OpenOffice is often touted as the completely free office suite [correct me if i am wrong].
But isn't OO based on JAVA? And Java is not free by FSF standards.
So what abt OO???
Quoting Ankit Malik ankitmalik@gmail.com:
OpenOffice is often touted as the completely free office suite [correct me if i am wrong].
But isn't OO based on JAVA? And Java is not free by FSF standards.
OOo is essentially written in C++. Java is an optional component, needed only to use some of the JDBC based features.
cheers, -indra
---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
On Saturday 05 Mar 2005 1:24 am, Ankit Malik wrote:
OpenOffice is often touted as the completely free office suite [correct me if i am wrong].
But isn't OO based on JAVA? And Java is not free by FSF standards.
So what abt OO???
Java is not required for OO. Some features require Java. The following FAQ provides an asnwer. I dont want those features of OO till I find a freesoftware solution. Period. So I dont install JVM.
Nagarjuna
----------------------- Source: http://www.bytebot.net/openoffice/faq.html#Installation1
2.2. What is Java needed for? Java is required for some portions of the application to work properly - XSLT reliant materials, such as DocBook document creation is dependant on having a working Java Runtime Environment. To have a full-featured OpenOffice.org, the Java Runtime Environment should be installed before the OpenOffice.org package is installed; however, if it is installed afterwards, running jvmsetup will do the trick.
If you have downloaded the Java Runtime Environment (JRE) and choose to upgrade to using the Software Development Kit (SDK), runing jvmsetup again to point to the "new" version of Java is what you need to do.
It has been known that some versions of Java do not necessarily work with Linux, especially some from the Blackdown archives (for Debian users). It is probably wise to keep up with what Sun distributes, and get it from the Sun website. A full list of missing features include:
* usage of JDBC drivers * XSLT and small device filters * usage of Java applets within OpenOffice.org * lack of Java based languages in the scripting framework * the database report wizard * the flat file filter * all of the Java related test-tools and qaTestDev (for QA work) * accessibility features
Ankit Malik said on Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 01:24:32AM +0530,:
But isn't OO based on JAVA? And Java is not free by FSF standards.
So what abt OO???
Have you read the Debian policy manifesto?? If not, please do. It is at http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ in particular, http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-sections
Next, read http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/ and http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/x138.html
Make sure you read the documents in *only* in this particular order.
If that does not answer you, try going through that, read the mails at http://lists.debian.org/debian-openoffice/
The list link is to the mailing list archives; be careful while reading that, because opposing opinions will be expressed there.
you mean RTFM [fine manual]! Uh ok! ;-)
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:51:33 +0530, Mahesh T. Pai paivakil@sancharnet.in wrote:
Ankit Malik said on Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 01:24:32AM +0530,:
But isn't OO based on JAVA? And Java is not free by FSF standards.
So what abt OO???
Have you read the Debian policy manifesto?? If not, please do. It is at http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ in particular, http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-sections
Next, read http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/ and http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/x138.html
Make sure you read the documents in *only* in this particular order.
If that does not answer you, try going through that, read the mails at http://lists.debian.org/debian-openoffice/
The list link is to the mailing list archives; be careful while reading that, because opposing opinions will be expressed there.
-- Mahesh T. Pai <<>> http://paivakil.port5.com REVOLUTION, n. An abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.
Fsf-friends mailing list Fsf-friends@mm.gnu.org.in http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends
quoting a comment @ osnews.com RE OO.o
" (IP: ---.ph.ph.cox.net) - Posted on 2005-03-05 22:23:51 "Fedora Core 4 is trying to make a free JRE based off of gcj and they claim to have Openoffice.org compiling with gcj now too."
Is this true or did you just make this up? I'm not questioning you, but it just sounds too good to be true.
I really wonder about the licensing issues regarding OO.o. Unless Red Hat includes proprietary Java stuff into Fedora (which we know they won't), OO.o will be crippled. This goes true most (not all) other Linux distros, but not Sun's. Wait a minute, it wouldn't apply to Solaris either.
Hmmm, using an open source killer app to leverage increasing market share for your proprietary product, and locking out the competition. I wonder if this is Sun's strategy.
I hope an open source, unencumbered implementation of Java is workable soon."
