NeoOffice 2.0 Alpha 3 Released 96
ndansmith writes "NeoOffice, the port of OpenOffice.org to Mac OS X, has made their 2.0 Alpha 3 release available for download. From NeoOffice's site: 'This release is based on the OpenOffice.org 2.0.2 code and includes all of the new OpenOffice.org 2.0.2 features,' including the utilization of Open Document formats. Currently only the PowerPC version of the software is available publicly, but users can download the Intel version by purchasing a membership."
really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:really? (Score:2)
Re:really? (Score:2)
Re:really? (Score:2)
Isn't that as it should be? (Score:1)
Some of us like it that way. (Score:2)
I would prefer that people only release '1.0' software that is both stable in terms of bug-free-ness and stable in terms of proposed changes to the API/ABI/file-format/protocol/etc.
When someone releases something as version 1.0, and then completely rewrites it six months later and calls it 1.0.1, that drives me a little nuts
Re:really? (Score:2)
Re:really? (Score:2)
Re:really? (Score:1)
Re:really? (Score:1)
In other words, "release version" is Microsoft talk for alpha, and "service pack 1" means beta!
Re:really? (Score:2)
If you don't care about it, don't read the story... and it certainly doesn't need to be commented on.
News to me (Score:2)
Alpha, but usable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Alpha, but usable (Score:4, Informative)
Speed increase? (Score:3, Insightful)
Intel binaries (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Intel binaries (Score:1)
Re:Intel binaries (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Intel binaries (Score:2)
Re:Intel binaries (Score:2)
I don't mind it so much for an alpha release -- this may simply be a way of ensuring they have enough funding to do the port -- as long as they don't force you to pay+subscribe to get at the final release.
Re:Intel binaries (Score:2, Flamebait)
Don't be an ass. The NeoOffice programmers have put in thousands of hours of work into a complex port of the OOo GUI to make it integrate with the Mac OS X Operating System. The work they've done is incredible, and I don't begrudge them any money they make off it.
If you have an absolute need for the bleeding edge software while they tool
Re:Intel binaries (Score:2)
Free as in speech, not free as in beer. Anyone has the right to charge anything they like for GPL software. What they can't do is prevent other people (including you) from giving it away for free. Since NeoOffice is such a large program, it's reasonable that they try to recoup some of their bandwidth costs (if nothing else) by charging money, and while you could always pool your money with other people and only buy one copy, most peo
Re:Intel binaries (Score:1)
I agree. I know someone who donated to NeoOffice, not really realising that it's the OpenOffice team that develops all the functionality, while the NeoOffice team (and I believe it's just two guys) just integrates it nicely with the Mac OS X GUI.
Of course the NeoOffice team do clearly point this out, but most non-technical users place far to much importance on the GUI. Sure, it's important, but so are all the o
Re:Intel binaries (Score:2, Informative)
If you want to help offset some of Sun's costs or to support the other community developers who
Re:Intel binaries (Score:1)
Re:Intel binaries (Score:1)
Re:Intel binaries (Score:2)
*bleeping* bunch of ungrateful *bleeps*
Re:Intel binaries (Score:1)
Re:Intel binaries (Score:2)
Yes, I recognized it. Which was why I asked what you were babbling about. NOTHING in there says that they can't do what they're doing. Which you just agreed with me on. (???)
But the GPL also says that after one person buys/subscribes/whatever and then obtains the software, they have all of the rights that are guaranteed under the GPL, including freely redistributing it, hence my call for a torrent link.
I didn't call you an ass because you asked for a t
Re:Intel binaries (Score:1)
Re:Intel binaries (Score:2)
Apparently, a lot better than you. Because I didn't suggest that you did. I suggested that you were acting like an ass. I stand by that.
I started by saying "I know this is legal, but doesn't it seem sketchy.."
