faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: What I would like to see
by Eric Laffoon on Thursday 19/Jun/2003, @14:35
|
I just love it when people do their homework instead of babbling nonsense...
> The lack of standard file formats in the free software world. There was some talk about an oasis standard based on OpenOffice (which seems to be the most widespread free word processor today), but has anything happened?
In fact both office suites use an XML format now. Beyond that Koffice switched from gzip to the worthless zip compression format as an initial move toward a common file format. I haven't followed recent developments in this area but that doesn't mean they haven't continued. FWIW Kword is a frames based word procssor and OO writer is not. However I'd say that having filters is certainly a serious step in that direction. Some things can't be done in a short time span.
> Office work has a lot to gain from Linux desktops but interoperability between them, say with a clean Bluecurve or Ximian professional desktop, must be perfect.
What in the world are you talking about? Running M$ office on Linux with Ximian? What does that have to do with Koffice? Maybe you're in the wrong place?
> The sad state of interoperability with proprietary Microsoft Office solutions. Again, OpenOffice seems to be state of the art here. There was some promising work with wvlib, did anything come out of that?
Why don't you at least look at koffice instead of looking to have somebody else read the release information to you or check the dependencies and get back to you? Filtering is a joint effort.
> It is somewhat amusing that not only do we have two major Linux desktops projects out there, but that the most widespread killer apps out there (OpenOffice and Mozilla) belong to neither.
I really hope you're not amused that we have two desktops because we elected not to be fascist with one. Your "killer OSS" apps are a laughable choice when contrasted to the current Linux desktops. KDE is the oldest starting from nothing in 1996. OO.org in contrast started as Star Division in Germany IIRC in the late 80s but certainly was in development in the early 90s. I think we can agree that for a desktop based office suite you need the desktop first. Koffice is roughly 1/4 the age of OO.org and is preferable for many uses. OO.org had it's code base donated to open source when it was already a mature app. Mozilla is another story, starting out as Netscape it was open sourced and then re written from the ground up taking over four years to reach a 1.0 release and giving up about 60% of the web browser market. By most standards that's not exactly a stunning success. When Apple chose an HTML viewer component most of them were involved with Mozilla but went with KDE's KHTL instead.
It's actually pretty un-amusing anyone could make such a lame comparison. Outside of pre-existing software the new killer apps are largely desktop specific. On KDE that would certainly include Koffice along with Kdevelop, Quanta and a number of other excellent apps.
> I hope all this experimentation will be fruitful for free software on the desktop for the masses in the long run!
FUD somebody else! I'm busy making the best web development app anywhere with Quanta. It's NOT an experiment! If you want to comment then read something current on what you want to comment on instead of operating on assumptions. |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: What I would like to see
by dave on Thursday 19/Jun/2003, @15:07
|
OK, I'll bite: how is Quanta going to be better than Dreamweaver, the current industry standard?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: What I would like to see
by Datschge on Thursday 19/Jun/2003, @17:48
|
Who or what is Dream Weaver? I never used it.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: What I would like to see
by AySee on Friday 20/Jun/2003, @04:23
|
A dot regular troll?
Come one Datschge :)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: What I would like to see
by Datschge on Friday 20/Jun/2003, @12:08
|
Well, I simply dislike superficial comparisations which follow several imo wrong assumptions: That everyone know the features of a comercial program (which costs money) running on a proprietary system (which again costs money) and calling it a "current industry standard" (note the omission of "quasi", and even then Microsoft's Frontpage is probably more widespread...).
In general I'd wish people would stop making the assumption that everyone can easily check out commercial programs legally for looking what "great features" they are missing. Instead more people need to learn to describe missing "killer features" accuratelly and more detailed, when it's really that great developers might get excited as well and implement it after all.
That and the silly name was the reason for my "troll" post. =)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: What I would like to see
by Beefy on Friday 20/Jun/2003, @23:35
|
I agree.