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 14:01:52 +0530, Ankit Malik ankitmalik@gmail.com wrote:
you mean RTFM [fine manual]! Uh ok! ;-)
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:51:33 +0530, Mahesh T. Pai paivakil@sancharnet.in wrote:
Ankit Malik said on Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 01:24:32AM +0530,:
But isn't OO based on JAVA? And Java is not free by FSF standards.
So what abt OO???
Have you read the Debian policy manifesto?? If not, please do. It is at http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ in particular, http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-sections
Next, read http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/ and http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/x138.html
Make sure you read the documents in *only* in this particular order.
If that does not answer you, try going through that, read the mails at http://lists.debian.org/debian-openoffice/
The list link is to the mailing list archives; be careful while reading that, because opposing opinions will be expressed there.
-- Mahesh T. Pai <<>> http://paivakil.port5.com REVOLUTION, n. An abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.
Fsf-friends mailing list Fsf-friends@mm.gnu.org.in http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends
-- _______________________
Ankit Malik http://scribbler.tk
There is wide spread concern about the future of Open Source as Sun uses Java more and more in Open Office.
The concerns are
1. Java is not Free Software nor Open Source software 2. It vilates the project goal of being a cross platform office suit since a complete JRE is not avilable in many main systems like Free BSD. 3. It makes stress on those repackaging it. Redhat is trying to patch Open Office to work with free gcj java runtime.And a fork is very likely. 4. It craetes hurdles in adoption by Govenments as more and more require the application to be open source and the new database tools are not at all based on open source tool.
Here is a more compehensive analysis by Bruce Byfield Java fallout: OpenOffice.org http://OpenOffice.org 2.0 and the FOSS community http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/03/22/204244
<quote> Several new features of the recently released OpenOffice.orghttp://OpenOffice.org 2.0 beta require a Java Runtime Environment (JRE). Since Java's license is neither free nor open source, a small but vocal minority has responded both strongly and negatively. For instance, when NewsForge recently published a review of the beta, no other feature attracted as much comment. Some groups, including members of the major GNU/Linux distributions, most of whom repackage OpenOffice.org http://OpenOffice.org (OOo), have responded by looking for alternatives, often while cursing the project for the extra work it has dumped on them. How did OpenOffice.org http://OpenOffice.org come to rely on Java? What problems is it likely to cause? How are GNU/Linux distributions reacting to this change in a key piece of software? </quote> Bruce Byfield is a freelance course designer and instructor and a technical journalist.
Praveen A said on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 11:35:24PM +0530,:
http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/03/22/204244
<quote> Several new features of the recently released OpenOffice.org<http://OpenOffice.org> 2.0 beta require a Java Runtime Environment (JRE). Since Java's license is neither free nor open source, a small but vocal minority has responded both
There are plenty implementations of Free (as in freedom JREs. So, why worry?
"Mahesh T. Pai" paivakil@sancharnet.in writes:
There are plenty implementations of Free (as in freedom JREs. So, why worry?
Java is not standardized. Hence these JREs are not fully compatible with the JRE provided by SUN. Hence, there are always surprises on these JREs. The distro builders are trying to fix this with `gij`., however that requires massive effort. And with a lot of open-standard scripting languages available (Scheme, Python, Ruby, ...) Sun's pushing of Java simply shows that it is intentional.
Though, I'm not personally in favour of project-forks., I think this is high time someone decided to fork the project. May be continue with the trees maintained by Debian/RedHat which is OO.o stripped off its Java features.
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 21:39 +0530, Joe Steeve wrote:
"Mahesh T. Pai" paivakil@sancharnet.in writes:
There are plenty implementations of Free (as in freedom JREs. So, why worry?
Java is not standardized. Hence these JREs are not fully compatible with the JRE provided by SUN. Hence, there are always
Java is pretty well standardized, I think. The JVM has a proper spec, and there are freely accessible reference implementations. The present work that is required to be done is creating a complete independent, patent-unencumbered, and Free implementation of both the JVM and the class libraries.
GNU classlibs have been working on creating a Free implementation of the class libraries and Kaffe, etc. have been working on a compatible JVM.
