OpenOffice.org for Mac OS X Alpha Released! 251
An anonymous reader writes "Nearly 6 years after announcing a Mac port, OpenOffice.org has released the first release of OpenOffice.org for Mac OS X that can finally run without X11!! An alpha is available for download today, but a lot of help is still needed to make OpenOffice.org available for Mac OS X. The site is very blunt: 'WARNING: THIS SOFTWARE MAY CRASH AND MAY DESTROY YOUR DATA DO NOT USE THIS SOFTWARE FOR REAL WORK IN A PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT. This is an alpha test version so that developers and users can find out what works and not, and make comments on how to improve it.' Currently missing functionality includes printing, pdf export, copy/pasting, and multiple monitors. That said, if you're interested in participating you can visit the Mac team to figure out how you can help today."
Good news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> having it work without X11 is a bit handier.
Well maybe OOo/Mac/X11 itself works well. The problem is that Apple X11 implementation is crap. You actually need to do stuff from like early 90s Linux to make it work with non-US keyboard layout and this is pain. It can be done via some hacking (like editing cryptic text files and so on) but it disqualifies X11 apps on OSX to rest of the world (apart from geeks).
So native version of OOo is alwa
Re: (Score:2)
Your words are a law written in stone for me, milord! [rushes to improve X11]
Regards, Apple
Re:Good news (Score:4, Insightful)
And this is precisely what Apple wants. X11 on the Mac is for Geeks, not for "regular" users. The existing issues with X11 are intentional.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah so maybe just throw out some source code of X11 that barely compiles and you need to fix it yourself. No binary release - then it would be even geekier.
> The existing issues with X11 are intentional.
Yeah.
Let me explain what I meant (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure what you're trying to say here.
Labelling people "mac fanatics" because you don't understand their reasoning is pretty cheap. In your defense, I admit that I was unclear in my original post. Let me explain what I meant.
Apple depends on Mac OS X having applications which do not exist on other operating systems. It's a competitive advantage. Remember NeXT? They had a nice cross-platform development library which allowed NeXT apps to run on Windows. Initially, Apple planned to keep this in OS X. It was called "yellow box" ("blue box" was for old Mac apps).
Interestingly, the idea didn't survive. Eventually, Cocoa became Mac only. Why? Because Apple wants Mac-only applications.
Another example is Java. Making Java apps look good on a Mac is hard. Apple wants to discourage Mac developers from using Java to create cross-platform apps. They would rather keep apps Mac only.
And this brings us to X11. X11 is awesome if you want to run all kinds of apps on the Mac, but these apps don't behave like Mac apps. Why? Because if they did, it would be trivial to write Mac apps using X11 and then port them to other operating systems. Apple would rather keep these apps on the Mac, thus they are discouraging the use of X11 for Mac apps.
Do you now understand the reasoning, or are you still LOLing at me?
Re: (Score:2)
>>> for Geeks, not for "regular" users.
>> Yeah so maybe just throw out some source code of X11
>> that barely compiles and you need to fix it yourself.
>> No binary release - then it would be even geekier.
> Not sure what you're trying to say here.
I mean wouldn't it be more "for geeks than regular use" to must compile your own X11?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean wouldn't it be more "for geeks than regular use" to must compile your own X11? :) Following your argumentation that X11 in OSX is broken since it is for geeks so it should be hard to use decently (?).
I don't think you need to compile your own apps to qualify for geekdom, but point taken.
You sugest that it is OK that it is broken since it is for geeks which is mac fanatism of your side
No, I did not say it was OK that it was broken. I said that it was intentional.
Your inflated theories do not change anything here. X11 in OSX is old nearly unusable. This is why OOo needs to be ported to Aqua.
Thanks, you just gave me a perfect example validating my "inflated theories." What you're saying is: would X11 be more functional, Mac OS X would not get an Aqua port of OOo.
Thus, it makes sense for Apple to keep X11 broken.
