# OpenOffice



## t_hah (Oct 3, 2001)

Anyone knows this? what is the status of this on the Mac?
Anyone using it? I am just looking for any general feedback, on the quality of this sw.


Thanks

t


----------



## jabhome (Oct 3, 2001)

http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/ 

In it's current state I don't think it is ready for the average consumer.  If you are a developer, I say go for it, fix it up for the rest of us.

Jason

From the above page under what still needs to be done:

As of the OO638C release tag, about half of the modules are able to be compiled on Mac OS X 10.0.x. Hence, the remaining modules need to be made to compile before the installation program and OpenOffice.org itself can be run. Although nearly all of the code in the remaining modules is platform independent, developers will find many instances where the code will not compile without some changes.


----------



## rkadowns (Oct 3, 2001)

Like you I cannot wait for OpenOffice for OSX.  Does anyone even know if there is active development going on?  I scour the web and find nothing other than news that Sun passed the project over to OpenOffice and references to www.openoffice.org.  Whats up with that.  And while we are on the subject of projects, any news of any progress with the Cocoa version of GiMP?


----------



## hyph-n (Oct 4, 2001)

I looked into this a while back.... but was not sure what state it was in....

.. i'm a professional C/C++ developer (& manager), but on the windoze platform (spit!).....

.... but i have installed all of the Developer Tools on the Mac (i'm running 10.0.4, but have ordered 10.1 on CD... still waiting..)

... I think it would be kinda cool to try this  - has anyone even tried to compile it?


----------



## strobe (Oct 4, 2001)

Question: Anybody who has actually used it actually want it ported?

From what I've seen all you'll end up with is the same interface the X11 version has, with candy-colored widgets. 

Promoting open standards for file formats would be far more productive.


----------



## kilowatt (Oct 4, 2001)

Yeah, thats like the people who would rather have the world turn while they hold the light bulb.

Strobe, we have to get this program finished. I'd really like to make power point presentations, spread sheets, and doc files without ms word.  Instead of asking all my professors and fellow students to save everything in rtf format, I'd just like to have a compatible alternative to word.

Sure, you can spend your time with tedious conversion programs. But I'd really like to see this package ported.

Now, when blender comes to os x, I will be just consumed by my screen!

Oh, and I think the cocoa version of the gimp is done, but its not free. Thats from what I've seen on versiontracker.com


----------



## strobe (Oct 4, 2001)

Good grief...

First of all, have you even USED open office or star office?

Secondly it's impossible for there to be a non-free version of GIMP. That would be, how do you say, illegal.

Thirdly there will never be a Cocoa version of GIMP. The best you'll have is GIMP with Cocoa windows which is hardly the same thing. Same old GIMP interface with possibly different widgets. GIMP is an X11 app and that isn't going to change any time soon (if ever). The authors just don't give a damn about the non-X11 world.

In order to make a Cocoa app which has GIMP-like features you would have to write one from scratch. This isn't unlike the OpenOffice situation.

If you really want Open Office then why fool yourself trying to make a 'mac' port and just compile the X11 version. Go on, do it. Whatever you do, don't offer money for somebody else to do it or you might fool them into thinking you're really interested in this project.


----------



## c.i.t (Oct 4, 2001)

> _Originally posted by strobe _
> *Good grief...
> Thirdly there will never be a Cocoa version of GIMP. The best you'll have is GIMP with Cocoa windows which is hardly the same thing. Same old GIMP interface with possibly different widgets. GIMP is an X11 app and that isn't going to change any time soon (if ever). The authors just don't give a damn about the non-X11 world.
> *



Actually, a cocoa version is in the works, though its barely usable, its still being worked on.  

http://www.macgimp.org/article.php?sid=37

Later,
c.i.t


----------



## jarinteractive (Oct 4, 2001)

> _Originally posted by strobe _
> *Thirdly there will never be a Cocoa version of GIMP. The best you'll have is GIMP with Cocoa windows which is hardly the same thing. Same old GIMP interface with possibly different widgets. GIMP is an X11 app and that isn't going to change any time soon (if ever). The authors just don't give a damn about the non-X11 world.*



Hmmm....
I didn't know Windows was part of the X11 world

If you can port it to M$ Windows (which has been done), then you can port it to Mac OS X.