The work to be done is however massive - Java standard libraries has thousands of classes to be re-implemented, and biggest differentiating factor among JVM implementations is turning out to be JIT and other run time optimizations (e.g. Suns Hot spot technology). Therefore there is a lot of catch up to do for Free alternatives.
Exasperated with the incompleteness of these Free alternatives, many are instead doing the next best thing - cajoling/threatening/pleading Suna nd IBM to Open source their implementations.
- Sandip
-- Sandip Bhattacharya * Puroga Technologies * sandip@puroga.com Work: http://www.puroga.com * Home/Blog: http://www.sandipb.net/blog
PGP/GPG Signature: 51A4 6C57 4BC6 8C82 6A65 AE78 B1A1 2280 A129 0FF3
Sandip Bhattacharya sandip@lug-delhi.org writes:
Java is pretty well standardized, I think. The JVM has a proper spec, and there are freely accessible reference implementations. The present work that is required to be done is
By standardised, I mean the spec controlled by a body such as the ISO. The Java spec is out to the public, however it is not a standard.
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 00:29 +0530, Joe Steeve wrote:
Sandip Bhattacharya sandip@lug-delhi.org writes:
Java is pretty well standardized, I think. The JVM has a proper spec, and there are freely accessible reference implementations. The present work that is required to be done is
By standardised, I mean the spec controlled by a body such as the ISO. The Java spec is out to the public, however it is not a standard.
You mean it is not an open standard, controlled by an industry wide committee. You are right there.
But believe me, in practical terms, the Java specs are more easily and freely accessible than ISO standards. Try obtaining any ISO standard yourself and you will see.
- Sandip
-- Sandip Bhattacharya * Puroga Technologies * sandip@puroga.com Work: http://www.puroga.com * Home/Blog: http://www.sandipb.net/blog
PGP/GPG Signature: 51A4 6C57 4BC6 8C82 6A65 AE78 B1A1 2280 A129 0FF3
Sandip Bhattacharya sandip@lug-delhi.org writes:
You mean it is not an open standard, controlled by an industry wide committee. You are right there.
But believe me, in practical terms, the Java specs are more easily and freely accessible than ISO standards. Try obtaining any ISO standard yourself and you will see.
Er., it not just the obtaining part. It is subject to the control of the company. In such a case, we are forced to rely on the good behaviour of the company based on history. And, there are patents all over the technology which will make it hard to develop JREs.
Free Software that depends on patented technology is basically a sitting duck which wont last long. Morover OpenOffice is such a crucial piece of software. With its alternatives still lagging behind, it is very sad how Sun is controlling it with its proprietary technology.
Ankit Malik said on Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 02:01:52PM +0530,:
you mean RTFM [fine manual]! Uh ok! ;-)
Nah. I guess you would not have found unless you knew these documents existed; They are not manuals.
These links will show how a free version of OpenOffice.org (not openoffice) has been implemented by Debian.
OO.o is in `main' section of debian; a program cannot be in Debian's `main' archive unless the program, all libraries required by it, build scripts, and the compiler/interpreter required to compile/run the program are fully free.
<flamebait>
This freedom fanaticism is one of the reasons why Debian is often referred to as distros' distro. Several distros like knoppix, morphix, Ubuntu, etc. are based on Debian. And precisely why people like me use Debian.
</flamebait>
On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 15:06 +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
This freedom fanaticism is one of the reasons why Debian is often referred to as distros' distro. Several distros like knoppix, morphix, Ubuntu, etc. are based on Debian. And precisely why people like me use Debian.
Even though I have used Red Hat always and Fedora now, I have always had the highest of respect for Debian for this precise reason. Remaining steadfast in your principles and not compromising anything about your ideals is a rare trait today - exhibited by entities like Debian and FSF ;).
- Sandip
-- Sandip Bhattacharya * Puroga Technologies * sandip@puroga.com Work: http://www.puroga.com * Home/Blog: http://www.sandipb.net/blog
PGP/GPG Signature: 51A4 6C57 4BC6 8C82 6A65 AE78 B1A1 2280 A129 0FF3
-
Ankit Malik -
indradg＠icbic.com -
Joe Steeve -
Mahesh T. Pai -
Nagarjuna G. -
Praveen A -
Sandip Bhattacharya