Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Jun 2009 13:29 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Oracle and SUN Oracle was the first top-tier IT vendor to announce it was putting its key product - the database - on Linux. The logic was simple: Linux freed Oracle from depending on a single company for operating system - that company was Microsoft. Taking the baton from Sun Microsystems' co-founder and chairman Scott McNealy at JavaOne this week, Oracle's chief executive Larry Ellison has seen his opportunity for independence again. This time, however, he may struggle to get his way, and - in trying - actually hurt one of Sun's most prized and widely adopted open-source projects.
Order by: Score:
Say what?
by Soulbender on Fri 5th Jun 2009 13:54 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Linux freed Oracle from depending on a single company for operating system - that company was Microsoft.


Oracle's preferred OS sure wasn't Windows and they sure didn't depend on one company. Oracle has always run on many platforms and if any platform was prefered it was Solaris.

Reply Score: 8

Typical Oracle
by diegocg on Fri 5th Jun 2009 14:24 UTC
diegocg
Member since:
2005-07-08

That's how Ellison works. If he thinks that using JavaFX for the OO.org UI interface is good for him, the oracle developers will do that, even if it feels stupid for the rest of us.

Reply Score: 1

Pathetic
by kragil on Fri 5th Jun 2009 14:36 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

LE does not really know what he is talking about.

Building a Google Docs like online version with the name OpenOffice maybe, but porting the whole beast with all features to JavaFX is just insane.

Just read this post from a Go-OO maintainer:

http://www.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2009-06-05.html

Reply Score: 1

Nothing to See here?
by slashdev on Fri 5th Jun 2009 14:39 UTC
slashdev
Member since:
2006-05-14

This is kinda silly. The register's reporting quality has gone down a bit. Sun is slowly retiring Swing, JavaFX is the new Swing. This has been an ongoing disucssion on java.net for almost a year now. Swing Core development was frozen, and most of the developers taken off and put onto the JavaFX stack. Early in the life of JavaFX, Sun tried to distance it from Swing, but once Sun realized it didnt have unlimited resources to support two UI toolkits Sun reversed its stance.

"It can’t get any clearer - the only two active areas of Swing core work is support and bug fixing. You might say that things will change once JavaFX 1.0 is out the door, but this is quite unlikely. JavaFX has a lot of ground to cover if it is to compete with Adobe and Microsoft, and it has even more ambitious plans for mobile and set top environments. "
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/kirillcool/archive/2008/11/sun_setting...

I suspect Most are confused on support of "Ajax", and "Web 2.0" (two terms that get overused massivly) probably has to do with the need for OpenOffice to integrate better with web technologies. A-la Mashups, etc. I suspect there was research going on into creating a javascript API (using Rino or something) to bring in Web technologies to OpenOffice (think Jetpack for firefox). A great starter article is here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2055

Edited 2009-06-05 14:41 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nothing to See here?
by Moochman on Fri 5th Jun 2009 16:30 UTC in reply to "Nothing to See here?"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree, this article takes a bunch of folklore and tries to dream up a drama that it then packages as reporting. It's true that the Java players have been in a pissing match, but not that they aren't been willing to cooperate--JSF being the prime example of a successful standard developed and supported by all parties. I don't think JavaFX was developed outside the JCP in order to promote vendor lock-in; I imagine it had a lot more to do with the fact that Sun needed to push it out the door ASAP or risk JavaFX never seeing the light of day, period. I also think Oracle has seen the light in regards to UI-framework lock-in, and I imagine Ellison, if he's truly committed to JavaFX, will try to get it reviewed by the JCP ASAP.

The most important thing to take from this announcement is that Ellison is sold on JavaFX, or at least wants to be convinced. To me it sounds like he has set down a gauntlet: The JavaFX salespitch is "rapid development of fluid UI", now it's time for the Sun developers not just to talk the talk but to walk the walk. The success of this project, be it a single app or the whole suite being ported, will potentially show the world what JavaFX is capable of, while at the same time making OOo that much more competitive with MS's offering.

The article gets a couple of other things wrong. Although JSF is a layout language, it is not a toolkit, and as such does not directly compete with JavaFX. JSF is not going anywhere. In fact, I'm sure Ellison isn't the only one who's thought about the potential of using JavaFX to render JSF layouts, so that a web application can use HTML/AJAX or JavaFX alternately depending on the client environment.