Exactly. You called into question the integrity of honest people who have spent THOUSANDS OF HOURS working on the OOo project (in tandem with the main developers, mind you), who are working hard to get your ungrateful rear end a copy of the Intel vers
Re:Intel binaries (Score:2)
Amazing. Simply amazing. I've been arguing exactly ONE thing the entire time: your piss-poor attitude toward hardworking folk. Now that you've gotten that through your thick skull, you try to accuse me of being thick?
Amazing.
Though not very surprising, I suppose. A fool thinks himself wise in his own eyes.
Re:Intel binaries (Score:1)
Re:Intel binaries (Score:2)
Re:Intel binaries (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't want to support the project, that's your choice, but recommending ways to circumvent their request for donations (for the alpha alone, no less) makes you look greedy, and is precisely why the main developer may not be able to continue development full-time if he can't afford to. I pay the linux distributions I use and like to show my support, and I fund open source projects I use frequently with donations of anywhere from $25-$50 to help them out, considering all they do for us.
Re:Intel binaries (Score:2)
or you know, they could shift to bittorrent for all downloads, or at least make it a big PITA to download through other methods, or only allow bittorrent from official and let people mirror it if they want.
Not to say that asking for money isn't a valid method, but maybe they s
Re:Intel binaries (Score:2)
Re:Intel binaries (Score:1)
Re:Intel binaries (Score:2)
Re:Intel binaries (Score:1)
Fortunately, the NeoOffice Intel code is already in CVS, the Intel binary is currently available in Early Ac
Not sure why alpha 3 is news exactly, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Take a look at how this is progressing here [neooffice.org]. Pretty amazing, especially when you consider that NeoOffice has two developers. TWO. And they aren't even full-time.
Also, a new graphics, file icons, splash screen, etc. are in the works for 2.0 beta. Check out the forums [neooffice.org].
And FWIW, I've had absolutely no problem with the alpha series so far.
W
All Your Base... (Score:2)
If so, time to switch from OOo. Like most finicky Mac users I'd rather have lickable widgets and a screen-wide menu bar, but lack of features is a dealbreaker.
Just use the X11 Build, avoid NeoOffice (Score:1, Troll)
Same goes for the MacGimp.
Source is Freely Available (Score:2)
I'm posting this to amplify your point with a new Subject header so other folks will see it.
I expect the guy you were replying to didn't read the FAQ. At first the charging reads like a GPL violation, which is probably what got his hackles up. Let's cut him a bit of slack since we do need folks to be ever vigilant about the GPL.
I'
Re:Just use the X11 Build, avoid NeoOffice (Score:4, Insightful)
* The X11 version of OpenOffice requires Apple X11 to be installed before it will launch. The install isn't horrible, but it is still far more difficult than the "drag and drop" installers that Apple users have come to expect.
* The launch time and overall performance of X11 OpenOffice is horrible compared to a native Macintosh app.
* Compared to a native Mac application, the X11 OpenOffice interface looks like crap and the integration with other applications leaves a lot to be desired.
Honestly, X11 OpenOffice isn't up to the standards that most people expect from well polished Apple software. It's not like F/OSS isn't up to the challenge, either... Just look at Firefox for the Mac.
Re:Just use the X11 Build, avoid NeoOffice (Score:2)
As to startup time, that is only if you are starting X11 from scratch. If it is already running, which mine always is, then the startup time is pretty good.
But I will agree on integration. Lack of 'email to', a Mac-style menu, and the Win9X theme all make it really hurt to use
Re:Just use the X11 Build, avoid NeoOffice (Score:2)
Or better yet, Firefox's cousin, Camino [caminobrowser.org]. It's even more polished and integrated into the Mac UI than Firefox (one hazard of cross-platform applications is that they rarely feel 100% native on every platform), though that comes at the expense of not being able to run extensions.
Re:Just use the X11 Build, avoid NeoOffice (Score:1)
Who knows why the OS community is having a harder time becoming mainstream? Is it because the technical skills of the developers isn't there?
A big resounding NO. It's because of greedy little tightwad people like the parent here.
