OpenOffice
- Thread starter t_hah
- Start date
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.
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.
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
Registered
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?
.. 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?
kilowatt
mach-o mach-o man
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, 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
Puny Member
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.
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.
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
Registered
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
Puny Member
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?!
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?!
"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.
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.
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
Puny Member
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)"
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)"
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
Puny Member
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.)
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.)
Heh..ok lets break this down some..
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.
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....
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...
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.
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.
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....
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...
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.
orangeluna
Registered
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.
Flame on!
Ask the folks at MacGimp if you need to know.
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!
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!