Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Nov 2009 23:46 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
KDE KOffice 2.1 has been released. "This release is a marked improvement of almost all parts of KOffice compared to 2.0. Version 2.0 was labeled a 'platform release', which was meant as a first preview of the framework and new UI paradigm. In version 2.1, most applications and components have improved significantly but should still only be used by early adopters and probably not as the primary worktool."
Order by: Score:
Comment by joekiser
by joekiser on Wed 25th Nov 2009 02:21 UTC
joekiser
Member since:
2005-06-30

A little late, but it's good to see this project hasn't lost steam. KOffice 2.2 with Office 2k7 support will be a great alternative to OpenOffice.org.

Reply Score: 3

Bring on 2.2!
by Hoodlum on Wed 25th Nov 2009 02:28 UTC
Hoodlum
Member since:
2009-05-22

Great news! I've been looking forward to this for so long. It already supports all but one feature I need : Editing tables in KWord.

Bring on 2.2!

Reply Score: 2

Kubuntu Karmic
by lemur2 on Wed 25th Nov 2009 09:21 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

For Kubuntu Karmic, I installed karbon and krita from KOffice 2.1 from the backports ppa.

http://www.kubuntu.org/news/koffice-2.1.0

In order to do this, in KpackageKit open the Settings tab, select "Edit Software sources", select the "Other sources" tab, then click the "Add" button.

Add this line as a new software source:

deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/kubuntu-ppa/backports/ubuntu karmic main

You will then be able to install software packages for KOffice 2.1 on Kubuntu Karmic.

PS: It isn't that stable yet. Not recommended other than to have a looksee.

Inkscape and the GIMP still respectively have karbon and krita beat, even on a KDE desktop.

Edited 2009-11-25 09:34 UTC

Reply Score: 3

v Chanel Handbags Online Store
by cocoanny on Wed 25th Nov 2009 09:32 UTC
v Comment by Aragorn992
by Aragorn992 on Wed 25th Nov 2009 09:52 UTC
RE: Comment by Aragorn992
by lemur2 on Wed 25th Nov 2009 10:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by Aragorn992"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Why oh why is released (i.e. not beta or alpha) software given the proviso:

"but should still only be used by early adopters and probably not as the primary worktool"

Thats the whole point of beta and alpha software. This seems endemic to open source software. Remember KDE?


Why is this a problem?

This is the way open source is developed. It is not a product that is being released for sale to the public who are then expected to pay for it. You won't get any money back becuase you found it buggy. It is, rather, an open source project in one of the "release early" stages of its "release early, release often" development cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
Release early, release often (sometimes abbreviated RERO) is a software development philosophy that emphasizes the importance of early and frequent releases in creating a tight feedback loop between developers and testers or users. This allows the software development to progress faster and better conform to users' requirements for the software, and ultimately results in higher quality software.

...

The release early, release often philosophy is the opposite of providing polished, bug-free releases, and instead enables the user to help define what the software will become. Frequent releases can also improve the security of a software product, since security fixes are quickly pushed to the end user. One disadvantage to this release model is that end users must update their software more often.


If you don't want to participate in the development (and indeed evolution) of a given open source project, then don't participate. Wait for a stable release (it will be called "stable" by the development team when they think it is ready for that tag).

If you do want to participate, and have a say in the way that this software develops and evolves and improves, then install it now and give it a go. Give (constructive) feedback. Help out. We will all benefit.

Release early, release often only ultimately results in better quality software, not immediately. So don't expect an early release (labelled as such by the open source developers) to be bug free and polished.

Open source just isn't done that way.

Edited 2009-11-25 10:37 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by Aragorn992
by dexter11 on Wed 25th Nov 2009 13:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Aragorn992"
dexter11 Member since:
2008-01-11

Release often and release early does NOT equal to tagging buggy software as a milestone.
If you release alpha and beta releases frequently then you can satisfy those users who like to try out development releases while you don't drive away those who don't.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Aragorn992
by asupcb on Wed 25th Nov 2009 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Aragorn992"
asupcb Member since:
2005-11-10

A X.0 tag on a release is supposed to mean that it is stable for end users. This should be KOffice Developer Release 2. No one is telling them not to release early and release often. What people are asking for is that open source (or any other software) use an honest and proper tagging system. Using stable release monikers/tags for non-stable releases is a bad idea and borderline dishonest. People shouldn't have to read a news release to know if it is end-user ready or not.