-JARinteractive


----------



## strobe (Oct 4, 2001)

And like I pointed out, it isn't really. It's just the same interface in Cocoa windows. All the joys of the X11 version without X11 (which is pretty damned pointless).

It doesn't use NSImages for example, thus it doesn't take advantage of ColorSync or image conversion or drag+drop abilities. 

Did you actually use it, or look at the source?!


----------



## rkadowns (Oct 4, 2001)

"Whatever you do, don't offer money for somebody else to do it or you might fool them into thinking you're really interested in this project."

Comments such as these....

Sounds like a great project for you.  I would be more than happy to give you $20 bucks towards development.  I'm sure there are a lot of people who would.  PayPal is a great way to pool the cash, but there will have to be some results.

If I could code, I would damn skippy take you on your challenge.  However the extent of my coding ability ends with printing my name to the screen in Commodore Basic.  Anyone here have the balls and skill to take skippy here on the challenge?

"First of all, have you even USED open office or star office?"

Hell yes!  I use 5.2 almost daily on my WINDOWS machine at work.  Funny thing is, I don't see any X-11 widgets displayed.  Seems to me there is a way to use an OS's native widges with a little TLC and skill.  SO 5.2 is damn good for its price, and SO 6 beta looks extremely compelling.  Maybe a little competition on the Mac side will prevent Office X from requiring 5 Franklins.  Appleworks is kids play compaired to SO or Office.


----------



## c.i.t (Oct 4, 2001)

> _Originally posted by strobe _
> *And like I pointed out, it isn't really. It's just the same interface in Cocoa windows. All the joys of the X11 version without X11 (which is pretty damned pointless).
> 
> It doesn't use NSImages for example, thus it doesn't take advantage of ColorSync or image conversion or drag+drop abilities.
> ...



Are you talking about the cocoa_project? Trust me, it is native to os x, it does not require xfree86, I am running it right now...its not that much of a thing to run considering it can do that much (libaries and much more stuff have to be ported over).  The point is that it can be done, and there is a point of having a native OS X gimp.  

1.  It will actually be usable by consumers, you can't expect an average mac-user to install xfree86 on their os x box, this is far easier. (unless Apple makes xfree86 part of os 10 all of a sudden..which would be quite cool)

2.  Gimp is slow while using xfree86, just try dragging a window around, its very slow.

By the way, "Did you actually use it, or look at the source?!" you have to chill some, we are all friends here  

catch ya on the flip side
c.i.t


----------



## strobe (Oct 4, 2001)

Dragging X11 windows is only slow because it isn't considered opaque by Quartz for some reason, not in XDarwin 0.5 anyway. Solving those issues would bear more fruit than trying to do crappy ad-hoc ports. Dragging windows is actually the slowest action because of this, scrolling a window is the same speed. Scroll stuff in wmaker preferences while Quartz Debug is on if you want proof. Neither Quartz nor X11 is hardware accelerated, the speed issue is over what portion of the surface is updated. The only major difference here is when dragging opaque windows. 

If you had an improved XDarwin installer, the Cocoa GIMP project is pointless. It's the same X11 interface. It doesn't follow a single Aqua HI guideline. Writing an app which looks like but doesn't behave like a mac app is IMO the worst combination. 

As for windows, they don't really have HI guidelines except those loosely copied form other systems when porting apps like Photoshop. 

My point is if you want those X11 apps, you can have them without trying to do things like 'port' GTK or Qt to OS X. The only difference will be native widgets which only end up being confusing. I mean look at Swing, that mess is bad enough. Thankfully you can change the default theme to Metal (by hacking an obscure .defaults file). 