As for people who say "It can't be done"... please keep in mind that OOo has already been ported to Java (see NeoOffice), and that IBM has already succeeded in a total revamp of the OOo interface in a rather short period of time (see Symphony). Also keep in mind that rapid development/prototyping is exactly what JavaFX is made for...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Nothing to See here?
by ariya on Fri 5th Jun 2009 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Nothing to See here?"
ariya Member since:
2009-06-03

As for people who say "It can't be done"... please keep in mind that OOo has already been ported to Java (see NeoOffice), and that IBM has already succeeded in a total revamp of the OOo interface in a rather short period of time (see Symphony). Also keep in mind that rapid development/prototyping is exactly what JavaFX is made for...


Technically, this is wrong and misleading.

NeoOffice is not a Java port of OOo. It merely uses the Java-Aqua integration to create a native look-and-feel on Mac OS X. That is far from porting the entire code base from C++ to Java.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Nothing to See here?
by slashdev on Fri 5th Jun 2009 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nothing to See here?"
slashdev Member since:
2006-05-14

"As for people who say "It can't be done"... please keep in mind that OOo has already been ported to Java (see NeoOffice), and that IBM has already succeeded in a total revamp of the OOo interface in a rather short period of time (see Symphony). Also keep in mind that rapid development/prototyping is exactly what JavaFX is made for...


Technically, this is wrong and misleading.

NeoOffice is not a Java port of OOo. It merely uses the Java-Aqua integration to create a native look-and-feel on Mac OS X. That is far from porting the entire code base from C++ to Java.
"

A better example would be to look at the ThinkFree Office suite, built entirely in java: http://thinkfree.com or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinkFree_Office

I would say porting OpenOffice to Java would be herculean, but doable (though i am not sure why it should be done). It would probably be better to just buy ThinkFree or some other project that already has a viable Office suite built in Java.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Nothing to See here?
by Moochman on Sat 6th Jun 2009 09:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nothing to See here?"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

My apologies.... Don't ask me where I got that silly idea into my head...

On the bright side, the task that the NeoOffice developers undertook is actually quite similar to Ellison's goal now: redoing the UI layer in JAva.

Reply Score: 2

v Kill OpenOffce
by puelocesar on Fri 5th Jun 2009 16:32 UTC
RE: Kill OpenOffce
by WereCatf on Fri 5th Jun 2009 16:43 UTC in reply to "Kill OpenOffce"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I avoid OpenOffice.org mostly because it's such a huge, slow beast. It really is god damn slow. But garbage? Far from it. It has almost every feature you could hope for in an office suite and it works well and is stable. I'd much rather see that they still go through with converting it to C++ code and throw out the deprecated stuff there.

But those who are unhappy with OO.o can still try KOffice out, it seems they are going quite fast forward nowadays.

Don't think OpenOffice is garbage? Just try using Apple iWork for one week, and you will know what I mean.

Hell no. I don't support Apple unless I absolutely must.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Kill OpenOffce
by puelocesar on Fri 5th Jun 2009 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Kill OpenOffce"
puelocesar Member since:
2008-10-30

I'm not "supporting" Apple. But interface-wise, they do good software (despite some flaws they don't fix because of arrogance), and I really think user interface is the most critical feature on every software (at least the ones that require human interaction)

Like or not, Apple is reference on user interface design, and I would love if every company was as rigorous on interface quality as they are.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Kill OpenOffce
by puelocesar on Fri 5th Jun 2009 16:45 UTC in reply to "Kill OpenOffce"
puelocesar Member since:
2008-10-30

Of course, if on this rewrite, they hire some good interface designers, some good interface developers and remake the entire workflow and design choices of the application, maybe they could be able of making a good software. In this case, I would happily shut my mouth and apologize. But I never saw a decent user interface coming from companies like Sun, Oracle or even IBM, so I really think that wont be the case

Reply Score: 4

RE: Kill OpenOffce
by Beta on Fri 5th Jun 2009 17:26 UTC in reply to "Kill OpenOffce"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't think OpenOffice is garbage? Just try using Apple iWork for one week, and you will know what I mean.


It doesn’t do ODF so it’s clearly not that brilliant.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Kill OpenOffce
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 6th Jun 2009 20:56 UTC in reply to "Kill OpenOffce"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I think iWork is garbage, actually. I bought it, but I really regret the purchase. OO.org is better for free.

Reply Score: 2

The JavaFX runtime is proprietary!
by wannabe geek on Fri 5th Jun 2009 17:45 UTC
wannabe geek
Member since:
2006-09-27
slashdev Member since:
2006-05-14

JavaFX runtime is proprietary because a lot of "web technologies" that Sun licensed are not open. Like the on2 video codecs, etc. Sun has been going a break neck speeds to opensource whatever they can. This process may slow now that oracle has purchased them, but JavaFX's core stack will be open (compiler is already so, 2D Scene Graph is, and hopefully the 1.2 additions of UI elements such as checkboxes and drop down lists will follow).

