Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AbiCollab Takes On Google Docs and Zoho Writer

kdawson posted about 5 years ago | from the my-word dept.

GNU is Not Unix 82

msevior writes "Just released today, the free software AbiWord word processor, employed by the One Laptop Per Child project, tightly integrates with a new collaboration Web site to enable easy real-time collaborative editing of documents. AbiCollab.net also enables documents to be stored online, allows format conversion on the fly, stores the history of the docs in svn, provides direct links to HTML-ized docs that update as you save them, and allows easy sharing of docs amongst friends and groups. All in all, new competition for Google Docs and Zoho Writer, but featuring a real word processor rather than an app in a browser."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29895363)

Seriously.

Re:Who cares? (2, Interesting)

MrNaz (730548) | about 5 years ago | (#29896039)

Google, presumably, coz now the only feature their stripped down excuse for a word processor had over anything else has been added to a real wordprocessor.

Also, every company dumb enough to think storing internal docs on an out-of-house remote server is a good idea.

What is needed is a plugin for Abiword that can be used to save to *any* svn server, not just the hosted service. That way a company can ensure that their internal documents remain internal. It also means that you can *choose* to be at the whim of a service provider, or *choose* to go it alone.

Such a feature in a word processor would be a *huge* selling point to companies and savvy individuals alike, a selling point that can be used as a real benefit to offset to the very real costs of migrating away from MS Office.

Re:Who cares? (1)

uwog (707498) | about 5 years ago | (#29896967)

What would be even better, is that we offer a self-hosted version. In an ideal world, I'd open source all of abicollab.net right now, but we need to have an business plan discussion first before we decide to do that :)

Re:Who cares? (1)

mlinksva (1755) | about 5 years ago | (#29898449)

My business plan is to not think about abicollab again until I hear that the server component is FLOSS. :-)

Re:Who cares? (1)

jockm (233372) | about 5 years ago | (#29898003)

I think you are confusing "savvy" with "rather technical," because I can think of better things to use for a document repository than SVN. Especially if I want other people I collaborate with to want to use it as well.

Re:Who cares? (1)

uwog (707498) | about 5 years ago | (#29898131)

All the technicalities are ofcourse hidden for the normal user. You just click "open" on the webpage, edit the document, and press save.

Slashvertisement! (2, Insightful)

shashark (836922) | about 5 years ago | (#29895377)

"...but featuring a real word processor rather than an app in a browser"
Seriously, what on earth is that supposed to mean ?

Re:Slashvertisement! (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 5 years ago | (#29895409)

It means that whoever wrote it either doesn't know what a word processor is, or is talking out of the wrong orifice.

Re:Slashvertisement! (0)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about 5 years ago | (#29895767)

Well, given that he is talking about Abiword, who knows what he's talking about? I could be out of date, but I used to check up from time to time on Abi's development, and I'm sorry to say that last time I looked it was (still) a godawful piece of shit. Certainly nowhere near what I would call a "real" word processor, whatever that might mean.

Re:Slashvertisement! (4, Insightful)

1155 (538047) | about 5 years ago | (#29895457)

It means the person who wrote this is sick of web "applications", and prefers desktop applications. Like most sane people.

Re:Slashvertisement! (4, Interesting)

shashark (836922) | about 5 years ago | (#29895523)

I'll tell you what my problems are with that statement:
1: If the suggested app is a desktop app, why compare it with Google docs or Zoho docs ?
2: The whole premise of 'taking on google docs' without having browser as a delivery mode doesn't make sense. Google docs is popular [if at all] NOT because it has more features - it is popular because it can work from within a browser. Get what I mean ? No downloads, no clients, no 'need to take my machine or harddrive with me' - get it ?
3: I'm assuming the features touted here are present in Microsoft Word through Sharepoint and/or Groove [never used both though]. So what's so innovative about this app ?

Seriously, anyone ?

Re:Slashvertisement! (4, Informative)

msevior (145103) | about 5 years ago | (#29895651)

In answer to your questions:
1. Because it allows collaborative editing for documents hosted on a website. Press "save" in abiword of a document loaded from the site and it is saved back to the site. Just like google docs and zoho.

