Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Java fallout: OpenOffice.org 2.0 and the FOSS community
Share
Print
CommentsIt seems a decision based largely on practical considerations -- and with a disregard for the consequences for both the rest of the free and open source software (FOSS) communities and the future of OpenOffice.org itself.
What has changed?
To understand the issues, it is important to know exactly what functionality depends on Java. As of version 1.1.4, the features that required a JRE were:
- Accessibility tools, such as the Gnopernicus Screen Reader and Magnifier and the GNOME On-Screen Keyboard
- The Report Autopilot
- JDBC driver support for Java-based databases
- XSLT filters
- BeanShell, the Netbeans scripting language, and the Java UNO bridge
- Export filters to the Aportis.doc (.pdb) format for the Palm or Pocket Word (.psw) format for the Pocket PC
While some OpenOffice.org members expressed concern about Java being used at all, most accepted the argument that these features did not affect core functionality, and were of interest to only a small minority of users.
OpenOffice.org leaders are still making this argument about version 2.0. However, in version 2.0, the dependence on Java has grown. In addition to the Java-dependent features in earlier versions, 2.0 requires a JRE for:
- Base, the new Access-like database application
- The media player, which adds movie and sound clips to documents
- Mail merges to e-mail, which also require Java Mail
- All document wizards in Writer
Although some could argue that basic office functionality continues to be unaffected, anyone claiming that most users do not need Java in 2.0 may be stretching the point.
For anyone trying to run the beta without Java, the claim becomes even more strained. Even when version 2.0 is not linked to a JRE, tools that require one are still available on the menu and the only way to know which they are is to try them. When non-Java users do try them, they see an inconsistent variety of warnings. Attempt to build a new database without Java and watch the dialog window close with no explanation. Try to do a mail merge to email and learn that the task requires Java Mail from the standard window rather than a pop-up dialog. Worst of all, select Tools > Macro > Run Macro, and you'll see a warning dialog pop up 16 times before you can continue. Aside from showing that OpenOffice.org badly needs common interface standards for features, these examples strongly suggest that 2.0 was designed with the expectation that most users would enable Java.
Why did OpenOffice.org choose Java?
For many, the observation that Sun Microsystems, the former owner of the OpenOffice.org code and the employer of many OOo's programmers, also owns Java is all the explanation they need for OpenOffice.org's new dependence on Java. Although conspiracy theories abound, more considered criticism suggests that OpenOffice.org is simply predisposed to accept Java solutions because of its connection with Sun. And, even though contributors make their own decisions about what programming language they use, it does seem likely that their habits from other projects would spill over into their OpenOffice.org work in the absence of a specific directive to the contrary.
OpenOffice.org leaders, however, explain the decision in terms of convenience and technical merits. Most of the explanation focuses on Base, the new database application that adds an Access-like interface to HSQLDB, an existing Java database.
Daniel Carrera, community contributor representative on the OpenOffice.org Community Council, says that Base HSQLDB "is the fastest and most feature-complete database available that could be integrated given the very limited resources we have." He adds that OpenOffice.org's C++ core was not altered by the introduction of Base. As a result, Base can easily be replaced later.
Frank Schönheit, a Sun employee who is also the leader of the database project, goes into more detail. "This decision was not because HSQLDB is written in Java," he says, "However, HSQLDB also didn't get penalty points just because of being Java" during planning.
Yet, at the same time, Schönheit defends the use of Java, arguing:
- Java allows more rapid development of components for OpenOffice.org, without struggling with the complexity of OpenOffice.org's C++ build environment.
- Java is mature enough to use for complex tasks.
- To address a common prejudice, Java isn't slow by definition, but Java makes it easy to develop poorly performing code, so developers perhaps need more self-discipline when writing Java code. However, this isn't per se a point against Java.
