Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
KDE Businesses GUI OS X Operating Systems Apple

Native KOffice for Mac OS X 335

Posted by michael
from the microsoft-office-not-good-enough-for-you dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Native KOffice for Mac OS X

Comments Filter:
  • OpenOffice.org (Score:5, Informative)

    by Valegor (693552) * on Friday January 02, 2004 @07:00PM (#7863835)
    There already is free full-featured office suite that runs on Mac OS X. Openoffice.org has run on Mac for a couple releases now. Having used both open office and Koffice(koffice on Linux, openoffice on Linux and Windows), I find openoffice to be more versatile. It is all a matter of opinion though
  • But no, a version that requires you to load an X server doesn't count.

    Congratulations to everyone who's worked on this.
  • Re:I'm ignorant... (Score:5, Informative)

    by 2nd Post! (213333) <gundbear@@@pacbell...net> on Friday January 02, 2004 @07:04PM (#7863866) Homepage
    There is a build of OpenOffice under X11 on OS X.

    KOffice doesn't require X11. KWord, for example, runs natively under OS X.
  • OSX Theme (Score:5, Informative)

    by IceFox (18179) on Friday January 02, 2004 @07:07PM (#7863883) Homepage
    And the *really* important feature: The native OSX theme I got working the other day: here [rit.edu]

    So even thought some of the other screenshots are in the ugly Motif theme they will soon be all re-taken using the OSX theme.

    Also notice how in the Dock the KDE applications icons show up (and scale wonderfully!). We have a script that generates OS X .app directories of the KDE applications and also generates those directories with the proper icons. You can see some of them in the background of the screenshot in Finder.

    -Benjamin Meyer

  • by PCM2 (4486) on Friday January 02, 2004 @07:08PM (#7863890) Homepage
    The text of this post is swiped from the "Konqueror on OS X" discussion here. [slashdot.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02, 2004 @07:14PM (#7863932)
    An eMac costs 899 . Office:Mac costs 509 . So, yes.
  • by W32.Klez.A (656478) * on Friday January 02, 2004 @07:16PM (#7863941) Homepage
    Well, the reasons for porting KOffice to Mac OS X natively and the reasons why someone would want to use Konqueror on OS X may be different.

    Konqueror is not just a browser. It is also a file manager (kind of like Windows Explorer on SuperMan steroids). It suppors io-slaves, which gives Konqueror network transparency that I do not think is paralleled by any other file browser right now. Also, some people dislike the OS X Finder and would prefer to use Konqueror instead.

    Konqueror is pretty cool - it has all the latest features such as tabbed browsing, but it also allows to split any view into two (and then again) - you can make it look like Norton Commander if you like.

    Konqueror also supports archiving web pages as .war files (I do not know if this is an exclusive Konqueror feature or not, and I don't care - it is extremely useful).

    So, there are many reasons someone would want to use Konqueror, and not just on OS X or Linux.

    The reason to port to OS X could be so that KOffice were less dependent on X11 hacks and used Qt API more thoroughly, I don't know. The thing is - the more portable the code is, the fewer bugs there are (unless of course they start #ifdef-ing everywhere, then it just turns into a mess of duplicated non-portable code).

    Paul.
  • by big tex (15917) <torsionality&gmail,com> on Friday January 02, 2004 @07:17PM (#7863949)
    Yet another troll.

    Even a 3-year old reposting [linuxplanet.com] from a October 2000 review of Koffice in KDE 2. A for style, F for brains.
  • Re:I'm ignorant... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Boltronics (180064) on Friday January 02, 2004 @07:18PM (#7863956) Homepage
    OpenOffice on OSX has fallen behind. They are only up to 1.0.3, when other supported platforms are up to 1.1

    The installation process on the Mac is much harder than other platforms also. X11 (and a few other dependencies) are included in the download, making it a whopping 173MB! That's roughly 100MB more than Windows and GNU/Linux versions.

    I'm certain if KOffice was ported better than OpenOffice on OSX, it would be a more popular choice for those looking for a free office suite.
  • by gwernol (167574) on Friday January 02, 2004 @07:19PM (#7863960)
    KOffice comprises the customary litany of applications...

