Oh my. People are actually selling Alpha software now?
I understand that NeoOffice needs a helping hand, but how on Earth can selling 'early access' to ALPHA software be a viable business solution?
That makes zero sense. Early access to Alpha software is not a benefit.
The computing world has gone from fully developed software for sale, to less developed software (with later bug fixes) for a lesser price (Aperture), to free access to early 'beta' versions (lightroom), to now actually paying for alpha software.
This is progress?
Can we assume then, Frank777, that you regularly donate to open source software and donationware developers, for programs you use? If so, you are in a very insignificant minority In NeoOffice's case, there are 1.8m downloads a year. If a small fraction of those donated... Or, if Sun or Apple provided support at all... Nice sentiments, but I'm afraid your idealism is not matched by the generosity of the huge majority of users of freeware. I paid for Neo2, I'm using it and frankly it's more stable than many releases of MS Word or Appple OS's I've had in the past. Your choice, my choice
Or I can use Carbon or Cocoa and get most of that for free. Automagically. I get proxy icons (hi X11!). I get drag and drop (hi X11!). I get a unified copy and paste behaviour (hi X11!). I get a unified look of toolbars, of widgets, of a zillion things. Automagically.
This is the crux of your misunderstanding. Free Software doesn't exist to provide Cocoa apps to OS X. RMS would throw a hissy fit to hear you suggest that Free software should wise up and develop for proprietary APIs and proprietary widowing systems. F/OSS apps exists, first and always, for F/OSS platforms. That means Linux/BSDs, and that means X11. None of the major F/OSS efforts are Mac-centric. The fact that they port easily to OS X is a bonus. But it's not only unrealistic but absolutely nonsensical to think that they should ditch F/OSS principles at every level below application code and start focusing on Cocoa. A much more reasonable solution would be for Apple to provide a tightly integrated implementation of X11 for OS X, permitting X11 apps to use native widgets and behaviors whenever possible and allowing basic interoperability with Aqua apps (like copy-paste).
This is the crux of your misunderstanding. Free Software doesn't exist to provide Cocoa apps to OS X. RMS would throw a hissy fit to hear you suggest that Free software should wise up and develop for proprietary APIs and proprietary widowing systems.
Well, thank God nobody cares what delusional people like RMS have to say.
The crux of *your* misunderstanding is that people care.
Quote:
F/OSS apps exists, first and always, for F/OSS platforms.
That's hardly true of all open source software. There's many Mac-specific open source apps, such as Adium or Camino, just like there's many Windows-specific open source apps, such as Shareaza or Miranda.
Quote:
That means Linux/BSDs, and that means X11.
Why would it have to mean that?
Quote:
None of the major F/OSS efforts are Mac-centric.
That's irrelevant to this discussion.
Quote:
The fact that they port easily to OS X is a bonus.
Oh, I get it. So developers are doing us a favor, and if we don't like it, we are not allowed to complain?
Bullshit.
Quote:
But it's not only unrealistic but absolutely nonsensical to think that they should ditch F/OSS principles at every level below application code and start focusing on Cocoa. A much more reasonable solution would be for Apple to provide a tightly integrated implementation of X11 for OS X, permitting X11 apps to use native widgets and behaviors whenever possible and allowing basic interoperability with Aqua apps (like copy-paste).
It's funny that you start your post claiming I "misunderstand", yet finish it with something that you misunderstood. This whole thread isn't about improving X11, or about giving the user the (impossible) illusion that X11 is anything like Quartz/Aqua. It's about the question whether X11 should be abandoned for something better, regardless of whether that's open source or not.
"Principles" have nothing to do with it. For developers, they may. For users, they simply don't.
A much more reasonable solution would be for Apple to provide a tightly integrated implementation of X11 for OS X, permitting X11 apps to use native widgets and behaviors whenever possible and allowing basic interoperability with Aqua apps (like copy-paste).
Unified UI? Oh dear god please no. Do you have any idea how *horrendous* that would look? Sure, it'd be white and gel-like, but the layout, the organization, the workflow... would all still be X11-level. Best to make it as obvious as possible to the user that *THIS IS NOT A MAC APP*. Otherwise someone who didn't know better might mistake an X11-designed monstrosity for a native app, and think that they're all that bad.
I want to know precisely what level of suckage I'm in for when I look at the UI, before I start getting mired.
RMS would throw a hissy fit to hear you suggest that Free software should wise up and develop for proprietary APIs and proprietary widowing systems.
Linux geeks are developers. Mac users are, well, users. There are way more people that would benefit from an open source office on Macs than Linux. Real people don't use Linux. Sure that's a generalization. But it's true. Are there lots of college computer labs with Linux? Not outside the ACM club room or small adjunct at a CS dept. lab.
These open source people need to get real. If they want Mac users to use an open source office it has to be Aqua. Period. Don't shoot the messenger. I'd love an open source office. But I just won't use one if it isn't Aqua, and the same goes for 97% of Mac users (p<.05, yes I did a statistical analysis )
What gives you the idea that NeoOffice is a business?
Every organization requires a valid business model to survive, whether or not it's registered as a for-profit business.
