Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

OpenOffice.org Built with KDE and GNOME Support

Posted by CowboyNeal on Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:46 PM
from the jack-of-all-guis dept.
Novell GUI KDE GNOME
ks writes "Novell hacker Jan Holesovsky has released a build of OOo 1.1.3 that integrates with either KDE or GNOME depending on the environment it's running in. The build features KDE/GNOME look and feel, KDE/GNOME file dialogs and the Crystal icons. If you're running NLD, you have this already." Update: 11/27 18:13 GMT by T : Also on the OpenOffice.org front, the OO.o front page links to this interview with Debian ARM developer Peter Naulls, who has ported the suite to ARM processors. Hint: they're everywhere.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

OpenOffice.org Built with KDE and GNOME Support 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • First Reply| (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IcarusMoth (631872) on Saturday November 27 2004, @12:48PM (#10931677)
    I think this is a great idea, one of hte reasons I had trouble with OOo in KDE3.X was its lack of smoothness. now if only someone will do the same for Abiword

  • I've seen it in action, it's pretty sweet (Score:5, Informative)

    by Megaweapon (25185) on Saturday November 27 2004, @12:49PM (#10931685) Homepage
    This should help with either GNOME or KDE adoption in office environments since the user interface looks more streamlined.
    • I am actually going to be doing a presentation on how you can use linux as a workstation/desktop in a work environment. I am choosing OOffice as the office suite. I am glad to see it integrates with both environments.

      How does it support things like ppt, doc and xls files? I really wanna impress who I am showing this to.

      • How does it support things like ppt, doc and xls files?

        Rather well. I've read success stories of OO.o flawlessly opening corrupted .doc files that crash Microsoft Word.

          • Open Office: your MS Office document repair kit. (Score:5, Informative)

            by MsGeek (162936) on Saturday November 27 2004, @01:29PM (#10931946) Homepage Journal
            It also removes macros. Sometimes it is a pain, because those macros are needed in an MS Office document, particularly in Excel. But if those macros are either corrupt or infected with a Macro Virus, losing the macros is actually A Good Thing. (tm)

            Last year, the All Tomorrow's Parties music festival sent the band Saccharine Trust an elaborate Excel spreadsheet which provided an overview of the schedule for the entire weekend's performances at Camber Sands in the UK.

            Joe Baiza had Office 98 for Mac running on his iMac. No joy opening the spreadsheet. He then sent the spreadsheet to Chris Stein, the band's bassist, (No, not the Blondie guitarist! Same name, different guy...) who tried to open it in Office XP. Again, no joy.

            I get the spreadsheet sent to me. I open it in OO.o. Success! I saved the document first as an OO.o native format file, then resaved the native OO.o file as an .XLS. I sent it back to Joe and Chris, and voila! They could open it too!

            I'll have you know that NOTHING got screwed up in the formatting. Maybe a few weird calculations used by the ATP folks got messed up, but the guys in ST didn't need them. All they needed was the time that ST needed to go on, and also the times for some of the other bands on the schedule the guys wanted to see. OO.o rules.
      • How does it support things like ppt, doc and xls files?

        everything is great except for video in presentation. It works somehow [debian.org], but does not even correctly open .ppt [debian.org] with video inside, though.

        • You are right. And I do. And I am getting started on it.

          I've used it in the past, and found file support spotty. It is powerful in its own right.

          But thanks for the 'wake up'. Nice to know the community cares enough to ensure the very best. And I mean that.
          • Thanks. Like I said, I wasn't trying to troll.

            It just sounded like you were the most Linux-savvy person at work, and if they decide to make the switch you'd better be ready. Switching to Linux is beneficial, but never easy. Everyone in the office will be asking you questions ALL day. If you don't know your distro of choice inside out as well as gnome or kde and all the dependency issues, advocating Linux isn't the best idea.
  • here [mirrordot.org]

  • NLD (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 27 2004, @12:59PM (#10931748)
    I just started playing with the Novell Linux Desktop and it looks really nice. After having Novell removed for Windows AD at work, it was nice to see the big N on a screen again. ;)

    It's basically Suse with some tweaks, but it's got a very professional look and feel about it with everything nicely integrated.

