Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 12th Aug 2002 02:08 UTC
Original OSNews Interviews The news from the Gobe Software front seem to be slightly sad, but only at first glance. Sad because, Gobe as we know it is no more, as it sold the gobeProductive source code and rights to FreeRadicalSoftware, Inc. However, FreeRadicalSoftware's business plan requires them to GPL the popular office suite, allowing everyone to access gobeProductive's source for Windows, Linux and even BeOS. The official announcement is expected next week. FreeRadicalSoftware was created recently by the ex-boss of Gobe Software, Bruce Hammond, and some other ex-Gobe and non-Gobe people. Read more for our exclusive interview with Bruce regarding the open sourcing of GP3 under the GPL.
Update: And an additional comment from Gobe's Tom Hoke.
Order by: Score:
Wow
by Jay on Mon 12th Aug 2002 02:37 UTC

It is sad. I use Gobe on both BeOS and XP. It got excellent reviews when it came out - at least the ones I saw. But, what a tough market to break into. But, good can come of this.

The one thing I alway wondered about regarding Gobe, especially because it was created by ClarisWorks people, is why they didn't have a database module like ClarisWorks/AppleWorks? That might be something to look into - it would be "complete" then.

Best luck
by Corey on Mon 12th Aug 2002 02:51 UTC

I've been using Gobe since 2.0 was released. I've always felt Gobe and Be were the perfect marriage. Hopefully nothing but good will come from this. Instead of everone busting their butts to port OOO or OOo or whatever to Be, we'll be able to continue using Gobe....reincarnated.

Sad
by slackware on Mon 12th Aug 2002 02:53 UTC

Wow, that's a shock. I was recently frustrated with Wordperfect, Word and OpenOffice and had heard of Gobe before and in a spate of irony I had acutally downloaded it this morning. I'm amazed alone at the functionality of the suite and was wanting to purcahse it. I'm a student and don't really need all the features in Word. I'll definately be recommending it to friends and classmates. Gobe is much simpler and cheaper. Well, its not all bad news. At least I can get a GPL version for free now.

20 Megs for an entire office suite? Couldn't find it anywhere else but Gobe.

RE: Sad
by Eugenia on Mon 12th Aug 2002 02:56 UTC

>20 Megs for an entire office suite?

Compressed, without some sample documents, images etc, it is only 8 MB. With these samples, it is only 12 MB.

It is really compact, as -from what I have heard from people in the know- its source code is of very good quality. NO BLOAT.

what about the libs
by JJ on Mon 12th Aug 2002 03:04 UTC

Is the BeOS api libs that Gobe used to do this x porting part of the GPL bundle, if so that would be a boon to future BeOS & OBOS developers, allows future BeOS apps not even dreamed to be targeted to Windows, Linux. Perhaps the port could be ported itself to OSX.

This is the way SW should go out if the company can't stay in business, no pt in taking the crown jewels to the grave.

I have to admire the investors for letting this happen, usually they do what Palm did.

Amazing
by kilovar on Mon 12th Aug 2002 03:12 UTC

I just tried the linux alpha version and I will buy this when the final version comes out!

Gobe
by Jay on Mon 12th Aug 2002 03:15 UTC

It is quite an application, isn't it? You can stay in the same document, no matter which module you switch to.

Cool!
by bbjimmy on Mon 12th Aug 2002 03:18 UTC

Now mabe I can get 3.0 for BeOS!

o, rock *on*
by le_tigre on Mon 12th Aug 2002 03:19 UTC

i'm really sad to see gobe "go Be", but as end user, i'm thrilled. i still use productive 2 extensively. this is great news. thank you, gobe and free radical.

Respect
by Ed Page on Mon 12th Aug 2002 03:24 UTC

These guys have my greatest respects for open sourcing their code instead of hogging it to the grace like most do.

I actually like the name Gobe Productive, hope they decide to keep it.

Good luck guys on your ventures.

Wow
by John on Mon 12th Aug 2002 03:25 UTC

Really sorry to hear this. I really thought they could make some strides into the marketplace. MacOSX version would make lots of sense. Good luck to all of the hard working Gobe people!

Sad and good at the same time
by moooooooo on Mon 12th Aug 2002 03:26 UTC

i purchased the 1.x and the 2.x upgrade of Gobe Productive for BeOS and am saddened by the demise of GoBe as we know it.

I guess the "good news" to come out of this is that it will be put under a GPL license for us to embrace and extend.

i'm certainly keen to try and get a look at the add-on source to try and integrate something like the "Get External Data" feature that MS Excel has (from the Excel Tools menu).

And i've always wanted to have a look at Toms grid classes in the spreadsheet part of Productive.
cheers
peter

This is good news
by Michael on Mon 12th Aug 2002 03:26 UTC

An open-source GPL version of a more-advanced-than-StarOffice technology is a boon to humanity.

#m

RE: Sad
by Kevin on Mon 12th Aug 2002 03:48 UTC

Yeah, the news is sad and good at the same time. I wish all the people from Gobe best of luck with Gobe, LLC.

Compressed, without some sample documents, images etc, it is only 8 MB. With these samples, it is only 12 MB.

It is really compact, as -from what I have heard from people in the know- its source code is of very good quality. NO BLOAT


8 megs? That is truely amazing. Yeah, the fact that it is so unbloated is one thing I love about it. I'd like to see microsoft try and make a good office program that's under 10 megs.

Another question
by Corey on Mon 12th Aug 2002 03:58 UTC

Will they be releasing the binaries in addition to the source code?

re: Another question
by IbJr on Mon 12th Aug 2002 04:09 UTC

Will they be releasing the binaries in addition to the source code?

its GPLed, i'm sure you will be able to find some (look at how XVID's are done)

Amazing
by Spark on Mon 12th Aug 2002 04:22 UTC

This is nothing but amazing news!
Though it comes quite as a shock as Gnome is preparing a GnomeOffice release for end of the year now there is a new free, powerfull and small office that is actually (besides Windows and BeOS of course) based on Gnomelibs. ;)

Now with KOffice, GnomeOffice, OpenOffice.org and Gobe Productive (all of them free), the Unix Office future looks bright for sure!

Hot pants... YeAH!
by kernelpanic on Mon 12th Aug 2002 04:23 UTC

We have a great chance now to move from our butt and make this Office suit work for Linux! Think about it - making custom modules that make working with MySQL (or other) a breeze for newcommers etc.

RE: Amazing
by Eugenia on Mon 12th Aug 2002 04:25 UTC
QNX???
by Corey on Mon 12th Aug 2002 04:34 UTC

I wonder how much trouble it would be to port Productive over to QNX???

RE: QNX???
by Eugenia on Mon 12th Aug 2002 04:45 UTC

To be honest, the trouble should be minimal (considering that this is a full office suite, of course). Allow me to explain.
First of all, GP3 is "small" (for an office suite that is). It is easy to manage and it does not have these zillion and zillion lines of code Star Office or Mozilla has.
Because it originates from BeOS, the Gobe guys had to port a big chunk of the BeOS API to Windows and then to Linux. I believe, the way it is done, is via wrappers. So, "all" you have to do, is wrap the current API you want to port to, around the BeOS one that comes with GP3. There should be some "hooks" in it, to make your porting life easier.