    This posting is plagarism of the worst sort. Cut and paste in its entirety from: LinuxPlanet [linuxplanet.com]. Taking someone else's work and presenting it as your own without attribution is simply dishonest. It is not informative or insightful.
  • by Andy_R (114137) on Friday January 02, 2004 @07:33PM (#7864040) Homepage Journal
    Snub the mac??!?!? Office for OSX has a better feature list than the PC version.
  • Re:OpenOffice.org (Score:5, Informative)

    by geoffspear (692508) on Friday January 02, 2004 @07:39PM (#7864083) Homepage
    Projected OS X native availability of OpenOffice.org 2.0 is currently Q1 2006. - from porting.openoffice.org [openoffice.org]. I'm not holding my breath.
  • Re:I'm ignorant... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Alex Reynolds (102024) on Friday January 02, 2004 @07:47PM (#7864140) Homepage
    According to the developer list, most of the bugs have been worked out and OO team are fairly close to finishing an installer for 1.1 for OS X. I wouldn't be surprised at a release next week for the SF expo.

    -Alex
  • Re:I'm ignorant... (Score:3, Informative)

    by j-pimp (177072) <zippy1981@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Friday January 02, 2004 @07:51PM (#7864167) Homepage Journal
    OpenOffice on OSX has fallen behind. They are only up to 1.0.3, when other supported platforms are up to 1.1 It was a loss cutting measure. 2.0 is going to be the first carbon port. For now deal with 1.03 or use whatever you've been using.
    I don't knwo about you, but I for one will welcome our carbon OO overlords at that time.
  • by infolib (618234) on Friday January 02, 2004 @07:52PM (#7864168)
    Michael wrote: There's also a story on the dot.

    He really should have linked to the story on dot.kde.org [kde.org]

    "The dot" is "news for KDE-freaks - stuff that matters" so to speak. Hop on over, it's a nice place :-)
  • by angst_ridden_hipster (23104) on Friday January 02, 2004 @07:54PM (#7864182) Homepage Journal
    I know you're joking, but(*) ...

    In any case, the latest two versions of OS X *do* include an X server (Xfree variant). You can run it in rootless mode, which is quite functional and nice.

    (*) in the event you're not, we'd have to start with ancient history, when Mac OS was sold for clone systems, when the NeXTStep version of Mac OS was called OS 8, and ... er ... well, other things too far lost in the haze of Steve-induced fog to recall.
  • by Raffaello (230287) on Friday January 02, 2004 @08:06PM (#7864276)
    The X Mac OS X is a roman numeral ten. Mac OS X is pronounced "Mac OS Ten." If you have been calling Mac OS X "Mac OS Ex," stop, because that is *not* how it is pronounced.

    Just for complete clarity, the X in X server, and X-free86, etc. is *not* a roman numeral, and *is* pronounced "Ex."
  • $PC $Mac (Score:2, Informative)

    by Down8 (223459) <Down8.yahoo@com> on Friday January 02, 2004 @08:18PM (#7864362) Homepage
    Yes they are.

    Please stop trying to equate laptops and desktops. Even if we do use laptops:
    Dell Inspiron 5100: $1,860 (15" LCD/2.66GHz P4/512MB/DVD-CD-RW)
    Apple PowerBook: $2,198.00 (15" LCD/1GHz G4/512MB/DVD-CD-RW)
    I'll even allow that the G4 may be more powrful than the P4, but not 2.66 times as powerful, so the PC wins power and price (though arguably loses in both cool-factor and the ethereal 'usability').

    Build me a very powerful desktop Mac for less than $1000, inculding a 19" CRT. I did this 2 months ago. PCs are cheaper b/c there is more than 1 vendor - and isn't that why everyone hates MS? They only have one monolith to bitch at? As usual w/the Apple crowd, there's a double standard.

    -bZj

    PS: I hate MS just as much as anyone who uses computers for hours a day, but facts are facts.
  • Re:OpenOffice.org (Score:5, Informative)

    by crisco (4669) on Friday January 02, 2004 @08:47PM (#7864523) Homepage
    OOo does have a relational database with forms and reporting capability, unfotunately it is buried in the Writer and Spreadsheet components and doesn't yet have its own icon in the menu.

    OOo 2.0 will have a full fledged database application to better compete with Access.

  • Re:I'm ignorant... (Score:4, Informative)

    by con (149685) on Friday January 02, 2004 @09:11PM (#7864636)
    Yes, of course you can. What makes you think that OpenOffice.org does not have a macro language with a complex object model available behind it ?
    Not sure, well check out the complete (if somewhat involved) developers guide at OpenOffice.org API [openofffice.org] project.
  • by VValdo (10446) on Friday January 02, 2004 @09:33PM (#7864716)
    Since partially completed ports apparently count, I recommend checking out the developer Aqua release of OpenOffice.org, Neoffice [neoffice.org]. Downloads of a test binary have been here [neooffice.org] for awhile.