What exactly is wrong with using a DR moniker to represent a "stable" (from a data loss standpoint) release good enough for developers but not everyone else?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Aragorn992
by lemur2 on Wed 25th Nov 2009 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Aragorn992"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Release often and release early does NOT equal to tagging buggy software as a milestone.


I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but yes it does mean exactly that. Early releases will be buggy, and lacking in polish. You are invited, if you like, to participate in the process of improving it.

A X.0 tag on a release is supposed to mean that it is stable for end users. This should be KOffice Developer Release 2. No one is telling them not to release early and release often. What people are asking for is that open source (or any other software) use an honest and proper tagging system. Using stable release monikers/tags for non-stable releases is a bad idea and borderline dishonest. People shouldn't have to read a news release to know if it is end-user ready or not. What exactly is wrong with using a DR moniker to represent a "stable" (from a data loss standpoint) release good enough for developers but not everyone else?


The open source development method of release early, rlease often, which necessarily produces early releases which are buggy, unstable and have incomplete feature sets, is by no means dishonest. It is just different from proprietary products that are sold. When you sell something, you are claiming that the product you are selling is fit for purpose.

There is no such claim for early releases of open source software. You are charged nothing. You get to try it while it is still developing. You get to influence the developing product.

There is no inherent correctness about one development approach versus the other, they are merely different, and one should not carry expectations (and obligations) from one system over to the other simply because both methods are used to develop software.

Edited 2009-11-25 21:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Aragorn992
by lemur2 on Thu 26th Nov 2009 09:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Aragorn992"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

A X.0 tag on a release is supposed to mean that it is stable for end users. This should be KOffice Developer Release 2. No one is telling them not to release early and release often. What people are asking for is that open source (or any other software) use an honest and proper tagging system. Using stable release monikers/tags for non-stable releases is a bad idea and borderline dishonest. People shouldn't have to read a news release to know if it is end-user ready or not.

What exactly is wrong with using a DR moniker to represent a "stable" (from a data loss standpoint) release good enough for developers but not everyone else?


What is right with it? No open source project does what you suggest. Almost every open source project uses "release early, release often".

GNOME 2.0, for example, was utterly unusable. Bugs galore. Everyone stayed with GNOME 1.x until about GNOME 2.6.

For KOffice 2.1, the developers are clearly saying that the only component they consider at all useable for ordinary users in this release is Karbon.

http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/News/KOffice-2.1-Ready-for-T...

KOffice 2.1 Ready for Testing, Karbon Ready for Use


They told you, so where is the problem?

Edited 2009-11-26 09:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Aragorn992
by Luminair on Sun 29th Nov 2009 12:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Aragorn992"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

nobody is talking about software development methodolgy here but you. you're confused.

koffice is doing the same thing that got KDE 4 in hot water with the public. there is a clear language convention used to describe the quality and readiness of released software, and both the mentioned projects have broken that convention.

Reply Score: 2

Version number
by Yagami on Wed 25th Nov 2009 23:05 UTC
Yagami
Member since:
2006-07-15

yeah, i totally agree !!!

i think they should go to jail for doing a release 2.1.0 !!! i am , its not really a two point one point zero release !!! the release manual standard clearly says so !!!

these liars , disonest people , how dare they work in their spare hours, for free , give you their work for free, and what ??? they think they can decice which numbers they use ??? no no no

ok , now seriously.

to thoso who complain about the kde version numbers :

this is gnu linux. GNU DOES IT, LINUX DOES IT ( linux even did a weirder version number model before ) , so who tha f*c* are you to tell them they cannot do it ?

it really gets into my nerves

Reply Score: 0

but...
by liber on Thu 26th Nov 2009 09:16 UTC
liber
Member since:
2008-10-26

I am a big fan of koffice, and the 2.x-series shows some promise. Shows some promise, yes, but that is all koffice ever did. I use it daily (I can't get oo.o to use ligatures), but for the average user 2.1 is too strange.

Krita gets lots of attention, and it is (imho) the best koffice has to give. Kword, on the other hand needs some love. I have gotten used to some of the quirks (like double-clicking an image will give me an "open file"-dialog instead of selecting it). It is really not much that has to be done (as I said, i really really like kword).

It just have to be "streamlined" to a normal workflow, making the usual actions easier. I know koffice 2 is far from ready yet, but this is something I felt already under koffice 1.6. Anyways, koffice 2 shows even more promise than 1.6, I just hope it doesn't stay that way.

Reply Score: 1