Of course, IF you want to run GP3 via an X Server on QNX, the port should be much easier. But if you want to run it natively, it will need much more work, but not as much as it would normally need for another application of that size and magnitude that comes from another platform.

Same goes for MacOSX. Porting GP3 to OSX natively, it should be many, many times easier than doing so for OpenOffice.org.

linux for beos?
by mike burns on Mon 12th Aug 2002 05:04 UTC

what is the link for getting(buying/downloading) the linux alpha for beos?

RE: linux for beos?
by Eugenia on Mon 12th Aug 2002 05:06 UTC

What?

Size of Office software
by Michael on Mon 12th Aug 2002 05:14 UTC

Microsoft Word 5.1c for Mac was approximately 600K for the complete program! It fit easily on ONE floppy disk.

There is absolutely no reason for multi-megabyte programs other than the possible inclusion into the EXE of resources such as bitmaps, icons, sounds, etc.

I'd love to have a small/light/fast office suit... written from the ground up... and totally tuned for each particular processor.

Maybe Linux will give birth to such a thing sometime.

#m

opps
by mike burns on Mon 12th Aug 2002 05:14 UTC

let me fix the ugly little typo....

what is the link for getting the linux alpha of productive? or is it not available for public testing.

RE: Size of Office software and Oops
by Eugenia on Mon 12th Aug 2002 05:23 UTC

>I'd love to have a small/light/fast office suit...

Times change. The fact that today's software is bigger is not (only) because the programmers are lazier than in the past, but because they link against huge OS libraries and underlying code, and compilers are generating much more code for optimizations and other reasons. Also, today these office suites do extremely more things that could do 5-6 years ago.

>what is the link for getting the linux alpha of productive?

Did you not read the article? The link is in the article! ;) And there is both an alpha version of Linux available (just read our article for the link, I won't give it to ya just like that ;) , and a full demo for Windows (non-alpha) can be found on download.com.

Good coding
by Corey on Mon 12th Aug 2002 06:07 UTC

Take alook at Papyrus Office from Rom-Logicware:

http://www.rom-logicware.com/start_e.htm

It fits on only 3 floppies.

Questions ?
by Ludovic on Mon 12th Aug 2002 06:14 UTC

What will happen to Gobe the compagny ?
If It's Free how is RFS going to make any money ? ala cygwin ?


--
http://islande.hirlimann.net

tragedy!
by Cale Lewis on Mon 12th Aug 2002 06:22 UTC

I'm very sorry to see Gobe Software go, as it's another domino down. I really don't think the possibility of getting a GPL'd GP3 on BeOS is worth the loss of Gobe.
I use GP exclusively, and am very sorry to loose (or see fragmented) this very talented and dedicated group of people. We are all loosing on this one, I don't care what kind of hype comes out of the GPL-hypers. ANY "quality" software such as this at a reasonable (non-MS) price is worth it's cost & then some!!
Gobe Software was one of only 4 companies (3 1/2 if you count Be, Inc.s efforts) to support my efforts to introduce BeOS into public libraries for the public to use. I don't think this action was taken for 'marketing' reasons, but as a sincere desire to support what they considered a 'superior technology'. I was never asked to help 'market' GP, although I did out of conviction.

My thanks to eveyone at Gobe Software. I'll be using your innovations and ideas for a long time to come. The fact that I like it so much is the best compliment I think I can pay to you all!

Cale Lewis

More than a little sad :(
by Tom Hoke on Mon 12th Aug 2002 06:25 UTC

For those of us who put our life blood and quite a bit of savings into it, Gobe's demise is a hard blow ;) But my worst fear was that all the effort would go completely to waste with the IP being sold to the highest bidder (who would probably shelf it) and us being forever locked out of using the source. So if Free Radical can succeed in getting the IP GPL'd that at least will allow our efforts to live on. If you can't win it's nice to know you at least made a difference. I also have hope that Gobe LLC will be able to successfully market the Windows product where we, an impoverished nearly engineering only company, could not.
For all those we courted who ultimately couldn't see why we had something of tremendous value they should invest in - I hope a GPL'd version of the product and the LLC agreement will make them regret their lost opportunities.

-Tom Hoke
(Gobe Software, Inc.)

Small source code
by Anonymous on Mon 12th Aug 2002 06:30 UTC

> Compressed, without some sample documents, images etc, it is only 8 MB. It is really compact, as -from what I have heard from people in the know- its source code is of very good quality. NO BLOAT.

Let's hope thats not due to the lack of comments in the source code.

RE: Small source code
by Eugenia on Mon 12th Aug 2002 06:33 UTC

> Let's hope thats not due to the lack of comments in the source code.

Which shows how much you know about programming. Comments are removed by the preprocessor before they reach the compiler. They are not included in the final executable or libs. ;)

attitude problem
by wowsers on Mon 12th Aug 2002 06:40 UTC

I dislike their attitude. They try to manipulate the community: "we'll release it as GPL, and then you'll work for us in your spare time, so we can make more money".





sad and not...
by lichtgestalt on Mon 12th Aug 2002 06:40 UTC

Together with SoundPlay, this was the first app I got after buying R3.2 IIRC. It's kind of sad to see them struggle for years and then don't make it in the end after all (Windows seems to be an even less profitable market than BeOS for office suites)...
OTOH, open sourcing it is providing us with a 1st class office suite once OBOS is out! Thanks Gobe!!

The one thing I found strange or funny in a way is that Bruce seems to have sold the code to himself. Neat trick ;)

Microsoft Office vs. The World
by Dave Owen on Mon 12th Aug 2002 06:43 UTC

I use a purchased copy of GobeProductive 3 on Windows when I can, because I really like it, but lately have turned to OpenOffice more often than not.

Here's why: I use Windows and Linux, and if I use OpenOffice I can move documents between computers easily. Gobe's Linux alpha is not stable enough (for me) to use daily.

<worrisome rant>
So now that I hear about this GPL release, I get a sinking feeling, because the reason I'm using OpenOffice instead of Gobe is the same reason most people use Microsoft Office instead of OpenOffice (or Productive, or other alternatives).

This caused a blinding flash of the obvious, but I don't see it repeated here, so I'll throw it out: although more viable free productivity software choices are good for the consumer, more viable productivity software choices are better for the Microsoft monopoly, and that's a bad thing.

Why? Well, it's one thing if all of your Linux guys would rather use OpenOffice, and the rest of the company uses Word. What if some of your Linux guys use OpenOffice, some use Productive, and some use Hancom Office...and now we have all FOUR products unable to share documents unless they're in Microsoft Word "format" (and I use the term loosely, since I've been told it's just a file containing a snapshot of the document's state in memory).

The only way to avoid this is to create a solid standard for all non-office suites to use. Right now OpenOffice has their own format, plus .doc. Productive has their own format, plus .doc. Obviously I'm not counting things like RealText Format and such, since you generally lose formatting when you save in such formats.