I fail to see the point of 'porting' an app to OS X so it doesn't use X11 if it has the same interface. In fact it's counter-productive. What could possible be the advantage other than sophistry "Ah ha! We have a NATIVE COCOA GIMP! (bull)"


----------



## c.i.t (Oct 5, 2001)

> _Originally posted by strobe _
> *Dragging X11 windows is only slow because it isn't considered opaque by Quartz for some reason, not in XDarwin 0.5 anyway. Solving those issues would bear more fruit than trying to do crappy ad-hoc ports. Dragging windows is actually the slowest action because of this, scrolling a window is the same speed. Scroll stuff in wmaker preferences while Quartz Debug is on if you want proof. Neither Quartz nor X11 is hardware accelerated, the speed issue is over what portion of the surface is updated. The only major difference here is when dragging opaque windows.
> 
> If you had an improved XDarwin installer, the Cocoa GIMP project is pointless. It's the same X11 interface. It doesn't follow a single Aqua HI guideline. Writing an app which looks like but doesn't behave like a mac app is IMO the worst combination.
> ...



Hmm..I thought Quartz had hardware acceleration in 10.1, or at least 2d acceleration has been optimized.

Your points are all legit, I don't want a piece of crap ported application but you fail to miss one crucial point, the average consumer would not install a whole entire x-system to use one program. Try this analogy, people rather use a program written for os x, rather then launch up classic and use it.  The fact of the matter is that Gimp is at times, described as the Photohsop competitor.  If Gimp wants to compete on the mac, it has be change some.  Mac users, in general do not know about X-Windws, .default files etc.  Computer graphic pro's are not going to waste time setting up all these settings/libraries/window-systems to use the program.  That takes time, and time is money.  I don't think its counter-productive whatsoever.  Even if Gimp had a great installer, you still need to get xwindows running (which is not the most carefree/maclike setting to throw a graphic pro in) If gimp could actually be ported (as I read, it would be smarter to port it via carbon then cocoa..) it would be great.  I think the "waste" of energy would be worth it, mac users would have a free graphic-editor, not one ~$200.  I think we are arguing about two different things though, I'm sure you know all this stuff I just stated....you don't seem to be one of those "general" mac users


----------



## strobe (Oct 5, 2001)

The only "2D acceleration" Quartz has is not having to update opaque surfaces which are dragged. 

GIMP is not a Photoshop competator nor can it be tweaked to become a mac app. Like I said before, it needs a complete rewrite, otherwise it's just an X11 app (which is loosly defined as an app which doesn't follow any HI conventions whatsoever) with slightly different requirements. The only thing people have suggested is having it use Aqua widgets, which I have already explained is counter-productive. That's "waste" no matter how little energy is invested. All you'll end up with is an app which behaves exactly the same as GIMP always has, only it tries to fool people into thinking it's a mac app by using mac widgets. A facade does not an HI make. 

(If it were a competator to Photoshop, Adobe would have ported it by now. Why do you think Illustrator was their first OS X app to be released? Let's stick to reality here folks.)


----------



## c.i.t (Oct 5, 2001)

Heh..ok lets break this down some..



> _Originally posted by strobe _
> *GIMP is not a Photoshop competator *



1.  Gimp is known to many as a photoshop competitor. If you want me to list the many, many url's floating containing the opinions of Graphic Pro's and how they consdier Gimp an alternative to Photoshop, I will.  You keep on forgetting that it is free.  Not everybody has 200+ bucks to shell out for Photoshop.  I am not going to argue this though...it might no be as clean cut as its buddy Photoshop, but it is a worthy contestant, there is no denying that.



> *nor can it be tweaked to become a mac app.  Like I said before, it needs a complete rewrite*



2.  I never said it could be "tweaked" to become a mac app.  I was purely speaking about a fully native version of Gimp.  It could be written to run natively in Mac 10.  Windows has a port, a gtk port has been in the works for OS 9 (shows that if it can be somewhat-ported to OS 9, it wouldn't be that difficult to port it to 10), a fully carbon/cocoa Gimp would not be out of the question. This, I don't believe would be a waste of time....




> * The only thing people have suggested is having it use Aqua widgets, which I have already explained is counter-productive. *



3.  Dude, look at the discussion, I think your the one who suggested the use of Aqua widgets..  

Example 1: "From what I've seen all you'll end up with is the same interface the X11 version "  --You posted this.

