Weekly Edition
Return to the Development page
| ||||||||||||||||
The second OpenOffice.org 2.0 beta
OPENOFFICE.ORG ANNOUNCES VERSION 2.0 PUBLIC BETA 2 29 August, 2005 - 16H00 UTC The OpenOffice.org project is pleased to announce that the second public beta release of OpenOffice.org 2.0 is now available for download. OpenOffice.org 2.0 Beta 2 is immediately available in Brazilian Portuguese, Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Simplified Chinese, Spanish and Traditional Chinese, for Windows, GNU/Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris. Additional platforms and localisations will follow shortly. This second public beta release is the result of many months' work improving upon the first public beta announced in March, 2005. OpenOffice.org 2.0 introduces a new database module, implements the OASIS OpenDocument XML file format and a myriad of other new features and capabilities. The redesigned interface and enhanced document filters combine to make the application even more interoperable with other office suites and easier to use and learn, regardless of operating system. This beta release is made available in order to allow a broad user base to test and evaluate the next major version of OpenOffice.org, but is not recommended for production deployment at this stage. OpenOffice.org Conference - 2005 The release of OpenOffice.org 2.0 Beta 2 comes one month before the annual OpenOffice.org Conference, to be held in Koper - Capodistria, Slovenia, from 28 to 30 September. The conference, organised by the Slovenian and Italian OpenOffice.org project teams, follows the successes of the last two years, OOoCon 2003 in Hamburg and OOoCon 2004 in Berlin, and is intended to bring together all people who are interested in the development, deployment and use of the software suite. For further information regarding the conference, please visit http://marketing.openoffice.org/conference/index.html. Beta Availability The beta version and it's source code can be downloaded from http://download.openoffice.org/2.0beta2/index.html. Feature Guide A more detailed guide to the features can be found at http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/2.0/index.html. Error and Bug Reporting In order to help us release OpenOffice.org 2.0 sooner, users of the Beta 2 release are encouraged to join the OpenOffice.org project and report any bugs, issues or errors at http://qa.openoffice.org/. For ongoing updates regarding beta releases of OpenOffice.org 2.0, please subscribe to the OpenOffice.org Announce mailing list at http://www.openoffice.org/mail_list.html#general. About OpenOffice.org OpenOffice.org is a fully featured open-source productivity suite available as a free download for major computing platforms in over 45 languages. Data is stored in an XML file format standardised for office documents by the international body OASIS. OpenOffice.org is developed, supported, and promoted by an international community of volunteers with its main sponsor and primary contributor being Sun Microsystems. OpenOffice.org operates from http://www.openoffice.org. GLOBAL CONTACTS Jacqueline McNally (UTC +08h00) OpenOffice.org Marketing Project Lead jacqueline@openoffice.org +61 (8) 9474-3021 John McCreesh (UTC +01h00) OpenOffice.org Marketing Project Co-Lead jpmcc@openoffice.org +44 (0)131 523 9218 Louis Suarez-Potts OpenOffice.org Community Manager louis@openoffice.org +1 (416) 625 3843 © 2005 OpenOffice.org (Log in to post comments)
64 bit? Posted Aug 30, 2005 16:52 UTC (Tue) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] Does anyone know if 2.0 compiles natively for 64 bit systems? I have been under the impression that 64 bitters have to run 32 bit versions. I don't use word processors very often, and this is more of a curiousity than anything serious.
64 bit? Posted Aug 30, 2005 17:19 UTC (Tue) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] As far as I know that is currently true, but I also don't think it's a big deal. Running a 32-bit application on a 64-bit system means that the 32-bit application is somewhat slower than it would be if compiled natively, and it also means that you have to install 32-bit libraries. Generally, neither matter on a 64-bit system for office applications. There are many low-capability 32-bit systems where not requiring a lot resources matters. But if you're using a 64-bit system today, it's because you want the extra performance for an application that needs it, which isn't the office suite.It'd be ideal if they made it compile natively on 64-bit, if they haven't already; that would be a minor improvement in system administration (because they'd have fewer libraries to update). But it's very minor; I'd prefer that they work out the remaining bugs first, release it for real, and then make minor improvements like that later.
