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
This should help with either GNOME or KDE adoption in office environments since the user interface looks more streamlined.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
here
got sig?
Novell Linux Desktop
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
I just started playing with the Novell Linux Desktop and it looks really nice. After having Novell removed for Windows AD at work, it was nice to see the big N on a screen again. ;)
It's basically Suse with some tweaks, but it's got a very professional look and feel about it with everything nicely integrated.
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.
This is a great move, generating momentum towards a real superior Linux desktop architecture. Any well designed app should be split into Data, Business and Presentation layers, independent/interdependent of one another across a clear, well defined API. This new build can be optimized by another programmer to actually separate the Business (OO.o) and Presentation (KDE/GNOME) layers, because the source is open. Refactor OO.o as an object that can run separate from its UI, and all its features are available to *any* calling program, reusable without having to write spellcheckers again, or text edit panels, or .DOC readers. In fact, the next great move will be to refactor the OO.o data layer, so it can run not only on any FS, like ext3, ReiserFS, SMB, NFS, but interchangeably across networks as straight sockets, or SQL DB tables, or RDF streams, or any data source that's adapted to the data API. Let's get it on!
--
make install -not war
Does anyone know if this is going to be integrated back into the OOo trunk?
Poof... Good old mirrordot to the rescue...
Something similar for Mozilla and Linux:
The Mozilla integration project for Linux desktops
The IT section color scheme sucks.
What if I'm running it _in_ NLD? 'Cause I'm there already.
This is a good thing. One of the reasons that Java never took off from the desktop was that it didn't integrate with the native GUI. Nice to see OpenOffice not making the same mistake.
Too many linux applications still have horrible, unusable file selectors. It will never take off as long as such monstrosities are present everywhere.
This is one of the reasons why Windows is used by so many people. They do provide a more or less monotone interface. Even if the interface is horrible (like personalized menu's) it's horrible all over the place.
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.
Having a drop-in replacement for Office is critical to attacking their core replacement parts business.
Kudos by the way to AbiWord and Gnumeric, two excellent programs that are native GNOME apps today.
Oh please, let's do this for Mac OS X!
In the link provided, only KDE icons are provided, though GTK+ is used when run in GNOME, and you need the NLD version for the full GNOME look. So the best bet for GNOME-only using folk like me is still the build tool itself.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Yeah, God forbid that someone should use three self explanatory words rather than an obscure acronym that has to be found by searching Google !
it is using those... NO simulation
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)
Download OOo_1.1.3-kde_LinuxIntel_install.tar.gz
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
I just began developing an GUI-based application for KDE/Gnome, my major obstacle being the window "managers". It goes something like this:
Developer: OK, put this window here.
KDE/Kwin: Actually it's better over here.
Developer: No! I'll need that space later for another window.
Gnome/MetaCity: I know, I know! How about here?
Developer: Christ! No not there either.
Developer: OK, how about you both put it here? that makes sense.
KDE/Kwin: That's great, but I'll just shift up a bit, and flip your directions horizontally.
Gnome/MetaCity: Ignore KDE, it's perfect! But I think it would be even more perfect over here.
Developer: Jesus Christ!
It's usually possible to get what you want, but often involves hacks, redundant code, and forking.
I realise this is intentional and in the interests of usability and consistency, but more often than not the it's counter productive to the cause, since frequently a human knows better than a computer when it comes to usability.
It also removes macros. Sometimes it is a pain, because those macros are needed in an MS Office document, particularly in Excel. But if those macros are either corrupt or infected with a Macro Virus, losing the macros is actually A Good Thing. (tm)
.XLS. I sent it back to Joe and Chris, and voila! They could open it too!
Last year, the All Tomorrow's Parties music festival sent the band Saccharine Trust an elaborate Excel spreadsheet which provided an overview of the schedule for the entire weekend's performances at Camber Sands in the UK.
Joe Baiza had Office 98 for Mac running on his iMac. No joy opening the spreadsheet. He then sent the spreadsheet to Chris Stein, the band's bassist, (No, not the Blondie guitarist! Same name, different guy...) who tried to open it in Office XP. Again, no joy.
I get the spreadsheet sent to me. I open it in OO.o. Success! I saved the document first as an OO.o native format file, then resaved the native OO.o file as an
I'll have you know that NOTHING got screwed up in the formatting. Maybe a few weird calculations used by the ATP folks got messed up, but the guys in ST didn't need them. All they needed was the time that ST needed to go on, and also the times for some of the other bands on the schedule the guys wanted to see. OO.o rules.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
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
woohoo! OpenOffice DS!