Example 2: "The best you'll have is GIMP with Cocoa windows which is hardly the same thing. Same old GIMP interface with possibly different widgets. " --You posted this as well...



> *If it were a competator to Photoshop, Adobe would have ported it by now. Why do you think Illustrator was their first OS X app to be released? Let's stick to reality here folks*



4.  Thats a weak arguement dude...do remember that Photoshop is a big, complicated application, it is not that simple to port.  Besides, Adobe is just not porting Photoshop 6 to OS 10, they are creating Photoshop 7 which will have many new features as long as a Classic port, this takes time! (Note:there have been 2 OS X Photoshop 7 OS X beta builds sent out to testers..Its almost ready...)

Overall, like I said in my other post "I think we are arguing about two different things though," which we were...but obviously you have not had the respect to actually look at my posts...So of course I had to be redundant and repeat some of my points..Forums are for discussion, if you just want to ignore everyone else's opinion my friend, then don't take part in these conversations.  (Not trying to be harsh, just making some observations..which might be stemmed from anger, thus unfair..) 

Later man.


----------



## c.i.t (Oct 5, 2001)

heh..whoops..we got kind of off subject here...sorry


----------



## orangeluna (Oct 5, 2001)

Sorry to give info without a link, but I do remember reading an article(in a Linux mag, I believe) that Gimp 2.0 was going to drop alot of it's X11(and GTK, I presume) dependencies.  That way Windows users won't have to deal with those awful GTK widgets and Mac users can have nice front end - using Project Builder I assume.

Flame on!

Ask the folks at MacGimp if you need to know.


----------



## c.i.t (Oct 6, 2001)

"Flame on! "

ha....now why would we do that?


----------



## eastsider (Oct 8, 2001)

I  share strobe's frustration at this talk of  a cocoa or carbon gimp, when in reality there is zero chance of all the gimp developers suddenly embracing objective c, or (stranger still) carbon mac libraries, and rewriting the entire app. And that is what it means to say that gimp is one or the other of those c-words. 

Aparently what is going on is people are writing shells for gimp with cocoa libraries that eliminate the need for an X installation. Although I too think that this does very little or nothing at all to help the usability challenged app, it does make the install a lot simpler and more lightweight for mac users who will never use any other X apps. And other than the fact that that creates a new code branch to maintain (that will inevitably lag behind the normal X releases), it's got to be a good thing for those users. Plus, a branch such as that provides the opportunity for mac-oriented developers to fix up those glaring interface incosistencies that bother strobe so much. So what the hell, here's to a cocoa (wrapped) gimp!


----------



## strobe (Oct 8, 2001)

Not only is GIMP NOT a photoshop competator, it's not free. It costs blood, sweat, and tears. I'm not going to entertain suggestions that GIMP is a photoshop editor without references to specific applications, not a vague reference to so-called professionals. I sent a GIMP user a smoke image and he coudln't even see it. Woops, I guess color calibration has it's uses, even for professionals (good grief). No denying that it's a "worthy contestant"? I deny it!

If by native you mean it has been compiled for Mac OS X, then it's already native. If by native you mean it can be considered a mac app, that will never happen. If by native you mean it doesn't use X11, that is a really weird definition which serves no purpose but to muddle issues. GIMP is as native as it'll ever get.

As for Aqua widgets, you completely lost your bain on this one...

Example 1: "From what I've seen all you'll end up with is the same interface the X11 version " --You posted this. 

Example 2: "The best you'll have is GIMP with Cocoa windows which is hardly the same thing. Same old GIMP interface with possibly different widgets. " --You posted this as well... 

On both these examples I explain that all you will end up is CRAP and thus don't BOTHER!!! Aqua widgets without the expected behavior of that appearance is counter-productive, therefore all you would end up with is a total waste of energy. If you interpret those statements to mean I advocate use of Aqua widgets, you've lost it completely.

As for porting Photoshop, it's no more complicated than Illustrator. However Illustrator was put on the fast track despite it's craptitude because Macromedia and Deneba were porting competing products. Photoshop has no competator, so they have little incentive to port it unless they could charge money for it.


