KOffice 2.0.0 Now Open For Firefox-Like Extensions 165
jakeb writes "After a massive three-year development effort KOffice 2.0.0 has been released (packages for Kubuntu are available) aiming to be a lightweight, cross-platform office suite that supports third-party apps and extensions. With its new design (everything, including the core components, is a module) and bindings, you don't need to know C++ to hack on KOffice, as extensions can be written in Python or Java, among others. TechWorld has an interview with KOffice marketing coordinator Inge Wallin about the vision for an easy-to-use office suite that supports click-to-install extensions like Firefox. Will this be the key to KOffice rising above all other free office suites? The KOffice devs think so. An online repository of extensions, templates, and content for KOffice? I like the sound of that."
Asking for a Mile (Score:2, Insightful)
What, no windows packages??
Or is this available via the KDE for Windows installer?
Congrats to the KOffice team! I refuse t use OO (too much Java) so I'll finally have a decent free office suite!
KDE 4.0 once again... (Score:4, Insightful)
From TFA:
Our goal for now is to release a first preview of what we have accomplished. This release is mainly aimed at developers, testers and early adopters. It is not aimed at end users, and we do not recommend Linux distributions to package it as the default office suite yet.
Why don't they release this version as KOffice 2.0 BETA? Funny that they put the 0.0 number to kind of "inform" that it is the very very first version...
It seems to me that it is official, Open Source .0 versions = beta
Re:Color me not impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think anyone is expecting KOffice to take over the world. That's really not the point. What the KOffice team has accomplished is creating a set of tools that some people will use and others will extend, and the extensions will bring more users. Making creating useful extensions easy is critical for an open source application - it's how you allow the community to implement needed features without central planning and control. That the KOffice team gets it doesn't need to be derided, they should be congratulated, and now that I have a word processor & spreadsheet I can extend, I'm going to have some real fun. Oh, and saying there is nothing novel here, well, you need to go read up a little. The KOffice team has done a yeoman's job on this one.
Re:KDE 4.0 once again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sure where you got the impression that a .0 version is a final "please use this for your mission critical work". That has never been true and nobody every claimed it to be the case. Remember Windows 3.0 ? I don't. I do remember 3.1
Unless you use a special versioning system (like the Linux kernel), any release that isn't marked "Beta" or "Release candidate" should be ready for prime-time... unless the first number is a 0 (i.e. version 0.6.5 is understood to be "Beta" or "unstable"). OTOH, 2.0.0 should be ready for regular use, unless it's 2.0.0 BETA or 2.0.0 RC1.
I agree with the GP, labeling a release 2.0.0 (without saying "Beta" or "RC") and then saying it's not ready for daily use by end users is kind of stupid.
You give Win 3.0 as an example... OK, Win 3.0 wasn't around much, but what DOS versions do you remember? I mostly remember 5.0 and 6.0. How about Firefox, IE, Opera, and Safari? Sure, they had "minor" versions, but Firefox 2.0.0 and 3.0.0 were both considered "ready for use", likewise with IE 6.0, 7.0, 8.0. Opera 9.0, etc. A .0 release DOES NOT signify a "BETA", it signifies a milestone. If it isn't ready for public consumption, it should be market beta, release candidate, testing, or unstable.
Re:KDE 4.0 once again... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the GP, labeling a release 2.0.0 (without saying "Beta" or "RC") and then saying it's not ready for daily use by end users is kind of stupid.
Its a platform release. For developers and integrators. They want a release too, you know :)
End users are not the only reason to release software.
Anybody got functional debs for Jaunty? (Score:2, Insightful)
I went ahead and installed it (160 mb for the entire kde runtime... lightweight, right) and it wouldn't run.
kword(4657) KServiceFactory::findServiceByDesktopPath: "findServiceByDesktopPath: Office/kword.desktop not found"
That's enough screwing around with KDE, at least until I get a new computer. I swear the devs are all running 4+ gb of Ram on multicore machines. Granted, this old thing is a 4-year-old celeron 2.8ghz, but still. Abiword runs fine. Granted, Abiword doesn't faithfully reproduce the full bloated complexity of the modern .doc, but I really don't want to.
Re:Color me not impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
Bloat for you and me is a necessary feature for someone else, and vice-versa. The real issue is this: is the interface intuitive enough to not overwhelm the user, and is it spaghetti code or modular enough that unneeded/unused parts do not have to be loaded into RAM at run time?
Re:KDE 4.0 once again... (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh. Sorry, that's complete bullshit. While everyone knows that a .0 version may have bugs, it's also expected that a .0 version *will* be ready for prime time. If it's not, it should have an alpha or beta moniker.
I appreciate your opinion, and I even understand your point of view. Do you understand that releasing software may be something that is not just for your benefit? There are integrators, developers and others that need this release. And you should try it, you might even like it. Depending on how many features you actually use from an office suite.
Re:KDE 4.0 once again... (Score:1, Insightful)
People might also remember a little project called "GNOME" whose 2.0.0 had a mass of feature regressions (and not deliberately removed features, either), stability regressions, performance regressions etc:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?304220
As someone who has followed KDE development from afar, I have to say that I am utterly, heartily sick of people implying that KDE is the only project (or even the first!) to have a terrible .0.0 release. Lambasting developers based on your own lack of knowledge of history is a pretty dick move, and discourages future developers from making the "big breakages" that are often necessary to keep your project vital and non-stagnant.
