IBM's Lotus Symphony
Posted Sep 19, 2007 15:18 UTC (Wed)
by philipstorry (subscriber, #45926)
[Link] (4 responses)
They integrated that 1.x codebase into a shell/wrapper with the Eclipse Rich Client Platform, which helped it integrate into the rest of the Workplace product - each component being an RCP plugin module.
Sadly, Workplace as a product was very resource-hungry, AND competed against IBM's own Lotus Domino/Notes application in some areas. The market confusion and reputation for a slow, heavy install meant that IBM eventually stopped working on Workplace.
However, they continued to work on the Eclipse RCP container, and have recently shipped Lotus Notes 8 - for which the standard version now uses the same Eclipse RCP platform. That standard version also inherited these productivity editors, because it wasn't too difficult for IBM to add them given the nature of Eclipse RCP.
It's those Productivity Editors that we're now seeing being released as a standalone product, named Lotus Symphony.
Looking at all of that, I suppose your could say it's reworked.
But some might think it an understatement... ;-)
It's a fork, but it's more like the forking of FreeBSD from NetBSD. No major re-write took place (as with the OpenBSD fork), but there was a different focus which has led them down a few different paths... Yet much of the core code is probably, in these early years, still the same. :-)
The big question now is whether they'll rejoin this forked road to the OOo road, or carry on down their own path...
Posted Sep 19, 2007 15:43 UTC (Wed)
by chaneau (guest, #6674)
[Link] (3 responses)
Yes, unhappy is probably the right word ;-) Let's leave aside the fact that on my Ubuntu box you have to run it as root after all, it is not certified for this distribution, but take a look at these two screenshots of the same document Seems to me there is still some way to go P.S. It is an ODT file, maybe I should try with some DOC ones :-)
Posted Sep 19, 2007 16:00 UTC (Wed)
by philipstorry (subscriber, #45926)
[Link] (2 responses)
This is partly why IBM have joined OOo - OOo made better progress on import/export filters for Word than they themselves did, because they had more people working on fixing the bugs.
(Whereas, IIRC, Symphony has better SmartSuite import filters, because IBM have access to better SmartSuite documentation. Funny, that...)
The problem for IBM is now that in some areas their customers require, they're behind, whereas in others they're ahead.
You've demonstrated the import filters very graphically - but OOo is not acceptable for use with many organisations because it doesn't work with screen readers, and is therefore not accessible for the partially sighted. That may not be a huge priority for most individuals, but it's a deal-breaker for many organisations...
In the long run, having both OOo and Symphony should allow some parity to come in between the two apps, meaning that both will become more acceptable to all.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 16:31 UTC (Wed)
by dwheeler (guest, #1216)
[Link] (1 responses)
What's sad is that, according to many leaders for the disabled, Microsoft has not been helpful in accessibility of Office. It's only due to the herculian efforts of others that people can even attempt to use Microsoft Office while blind. In contrast, the OpenOffice.org people have worked hard at it, making as much as possible accessible.
Posted Sep 20, 2007 10:35 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
:P
IBM forked from the old StarOffice/OpenOffice.Org 1.x code base a few years ago, when they had a need for editors for a product named Workplace.It's not quite StarOffice, not quite OpenOffice...
I believe it also has UNO enabled by default, and some work has been done on the import/export filters and a few other areas IBM felt customers would be unhappy with, but nothing too important to mention. Oh, and it has had a bit of accessibility work done on it (which is what IBM are initially donating back to the OOo project), of course!
and some work has been done on the import/export filters and a few other areas IBM felt customers would be unhappy with
It's not quite StarOffice, not quite OpenOffice...
Good example!It's not quite StarOffice, not quite OpenOffice...
Not true, there are
several screen readers that work with OpenOffice.org.
It's my understanding that it's better on GNOME than Windows, because GNOME has a better accessibility framework than Windows.
Accessibility in OpenOffice...
In Soviet Microsoft all the end users work for YOU!Accessibility in OpenOffice...
(at least when it comes to usability, apparently)