----------



## c.i.t (Oct 8, 2001)

> _Originally posted by strobe _
> *Not only is GIMP NOT a photoshop competator, it's not free. It costs blood, sweat, and tears.*



Ha..uhh..i'm not even going to try to touch that..heh..blood sweat and tears...heh..



> * I sent a GIMP user a smoke image and he coudln't even see it. Woops, I guess color calibration has it's uses, even for professionals (good grief). No denying that it's a "worthy contestant"? I deny it!
> *



So you are backing up your claim that GIMP is not a compeitor on the fact  that it [at times] has trouble opening up Photoshop files? That is a point, but it is weak.  There are many other aspects that make two pieces of software compeitors other then compatability.



> * If by native you mean it has been compiled for Mac OS X, then it's already native. If by native you mean it can be considered a mac app, that will never happen.*



Sigh..by native I mean fully carbonized/[cocoaized?].  Who would say it is native because it is considered a mac app? your really not making any sense here...



> *If by native you mean it doesn't use X11, that is a really weird definition which serves no purpose but to muddle issues. GIMP is as native as it'll ever get*



How is that a weird definition? It is native for it uses the quartz graphic layer, and not the xfree86 layer.  Issues are only getting "muddled" because you are not actually listening to my arguement..I have recognized your points and discussed them, but for some reason I have to keep on saying my points over and over again.....



> *As for Aqua widgets, you completely lost your bain on this one...
> 
> Example 1: "From what I've seen all you'll end up with is the same interface the X11 version " --You posted this.
> 
> ...



And by citing these examples I was showing that the only person that mentioned (not recommended) the use of aqua widgets is you!  No other user in this post even said that they would want to use them...only you dude...but once again, you have completely missunderstood me because of your stubborn outlook on this whole thing...once again..a forum is to discuss ideas...don't reject an idea once it is proposed because it conflicts with yours...



> *Aqua widgets without the expected behavior of that appearance is counter-productive, therefore all you would end up with is a total waste of energy. If you interpret those statements to mean I advocate use of Aqua widgets, you've lost it completely. *



Here we go again..no.  I did not interpret the statements to mean that you advocate the use of Aqua widgets..once again, you have totally took my arguement and made it do a 180 turn...no no no.  I did not inerpret the statements to mean that you advocate the use of Aqua widgets.....



> *As for porting Photoshop, it's no more complicated than Illustrator. However Illustrator was put on the fast track despite it's craptitude because Macromedia and Deneba were porting competing products. Photoshop has no competator, so they have little incentive to port it unless they could charge money for it.*



I have talked to a friend who works at a company that consults Adobe in the porting of their apps to OS 10.  He has told me that it is more complicated then Illustrator...I'm sorry, but I am sure that he has more of an idea then you....I _agree_ with you on the advantage of porting Illustrator first to compete with Macromedia and Deneba.  Just to note though, Adobe is going to charge for their os 10 upgrade, thus they do have an incentive....

Once again...you misunderstood a majority of what I said..and I know its not because of my writing, I have shown this post to many other of my friends and they have understood what I was saying...its just that you don't seem to grasp it..So basically I'll try to make this clear:

-I am for the fully carbonized/cocoa_version of GIMP.  Not the X11 port.
-I am not for the use of an Aqua look on top of X11.  (no aqua widgets)
-I do think that it is possible for GIMP to be fully carbonized/cocoaized (heh..).  If you disagree, look at my points in my above arguements..

There. Hope that cleans it up!
(just a note:  it would be easier to read your posts if you used the quote and bold tags...just an idea.)

Later strobe


----------



## strobe (Oct 8, 2001)

There is no point to carbonizing/cocoa-ising an app if it behaves exactly the same as it did before. What exactly would you be using Cocoa or Carbon for?! What is the POINT? So you can call it 'native'?

Just linking to Carbon or Cocoa doesn't make it any more native. Gee, I guess loginpanel.app isn't native by YOUR definition.

If an application used a new API to actually gain features there would be a point. So far all I see is a lot of programmatic gymnastics. 