2. Because some people do need to work together to create documents. Ever had a document emailed to you that requested changes? Now you just connect straight on the service.

3. Your assumption is incorrect. Sharepoint does not allow the deep, instant collaboration between arbitrarily sized collection of people provided by abiword+abiword. Certainly not at the price offered by abicollab.net ether ($0.00).

One of the most touted features of OLPC is the "Write" word processor which allows children to work on documents together. Now everyone with a Windows or Linux computer can do that in a fully fledged word processor.

Re:Slashvertisement! (0)

jonbryce (703250) | about 5 years ago | (#29896829)

So it is like Office Live Toolbar?

Re:Slashvertisement! (2, Informative)

uwog (707498) | about 5 years ago | (#29897087)

No, MS Word does now allow collaborative editing of Word documents (they do for spreadsheets and presentations).

Re:Slashvertisement! (1)

ljw1004 (764174) | about 5 years ago | (#29899111)

Microsoft Word+Sharepoint allows collaborative editing of documents, with an arbitrary number of people, although not simultaneous editing.

Microsoft One-Note allows collaborative simultaneous editing of documents.

Re:Slashvertisement! (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | about 5 years ago | (#29911813)

"

Microsoft Word+Sharepoint allows collaborative editing of documents, with an arbitrary number of people, although not simultaneous editing.

Microsoft One-Note allows collaborative simultaneous editing of documents.
"

Not for free. Now does it?

Re:Slashvertisement! (2, Interesting)

Daengbo (523424) | about 5 years ago | (#29895679)

It's really more about the real-time collab aspect than the web app part. Abiword has had collab for a while, but it was kind of difficult to set up. Hopefully, AbiCollab makes this process simpler. Eventually, I'd like to see the collab move toward Telepathy so that I can just use my contact list and connect that way. The revisions and everything sound awesome, though.

Re:Slashvertisement! (2, Interesting)

msevior (145103) | about 5 years ago | (#29895821)

Eventually, I'd like to see the collab move toward Telepathy so that I can just use my contact list and connect that way.

Yes. We're quite a way along the path to getting a fully fledged telepathy backend working. Like all these things in Free Software, we could do with more resources. We finally got the web interface all sorted out though, so now it's released.

You are right in that the website has lots of additional and useful features. Like having the full history of the document and extremely easy web publication of the document in pdf, html, odt rtf, docx etc.

I want to love Abiword (1)

Daengbo (523424) | about 5 years ago | (#29896117)

I want to love Abi, and I have worked with it for short periods several times over the last ten years, but I never stay. Sorry about that. I just always end up needing something that Abi doesn't have.

I appreciate all the work you and the rest of the team has done, and I feel truly sad that OO.o took all the headlines from Abiword (and Gnumeric, and KOffice). I think we (the FOSS community) would be further along right now if OO.o hadn't been released.

I know that you're understaffed and don't get the media coverage you deserve. I'd love to help, but I haven't coded anything since the mid 80s.

Re:I want to love Abiword (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29911773)

Most useless comment of the week.

Re:Slashvertisement! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29895837)

2: The whole premise of 'taking on google docs' without having browser as a delivery mode doesn't make sense. Google docs is popular [if at all] NOT because it has more features - it is popular because it can work from within a browser. Get what I mean ? No downloads [...]

Except for a big, messy and stinking fuzzball of hastily hacked Javascript, that is.

get it ?

I *always* browse with Javascript turned off -- this luckily lowers the probability of me "getting it". Don't quite know what that means, but it sounds painful.

Re:Slashvertisement! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29896317)

"No downloads, no clients"

What do you think an app in a browser is? It's downloaded code running inside a client.

Re:Slashvertisement! (1)

int69h (60728) | about 5 years ago | (#29895461)

I thought the poster was pretty clear. Not everyone is anxious to return to the dumb terminal days, and apparently the poster is one of those people.

More Like Pride of Authorship (3, Informative)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | about 5 years ago | (#29895513)

The submitter, msevior, is one of the Abiword devs, long-term.

