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.
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
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
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!
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.
If you had ever used OpenOffice, you would understand why people are still seeking alternatives to it.
"now all that's left is methodical, monotonous bug chasing. Who's up?"
Apple? Like they did with khtml.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
. . . 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.
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
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."
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!
This thing called copyright sure is a pain though.
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
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.
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.
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