  • n-tierety (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Saturday November 27 2004, @12:59PM (#10931753) Homepage Journal
    This is a great move, generating momentum towards a real superior Linux desktop architecture. Any well designed app should be split into Data, Business and Presentation layers, independent/interdependent of one another across a clear, well defined API. This new build can be optimized by another programmer to actually separate the Business (OO.o) and Presentation (KDE/GNOME) layers, because the source is open. Refactor OO.o as an object that can run separate from its UI, and all its features are available to *any* calling program, reusable without having to write spellcheckers again, or text edit panels, or .DOC readers. In fact, the next great move will be to refactor the OO.o data layer, so it can run not only on any FS, like ext3, ReiserFS, SMB, NFS, but interchangeably across networks as straight sockets, or SQL DB tables, or RDF streams, or any data source that's adapted to the data API. Let's get it on!
      • You don't like applications to have 3-tier architecture with IPC APIs? You must have been burned pretty bad - maybe you even worked at Taligent while I was over at Apple. After we switched the APW to C++, we all thought we'd never rewrite "EditableTextPane" again. But we were naive enough about sharing source with strangers that we didn't realize that once the source is open to the public, we need it to come with human-readable docs to reuse it. That's why the API is so important. As are practical conventio

      • Re:n-tierety (Score:3, Interesting)

        by m50d (797211)
        Well, KDE integration is less important, since KDE has a proper office suite of its own. As far as I can see, "gnome office" consists of Abiword and Gnumeric pretending they're an office suite.

  • Does anyone know (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Does anyone know if this is going to be integrated back into the OOo trunk?

  • mirror (Score:3, Informative)

    by gr8fulnded (254977) on Saturday November 27 2004, @01:02PM (#10931770)
    Poof... Good old mirrordot to the rescue... [mirrordot.com]

  • Something similar for Mozilla (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dreadlord (671979) on Saturday November 27 2004, @01:03PM (#10931776) Journal
    Something similar for Mozilla and Linux:
    The Mozilla integration project for Linux desktops [polinux.upv.es]

  • Running NLD (Score:4, Interesting)

    by owlstead (636356) on Saturday November 27 2004, @01:03PM (#10931778)
    What if I'm running it _in_ NLD? 'Cause I'm there already.

    This is a good thing. One of the reasons that Java never took off from the desktop was that it didn't integrate with the native GUI. Nice to see OpenOffice not making the same mistake.

    Too many linux applications still have horrible, unusable file selectors. It will never take off as long as such monstrosities are present everywhere.

    This is one of the reasons why Windows is used by so many people. They do provide a more or less monotone interface. Even if the interface is horrible (like personalized menu's) it's horrible all over the place.
    • So what what you're saying is: rather than be nice sometimes and nasty at others, it's better to be consistently nasty. And that's true, from the perspective of a user who just wants to be able to figure something out once, get used to it, and not have to keep re-figuring it out every time he loads a different application. Microsoft has their Common Controls libraries for things like file and print selectors: they aren't an optimal solution in my opinion but they work, people are familiar with them, and I

  • Why OpenOffice is important (Score:4, Informative)

    by Ars-Fartsica (166957) on Saturday November 27 2004, @01:06PM (#10931799)
    Microsoft has essentially turned into a replacement parts business for Windows and Office - adoption of new PCs at home and at work has normalized, new business is flat. Many of their new ventures are flat, ROI negative, or true money losers.

    Having a drop-in replacement for Office is critical to attacking their core replacement parts business.

    Kudos by the way to AbiWord and Gnumeric, two excellent programs that are native GNOME apps today.

  • Aqua on Mac OS X (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HeelToe (615905) on Saturday November 27 2004, @01:08PM (#10931807) Homepage
    Oh please, let's do this for Mac OS X!

  • Only KDE icons (Score:3, Informative)

    by Xpilot (117961) on Saturday November 27 2004, @01:09PM (#10931813) Homepage
    In the link provided, only KDE icons are provided, though GTK+ is used when run in GNOME, and you need the NLD version for the full GNOME look. So the best bet for GNOME-only using folk like me is still the build tool itself [ximian.com].

  • What about Qt on MacOS X, then? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rxmd (205533) on Saturday November 27 2004, @01:12PM (#10931831) Homepage
    If OpenOffice can be built with KDE support, does it use Qt for the frontend under KDE?

    Why not use Qt/Aqua on MacOS X instead of the incredibly clumsy X11 interface, then?

  • Direct Link to Mirrors (Score:3, Informative)

    by twener (603089) on Saturday November 27 2004, @01:13PM (#10931843)
    Download OOo_1.1.3-kde_LinuxIntel_install.tar.gz [kde.org]

  • Window Managers (Score:5, Funny)

    by oexeo (816786) on Saturday November 27 2004, @01:21PM (#10931891)
    I just began developing an GUI-based application for KDE/Gnome, my major obstacle being the window "managers". It goes something like this:

    Developer: OK, put this window here.
    KDE/Kwin: Actually it's better over here.
    Developer: No! I'll need that space later for another window.
    Gnome/MetaCity: I know, I know! How about here?
    Developer: Christ! No not there either.
    Developer: OK, how about you both put it here? that makes sense.
    KDE/Kwin: That's great, but I'll just shift up a bit, and flip your directions horizontally.
    Gnome/MetaCity: Ignore KDE, it's perfect! But I think it would be even more perfect over here.
    Developer: Jesus Christ!