Re:Just use the X11 Build, avoid NeoOffice (Score:3, Informative)
NeoOffice is free, but for these early alpha builds of version 2.0 they're asking users to pay because they're short of funds. Either that or there may be no NeoOffice at all, so I think this is a reasonable request. If you don't want to pay, just wait until it's released. As for the X11 build of OpenOffice.org ... ick! Printing and fonts are a nightmare, not to mention the interface. And let's not even go into the steps a normal user would have to take to get it to work in the first place (install Apple X1
Re: Hostage? (Score:2)
How is it being held hostage?
The EARLY ACCESS is for a fee.
After that early access period, the alpha is a FREE download.
Re: Hostage? (Score:1)
Sources are available for free, both the alpha tarball and the latest developments on CVS.
Re:Just use the X11 Build, avoid NeoOffice (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just use the X11 Build, avoid NeoOffice (Score:1)
Obligatory (Score:1)
hope this is great (Score:4, Interesting)
I broke down and bought MS Office (for the third time, once for every major architecture/OS combo of the Mac) a little over a year ago because nothing else on the Mac was quite "prime time" enough for my wife to use, and using Office98 in Classic was flaky. I was willing to go along with a few nonstandard UI decisions, or jump an extra hurdle of file incompatibility, or deal with X11, but inflicting any of those on her practically amounts to spousal abuse. After all, I'd just gotten her to "switch" from her slow/glitchy old PC, and just having things be in different locations was hard enough on her.
Now, I've heard good things about MS Office running with Rosetta, so maybe it won't be an issue at all whenever I upgrade to a x86 Mac (the 4th combo). But I really hope that NeoOffice 2 is sufficiently "prime time" by then so that I don't have to be reliant on proprietary packages. I'd prefer to use open standards.
In some ways I wonder if NeoOffice is really the best route to take with regards to porting OOo. It seems like an awful lot of work. I'm no expert in these matters, but wouldn't it make sense for OOo to use the wxWidgets framework? Compile against the platform-appropriate wx implementation (wxGTK, wxCocoa, etc.), and boom, you're done. Obviously, switching frameworks at all would be a big effort, but once it was done it would be easy for everyone going forward, and the Mac version wouldn't always be lagging behind.
Re:hope this is great (Score:2, Interesting)
WxWidgets isn't exactly new. But I suppose it wasn't as mature when OOo started.
But if it's "easy enough" that two guys can "yank out" the standard GUI stuff, and hook in Mac-native GUI stuff, then it seems to be that OOo as a whole is pretty well abstracted/designed. The question is whether the developers see enough "long run" benefit to redoing that part in
bumber (Score:1)
Free as in Fiction (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free as in Fiction (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free as in Read the "Early Access" FAQ (Score:1)
Re:Free as in Fiction (Score:1)
You can bittorent the source all you want - it *is* after all, open source...
Check out the forums, the wiki, and everything else on the neooffice page. If you don't want to pay for the early access build, BUILD IT YOURSELF! And you don't have to pay a cent.
The SOURCE is there for you.
BTW - don't build it yourself and then bittorent that either - that would also violate the trademark. F
Re:Free as in Fiction (Score:1)
Re:Free as in Fiction (Score:2, Insightful)
If the developers are strapped for cash and need "donations" they should just ask for them instead of charging for their "free software". People are upset not because they are ungrateful and selfish, but because the developers, as contributors to FOSS and GPL code, have a moral obligation to uphold the principles of the community and are failing to do so. The developers are violating, if not the letter of the GPL, at least the spirit of the GPL, and so deserve any ill-will directed toward the
Re:Free as in Fiction (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, you can compile your own binary from the (always was, still is, always will be) freely available NeoOffice source code - the intel code is there right now, go for it. You don't want to do that? What are your options?
Well, if you can bear to wait a couple more weeks you can download a
Re:Free as in Fiction (Score:1)
Re:Free as in Fiction (Score:1)
Sorry, sir, but I must say "You are an idiot" (Score:2)
Old news? (Score:1)
Why is this story being posted today?
Ed
Re:Old news? (Score:1)
NeoOffice (Score:1)