You know, it's kind of like all of the Linux software installation methods...each one has strengths and weaknesses, but until a standard is agreed upon (a good one, mind you, not just any standard) the installation process for software will always seem inferior to that of Windows. Office document formats are similar.

Bottom line: choice is good, but little fractured fiefdoms surrounding the city-state are not going to have an effect unless they all coordinate their own unique styles of attack to occur at the same time.
</worrisome rant>

A fast & complete office for linux...
by Roland Stoker on Mon 12th Aug 2002 06:49 UTC

At last an office for linux that is fast AND pretty complete. Openoffice is complete, but slow and koffice is fast, but lacks...

A lot of respect from me for thes big step. Congratulations.

A name: GoProductive
It shows it's roots, but still has a nice ring to it. And the entire name has a meaning as wel...

Hope palm follows you're idea... Probably not, but I can still have hope, no?

Just to be perfectly clear...
by Tom Hoke on Mon 12th Aug 2002 06:51 UTC

My previous post was my own personal opinion about Gobe as the company I helped found. I have great hopes and expectations for Free Radical and Gobe LLC.

-Tom

Uhmmmm
by Corey on Mon 12th Aug 2002 06:56 UTC

I save everything as either a .txt or .pdf file.

I work here at a company in Taiwan. I have to deal with Microsft Word documents on a daily basis from Taiwan, China, Germany and the US. A document gets emailed here, someone opens in Chinese Windows and forwards it to me running a US English system and likely as not the document is fractured. And this is all while running Micosoft products with supposedly compatible file formats.

Standard file format
by Spark on Mon 12th Aug 2002 06:57 UTC

"The only way to avoid this is to create a solid standard for all non-office suites to use. Right now OpenOffice has their own format, plus .doc. Productive has their own format, plus .doc. Obviously I'm not counting things like RealText Format and such, since you generally lose formatting when you save in such formats."

This is happening of course, all free office suites will support it of course and I expect GP to follow. MS Office obviously won't.
http://xml.openoffice.org/

The more support we get for this file format, the better! Once you will have the choice to use this default document format and share your documents among a plethora of office suites, or to use .doc and get compatibility problems.
Of course I hope that MS will one day also jump on the bandwagon and support this open fileformat. They also support open web standards so I still believe that it's possible.

Getting open file formats and protocols is IMO even more important than free software. Once we get compatibility, nobody can be forced to use any proprietory application anymore (because all his friends use it or it's required for his work, etc) and that should be the goal.
This is also the reason, why I'm constantly connected to the Jabber IM network besides ICQ, although so far I don't talk with anyone using this protocol. =) But the fact that it's _possible_ to message me over an open protocol just makes me feel better. And as Gaim has great support for both Jabber and ICQ (and others), there is no reason why I shouldn't do it.

How about LaTeX?
by Mikael on Mon 12th Aug 2002 07:25 UTC

Everyone's talking about open office file formats, but nobody ever mentions going back to the roots of word processing; chapters, sections, paragraphs.

In LaTeX you specify the logical structure of a document using various "markup" commands:

title{Introduction to LaTeX}
author{Prof. A. Name}
date{today}

maketitle

tableofcontents

chapter{Introduction}
Here we talk about LaTeX....
section{How to set it up}
...


etc.

With this, you won't -ever- need to worry about opening a file. This is a file in (La)TeX format, which then translates to PDF/PS/HTML/TXT/RTF/whichever through the intermediate format DVI, which can be viewed using xdvi, BeDVI and more.

There's a port of the unixtex package for Windows over at http://www.miktex.org and for UN*X you get it from http://www.ctan.org

I wrote a (very) brief description of LaTeX with a couple of links to tutorials (among which "The (Not So) Short Introduction To LaTeX" is the one I've found the most useful) -- http://dundermusen.net/texts/20020726/gimme_latex


--
Mikael
BeDevID #E-20392

D'oh, all backslashes stripped.
by Mikael on Mon 12th Aug 2002 07:26 UTC

Each of the mark-up commands have a backslash in front of it (i.e., backslash-chapter, etc.)

Re: How about LaTeX?
by Spark on Mon 12th Aug 2002 08:18 UTC

Well, XML is our todays most modern and standardized markup language so where is the big difference? ;) Every office application or viewer will (could) be able to read and write those XML files.

:-D
by rajan r on Mon 12th Aug 2002 08:19 UTC

ANY "quality" software such as this at a reasonable (non-MS) price is worth it's cost & then some!!

Of course, there aren't any company that manage to undercut MS's prices by a whole lot while making a profit.

This is happening of course, all free office suites will support it of course and I expect GP to follow. MS Office obviously won't.
http://xml.openoffice.org/


IIRC, KOffice and AbiWord planned to have support for StarOffice's XML files. But I think formats should be open, but NOT standard. What happen if Product Y wants to implement feature X, but isn't supported by the standard format Z? See my point?

Besides, Microsoft is moving slowly to XML-based formats in their Office products, but it wouldn't, for sure, be the same as OpenOffice.org's formats.

XML
by danlu on Mon 12th Aug 2002 09:12 UTC

Where do you put the images and the embedded stuff when you save to XML?

Yet Another Synopsis
by Spark on Mon 12th Aug 2002 09:13 UTC

"IIRC, KOffice and AbiWord planned to have support for StarOffice's XML files. But I think formats should be open, but NOT standard. What happen if Product Y wants to implement feature X, but isn't supported by the standard format Z? See my point?"

No I don't, as XML is completely extendable. If one application wants to implement a new feature but the others don't there is no reason why there shouldn't be a standard XML definition for it anyway. If one application doesn't have support for any of the XLM markups, it will just ignore them.

That's exactly how web standards work and you aren't complaining about that, are you? Also as KOffice and Gnome Office are indeed planning to support it, it doesn't really matter anymore what _we_ think. =)

Re: danlu: Where do you put the images and the embedded stuff
by Another matthew on Mon 12th Aug 2002 11:35 UTC

OpenOffice's file-formats are zips (gzipped) containing XML and the 'embedded' files. These files are referenced in the XML. I can open an OpenOffice file using WinZIP to get at the files - it's lovely ;)

Although it's not usually done XML can have binary segments (CDATA sections? - anyway, I forget the exact name, but you get the idea).

//

I think the important point is that once a file-format is in XML it's much easier to move around to other formats. XSL-T, and other transformation languages make the job relatively easy. I wrote a translator from Docbook to HTML 4.01 in about three hours using XSL-T, and without following any documentation (I knew HTML 4.01, I didn't know Docbook, I just had a look at the file-format). It's still an effort, and any professional effort would have done a bit more research, but I guess I must have been lucky because it's still working without any problems. It's considerably easier to do this than to convert a binary format.

There will be competing XML document formats, and there will always be problems where one application doesn't understand a certain format, but the converters between XML dialects are much easier to write.

Confused
by Chris on Mon 12th Aug 2002 12:19 UTC

So if they are going to release it under the GPL, why are they asking money for it? Is the final version for linux going to free? Thanks.

that was certainly radical
by m on Mon 12th Aug 2002 12:37 UTC

GPL? I don't get their 'niche' business plans, what a cold blood. Anyway, I expect Beunited taking a look at a GP3 for BeOS/OBOS.