I used Abiword several years back. I think I used every linux word processor ever made for a while several years back. Finally settled with Open's. Think it was because of compatibility issues with the rest of the world (the Real one, the one I live in) who used MS, I honestly can't recall. Has Abiword gotten better in that regard? I do know that I'm a bit too far down the road with Open, which has garnered a satisfying momentum and robustness in its own right, to switch now. Unless Abiword is a helluva lot less expensive than Open. Oh yeah, they're both free. Never mind.

Re:More Like Pride of Authorship (1)

Rhaban (987410) | about 5 years ago | (#29895841)

Unless Abiword is a helluva lot less expensive than Open. Oh yeah, they're both free. Never mind.

That's infinitely less expensive!

Re:More Like Pride of Authorship (1)

omuls are tasty (1321759) | about 5 years ago | (#29900975)

Hm, you'd better have that checked at l'Hospital.

Re:More Like Pride of Authorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29903341)

No, it's undefinedly less/more expensive. Not really sure...

Re:More Like Pride of Authorship (2, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | about 5 years ago | (#29897805)

OpenOffice does seem to have better compatibility -- though, oddly, AbiWord seems to create much cleaner, more human-readable ODT files than OpenOffice.

The main advantage is that AbiWord was much lighter, partly because it's just a word processor. I used to use AbiWord for word processing, Gnumeric for spreadsheets, etc. Which doesn't matter to me anymore, now that OpenOffice starts in about two seconds for me, cold or hot.

The main other advantage of OpenOffice was stability -- AbiWord used to crash a lot, but that seems to have gotten better.

Re:Slashvertisement! (2, Informative)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | about 5 years ago | (#29896265)

"...but featuring a real word processor rather than an app in a browser" Seriously, what on earth is that supposed to mean ?

This isn't a slashvertisement; by "app in a browser," they mean the dazzling display of massive AJAX that is characteristic of Google Apps. AbiCollab is not this; if you looked into it more, you'd see you actually need a plug-in to make this work.

Thus, AbiCollab really isn't an "app in the browser" in the traditional sense of a Web application--it's a desktop application hosted by a Web browser via a plug-in. That is what they meant. Of course, whether this is a good or bad thing is another story, since unlike Google Apps, you can use this only on platforms that are supported by some desktop application (and that have the AbiCollab plug-in).

Re:Slashvertisement! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29896393)

it's a desktop application hosted by a Web browser via a plug-in.

You are mistaken. The AbiCollab plugin is for Abiword not a browser.

Re:Slashvertisement! (1)

megabyte405 (608258) | about 5 years ago | (#29899243)

As anonymous posted before, the "plugin" is not a web browser plugin. AbiWord is a regular application. AbiCollab is a recent feature (debuted in 2.6, much improved in 2.8) allowing real-time collaboration between as many people as you want, over a variety of protocols. AbiCollab.net is a new web service that offers remote document storage, history, conversion, etc, that can also produce ".abicollab" files that, when saved and opened by your local copy of AbiWord (which is what happens when you click the edit link on the web), cause AbiWord to join a centrally-hosted collaboration session on that remote document. No browser magic is required: some server magic and abiword local magic takes place, but it's all very streamlined.

Re:Slashvertisement! (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 5 years ago | (#29896285)

I wouldn't say it is a slashvertisement, it isn't even commercial. It presents a new product that does something in a slightly different way than existing ones. I would welcome more presentations of young, "innovative" startup software ideas instead of circling around Google, Microsoft and Apple.

Re:Slashvertisement! (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | about 5 years ago | (#29899467)

Read it as, "It's Office Live, but not Microsoft!"

Though, I'd like to see a good argument that Google Docs isn't a "real" word processor. Did I just imagine it?

Re:Slashvertisement! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29900123)

"...but featuring a real word processor rather than an app in a browser"

Seriously, what on earth is that supposed to mean ?

It is the most meaningless app on the web. You must have AbiWord installed on your computer, you then create a document on your computer and post it on AbiCollab and make it available to friends who can edit it - if they also have AbiWord installed. Its only an order of magnitude slower than creating a document and emailing it as an attachment.

