Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

NeoOffice 2.0 Alpha 3 Released 96

Posted by timothy
from the opening-offices dept.
ndansmith writes "NeoOffice, the port of OpenOffice.org to Mac OS X, has made their 2.0 Alpha 3 release available for download. From NeoOffice's site: 'This release is based on the OpenOffice.org 2.0.2 code and includes all of the new OpenOffice.org 2.0.2 features,' including the utilization of Open Document formats. Currently only the PowerPC version of the software is available publicly, but users can download the Intel version by purchasing a membership."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NeoOffice 2.0 Alpha 3 Released

Comments Filter:
  • really? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geoffspear (692508) on Thursday June 15, 2006 @12:29PM (#15541418) Homepage
    Normally I hate the people who complain that a new version of some random piece of software isn't really news, but come on. It's a new alpha release.
    • Think it'll stop anyone? So was Vista until recently. Hell, Vista and MS have completely subverted what "alpha" and "beta" used to mean...
      • Google is pretty bad at keep stuff in perpetual beta. I think GMail is still a beta. Its been 'in the wild' for two years.
        • I think Google does that on purpose so they can make major changes at will, and when people complain, they can say "Hey, it is a beta after all!"
          • When the API is stable, then it is time to talk about a proper release.
          • Personally, if you're going to possibly make major changes to an application or service, I think it's proper to keep it as "beta," even if the result is it sitting there for a long time.

            I would prefer that people only release '1.0' software that is both stable in terms of bug-free-ness and stable in terms of proposed changes to the API/ABI/file-format/protocol/etc.

            When someone releases something as version 1.0, and then completely rewrites it six months later and calls it 1.0.1, that drives me a little nuts
        • Them, too. I'm not trying to pick on MS in particular. Everyone now does it, and the worst beta-offender is Google.
        • Google betas end when the product is ready to *SELL*. Google search is non-beta because its available in the google search utility, a rackable document indexing doohickey.
        • Thanks to Google, Alpha is the new Beta...
      • "Think it'll stop anyone? So was Vista until recently. Hell, Vista and MS have completely subverted what "alpha" and "beta" used to mean..."


        In other words, "release version" is Microsoft talk for alpha, and "service pack 1" means beta!

    • There are some stories I read, moderate or comment on and some I don't. Personally, I find this bit of news quite useful. My wife runs MacOSX in Japanese and that's the Office Software I have set up for her. It's good to know there's a newer release coming soon and that this testing release is available for use.

      If you don't care about it, don't read the story... and it certainly doesn't need to be commented on.
    • Actually I've been waiting for some time for Neooffice 2.0 and didn't know there had been even previous alpha versions, so I was pretty happy to see this story.
  • Alpha, but usable (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fak3r (917687) on Thursday June 15, 2006 @12:43PM (#15541578) Homepage
    This is an Alpha release yes, but if you've used OOo 2.0.2 you know what features you're getting, and that's huge, plus I've only had the last Alpha crash twice on me, and it's far/far more useable than my old Office X. Really, with this and OOo out for OS X I can't see any reason that a normal user would need to buy a 300$ office suite (and I think that's a 'good thing')
  • Speed increase? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by multiOSfreak (551711) <culturejam@@@gmail...com> on Thursday June 15, 2006 @12:44PM (#15541592) Homepage Journal
    It's great to see a new version of NeoOffice coming out, but what I really want to know is if the latest release is any faster than the previous versions. The older versions work great but are painfully sluggish.
  • I know the GPL allows you to charge for distribution costs, but I still don't like how NeoOffice requires you to pay for some kind of subscription to download their GPL'd binaries for one platform and not another. Seems pretty arbitrary. Some people should pool together for a membership and then distribute torrents of the Intel builds. Personally I'll just keep using OpenOffice.org with X11.
    • I hope someone posts a .torrent link for the intel binaries...
    • Re:Intel binaries (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Trillan (597339) on Thursday June 15, 2006 @12:56PM (#15541755) Homepage Journal
      The subscription stuff is a very small window. According to their site, the release will be free starting July 1st. That's only two weeks away.
    • It's not really that arbitrary, since they've been focusing on the PowerPC platform for the last however-many years. (Though I don't know how much native code there is in the project, since they're using Java to get at the Mac APIs.)

      I don't mind it so much for an alpha release -- this may simply be a way of ensuring they have enough funding to do the port -- as long as they don't force you to pay+subscribe to get at the final release.
    • Re:Intel binaries (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by AKAImBatman (238306) *
      I still don't like how NeoOffice requires you to pay for some kind of subscription to download their GPL'd binaries for one platform and not another. Seems pretty arbitrary.