Hooray for free software and Microsoft!
by Chris Herborth on Mon 12th Aug 2002 13:06 UTC

Free software (OpenOffice) and Microsoft kill another start-up! Hooray!

Sorry to see you go, guys.

- chrish

Will GNOME Office and Gobe Office Merge?
by Andy Ng on Mon 12th Aug 2002 13:15 UTC

Have the Gobe Office and GNOME Office people considered merging their projects? If I remember correctly, Gobe Office is based on GNOME's libs, so there's real potential for GNOME office to be merged with a GPLed Gobe Office.

The incentive for the Gobe Office people is that they'll get free advertisement from being included in the GNOME distribution, like GNUcash, and they'd get extra voluteer help to port it to other architectures, write OpenOffice compatibility code and add any features that GNOME Office has that Gobe Office doesn't.

The incentive for the Abiword people is that they'd get more functionality and a pure Gtk+ port so they could achieve their long term vision today. They'd lose one or two platforms, but the effort it would take to port Abiword to GNOME 2 could be redirected to porting Gobe Office to the missing platforms.

Gnumeric wouldn't gain much other than better integration with other office apps, but this is a big enough win.

The other GNOME office apps would gain immensely.

dual license
by aono on Mon 12th Aug 2002 13:33 UTC

>>>>Have the Gobe Office and GNOME Office people considered merging their projects? If I remember correctly, Gobe Office is based on GNOME's libs, so there's real potential for GNOME office to be merged with a GPLed Gobe Office.

Gobe is going the dual license route, a proprietary license and GPL license --- that doesn't mix with GNOME.

merge
by p on Mon 12th Aug 2002 13:35 UTC

uh, it's not because they're based on the same libs that they can easily or realistically be merged...

What a shock!
by Galley on Mon 12th Aug 2002 13:44 UTC

Well, this would explain why it has been so quiet on the Gobe Forums lately. This is a real tragedy and another underdog is slayed by the mighty dragon of MS. The reality is that Gobe Inc. was a handful of people who devoted all of their time (and probably all of their savings) into a dream, only to see it die because of forces beyond their control. I hope that gP 3 can finally be ported to BeOS and OSX, and gain a loyal following. I am certainly not going to stop using it. Thanks to everyone at Gobe Inc. for their dedication and hard work.

OpenOffice XML file format
by Rob on Mon 12th Aug 2002 14:13 UTC

The XML file format they have allows for "extensions" which are ignored unless the app reading the file understands it, so if KOffice or OpenOffice or whatever want to add a feature, they can and every other app will perform "gracefully" - you will just lose whatever it was you had added. But when you save the document in another office suite, it keeps the unrecognised data, too. Good, hey?

wow.
by Chris Simmons on Mon 12th Aug 2002 14:22 UTC

Spend a few hours at work without browsing the web, and this is what you miss.

Way to go Eugenia... nice scoop. ;-)

But seriously. I like others, have mixed feelings. I'm still in the reaction stage, so I don't quite know what ot make of this news.

I've followed the company's moves since their inception, and have always had a warm place in my heart for their efforts.

Tom, and gang... Here's a cheery hello to brighten your day. ;)

-Chris Simmons,
Avid BeOS User.
The BeOSJournal.

name suggestion
by kenny on Mon 12th Aug 2002 14:23 UTC

Bruce Hammond: We are planing to rename it somehow. I would love to get feedback from the community as to what the name should be.

how about sahare? like gobe for the gobi desert and sahare for the sahara desert! and the sahara desert is expanding, see? oh, and the next software suite released by FRS could be called krishna -- sahare krishna ;)

Thanks guys
by Anonymous on Mon 12th Aug 2002 14:35 UTC

GobeProductive is a really great piece of software, it's a shame the company couldn't make money out of it, but well thanks for making sure the software is relicensed so that people can carry on using it.
As an aside, i think one of the major problems with linux so far is the lack of a free office suite that runs well on low end systems (think P2 or even P1) - don't say koffice, kde3 crawls on systems like this(gnome2 is better but on slower systems you have to go for something even lighter), and koffice is still slow even if you don't run kde. Abiword is good, but is only a word processor - hopefully GobeProductive can fill this gap.

It's a great news for AtheOS/Syllable project
by vlad on Mon 12th Aug 2002 14:37 UTC

My last bastion had fallen. Gobe was a good argument to demonstrate BeOS to new people. "Yeah, BeOS is nice but do you have apps for it ?" - Gobe was the answer.
Well, after Be gone it was just a matter of time.
It's nice intention to go GPL and this will give a very good app to OBOS project. No matter what people say about free software - the competition in FSF world is more fierce than in closed source software. I expect that OpenOffice with Sun backing it up will rule linux world. The only niche for open sourced GP is non-X based windowing system like OBOS and Syllable.

damn...
by Daniel "DaaT" Teixeira on Mon 12th Aug 2002 14:40 UTC

Really sorry to see Tom's (ah those times in BeShare) and the rest of gang's (Kurt, etc) efforts end up like this... a bunch of very skilled coders, and the ones i know, very nice people also. Best of luck for the future, i hope we'll see more quality software come out of your PCs.

About the "GPLization" of GP... mmmmmmmmmmm... i hope it's for the best, i agree with what Tom Hoke said. And i hope to see it on BeOS.

DaaT
The BeOSJournal

dual licensing -- interesting
by johnG on Mon 12th Aug 2002 14:41 UTC

9. What made you pick the GPL and not another open source license?

Bruce Hammond: We plan to dual license the software. The GPL has teeth in it that helps to prevent another commercial competitor from forking the code. Also, GPL is well liked and well understood by the hacker community.


I'm curious to know how such a dual-licensing scheme like this can work. Will the other license be a typical commercial one? If so, how does that not violate the GPL?

The last time I checked MS Word supported installable file converter/filters. I am surprised no one (to my knowledge) has investigated creating a downloadable MS Word file filter that would allow MS Word users to open/save Open Office doc formats. That way you could send native OOffice docs with abandon to MS Word users and just refer them to the downloaded filter to install.

Maybe I'm missing something?

-CB

.
by Ophidian on Mon 12th Aug 2002 14:50 UTC

"I'm curious to know how such a dual-licensing scheme like this can work. Will the other license be a typical commercial one? If so, how does that not violate the GPL?"


as the owners of the code they can license it under as many licenses as they see fit. essentially think of it this way, they have 2 code archives you can download, one thats covered by gpl, and one thats covered by some other license.

Re: dual licensing -- interesting
by Procton on Mon 12th Aug 2002 15:00 UTC

>I'm curious to know how such a dual-licensing scheme like this can
>work. Will the other license be a typical commercial
>one? If so, how does that not violate the

Actually, no. GPL respects the rights of the original developer. The
original developer of the code can do whatever s/he wants with the code (change licence, sell binaries etc), but restricts everyone that wants to use the original developers code. Linux could very well have changed licence unless so many did not contribute. Every developer that contributed needs to agree to the change. MySQL is a good example of a dual licence by the way. This is also one of the reasons, I guess, that Kurt (AtheOS) does not accept patches from other developers.