How microsoftish of them. Maybe if they discourage the use they shouldn't bundle X11 with OSX in the first place?
It's not installed by default, as far as I remember.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but Apple don't really do non-US keyboards, do they? They just replace the # key with the local currency symbol (presumably because USAians call it the "pound" sign). What? You still need to type a # sometimes? This is a minor pain when using Parallels/Bootcamp especially if you do something really deviant like plugging in an actual, non-Apple non-US keyboard.
Re: (Score:2)
X11 on OSX generally works. But try f.e. typing something with above characters. You need to edit some config files add some layout definition files etc. etc. - in Linux f.e. it works out of the box.
Re: (Score:2)
Geez, that's like saying apple doesn't "do" US keyboards because there's no num lock key.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always assumed this is a pun on it also being refered to as a 'pound' symbol - as in the imperial measurement for weight (used particularly in the US, and in days gone by in the UK). I assume it's a pun of sorts as shift-3 gives you the pound symbol, as for the GBP (the currency) - although it's also a good place as it's easy to remember, as long as you are familer with the anachronistic terminology (which is outdated in the
Re: (Score:2)
as for 'section', maybe you mean "paragraph" symbol ? if so, indeed, i haven't seen it used for 10 or more years, except in some legalese or books.
Re: (Score:2)
as for 'section', maybe you mean "paragraph" symbol ?
Yeah, thanks, that's the name I was looking for. I couldn't remember the name (though I knew what it was for) so I Googled for it but 'section character' was all came up (on some page explaining character codes).
IIRC I think some typesetting / layout software (like Quark) uses it as special character, or at least used to, but it surely must be used by only small percentage of Mac users these days. Like you though, it's been over 10 years since I saw it used last (though it's also been 10 years since I used
Re: (Score:2)
This has little to nothing to do with "Apple's implementation", which was a lot better than the original XDarwin X11 port.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you like your spreadsheets to always open maximized, but I don't. I've never been able to get the X11 Mac version to remember the size and position of spreadsheet document's window and restore it properly on open. I always have to unmaximize to get the resize widget to appear, then drag it to my desired size (yes, the unmaximized window size is also the same size as the display). Hardware is a G4 Cube, software is the latest version (the p
REALLY READ THAT WARNING MESSAGE (Score:5, Informative)
So have a look, and help submit bug reports, but please don't try using this is your normal editor, or get annoyed it isn't in a full usable state yet, that's why it is called alpha
Re:REALLY READ THAT WARNING MESSAGE (Score:4, Funny)
Finally! An office suite on OS X that works just like OpenOffice does on Linux! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
To copy text, highlight it by holding down the left mouse button and dragging over it.
To paste it, bring up the screen showing the destination application; hover the mouse pointer somewhere inside the window into which you wish to paste, and depress the scroll wheel without moving it either up or down. (AKA middle-clicking. Also try middle-clicking links in a web browser, if you don't know what it does.) If your m
Neooffice - differences? (Score:3, Interesting)
What are the differences to Neooffice?
Are they working together?
Besides the slow startup I feel Neooffice already has taken that niche, hasn't it?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not trying to troll here, and maybe you don't even ascribe to the mindset you imply with the above line, but how can you "overtake" a project that's "in a continual state of catch-up"? I'd have to say, Java or no Java, NeoOffice has held the top of the hill for a while now. It may fall behind now (or it may not), but to d
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Neooffice had all sorts of advanced goodness from Novell's ooo-build project such as Excell macros which are not part of OOo running on X on the Mac.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The main difference is that neooffice apparently runs through java on the mac, which is why it takes forever to load and can be very slow on occasion. neooffice is at best a substitute, until a native version is released (which is what is being announced today).
Let me point out something I noticed on the site. I'm a budding mac developer, and in reading the dev FAQ I saw that openoffice is being ported using the Carbon API. This is the old API that apple introduced for developers to more easily port the
Re:Neooffice - differences? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Neooffice - differences? (Score:5, Informative)
Many of the sub-systems, especially in things like drawing and sound, often have the more robust API written in Carbon, and then some of the Cocoa API's call those APIs while running. But generalizing like you do that Cocoa is built on Carbon is a mistake, there are many sections of Cocoa that have no Carbon at all underneath them.
