A suite of programs that include AbiWord, Gnumeric and Gimp constitues the OpenOSX Office for MacOSX. The suite also installs XFree86 4.1.99.1, XDarwin 1.0.4, Ghostview 1.5, Oroborous Window Manager, ORBit 0.5.11, Gnome, Library 0.17, Bonobo 1.0.10, Glib 1.2.8, Libxml 1.8.14, GnomePrint 0.31, and DYLib. The CD costs $30 USD.
OpenOSX Office 0.9 For MacOSX Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
OpenOSX is one of the initiative that abuses of FINK
http://fink.sourceforge.net
I suggest you to take a look there before thinking about OpenOSX
Additionally, they do not offer a free downloadable version from what I can see.
Yea, great. Why would I want XFree86 on MacOSX? What a waste…
-G
Well, having XFree in a rootless mode, running a kind like the way it runs under QNX, it is not a bad idea. I think, XFree under OSX does not run in a big window as it does under BeOS, but it is like a deammon and the applications like Gimp and Gnumeric are loading in the OSX desktop, behaving like real OSX apps. You can close XFree down any time you want, without losing the original OSX gui. It is pretty handy to get more applications to OSX, I suppose. And to connect to your OSX desktop through a Unix machine through the network as well. It can be useful, I guess…
have X on an OS allow you to use and mor many software in less time and in addition have many of the feature X gives you.
BTW Eugenia do you know if the QNX programmers are planning to make Xpoton more stable…?
(or just make phGTK?)
Does anyone know, if there’s a Gnumeric port for Windows?
Gnumeric makes extensive use of the GNOME libraries and services, and so only works on a Unix or Unix-like system (which is why so much of this stuff is suddenly available for OS X while it was never attempted for OS 9 or earlier). Software like Gimp that only uses the toolkit GTK+ and the basic utility library Glib will run on Windows, but stuff like the Bonobo engine used by Gnumeric isn’t available.
In theory the whole of GNOME could be ported to Windows, and I’m sure some people are working in that direction, but frankly the story of OS X suggests that it’s easier to just wait for the OS to die and be replaced by a Unix. I’m sorry if that’s cold comfort to you as a Windows user.
Oh BTW if OpenOSX are unsupportive (sell Free Software as their product but don’t contribute to the community) simply undercut them. If their work really isn’t worth $30 then you should be able to make a comfortable profit and help the community. They appear to be abiding by their legal obligation under the GNU GPL so legally there’s nothing wrong here AFAICT.
A mishmash-suite of applications running on top of the sluggish XFree, running on top of the sluggish OS X.
Suddenly, OfficeXP sounds lean….
>>running on top of the sluggish OS X.<<
… and then came Mac OS X 10.1 to save the day of sluggish!
Now maybe Microsoft can speed up its slug in Windows XP?! And yes I have played with it, not impressed thus far!!!
JoeWinedows-“OSX is sluggish”
BobMacgoob-“you must be a windows user. If Jeff Goldblum used OS9 to connect to an alien spaceship, and since OSX is the next version, it can’t be sluggish. Ask the aliens, they’ll tell you. Nerd.”
Lesson: Don’t expect a non-biased response about anything Apple from someone with “Mac” in their name.
>>Lesson: Don’t expect a non-biased response about anything Apple from someone with “Mac” in their name.<<
Actually I am not being biased, I figured this guy above was still relishing the grand rumors of the past referring to the original release of Mac OS X being sluggish, which was true (not the case anymore though)! Oh a non-biased statement hmmm… as for your statement above, no one is more biased and ignorant than the average Windows users… I know I used to be one of them!!!
So all Windows users are biased and ignorant.
Hum, that really makes a lot of sense.
Plonker.
If you spend 1/3 of the amount you would spend on a G4 Mac
on a PC you’ll get a machine which is quick enough to run XP.
Not that I want to defend XP there are still enough little
irritating things left to make me scream.
<blockquote>In theory the whole of GNOME could be ported to Windows, and I’m sure some people are working in that direction, but frankly the story of OS X suggests that it’s easier to just wait for the OS to die and be replaced by a Unix. I’m sorry if that’s cold comfort to you as a Windows user.</blockquote>
or wait till X is ported by the CYGWIN team, and then (I would guess) GNOME would not be that hard.