These merits were apparently strong enough for the database team to ignore its own requirement that the new database be open source. Schönheit notes that OpenOffice.org programmers "are not too concerned about Java being open source or not." Although they would prefer to use code written in C++ over that written in Java -- even if the C++ code was only slightly worse -- they will still use Java if it seems the better solution. "And sometimes, Schönheit adds, "this simply means that there is a Java developer who can spend time on a project, and no C++ developer who can." In the end, Schönheit writes, the important thing is that "OpenOffice.org 2.0 will come with its own database.... That, to us, outnumbers most, if not all, arguments we've heard so far against Java. In this sense, functionality is what matters."
What are the objections to using Java?
Some might argue against Schönheit's characterization of C++ as complex or Java as being not slow. However, technical arguments are in many ways beside the point. Objections to Java tend to be based less on technical merits than on FOSS philosophy on the one hand and the possible consequences for the future of OpenOffice.org on the other.
One of the few technical arguments against OpenOffice.org's use of Java is that it undermines the project's goal to be a cross-platform office suite. Many operating systems currently supported, including FreeBSD and GNU/Linux for the PowerPC, have no official version of Java. Those who wish to use OOo 2.0 on such platforms must use GNU/Linux emulation or work with an often incomplete free Java implementation. Either way, the new requirement places new pressures on the already overworked teams of OpenOffice.org volunteers working on these ports.
Other arguments against using Java focus on the possible consequences for OpenOffice.org itself. Marco Fioretti, journalist and OpenOffice.org volunteer, worries that the increased dependency on Java may destroy the project's credibility, thereby slowing its adaptation. When asked to explain misgivings hinted at on the OOo Discuss list, Fioretti says the abrupt move toward Java undermines claims that OpenOffice.org is a mature platform. Fioretti also points out that, in jurisdictions where requirements for government use require openness, OpenOffice.org may no longer qualify. Corporate managers or lawmakers, Fioretti worries, may conclude that project members "are incompetents who produced OpenOffice.org by pure accident" and wonder, "Can I trust them?"
Just as importantly, the dependence on Java threatens OpenOffice.org's credibility with the rest of the FOSS community. Several anonymous commentators on NewsForge's recent review of the version 2.0 expressed doubts about continuing to use OpenOffice.org. "Maybe I should stop promoting it," one anonymous poster wrote. Several others wished that alternatives such as KOffice, AbiWord, and Gnumeric would develop faster so that they could become full replacements for OpenOffice.org.
Among FOSS contributors, the reaction was much the same. The responses on the debian-openoffice.org, the mailing list for those involved with integrating OpenOffice.org into the Debian distribution, are typical of ones in other pockets of the community. Anders Breindahl, for example, writes, "I find it increasingly worrying that Sun to some extent considers Java to be okay for a free office suite.... I think this makes OpenOffice.org less optimal for the Free Software community." Similarly, in the same discussion, Sam Hiser, the former marketing lead for OpenOffice.org, characterized the change as a "challenge" that the FOSS community must answer with other software that's more compatible with its philosophy.
Such comments suggest that little if any dialog is ocurring between those who decided to use Java and those who object to the decision. Each camp has a focus that is different from the other's. To date, neither seems to have responded to the other side's concerns.
How distributions are responding
The range of possible reactions can already be seen in the responses of leading GNU/Linux distributions. For some, possibly most distributions, it is a non-issue. Slackware does not redistribute OpenOffice.org, and, according to developer Patrick Volkerding, has no interest in doing so. As for the commercial distributions, Michael Meeks, a Novell engineer, notes that SUSE ships with Java already. In the same vein, Mandrake CTO Frédéric Lepied says, "Our download edition will stay free and our commercial edition is bundled with Java."
By contrast, Red Hat and Fedora prefer to build OpenOffice.org with the GNU Compiler for Java (GCJ), which is not only a compiler, but also a free JRE. This was Red Hat's strategy with earlier versions of OpenOffice.org, and Red Hat engineers are attempting to continue it. Caolan Macnamara, a programmer at Red Hat, has reported limited success compiling earlier developer builds of version 2.0. However, GCJ is not yet a complete replacement for official releases of Java, and adding patches makes the strategy painstaking and laborious at best.