A better concept of the major MacOS X API's are that at the root of things you have a layer called CoreFoundation that is written in C. This sits next to the APIs taken from FreeBSD (and the latter dangles down into the Kernel space as well). The primitives from Carbon are often found here, but that is not to say that these belong to Carbon. The primitives found in Cocoa are all built around these, and are often interchangeable with them in some regards.
On top of this you have the "Foundation" layer. This one is mostly written in C or a sub-set of C++ (basically the stuff that does not conflict with Obj-C). Many of the "core" services at the heart of the OS are built here, and at the top of this things start to blur with the bottom of the Carbon layer. Services such as Quartz (but not QuickDraw... which sort-of sits on top of Quartz... but that is messy) sit on this layer.
On top of this layer comes Carbon and Cocoa proper. There is quite a bit of messiness with the two of them calling back and forth, and there are some areas (like Quicktime) that have been very slow to get full implementations in "pure" Cocoa. And a lot more that have had real speed penalties for calling from Cocoa.
Carbon's roots go a little deeper (but less so every new version of MacOS X), but Cocoa and Carbon are philosophically on the same level.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no. Actually, you're wrong. Your statement is patently not true. Try this: http://developer.apple.com/macosx/architecture/ind ex.html [apple.com] Cocoa and Carbon are both application frameworks that sit on top of the core foundation, which includes Quartz, Core Data, Core Audio, and Core Video. It's a
Re:Neooffice - differences? (Score:5, Informative)
From the horse's mouth. [apple.com]
Carbon is NOT a fundamental API of Mac OS X. It sits side-by-side with Cocoa, and while it DID start out life as a transitional API from classic Mac OS, it is a peer API of Cocoa. In particular, if you can't deal with Objective-C, you'll likely be using Carbon as it's procedural and accessible from C/C++. Both Carbon and Cocoa are built atop the various "Core" API's. Remember that Mac OS X is a very direct descendent of NeXT, and as late as Rhapsody DR2, there was no such thing as Carbon.
Re: (Score:2)
But given Apple's history of deprecating old stuff at every generational change (recent example: Classic is gone since the x86 migration) - if I were developing a new Mac application today, I'd either use a web-services-based approach (like Ruby on Rails, etc.) or I'd use the pure Objective-C/Cocoa, and I'd stay the hell away from Carbon. Because you know damn well, that Carbon is the next thing to go away.
Apple's got some great support for things like Perl, and Python, a
Re: (Score:2)
And Carbon is updated on a regular basis
Re:Neooffice - differences? (Score:4, Informative)
And apple uses Carbon for Finder [wikipedia.org], a fact that annoys the hell out of me on a daily basis.
Two things off the top of my head that are implemented in Cocoa apps but not Carbon apps: emacs-style text navigation (ctrl-F,ctrl-B, etc) and on-the-fly word definitions (ctrl-cmd-D while cursor is over a word). There are other differences, too, but I only notice them when they don't work in Finder or in Camino (or Photoshop!).
That said, it's a hell of a lot more integrated than Java!
Re: (Score:2)
BTW Carbon and Cocoa are both the "New Api" for OS/X Carbon is the c++ verson and Cocoa is the Obje
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mac/2001/05/23/coc oa_vs_carbon.html [oreillynet.com]
http://blogs.msdn.com/rick_schaut/archive/2004/02/ 10/70789.aspx [msdn.com]
http://daringfireball.net/2006/10/some_assembly_re quired [daringfireball.net]
http://wilshipley [wilshipley.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NeoOffice works. (Score:2)
The native OpenOffice port, from what they are telling me, is very much alpha quality right now.
Re: (Score:2)
When I first tried it, on a Mac Mini G4, NeoOffice was a bit of a dog.