As for the smoke file, he could open it, but he couldn't SEE it.


----------



## soellman (Oct 8, 2001)

> _Originally posted by strobe _
> *Not only is GIMP NOT a photoshop competator, it's not free. It costs blood, sweat, and tears.*


Heh.. I agree, most of the software from the 'free software' movement is not in fact free. Of course it depends on your definition of free, but if the definition extends past money, then the words of jwz ring true:

linux is only free if your time is of no value


----------



## c.i.t (Oct 8, 2001)

> _Originally posted by strobe _
> *There is no point to carbonizing/cocoa-ising an app if it behaves exactly the same as it did before.  *



Yes there is.  Once again, I'll restate what I said in other posts..
--So you don't have to install Xfree86. Don't tell me that it is easy to install and whatever.  Not having to install an extra graphic layer to run an application is good.  Think about it, do you enjoy loading up Classic every time you have to run a specific application?  This is a more extreme case though, for to run this you have to install another graphical layer which has little optimization.  Today I installed the latest Binary of Xfree86 and the latest version of XDarwin.  Then I installed GIMP.  Window dragging is really slow, try windowshading one of the windows, you can see it move up slowly, piece by piece.



> *What exactly would you be using Cocoa or Carbon for?! What is the POINT? So you can call it 'native'? *



I would be using Carbon or Cocoa so you wouldn't have to run the app through the xwindows system. 



> *Just linking to Carbon or Cocoa doesn't make it any more native. Gee, I guess loginpanel.app isn't native by YOUR definition.  *



Uh...this is full of misunderstandings.

1. What do you think my definition is?
2. What do you mean by linking? If you mean simply creating a front end for the app, I am against that. If you mean doing a re-write, then yes, I am for that.



> *If an application used a new API to actually gain features there would be a point. So far all I see is a lot of programmatic gymnastics. *



Ok. Yes. It does gain a feature.  The feature is that it does not need Xfree86 to run.  This is good for 
1.  <stated above> Xfree86 is not fully optimized...
2.  Graphics pro's, who don't have the time to install and download all these extra files then install them all, can have a nice streamlined program that acts the way they are used to.  **

** if Xfree86 gets a nice streamlined GUI installer (graphic pro's won't sit and install it through the CLI..) and optimization is increased, then my arguements will hold little water.  But until then, they are the con's to using GIMP via Xfree86..phew...

There.  More mis-understandings...I recommend if you don't understand one of my points to ask, so that we don't have to keep on going back and forth like this...


----------



## foo (Oct 8, 2001)

What about Corel Photopaint? It may not be the photoshop we are used to, but it does the same stuff with CMYK support.


----------



## acidjux (Oct 8, 2001)

> _Originally posted by c.i.t _
> *
> Think about it, do you enjoy loading up Classic every time you have to run a specific application?
> *



I don't enjoy running the Classic system each time....its a good point..



> *
> Ok. Yes. It does gain a feature.  The feature is that it does not need Xfree86 to run.  This is good for
> 1.  <stated above> Xfree86 is not fully optimized...
> 2.  Graphics pro's, who don't have the time to install and download all these extra files then install them all, can have a nice streamlined program that acts the way they are used to.  **
> *


I agree...the fact that an application requires me to run/setup another separate layer would deter me from using the application..if it were carbonized...that would be a different story  

Strobe, I think you have been misunderstanding most of C.I.T's statements..


----------



## strobe (Oct 9, 2001)

Please don't compare XDarwin with Classic. Classic has to boot a complete OS and takes forever. XDarwin launches in virtually no time.

Thus the only problem is the XDarwin installer. I'd rather tackle that than try to pick up a dead project like OpenOffice Carbon which Sun dropped a long time ago.

Trying to map OpenOffice's living-in-a-vaccuum drawing and widget code to HIToolbox is not an easy task. If you're going to go through all that trouble you might as well strip OpenOffice for all useful code and write a new app. And what do you end up with? The same app youc oudl have had with rootless X11. And what do you avoid? Trying to make an easier XDarwin installer. 

THAT is MY point. I hope everybody gets it now.


----------

