XUL and only include controls for the most basic functionality. Have Javascript plugins for extra functionality and add back features from the main project as you find out which ones you REALLY need. Simple, it really is like the metaphorical death and rebirth of the Phoenix.

  107. BeOS tale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've also got to remember what did BeOS in. In the beginning they were a PowerPC shop and made their own hardware just like Apple. Then they got into some trouble with Apple so they ported BeOS to x86 (hey, I'd switch now!).

    Sad truth is BeOS was a very, very small company and they could barely keep up to date on one hardware configuration. Now they had infinite configurations. They were buried in writing drivers so they fell behind in development. Not to mention lots of people got a sour introduction to BeOS when it wouldn't work with their machines.

    No, unless Apple hires like 50 times more programmers they don't stand a chance bringing OS X to x86.

  108. Re:Free not important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If all you want is basic Word compatibility, just use TextEdit. Reads and writes basic Word files quite well.

    And, of course, not only free of cost, but actually included with Panther.

  109. Re:Free not important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, unless your school is somehow special the student discount on apple hardware is laughable. Get $50 off from $2000. WOW!

    Apple laptops are indeed "inexpensive" but they aren't as fantastic as evangelists would make them out to be either. You can get better from Wintel any day of the week in 50 times more varieties. Try getting an Apple laptop that weighs 2 pounds or one with a click-style keyboard.

  110. Re:Free not important? by WatertonMan · · Score: 1

    Office is a carbon version. I see it more as a rewrite than a quick port. But clearly it could be better - but let's be fair. It was written for 10.1. It's problem is a lack of an update for quite some time. Appleworks on the other hand just sucks and has tons of Sys9 elements scattered throughout.

  111. Re:Opportunity (Greetings from 1996) by burns210 · · Score: 1

    point well made.

  112. Re:Free not important? by nystagman · · Score: 1
    KOffice is free as in beer (just download it) and free as in speech.

    More like free as in "Tibet." As in "a lot of people making a lot of noise about how things should be, but only a handful of people actually doing anything about it." (Note: this is not an invitation to the inevitable threadjacking that any mention of Tibet often seems to cause.)

    Talk is cheap. Coding, and the time it takes away from the things that pay the bills, is not. What I've read here, with only a few notable exceptions, is mainly Monday morning quarterbacking.

    Personally, I hope that a good OS X-native alternative to MF^hS Office makes it to the point of "grandma-accessible." I'd happily pay for it in some way. Cash, probably, as I don't have the time or (sadly) the know-how to make a significant technical contribution to such an endeavor.

    --
    Theory and practice are the same in theory, but different in practice.
  113. Penetration! by fm6 · · Score: 1
    Good lord, how do you figure that? 100 million is 3 percent of 3.3 billion. There's only (!) 6 billion humans on the planet. There aren't 3.3 billion folks with access to reliable electricity, never mind their own computer.

    Microsoft's sales figures for Mac Office are secret, but we can make some good guesses. Apple claims to sell 2.5 million Macs a year. Let's assume that Mac people who don't buy Office are evened out by Mac people who keep the software on their old Macs current. Which will probably give a figure that's way too high, but we have to start somewhere. Microsoft gets about $125 for each copy of Mac Office, so we're talking income of about $315 million per year.

    That's a lot of money to you or me, but it's peanuts to Microsoft -- less than 1% of their income! Plus they have to work relatively hard for that money. They probably save a little money from overlapping code bases, but enough to account for a customer base that's 30 times smaller?

    1. Re:Penetration! by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      umm, there was a /. story a year or so back that said there are more desktop computers than people in the world, which would make sense since I know many people and families that have multiple computers.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  114. Please include KEXI by zpok · · Score: 1

    pretty please! This would be so great, a good visual DBase app with a serious backbone...

    While Filemaker is great - OK, it isn't, really - there is a huuuuge lack of simple but still moderately powerful database apps for the simple stupid mac crowd.

    In fact, as far as I can see (disclaimer, I'm not an expert, but I've been looking for quite some time now) there's nothing that comes even close to kexi on the mac.

    There are some pricy alternatives, or one could follow courses in actual dbase encoding and programming, but let's not go there...

    If you were to port kexi *and* make an easy "typical mac" installer (with the option to install and setup mysql!!!!!) you'd become famous and immortal, I'm pretty sure.

    Seriously. Parades, naked people, beer, chanting of your names for hours on end, it could happen!

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  115. Re:Free not important? by xcham · · Score: 1

    More like $200 off $1500 (iBook G4, here in Canada).

    That's the kind of student discount I'm talking about.

    --
    When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D