      Don't be an ass. The NeoOffice programmers have put in thousands of hours of work into a complex port of the OOo GUI to make it integrate with the Mac OS X Operating System. The work they've done is incredible, and I don't begrudge them any money they make off it.

      If you have an absolute need for the bleeding edge software while they tool
      • The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License ins
        • Excuse me, but what in the hell are you babbling about? The GPL allows for charging for software (which they're not doing) and RMS has even encouraged providing services centered around Free Software (which *is* what they're doing). Don't like it? Talk to RMS.

          *bleeping* bunch of ungrateful *bleeps*
          • That was a verbatim quote from the preamble to the GPL. Don't like it? Talk to RMS. He wrote it, not me. ;) What are they doing if not charging for software? You have to pay them money, to be able to download it. To me, that sounds like charging for GPL'd software. Which I pointed out in my original post, IS TOTALLY LEGAL. But the GPL also says that after one person buys/subscribes/whatever and then obtains the software, they have all of the rights that are guaranteed under the GPL, including freely
            • That was a verbatim quote from the preamble to the GPL.

              Yes, I recognized it. Which was why I asked what you were babbling about. NOTHING in there says that they can't do what they're doing. Which you just agreed with me on. (???)

              But the GPL also says that after one person buys/subscribes/whatever and then obtains the software, they have all of the rights that are guaranteed under the GPL, including freely redistributing it, hence my call for a torrent link.

              I didn't call you an ass because you asked for a t
              • I never once said they violated the GPL. Read much? Read my original post. I started by saying "I know this is legal, but doesn't it seem sketchy.." and I stand by that. So I'm an ass for suggesting that people exercise their rights under the GPL and get builds of this open source software out into the community? How is that ungrateful? Oh it's nice to have the GPL written down somewhere.. but to feel that it should be used to the advantage of the community is ungrateful? To me, personally, asking fo
                • I never once said they violated the GPL. Read much?

                  Apparently, a lot better than you. Because I didn't suggest that you did. I suggested that you were acting like an ass. I stand by that.

                  I started by saying "I know this is legal, but doesn't it seem sketchy.."

                  Exactly. You called into question the integrity of honest people who have spent THOUSANDS OF HOURS working on the OOo project (in tandem with the main developers, mind you), who are working hard to get your ungrateful rear end a copy of the Intel vers
    • Re:Intel binaries (Score:5, Insightful)

      by static0verdrive (776495) on Thursday June 15, 2006 @01:27PM (#15542088) Homepage Journal
      Way to subvert their attempt at coming up with funding for development. This project is maintained by a only few people, and developed mostly by only one person, who does it full-time. The actual release will be free to download, but they do the "Early Access Subscription" program to attempt to raise funds because they have over 2 million downloads a year and are still losing money just keeping the website up. This project needs our help to keep going, and it is a great project. Installing X11 and using OOo is acceptable for some, but the NeoOffice suite is all about being native - fully standardized Mac Aqua menus and no need for X11. The way to go for grandma and other mac-only users and/or newbies.

      If you don't want to support the project, that's your choice, but recommending ways to circumvent their request for donations (for the alpha alone, no less) makes you look greedy, and is precisely why the main developer may not be able to continue development full-time if he can't afford to. I pay the linux distributions I use and like to show my support, and I fund open source projects I use frequently with donations of anywhere from $25-$50 to help them out, considering all they do for us.
      • The actual release will be free to download, but they do the "Early Access Subscription" program to attempt to raise funds because they have over 2 million downloads a year and are still losing money just keeping the website up.

        or you know, they could shift to bittorrent for all downloads, or at least make it a big PITA to download through other methods, or only allow bittorrent from official and let people mirror it if they want.

        Not to say that asking for money isn't a valid method, but maybe they s

    • From what I can see, it seems that the subscriptions are for early access to the Intel build. From the Early Access page:


      When can I download NeoOffice 2.0 Alpha Intel for free?

      Starting on 1 July 2006, you will be able to download NeoOffice 2.0 Alpha Intel for free.
    • I don't care enough to chip in for a torrent membership deal but you're right. I thought of downloading this to replace AbiWord on my ICBM (iMac intel) because AbiWord and Rosetta is like molasses. OpenOffice with X11 is OK but takes time as well. It's a shame I have to use TextEdit and have no real choice.
  • by VValdo (10446) on Thursday June 15, 2006 @01:12PM (#15541941)
    I think when NeoOffice goes beta, THAT will be news. Why? Because the current plan for beta includes an aquified version.