Quote:
Originally posted by pm149
Can we assume then, Frank777, that you regularly donate to open source software and donationware developers, for programs you use? If so, you are in a very insignificant minority In NeoOffice's case, there are 1.8m downloads a year. If a small fraction of those donated... Or, if Sun or Apple provided support at all... Nice sentiments, but I'm afraid your idealism is not matched by the generosity of the huge majority of users of freeware. I paid for Neo2, I'm using it and frankly it's more stable than many releases of MS Word or Appple OS's I've had in the past. Your choice, my choice
PM
I have no problems paying for shareware and donationware. Sun's not smart enough to realize that the key to dethroning Office is to provide a cross-platform solution. Apple has platform politics to think about. Even if Redmond ceases to be a factor, Apple would likely add the spreadsheet and database modules to iWork and kill NeoOffice there and then.
I think Neo's best chance lies in assembling a database of Mac-using companies, government bodies, legal offices, dental offices and advertising agencies, and sending a request out for $500.-$1000 each year - pointing out that for the cost of one MS Office licence, the whole company could be using NeoOffice.
To the companies, it's a tax-deductible expense. OpenDocument support is a cool corporate/government feature, and this process would likely prove more lucrative than asking individuals to pony up for Alpha software.
Linux geeks are developers. Mac users are, well, users. There are way more people that would benefit from an open source office on Macs than Linux. Real people don't use Linux. Sure that's a generalization. But it's true. Are there lots of college computer labs with Linux? Not outside the ACM club room or small adjunct at a CS dept. lab.
There are a minority of Linux users who are non-technical, but that minority is growing due to dissatifaction with Windows. There are the users of Ubunto, Xandros, and other user-friendly Linux distros. Not all Linux users run Debian and Gentoo.
Quote:
These open source people need to get real. If they want Mac users to use an open source office it has to be Aqua. Period. Don't shoot the messenger. I'd love an open source office. But I just won't use one if it isn't Aqua, and the same goes for 97% of Mac users (p<.05, yes I did a statistical analysis )
I can only speak for myself, but I am most definitely in the other 3%. I don't want to pay for an office suite. I'd love to have a lean, free office suite for Mac, but so far there isn't one. This is why I'm thrilled at the prospect of KOffice 2.0 running natively on Mac, because NeoOffice will take forever to go universal binary, and OpenOffice for Intel is alpha-quality (ex spell-checker doesn't work).
You may value aesthetics over functionality. I just want something that works.
I have no problems paying for shareware and donationware. Sun's not smart enough to realize that the key to dethroning Office is to provide a cross-platform solution. Apple has platform politics to think about. Even if Redmond ceases to be a factor, Apple would likely add the spreadsheet and database modules to iWork and kill NeoOffice there and then.
Riiiiiight. Apple will kill a free product with one that they charge money for. Nice analysis, there.
Quote:
I think Neo's best chance lies in assembling a database of Mac-using companies, government bodies, legal offices, dental offices and advertising agencies, and sending a request out for $500.-$1000 each year - pointing out that for the cost of one MS Office licence, the whole company could be using NeoOffice.
You really don't understand this "open-source" thing, do you ? Open source projects don't have as their goal to gain market share or increase usage. People generally initiate, and contribute to open-source projects because they use the software and want the freedom to make it better. The developers of NeoOffice aren't suddenly going to transform their product into a business.
NeoOffice is a native OS X port of OpenOffice. No more, no less.
Quote:
To the companies, it's a tax-deductible expense. OpenDocument support is a cool corporate/government feature, and this process would likely prove more lucrative than asking individuals to pony up for Alpha software.
NeoOffice may take a full minute to load, but it has all the features of OpenOffice 1.1, and isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, alpha software.
Riiiiiight. Apple will kill a free product with one that they charge money for. Nice analysis, there.
AppleWorks was bundled for free with all consumer Macs.
iLife is currently bundled for free with all Macs.
If Apple decides to bundle iWork eventually, it will take a lot of the steam out of NeoOffice. While all the drama going on between OpenOffice and Neo, I can't the software progressing much if Apple decides they want iWork to be the new standard. That's all I'm saying.
Quote:
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
You really don't understand this "open-source" thing, do you ? Open source projects don't have as their goal to gain market share or increase usage. People generally initiate, and contribute to open-source projects because they use the software and want the freedom to make it better. The developers of NeoOffice aren't suddenly going to transform their product into a business.
I understand that even "open-source" organizations aren't immune to the realities of the market. If NeoOffice's supporters aren't looking to gain marketshare or increase the software's usage, yes - that is news to me.
It will also be news to anyone who's actually visited the NeoOffice forums.
NeoOffice is a great piece of software, especially considering it has only two main developers. I applaud their determination. However, the developers themselves have remarked on how donations are not covering their cost, how they can't afford test machines or server bandwidth, and how this donation scheme for the 2.0 Alpha needs to work if development is to proceed.
I just don't see enough people buying into it. Don't blame the messenger.
You may value aesthetics over functionality. I just want something that works.
<cue Kickarant>
Aesthetics is of comprised two things: look, and feel. Look is the, well, look. It's the theme, if you will. It's the design, the colors, the font. This is what most geeks think of when they think of 'aesthetics', and why, when they want to emulate another OS, they slap a theme on their current one, and call it good. "Look! It looks just like a Mac!"