    Moreover, just yesterday, lead developer Dan Williams posted this state-of-the-port message [openoffice.org] on what still needs to be done to have a complete port of OO.o in Aqua:

    All in all, these aren't problems that require all that much technical expertise, just a lot of trial and error, and a bunch of debugging. A lot of the issues that we have had for a long time, like the widgets and menus and the event loop, are actually solved; we simply need to convert our old hacks over to the new frameworks or clean up the code as it is. We can of course do this, but as always it requires more manpower.

    So? Volunteers?

    W
  • Re:OpenOffice.org (Score:5, Informative)

    by Natalie's Hot Grits (241348) on Friday January 02, 2004 @09:34PM (#7864722) Homepage
    Yes, but this is BETA. The main goal of this project is to get KOffice working on MacOS X using native file and print dialogues, and desktop themes, and other features that would allow KOffice to integrate well with the Mac OS X Desktop.

    The reason this is possible is because QT/Mac was released under the GPL, and so KOffice can be ported using the native QT Themes provided on the OS X platform. All the work is pretty much done for them via QT. Now they just need to get them to play well together.
  • by VValdo (10446) on Friday January 02, 2004 @10:16PM (#7864909)
    I'm not holding my breath.

    You might not need to. See The State of the Aqua Port 2004 [openoffice.org] message from developer Dan Williams.

    W
  • by be-fan (61476) on Saturday January 03, 2004 @01:07AM (#7865528)
    guess why Sun prefers Gnome over KDE for Solaris?
    -----------
    Actuall, according to Sun's own statements, Sun chose GNOME over KDE for a few reasons, none of them licensing related:

    1) GNOME's architecture is more traditional. It uses CORBA, for example, instead of using its own mechanism (DCOP).

    2) GNOME uses C, while KDE uses C++. It was only recently that KDE compiled with Sun's Forte C++ compiler. If the KDE libraries were compiled with GCC, then you couldn't use Sun's pro-leve development tools to build apps, because those use Forte. Sun developers were also much more comfortable with C rather than KDE's C++.

    3) GNOME didn't have an HIG when Sun came onboard, so Sun had a major hand in building GNOME 2.x's UI. Meanwhile, KDE was pretty well-solidified by the time Sun came along.

    Never have they said that licensing had anything to do with the choice. Indeed, no commercial developer has ever said they chose GTK/GNOME over Qt/KDE because of licensing issues.
  • Re:OpenOffice.org (Score:5, Informative)

    by fault0 (514452) on Saturday January 03, 2004 @01:37AM (#7865652) Homepage Journal
    > Which is odd because I thought the QT for Mac was supposed to use the OS X native widgets.

    It is using Native widgets and such, but:

    - the Qt version in use is BETA
    - they just made the native widget style code work two days ago. Very little work has been put in that direction yet.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03, 2004 @01:54AM (#7865724)
    > The fake widgets are out of place.

    Qt/Mac doesn't use fake widgets, but uses the Appearance manager, just like Cocoa and Carbon. *However*:

    - Qt 3.3, which is currently a pre-release beta, and isn't detecting the new tab widgets and such in Panther, and thus falling back to older versions. Cocoa and Carbon were of course changed between Jaguar->Panther by Apple.
    - The current port isn't meant to be pretty. It's meant to get things *working*.

    One of the "Ben's" spearheading this effort had to say elsewhere:

    "Colin, I'm with ya.

    It's not like we don't know about the HIG, it's just that we only got things to *run* in the last week or two. Tweaking look and feel is still a long way off (Not to mention we're using a Qt beta. Some of it could be just the fault of incomplete Qt code.) If we were writing new code, it would be easy to start out fitting into the HIG, but since we're starting from existing code written for X11, we'll have to work up to it.

    Making it fit in better is certainly on the TODO, but the first goal is to make it functional. So people, chill. ;)"
  • by CountBrass (590228) on Saturday January 03, 2004 @05:50AM (#7866303)

    I tried and it is AWFUL!

    Working on my Master's coursework I wrote some documents using Apple Works. Saved them in MSWord format (only format the Univeristy officially accepts - although I later discovered my tutor is also a Mac-head and would accept PDF), anyway, saved it in MSWord format. Came back to edit it later. All the formatting has been lost !!! OK so put it all back, cross fingers, save in Word format again. Come back later to edit, this time AppleWorks crashes each and every time I try to load a file IT HAD WRITTEN! That was the last straw so I went and bought MSOffice- and discovered the Entourage is actually quite a good email client (although now Mail has folders I've switched back to that).

    Edward

Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves. -- Lazarus Long

Working...