64 bit? Posted Aug 30, 2005 17:56 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] the problem isn't the speed, it's the need to install a full set of 32 bit libraries just for the one program to use.
this is especially bad on some distros (Debian) where you end up having to create a chroot environment to run openoffice in.
64 bit? Posted Aug 30, 2005 18:06 UTC (Tue) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link] My experience of installing the 32-bit OOo on 64-bit Debian and Ubuntu systems is not that it works fine, but rather that it aborts. However I have just installed the 2.0 Beta 2 from Ubuntu Breezy and it works at least superficially. That's a nice improvement.
64 bit? Posted Aug 30, 2005 19:09 UTC (Tue) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link]
I don't feel it's my "right" to run the same apps on 64-bit as others do on 32-bit. On the other hand, it's a bit arrogant and presumptuous of people like you -- and the OOo devs -- to dismiss us 64-bit folk, instead of chastising the authors of bad code! (No, I haven't tried to fix it, though I have fixed other software over the years from gnome-pim to gnucash to mozilla to run on PPC, alpha and ARM...)
64 bit? Posted Aug 30, 2005 17:21 UTC (Tue) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link] I don't see any 64-bit downloads. It's hilarious, and Sun should be ashamed, that the only application in the Linux universe that won't port to AMD64 is one that relies so heavily on Java. Write once, run anywhere? Perhaps not.
SomeJava; much is in C++. Posted Aug 30, 2005 17:29 UTC (Tue) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] It's true that a few components are written in Java. But practically all of OOo is currently written in C++. Indeed, until very recently, many Linux distributions were shipping OOo without using Java at all. You lose Wizards, the built-in database (though you can still access databases), and some other things, and I believe the intent is to go further with more Java use. But that's not the current situation. Nor does it make sense to go differently; most users don't care what the implementation language is, as long as it works well and does what they need.Yes, it's a little ironic. But I stand by my earlier statement -- if you're using a 64-bit system, it's not because your office suite is too slow. A 32-bit office suite is just fine on a 64-bit system; it does the job quite adequately. I think it's more important to worry about the needs that really matter first. And if someone loathes this so much that they're willing to fix it now, great... go to it!
SomeJava; much is in C++. Posted Aug 30, 2005 19:13 UTC (Tue) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link]
SomeJava; much is in C++. Posted Aug 31, 2005 9:19 UTC (Wed) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] Certainly on Linux/Sparc64 and Solaris/Sparc64, most userland applications are 32-bit; thus, on Sun's own 64 bit architecture, 32-bit is fine. This also applies to IRIX/MIPS, Linux/MIPS and Linux/PPC64, regardless of kernel wordsize.
64 bit? Posted Aug 30, 2005 20:54 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > It's hilarious, and Sun should be ashamed [...]
You think? ;-)
A more cynical mind may even conclude that Sun are holding back open sourcing of Java on purpose, in order to cripple other FOSS distros, which then have to put huge (and unnecessary) efforts into making GCJ a solution for this problem (because they can't legally distribute Sun's JDK).
Then again, it may be for the best - once GCJ becomes as functional as "real" Java, we won't need it from Sun any more. Ah, that'll be the day... GCJ hackers, keep up the good work!
My worry is that 32 bit is a special case Posted Aug 30, 2005 17:41 UTC (Tue) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] My concern with 32 bit is not speed, but special casing. I run gentoo on a dual opteron system, and the openoffice install does not work; it is a binary install and complains about missing libraries for specific commands. Soemtimes gentoo forums are great, but not in this case. I have never gotten anything even close to a satisfactory response, and would just as soon get rid of the special case.