The problem is, they forget about the second half: feel. This is *directly* tied to functionality. The most powerful app in the world does you no good if you can't *use* the damned thing. ie, Word. Lots of gadgets, but most people never are able to find their existence, much less use them effectively. Most Linux-oriented apps are even worse. There's a gestalt that comes from thinking about how to offer up the computational functionality of your app to the user such that the entire app is *usability* functional. This is where the vast majority of software fails, and fails horribly. The Mac is a bit unique in that we simply don't put up with it. We've had enough good examples over the years that we know a stinker when we launch it, even before we start using it. What is passable on other systems doesn't even get a second launch by most Mac users, and it has nothing to do with the colors of the buttons, or the font the text is in - it has to do with the usability, and the feel.
That's the aesthetics we care about, and it is *directly* tied into how functional the application is for the user. If aesthetics is seen as separate from functionality in any particular app, then they've utterly missed the entire point of a UI.
Sadly, this is something that most developers never do figure out.
NeoOffice is a native OS X port of OpenOffice. No more, no less.
That depends largely on one's definition of "native". Is an X11 app native to OS X? Most of us would say "no", but it was compiled specifically for OS X. It's not emulated. Still, it doesn't feel native, it doesn't use the native windowing environment, and it doesn't offer most of the features that make OS X what it is.
And that's no different for NeoOffice. It implements some functionality natively for OS X, such as printing and font support, but it's severely lacking in other areas.
The distinction between the window server, the desktop environment, the window manager, etc. is a problematic one because users could never understand that, and an unnecessary one because the choice between different ones is unlikely to be of any advantage.
Fair enough. Then "users" (cue Aquatic) should RTFM and understand what they're talking about before they call other people lazy. It's just common sense.
Quote:
The window server could easily be a one-size-fits-all thing: Windows GDI lacks 3d acceleration, Quartz lacks networking and X11 lacks common sense.
Which X11? There are different versions. Xorg 7.0 has many new enhancements, only one of which is its new-found modularity, which has companies like nVidia and ATi kinda happy.
Quote:
X11 could easily become obsolete on the Mac by adding networking to Quartz.
Too bad that it isn't.
Quote:
X11, given various extensions, has all features a user could ever want, only they're all implemented poorly and impractically.
Again, you should take a look at Xorg 7.0. A lot of these issues are resolved, and Xorg 7.0 is just a transitional version until Xgl and/or AiXgl become more mature.
Quote:
It doesn't even have a universal interface for copy and paste, for drag and drop, etc. Zealots will be quick to jump up and say that this is the way it's supposed to be, that it adds flexibility, and that choice is good.
To which I could retort: Quartz doesn't even have networking and Windows GDI doesn't even have 3D acceleration. I understand that copy & paste is a major PITA in X11, but it's not like other parties have solved all their problems.
Quote:
Well, good for them, but X11 is a huge part of the reason desktop Linux still royally sucks. Choices are no use when they all fight against each other; few good choices outweigh many bad choices.
They don't fight against each other at all, they provide choice. They complement each other, they offer flexibility. If you don't like X, you might be interested in Y. That's the basic need of humans; to have and make choices. Of course, not everything is perfect in choice-land and things may look like they're been re-invented, but the developers know that.
Or should we stop developing different browsers, different IM clients, different music players because they all fight each other at the end of the day?
Quote:
The desktop environment, too, is an unnecessary choice. The correct answer to a Linux distro installer's question of "do you want to install GNOME, or KDE?" should be: "I just want to fucking use my computer".
Every major Linux distribution that is not satisfying a niche group of users does not ask that question. Ubuntu doesn't, it installs GNOME. Mandriva doesn't, it installs KDE. FC doesn't, it installs GNOME. The only one left asking that question is SuSE and that's only because there was an inner-quarell within Novell with which DE to go; GNOME won, and SuSE Linux 10 (the commercial version, which replaces Novell Linux 9) installs GNOME by default.
Quote:
KDE has shown time and again that they are unable to understand the nature of human-computer interaction; thankfully, they are slowly disappearing from most distributions.
I beg to differ. I don't use KDE, but it has its purpose. People who come from Windows are more comfortable in it and that's a large group of new Linux users. Offering them the GNOME way or the highway is not a good long-term decision. They'll hear about GNOME soon enough to try it out, and if they like it, to start using it.
Quote:
It is unfortunate, however, that projects like Kubuntu still exist, and it is even worse that someone like Torvalds doesn't realize that an engineer could never understand this matter, and has chosen to speak up about it.
He's a user too. He has an opinion (I don't think he's right, but I do think he has the right to an opinion) and he just said when he was asked.
Quote:
No, but see, Quartz/Aqua and Windows's UI make apps look somewhat good automatigally. That's the difference.
I find Banshee to look better than Foobar, and Nautilus better than Windows Explorer.
Quote:
But see, that's not the point. There is no reason such a distinction should exist to begin with. An application shouldn't be built for a toolkit; it should be built for an OS.
And who's to develop, administer, distribute that toolkit? Linux users are a diverse group and as such, they have different ideas about different things. GTK+ is used by GNOME and Qt by KDE. You don't have to use Qt apps when you use GNOME and you don't have to use GTK+ apps when you use KDE. There's a clear separation of apps here and the distinction exists because there is diversity.
Quote:
Maybe because people shouldn't need to know such useless information?
Even people like Aquatic who starts calling other people lazy and commenting on X11, open source apps, how "crap" they are? I think he should know a lot more than he does now before he speaks on the matter.
