Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 00:04:22 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 413 ************************************************** Wednesday 06 October 2004 Number 413 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Native port of OpenOffice...possible? : Lewis G Rosenthal 2 Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? : Kris Steenhaut 3 Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? : Henry Sobotka 4 Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? : Alexander Newman 5 Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? : Dave Saville" 6 Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? : John Poltorak 7 Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 8 Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? : Christian Hennecke" 9 Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? : billn **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 01:11:05 -0400 From: Lewis G Rosenthal Subject: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? I've been struck by the number of reports I've read recently concerning trouble with Innotek's wrapped version of OOo. I have it (bought & paid for, and no complaints on that count), and have had some of my own trouble with it (Presentation crashes immediately, leaving a zombie which I can't seem to kill). I'm wondering how possible a native port might be (big undertaking, obviously). Any thoughts on this? -- Lewis ------------------------------------------------------------ Lewis G Rosenthal, CNA Rosenthal & Rosenthal Accountants / Network Consultants New York / Northern Virginia www.2rosenthals.com Team OS/2 / NetWare Users International www.novell.com ------------------------------------------------------------ **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:57:00 +0200 From: Kris Steenhaut Subject: Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? Lewis G Rosenthal schreef: > I've been struck by the number of reports I've read recently > concerning trouble with Innotek's wrapped version of OOo. I have it > (bought & paid for, and no complaints on that count), and have had > some of my own trouble with it (Presentation crashes immediately, > leaving a zombie which I can't seem to kill). I'm wondering how > possible a native port might be (big undertaking, obviously). Any > thoughts on this? > Only questions are: who is going to do it and who is going to pay for the work. -- Groeten uit Gent, Kris **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:58:05 -0400 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? Lewis G Rosenthal wrote: > I've been struck by the number of reports I've read recently concerning > trouble with Innotek's wrapped version of OOo. I have it (bought & paid > for, and no complaints on that count), and have had some of my own > trouble with it (Presentation crashes immediately, leaving a zombie > which I can't seem to kill). I'm wondering how possible a native port > might be (big undertaking, obviously). Any thoughts on this? From a brief email exchange with someone working on the OS/2 port around the time of the transition from StarOffice, I know the wall then was needing a newer compiler. I would think the work Andy and Knut have done on gcc 3.x fixes that. I don't know if or to what extent the StarOffice codebase was Swiss-cheesed by propriety repossessions as in the case of the original Mozilla tree. If it hasn't been, and the OS/2 code is still there, theoretically one should be able to get the equivalent of Staroffice 5.1a (or whatever the last OS/2 version was) out of the box, beyond which it would be a matter of catching up. But then if it's that easy, why did Innotek opt for the wrapper route? Because of actual high-cost problems with the native port, or simply because they consider the wrapper solution preferable in that it can be applied to other apps? I think the main reason there's been no effort towards a native port is the plain fact that "Innotek's doing it". But if there's grassroots discontent with the results, it would certainly seem worthwhile getting a clearer idea of the status of the OS/2 code that may still be there and taking a close hard look at the feasibility of reviving the native port. h~ **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:52:36 +1000 From: Alexander Newman Subject: Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? >I've been struck by the number of reports I've read recently concerning >trouble with Innotek's wrapped version of OOo. I have it (bought & paid >for, and no complaints on that count), and have had some of my own >trouble with it (Presentation crashes immediately, leaving a zombie >which I can't seem to kill). I'm wondering how possible a native port >might be (big undertaking, obviously). Any thoughts on this? You could try getting in touch with the group trying to do a Mac OS X native version - they are more or less in the same (conceptual) boat, even if the UI and OS are a bit different (Mac Quartz/Cocoa; FreeBSD). Just a thought, and could be worht the effort. Cheers, Alex. **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 10:41:58 +0100 (BST) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:58:05 -0400, Henry Sobotka wrote: >Lewis G Rosenthal wrote: >> I've been struck by the number of reports I've read recently concerning >> trouble with Innotek's wrapped version of OOo. I have it (bought & paid >> for, and no complaints on that count), and have had some of my own >> trouble with it (Presentation crashes immediately, leaving a zombie >> which I can't seem to kill). I'm wondering how possible a native port >> might be (big undertaking, obviously). Any thoughts on this? > > From a brief email exchange with someone working on the OS/2 port >around the time of the transition from StarOffice, I know the wall then >was needing a newer compiler. I would think the work Andy and Knut have >done on gcc 3.x fixes that. I don't know if or to what extent the >StarOffice codebase was Swiss-cheesed by