Other distributions are awaiting developments with GCJ. Paul de Vrieze, a member of Gentoo's OpenOffice.org team, writes that Gentoo would prefer to use a free implementation of Java such as GCJ, adding that the distribution might decide to build with Java if no other alternative existed. By contrast, Ubuntu would ship with a disabled version if a free build was unavailable. "Ubuntu is committed to the principles of open source development," Matt Zimmerman, Ubuntu project head, writes, "and will not include software in our official distribution which does not meet our licensing guidelines."
At Debian, Chris Hall and René Engelhard, the maintainers for OpenOffice.org packages, are also working with GCJ and following developments. According to Engelhard, they face an added difficulty because the latest version of GCJ and the libgcc1 library are currently in only the unofficial Experimental distribution of Debian. To include OpenOffice.org 2.0 in Debian Unstable, the distribution into which new packages are initially placed, the two maintainers might have to disable all Java-based functionality, as they did for earlier versions. Since Java does not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines' definition of free software, these are the only options available for including OpenOffice.org in Debian at all.
Conclusion
Overall, reactions seem to split along the open source and free software divide. As Richard Stallman is constantly pointing out, although the two communities can be grouped together for many purposes, their basic orientations are quite different.
Open source advocates support communal development in the belief that it produces superior software to proprietary methods. Free software supporters, however, are chiefly concerned with their philosophical position, and are willing to undergo some inconvenience to stay true to their principles. Broadly speaking, the defenders of OpenOffice.org's new reliance on Java, with their emphasis on results and user convenience, can be lumped into the open source camp. They see the decision as a practical one. In some cases, they are unconcerned whether the decision clashes with principles.
By contrast, the resistance to the reliance on Java tends to come from supporters of the free software position. This camp is actively looking for alternatives, both to Java and to OpenOffice.org. Rather than rely on Java, many members of the free software camp will consider shipping a disabled version of OpenOffice.org. They see the decision as irresponsible and, in extreme cases, as a betrayal.
How these differences in perspective will play out remains uncertain. Among some, they have awakened not just the usual mistrust of Sun Microsystems, OpenOffice.org's main contributor, but a distrust of OpenOffice.org itself. Allowed to continue, in the long term, the lack of communication among the parties could inhibit the spread of OpenOffice.org through lack of cooperation. In fact, given that OpenOffice.org helps to position GNU/Linux and other free operating systems as desktop alternatives, the spread of FOSS in general could be inhibited. Another possibility is one or more forks in the projects, although nobody is prepared yet to go that far.
Meanwhile, no one is talking to anyone else in terms that everybody can understand. The entire community is poorer for it.
Bruce Byfield is a freelance course designer and instructor and a technical journalist.
Comments
on Java fallout: OpenOffice.org 2.0 and the FOSS communityNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
The point is that there is no need to search alternatives for OO.o - it can be compiled with Java disabled. It's not even necessary to do a full blown fork IMO - just implement the parts written in Java with e.g. Python and keep using the Sun codebase for the C++ code. Or use GCJ.
I think the best alternative so far is the one chosen by Ubuntu - ship a version where the Java features are disabled. It's not like any of them are essential.
It is not that people are anti-java on a technical level, but on a political level. It doesn't matter how many times Sun says that Java is "Open", it is a proprietary piece of software and has no place in the Free Software world.
You won't be disallowed to code a piece of OpenOffice.org in Java (critical or not), but adherents of the Free Software philosophy will not use it. It is a matter of preserving Freedom (the way we think is right).
You have the Freedom to code it, we have the Freedom to reject use on the principals we have about software usage conditions.
What would you think if Linus Torvald accepted java software in the Linux kernel ?
You would think Linus didn't made is job of selecting relevants contributions.
Another try: I'm a debutant developer, I did an ugly, heavy, memory hungry and non portable hack that add an important feature to OpenOffice.org. Should I complain if it's rejected ?