Returning the post (0, Offtopic)

shashark (836922) | about 5 years ago | (#29895429)

For some time now I have lamented the fact that major issues are overlooked while many
unnecessary posts come to me for consideration. Slashvertisements, Bugs, bad posts, good
car analogies are major issues my Administration has brought to the table, but the mods just
kicks the can down the alley.

Yet another techie year has come and gone without the major reforms slashdot readers
overwhlmingly deserve. In light of this and after careful consideration I believe it is
unnecessary to sign this measure at this time


Sincerely,

Arnold Moderator

Does anyone actually *want* collaborative software (4, Insightful)

RMH101 (636144) | about 5 years ago | (#29895531)

Seriously, "collaborative whiteboards" and multi-user editing environments have been around since early Netscape Communicator days - but does anyone actually use or want them? Sure, a system for checking out documents so several people can make changes, but simultaneous editing of documents - what's the use case for them? Who's asking for this? Who's even using it?

Re:Does anyone actually *want* collaborative softw (0, Redundant)

7-Vodka (195504) | about 5 years ago | (#29895621)

Nobody.

Re:Does anyone actually *want* collaborative softw (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29895657)

Usually the collaborative white coards have the the rich features you can find on abiword. Try "real" documents 100+ pages on another collaborative tools.

Sometimes you edit a wikipedia article and lost the changes because other people was working on the same article. This shows that is better to have real time collaboration.

Re:Does anyone actually *want* collaborative softw (1)

blakelarson (1486631) | about 5 years ago | (#29895707)

Works great during a teleconference when you're actually trying to get something done together (and not just useless reports).

Re:Does anyone actually *want* collaborative softw (1)

RMH101 (636144) | about 5 years ago | (#29896295)

As opposed to something more useful, like WebEx or Live Meeting?

Re:Does anyone actually *want* collaborative softw (1)

megabyte405 (608258) | about 5 years ago | (#29899267)

Can you simultaneously edit real documents (any document abiword can open, so that's a huge amount and variety), fully featured (every feature AbiWord supports) at the same time - with parties not necessarily looking at the same part of the document (aka, not simple screen-sharing), and so on with those apps? You can with AbiWord. Use it with your voice or voice/video teleconference, sure, but putting a real word-processor in everyone's hands is powerful.

articles/reports/project proposals (5, Informative)

excelsior_gr (969383) | about 5 years ago | (#29895751)

Have you ever tried to write a document like an article with many co-authors, an interdisciplinary project report or proposal? Being able to simultaneously change the document saves a LOT of time. Over here, we go with LaTeX and SVN.

Re:Does anyone actually *want* collaborative softw (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29895929)

If you have ever worked on a large project with multiple inputs, you'd know about the current problems and how much of a godsend collab environments are.

Prototyping with such interfaces is incredibly useful. (if the interface itself is good)
Designers, article writers, magazines, project management, programming, etc.

Also, please remember that collaborative editing doesn't mean people making penis drawings over your most recent edit...

Re:Does anyone actually *want* collaborative softw (4, Insightful)

Metsys (718186) | about 5 years ago | (#29895965)

We are.

We've been having to use Gobby for collaborative writing because it's the only secure way for us to do writing sessions online. Sure, having some text formatting in a program like that would be nice, but we've been copying the Gobby sessions over to our Wiki and the formatting is done there anyway, so there isn't much of a need for that but it still would be nice for future projects.

Even down the road when we can afford to relocate and work in the same building instead of having all our studio members living in different states, we are still going to do our writing sessions with some kind of real-time collaborative writing software. You have no idea how much easier it is to make changes yourself instead of pointing at someone's screen telling them what to type, or how much faster you can both write when you can both be working on different parts of the script at the same time, or having someone edit your mistakes immediately. When you are actually discussing the story constantly with a co-writer, you really want software like this.

As for whiteboards, we'd really like to have the same real-time collaborative editing that we enjoy with Gobby for our design and art production as well. We've tried things like OpenCanvas or those online paint chat applications, and nothing really cuts it. So for that we are settling with VNC and uploading the files to each other when we need to do some serious red-lining.