I really don’t see windows ‘dieing’ and being replaced with a UNIX anytime soon…
Why is it some people belive that as it’s good for them, it HAS to be good for everyone?!
<<<<Why is it some people belive that as it’s good for them, it HAS to be good <<<<for everyone?!
but wait, isn’t that the wy Billy Gates thinks?
I mean the Windows NT kernal being replaced with a UNIX one (like MacOS)
TBH I don’t see Windows dieing either. Do you HONESTLY[1] see a big market change, and everyone dropping Windows moving to UNIX, I dont.
[1] Be honest, and don’t lie to your self. Hope by all means…. 😉
Good point…
Th truth is “after getting past all the biased stuff us PC and Mac users sling at each other on a daily basis”, Mac OS X and/or Windows XP and/or Linux (name your flavor) isn’t perfect… really there is no just thing as a perfect OS. I don’t expect or hope everyone would drop Windows for UNIX, Linux and Mac OS and vice versa… helk we wouldn’t have anything to argue about here now would we?! It would just be a dull computing world either way! So enjoy what you have and lets keep enjoying our forums and keep giving Eugenia a hard time about her grammar (though it’s better than mine ha ha)!
>Now maybe Microsoft can speed up its slug in Windows XP?!
>And yes I have played with it, not impressed thus far!!!
Catt, did you know you can select ‘optimize for performance’ as an option inside WinXP. It is in fact faster than Win2000. You just have to know how to use it
.
Sorry about the name add-on, but there seem to be a couple of “Mike” posting around here, and my improv skills are sluggish at the moment.
I must be missing something here. Even with the bolts in its neck, this suite seems to more of a move at enhancing/furthering the use of Darwin than OSX. Either way, that doesn’t seem to be a bad thing.
My complaint is the price. $30 doesn’t get you much. The full monty is running over a hundred. Quite steep for RepackWare.
I downloaded Abiword (free from Abiword). It is a sub 1.0 release with good reason. It’s fine for FreeWare. However, it lacks the basic features for real Wordsmithing. If you plan on using Abiword, make sure you’ve saved your document before you try to insert a .bmp file.
test tes
I have experience with many OS’es including MacOSX, FreeBSD and Linux.
Although I like Apples new approach, and although I do like the FBSD architecture very much – I must say that Linux is the system that I have found runs XFree86 best.
The advantage of FBSD imo is due to the good and logical structure, stable and reliable kernel development etc – a very good choice for the server – not as a desktop GUI box though.
The advantage with MacOSX imo is if you prefer Aqua, the commercial support and all commerical apps that is getting ported to MacOSX.
The point of running XF on MacOSX I can not see though…
>>The advantage of FBSD imo is due to the good and logical structure, stable and reliable kernel development etc – a very good choice for the server – not as a desktop GUI box though.<<
Of course Apple is already utilizing this strength in its Mac OS X Server software package… so they’re are heading in the right direction. I think Apple has made a smart decision using BSD for their core system and of course taking a controlled approach to their open source implementation with their developers was a real positive step.
>>The advantage with MacOSX imo is if you prefer Aqua, the commercial support and all commerical apps that is getting ported to MacOSX.
The point of running XF on MacOSX I can not see though…<<
Yeah I am not sweating the XFree86, for Mac OS X, if it gives more flexibility to Mac users that’s fine, but I am not going to look into it for my purposes, I don’t need it to be honest!
MacOSX doesn’t exactly run the fbsd kernel as far as I understand, and not the ports collection and the paths rules either out-of-the-box if I got it right.
BUT, if it is like Eugenia says – that XF can run like a daemon in MacOSX allowing you to start X apps in Aqua, then it’s REALLY cool…
I will not go on too far on this thread though, cause I feel that my knowledge in MacOS may not be the highest…
I made a comment about OS X being sluggish, but I did NOT say WinXP wasn’t sluggish, as well. At least on my kind of hardware (500 MHz) it’s slow.
I was talking about Office XP, and yes, Office XP is sluggish, too, but compared to Open OSX Office it starts to sound like an arab horse.
But I rest my case, OSX 10.1 is -still- slowish (even though improved).
I hate it when people change what I siad.
bah!