Java is heavy, memory hungry and non portable, so you should see the point.
Java code now executes faster (with the server JIT compiler) than C++ code compiled by G++ (-O3), though it still trails the Intel C++ compiler (haven't had a chance to test MSVC++ yet).
Java IS a memory pig however, I'll grant you that. Hopefully there will be future work to fix this.
C++ developers seem to be under the impression that Java developers are all newbies out of their freshman course in college. I've programmed in C++ for 7 years now and there is no question which language is more maintainable and more productive. Wall Street isn't running on C++. Ebay isn't running on C++. C++ rocked Java's world in performance 3 or 4 years ago, but Java has gotten better and C++ hasn't.
If someone wanted to implement a feature in Logo then I think it would be ignored too.
Funny how all these "alternatives" suddenly spring up. Where were they all hiding when OpenOffice wasn't available?
Re:Time to fork I guess - I agree. Bye-Bye Sun!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 29, 2005 01:27 AMIt is time to FORK. Bye-Bye SUN.
Re:Time to fork I guess - I agree. Bye-Bye Sun!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 29, 2005 01:45 AMTry Abiword and Gnumeric, you'll be suprised how fast they are. It's plain C. It's plain free.
Re:Time to fork I guess - I agree. Bye-Bye Sun!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 29, 2005 03:21 AMMore people should try to contribute to projects like gnome-office so we can have a complete free alternative as soon as possible. It will benefit everyone.
Re:Time to fork I guess - I agree. Bye-Bye Sun!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 29, 2005 12:26 PMRe:Time to fork I guess - I agree. Bye-Bye Sun!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 29, 2005 10:42 AMDo they support the new OpenDocument formats?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 30, 2005 07:38 AMHey...
These are the formats that all Open Source Software must default to in the future. These should be the standard, period. Does your suggested software support these standards?
list of open document standards for OpenOffice from Groklaw site posted by dcarrera on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 08:57 AM EST
OpenDocument Text [.odt]
OpenDocument Text Template [.ott]
OpenDocument Database [.odb] ------- Databases
OpenDocument Spreadsheet [.ods]
OpenDocument Spreadsheet Template [.ots]
OpenDocument Drawing [.odg]
OpenDocument Drawing Template [.otg]
OpenDocument Presentation [.odp]
OpenDocument Presentation Template [.otp]
OpenDocument Formula [.odf]
OpenDocument Chart [.odc]
OpenDocument Master Document [.odm]
OpenDocument HTML Document Template [.oth]
Re:Do they support the new OpenDocument formats?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 10, 2005 10:21 AMThis is the time to fork. The OO license makes this possible and we should use this option.
I personally believe that only the real threat of a fork will force the corporate mignons at OO to drop the proprietary Java.
Let's fork *now*!
Netscape, and Firefox prove that your "dream" is hollow.
Being forced to use non free software is something we'll pay for later.
To exclude its usage due to the lack of an open-source Java implementation would be ridiculously myopic. The pure open-source folk need to get real. Java really is the best option out there for some OpenOffice features (probably for a good number more than it is being used for).
Those who claim Mono has some leg up *really* need to get real -- anything interesting much beyond what one could do in pure ANSI C++ (without extensions) requires Windows-only APIs that essentially require the entire Windows SDK or an emulation thereof. Mono helps only Microsoft by increasing mindshare for their language but preventing any real utility on any platform but theirs.
Damn wintel people, you don't know what you say. Eat more sun marketing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but have you ever tryed java 1.5 on a non Linux/solaris/windows OS ? on a non x86/sparc/sparc64 hardware ? no ? now give the same test to perl, ruby or python and see what cross-platform means.
And no, kaffee, ikvm and other free alternatives don't do the trick, mostly because devs like you (assuming "Sun's jdk/jre is portable since sun claimed it is") do never try to keep they're code compatible with them.
That's the point here. Java devs often says they're favorable to foss, but they don't make the minimal effort to keep they work compatible with foss (similarly to website designers making ie-only sites, some years ago).
