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.
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
Novell Linux Desktop
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
You could always use something like MetaTheme, or an equivalent (check kde-look.org), to have GTK widgets drawn with QT. Seems like a convoluted solution, but it really works quite well.
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
Something similar for Mozilla and Linux:
The Mozilla integration project for Linux desktops
The IT section color scheme sucks.
Oh please, let's do this for Mac OS X!
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
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
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.