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.
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?
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...
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL