At the two-day community-workshop last weekend, a 20-person team decided, to support new developers especially for the advanced Mac-technology.
[...]
In addition, a developer workshop especially for OpenOffice.org under Aqua was planned. The german Mac-specialist Erich Hoch said, adressing the future Cocoa-developers in the german-speaking countries, "You can be part of it from the very beginning, if you join the team now".
Did anyone of you hear of that meeting? What does it mean to NeoOffice/C und NeoOffice/J?
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:17 am Post subject: Re: New approach for "aquafied" OOo
schlesi wrote:
In addition, a developer workshop especially for OpenOffice.org under Aqua was planned. The german Mac-specialist Erich Hoch said, adressing the future Cocoa-developers in the german-speaking countries, "You can be part of it from the very beginning, if you join the team now".
Did anyone of you hear of that meeting? What does it mean to NeoOffice/C und NeoOffice/J?
I did not hear anything of such a meating. I believe that this means nothing to NeoOffice/C or NeoOffice/J. Instead, I believe that this is another attempt at chasing the fantasy that a developer or two will magically emerge that can make an Aquafied OOo overnight.
It amazes me that someone like Eric has not learned that it is a long, painful road to making an Aquafied OOo and that throwing out the NeoOffice work and starting from scratch will only make it much longer and painful.
I wish Eric the best of luck as he will definitely need it.
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:37 am Post subject: Re: New approach for "aquafied" OOo
schlesi wrote:
In addition, a developer workshop especially for OpenOffice.org under Aqua was planned. The german Mac-specialist Erich Hoch said, adressing the future Cocoa-developers in the german-speaking countries, "You can be part of it from the very beginning, if you join the team now".
Did anyone of you hear of that meeting? What does it mean to NeoOffice/C und NeoOffice/J?
Well, I doubt that Eric seriously underestimates the task at hand, as he is already noticing that patches keep changing all the time and builds break due to collateral damage from changes on other platforms.
I think they'll have to fix this first, before further moves can be made. OOo Mac X11 will probably need to be upgraded to a tier 1 platform to make this happen.
After that, it might pay to see how a move away from using Java 1.3 and Carbon to Java 1.4/1.5 and Cocoa could be combined. This way, Cocoa headway is made and the lovely code written by Patrick and Ed can still be put to maximum use.
Or am I dreaming in an alternate universe here? _________________ "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it would be a good idea!"
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Joined: Sep 09, 2004 Posts: 25 Location: Paris, France
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:46 am Post subject:
Although I understand that they may want to start over due to some license reasons. I think that the fact that they did not inform Patrick on the subject tells a lot...
Although I understand that they may want to start over due to some license reasons. I think that the fact that they did not inform Patrick on the subject tells a lot...
License issues are a perennial sticking point... I am still quietly hoping that Patrick wasn't informed due to momentary exubrance, rather than in a calculated way to sideline NeoOffice.
I know Eric Hoch has been looking around here, and follows the dev@porting mailing list, so he must be well informed. I'll not try to second guess anyone here, but I get the impression that Patrick is pissed off and I would like for Eric to give more details.... I'll pass judgement after that. _________________ "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it would be a good idea!"
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
I know Eric Hoch has been looking around here, and follows the dev@porting mailing list, so he must be well informed. I'll not try to second guess anyone here, but I get the impression that Patrick is pissed off and I would like for Eric to give more details.... I'll pass judgement after that.
I'm not pissed off. But I am always amazed that people like Eric whip everybody up in a frenzy over something that, at best, won't be available for at least 2 years. And if anybody believes that a fully Aquafied OOo can be implemented in less than that time frame, they should ask me how long I spent (and continue to spend) on native Mac OS X text layout code as they will need to repeat all of that work again.
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:01 pm Post subject:
As I have stated before, there is no engineering sense in replicating the amazing effort that Patrick's done with NeoJ and, for better or for worse, mating Cocoa to the OOo VCL world view is a virtual impossibility.
The "framework" style of programming requires you to programming according to the framework's guidelines.
OOo is procedural and assumes that it is the framework and it can't be fit to it. Even Dan has said that in the past. It's sad that there are folks within the OOo community who still can't come to terms with the fact that NeoJ is the best engineering foundation that exists.
I did Aqua menus on top of it and am not stopping there.
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:25 pm Post subject: "Neo-NeoOffice": Is there a money trail to follow
Greetings All:
My software and corporate aims naive knows no bounds:
If we're talking open source freeware (actually OOo is an absolutely insane steal! These OOo programmers ought be getting royalties up the wazoo!) here which (presumably) in itself isn't earning the software writers one red penny, then why is this seemingly ridiculous competition splitting talent and bucks and manpower at creating different versions of the same free thing (OOo for Mac) unless there's some pot at the end of the rainbow for someone here. or worst, is this an ego driven contest? What does or could Sun get out of it? Someone help me follow the money here, please!
Bemused as hell,
James Greenidge
(who has unfathomable regard for Ed and Pat's efforts (Sun's basic OOo programmers not withstanding) and wonder why this dynamic duo haven't been profiled past a paragraph in a Mac rag yet. Is someone playing favorites here?)
But I am always amazed that people like Eric whip everybody up in a frenzy over something that, at best, won't be available for at least 2 years.
I certainly don't wish Eric ill (in addition to his work on the X11 port, personally I'm greatful for his work with Fridrich that got libwpd et al. building on the Mac last summer), but I am disappointed and annoyed at the latest developments.
This new announcement (which I'm sure will soon picked up in mainstream Mac media) ends up creating a lot of (new) confusion when so much confusion and FUD already exists (especially since the fuss over the developer roadmap update has finally died down and the misunderstanding partially corrected). The general public and even the Mac media never seem to spend enough time looking for and checking facts, interviewing people and asking the right questions, etc., instead apparently preferring to publish sensationalist, often incorrect, articles that only create more confusion and FUD. (See the MacNN Forums thread someone mentioned in another thread for the most recent example of what the general public thinks it knows about Mac OOo and Neo(s).)
And the confusion/annoucement keeps people who could be benefitting today from the native Aqua Mac OS X port (NeoOffice/J) from discovering its existance. This ultimately does a real disservice to the end-user and to OOo adoption as a native cross-platform suite.
Perhaps even more dangerous than that, the new announcement creates more vaporware of hope, which can only hurt OOo and Mac OOo in the long run. The "original OOo 2.0 Aqua port" was the first piece of invented vaporware (no one associated with the porting team, to my knowledge, ever said "OOo 2.0 will be released as an Aqua port, thus the "invented"), and now there's a new Cocoa port that will be essentially vaporware for at least 2 years (if one believes the only developers who have ever done any Aqua or Cocoa porting, and I personally believe we can ).
Furthermore, it was my understanding from the aftermath of the developer roadmap update that everyone was going to communicate better and then work together on Aqua. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought there was finally some progress towards unifying the Mac OOo community, establishing that 1) the X11 port was crucial, the sine qua non, and that 2) it made sense to work together. I personally think it's stupid to divide and duplicate such a limited developer base--functional division, X11 vs Aqua, makes some sense, but having two separate Aqua efforts with so few devs and such a large, complex codebase is counter-productive. I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the licensing issue (though I happen to favor Patrick's position), but I don't see it as enough of a reason to start a new Aqua port, particularly in light of the huge engineering difficulty.
This new port--which wil likely not have anything for end-users for a couple of years--or the announcement thereof, also hinders efforts to get Neo/J recognized by the OOo community, right when the movement appears to be gaining traction. As I noted above, this is a disservice to the end-user and to OOo, and it makes it less likely that the licensing issues that are part of the split will ever be resolved. Leading to more duplication of effort and a vicious spiral, and continued division of the Mac OOo community and the Mac OOo community's continued/further marginalization within and estrangement from OOo....
Finally, there's all the technical stuff Patrick and Ed have already mentioned. If the only people who've done any Aqua and/or Cocoa porting work--and a good two years worth of it at that--say Cocoa is not the way to go, the new port is not merely a poor division and duplication of effort, it's a complete waste of effort--and time and money--(that could be better spent either working on Mac OOo political-architectural issues--like the meta patch or on speeding up and improving the Aqua port end-users, including Sun employees, are using today!).
All bad things. I cannot think of a single good reason for a new/separate Aqua port--aside from licensing, which is a very weak reason in comparison to the real obstacles....
So, having now typed up this ballooning post...I try not to post things when I'm upset or when doing so could fan flames (thus no post to the *third* trolling "you need a new splashscreen; the current one sucks" thread in the month since foxcorner's was adopted), but I think this is fairly reasoned and not too emotional/charged, so I make an exception and post and hopefully don't offend too many people. (Like Oscar, I'd really like Eric to give us some more details; what I've seen in the "news" so far boils down to a couple of sentences with no real info, so my points could be flawed....)
Smokey
(BTW, was schlesi, who both is German and was involved with the last Cocoa port, invited to/informed of that meeting?) _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
Joined: Jun 07, 2003 Posts: 234 Location: near Cologne, Germany
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:47 am Post subject:
Smokey wrote:
Quote:
(BTW, was schlesi, who both is German and was involved with the last Cocoa port, invited to/informed of that meeting?)
No, I wasn't informed of that meeting, but I'm not a known part of the OOo community. I didn't write code of the last Cocoa port, I've tested it only a little bit and posted about it in the Trinity forums. I'm only an OOo-user who is glad about having NeoOffice/J available for his Powerbook
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:28 am Post subject:
For me the saddest thing is the timing; Simon Phipps really did make a bold call to the community at large to realize that there are no lines, that everything blurs together into a "metacommunity" reaching for a common goal. I'm hoping that the rest of the OOo community can finally open their minds instead of pulling the same "we can't recommend it since it's not OpenOffice.org". What a load of ****.
I'd been seeing folks interested in Quartz stuff pop up for OOo for the last year or so but have had to redirect them off-line to examining the NeoJ project instead since that's where the real engineering was being performed. It saddens me that politics (or fear of getting involved in them...) kept me from trying to update the developer pages to let folks know what project was being done where. There are so few programmers wanting to volunteer it really is a senseless waste of time for them to be pursuing projects (OOo Aqua/Carbon, NeoOffice/C) that are essentially dead and do nothing but re-execute all of the intricate details that Patrick has finally been able to nearly solve after two years. And he's the guy that started Aqua/Carbon at Sun!
Having been one of only *three* people to work intensively on the process of recreating a new VCL implementation, Cocoa is not the way to go. Nor is sheer "mimicry" using GTK + X11. That will be received even worse.
While I don't want to p.o. Eric and others, FWIW my position is as follows: developers who want to learn the build structure of OOo or start working on the cross-platform features (like 2.0...) should direct their efforts into the X11 port. Developers who are solely interested in native OS X work (e.g. integrate "Ink" support or Mac OS X Services) should direct their efforts to NeoJ as it is the only project that has enough infrastructure to support that work without redoubling of years of labor.
If them or others in the OOo community want a battle, I welcome it. NeoJ will win on an engineering level. X11 + GTK approaches will ultimately lose. Who gives a hoot if it has Aqua like buttons (that still look funky...) but can't use OS X fonts? Platform integration is about much more then the veneer of the buttons. And if any code from NeoJ slips into their work...well...the lawyers will decide the victor.
I'd prefer that the OOo community at large stop erecting these petty fiefdoms and let me post the information to the OOo site that should be there. Ultimately it is both the users and projects that suffer. Users don't get the information required to make the best choice for their needs (OS X friendliness vs. desire for the latest OOo features). Development suffers on both as the OOo developer communities send "mixed messages" since I've had to speak in such guarded tones. I don't say more about Neo or point to it from the direct user download pages since the OOo community doesn't want mention of it there. I'm still part of the OOo community so need to respect its wishes too.