Regards

/Procton

As expected...
by Ingo on Mon 12th Aug 2002 15:04 UTC

... it is no wonder that gobe could not succeed in the window market. This market is closed, beneath MS Office, even the bigger ones like Lotus and Corel have their problems to survive, and there is a big open sourced alternative: OpenOffice. The only markets are those little ones, like BeOS, QNX, or even Apple.

But gobe supposed them to be to little, so gobe turned away to start barking with the big dogs.

You should have known better!

Why is Apple not interested?
by enelsonmo on Mon 12th Aug 2002 15:08 UTC

I am curious as to why Apple has not bought this product?

Apple and Microsoft are not the best of friends right now.

Rather than Apple chasing OpenOffice, I do not see why they haven't bought Productiva yet. If Productiva were to be Cocoaized (isn't that the native Mac OS X API?), this could free them from a reliance on Microsoft's office monopoly.

OK, so nobody should be complaining now that they can't afford an office suite; there are good free ones available, and the others are cheap as chips. This is good news, for Joe Average, at least.

So why is the ridiculously overpriced MS Office sooooooo popular? Is it a question of marketing? Do people care that there are free ones out there that they can use happily, or do they have to have what they use at work? Or at school? ie. MS Office? Is it too much of a hassle to learn a second office suite?

I just don't understand why MOST people feel the need to pay for Office to do their basic wordprocessing and spreadsheets & presentations in. Why?

Why aren't the FREE ones and the DIRT CHEAP ones more popular? Any ideas?

Re: dual licensing -- interesting
by johnG on Mon 12th Aug 2002 15:36 UTC

Ophidian wrote:
"I'm curious to know how such a dual-licensing scheme like this can work. Will the other license be a typical commercial one? If so, how does that not violate the GPL?"


as the owners of the code they can license it under as many licenses as they see fit. essentially think of it this way, they have 2 code archives you can download, one thats covered by gpl, and one thats covered by some other license.


OIC -- if you download the GPL'd version, you can get the source with it if you like. OTOH, if you download the non-GPL'd version, you get whatever binaries they give you. This sounds very good.

So, FreeRadicalSoftware could extend the GPL'd version for some niche customer, and then give the extended product only to them, likely relicensed (since FRS is the copyright/copyleft holder). Excellent.

Procton wrote:
GPL respects the rights of the original developer.

The copyright (erm.. copyleft) holder. Got it.

The original developer of the code can do whatever s/he wants with the code (change licence, sell binaries etc), but restricts everyone that wants to use the original developers code.

Thanks. Hmmm... though, I think you specifically mean distribute rather than use, no?

Thank you for the explanations. ;)

Good luck.
by WattsM on Mon 12th Aug 2002 15:39 UTC

...sincerely. The one thing I've pretty consistently missed since becoming an OS X user was gobeProductive.

Kind of ironic, in some ways; every friend I've talked to thought OS X would have been the perfect market for gobeProductive. The users here aren't nearly as comfortable with Microsoft products (and we don't get Microsoft Office slapped onto our system at purchase, generally), and after the moderate fiasco of AppleWorks 6, many of them would have loved to see something that could be advertised as "by the original developers of AppleWorks 5."

I'd like to think a GPLed gobeProductive would have a greater chance of having a Cocoa port done, but I have a very strong suspicion that's in the "much easier said than done" category.

Re: dual licensing -- interesting
by Procton on Mon 12th Aug 2002 15:44 UTC

>Thanks. Hmmm... though, I think you specifically mean distribute rather than use, no?

Heh... yes. That is what I meant. ;)

/Procton

Name suggestion
by Anonymous on Mon 12th Aug 2002 15:46 UTC

FRS Productive. I think it should go on with Productive in its name. Everybody already says Productive.

Reply and the _TRUTH_ :-)
by SuperDuG on Mon 12th Aug 2002 16:09 UTC

Glib Wrote:
OK, so nobody should be complaining now that they can't afford an office suite; there are good free ones available, and the others are cheap as chips. This is good news, for Joe Average, at least.

So why is the ridiculously overpriced MS Office sooooooo popular? Is it a question of marketing? Do people care that there are free ones out there that they can use happily, or do they have to have what they use at work? Or at school? ie. MS Office? Is it too much of a hassle to learn a second office suite?

I just don't understand why MOST people feel the need to pay for Office to do their basic wordprocessing and spreadsheets & presentations in. Why?

Why aren't the FREE ones and the DIRT CHEAP ones more popular? Any ideas?


It's actually quite simple as to why MS Office is so popular. First it's portability of the documents you create in word. You can save the documents as nearly any type of word processing system out there. It's almost the idea of "One ring to rule them all ..."

Second it's a required course at most universities. I'm very serious here, many universities require you to learn the MS Office Suite. So people see that the regular Office XP costs $550.00 and they see Office XP for Students for $120.00 and they think they're getting a good deal. People use what they know.

The school gets free copies of Office at a very low cost ( http://www.microsoft.com/education/ ). So the school is able to cut costs of software and the teachers can teach from the million books written on office. There are very few "Mastering WordPerfect (etc.)" books in the school textbook market right now.

It's the same phiolosophy as apple "get um at work and school and sell um at a bulk rate, then they'll buy one full price at home." No one remembers going to school and playing Oregon Trail on a IBM, no sir we played on Mac's ... with console appleworks too (man that was a PITA to use)

Gobe
by Jay on Mon 12th Aug 2002 16:19 UTC

To Tom Hokes: You did make a difference. Gobe for BeOS and Windows is an amazing product. I know people who have never used it don't know exactly how the program works, which is, among other things, so cool. So very cool.

It would make no sense for Gobe to have tried to compete with AppleWorks on consumer Macs (AppleWorks comes free on all consumer Macs).

MS Office: it is true that its big feature is portability. However, for Joe User who buys a home PC, Gobe was beautiful. Just think of him/her struggling with MS Works and then getting Gobe - what a difference!

I don't know what type of things will come because of GPL, but I hope it retains the way you create and work on documents. Just because of that alone, it blows all other Linux office products out of the water.

Features?
by Spark on Mon 12th Aug 2002 16:24 UTC

Personally I like the "Go Productive" suggestion very much. ;) It really has a nice and positive ring to it.

BTW, people are always talking about speed, price, usability, etc, but is GP really _that_ powerfull that it can compete with MS Office or Star Office in features? Or is it rather for those cases where you don't need a full featured office suite? I tested the Linux Pre-Alpha and I really like the app but I can't really get an idea of it's features as I usually don't use office applications. The only thing I ever got some in-depth knowledge of was MS Access but this is not available at least.
People might switch in masses from OpenOffice to GP (at least the GNOME users) as many aren't satisfied with OO's lack of integrity and speed and only use it for it's sheer power and features. That's why KOffice and Gnome Office are so popular although they are rather rough and uncomplete yet.

You who read this is most certainly computer savvy, and even if you don't count yourself to the category who could write an office suite if given time and motivation, you surely know your way around a computer.

Not only that, you could make a switch to another piece of software, even if you would have to modify the way you work somewhat along the way. For us moving to another office suite is no problem at all.

