Slashdot Mirror
OpenOffice.org Built with KDE and GNOME Support
ks writes "Novell hacker Jan Holesovsky has released a build of OOo 1.1.3 that integrates with either KDE or GNOME depending on the environment it's running in. The build features KDE/GNOME look and feel, KDE/GNOME file dialogs and the Crystal icons. If you're running NLD, you have this already." Update: 11/27 18:13 GMT by T : Also on the OpenOffice.org front, the OO.o front page links to this interview with Debian ARM developer Peter Naulls, who has ported the suite to ARM processors. Hint: they're everywhere.
I think this is a great idea, one of hte reasons I had trouble with OOo in KDE3.X was its lack of smoothness. now if only someone will do the same for Abiword
wtf is NLD?
writing code for an obviously inferior tool that relatively few (alleged) people would use. Jan, like so many of the slashdot groupthink, needs to get a life or at least an XP laptop
Another flameish troll BS-writing anonymous. Since you already saw and followed your light to the end of the tunnel, why don't you let us poor stupid others find our own ?
Your one pointed to an XP laptop with MS's Office. Thank God, this is not the only way.
Just pack your ignorance and get yourself lost.
As for KDE/GNOME integration of OO.org: I welcome it enthusiastically. Every step to make it slinker, better, faster, more = a good step.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
God forbid that people might actually have some choices. Personally I dont use MS Office (or any other MS software or platforms), *OR* OpenOffice, because
1. The entire concept of a 'Word Processor' is stupid - http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/wp.html
2. If I need a database, I'll use Mysql (Or PostgresSQL, etc)
3. On the (rare) occasion that I need to arrange numbers in a table, I use Gnumeric.
Now some requesters changed and some icons chanced as well. How about porting it throughly that is getting rid of the old Toolkit that OOo still depends on. Right now these efforts look more like cheap patchwork than real solution.
The old OOo was build upon it's own Framework and Toolkit. Now with adding KDE and GNOME support to it developers have add another overkill and resource eater to OOo making it bulkier and bloddier than before.
OOo native KDE or GNOME is the right solution but this should be done untils it is done and then being announced.
Yeah, God forbid that someone should use three self explanatory words rather than an obscure acronym that has to be found by searching Google !
Why not use Qt/Aqua on MacOS X instead of the incredibly clumsy X11 interface, then?
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
It sounds like you need to do some research.
You've already picked OO.o, and you don't even know how it performs. What happens when they go with your ideas and switch from MS to Linux and you don't know how to support what you've suggested? They won't be impressed.
Not to be a troll, but stuff like this will only hurt adoptin of Linux. You tell them Linux is the best thing since sliced bread, they have you show them, they switch, stuff breaks, and you can't fix it. In the PHB's mind, you and Linux suck. So they go back to MS and never try Linux again.
Common sense is not so common.
Thanks, it has evolved to its current syntax after a few constructive criticisms from other, nearly-satisfied Slashdotters. Open source .sigs!
--
make install -not war
You are right. And I do. And I am getting started on it.
I've used it in the past, and found file support spotty. It is powerful in its own right.
But thanks for the 'wake up'. Nice to know the community cares enough to ensure the very best. And I mean that.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
The "word processor is stupid" idea is narrow minded. True, for certain classes of documents, TeX is a better way to do things. But isn't perfect either. The referenced article talks about the two phases of preparing documents, composition and typesetting. Composition is about the words and typesetting is about the "look" of the document. The problem is that TeX is horrible at the second step. True, it makes great looking documents "out of the box", but if I decide that the default look isn't what I want, then it is far too difficult to change it. Where is the tool that allows me to change the format as I like? Every TeX article I read basically says, "If you don't like it, you're wrong." Certainly not a very user-friendly attitude to have.
The other problem is that many word processors are very useful for those cases when the text composition isn't really important, but formatting is the key point, like a sign for my garage sale. Have you ever tried do something like that in TeX?
Don't get me wrong, I use LaTeX all the time, but only for very specific types of documents. It just doesn't work for the majority of stuff that I need to do.
Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
Thanks. Like I said, I wasn't trying to troll.
It just sounded like you were the most Linux-savvy person at work, and if they decide to make the switch you'd better be ready. Switching to Linux is beneficial, but never easy. Everyone in the office will be asking you questions ALL day. If you don't know your distro of choice inside out as well as gnome or kde and all the dependency issues, advocating Linux isn't the best idea.
Common sense is not so common.
Although I applaud the move, this will be somewhat outdone in a few months when openoffice 2.0 is released. 2.0 will support better native integration anyway, including look-and-feel.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
Did you ever consider that OOo might in fact have features that simply cannot be saved in MS word format? This does not mean at all that you cannot make MS word format documents, it just means that it has the same limitations as for exampel Office 2000 when tryign to save a MS word 6 document. It simply cannot save things in that format when the features needed are not supported, but it can create readable MS word 6 documents pretty well.
interesting idea - COMPOSITION and LAYOUT are different things!
The deficiencies of TeX not being tweakable should not be used to against for the importance of the above idea. That about that.
if you want control over window placement like that, you either define a workspace for your windows to recide in, or you just rethink your idea.
1. Your application has no fucking clue abotu how the user wants their windows displayed
2. Your application has as little clue about what the rest of the display is used for.
The window manager however has a bit of a clue about both, so it IS the proper place for deciding on window placement. All your application should ever try to do is give a suggestion.
Sorry to say, but if you do not udnerstand this then imo you have not understood what a windowsing system is for.
In short, when you develop for a shared gui environment (ie, the gui is also used for other things then your application) you do NOT have control over window placement, deal with it or write your own dedicated gui, it is the nature of the beast.
The big problem is people *assuming* everyone has MS-Word, and using it's proprietary format to exchange information by default.
It's a problem for Microsoft's competitors and for FOSS zealots, but not for the rest of us. I don't communicate with a single person that doesn't have MS Word (or at least WordPad). Let's not forget that if you are running Linux, you have made a choice to use something that has different features and limitations than the software that 90+% of the world uses. It is not the obligation of the vast majority to facilitate the minority - it is the other way around.
For general distribution, or to unknown recipients, you should send in something that is standard (and to be standard, it needs to be a documented format, 'DOC' fails that requirement) plain ascii text works, or if for some reason you need to control the appearance, postscript or PDF.
Plain text does not allow formatting, and PDF does not allow editing.
I don't communicate with a single person that doesn't have MS Word (or at least WordPad).
I don't have Microsoft Word on my computer. I have Microsoft WordPad 2000, but WordPad doesn't support style sheets, which are the topic of this subthread. Has this changed in Windows XP SP2?
Let's not forget that if you are running Linux, you have made a choice to use something that has different features and limitations than the software that 90+% of the world uses.
Did I make that choice to buy a computer without buying a one-seat home user license of Microsoft Word, or did the person who bought my computer make that choice?
It is not the obligation of the vast majority to facilitate the minority
Yes it is. People with any given disability are a minority, but Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, requires the U.S. Government and U.S. Government contractors to create accessible systems. How is "bold" accessible to a speech reader or a Braille terminal?
Plain text does not allow formatting, and PDF does not allow editing.
But do you always want the readers of your copyrighted document to have easy access to preparing a derivative work of your document?
Ahh, I get it...
Word processors, specificaly WYSIWYG, are stupid and inefficient, we should all use TeX instead.
But the TeX commands and syntax are too complex, so use a nice program to generate the TeX. A WYSIWYG word processor, opps, I mean, a WYSIWYM document processor, that outputs TeX.
So, word processors are "stupid and inefficient", unless they output TeX and are called document processors?