So you're wondering why foss community don't accept java insertion on they -otherwise java free- free software ? Why foss people don't like java developers ?
And c'mon, if it took a bunch of red hat engeneers (including they're gcc/gcj specialists) to make the thing work under gcj, there is no chance for a mere mortal to succeed here.
Those who claim Mono has some leg up *really* need to get real
You're right there. But, once again, damn wintel man, be aknowledged that there are more alternatives than just java and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net.
Easiest? Highly debatable. The vast majority of people I have spoken to deem Java worse designed and harder to learn than Python.
As for 'more cross-platform libraries' i'd like to see where you got your statistics. I found cross platform libraries for Java fairly scarce compared to those for Python.
"Those who claim Mono has some leg up *really* need to get real -- anything interesting much beyond what one could do in pure ANSI C++ (without extensions) requires Windows-only APIs that essentially require the entire Windows SDK or an emulation thereof."
Heh, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you. Give the mono project more credit.
Have you even read about the native Windows.Forms effort provided in the latest preview of Mono? Try creating GUIs and drawing onto widgets in pure ANSI C++<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
"Free Office" anyone?
*FREE*: Jonathan Schwartz confusing Free and Open
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 31, 2005 06:22 AMIn the medium run, they'll this off. Even if Solaris is OSI approuved, the F/OSS community had seen the challenge against FSF and GPL compatibility (BSD, MIT/X, LGPL<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... licences).
See the recent <a href="http://www.varbusiness.com/components/weblogs/art" title="varbusiness.com">http://www.varbusiness.com/components/weblogs/art</a varbusiness.com><nobr>i<wbr></nobr> cle.jhtml?articleId=159907780
Schwartz's marketing about "probably opensourceing java in the near futur" : hey, Jonathan, Java is already Open Source ! We all can download the source code. Don't try to fool us.
Don't Sun hear the crowd ? Are you leaf ?
The matter here, is that java is not Free Software.
Don't take the F/OOS crowd for morons.
So it's still Free Vs. Open.
Thanks!
why are OpenOffice people avoiding this thread?!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 31, 2005 10:06 PMwonder why?
A Bug Report has been Filed. Login and vote on it!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 05, 2005 09:36 AMClick here to go directly to the bug report: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/4h7jw" title="tinyurl.com">http://tinyurl.com/4h7jw</a tinyurl.com>
God bless free software advocates for their efforts!
thank you for that.i kept getting glimpses of the differences but i have never fully understood.now it comes a little clearer.
i just may have to go to debian before i am really ready to because of this.i use mdk but i also fully support F/OSS
i just hope my skills have developed enough to handle debian.
<a href="http://www.mepis.org/node/1360" title="mepis.org">http://www.mepis.org/node/1360</a mepis.org>
SimplyMEPIS asks for donations in the form of subscriptions, to finance the project, the distro IS offered as a freely available download under the GPL. You can copy, use, sell, etc..., as many copies as you wish as long as you don't use the MEPIS logo.... i.e., do your own support and don't expect Warren to cover your releases.
Initially, I also thought that SimplyMEPIS was free and it was. as in beer. but NOT as in speech. check with the MEPIS dudes (as I did): first, they will try to answer you obliquely, but eventually, they will fess up that there is lots of non-free code on their distro.
these guys are actually very good at playing out the confusion between the different meanings of "free" to their advantage, but send them and email and ask if their are willling to release it all under, say, the GPL and they go apeshit.
too bad!
a free distro + some good readings + giving back
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 29, 2005 01:02 AMAlso - you will find a look of clarifications of these issues in the following texts:
<a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html" title="fsf.org">http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html</a fsf.org>
<a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software" title="fsf.org">http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software</a fsf.org><nobr>-<wbr></nobr> for-freedom.html
<a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/pragmatic.htm" title="fsf.org">http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/pragmatic.htm</a fsf.org><nobr>l<wbr></nobr>
And if you find these arguments convincing, here is where you can help us all:
<a href="http://www.fsf.org/associate" title="fsf.org">http://www.fsf.org/associate</a fsf.org>
Cheers!