My worry is that 32 bit is a special case Posted Aug 30, 2006 1:15 UTC (Wed) by praedor (guest, #40215) [Link] My problem with no x86_64 (AMD64) version of OOo is that it doesn't workwith Bibus, the ONLY viable citation manager for OOo thus far that works on a par with EndNote and Word on Windows/Macs. This renders OOo useless to me professionally. My writing is scientific. To journals. Journal articles require citations. Citations are done via EndNote (or equivalent). Virtually no professional journal accepts latex anymore (at least in the biological sciences) so I can no longer use Lyx and bibtex. Thus, if I want to write a professional article for publication I HAVE to use Word because OOo wont work properly on my x86_64 system. Installing a damn 32-bit version on my system means installing a slew of 32-bit libs and support just to make it work. One app. Practically requires a second, shadow linux install to work at all and then I find that it is incompatible with my professional needs: I do 32-bit install only to find that Bibus will not communicate with OpenOffice on a 64-bit system regardless. It only works on an old-fashioned, obsolete 32-bit system. Thus, Openoffice has no value except as an overpowered letter writing app since it cannot do professional documents (which requires proper attribution). I have waited and waited and waited for a 64-bit version. It has been many months since last I checked and STILL not a lick of progress. Not even an attempt. Hardly the means for gaining share or respect in the world of MS Word that can handle professional document writing, even on a 64-bit system. Whenever I am asked about it, I warn people off OOo because it just isn't up to par with Word. These are my professional colleagues and they MUST be able to easily/painlessly be able to produce publications with proper attribution. Bibus and OOo COULD do it but...only if you use a dinosaur computer.
64 bit? Posted Aug 30, 2005 21:09 UTC (Tue) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] The fact that after three or so years, OO still doesn't event compile (let alone run...) under a 64-bit OS, says a lot about the quality of the code... From my experience, "porting" to 64-bits (which usually means fixing bugs made implicitly assuming sizeof(int) == sizeof(void *) etc) doesn't take too much time. So what a mess the OO codebase must be... shrugging.
64 bit? Posted Aug 31, 2005 3:13 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I think it's a good style to check facts before belittling someone in public. OOo builds and runs, it's just not very stable. See e.g. http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~kendy/blog/. Sure, if you search for "openoffice x86_64" you'll get many problem reports because users try to build OOo when they can download the binaries. You can notice that most reported problems are generic build problems (e.g. linker using wrong libraries), rather than compile errors.Compile errors is the easy part, and it has been done. Debugging and fixing problems that don't result in compile errors is the hard part, and it's going on now. Unfortunately, this effort is not helped by the fact that OOo is somewhat closed to occasional external contributors. If only they used a widely accepted version control system instead of CWS! On the lighter note, 64-bit support seems correllated with version control systems. When the repository is widely open to the public, everybody comes with their favorite kinds of patches. Somebody fixed 64-bit support after fixing it in 64 other projects, somebody polishes the GUI after doing the same in Gnumeric, somebody checks the code with Valgrind. I'm yet to see a project hosted on Subversion that would not compile cleanly on AMD64 :-)
64 bit? Posted Aug 31, 2005 10:32 UTC (Wed) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > I think it's a good style to check facts before belittling someone in public.
Agreed.
> OOo builds and runs, it's just not very stable.
So I assume, by your strict adherence to facts, you actually built it yourself (under a 64bit OS); and you use it daily but it's just a bit less stable than the i386 build, right? Then you must be a lucky person (or maybe it's just me who is out of luck completely).
> See e.g. http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~kendy/blog/.
So, someone periodically manages to compile the damned thing with half of the features turned off which then survives a few keystrokes until it painfully dies; and even the fixes needed for this pathetic advance are periodically rejected/overriden/whatnot upstream. Is that what you call "just not very stable"?
> Sure, if you search for "openoffice x86_64" you'll get many problem reports because users try to build OOo when they can download the binaries.
Which binaries? Please show me where I can download an x86_64 OO build.
> You can notice that most reported problems are generic build problems (e.g. linker using wrong libraries), rather than compile errors.
Yes, because the configuration/build system is completely screwed up. It requires a dozen of tools (perl/java/ant/jython/tcsh/...) installed only to advance to the stage when you can actually start compiling the monster. And then, after setting a hunderd of envirement variables something (e.g. ant) stops working (which runs fine otherwise). No wonder rare brave knights come past this quest.
> Debugging and fixing problems that don't result in compile errors is the hard part, and it's going on now.
It's been going for years; and apparently, 2.0 will still be 32-bits-only.
> If only they used a widely accepted version control system instead of CWS!
