Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:17 am Post subject: Dumb not found question: what's "This version is intend
What's the error message with ooo112_osx_final installation:
"This version is intended for Unix-sawy users.
This X11 release is inteded for users who are confortable using X11 programs. It provides an identical look and feel to OpenOffice.org running on other Unix platforms.
OpenOffice.org 1.1.2 cannot be used with Mac OS X native graphics at this time. If you are not confortable with X11, please keep checking http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/ for more information on when a stable MacOSX native build will be available for download."
Notice that i don't have a Mac and have never used one, but i'd like to support this friend of mines: i'd like to be able and install/use OOo!
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:17 pm Post subject: Re: Dumb not found question: what's "This version is in
mabiuso wrote:
What's the error message with ooo112_osx_final installation:
"This version is intended for Unix-sawy users.
This X11 release is inteded for users who are confortable using X11 programs. It provides an identical look and feel to OpenOffice.org running on other Unix platforms.
OpenOffice.org 1.1.2 cannot be used with Mac OS X native graphics at this time. If you are not confortable with X11, please keep checking http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/ for more information on when a stable MacOSX native build will be available for download."
Notice that i don't have a Mac and have never used one, but i'd like to support this friend of mines: i'd like to be able and install/use OOo!
Thanx!
Get and use NeoOffice/J. There are two reasons:
NeoOffice/J supports Mac Menus and file types.
NeoOffice/J is based on OO 1.1.4, OpenOffice/X (which is a X11 based program requiring installation of X11 for MacOSX) is based on 1.1.2 which has several program anomolies.
BTW, the current Release Candidate is very stable and P Luby and crew are working on additional features and squashing the last few bugs.
It's not an error, more of a warning that if you're only used to "normal" Mac programs like Safari, iTunes, iMovie, AppleWorks, or the like, running OpenOffice.org 1.1.2 is going to look and act very differently. It looks and acts like a UNIX application (and in fact requires X11 to run).
Most Mac users are probably better off using NeoOffice/J (based on OpenOffice.org 1.1.4) instead, unless they need a few very specific features only found in OOo 1.1.2 X11 version....
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
It's not an error, more of a warning that if you're only used to "normal" Mac programs like Safari, iTunes, iMovie, AppleWorks, or the like, running OpenOffice.org 1.1.2 is going to look and act very differently. It looks and acts like a UNIX application (and in fact requires X11 to run).
Smokey:
You are correct here. I am a convert from Linux on PC platforms and OpenOffice/X11 is very, very different. Also, it does not give access to the 'cut and paste' functionality that some folks are used to.
Quote:
Most Mac users are probably better off using NeoOffice/J (based on OpenOffice.org 1.1.4) instead, unless they need a few very specific features only found in OOo 1.1.2 X11 version....
Smokey
Hmm, and what would those features be? I have not found anything that I need with NeoOffice/J that I could not get along without.
You are correct here. I am a convert from Linux on PC platforms and OpenOffice/X11 is very, very different. Also, it does not give access to the 'cut and paste' functionality that some folks are used to.
And dozens of other things that don't work or only partially work
Quote:
Most Mac users are probably better off using NeoOffice/J (based on OpenOffice.org 1.1.4) instead, unless they need a few very specific features only found in OOo 1.1.2 X11 version....
jjmckenzie51 wrote:
Hmm, and what would those features be? I have not found anything that I need with NeoOffice/J that I could not get along without.
EPS printing and printing of bitmaps at resolutions greater than 300dpi. The former is an Apple bug (Java/CoreGraphics), and the latter might be, too.
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
Ok, I will admit that I am a Mac neophyte and would like an explanation of EPS printing.
Printing of embedded EPS (Encapsulated PostScript) files. There's a bug in Bugzilla that gives the full explanation of what's amiss.
jjmckenzie51 wrote:
As far as 300 dpi printing for bitmaps, this should be an Apple Java bug as it does work with the Linux version of OOo.
I arrived on the scene just after Patrick first printing to work, so I don't know the full story, but I believe it's an "artificial" limitation imposed to work around bugs/issues in Apple's Java 1.3.1.
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
Ok, I will admit that I am a Mac neophyte and would like an explanation of EPS printing.
Printing of embedded EPS (Encapsulated PostScript) files. There's a bug in Bugzilla that gives the full explanation of what's amiss.
I'll look at the bugzilla entry for this. I don't plan on printing EPS files from NeoOffice, but one never knows.
jjmckenzie51 wrote:
As far as 300 dpi printing for bitmaps, this should be an Apple Java bug as it does work with the Linux version of OOo.
[quote="sardisson']
I arrived on the scene just after Patrick first printing to work, so I don't know the full story, but I believe it's an "artificial" limitation imposed to work around bugs/issues in Apple's Java 1.3.1.
Smokey[/quote]
I'm wondering if this still exists in Apple Java 1.4.2? This is the current version with Panther. Also, Tiger will be out on Friday, April 29th.