Quote:
Um, those are still X11 implementations. They're still just extensions or reimplementations or refactorings of the same old tired crufty system. They're not innovation. They're a lackluster attempt at saving and old system for no good reason.
No, they're not. Xgl is a whole new X server, developed entirely by Novell and recently released to the community. AiXgl is a new X server developed by Red Hat. The difference is: Xgl uses Compiz, a new window manager, and AiXgl uses Metacity, the old GNOME window manager.
Did you watch any of the movies I linked to on Novell's website showing what Xgl can do? That's not an extension.
Quote:
I can write a Mac app with WxWidgets. (It'll internally use Carbon anyway, but that's another matter.) I can put a lot of effort intno making it look good, and behave well, and make my users happy, and all that.
Or I can use Carbon or Cocoa and get most of that for free. Automagically. I get proxy icons (hi X11!). I get drag and drop (hi X11!). I get a unified copy and paste behaviour (hi X11!). I get a unified look of toolbars, of widgets, of a zillion things. Automagically.
That's only if you care to make Mac users happy. Open Source developers care to make Open Source (Linux/*BSD) users happy, and Linux/*BSD users are happy with GTK+ and/or Qt. They do not intend to make Mac users happy, and ports of their apps are usually done by people that want to have those apps on the Mac but want to spend the minimum time possible porting them. When's the last time you saw a Linux developer actually port his app himself to the Mac? Not lately. An exception may be OO.org, but that's being re-worked as a Cocoa app.
Quote:
Ah, but that's the big problem, isn't it? The developers will immediately turn into jackass mode and respond "well, if you don't like our app the way it is, we'll just pull it entirely; Windows is a larger market anyway blah blah blah".
This is doubly ironic in the case of Linux, for which there isn't even a piss-poor port of Google Earth, even though Google uses one of their own toolkits for the app. And what can you say to them? They'll just retort by saying that you're not a big enough player for them to consider you.
Quote:
It's not that a well-designed Google Earth couldn't be done. It's that Google isn't fucking trying.
It's a simple issue of diminishing returns. Google can try but the benefit will be minimal. They have investors they need to keep happy now.
To which I could retort: Quartz doesn't even have networking and Windows GDI doesn't even have 3D acceleration. I understand that copy & paste is a major PITA in X11, but it's not like other parties have solved all their problems.
"I understand what's probably the single most critical feature of the personal computer may be a PITA in X11..."
That depends largely on one's definition of "native". Is an X11 app native to OS X? Most of us would say "no", but it was compiled specifically for OS X. It's not emulated. Still, it doesn't feel native, it doesn't use the native windowing environment, and it doesn't offer most of the features that make OS X what it is.
And that's no different for NeoOffice. It implements some functionality natively for OS X, such as printing and font support, but it's severely lacking in other areas.
Please elaborate. NeoOffice as an executable completely outside X11 mode and has all the command key combinations expected my Mac users.
It may not implement a strict Cocoa/Aqua UI, but it's native enough for my tastes.
So let me ask you a question, just as an example: Do you consider Firefox for Mac to be "native"? My answer would be a resounding YES, but I'm guessing that other Mac users would give a resoundinng NO. Firefox may be the bellweather insofar as determining who falls on which side of the debate.
The problem is, they forget about the second half: feel. This is *directly* tied to functionality. The most powerful app in the world does you no good if you can't *use* the damned thing. ie, Word. Lots of gadgets, but most people never are able to find their existence, much less use them effectively. Most Linux-oriented apps are even worse. There's a gestalt that comes from thinking about how to offer up the computational functionality of your app to the user such that the entire app is *usability* functional. This is where the vast majority of software fails, and fails horribly. The Mac is a bit unique in that we simply don't put up with it. We've had enough good examples over the years that we know a stinker when we launch it, even before we start using it. What is passable on other systems doesn't even get a second launch by most Mac users, and it has nothing to do with the colors of the buttons, or the font the text is in - it has to do with the usability, and the feel.
I must be more tolerant than most. Apps like Firefox and NeoOffice (except for the minute to boot) work acceptably well for me. There's lots of horrible OSS out there, but apps like MPlayer are truly innovative in terms of their UI.
But, yeah, I totally agree with you about Word
BTW, has anybody noticed that you need to be an admin user to run MS Office on Mac? I disabled administrator privileges on my main user account, and discovered that my 30 day evaluation copy of MS Office wouldn't run. Also, when I uninstalled it as a regular user, it silently failed. I had to switch to my admin account to both run and uninstall it.
From my perspective, this would be an app that failed the "feel" test.
AppleWorks was bundled for free with all consumer Macs.
iLife is currently bundled for free with all Macs.
If Apple decides to bundle iWork eventually, it will take a lot of the steam out of NeoOffice. While all the drama going on between OpenOffice and Neo, I can't the software progressing much if Apple decides they want iWork to be the new standard. That's all I'm saying.
Well, Apple offering iWork for free is purely hyptothetical at this point. Until then, it's a product that Apple charges for.
Quote:
NeoOffice is a great piece of software, especially considering it has only two main developers. I applaud their determination. However, the developers themselves have remarked on how donations are not covering their cost, how they can't afford test machines or server bandwidth, and how this donation scheme for the 2.0 Alpha needs to work if development is to proceed.