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.
FC2/FC3 RPM packages.
That's all. On one hand, I like the way RPM works and what it does for the user. On the other hand, I can never seem to get the most up-to-date packages. It's terribly unfortunate and is always a balancing act between installing from tarball and maintaining RPM integrity. I suspect there are ways of handling it better and further that someone might even volunteer these better ways right here in response to this.
But if someone out there loves to build useful RPMs and has already built RPMS suitable for FC2 and/or FC3, please let me know where they are! I know I can't be the only one wanting them.
Disclaimer: I'm an OOo advocate, as you can see from this Computerworld article (http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/softw are/apps/story/0,10801,92195,00.html?SKC=software- 92195) that I published last Spring.
I used OOo since the days of StarOffice. I managed to write two books, many presentations, spreadsheets, and countless business documents in it. OOo is probably one of the best office applications and it's cross-platform.
I had quasi undying loyalty to OOo until I decided to go to OS X. While the feature set is almost identical to other versions of OOo, the GUI is one of the ugliest. OOo also lacks compatibility with Exchange servers, which I'm forced to use for work (yuck!). For these two reasons, I had to cave in and return to Office:Mac.
The efforts to tightly couple OOo with KDE or Gnome are important and interesting but far from the marketing win that OOo needs. An OOo version that supports the native OS X look and feel would probably win lots of support from Apple's user base because it would be, in most cases, a drop-in, free replacement for Office:Mac.
I interact now with quite a few Mac users on regular basis; most, if not all, would love to ditch Office:Mac in favour of OOo if the GUI and other system integration issues were resolved. I believe that an OS X/Aqua version of OOo is more strategically important than one for Gnome or KDE because it would generate instant press outside the early-adopter, Linux world.
A strategic marketing win could result in additional funding/participation/donations to OOo to carry on with other projects that, although important, lack the visibility that the Mac has or could bring to OOo.
Cheers,
Eugenehttp://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
Let me add:
If you really want a native office suite then I think that KDE + KOffice is the most integrated, complete and promising for the future. Although I think it's not there yet, especially the MS format filters of OOo are still more usable in the real world (and no, using the OOo filters in KOffice is not an option, that has been discussed over and over again).
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.
Oh, right. I love this comment:
Come on. No one in their right mind would want to type "\section{Text of heading}"! Nothing could be less intuitive!
If this is your alternative to a word processor, 99% of people would do better with a word processor. I mean, really, backslashes and curly braces and magic keywords that have to be memorized? Give me a break. That will never work for the typical user. Programmers, yes, but users, no.
1. The entire concept of a 'Word Processor' is stupid - http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/wp.html
That entire article was written on the basis of the fact that most people incorrectly use word processors! You can do exactly what the author is describing in Microsoft Word, and it is a hell of a lot easier than Tex. As you are typing your document, you simply mark things with Heading 1, etc (create new styles as you need them). When you're done "composing", then edit the styles such that your document is rendered as you want it to be.
As for the argument that the recipient of your document will need to have the same program you composed it in, I fail to see how Tex is better. If I sent my Dad a Tex document, he'd be pissed off that he had to read all of that \section{} crap along with the text, because we both know he isn't going to have anything that will render Tex.
here and here
my blog
You can do exactly what the author is describing in Microsoft Word, and it is a hell of a lot easier than Tex. As you are typing your document, you simply mark things with Heading 1, etc (create new styles as you need them). When you're done "composing", then edit the styles such that your document is rendered as you want it to be.
One of the nice things about a markup language compared to a word processor is that the document style is under the control of the user - the person who'll be reading the document - rather than the author. If you want full control over how a document looks then ship it as PostScript or PDF.
Another useful thing about markup languages is that they're usually plain text, which makes them readable even if you don't have a particular program. This also makes them easy to process automatically - extracting the title, authors, abstract etc. for example. Given a repository of papers, we can automatically produce statistics showing, for example, how many papers each author has published - just the sort of thing that funding bodies want to know. Try doing that with some WYSIWYG format where the various sections are obvious to a human eye but don't have anything in the file to say that centered text in bold is the title, the first italic bit is the abstract etc.
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?