The unfortunate reality of the web is that most common codecs and plug-ins are not fully open, which hamstrings anyone trying to create an open platform for developers that interops with current tech (like flash video or IE). JavaFX/OpenjFx will live a similar existence as something like Solaris/OpenSolaris because of these propretary elements.

Reply Score: 2

wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

It's good to hear, but the licensing problem remains. I don't know whether JavaFX competes with AJAX or, as you said, "is the new Swing", but neither AJAX nor Swing have those licensing problems, AFAIK. From the get-go, there should be a clean separation between the free and opens source JavaFX core and whatever proprietary codecs, plugins, backends, whatever, are supported, so that neither FOSS developers nor purist FOSS users need to license any of those.

Reply Score: 3

KOffice
by darrelljon on Fri 5th Jun 2009 19:10 UTC
darrelljon
Member since:
2008-05-29

If you don't like it then use KOffice.

Reply Score: 1

Pick the tool for the right job
by tyrione on Fri 5th Jun 2009 19:57 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

The pick the tool for the right job will forever remain.

When I'm writing which requires precise, consistent look n' feel layouts for technical publications [articles, journals, essays, et.al], novels, novellas, etc., I'll use LaTeX/XeTeX. It can be within TeXShop, LyX, Kile, TeXWorks or even VIM.

When I'm dealing with master pages, inline graphics with text flows around, over layered typography as caption headers that adhere to heavy graphics for pre-press, etc., I'm using a DTP package ala InDesign, QuarkXpress, Scribus, et.al. This includes magazines, formal company letter stationary, etc.

When I'm writing memos, need macros to do a lot of business reporting for company meetings with embedded charts, spreadsheets, etc., I'll use OpenOffice, iWorks, eventually KOffice, possibly Abiword for more specific needs, etc.

There is no end-to-end perfect solution to target the industries.

I'm glad they don't try it. Look what an abomination MS Office is now that it's got it's grubby fingers into every business process.

Quality of production isn't that impressive.

As an example, I don't know who oversees US Executive Branch or Legislative Branch public bill printings, but their digital copies are absolute garbage. They aren't fit for a freshman university submission.

Reply Score: 4

Hypnos Member since:
2008-11-19

While you have a point, learning the ins-and-outs of so many programs is a bit onerous. Most people don't enjoy playing with text production apps -- they just want to get s*** done.

Reply Score: 2

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Not to mention the compatibility headaches.... All that is fine if you're the only one accessing the documents, or if you don't require anyone else to edit them.... Otherwise, you'll have a lot of unhappy coworkers...

Reply Score: 2

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Not to mention the compatibility headaches.... All that is fine if you're the only one accessing the documents, or if you don't require anyone else to edit them.... Otherwise, you'll have a lot of unhappy coworkers...


Amazingly for the Clients, not the document Producer, PDF is universal and an ISO Standard.

Reply Score: 2

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, I was inferring that you used PDF when I said "if you're the only one editing them".... ;)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 5th Jun 2009 20:16 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

My guess (which is a wild guess) is that we'll see OpenOffice.org replace its current front end UI with something based around JavaFX, and then link the front end to the back end so that it can not only operate as a fully fledge office suite on the desktop but also it can operate on the internet with the interface accessible via the web browser.

I guess the end vision for Oracle is this; IBM have Lotus Notes which includes collaboration and an office suite, both accessible as a local application and via a browser. Oracle wish to achieve the same thing by bringing their collaboration suite and openoffice.org on the web with a common interface technology so that it can span between the web and a locally run application.

As for what I think? hopefully we'll see JavaFX further opened up (even if it means that the video CODEC remains proprietary which IIRC is VP8) and the ability for traditional applications to have their front end replaced with something that allows accessibility both online and locally. It might also mean alot more nifty features and not having to deal with the abstraction layer within OpenOffice.org that drags alot of the performance down.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by tyrione on Sun 7th Jun 2009 05:16 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

I don't see it happening. In fact, it strikes me more as a means to cite what JavaFX could be used for, for clients to think about in their own future developments.

Reply Score: 2

Ellison talking about OOo UI ...
by JeffS on Mon 8th Jun 2009 17:30 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

Just for clarification -

I really don't think Larry was talking about re-writing the entire OpenOffice suite in JavaFX, as some seem to be saying here.

I think he was talking about UI only, and in particular the web based version of the UI (hence, his reference to AJAX).

And redoing the OpenOffice UI in something different has already been proven by IBM to be viable, which is what they did with Symphony, which uses SWT/Eclipse RCP for the UI, but the OOo original C++ internal code is still intact.

So I would think that redoing the OpenOffice UI in JavaFX is something that is very viable.

Reply Score: 2