Re:Does anyone actually *want* collaborative softw (1)

ferd_farkle (208662) | about 5 years ago | (#29896121)

Actually, collaborative, multi-user editing environments have been around a bit longer than "Netscape Communicator days". It was the purpose of that Berners-Lee fellpw's application, 'The World Wide Web'.

Re:Does anyone actually *want* collaborative softw (1)

RMH101 (636144) | about 5 years ago | (#29896353)

Well, yes. I first came across them in the early 90s whilst a student presented with unfettered access to the WWW whilst at the University of Leeds - where I attended a talk about what the web was going to do for us all, hosted by Tim Berners-Lee. A very nice guy from what I remember. I picked Communicator as an example of when it was hitting what passed for the mainstream...

Re:Does anyone actually *want* collaborative softw (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 5 years ago | (#29896639)

Right, emailing documents and files across is enough for everyone. Oh, nevermind that is limited to 10/20 MB. Oh, you end up a mess of versions. Not everyone can setup and use a VCS, particularly not end-users.

Re:Does anyone actually *want* collaborative softw (1)

buttle2000 (1041826) | about 5 years ago | (#29896935)

Schools. Collaborative software makes live fun from students and prepares them for the networked world.

Re:Does anyone actually *want* collaborative softw (1)

akorvemaker (617072) | about 5 years ago | (#29897581)

When we were trying to plan our wedding from two different countries, collaborative documents were extremely useful. We could both add things, review what the other was doing, and keep everything in a single place. It kept everything simple and easy.

While not everyone needs collaborative editing, it is extremely useful in some situations.

Re:Does anyone actually *want* collaborative softw (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 5 years ago | (#29899203)

I do it on google docs all time time. Phone + real time changes:

-- OK I basically agree with your tables except I'd change A to B

or with code review:

-- I highlighted the lines I had questions about, and then comments get added live

It's a locked in EXTERNAL web site, no thanks. (4, Insightful)

frith01 (1118539) | about 5 years ago | (#29895561)

This app only works as long as the abicollab.net website is functional, and they will get to see a copy of anything you do. This would only be a useful alternative
if there was a separate deployable web-service that could be INTERNALLY hosted.

The main reason for us not using google apps is that the documents would be vulnerable to privacy issues. This solution does not fix that problem.
If you have access to external web site, you might as well use a web based app.

Re:It's a locked in EXTERNAL web site, no thanks. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29895619)

You collaborate across jabber with no use of abicollab.net. It's integrated with telepathy on gnome too...

Re:It's a locked in EXTERNAL web site, no thanks. (3, Informative)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 5 years ago | (#29896559)

This article talks a little -- but not too much -- about how it works:
http://www.abisource.com/wiki/AbiCollab [abisource.com]
It seems to use "gocollab", or that was a previous name?

In 2005: http://gnomejournal.org/article/31/gocollab----peer-to-peer-document-collaboration [gnomejournal.org]

The next major version of GNOME Office will introduce a new way of handling the problem, called GOCollab. GOCollab will basically marry the already built-in revision systems of Abiword and Gnumeric with a P2P network comparable to file sharing applications like Gnutella or eMule. This means that neither Bob nor Jane nor anybody else needs a central server to be set up and run, and most of their changes to a document will be merged together automatically.

I am sure you can replace AbiCollab.net with your own server. Would be nice though if the websites code was Open Source.

Here are some screenshots of the website in action: http://abisource.com/release-notes/2.8.0.phtml [abisource.com]

Re:It's a locked in EXTERNAL web site, no thanks. (3, Informative)

megabyte405 (608258) | about 5 years ago | (#29899327)

AbiCollab (the feature of AbiWord) has a number of backends for you to use in collaboration. One is Jabber-based, one is TCP, and one is the "AbiCollab.net Service" - so you can run it either centrally hosted or peer-to-peer.