Re:Oh FSM more extensions (Score:3, Insightful)
The other problem I find with extensions is the way they break package managers.
This is one of the areas the package managers can improve. I think of something like one big base repository, and several sub-repositories for each program that has extension support, where each item can be installed system-wide (requires admin) or per-user. APT could even connect to the official extension sites and create packages on the fly. That would be cool.
Re:Oh FSM more extensions (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that something as complex as an office suite needs some sort of API which third parties can use to interact with it but making core features extensions doesn't, to me, feel like the correct way forward.
Anyway, having stuck the boot into one idea I'd like to say that the way KWord handles images in documents is fantastic - why can't all word processors work this way? Or more to the point why, when I insert an image into an MS Word document (and OOo) does it immediately think that I want to obscure a load of text with a floating image? I wouldn't have written it if I wanted it hidden.
Re:Color me not impressed (Score:3, Insightful)
One person's bloat is another's core functionality. At least I think that's what the old saying is... anyway, handling RTL languages is "bloat" to me as I'm unilingual (and not always even that many). That said, I'm not decrying it - I recognise that it's core for others (at $work, we get to support 30 languages, including RTL's and double-byte languages). Honestly, I only buy the "bloat" argument from those who have Pentium III's with 128MB of RAM and 50-100GB of disk space where this starts to get significant. My box is large enough that I can merely concern myself with "does it do the job I need it to do?" and ignore the cruft. i.e., it's almost big enough to run Vista.
Re:AdBlock Plus (Score:2, Insightful)
I see the day coming when this will no longer be funny.
It's because of MS Office (Score:3, Insightful)
Having MS Office and IE objects be scriptable via COM is one of the great success stories in Windows. It's funny though, now that everyone in the Windows world has moved on from Office scripting, everyone in the Linux world, who used to mock interpreted language bindings, suddenly now has to have it.
Re:KDE 4.0 once again... (Score:3, Insightful)
I appreciate your opinion, and I even understand your point of view. Do you understand that releasing software may be something that is not just for your benefit? There are integrators, developers and others that need this release.
What the hell do you think alpha and beta releases are for, exactly?
Re:It's the document formats, stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
(Not the GP, but...) I can't argue with your first paragraph. KOffice's implementation of ODF, while improved dramatically in this release, is not fully compatible with OOo, and that's a pain in the ass.
Having said that, though, I'm really glad that KOffice isn't "joining the club with .doc and .xls." OOo seems to concentrate entirely on interoperability, and in a way they suffer for it. Whatever else OOo is, it ain't "cool" or "fun." KOffice, OTOH, has been focusing this development cycle on some pretty radical changes, both in the interface and the codebase itself. You know, actually developing software. I know this is a radical concept wrt office suites, but it's true.
If you haven't used the 2.x branch yet, you should at least have a look. It's unlike any other office suite. I don't like all the changes, it might not be your cup of tea, and it's a work in progress, but for cryin' out loud, at least somebody's trying. God knows it's not OOo.
Re:Wait for KOffice 2.2 (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I can see that you have a problem with that, but what with you being an Anonymous Jerkoff and all, why the fuck should anybody care?
Yes, it says "not aimed at end users." On the front fucking page. If that's you, then this is not for you. Nor is it for you to piss and moan about.
When KDE 4.0.0 came out, people were bitching that it wasn't clear enough that it was not an end-user release. Now they're putting a big disclaimer right there, front and center, and you still find some reason to run your mouth. Die in a fire.
Re:It's the document formats, stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
I get your point, but without at least the ability to import legacy documents, it's never gonna get used anywhere near the level it deserves (even if it's a great, new, innovative suite).
There's a reason we all still use QWERTY keyboards, and I'd argue the lock-in there is less onerous than the lock-in of billions of legacy documents. And I'm not one of those who claims that legacy (i.e. MS) import needs to be 'perfect'. Good enough is a great thing. But part of good enough is some level of compatibility with the past.
Re:Oh FSM more extensions (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is what happens when you and I have a completely different view of what constitutes "core functionality"? Should we just build every concept and feature directly into the application? Somehow I think your tune would be a lot different if Firefox came with its 1000+ extensions built right into the browser and enabled by default.
Also, what happens when somebody has a great idea for a modification to the software that would be immensely useful to a small subset of users but not at all useful for anyone else? Sure they could release their own Firefox but I'm sure you can see the many reasons that would be an untenable option for just about everyone involved.
Huh? How can there be such a thing as too much choice? It's not as if you're being asked to opt-out of all the extensions. You have to go looking for them in order to install them. If you think that's hard, then buddy, there's nothing I can do to help you.
So choice and configuration are a problem. But tailoring software to your needs is good. Firefox extensions are bad. Yet you apparently use them. What part of this am I not quite getting?
1) Put the extensions you use on a flash drive or wherever you can easily access them from a fresh install.
2) Turn off updates.
Problem solved!
This is an interesting idea. But unfortunately it's completely worthless if you haven't submitted it to the Firefox developers or someone else willing to implement it and create a patch (assuming you're not up to the programming task yourself).
This is not a problem with the concept or idea of extensions but with the package management on your operating system. Again, assuming you paid nothing for the software in question, this is a case of reporting the problem to the maintainers or fixing it yourself and submitting your work. (Or finding something else that suits your needs better.)