    Take a look at how this is progressing here [neooffice.org]. Pretty amazing, especially when you consider that NeoOffice has two developers. TWO. And they aren't even full-time.

    Also, a new graphics, file icons, splash screen, etc. are in the works for 2.0 beta. Check out the forums [neooffice.org].

    And FWIW, I've had absolutely no problem with the alpha series so far.

    W
  • ...are belong to NeoOffice, at last. I tried one of the earlier alphas and Base wasn't there, but supposedly it's working now.

    If so, time to switch from OOo. Like most finicky Mac users I'd rather have lickable widgets and a screen-wide menu bar, but lack of features is a dealbreaker.
  • I don't like having my F/OSS software held hostage... I'm using the ACTUALLY FREE X11 build of OOo on my Intel mac, and it works great. There's no reason to use NeoOffice, really, or pay their ransom to have it work on your Intel Mac.

    Same goes for the MacGimp.
    • I'd like to agree with you, but:

      * The X11 version of OpenOffice requires Apple X11 to be installed before it will launch. The install isn't horrible, but it is still far more difficult than the "drag and drop" installers that Apple users have come to expect.
      * The launch time and overall performance of X11 OpenOffice is horrible compared to a native Macintosh app.
      * Compared to a native Mac application, the X11 OpenOffice interface looks like crap and the integration with other applications leaves a lot to be desired.

      Honestly, X11 OpenOffice isn't up to the standards that most people expect from well polished Apple software. It's not like F/OSS isn't up to the challenge, either... Just look at Firefox for the Mac.
      • The X11 installation is the exact same as any other .pkg installer. Continue, Continue, Agree, Continue, Continue, done. The problem lies in it being hidden on the DVD instead of available from the website like it was with Panther.

        As to startup time, that is only if you are starting X11 from scratch. If it is already running, which mine always is, then the startup time is pretty good.

        But I will agree on integration. Lack of 'email to', a Mac-style menu, and the Win9X theme all make it really hurt to use
      • ...the standards that most people expect from well polished Apple software. It's not like F/OSS isn't up to the challenge, either... Just look at Firefox for the Mac.

        Or better yet, Firefox's cousin, Camino [caminobrowser.org]. It's even more polished and integrated into the Mac UI than Firefox (one hazard of cross-platform applications is that they rarely feel 100% native on every platform), though that comes at the expense of not being able to run extensions.
    • This is so freaking funny!!! Mod parent up for laugh effect.

      Who knows why the OS community is having a harder time becoming mainstream? Is it because the technical skills of the developers isn't there?

      A big resounding NO. It's because of greedy little tightwad people like the parent here.
    • NeoOffice is free, but for these early alpha builds of version 2.0 they're asking users to pay because they're short of funds. Either that or there may be no NeoOffice at all, so I think this is a reasonable request. If you don't want to pay, just wait until it's released. As for the X11 build of OpenOffice.org ... ick! Printing and fonts are a nightmare, not to mention the interface. And let's not even go into the steps a normal user would have to take to get it to work in the first place (install Apple X1

    • How is it being held hostage?

      The EARLY ACCESS is for a fee.

      After that early access period, the alpha is a FREE download.

      • Let's be even more specific-- The EARLY ACCESS BINARIES are for a fee.

        Sources are available for free, both the alpha tarball and the latest developments on CVS.
    • You don't know the mac community very well. We will pay for anything (sometimes more than Windows users) so long as it just works. $80 is small potatoes next to the $300 we already shell out for that other office suite. I certainly think it is reasonable to charge to support development. Even with the developers volunteering their time, new Intel Macs cost money and money don't grow on trees. From what I heard, this project isn't supported by the main open office project. The money is got to come from som
      • One of the things that surprised me when I got an iBook.. Shareware is alive and kicking in the mac world! I haven't seen any windows shareware that I couldn't replace with a free alternative, but over in OSX-Land, you have to pay for every little utility, tweak, or applet..
  • Wake up, NeoOffice. The Matrix has you.
  • hope this is great (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ChristTrekker (91442) on Thursday June 15, 2006 @01:25PM (#15542069)

    I broke down and bought MS Office (for the third time, once for every major architecture/OS combo of the Mac) a little over a year ago because nothing else on the Mac was quite "prime time" enough for my wife to use, and using Office98 in Classic was flaky. I was willing to go along with a few nonstandard UI decisions, or jump an extra hurdle of file incompatibility, or deal with X11, but inflicting any of those on her practically amounts to spousal abuse. After all, I'd just gotten her to "switch" from her slow/glitchy old PC, and just having things be in different locations was hard enough on her.