    It's usually possible to get what you want, but often involves hacks, redundant code, and forking.

    I realise this is intentional and in the interests of usability and consistency, but more often than not the it's counter productive to the cause, since frequently a human knows better than a computer when it comes to usability.

    • Re:Window Managers (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SillyNickName4me (760022) <dotslash@bartsplace.net> on Saturday November 27 2004, @02:03PM (#10932177) Homepage
      if you want control over window placement like that, you either define a workspace for your windows to recide in, or you just rethink your idea.

      1. Your application has no fucking clue abotu how the user wants their windows displayed
      2. Your application has as little clue about what the rest of the display is used for.

      The window manager however has a bit of a clue about both, so it IS the proper place for deciding on window placement. All your application should ever try to do is give a suggestion.

      Sorry to say, but if you do not udnerstand this then imo you have not understood what a windowsing system is for.

      In short, when you develop for a shared gui environment (ie, the gui is also used for other things then your application) you do NOT have control over window placement, deal with it or write your own dedicated gui, it is the nature of the beast.

  • Here's what I want! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by erroneus (253617) on Saturday November 27 2004, @01:45PM (#10932036) Homepage
    FC2/FC3 RPM packages.

    That's all. On one hand, I like the way RPM works and what it does for the user. On the other hand, I can never seem to get the most up-to-date packages. It's terribly unfortunate and is always a balancing act between installing from tarball and maintaining RPM integrity. I suspect there are ways of handling it better and further that someone might even volunteer these better ways right here in response to this.

    But if someone out there loves to build useful RPMs and has already built RPMS suitable for FC2 and/or FC3, please let me know where they are! I know I can't be the only one wanting them.

  • What about OS X? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ciurana (2603) on Saturday November 27 2004, @01:45PM (#10932039) Homepage Journal

    Disclaimer: I'm an OOo advocate, as you can see from this Computerworld article (http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/softw are/apps/story/0,10801,92195,00.html?SKC=software- 92195 [computerworld.com]) that I published last Spring.

    I used OOo since the days of StarOffice. I managed to write two books, many presentations, spreadsheets, and countless business documents in it. OOo is probably one of the best office applications and it's cross-platform.

    I had quasi undying loyalty to OOo until I decided to go to OS X. While the feature set is almost identical to other versions of OOo, the GUI is one of the ugliest. OOo also lacks compatibility with Exchange servers, which I'm forced to use for work (yuck!). For these two reasons, I had to cave in and return to Office:Mac.

    The efforts to tightly couple OOo with KDE or Gnome are important and interesting but far from the marketing win that OOo needs. An OOo version that supports the native OS X look and feel would probably win lots of support from Apple's user base because it would be, in most cases, a drop-in, free replacement for Office:Mac.

    I interact now with quite a few Mac users on regular basis; most, if not all, would love to ditch Office:Mac in favour of OOo if the GUI and other system integration issues were resolved. I believe that an OS X/Aqua version of OOo is more strategically important than one for Gnome or KDE because it would generate instant press outside the early-adopter, Linux world.

    A strategic marketing win could result in additional funding/participation/donations to OOo to carry on with other projects that, although important, lack the visibility that the Mac has or could bring to OOo.

    Cheers,

    Eugene
    • The integration work for GNOME and KDE has been largely funded by Novell and Red Hat. There are apparently no such companies funding OS X integration, probably because Apple values its relationship with Microsoft too much.
    • Check out OOo's page on OSX development at http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/timeline.html

      Quoting the relevent section

      What's holding back the Quartz and Aqua tracks?

      To implement Quartz and Aqua, we will need to change APIs that are owned by different projects here at OOo, and the one we really do need to target is undergoing a major revamp (Toolkit2). These changes will affect all platforms, so we are working with gsl to get the hooks we need to complete a native port.

      Aside from our compilation efforts

  • screenshots (Score:4, Informative)

    by sewagemaster (466124) <sewagemaster@NOspAm.gmail.com> on Saturday November 27 2004, @03:08PM (#10932599) Homepage
    here [kde-apps.org] and here [kde-apps.org]

    • Re:My my my... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by l3v1 (787564) on Saturday November 27 2004, @12:59PM (#10931751)
      writing code for an obviously inferior tool that relatively few (alleged) people would use. Jan, like so many of the slashdot groupthink, needs to get a life or at least an XP laptop

      Another flameish troll BS-writing anonymous. Since you already saw and followed your light to the end of the tunnel, why don't you let us poor stupid others find our own ?