However, on a decently powerful machine (e.g. Mac Pro) NeoOffice is eminently usable - haven't done any timings (pointless unless you reboot between each test), but I'd say it feels faster than the "release" Mac Oo running under Apple X11. Main issue is that Neo tends to be a point release or two behind Oo so you get a slightly different bugset - and the Neo people are disinclined to waste valuable porting time patching known bugs in th
Re: (Score:2)
On my 5-year-old eMac, though, it is positively painful. I hate using it, but Appleworks just doesn't have enough functionality for anything I can't do in TextEdit anyway. I'd put off installing it on my work machine because of its performance at home, but when I finally did (b/c my installation of Office has some strange problems and I can't get the IT guys to reinstall it)
Re:Neooffice - differences? (Score:4, Informative)
the "6 year wait" is partly because OOo 1.x was incompatible with MacOS X because of the way symbol bindings were handled (I think it was basically a hack, anyway, exploiting a "feature" in most UNIX-based OSes), so the port really couldn't start until 2.0 (which was heavily rewritten). I was involved in another project when 2.0 came out (I believe STLport, which I think I actually got involved with due to OOo, but X.3 had all the STL features I needed, so I moved on), so I really didn't follow the split that started NeoOffice.
Re: (Score:2)
Good stuff! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
I will download and play around with the native port of OOo on my iMac, but I'll leave the wife using NeoOffice until OOo gets out of Alpha status.
no need to (Score:2)
NeoOffice works like a charm; I use it for all my presentations, spreadsheet, and word processing on Macintosh and Linux. It also reads and writes MS Office files without problems.
Neo Office (Score:5, Insightful)
A port of OpenOffice to Mac OS X that uses Java as a compatibility layer.
It _is_ production ready (I use it every day).
Why the OpenOffice people are hostile to this project is something I've stopped
wondering about... today's announcement of the "first" port of OOO to Mac not
using X11 just shows how badly a project hurts itself when it refuses to work
with others
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
wondering about... today's announcement of the "first" port of OOO to Mac not
using X11 just shows how badly a project hurts itself when it refuses to work
with others "
Licensing. NeoOffice code can not be reused in OpenOffice.org due to their relicensing to GPL from the original LGPL. This is done on purpose from NeoOffice, and the relationship between OpenOffice.org and NeoOffice is that of host and parasite, rather than a symbi
Re:Neo Office (Score:5, Informative)
This is incorrect. The problem isn't GPL vs LGPL, the problem is that Sun requires the copyright for all significant contributions to OpenOffice.org to be assigned to Sun, so they can sell StarOffice as proprietary code. The NeoOffice developers don't want their code sold as proprietary, and don't want to assign their copyrights to Sun.
Re:Neo Office (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems distinctly unfair. Don't the BSD and LGPL people always say that they don't care if people "take their code proprietary" as it were, and that "the code is still there even if someone else improves it and doesn't share back?" Why, just yesterday there were hundreds of comments to that effect on the GPL2 vs GPL3 story!
It's funny though, because it seems that for all their rhetoric about how using BSD and similarly "non-viral" free software licenses is somehow "more free", BSD/LGPL people generally aren't happy at all when people relicense their code. BSD people hate it when their code gets relicensed, ironically especially when that license is the GPL (for some reason, having their code co-opted by Microsoft or Sun bothers them less -- how does that work?) The LGPL is just like BSD, except that it is exclusively GPL-compatible by design. If it bothers you that someone is releasing mods to your LGPL-licensed program under the GPL, why on earth are you even using the LGPL?
