Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 25, 2004 04:16 AM
Since when is bloated code a benefit?
True, it isn't. That's why OpenOffice.org is trying hard to reduce bloat. Each new version is faster than the previous one. The current version (1.1.2) is quite decent, and version 2.0 promises to be faster and have much better integration into the native environment. They are rewriting the graphics layer to use the native toolkit of each platform (Gtk/Qt under GNU/Linux, Win32 under Win, Aqua under Mac). Something similar to wxWidgets. Now, writing the graphics bindings is also a lot of work. So the initial versions will just be Gtk on Linux and Win32 for Win. The rest will have to wait a little.
And isn't OpenOffice written in C?
It's C++.
And besides, Koffice and OpenOffice are different. For example, OO's Writer is a MS Word clone, whereas Kword is more like Framemaker.
AARRGGHHH!!
Please don't call OOo a clone of MS Word. I am an OpenOffice.org volunteer and I can tell you that it is *not*. We do *not* try to copy MS Word, and OOo is *not* like MS Word. For example, with our use of styles (which we do well and Word doesn't) and integrated vector graphics we can perform functions normally associated with Desktop Publishing packages.
Developing Koffice does not in any shape or form make OpenOffice worse. And since they will be sharing fileformats, I fail to see why we should put all our eggs in one basket.
It's a tough call, but I think I'll agree with you. On the one hand, developers are a limited resource and we really need help. Having a lot of different office suites is not efficient. On the other, competition and diversity re good things, to be encouraged. OOo is not right for everyone, and KOffice is not right for everyone. It's good that we have both.
I think that, in my ideal world, there would be two OSS office suites and they would share file fomats.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:OpenOffice.org
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 25, 2004 04:16 AMTrue, it isn't. That's why OpenOffice.org is trying hard to reduce bloat. Each new version is faster than the previous one. The current version (1.1.2) is quite decent, and version 2.0 promises to be faster and have much better integration into the native environment. They are rewriting the graphics layer to use the native toolkit of each platform (Gtk/Qt under GNU/Linux, Win32 under Win, Aqua under Mac). Something similar to wxWidgets. Now, writing the graphics bindings is also a lot of work. So the initial versions will just be Gtk on Linux and Win32 for Win. The rest will have to wait a little.
And isn't OpenOffice written in C?
It's C++.
And besides, Koffice and OpenOffice are different. For example, OO's Writer is a MS Word clone, whereas Kword is more like Framemaker.
AARRGGHHH!!
Please don't call OOo a clone of MS Word. I am an OpenOffice.org volunteer and I can tell you that it is *not*. We do *not* try to copy MS Word, and OOo is *not* like MS Word. For example, with our use of styles (which we do well and Word doesn't) and integrated vector graphics we can perform functions normally associated with Desktop Publishing packages.
Developing Koffice does not in any shape or form make OpenOffice worse. And since they will be sharing fileformats, I fail to see why we should put all our eggs in one basket.
It's a tough call, but I think I'll agree with you. On the one hand, developers are a limited resource and we really need help. Having a lot of different office suites is not efficient. On the other, competition and diversity re good things, to be encouraged. OOo is not right for everyone, and KOffice is not right for everyone. It's good that we have both.
I think that, in my ideal world, there would be two OSS office suites and they would share file fomats.
Just my $0.02
Cheers,
Daniel.
#