Then it's no longer an open source project but commercial software. They'd be violating the GPL if they kept it open source but charged for it.
Comments
Originally posted by Frank777
Oh my. People are actually selling Alpha software now?
I understand that NeoOffice needs a helping hand, but how on Earth can selling 'early access' to ALPHA software be a viable business solution?
That makes zero sense. Early access to Alpha software is not a benefit.
The computing world has gone from fully developed software for sale, to less developed software (with later bug fixes) for a lesser price (Aperture), to free access to early 'beta' versions (lightroom), to now actually paying for alpha software.
This is progress?
Can we assume then, Frank777, that you regularly donate to open source software and donationware developers, for programs you use? If so, you are in a very insignificant minority
PM
Originally posted by Chucker
Or I can use Carbon or Cocoa and get most of that for free. Automagically. I get proxy icons (hi X11!). I get drag and drop (hi X11!). I get a unified copy and paste behaviour (hi X11!). I get a unified look of toolbars, of widgets, of a zillion things. Automagically.
This is the crux of your misunderstanding. Free Software doesn't exist to provide Cocoa apps to OS X. RMS would throw a hissy fit to hear you suggest that Free software should wise up and develop for proprietary APIs and proprietary widowing systems. F/OSS apps exists, first and always, for F/OSS platforms. That means Linux/BSDs, and that means X11. None of the major F/OSS efforts are Mac-centric. The fact that they port easily to OS X is a bonus. But it's not only unrealistic but absolutely nonsensical to think that they should ditch F/OSS principles at every level below application code and start focusing on Cocoa. A much more reasonable solution would be for Apple to provide a tightly integrated implementation of X11 for OS X, permitting X11 apps to use native widgets and behaviors whenever possible and allowing basic interoperability with Aqua apps (like copy-paste).
Originally posted by Towel
This is the crux of your misunderstanding. Free Software doesn't exist to provide Cocoa apps to OS X. RMS would throw a hissy fit to hear you suggest that Free software should wise up and develop for proprietary APIs and proprietary widowing systems.
Well, thank God nobody cares what delusional people like RMS have to say.
The crux of *your* misunderstanding is that people care.
F/OSS apps exists, first and always, for F/OSS platforms.
That's hardly true of all open source software. There's many Mac-specific open source apps, such as Adium or Camino, just like there's many Windows-specific open source apps, such as Shareaza or Miranda.
That means Linux/BSDs, and that means X11.
Why would it have to mean that?
None of the major F/OSS efforts are Mac-centric.
That's irrelevant to this discussion.
The fact that they port easily to OS X is a bonus.
Oh, I get it. So developers are doing us a favor, and if we don't like it, we are not allowed to complain?
Bullshit.
But it's not only unrealistic but absolutely nonsensical to think that they should ditch F/OSS principles at every level below application code and start focusing on Cocoa. A much more reasonable solution would be for Apple to provide a tightly integrated implementation of X11 for OS X, permitting X11 apps to use native widgets and behaviors whenever possible and allowing basic interoperability with Aqua apps (like copy-paste).
It's funny that you start your post claiming I "misunderstand", yet finish it with something that you misunderstood. This whole thread isn't about improving X11, or about giving the user the (impossible) illusion that X11 is anything like Quartz/Aqua. It's about the question whether X11 should be abandoned for something better, regardless of whether that's open source or not.
"Principles" have nothing to do with it. For developers, they may. For users, they simply don't.
Originally posted by Towel
A much more reasonable solution would be for Apple to provide a tightly integrated implementation of X11 for OS X, permitting X11 apps to use native widgets and behaviors whenever possible and allowing basic interoperability with Aqua apps (like copy-paste).
Yup.
Copy/paste, yes.
Unified UI? Oh dear god please no. Do you have any idea how *horrendous* that would look? Sure, it'd be white and gel-like, but the layout, the organization, the workflow... would all still be X11-level. Best to make it as obvious as possible to the user that *THIS IS NOT A MAC APP*. Otherwise someone who didn't know better might mistake an X11-designed monstrosity for a native app, and think that they're all that bad.
I want to know precisely what level of suckage I'm in for when I look at the UI, before I start getting mired.
RMS would throw a hissy fit to hear you suggest that Free software should wise up and develop for proprietary APIs and proprietary widowing systems.
Linux geeks are developers. Mac users are, well, users. There are way more people that would benefit from an open source office on Macs than Linux. Real people don't use Linux. Sure that's a generalization. But it's true. Are there lots of college computer labs with Linux? Not outside the ACM club room or small adjunct at a CS dept. lab.
These open source people need to get real. If they want Mac users to use an open source office it has to be Aqua. Period. Don't shoot the messenger. I'd love an open source office. But I just won't use one if it isn't Aqua, and the same goes for 97% of Mac users (p<.05, yes I did a statistical analysis
Originally posted by Chucker
What gives you the idea that NeoOffice is a business?
Every organization requires a valid business model to survive, whether or not it's registered as a for-profit business.
Originally posted by pm149
Can we assume then, Frank777, that you regularly donate to open source software and donationware developers, for programs you use? If so, you are in a very insignificant minority
PM
I have no problems paying for shareware and donationware. Sun's not smart enough to realize that the key to dethroning Office is to provide a cross-platform solution. Apple has platform politics to think about. Even if Redmond ceases to be a factor, Apple would likely add the spreadsheet and database modules to iWork and kill NeoOffice there and then.