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:09 am Post subject: Re: "Neo-NeoOffice": Is there a money trail to fol
JimWG wrote:
wazoo!) here which (presumably) in itself isn't earning the software writers one red penny
Nope. I get more in holiday gifts from my family then I've ever earned working on either NeoOffice or OOo X11.
Unfortunately OOo is frequently subjected to internal politicking within Sun...one of my main motivators for trudging off and making a community where I could f the politics and just focus on the engineering which is all I ever really wanted to do.
first of all sorry that I didn't inform Patrick or Ed but we had troubel in the german nativ project and so we all were focused on something complete different and therefore the PR was not as perfect and well understandable as it should have been. It's difficult to explain it to others but this PR was part of the troubel we had in the german nativ lang community and this weaky wording was the least common denominator we could find and so in the end the PR was realesed in great hurry and since the discussion got too stupid for me I decided to come back when the release is out and so it came that this weaky wording was sent out.
Therefore sorry.
Second: The real intention behind this PR was to get Developers for a Mac native OOo equal if it's called OOo or NeoOffice or NeoOffice/J.
Third: I wanted to tell the german Press that we are alive. That there is work done on the X11 version of OOo and that this work needs to be done in order to get a NeoOffice/J or any other native OOo. Ed's changing of the timeline caused PRs in german Newstickers and on slashdot that could be misread in that way that the all the work for OOo on Mac OS X is dead. and that only Ed and Patrick work on a Mac port for Mac OS X. This is definitly not true. There are more people working on a Mac port then these too but I had the impression that all the attention goes to Ed and Dan and that they want it that way, for whatever reason. I may be totally wrong with this impression but this is how I showed up to me.
Fourth: Eric Bachard and I tried farious times to contact Ed and Patrick via the dev-porting Mailinglist with the intention to get involved in NeoOffice/J but no answer from either Patrick or Ed. I mean a simple try it in the trinity.neooffice.org forums or so would have been all it needs. And if you get this reaction or better no reaction wouldn't you too get the impression I mentioned in point three, that there is no interest in the work others do? That you let them/us do the work and then do the rest, which may be as much as we do or even more work, to make it more Aqau, put this too under an incompatible licence and get all attention from press and others.
But in general there is nothing more for me than wanting a native OOo for Mac OS X and that both NeoOffice/J coders and OOo X11 coders work together in reaching this goal. A bit more transparency from the NeoOffice/J folks please and I know that perhaps we X11 folks may be more transparen too but one step after the other.
I think we need a moderator that mediates between both developer communities but who could this be?
The real goal behind the PR was to get Developers and not to declare war or to piss of someone or whatever you could read out of it. So far I have three interested developers. Let's see how we can involve them and how we can work together. The common goal for me, Eric B and others working on the X11 port and I think here I go in common with Ed and Patrick is to give the community the best possible Aqua port for OOo. We only have to communicate better and make a clean sweep. Things can only get better.
I too answered Eds mail he send me cause of this PR in the same manner as I did it here now.
It's now up to all the developers involved to find a solution now that the situation is that deadlocked as it looks to me right now.
Sorry for all the erros I made but english isn't my native language and I have to hurry up a bit cause of limited access to the Net over the weekend but I hope my intentions are clear.
Well this just made me feel a whole lot better. Thanks, Eric!
Now if we could all stop underestimating each other's intelligence and/or good intentions and put cards on the table, we can get back to the real work . I prefer wars that are resolved before they even make it to the battlefield, especially when there would have been no winners.
In any case, Eric's call to arms for *a* Mac port is a *good* thing. And NeoOffice is a *great* thing because it works...
-Oscar _________________ "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it would be a good idea!"
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