For the large masses that care more about football, cars, getting enough money to live, their ill child or mother, etc, etc, the situation is different. If they get schooling in Office suite A, they can use office suit A. But if anything all of a sudden becomes different, the whole thing falls to the ground. There are people who are still terrified of computers and can't even do the most mudane and simple things you and I do as easily as breathing.

Does this make them imperfect humans? Just because they don't find Free Software/GPL to be the most important thing in the universe? Unless your biggest Idols are Usama and Adolf you probably don't think so, at least not when you think for a while.

So the reason that M$ gets so much of the market can be contributed to one fact "It won't change that much". The applications works in the same way (File meny to the left, help to the right), looks the same (one toolkit (except somehow they started to slightly screw it up with XP, I get "old" style widgets, bad Microsoft, bad bad!)).

If Apple had played their cards better (or if Bill had known Woz instead of Jobs;)) the situation could be the exact same with them. MacOS X is good enough to be a general purpose OS for most peoples needs.

This is the biggest problem for Linux for sure. There are too many "just do this" solutions (I shouldn't need to do anything, if it doesn't work from the beginning, it is broken, same goes for Window), too many different toolkits, applications that does the same thing, different themes and ideas and looks, etc etc.

This is what makes Linux fun for people who like to spend their time in front of a computer. This is a nightmare for a user that is scared at computers or just wants to "surf, read email and do my job". The problems are not about GPL or bad code. It is not a technical problem, it is a packaging problem.

But over to Gobe. I hope they have a good (looked over by a good financial advisor) plan and that they can make it, but I think that it can be hard. Few companies have good times now, and the software biz is not going well at all. And giving away your product seldom gives $$$.

My little tip is "Make a native version of Gove for MacOS X and sell it". There is a huge market there of people with 1. money (those Macs are expensive to the point of silly) and 2. a hate for Microsoft (read: Office). At least do it before I do, or it will be to late ;)

One feature that I would LOVE in Productive.
by Bill on Mon 12th Aug 2002 16:40 UTC

Apparently I'm one of the "too few" people that purchased Gobe Productive. I purchased version 2.0 for BeOS and 3.0 for Windows/Linux just so I could get the Linux version. I'm still hoping that comes out. But I'm now really really hoping that 3.0 is ported back to BeOS as OpenBeOS seems to have their act together and by next year this time we will have a better BeOS than Be gave us. Very cool!!!

There is one feature that I would LOVE to have in Productive. And that's QuickCorrect (this is what WordPerfect calls it. Majorsuck calls it Autocorrect.). For anyone that doesn't know. It capitilizes the first word of any sentence, capitalizes the letter "I" and "I'm" and lets you easly (through right clicks and menus) build a list of words that you want "quickcorrected" when you type them so that you don't have to manually capitalize them or "quickcorrects" common misspellings.

Seriously. This is easily the biggest thing not currently in Productive that I would use. Anything else wouldn't be used as much by me.

The Perfect Name:
by Larry Smith on Mon 12th Aug 2002 16:58 UTC


LinuxWorks

How about this?
by wretch on Mon 12th Aug 2002 17:13 UTC

Free2Be Productive
or
Free-to-Be Productive
or
FreeToBe Productive

(I'm open to suggestions on the semantics of the name o_O )

Personally, I like it (why else would I suggest it, right? ;) . It has the word "free" in it, which ties in FreeRadicalSoftware's name (by the way, that name kicks ass. Hey Bruce, do you come up with these company names? I always thought GoBe was terribly clever). It also represents a nod to the open source aspect of the project (i.e. free speech). The name also retains the word "Productive", which has always been the product's name and should not be changed, IMHO. Finally, the name stands on it's own as a statement in and of itself, just like the name "GoBe Productive" did, while at the same time evoking a more light-hearted feel. It's as though by using this product, you are saying to everyone that you *choose* to use it and are *free* from being forced to work in an Office-centric world. Dig?

So what do you guys think?

a shame and yet a gift.
by Richard Fillion on Mon 12th Aug 2002 17:22 UTC

It's sad to see a company which i've only heard awesome things about die, but i do think that people should look at what was done here as an example of how to properly lay a company to rest. Sure GoBe wont live anymore, but the fruit of their labor will, and with a license like GPL, its sure to live for a while yet.

I for one cant wait till linux versions start popping up (OpenOffice doesnt work on DEC Alphas ;) ).

re :Features?
by vlad on Mon 12th Aug 2002 17:26 UTC

I'm too one of the few who bought GP twice - one for BeOS and one for Windows hoping to get free upgrade.
To Spark:
there are features that are really great in GP -
- I like ability to save in PDF format. This feature alone is worth the money you put in. Graphic editor is good although BeOS had some better choices. Presentation app is really great. I used it when I need. The only problem - it cannot import MS PowerPoint crap so I hd to download PPviewer as I have lots of ppt docs.
- and think of ability to safely open any MS word document whithout being infected by some macro viruses. Not all clients I go have good antivirus policy in place.

Alternative Office Suites :
I remember when people were forced to switch from WordPerfect to MS Word - WP was a standard at law offices. Nice, fast, integrated with document management systems.
But it was DOS based and company was moving to NT and they got 'good deal' on a bundle.
Still, I see sometimes clients who are completely anti-microsoft : they run Novel as network OS, GroupWise as colloboration system, Domino as e-mail and Corel Office.
It just take a lot of efforts to keep MS out of your company and many companies gave up - let one Micorosoft product inside and sooner than you want all your company is converting to it.
There are few persuasion tricks that almost every CIO is falling into :
- "it's much easier to manage - click here and here and there"
- "it's very integrated "
- "you don't need to worry about upgrades - it's compatible"
and the best of all - "you won't be fired for buying MS"
Of all these only the last one is true but I hope not for long.

Always a shame to see a well regarded product go bung
by ~Seedy~ on Mon 12th Aug 2002 17:38 UTC

.. but kudos on the developers to have the wisdom not to let their hard work go to waste.

Let's hope "Productive" soon becomes a common part of any opensource Desktop, whatever name it goes under by then.

I'm with Larry...
by Jay on Mon 12th Aug 2002 17:46 UTC

I love the name "LinuxWorks!

About the name...
by Big Al on Mon 12th Aug 2002 17:57 UTC

Don't tie the name up with a platform, ala "LinuxWorks". This should be available on any platorm, so it wouldn't make sense to run a program called LinuxWorks on Windows.

I say make the name an extension of what they already have - but instead of Productive, it should be MoreProductive. More signifying the next chapter in the software's evolution, ties into the fact that it makes you more productive when you use it, more productive than with Word, etc. etc.

Well, that's my two cents for the day. I'm seriously saddened to see things go the way they have but hopefully five years down the road we'll say this is the best thing they could have done. Best of luck to all members of the Gobe team!

My suggestion
by Hank Powers on Mon 12th Aug 2002 17:59 UTC

OBOS Productive. That would integrate well to the upcoming OpenBeOS platform.

No to LinuxWorks!
by Matt on Mon 12th Aug 2002 17:59 UTC

GPL != Linux

Seriously, remember such a quality office suite is going to be used on many systems.