I think Neo's best chance lies in assembling a database of Mac-using companies, government bodies, legal offices, dental offices and advertising agencies, and sending a request out for $500.-$1000 each year - pointing out that for the cost of one MS Office licence, the whole company could be using NeoOffice.
To the companies, it's a tax-deductible expense. OpenDocument support is a cool corporate/government feature, and this process would likely prove more lucrative than asking individuals to pony up for Alpha software.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Linux geeks are developers. Mac users are, well, users. There are way more people that would benefit from an open source office on Macs than Linux. Real people don't use Linux. Sure that's a generalization. But it's true. Are there lots of college computer labs with Linux? Not outside the ACM club room or small adjunct at a CS dept. lab.
There are a minority of Linux users who are non-technical, but that minority is growing due to dissatifaction with Windows. There are the users of Ubunto, Xandros, and other user-friendly Linux distros. Not all Linux users run Debian and Gentoo.
These open source people need to get real. If they want Mac users to use an open source office it has to be Aqua. Period. Don't shoot the messenger. I'd love an open source office. But I just won't use one if it isn't Aqua, and the same goes for 97% of Mac users (p<.05, yes I did a statistical analysis
I can only speak for myself, but I am most definitely in the other 3%. I don't want to pay for an office suite. I'd love to have a lean, free office suite for Mac, but so far there isn't one. This is why I'm thrilled at the prospect of KOffice 2.0 running natively on Mac, because NeoOffice will take forever to go universal binary, and OpenOffice for Intel is alpha-quality (ex spell-checker doesn't work).
You may value aesthetics over functionality. I just want something that works.
Originally posted by Frank777
I have no problems paying for shareware and donationware. Sun's not smart enough to realize that the key to dethroning Office is to provide a cross-platform solution. Apple has platform politics to think about. Even if Redmond ceases to be a factor, Apple would likely add the spreadsheet and database modules to iWork and kill NeoOffice there and then.
Riiiiiight. Apple will kill a free product with one that they charge money for. Nice analysis, there.
I think Neo's best chance lies in assembling a database of Mac-using companies, government bodies, legal offices, dental offices and advertising agencies, and sending a request out for $500.-$1000 each year - pointing out that for the cost of one MS Office licence, the whole company could be using NeoOffice.
You really don't understand this "open-source" thing, do you ? Open source projects don't have as their goal to gain market share or increase usage. People generally initiate, and contribute to open-source projects because they use the software and want the freedom to make it better. The developers of NeoOffice aren't suddenly going to transform their product into a business.
NeoOffice is a native OS X port of OpenOffice. No more, no less.
To the companies, it's a tax-deductible expense. OpenDocument support is a cool corporate/government feature, and this process would likely prove more lucrative than asking individuals to pony up for Alpha software.
NeoOffice may take a full minute to load, but it has all the features of OpenOffice 1.1, and isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, alpha software.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...re&btnG=Search
------
a first release of a software product that is usually tested only by the developers
----
Are you saying NeoOffice is only used by developers for testing?
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Riiiiiight. Apple will kill a free product with one that they charge money for. Nice analysis, there.
AppleWorks was bundled for free with all consumer Macs.
iLife is currently bundled for free with all Macs.
If Apple decides to bundle iWork eventually, it will take a lot of the steam out of NeoOffice. While all the drama going on between OpenOffice and Neo, I can't the software progressing much if Apple decides they want iWork to be the new standard. That's all I'm saying.
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
You really don't understand this "open-source" thing, do you ? Open source projects don't have as their goal to gain market share or increase usage. People generally initiate, and contribute to open-source projects because they use the software and want the freedom to make it better. The developers of NeoOffice aren't suddenly going to transform their product into a business.
I understand that even "open-source" organizations aren't immune to the realities of the market. If NeoOffice's supporters aren't looking to gain marketshare or increase the software's usage, yes - that is news to me.
It will also be news to anyone who's actually visited the NeoOffice forums.
NeoOffice is a great piece of software, especially considering it has only two main developers. I applaud their determination. However, the developers themselves have remarked on how donations are not covering their cost, how they can't afford test machines or server bandwidth, and how this donation scheme for the 2.0 Alpha needs to work if development is to proceed.
I just don't see enough people buying into it. Don't blame the messenger.
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
You may value aesthetics over functionality. I just want something that works.
<cue Kickarant>
Aesthetics is of comprised two things: look, and feel. Look is the, well, look. It's the theme, if you will. It's the design, the colors, the font. This is what most geeks think of when they think of 'aesthetics', and why, when they want to emulate another OS, they slap a theme on their current one, and call it good. "Look! It looks just like a Mac!"
The problem is, they forget about the second half: feel. This is *directly* tied to functionality. The most powerful app in the world does you no good if you can't *use* the damned thing. ie, Word. Lots of gadgets, but most people never are able to find their existence, much less use them effectively. Most Linux-oriented apps are even worse. There's a gestalt that comes from thinking about how to offer up the computational functionality of your app to the user such that the entire app is *usability* functional. This is where the vast majority of software fails, and fails horribly. The Mac is a bit unique in that we simply don't put up with it. We've had enough good examples over the years that we know a stinker when we launch it, even before we start using it. What is passable on other systems doesn't even get a second launch by most Mac users, and it has nothing to do with the colors of the buttons, or the font the text is in - it has to do with the usability, and the feel.