      Your one pointed to an XP laptop with MS's Office. Thank God, this is not the only way.

      Just pack your ignorance and get yourself lost.

      As for KDE/GNOME integration of OO.org: I welcome it enthusiastically. Every step to make it slinker, better, faster, more = a good step.

    • Not really. Whole talk here is about DE consistancy.

      OO.o uses its own widget set. Except that in Windows OO.o uses M$ API in *X it uses X11. Now OO.o widget sets are taking its ground on underlaying DE insted of X11.

      XP laptop??? Been there, never again. And "never" is a definitive term in this case.

      p.s. if you were meaning M$ Office. Yeah right. Just look at the consistancy of XP and Office 2003. It looks like mad cows piloting the space shuttle under water. No consistancy at all.

    • Re:My my my... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by The Cisco Kid (31490) * on Saturday November 27 2004, @01:04PM (#10931786)
      God forbid that people might actually have some choices. Personally I dont use MS Office (or any other MS software or platforms), *OR* OpenOffice, because

      1. The entire concept of a 'Word Processor' is stupid - http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/wp.html

      2. If I need a database, I'll use Mysql (Or PostgresSQL, etc)

      3. On the (rare) occasion that I need to arrange numbers in a table, I use Gnumeric.

      • Re:My my my... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mr. McGibby (41471) on Saturday November 27 2004, @01:31PM (#10931957) Homepage Journal
        The "word processor is stupid" idea is narrow minded. True, for certain classes of documents, TeX is a better way to do things. But isn't perfect either. The referenced article talks about the two phases of preparing documents, composition and typesetting. Composition is about the words and typesetting is about the "look" of the document. The problem is that TeX is horrible at the second step. True, it makes great looking documents "out of the box", but if I decide that the default look isn't what I want, then it is far too difficult to change it. Where is the tool that allows me to change the format as I like? Every TeX article I read basically says, "If you don't like it, you're wrong." Certainly not a very user-friendly attitude to have.

        The other problem is that many word processors are very useful for those cases when the text composition isn't really important, but formatting is the key point, like a sign for my garage sale. Have you ever tried do something like that in TeX?

        Don't get me wrong, I use LaTeX all the time, but only for very specific types of documents. It just doesn't work for the majority of stuff that I need to do.
        • The idea is not "narrow-minded". The idea is an
          interesting idea - COMPOSITION and LAYOUT are different things!


          The deficiencies of TeX not being tweakable should not be used to against for the importance of the above idea. That about that.

      • 1. The entire concept of a 'Word Processor' is stupid - http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/wp.html [wfu.edu]

        Oh, right. I love this comment:

        Take for instance a section heading. So far as the logical structure of a document is concerned, all that matters is that a particular piece of text should be ``marked'' somehow as a section heading. One might for instance type \section{Text of heading}.

        Come on. No one in their right mind would want to type "\section{Text of heading}"! Nothing could be less intuitive!

        If this

          • Ahh, I get it...

            Word processors, specificaly WYSIWYG, are stupid and inefficient [wfu.edu], we should all use TeX instead.
            But the TeX commands and syntax are too complex, so use a nice program to generate the TeX. A WYSIWYG word processor, opps, I mean, a WYSIWYM document processor, that outputs TeX.

            So, word processors are "stupid and inefficient", unless they output TeX and are called document processors?
      • 1. The entire concept of a 'Word Processor' is stupid - http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/wp.html

        That entire article was written on the basis of the fact that most people incorrectly use word processors! You can do exactly what the author is describing in Microsoft Word, and it is a hell of a lot easier than Tex. As you are typing your document, you simply mark things with Heading 1, etc (create new styles as you need them). When you're done "composing", then edit the styles such that your document is
          • The big problem is people *assuming* everyone has MS-Word, and using it's proprietary format to exchange information by default.

            It's a problem for Microsoft's competitors and for FOSS zealots, but not for the rest of us. I don't communicate with a single person that doesn't have MS Word (or at least WordPad). Let's not forget that if you are running Linux, you have made a choice to use something that has different features and limitations than the software that 90+% of the world uses. It is not the obl

    • Re:Features of interest... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SillyNickName4me (760022) <dotslash@bartsplace.net> on Saturday November 27 2004, @01:59PM (#10932140) Homepage
      Did you ever consider that OOo might in fact have features that simply cannot be saved in MS word format? This does not mean at all that you cannot make MS word format documents, it just means that it has the same limitations as for exampel Office 2000 when tryign to save a MS word 6 document. It simply cannot save things in that format when the features needed are not supported, but it can create readable MS word 6 documents pretty well.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.