propriety repossessions as in >the case of the original Mozilla tree. If it hasn't been, and the OS/2 >code is still there, theoretically one should be able to get the >equivalent of Staroffice 5.1a (or whatever the last OS/2 version was) >out of the box, beyond which it would be a matter of catching up. But >then if it's that easy, why did Innotek opt for the wrapper route? >Because of actual high-cost problems with the native port, or simply >because they consider the wrapper solution preferable in that it can be >applied to other apps? I think the main reason there's been no effort >towards a native port is the plain fact that "Innotek's doing it". But >if there's grassroots discontent with the results, it would certainly >seem worthwhile getting a clearer idea of the status of the OS/2 code >that may still be there and taking a close hard look at the feasibility >of reviving the native port. Well the OS/2 stuff was ripped out. But what I believe would be fairly trivial would be to get a *nix version to run under Xfree. No UI problems in that case and OS/2 is fairly friendly to *nix ports. -- Regards Dave Saville **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:28:40 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:41:58AM +0100, Dave Saville wrote: > On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:58:05 -0400, Henry Sobotka wrote: > Well the OS/2 stuff was ripped out. But what I believe would be > fairly trivial would be to get a *nix version to run under Xfree. No > UI problems in that case and OS/2 is fairly friendly to *nix ports. As I remember the topic came up about six months ago and I tried to build the existing (**150MB**) archive:- http://ooo.ximian.com/packages/OOO_1_1_1/OOO_1_1_1.tar.bz2 I didn't get very far and just gave up. It needs a team effort to get it work. Maybe it will get further with the latest release of gcc... > -- > Regards > > Dave Saville > -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:10:38 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? Hi, > Well the OS/2 stuff was ripped out. But what I believe would be > fairly trivial would be to get a *nix version to run under Xfree. No > UI problems in that case and OS/2 is fairly friendly to *nix ports. Depends on the libraries being used. For example it _might_ be using GTK-2 and tons of other stuff that currently just aren't ported to OS/2. Regards, Stefan **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:43:29 +0200 (CEST) From: "Christian Hennecke" Subject: Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 01:11:05 -0400, Lewis G Rosenthal wrote: >I've been struck by the number of reports I've read recently concerning >trouble with Innotek's wrapped version of OOo. I have it (bought & paid >for, and no complaints on that count), and have had some of my own >trouble with it (Presentation crashes immediately, leaving a zombie >which I can't seem to kill). I did some tests myself before making the decision on whether to buy it or not. Well, the outcome clearly speaks for "not" here. My experience was that as soon as you use more complex functions (macros, database stuff) and/or large documents, things didn't work as they should and the app became very crash-prone. Then there's also the issues with printing. >I'm wondering how possible a native port >might be (big undertaking, obviously). Any thoughts on this? There are two problems: First, getting enough people who are qualified to do the work and second, the funding. The latter probably could only be solved by a major joint venture of OS/2 user groups and unorganized users. With the Innotek product available, I doubt that you'll find someone from the "commercial side." unless the same problems people have described forced them to do something and that something can't be done by Innotek. Christian Hennecke **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 06:39:58 -0700 From: billn Subject: Re: Native port of OpenOffice...possible? It seems to me that if this project is undertaken as native or unix port, the version we should start with is 2.0, not 1.x. 2.0 may need more effort, but when we are done, we will have a current version rather than be a major jump behind. This would be useful enough to me that I would be willing to spend time and effort on it. It also occurs to me that something this big begs for some automated translation tools rather than taking the hand tuning route. I would want to have the ability to skip arbitrary levels or routines that have been hand finished or are too awkward to handle automatically. This may be a difficult project, but consider the benifits for other projects. BillN Christian Hennecke wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 01:11:05 -0400, Lewis G Rosenthal wrote: > > >I've been struck by the number of reports I've read recently concerning > >trouble with Innotek's wrapped version of OOo. I have it (bought & paid > >for, and no complaints on that count), and have had some of my own > >trouble with it (Presentation crashes immediately, leaving a zombie > >which I can't seem to kill). > > I did some tests myself before making the decision on whether to buy it > or not. Well, the outcome clearly speaks for "not" here. My experience > was that as soon as you use more complex functions (macros, database > stuff) and/or large documents, things didn't work as they should and > the app became very crash-prone. Then there's also the issues with > printing. > > >I'm wondering how possible a native port > >might be (big undertaking, obviously). Any thoughts on this? > > There are two problems: First, getting enough people who are qualified > to do the work and second, the funding. The latter probably could only > be solved by a major joint venture of OS/2 user groups and unorganized > users. With the Innotek product available, I doubt that you'll find > someone from the "commercial side." unless the same problems people > have described forced them to do something and that something can't be > done by Innotek. > > Christian Hennecke