Re:It's a locked in EXTERNAL web site, no thanks. (4, Informative)

msevior (145103) | about 5 years ago | (#29896181)

We hear you. This can easily be arranged. The service can be deployed on a smallish server that could easily handle several hundred simultaneous collaborative documents (enough for a high school for example) or scale up to handle what we expect from the whole web. Most of the processing grunt needed is actually in the clients. This a huge advantage compared to Google apps which rely on the server for their CPU cycles.

Re:It's a locked in EXTERNAL web site, no thanks. (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 5 years ago | (#29896591)

So, how? Is the server software (going to be) available?

Re:It's a locked in EXTERNAL web site, no thanks. (3, Insightful)

uwog (707498) | about 5 years ago | (#29897013)

Yes. for sure in a commercial form. If I were the only one to decide, I'd open source all of it right now, but we'll see how that turns out.

Re:It's a locked in EXTERNAL web site, no thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29931251)

Abiword can use direct TCP peer to peer collaboration without use the web service.

Is it me alone... (0)

bogaboga (793279) | about 5 years ago | (#29895579)

...who finds that Google Docs sucks big-time? Compared to Zoho's, Google Docs does not come close save for is new equation editor. Who disagrees?

Re:Is it me alone... (1)

invalid_user (253723) | about 5 years ago | (#29895971)

What? There is a new equation editor in Google Docs? Cool. Gotta check it out!

(Apologies for ignoring your plug for Zoho. Maybe you shouldn't have mentioned the shiny equation editor.)

Re:Is it me alone... (2, Interesting)

AP31R0N (723649) | about 5 years ago | (#29896137)

i've found GDocs useful for sharing, but not a viable competitor to MSO or ever OO.o (in terms of features). Based on your post, i've created a Zoho account and will give it a try. i use GDocs mostly for its integration into all my other Google stuff. It's convenient to be in my GMail account and then hit Documents, and there i am. Getting my friends to go to yet another site to share stuff might annoy me and my friends, as made up as they are.

What i'd really love is for docs and email to be seamless *cough* GWave *cough*. But i don't have an invite yet.

Re:Is it me alone... (1)

toastar (573882) | about 5 years ago | (#29897455)

OMG I GOT MY WAVE ACCOUNT YESTERDAY!!!!! and yes with a little spit shine and polish wave will eventually be what groove should of been. these guys are just catching up with Google Docs? welcome to 2007?

Re:Is it me alone... (1)

Daengbo (523424) | about 5 years ago | (#29896263)

I tried to move from G.A. to Zoho, but Zoho ate my work three times in two days.I showed up at my presentations only to find the files were corrupted on Zoho's servers. That takes away the only reason to use a web-based office app.

Re:Is it me alone... (1)

drizek (1481461) | about 5 years ago | (#29899639)

The whole point of using a web based document editor is convenience. Google Docs is the most convenient, and for when I want features, I use Pages on my mac or Word 2007 on my desktop or openoffice.org if I'm in the mood. The point is, Zoho won't ever get anywhere near the features of full on desktop apps, and won't be as convenient as Google.

Re:Is it me alone... (1)

zuperduperman (1206922) | about 5 years ago | (#29903637)

I hear you.

I'm currently working with a company that uses Google Docs for everything, and I've come to the conclusion that Google Docs itself is one of the major reasons that they've completely failed to ship a product despite 4 years of continuous effort (I know this sounds a bizarre thing to say, but it's true). Google docs is wonderful and seductive for collaboration, but it is worse than useless for writing any kind of serious documentation. It lacks so many serious features it destroys the integrity of every document put into it and turns them into one-off memos with a hundred "spam" comments from stakeholders riddled through them and / or surreptitiously changed. Nobody draws diagrams because docs won't support them, no tables of contents, bibiliographies, footnotes, proper cross references, heading numbers, no proper "track changes" ... There are features to mitigate some of these things, but in the end, it's not enough - Google Docs is a disaster for serious documents that need to be part of controlled processes.

creators take on unprecedented evile et al (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29895611)

due to the extensive use of newclear power as part of the creators' planet/population rescue initiative/mandate, it's no contest.

the lights are coming up all over now.