I would also offer my thoughts on Gobe, but I think everythings been said...

RE: My suggestion
by Eugenia on Mon 12th Aug 2002 18:19 UTC

>I love the name "LinuxWorks!
>OBOS Productive

Problem is that Productive is a real multi-platform product. LinuxWorks or OBOS Productive wouldn't be very representing names for all the platforms it runs or will run on.
I would vote for "Sahare Office" or similar, as the other guy said ealier...

Thank you Big Al and Matt...
by wretch on Mon 12th Aug 2002 18:20 UTC

Please people, don't try to tie the name in with an operating system! It's already available on more than one OS, and hopefully will make it's way to many more. And while I thought the LinuxWorks name was pretty clever, it was totally inappropriate for this product, which neither started on Linux nor is even available on Linux yet (pre-alpha version notwithstanding). A more viable name along the same vane would be "OpenWorks" (unless it's already taken, of course ;) . I like Big Al's idea (MoreProductive) and naturally, I thought my suggestion was pretty keen (FreeToBe Productive).

Anyway, my 2 cents...

Excellent news, actually.
by Eron on Mon 12th Aug 2002 18:33 UTC

I've been waiting and waiting for the Linux version of Gobe Productive to come out... While it's sad that Gobe as a company didn't make it, turning GP3 into GPL'ed code is a great boon to GP users everywhere!!!

Perhaps now I can get a native FreeBSD port of this excellent office suite!!! ;)

clever my @$$!!!
by bytes256 on Mon 12th Aug 2002 18:33 UTC

how is a name like Linux Works or OBOS Works clever?

Works's have been done over and over and over again

New name:
by Anonymous on Mon 12th Aug 2002 18:39 UTC

I like "Gobe Productive". Anyway "FreeRadicalProductive" could do it too. Please, don't use the "office" word in it, Be yourself!

They owe me!
by B akaSmack on Mon 12th Aug 2002 18:41 UTC

I have a coupon for a free Linux version from buying the Windows version. I feel ripped off!!! Oh, wait a minute...

Enough Already!!!!! :o)
by El Al on Mon 12th Aug 2002 18:45 UTC

GoPro.

And I'll not have another word (no pun intended) said.

RE: New name:
by Eugenia on Mon 12th Aug 2002 18:46 UTC

IT DOESN't HAVE TO HAVE THE WORD "PRODUCTIVE" in it. In fact, Bruce on the phone told me that he wouldn't want to see the word "productive" or "open productive" in the new name!! He wants a new, fresh name for it!

Hey, calm down...
by wretch on Mon 12th Aug 2002 18:51 UTC

Okay, maybe clever was a little too complimentary. Sheesh! Don't get your panties in a twist over it, though. I was just trying to show the guy that while I appreciated his contribution, I thought it would be a sucky name for this particular product ;)

sorry wretch...
by bytes256 on Mon 12th Aug 2002 19:06 UTC

yeah...maybe i was a tad too harsh...i was still thinking what a f*ing idiot...Linux Works...and then I read your post...oooooooops

Re: Features
by Spark on Mon 12th Aug 2002 19:06 UTC

Well, I was more talking about the real office functionality. When working with Access for a year, I was just impressed with the possibilities. Sure, it wasn't exactly stable and sometimes drove me crazy, but I could do basically everything with VB scripting, macros, etc. I also worked a little bit with Word and took a short look at Excel so I could at least see that they were almost as functional.
This might be overkill for most users but as a matter of fact, many of those features where very usefull for me to get the job done. I'm just wondering if Gobe can even remotely keep up with this featureset or if it's rather meant mainly to create simple documents with images.

Questions
by Don Cox on Mon 12th Aug 2002 19:17 UTC

Can someone who has used the program tell me:

1. How well does it import Word .docs? Does it handle tables and
graphics correctly?

2. Does the PDF output include embedded fonts?

3. How well can it export for Word? Tables? Graphics?

Spark
by El Al on Mon 12th Aug 2002 19:20 UTC

'Horses for Courses' as the saying goes....you wouldn't use a toffee hammer to attempt a job that required a sledge hammer.

Productive is an excellent office suite which was never designed to have the feature set of Office. However, it is far more capable than you seem to be suggesting.

RE: Questions
by Eugenia on Mon 12th Aug 2002 19:22 UTC

>2. Does the PDF output include embedded fonts?

By default YES. You can take this out if you want, by clicking "Settings" on the "Save As" panel, when you select to save as PDF.

>3. How well can it export for Word? Tables? Graphics?

Isn't that a similar question as No1? ;)
Well, it can do tables and graphics and all that, but it does not support VBA and scripting. So, if your Word documents have scriptings, they won't render correctly. I think OpenOffice can't do scripting either.
Its .doc compatibility is not the best, but it is pretty good. There IS room for improvement indeed.

Why don't you download the Windows demo to check it out (version of the demo is 3.02, current full version is 3.04). It is only 12 MB to download and it is linked from ther article.

Thanks bytes...
by wretch on Mon 12th Aug 2002 19:29 UTC

Hey, no problem. Actually, his post kinda pissed me off at first, too. I always find it very ballsy of some members of the Linux crowd that try to hijack any project that gets GPL'd and pass it off as some sort of Linux innovation or something. Seems very arrogant to me.

:)

dang this sucks
by Brad on Mon 12th Aug 2002 19:40 UTC

This is sad news to return to. I hope the best for those who worked for Gobe. I bought GP3 and it was worth every penny. I love it. And gobe was very helpful with any problems or dealing with bugs people found. I wish it had not been GPL'd, I wish it had been shifted to something more like the MIT liscense. I fear GP3 becoming some case for OS zelouts and such. I'm glad I have my GP3 cd to use forever. It will be nice to see GP3 on things like OBOS (when the day comes) and OSX and more. I wish Gobe was the ones to do it though. I fear any support or feature improvement will no longer happen under GPL, it will become a program with no guiding course and fall in disaray. If it had not been GPL'd but had been opensourced maybe some other company would pick it up and use it. Maybe apple would have picked up and based an office suite on it. I doubt with it being GPL they will want to.

Just goes to figure, everything i like seams to die, ok well I love GM, Disney, Wal-mart, Linux, Gateway, Republican Party..... Well thats enought to see if they die now

Re: Brad
by bytes256 on Mon 12th Aug 2002 19:48 UTC

actually, they're dual licensing it...so it can still be part of a commercial product...so as opposed to say an MIT or BSD license, they might actually generate some revenue from it...

personally, i'm not a huge GPL fan...i like the BSD license (W/O advertising clause)

and this is much better than Gobe dying and killing Productive with it

-bytes256

How about "FreeWorks"?
by Shevek on Mon 12th Aug 2002 19:59 UTC

Someone above suggested OpenWorks, so it had to be said: why not FreeWorks? It ties in nicely with your company name, is not Linux (or other OS) specific, and rolls off the tongue fairly well. Also, the meaning is very clear -- it is a "Free" (as in Free Software) "Works" package, which to most people would suggest a lightweight office suite.

How about it?