I've never used DreamWeaver yet, but I'm a web developer, so if it's industry standard, why don't I know it?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: What I would like to see
by fault on Friday 20/Jun/2003, @06:53
|
It's basically the MS Office or Adobe Photoshop of web page/web application development. Basically any professional web page designers use DreamWeaver these days.
http://www.macromedia.com/software/dreamweaver/
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: What I would like to see
by SMEAT! on Friday 20/Jun/2003, @11:34
|
Or they use Adobe golive.
http://www.adobe.com/products/golive/main.html
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: What I would like to see
by Datschge on Friday 20/Jun/2003, @12:10
|
Or they use one of the many text editors.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: What I would like to see
by Hurricane on Thursday 10/Jul/2003, @12:17
|
Dreamweaver is only useful for semipros. A a pro you need FULL code-control!
And 100% proper XHTML-conformance of the resulting documents! And when i say 100% i mean 100%!!
What are these wizards for anyway?? Just overhead.
What really counts is the ability to CODE quick and have foll control.
And the ability to work flawless with all kinds of snippet of web-pages.
(Also a reason against wizards. 99% of them don't work in snippets or complex code.)
The only acceptable thing here is homesite.
Include one or two libraries, a standard-setup-file, then do some code wich parses stuff from a db to xml or xhtml with some regex for searching stuff in the db. and if you then have to spit out some javascript depending on the result...
Do i have to go any further to explain why drwamweaver is useless??
Same for golive.
BTW: If you even try to use frontpage in our company, they laugh at you... Building pages with it and putting them live on the server could result in you beeing fired!
In germany we say: "Wenn man keine Ahnung hat... einfach mal: "Fresse halten!"
So shut up all you wannabe-pros!
Ever tried to code a web-application in dreamweaver mx??
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: What I would like to see
by Namshub on Friday 20/Jun/2003, @13:11
|
This is offtopic but Quanta can not be compared to Dreamweaver.
Dreamweaver is a WYSIWYG HTML editor (Although I'd call it WYSIAWYG - A for Almost :P) Quanta does not (yet) include a wysiwyg editor. But it is also more than just a plain HTML editor... (Go and read the features list, or better yet, try it! :P) The closest commercial program it could be compared to is Homesite, which used to be the industry-standard (for non-wysiwyg editors) before Macromedia bought it and "integrated" (more or less...) it into Dreamweaver. Needless to say Quanta is A LOT better than Homesite, or the non-wysiwig portion of Dreamweaver.
As for Dreamweaver being the standard I think this is sad but true. This program, along with GoLive!, generally produces "dirty" HTML (and I won't even talk about the javascript!) I think they are great tool for planning the design and for complex table layouts but coding should be done by hand... We can only hope Quanta will become the first wysiwyg editor that will produce clean, standard-compliant html :)
The major problem I think is that I learnt Homesite/Dreamweaver in school, but not Quanta. I did switch to Quanta but I don't think my old classmates did...
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: What I would like to see
by Dave on Saturday 21/Jun/2003, @03:16
|
Yeah, I appreciate the difference - although IIRC Quanta is getting WYSIWYG support. But the original poster claimed he was building "the best HTML editor in the world" or something similar. I'm all for ambition, but it should be tempered with realism. We will be able to say that Quanta is the best HTML editor in the world when web designers all over the world agree and switch to it :-)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: What I would like to see
by AC on Friday 20/Jun/2003, @01:16
|
>>OO.org in contrast started as Star Division in Germany IIRC in the late 80s but certainly was in development in the early 90s.<<
Yes, StarWriter has been released for 16-bit systems like the Atari ST in the late 80s. I have doubt that there is StarWriter code left though :)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: What I would like to see
by ik on Friday 20/Jun/2003, @02:11
|
zip compression is not worthless, but with the old .tar.gz compression you had to uncompress the whole file before you could read one of its contents. zip allow one contained file to be extracted by itself
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: What I would like to see
by AC on Friday 20/Jun/2003, @03:13
|
Yes... the compression rate suffers though, especially with many smaller files (because the compression dictionaries must be re-created for each file, the compressor does not 'learn' from the preceding files).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