I think this is a pseudo-correlation (or whatever the correct mathematical term is), like the fact that people using skin sunscreens die of skin cancer more frequently. Which is not the cancerogenic nature of the sunscreens, of course (though there have been yellow press pubs hinting at this), but a one-more-level-deep true correlation (people that like to tan a lot often use sunscreens, which don't shield 100% of the UV rays, so the chances to get cancer are still higher than for those who don't tan). Same is here. True, in spirit, FLOSS projects tend to use convenient VCS'es. And, in a true FLOSS project, any 32bit archaisms get noticed and fixed at the early stages of development, before they plague the codebase in thousands of places.
The fact is that among open-source porjects of at least minimal public exposure, OO remains the only one which is not portable yet.
64 bit? Posted Sep 1, 2005 9:53 UTC (Thu) by xet7 (guest, #32215) [Link] Hi,try ooo64bit02 builds from bottom of the page: http://ftp.linux.cz/pub/localization/OpenOffice.org/devel/680/
When will OpenOffice.org 2.0 officially come out? Posted Aug 30, 2005 17:45 UTC (Tue) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] So what's the expected date for releasing the "real" (QA'd) OpenOffice.org 2.0? Under the top twenty list of things to do, there are only 3 defects, and all of them involve text directionality (so it's likely that they can be ironed out around the same time). The rest are feature requests, and I suspect that most users would be happy even without them. At one time the use of Java was concerning, but now gcj plus GNU Classpath seem to be able to implement OpenOffice 2.0 just fine (as evidenced by Fedora Core 4).I'm nervous about trusting my most important data to a beta, especially when the maker says "please don't use it for production use." I'm not the only one. bug 51915 asks where the schedule info is, but I don't see a reply with an answer. The roadmaps I can find are out-of-date. Anyone know?
When will OpenOffice.org 2.0 officially come out? Posted Aug 30, 2005 17:52 UTC (Tue) by tylers (guest, #32168) [Link] The best estimates I've seen are at http://development.openoffice.org/releases/OpenOffice_org_2_x.html, though the page is not extremely detailed.
When will OpenOffice.org 2.0 officially come out? Posted Aug 31, 2005 4:01 UTC (Wed) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803) [Link] I wouldn't say FC4 is a shining example of OOo + gcj. At best, it's an encouraging preview release. My attempts to do anything productive with the Base application fell flat pretty quick when I tried to edit the structure of a table and add a primary key -- it simply couldn't be done. Frankly, I'm surprised they shipped it in its current state.
I hope that OOo 2 final + gcj 4.1, hopefully combined in FC5, will finally give us a production ready system.
When will OpenOffice.org 2.0 officially come out? Posted Aug 31, 2005 5:21 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Frankly, I'm surprised they shipped it in its current state.
Don't be. That's what FC is for - finding bugs.
When will OpenOffice.org 2.0 officially come out? Posted Aug 31, 2005 8:00 UTC (Wed) by kms (subscriber, #6679) [Link] > > Frankly, I'm surprised they shipped it in its current state. > Don't be. That's what FC is for - finding bugs. I think many, including those in the Fedora Project, would agree with your statement: Fedora Myths.
When will OpenOffice.org 2.0 officially come out? Posted Aug 31, 2005 11:23 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > I think many, including those in the Fedora Project, would agree with your statement: Fedora Myths.
I'm not sure if you meant "would" or "wouldn't" here, but it looks like the latter, after reviewing that link. I hope that you aren't suggesting that this sentence:
"It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products."
Means something other than using FC to find bugs. I'm not sure how a technology becomes "proven" without being tested and without bugs being found and squashed...
This doesn't necessarily mean one cannot use FC on production machines. I do so daily (with various degrees of success, depending on the task).
When will OpenOffice.org 2.0 officially come out? Posted Aug 31, 2005 11:59 UTC (Wed) by kms (subscriber, #6679) [Link] [ Yep, I meant wouldn't ]
The point I was trying to make was that the purpose of Fedora is not solely to find bugs for Red Hat, but that is how I interpreted your original statement.
When will OpenOffice.org 2.0 officially come out? Posted Sep 1, 2005 10:02 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link] There is some talk among OOo blogs that hopes it could be ready for their conference, which would mean the last of september. That sounds a little bit optimistic to me, depending on if they want to make a coordinated release with all the localization teams or just go with what they have.
|
||||||||||||||||