That's the aesthetics we care about, and it is *directly* tied into how functional the application is for the user. If aesthetics is seen as separate from functionality in any particular app, then they've utterly missed the entire point of a UI.
Sadly, this is something that most developers never do figure out.
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
NeoOffice is a native OS X port of OpenOffice. No more, no less.
That depends largely on one's definition of "native". Is an X11 app native to OS X? Most of us would say "no", but it was compiled specifically for OS X. It's not emulated. Still, it doesn't feel native, it doesn't use the native windowing environment, and it doesn't offer most of the features that make OS X what it is.
And that's no different for NeoOffice. It implements some functionality natively for OS X, such as printing and font support, but it's severely lacking in other areas.
Originally posted by Kickaha
<cue Kickarant>
Oh dear.
Obviously, I fully agree with your entire post.
Originally posted by Chucker
The distinction between the window server, the desktop environment, the window manager, etc. is a problematic one because users could never understand that, and an unnecessary one because the choice between different ones is unlikely to be of any advantage.
Fair enough. Then "users" (cue Aquatic) should RTFM and understand what they're talking about before they call other people lazy. It's just common sense.
The window server could easily be a one-size-fits-all thing: Windows GDI lacks 3d acceleration, Quartz lacks networking and X11 lacks common sense.
Which X11? There are different versions. Xorg 7.0 has many new enhancements, only one of which is its new-found modularity, which has companies like nVidia and ATi kinda happy.
X11 could easily become obsolete on the Mac by adding networking to Quartz.
Too bad that it isn't.
X11, given various extensions, has all features a user could ever want, only they're all implemented poorly and impractically.
Again, you should take a look at Xorg 7.0. A lot of these issues are resolved, and Xorg 7.0 is just a transitional version until Xgl and/or AiXgl become more mature.
It doesn't even have a universal interface for copy and paste, for drag and drop, etc. Zealots will be quick to jump up and say that this is the way it's supposed to be, that it adds flexibility, and that choice is good.
To which I could retort: Quartz doesn't even have networking and Windows GDI doesn't even have 3D acceleration. I understand that copy & paste is a major PITA in X11, but it's not like other parties have solved all their problems.
Well, good for them, but X11 is a huge part of the reason desktop Linux still royally sucks. Choices are no use when they all fight against each other; few good choices outweigh many bad choices.
They don't fight against each other at all, they provide choice. They complement each other, they offer flexibility. If you don't like X, you might be interested in Y. That's the basic need of humans; to have and make choices. Of course, not everything is perfect in choice-land and things may look like they're been re-invented, but the developers know that.
Or should we stop developing different browsers, different IM clients, different music players because they all fight each other at the end of the day?
The desktop environment, too, is an unnecessary choice. The correct answer to a Linux distro installer's question of "do you want to install GNOME, or KDE?" should be: "I just want to fucking use my computer".
Every major Linux distribution that is not satisfying a niche group of users does not ask that question. Ubuntu doesn't, it installs GNOME. Mandriva doesn't, it installs KDE. FC doesn't, it installs GNOME. The only one left asking that question is SuSE and that's only because there was an inner-quarell within Novell with which DE to go; GNOME won, and SuSE Linux 10 (the commercial version, which replaces Novell Linux 9) installs GNOME by default.
KDE has shown time and again that they are unable to understand the nature of human-computer interaction; thankfully, they are slowly disappearing from most distributions.
I beg to differ. I don't use KDE, but it has its purpose. People who come from Windows are more comfortable in it and that's a large group of new Linux users. Offering them the GNOME way or the highway is not a good long-term decision. They'll hear about GNOME soon enough to try it out, and if they like it, to start using it.
It is unfortunate, however, that projects like Kubuntu still exist, and it is even worse that someone like Torvalds doesn't realize that an engineer could never understand this matter, and has chosen to speak up about it.
He's a user too. He has an opinion (I don't think he's right, but I do think he has the right to an opinion) and he just said when he was asked.
No, but see, Quartz/Aqua and Windows's UI make apps look somewhat good automatigally. That's the difference.
I find Banshee to look better than Foobar, and Nautilus better than Windows Explorer.
But see, that's not the point. There is no reason such a distinction should exist to begin with. An application shouldn't be built for a toolkit; it should be built for an OS.
And who's to develop, administer, distribute that toolkit? Linux users are a diverse group and as such, they have different ideas about different things. GTK+ is used by GNOME and Qt by KDE. You don't have to use Qt apps when you use GNOME and you don't have to use GTK+ apps when you use KDE. There's a clear separation of apps here and the distinction exists because there is diversity.
Maybe because people shouldn't need to know such useless information?
Even people like Aquatic who starts calling other people lazy and commenting on X11, open source apps, how "crap" they are? I think he should know a lot more than he does now before he speaks on the matter.
Um, those are still X11 implementations. They're still just extensions or reimplementations or refactorings of the same old tired crufty system. They're not innovation. They're a lackluster attempt at saving and old system for no good reason.
