Nadir,
Quote:

Problem with a home grown solution is the coder can and most likely will pick up his toys and go home at some point. The community could throw a bunch of money at it but there is no guarantee of anything. If the community threw a bunch of money at porting something like OO and actually got it ported, the source code would always be open. If the coder(s) gave up and moved on, someone else theoretically could pick it up.

Maybe we could just pool our resources and have Fab cloned.
I'm sure a few copies of that guy would get the job done.

> Older versions did make use of Java. [...] I haven't cleared
> up whether Java is still required or not

"Make use of" is not the same as "require". Fact is that older versions made the same use of Java that current versions do, but it's not required and never was. See:

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Java_and_OpenOffice.org

@connor

+1. Let's not forget that in the 90s the GUI may be OK but nowadays we are used to MUI and it may feel like a step back. I don't think the sources worth more than 1000 EUR.

I cleared up my mind to the point that I had the libre office build system running and some stuff starting to compile. That took a few evenings but at least gave me a feeling of what is involved in porting this beast. It is feasible to do it but quite boring.

It seems CW made some nice progress but don't underestimate how much it takes to write a full word processor. It's a huge task.

The problem I see with Cinnamon Writer (the same is true for Scriba) is that it is closed source. It depends all on the developer. Best arguements against CS are Wordworth, Final Writer or Amiga Writer - those were all nice programs, but they stalled because developers gave up on it and community couldn't pick it up because of CS. I wouldn't want to see that repeating again, but instead support an OS solution.

[ Editiert durch Zylesea 05.10.2012 - 13:45 ]

In my opinion decent wordprocessor can't be written by single developer. We have four options:

1) take some old code (and pay authors)
PROS: huge amount of code is already written
CONS: no mui, large amount of money required
2) Scriba
PROS: mui, seems progressing, using typical MorphOS components
CONS: definetely premature, prebeta state, German docs :), gui
3) CinnamonWriter
PROS: seems progressing
CONS: own gui (no mui)
4) LibreOffice
PROS: it's Libre Office, Nadir has working build system :)
CONS: port all dependiences

I vote for Libre Office :)

Yeah, Java was never needed for OO for the most. Where ever I've installed OO I've skipped Java.

+1 for Libre Office and lets talk Nadir over to do it ;)

The open source argument is a good one. What happens when a developer can't do the work anymore?

With such a small base, we're very vulnerable to manpower losses that aren't easily replacable.

>"Make use of" is not the same as "require". Fact is that older versions made the same use of Java that current versions do, but it's not required and never was. See:

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Java_and_OpenOffice.org

Strange, since the first line of the link you post reads this, Andreas

>Java is required for complete OpenOffice.org functionality

Zylesea,
Quote:
Why do you favor a CS OS then?

connor,
>Why do you favor a CS OS then?

MorphOS is done by a team, not a single individual. This team has a proven track record and said something like when they eventually may feel it would be time to give it up they wouldn't fire and bury the code, but make available. And most important: it fits my needs best.
Look, I am not a burning OSS evangelist, but with a micro community where applications are usually programmed by single individuals (_nothing_ against that!) OSS may be the most promising assurance for a software not stalling when the developer gets bored/no time.

>> "Make use of" is not the same as "require". Fact is that older
>> versions made the same use of Java that current versions do, but
>> it's not required and never was. See:
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Java_and_OpenOffice.org

> Strange, since the first line of the link you post reads this, Andreas
>>Java is required for complete OpenOffice.org functionality

Not strange at all. Java is not required to run OpenOffice.org. I used it to write my master's thesis and for that didn't rely on any functionality requiring Java. Thus, "complete OpenOffice.org functionality" is something I think most people can live without.

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

That's cool.
Personally I don't need anything except the word processor.

BTW - What did you get the Masters in and what was the title of you thesis?

> Personally I don't need anything except the word processor.

OpenOffice.org (or LibreOffice) Writer needs Java just for some wizards and for some export formats. Nothing essential.

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Java_and_OpenOffice.org#OpenOffice.org_Writer

> What did you get the Masters in and what was the title of you thesis?

Let's take that to PM to not risk boring anyone here to death ;-)

"Why do you favor a CS OS then?"

For "amiga", it was the best option. Never could get AROS to boot, and honestly, if I had bought a PC to replace my dead one, I'd have run linux instead.

Same, never seen AROS outside a virtual machine to be honest. I used to believe in its future but nowadays I`m not so sure, seems like it`s begun to fragment or is close to doing so.

The only other real option (besides MOS of course) is, in my opinion, Amithlon which is still pretty killer even today.

Sorry for inserting another off-topic post in this thread lol :o)

I have two native AROS machines, one Acer Aspire One ZG5 and one ARESONE 2011. Since AROS is still mostly alpha and beta it still got plenty of bugs and missing features. But unless AOS 4.x and MorphOS don't expand their hardware base I think AROS is the only platform actually having a shot.

AOS 4.x is buggy and requires very expensive hardware. MorphOS on the other hand seems much more stable and useful, but even the newest hardware is 7 or so years old by now.

Not intending to hijack the thread either. I'm no anti-MorphOS AROS fanatic, but the only way to convince me to buy a licence is to show me what new or reasonably new hardware I will be able to use with MorphOS. And as of now, there seems to be none.

Quote:

So what, if it still works fine and is fast enough? There's lot of slower new hardware on sale too, what makes them any better? Actually my MorphOS hardware is newer than my PC hw, and both are equally enough for me :)

The point is not that it's bad hardware, it's that it's not being made anymore and will only get older and older. If MorphOS became compatible with new hardware that is still being made I would consider it seriously. I still think it seems like a fun system to use (it's Amiga after all :) But as long as there is no news from the front about platform change I'm not all that interested.

Honestly 7 years is nothing in the Amigasphere, my a1200 and cd32 are still working great and they're 20 years old now. There's still plenty of life left in the ppc macs.

Even new hw starts to get older and older, it isn't going to be new for many days ;)

Yasu,
Quote:


http://dark-circuit.com/newsearch.php?find=efika

Please let us know your license number when you register next week

redrumloa,
Quote:


Genesi "The 5200B-based version of the EFIKA mainboard has been discontinued and was replaced with the EFIKA MX"

No thanks Red.
I'll stick with my "old" Powermac as its several times more powerful.
And come to think of it, its also more powerful then most of the "new" hardware available for OS4.

How about considering LaTeX and LyX ?

There are already a number of tools on Aminet.

Also see http://www.ctan.org/ for extension modules, etc.