It is a LiveCD distro, like KNOPPIX or Kannotix, but is from MorganTown, WV., USA, and is, IMHO, better thought out and with a nice admin tool. You can install it as a stub on your HD, or do a full install using the admin app. I booted it as a LiveCd on my friends Gateway M675XL laptop and was suprised to see it recongnize and install the internal broadcom wireless at 54MHz automatically, something that SUSE Pro 9.2, KNOPPIX 3.7 and Kannotix could not do without manaully using ndiswrapper.
Classpath is at the stage where <A HREF="http://www.kaffe.org/screenshots_eclipse.shtml" title="kaffe.org">eclipse runs</a kaffe.org>. This is a new challenge.
Ulimately, the work required to use openoffice with a free runtime (or compiler) will just benefit classpath.
We'll get java running on more architectures, more integrated into distributions, and without depending on a company to provide upgrades.
That said, I have no idea of the amount of libraries openoffice uses and of the work required =)
If I understand the issue correctly, the problem is the Java runtime. The Java code itself has an acceptably free license; you just need a non-free component to run it.
If this is right, then translating the Java source into C++ will not violate any license and should not be very difficult. I could help with this. (Where do I volunteer?)
As for the bundled database, why don't we use MySQL? It's not great, but it's "good enough", and certainly vastly better than MS Access.
MySql is fine as fare as backend databases go, but there using the SQL command line (or even some of the tools out there) is no where near as productive as MS Access.
IMHO its not the underlying database -- I usually link access to MySQL, Oracle, or the like. Rather, I can rapidly do query's, write simple forms/programs, and generate quick reports. The inclusion of VB means that I have a lot of power behind those forms, and some people actually develop full applications with access.
Python is certainly a good substitute for VB, but MySQL, by itself, fails abmismally to provide any level of comparability with access.
You have a point here. Access is really 2 different things bundled together:
- a gui front-end to databases with easy-to-build forms etc.
- a really wimpy database
The comparison I was making was with (2). But maybe the OO.org beta aims at (1)? I have to admit I haven't tried it yet, I was relying on the article and making some (perhaps wrong) assumptions.
Re:Does it just require a partial rewrite?
Posted by: Adam Tauno Williams on March 29, 2005 04:04 AM>into C++ will not violate any license and should
>not be very difficult. I could help with this.
>(Where do I volunteer?)
Sounds like a nightmare to me? You have 1:1 replacements for all the libraries and classes?
>As for the bundled database, why don't we use
>MySQL? It's not great, but it's "good enough",
>and certainly vastly better than MS Acc
MySQL does not have a process resident engine; you need to start the engine and then work with it - for desktop/workstations this is a headache.
The difficult parts of projects like OO.org are (1) reverse-engineering proprietary file formats to be compatible, (2) design and interface specification. Both of these have been done. Yes, some Java library classes and functions would have to be rewritten in C++, but they are well-specified. The tough part has been done. What's left is just a lot of coding and testing. Tedious, but straightforward.
As for MySQL not being process-resident, I think that's a good thing. It needs to be started just once, when you boot your workstation.
MySQL is not a good engine to incorporate directly into the software because it has a high memory overhead. It does do well as a database server though. It, by itself, will not provide the kind of interface that is required for the "Office" type application.
For me I'm excited about what is going on with OOo. I think it's great step in the right direction (java or not) and should be hailed as a good faith effort on the behalf of Sun.
I, like everybody else, would like to see Java become open source, but I don't see that as happening in the near future. If that means that distributions of Linux cannot include it then fine. Sun will learn that in order for this project to continue to be so popular they will need to provide proper alternitives to the Java code that they have included in the project or make Java open source so that it can be properly included with Linux distributions.