No, they're not. Xgl is a whole new X server, developed entirely by Novell and recently released to the community. AiXgl is a new X server developed by Red Hat. The difference is: Xgl uses Compiz, a new window manager, and AiXgl uses Metacity, the old GNOME window manager.
Did you watch any of the movies I linked to on Novell's website showing what Xgl can do? That's not an extension.
I can write a Mac app with WxWidgets. (It'll internally use Carbon anyway, but that's another matter.) I can put a lot of effort intno making it look good, and behave well, and make my users happy, and all that.
Or I can use Carbon or Cocoa and get most of that for free. Automagically. I get proxy icons (hi X11!). I get drag and drop (hi X11!). I get a unified copy and paste behaviour (hi X11!). I get a unified look of toolbars, of widgets, of a zillion things. Automagically.
That's only if you care to make Mac users happy. Open Source developers care to make Open Source (Linux/*BSD) users happy, and Linux/*BSD users are happy with GTK+ and/or Qt. They do not intend to make Mac users happy, and ports of their apps are usually done by people that want to have those apps on the Mac but want to spend the minimum time possible porting them. When's the last time you saw a Linux developer actually port his app himself to the Mac? Not lately. An exception may be OO.org, but that's being re-worked as a Cocoa app.
Ah, but that's the big problem, isn't it? The developers will immediately turn into jackass mode and respond "well, if you don't like our app the way it is, we'll just pull it entirely; Windows is a larger market anyway blah blah blah".
This is doubly ironic in the case of Linux, for which there isn't even a piss-poor port of Google Earth, even though Google uses one of their own toolkits for the app. And what can you say to them? They'll just retort by saying that you're not a big enough player for them to consider you.
It's not that a well-designed Google Earth couldn't be done. It's that Google isn't fucking trying.
It's a simple issue of diminishing returns. Google can try but the benefit will be minimal. They have investors they need to keep happy now.
Originally posted by Towel
Free Software doesn't exist to provide Cocoa apps to OS X.
That's it. Close the thread.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
To which I could retort: Quartz doesn't even have networking and Windows GDI doesn't even have 3D acceleration. I understand that copy & paste is a major PITA in X11, but it's not like other parties have solved all their problems.
"I understand what's probably the single most critical feature of the personal computer may be a PITA in X11..."
Originally posted by Chucker
That depends largely on one's definition of "native". Is an X11 app native to OS X? Most of us would say "no", but it was compiled specifically for OS X. It's not emulated. Still, it doesn't feel native, it doesn't use the native windowing environment, and it doesn't offer most of the features that make OS X what it is.
And that's no different for NeoOffice. It implements some functionality natively for OS X, such as printing and font support, but it's severely lacking in other areas.
Please elaborate. NeoOffice as an executable completely outside X11 mode and has all the command key combinations expected my Mac users.
It may not implement a strict Cocoa/Aqua UI, but it's native enough for my tastes.
So let me ask you a question, just as an example: Do you consider Firefox for Mac to be "native"? My answer would be a resounding YES, but I'm guessing that other Mac users would give a resoundinng NO. Firefox may be the bellweather insofar as determining who falls on which side of the debate.
Originally posted by Kickaha
<cue Kickarant>
The problem is, they forget about the second half: feel. This is *directly* tied to functionality. The most powerful app in the world does you no good if you can't *use* the damned thing. ie, Word. Lots of gadgets, but most people never are able to find their existence, much less use them effectively. Most Linux-oriented apps are even worse. There's a gestalt that comes from thinking about how to offer up the computational functionality of your app to the user such that the entire app is *usability* functional. This is where the vast majority of software fails, and fails horribly. The Mac is a bit unique in that we simply don't put up with it. We've had enough good examples over the years that we know a stinker when we launch it, even before we start using it. What is passable on other systems doesn't even get a second launch by most Mac users, and it has nothing to do with the colors of the buttons, or the font the text is in - it has to do with the usability, and the feel.
I must be more tolerant than most. Apps like Firefox and NeoOffice (except for the minute to boot) work acceptably well for me. There's lots of horrible OSS out there, but apps like MPlayer are truly innovative in terms of their UI.
But, yeah, I totally agree with you about Word
BTW, has anybody noticed that you need to be an admin user to run MS Office on Mac? I disabled administrator privileges on my main user account, and discovered that my 30 day evaluation copy of MS Office wouldn't run. Also, when I uninstalled it as a regular user, it silently failed. I had to switch to my admin account to both run and uninstall it.
From my perspective, this would be an app that failed the "feel" test.
Originally posted by Frank777
AppleWorks was bundled for free with all consumer Macs.
iLife is currently bundled for free with all Macs.
If Apple decides to bundle iWork eventually, it will take a lot of the steam out of NeoOffice. While all the drama going on between OpenOffice and Neo, I can't the software progressing much if Apple decides they want iWork to be the new standard. That's all I'm saying.
Well, Apple offering iWork for free is purely hyptothetical at this point. Until then, it's a product that Apple charges for.
NeoOffice is a great piece of software, especially considering it has only two main developers. I applaud their determination. However, the developers themselves have remarked on how donations are not covering their cost, how they can't afford test machines or server bandwidth, and how this donation scheme for the 2.0 Alpha needs to work if development is to proceed.
Then it's no longer an open source project but commercial software. They'd be violating the GPL if they kept it open source but charged for it.