    Now, I've heard good things about MS Office running with Rosetta, so maybe it won't be an issue at all whenever I upgrade to a x86 Mac (the 4th combo). But I really hope that NeoOffice 2 is sufficiently "prime time" by then so that I don't have to be reliant on proprietary packages. I'd prefer to use open standards.

    In some ways I wonder if NeoOffice is really the best route to take with regards to porting OOo. It seems like an awful lot of work. I'm no expert in these matters, but wouldn't it make sense for OOo to use the wxWidgets framework? Compile against the platform-appropriate wx implementation (wxGTK, wxCocoa, etc.), and boom, you're done. Obviously, switching frameworks at all would be a big effort, but once it was done it would be easy for everyone going forward, and the Mac version wouldn't always be lagging behind.

  • Now mac users are going to be confused. OOo or o_Oo
  • Free as in Fiction (Score:2, Insightful)

    by yoxi (894393)
    I have to say I find it just deeply infantile, people harrumphing because something they want isn't immediately available to them for free. When you say you want something for free, what you really mean is 'I want someone other than me to pay for it'. In opensource, someone (individual or collective) is always paying, in time, experience, and actual money in order that the wider user community doesn't have to. NeoOffice: 2 guys working hard to make a more OSX-friendly (and therefore more useable) version of
    • Three little letters: G. P. L. NeoOffice is 95% OpenOffice.org. Why should I have to pay to be a bug-tester on an open source (read GPL'd) project? Bittorrenting the builds would not be piracy, it would be 100% legal under the GPL. The NeoOffice guys have no right to control the distribution of GPL'd code, duh.
      • BitTorrenting the BINARIES wouldn't be piracy - but it would be violating the trademark [neooffice.org]. So you can't do it.

        You can bittorent the source all you want - it *is* after all, open source...

        Check out the forums, the wiki, and everything else on the neooffice page. If you don't want to pay for the early access build, BUILD IT YOURSELF! And you don't have to pay a cent.

        The SOURCE is there for you.

        BTW - don't build it yourself and then bittorent that either - that would also violate the trademark. F
        • All viable options-- look at what the CentOS guys did when the wanted to roll a free version of red hat. Perfectly legal under the GPL, and CentOS is an extremely popular distro-- that doesn't impune on Red Hat's trademarks.
    • by Geurilla (759701)
      Grow up indeed.

      If the developers are strapped for cash and need "donations" they should just ask for them instead of charging for their "free software". People are upset not because they are ungrateful and selfish, but because the developers, as contributors to FOSS and GPL code, have a moral obligation to uphold the principles of the community and are failing to do so. The developers are violating, if not the letter of the GPL, at least the spirit of the GPL, and so deserve any ill-will directed toward the
      • by yoxi (894393)
        'Violating the spirit' - great rhetoric. But the pragmatics of the situation are in another universe: so you're someone with an intel mac, and you want to use NeoOffice, and you want it right now. What are your options?

        Well, you can compile your own binary from the (always was, still is, always will be) freely available NeoOffice source code - the intel code is there right now, go for it. You don't want to do that? What are your options?

        Well, if you can bear to wait a couple more weeks you can download a

        • Well, you can compile your own binary from the (always was, still is, always will be) freely available NeoOffice source code - the intel code is there right now, go for it. You don't want to do that? What are your options? Well, if you can bear to wait a couple more weeks you can download a binary for free from the developers.
          As long as OO.o takes to compile, you might as well just wait for the binary, dude.
      • If the developers are strapped for cash and need "donations" they should just ask for them instead of charging for their "free software". People are upset not because they are ungrateful and selfish, but because the developers, as contributors to FOSS and GPL code, have a moral obligation to uphold the principles of the community and are failing to do so. The developers are violating, if not the letter of the GPL, at least the spirit of the GPL, and so deserve any ill-will directed toward them. If they don'

  • I might be missing something here but I downloaded this for my Powerbook back on May 23rd. There have been 2 subsequent patches.

    Why is this story being posted today?

    Ed
  • The Universal Version is desperately needsd. OFFICE is just aweful using Rosetta it takes up so much resources. Neal Saferstein

FORTRAN rots the brain. -- John McQuillin

Working...