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:34 pm Post subject:
FWIW Neo/J is hardcoded to 1.3.1 for the time being. All of those Java updates that are coming down the pipe with Software Update and the like don't apply to Neo/J.
The reasons for this are technical in nature...Neo/J isn't really Java but rather a mixture of Java + Carbon, the Carbon generally needing to be used for workarounds for things that aren't possible to do in Java or are bugs in the Java Virtual Machine. With Java 1.4+, Apple switched the virtual machine from being implemented in Cocoa rather than Carbon. Not only did this historically introduce problems that weren't resolved for some time (especially for graphical Java apps) but it also means that all of our bug fixes and workarounds will need to also be re-implemented in Cocoa rather than Carbon.
And Cocoa is the root of all evil unless you use the frameworks exactly the way they were intended to be used.
It's a lot easier to hack in Carbon than it is in Cocoa
FWIW Neo/J is hardcoded to 1.3.1 for the time being. All of those Java updates that are coming down the pipe with Software Update and the like don't apply to Neo/J.
Ok. I was not aware of this. I work with Java Server Pages (a method for Dynamic HTML web services) and they are definately tied to the version of Java.
OPENSTEP wrote:
The reasons for this are technical in nature...Neo/J isn't really Java but rather a mixture of Java + Carbon, the Carbon generally needing to be used for workarounds for things that aren't possible to do in Java or are bugs in the Java Virtual Machine. With Java 1.4+, Apple switched the virtual machine from being implemented in Cocoa rather than Carbon. Not only did this historically introduce problems that weren't resolved for some time (especially for graphical Java apps) but it also means that all of our bug fixes and workarounds will need to also be re-implemented in Cocoa rather than Carbon.
Yuk. I hate when that happens. I guess I will have to find a Cocoa programming guide. Is there one on-line or a recommended hard copy book?
OPENSTEP wrote:
And Cocoa is the root of all evil unless you use the frameworks exactly the way they were intended to be used.
It's a lot easier to hack in Carbon than it is in Cocoa
Again, yuk. I hate it when you are forced into a 'box' by either the programming language or any Integrated Development Engin (IDE).
Thanks for the explanation. Is there any continuing effort to move NeoO/J to Cocoa or are all of the efforts specific to Carbon?
As you should be able to surmize, I have a long programming background, it is a little rusty as I have not used it for quite some time. I learnt to program in 'c' from K&Rs book (yes I have a copy of the 'c' Programmer's Guide, not to brag.)
If you want to reply outside of the forum, you know my e-mail address.
As you should be able to surmize, I have a long programming background, it is a little rusty as I have not used it for quite some time. I learnt to program in 'c' from K&Rs book (yes I have a copy of the 'c' Programmer's Guide, not to brag.)
Ed, in a Trinity story comment wrote:
Native filepickers always sadden me since it's one of the easiest outstanding development projects on OOo in general and yet one that no one new has bothered to step up to the plate to do for the last two years.
And Cocoa is the root of all evil unless you use the frameworks exactly the way they were intended to be used.
It's a lot easier to hack in Carbon than it is in Cocoa
Again, yuk. I hate it when you are forced into a 'box' by either the programming language or any Integrated Development Engin (IDE).
On the plus side, consider this extension of the box analogy:
If you get into a box and stick out your arms and legs, and someone you do not know and love picks up the box and moves it to another room, you are likely to end up with a few bruises.
Keeping your limbs inside the box might make life easier later on, when Apple starts moving boxes around again. Of course, that does not make it any easier to move around in the box, or find a comfortable position...
Anyway, best wishes and thanks if do try to get involved.
Oscar (who does not get into boxes unless he sees a clear advantage in it) _________________ "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it would be a good idea!"
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
On the plus side, consider this extension of the box analogy:
If you get into a box and stick out your arms and legs, and someone you do not know and love picks up the box and moves it to another room, you are likely to end up with a few bruises.
I'll extend this further: If you get in a box and stick out your head, it is likely to be removed when the box is moved violently (I've programmed for Intel systems and this is very likely when you use "undocumented" features.) However, I suspect that MacOSX and the underlying FreeBSD do not suffer from this and should not.
ovvldc wrote:
Keeping your limbs inside the box might make life easier later on, when Apple starts moving boxes around again. Of course, that does not make it any easier to move around in the box, or find a comfortable position...
Sounds like flying in Economy (Coach) on a full international flight. However, you have to put your confidence in the 'pilot' that the flight will be smooth and they miss large amounts of turbulance while moving you from where you are to where you need (want) to be.
ovvldc wrote:
Anyway, best wishes and thanks if do try to get involved.
Oscar (who does not get into boxes unless he sees a clear advantage in it)
I may look at the source and get a good programming book/guide on Cocoa. Does anyone know of one? (I have a good connection during the day to get the guide.)
And thanks. I think that this will aid Patrick in his well deserved 'break' from day to day programming.
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