I don't think lashing out against Sun is necessarily appropriate. Expressing concern is very appropriate however and Sun will have to listen to the community. But the community should be patient when it comes things like this I think. It takes time to open minds.
- Filter
If I understand the issue correctly, the problem is the Java runtime. The Java code itself has an acceptably free license; you just need a non-free component to run it.
Correct.
If this is right, then translating the Java source into C++ will not violate any license and should not be very difficult. I could help with this. (Where do I volunteer?)
Well, I'd suggest that the best way to volunteer would be to download OO.o and try building it, and then slowly start replacing components. I strongly suggest using Ximian/Novell's ooo-build framework for this, rather than raw OO.o; you'll find it much easier. Also, you might contact debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org; there are many on that list who know much about the details of where Java is used in OO.o.
For a relatively easy example, there is a Java-based import filter that imports XML-based document formats by running them through an XSLT to turn them into OO.o's XML format. It would be easy enough to change this into a C++-based import filter, linking to libxslt.
Your contribution would be highly welcome.
Hopefully the bug has been fixed since then, but my fix was to uninstall that app and install the real Synaptic (along with the related apt tools, such as apt-list-bugs, and other apt tools that integrate themselves into synaptic when you install synaptic. All those tools are HIGHLY recommended, they make using synaptic much easier and efficient.
As for Mepis, it is an excellent distro for newbies. Once you feel you are passed the newbie stage, Mepis may not be the distro for you. If you decide to stop using the Mepis administration tools and move to a more pure Debian testing base (or unstable), and/or change your sources list, or do a few other things so that the distro is not a "pure" Mepis distro, you'll be 1. questioned as to why you did such a thing when asking for help on Mepis's irc channel, and 2. told that it really isn't a Mepis distro anymore, you should try getting help elsewhere. Then, your options are to 1. Uninstall and install Sarge or unstable so that you can get help on irc or via mailing lists, or 2. Hide the fact that you are running Mepis and claim you are running testing or unstable if you try to get help in debian-user or one of the related channels. Should you let it slip that you are running what once was Mepis in a Debian channel, be prepared for the abuse you are going to receive before being told to leave the channel. And it is stated right in the channel subject that, "Mepis is not Debian!"
Once again, I'm not knocking Mepis. It is very simple to use and very recommended for newbies. Just have a migration plan (like placing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home on a different partition) for the future so that when you outgrow Mepis or want to make some non-Mepis changes that result in your install being regarded as no longer Mepis (such as commenting out the Mepis source and not using the Mepis admin tools anymore since once you stop using the Mepis admin tools and start administering the system by text files or other apps, if you go back to the Mepis admin tools they overwrite your text file changes), then you are able to migrate your install to a new distro without losing your data.
It may be a no-brainer to put<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home on a different partition, but real newbies don't understand this, I've run into a few that didn't understand why they needed to do this. I know someone else who was backing up his entire<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home directory to dozens of CDs each time he decided to install a newer version of his favorite distro. He was speechless when I explained to him how he could put<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home on a separate partition and install newer distros without backing up to CDs every time, even though he should back up important data to cds anyway.
As for <A HREF="http://software.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=45487&cid=109252" title="newsforge.com">this poster</a newsforge.com>, there is another major difference between Debian and MDK. The big difference is the Free Software policy of Debian. Apps can't be included unless they meet the guidelines of Free Software, otherwise they are not included or placed in an alternate section called "non-free". Debian has a large enough (and growing) userbase that some application developers have to consider whether they will be included with Debian or excluded, whether they will end up in main or non-free, whether they will be considered Free or not, etc. Adaptec is one of the hardware manufacturers who is learning this lesson with OpenBSD right now. Intel will learn this also, as I and others will no longer purchase Intel cpus, Intel ethernet boards, or other Intel hardware until they, in an effective manner, decide to participate with GNU on a Linux BIOS. My future purchases of cpus and motherboards, and pre-built computers will only be of AMD powered ones, not Intel. AMD is participating in the GNU Linux BIOS effort with constructive help. Intel is not. If Intel/Microsoft/IBM/MPAA succeed in locking up the BIOS via their Digital Restrictions Management efforts disguised as Trustworthy Computing or other "secure computing", then Free Software users in particular and all computer users in general will be losers as this continues to be implemented.