Host and parasite -- god, I love it. Talk about double-speak! It reminds me of this great exchange between an interviewer and Theo de Raadt (whom I have the utmost respect for, as it happens, but this attitude is typical of BSD types):
That's from this interview with Theo at NewsForge [newsforge.com] if you want to read the whole thing. But basically, there's this tremendously hypocritical attitude among the most ardent supporters of licenses that are presumably "freer than the GPL". I see nothing wrong with the classic BSD/PD stance: "We don't care what you do with it, no matter what we still have the original copy". I think that's a noble way to look at things. It just seems that in practice, that's almost never how it is. Someone turns around and creates something useful from your code and relicenses it in a way that prevents you from benefiting, and suddenly they're evil, even though that's supposedly a right that you expressly wanted to guarantee to them in the first place!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, when there is a bug in the original code, it is certainly not up to the devs of that code to inform all the deriatives. That would be funny: someone takes your hard work, does nothing in return and people still expect that you take res
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have released under BSD, GPL, and LGPL. When I picked BSD, I did so for practical reasons, like to encourage companies to use the code with less fear. Nevertheless, I strongly prefer for those companies to contribute back. Legally, I have no way to force them, but I'll certainly tell people in no unce
Re: (Score:2)
neo office is not quite release quality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NeoOffice is is of EXCELLENT release quality.
Re: (Score:2)
They're "hostile" because NeoOffice uses an incompatible licence (GPL only, not LGPL) meaning none of the Neo work can be incorporated back into OpenOffice. So if you want to blame someone, blame the NeoOffice folks. They've shut themselves out, not the other wa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Much faster, although since NeoOffice is code on top of OpenOffice, it's never going to be faster than OpenOffice.
And the extensive use of Java as a wrapper around OpenOffice was only the original version 1. The current NeoOffice has much more Cocoa than Java. I suspect that's where most of the speed improvements have come from.
The best thing to hope for is that as OpenOffice itself becomes more OSX-friendly, NeoOffice will be able to leverage their experience in providing OSX-
Released? (Score:5, Informative)
This however is apparently an 'alpha' which is commonly an early development version, not fit for general consumption and the type of thing you might get from CVS or a daily tarball.
Some developers use the term 'alpha release' as they assume others will know it's just a packaged up development snapshot, then some muppet takes it and runs to press with it.
Klingon software releases (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and that muppet put the word "alpha" in the title of the story submission for a reason, or so I assume.
Warning! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Warning! (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot.org for truthiness released! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How does it perform? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to neooffice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry about that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't do that because of poor quality bug reports from Slashdot users. They block requests with slashdot.org as the referer to discourage Slashdot contributers from posting direct links to bugzilla pages, which would crash the server.
Not Alpha (Score:5, Informative)
Alpha/Beta/Release is not a measure of quality or maturity. It just tells who is testing, and their relationship to the software.
Re:Not Alpha (Score:4, Informative)
Alpha = feature incomplete software with bugs, Beta = feature complete software with bugs, Release = feature complete software with ideally very few bugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, everywhere I've ever created or tested software these were the definitions. 'Release' these days typically means, "feature complete software with as many bugs fixed as we plan to fix."
There's no such standard... (Score:2)
Alpha: Ready for testing by folks inside the company, but outside the development team
Beta: Ready for testing by a carefully-selected group of customers outside the company
Gamma: Ready for release to all customers
GM or Golden Master: The version actually released to customers (in most cases, this is the same as the Gamma version)
Still needs X11 (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, so it allegedly doesn't use X11, but you still need to have it installed? I can see how this is a cheap way of getting around crashes because they forgot to remove some X11 dependency, and it's actually acceptable for alpha software, but it's still really, truly far from elegant...
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you're looking at the page for the existing OOo X11 port.
The actual page for the Aqua port [openoffice.org] says nothing about requiring X11.
ahem... (Score:2)
And no, I'm not going to offer to help - I tried that back in 2000, and they couldn't find their collective asses without directions...
Not exactly 'released' (Score:2)
While a native OS X version of OpenOffice.org is a great thing, the title of TFA is a bit misleading. This software hasn't exactly been 'released' in the normal sense of the word. It would have been more accurate to say 'Alpha build of OpenOffice.org for OS X released!' (Yes, technically the exclamation point is not inaccurate, so I left it in.) Being an alpha build it has a number of odd qualities, including but not limited to the following:
I don't see why (Score:2)
Microsoft Office has been crashing and losing data for years but some people still use it in a production environment.
run your own comparison test (Score:2)
In particular, do they each:
1) use the standard OS X print and file navigation dialogs?