Waste of time (1)

anand78 (832850) | about 5 years ago | (#29895869)

WTF, I tried creating a document"BAM" I get blank. I tried again BAM blank. Frantically hit backspace to go to slashdot. Woohoo Both the documents there. I tried to view the document. WTF is a collabnet document. Nice try but a lame attempt.

Re:Waste of time (1)

uwog (707498) | about 5 years ago | (#29897229)

Creating a new document creates... well.. an empty blank document! You can edit it with abiword, and then after a save it is non-blank :)

didn't we already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29895981)

Abi Collab? Didn't we already get him back in 2005 or so?

Flash buttons for login and register? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29897321)

Can't they use CSS instead of closed source technology to make 2 buttons? sad

Re:Flash buttons for login and register? (2, Informative)

uwog (707498) | about 5 years ago | (#29897379)

Haha, blame the design people. Apparently they really care about how a tittle piece of text looks :) I'll kill the flash off as soon as possible, but we were on a deadline.

Re:Flash buttons for login and register? (1)

megabyte405 (608258) | about 5 years ago | (#29899441)

Actually, if you look at the source of the page, you can see that the designers apparently used a flash text image replacement technique for all the "spiffy" ui elements. This is a common technique among some of the most standards-aware web designers today, certainly not an anomaly. The code itself is clean, and if you look at the page without flash, you don't get flash buttons. Just checked it, and the page still looks and works fine with no-script blocking javascript and flash.

I would personally be more interested in this (1)

jockm (233372) | about 5 years ago | (#29897679)

If there were a remotely current version of AbiWord for OS X. Sadly that part of their development dropped by the wayside quite some time ago.

AbiWord is currently at 2.8 for Windows and Linux, but 2.4.x for OS X. That is two major versions behind, and call be crazy but I kinda want some of the things that have been added.

I used to use AbiWord a lot. It was small and fast and mimiced the way Office did it's tool pallets on the Mac. So AbiWord would be where documents tented to start with me, when formatting needed to be more elaborate, then I would move to Office.

Now I just use Office all the time. OpenOffice is finally an acceptable OS X citizen, but it isn't great. For me at least, the price of it is the only compelling reason to like OpenOffice, but that is about all. In terms of features and feel, I am sorry but all I can say is not yet...

Re:I would personally be more interested in this (1)

SpacePirate20X6 (935718) | about 5 years ago | (#29899311)

I came here to say exactly this. AbiWord is so far behind on the Mac, it makes me a bit ashamed to think I used to recommend it for opening those old PC WordPerfect documents.

Graphical glitches, obvious bugs, and general failure all around.

Re:I would personally be more interested in this (1)

megabyte405 (608258) | about 5 years ago | (#29899693)

We've only got one mac dev, and his ability and desire to work on the port varies. On the plus side, he recently gave it a lot of love, and the source is getting there but not quite ready for you slashdotters to go bang on it :-P If you've got any os x dev skills, drop by the mailing list and lend a hand.

Re:I would personally be more interested in this (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | about 5 years ago | (#29900203)

Good to hear it is still being worked on. I too loved it and was a nearly full time user in the past. A worthy upgrade would be great.

So, can I get the server side software? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29898519)

Hello,

Why there is no server-side "component" download somewhere?

Maybe my understanding is wrong, but in current setup of this, one trusts that their server will be there all the time, internet connection will always work but most importantly, the data and revisions are stored outside of user's control, i.e the remote server is not there = tough luck (did I miss something here?).

Having option to host this kind of set-up fully in-house would be good (maybe with replication to their site if wanted).

Also, please do not take it as an attack on developers or service - I know how hard developing decent stuff is from personal experience.

(My apologies if all of the above was already discussed somewhere on /. already, and I wasted your time)

Vladimir

Re:So, can I get the server side software? (2, Informative)

uwog (707498) | about 5 years ago | (#29898887)

We are working on making a downloadable "server component" available. Until we do, you'll indeed have to trust us to keep our servers online.

does this mean... (1)

Nekomusume (956306) | about 5 years ago | (#29899567)

Does this mean that Abiword may finally fix the bugs that make it a bloody pain to use? I swear, every time I've tried it, it was like pulling teeth.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?