Free software is what is going to save your computer from being turned into a locked media device, is what is going to help save fair use and your ability to own the music you pay for without having it "expire", and is what is going to save many more technologies some of which haven't even been invented yet.
That is the difference between Free Software and Open Source. Understand the difference so you understand what the real stakes are.
It has installed and/or upgraded PostgreSQL, pgAdmin, mplayer, w32codecs, qt-designer, wine, bibletime, kdevelop, adobe reader 7.0, firefox 1.0.1, and others I can't remember, all without problems.
And in thinking about further, one of the instances where I tried to get help with the error message on the Mepis irc channel, after I installed Synaptic to solve that problem and ran into a different problem, I explained what I did in removing kpackage and installing Synaptic, and the response was, why did you do that? and, I can't help you with that because of that, even though the new problem had nothing to do with Synaptic.
This is unfortunate, since Sun has produced plenty of Free Software, including OpenOffice.org itself. Would that they would fully cooperate with us! Perhaps Sun thinks that, now that OO.o has become an essential app for Free Software desktop deployment, that it's OK to increase the Java dependency.
b) Sun hardly needs OpenOffice to push Java, since there are probably over 1000 Java users for every one OpenOffice user.
Think of somebody with terminal cancer, arteriosclerosis, terminal AIDS and in urgent need of a quadruple bypass asking whether tylenol or ibuprofen would be better for his runny nose...
if you are running XP - you really, really have other problems to take care of first my friend.
1) use something else
2) learn how to do things<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// aliquis@link-net.org
Schönheit assertion of java not being slow may be discussed, but everyone knows how java is a memory nightmare.
While this can be accepted for a small/medium pure java software, or for server applications, it become a huge problem when it additions to an already very heavy application targetted to desktop users. It's not a problem with java, it's a problem with the Ooo decision to use java.
How to interpret the fact that Ooo team decided to kill compatibility with lower end computers and poorer people just to add more "graphical wizards" or an "emmbeded movies player" ? This throw discredit on Ooo team. And this makes Ooo inelligible in many situations.
OOo today is approx 264MB as a binary installation.
It will not run adequately in 64Mb ram.
So in order to create a document one would need a powerful pc... just to write a document! Where the pc spends almost all of its time idly waiting for the next user keystroke. Today progess is confused with larger simply to keep selling the same stuff all over again. MS Word 6.0 did 95% that MSOffice 2000 Word does...but what a different in size and price!
I was hoping more from the OOo custodians...instead they seem to be simply interested in continuing the MS way of doing things which is "...now it takes more bloat to do the same things as before...".
I have a p4 1.5G and OOo takes a long time to start up compared to Mozilla, the gimp, etc.
I bet you by removing the needless bloat of the jvm dependencies they could reduce that.
Anything you can do in java you can do in python...but at a fraction of the resource costs...and it runs on all platforms..like java.
and what is wrong with SQLite as a db engine?
Small...very fast and completely GPL'd.
woe, woe, woe is OOo!
So, no, the new version is NOT that much more bloated than the previous versions.
Who suggested that you should?
I will continue to use Abiword until this Java problem is resolved.
There is no "Java Problem" to resolve. If you don't want to use Java, don't use OoO. Or, if you're just against non-free Software, help get OoO working with one of the (many) Free implementations of Java. Either way, nobody is forcing you to use Sun's Java.
If that works for you, great. But it isn't a solution for most people, because OO.org isn't just a word processor. It's a replacement for most of Microsoft's Office suite and can read both<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xls files when needed.
The rest of us will probably continue to use the older (i.e. current) version of OO.org until the problem is resolved.
Time to fork I guess
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 28, 2005 09:45 PM#