2) copy & paste using standard OS X facilities, playing nice with other apps?
3) use the standard OS X fonts?
4) provide Spotlight interfaces/plugins so that the documents are indexed by Spotlight?
5) provide access via the Services menu to things like the OS X system-wide Dictionary, or the Mail
Why All the Fuss? (Score:2)
I just downloaded and tried on my Mac Pro (Score:2)
The product crashed when I tried to Exit wanting to give me a crash report. They have a -LONG- way to go.
Also, the widgets all feel strangely out of place (Like a Mac OSX theme running on top of Gnome).
The 1980's Called, Wants It's Software Back (Score:3, Insightful)
A word processor?
You are killing me. A fucking word processor. It is like inviting people to use a back-breaking chair.
Now that we have more than one output medium, it is important to separate content from style. We also have a "universal" text format which is UTF-8 but we do not have a universal style format. If you munge in your styles with your text you are just setting up a situation where a publishing professional is going to have to rip that text back out of there and if you stored it with a funky old encoding good luck on your smart quotes and em dashes.
What would be the point of enabling a computer user in 2007 type type text and apply styles and you don't save their work as HTML+CSS? What is the point? It makes no sense to me.
What is required when you write is to store the actual typing. If you save UTF-8 you can type any character from any language and then later another human can use that UTF-8 text file to instantly "re-type" your work into any publishing system, smart quotes and all. No conversion necessary, no errors introduced. Doesn't matter if they are working in InDesign or Dreamweaver or other, there is simply no defensible argument for not having a single UTF-8 master copy of any kind of writing. You can drop it on a browser to read even 25 years from now, it will be compatible long after you are dead. In the entire history of computing there has not been a word processing format that lasted even 10 years. If you open a Word document from Word 97, that is only 10 years ago, it has to be "converted" (destroyed) when you open it. Good luck with that system here in the 21st century.
If Microsoft tries to sell ice in the Arctic, will open source follow with open source ice for the Arctic?
Movable Type is about 10,000 times more exciting than OpenOffice. I mean, c'mon.
TextWrangler for Mac OS X is free and it has UTF-8, RegEx find/replace that works across any number of files or a whole disk, real-time speller, S/FTP, lots of writing tools, a great find differences, beautiful text rendering, and completely scriptable with AppleScript (macros). Those are the tools that people need to do good writing and create documents that can be used in modern ways, not mail merge and bad fonts.
Re:Used it on MacOSX - switching to google docs (Score:5, Funny)
google...you seem to apologizing to you girlfriend.
would you like to
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey! That escort service has the same phone number as the girlfriend!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am one of those who likes to use limited formatting to make what I am writeing easier to read, whether that be in an email or a "document" per se. Google seems to get this. Gmail's formatting in emails is almost identical to google docs.
I'm curious what it is in MSWord that people find so
Re: (Score:2)
The ability to see tracked changes in documents sent to me from other people in the office, customers and partners.
And to be able to see the document almost exactly as they saw it.
Yeah, OO.o does most of this, but not all of the "metadata" makes it through the conversion to ODF.
I prefer to use LaTeX stored in SVN for my own stuff, and also have NeoOffice and MS Office for the aforementioned reasons.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What's the point of this?
The point is to provide a free, standard application for word processing that will work on all platforms.
The Microsoft Office Student/Teacher edition can be purchased readily from Apple's online store for $149 for the full version of Office.
So that is about $50 a year, per person, given the average upgrade cycle. Assume you're running a school or business. Is that a significant amount of money? If you're running a school, how can you assure that all students both at home and in the lab can have access to the same version of a word processor, or at least one that is compatible with the same file format? Is it reasonable to require all p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or:
D) You aren't a student or teacher, and t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Myspace sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)