Name suggestion
by Bascule on Mon 12th Aug 2002 20:04 UTC

Okay, this may sound incredibly generic, and is probably already taken by a number of applications out there, but how about "Expedience"

Missing the point
by NameWithHeld on Mon 12th Aug 2002 20:13 UTC

Gobe looks and feels polished. It's an excellent product for Windows users and the fact that linux and other platforms are available makes this an excellent choice. I see a lot of open source software that's good but does not have near the polish or perfection of Gobe.

OpenOffice is too big and too slow.

For those of your who think GPL is such a bad idea, go ask the guys at Wine about why they went to a GPL license after they got screwed by TransGaming.

What we need now is a standard, open-souce file format that is the default for all of the word processors. If AbiWord, Gobe, OpenOffice, KOffice all supported and used one file format, that would be reasonable for companies to support .doc and one other open source file format.

How about 'FIST'?
by m on Mon 12th Aug 2002 20:16 UTC

Now, that would be radical ;>D

v <ss---XXX BIZ-FIST XXX---ss>
by m on Mon 12th Aug 2002 20:24 UTC
Format
by Don Cox on Mon 12th Aug 2002 20:38 UTC

"What we need now is a standard, open-souce file format that is the default for all of the word processors. If AbiWord, Gobe,
OpenOffice, KOffice all supported and used one file format, that would be reasonable for companies to support .doc and one
other open source file format. "

That would have to be an XML format nowadays. Bear in mind that these
"word processors" are not really word processors but limited DTP
programs, so the file format needs to be layout oriented.

This was sad news indeed
by Egil on Mon 12th Aug 2002 20:42 UTC

Kudos to you guys over at Gobe, you really did some outstanding work. Now lets hope GP gets ported to Mac OS X!

Name
by Jay on Mon 12th Aug 2002 20:53 UTC

On second thought, tying the name to an OS would not be such a great idea.

Names can be difficult. Some people believe a name of a product should be descriptive enough so that a person to know what the product is by the name alone. Others don't feel that way at all.

How about SahareSuite?

Name WithHeld
by johnG on Mon 12th Aug 2002 20:57 UTC

For those of your who think GPL is such a bad idea, go ask the guys at Wine about why they went to a GPL license after they got screwed by TransGaming.

FRS will be the sole copyright holder of GP and as such can sue license violators -- regardless of which OSS license they choose/chose.

What happened with Wine & Transgaming?

CrossWorks
by Anonymous on Mon 12th Aug 2002 22:12 UTC

You could call it CrossWorks with CrossWord and CrossCalc etc.

Program Structure
by RalphT on Mon 12th Aug 2002 22:44 UTC

This is probably very OT, but can someone tell me about the structure of gobeProductive? I guess that my main questions are:

Does it has it's own COM system (like UNO in OpenOffice)?
How much work is there in porting it to a new platform?

I'm very nearly finished writing the UNO bridge for the IRIX (N32) GCC port of OpenOffice... I'd love to have the opportunity to port gobeProductive to IRIX.

Cheers,

Ralph

Maybe it'll save them
by Sikosis on Mon 12th Aug 2002 22:47 UTC

Hrmmm ... I thought OpenOffice and StarOffice or even KOffice on KDE were more popular choices for *nix.

Gobe don't even have a demo version of their Win32 product on their site ... so all I've got to go on is my experience with the Gobe 2.0 for BeOS. It was average. Very, very, very, very average. Oh, but it can read RTF ...

I think I've used it probably once or twice. It could never read any of my Word or Excel documents properly - ever ! I wrote to Gobe telling them, this didn't work, but that was it.

They need to get out of the competing with MS market.

Unique
by Jay on Mon 12th Aug 2002 23:16 UTC

I strongly disagree - Gobe was anything but average. If you used it once or twice, then it is obvious you did not learn the unique way in which one can work with documents - the same document in different modules. The document stays on the desktop in front of you and you can change modules at will.

Win32 demo
by Another matthew on Mon 12th Aug 2002 23:17 UTC

Dude, there's a demo version of their Win32 product on download.com linked to in the article. Read the article. It's good for you.

re:bytes256
by Brad on Tue 13th Aug 2002 00:34 UTC

Thanks, I saw something bought the duel lisence but ti didn't say much. I'm not a gpl fan ether and have been trying to avoid such programs but this will be a forced exception i guess. It's good for people in general that now there will be a high quality WP for all OS (Maybe?). Maybe people will yell to use Gobe now instead of openoffice and the such. At least this will be a real response now. I hope some company picks up GP3 and goes someplace with it. Projects without some sort of over powering backing seam to go no where. Best of luck to you GP3 where-ever you go.

Gobe and BeOS Pro
by Francis Parsons on Tue 13th Aug 2002 00:52 UTC

Was Gobe still distributing BeOS Pro Edition at this time? (I've seen links to other distributors but was wondering).

It would also be sad to have one less BeOS Pro distributor. Anyone know the story on this?

It's great that BeOS may finally get GP 3.0, but I'm hoping that this doesn't take steam out of an effort to port OpenOffice. As much is it seems to be generally disliked in comparison to Gobe Productive, it still has a lot more features that make it more comparable to MS Office when dealing with complex documents. (Not everybody needs that, but it's damn good to have when you do).

The thing I find very positive about a port of OpenOffice to BeOS would be that OpenOffice is already on many more platforms, hopefully this would mean that you could open documents from say, a Linux or Windows partition, in BeOS. This would add greatly to BeOS/OpenBeOS's useability.

BeOS Pro
by Jay on Tue 13th Aug 2002 01:40 UTC

At the Gobe site, for awhile now they've had it listed as being out of stock. I don't know if that has anything to do with the Gobe situation or not. You can get it Purplus.com. Just do a search for beos and it will take you right to it. In fact, they have older versions too.

low end systems
by jbolden1517 on Tue 13th Aug 2002 02:34 UTC

> As an aside, i think one of the major problems with linux so
> far is the lack of a free office suite that runs well on low
> end systems

Its hard to justify building office suites for old hardware. How many people really need an office suite for a 486 today? Unix has some nice text based office apps that fly on older hardware. In reality I think the greatest need for supporting inexpensive hardware is in the third world and the priorities for supporting for the third world (IMHO) should be set by people living there who understand the environment better.

Given what I know of the third world you can expect users who much more time and much more education than you can in the first world. You can also expect them to be more academic in their orientation and less "business" oriented. They may not care as much about things like: support for .doc format, not having to read a manual. OTOH they may be much more interested in power features like good support for multiple languages in the same document, automated bibliography ... Heck things like Emacs / Tex might be a much better choice than OpenOffice for them.


Suggested Title
by Jason on Tue 13th Aug 2002 02:35 UTC

Use something latin like:

publicus -a -um [belonging to the people , public]; 'res publica' or 'respublica', [the state]. Transf. [universal, general; common; ordinary]. M. as subst. publicus -i, [a state official]; n. publicum -i, [public territory; the public revenue, the treasury; an open place, the open street]. Adv. publice, [for the people, publicly, at the public expense; all together].

I like the play on Publish.

GPL: commercial
by jbolden1517 on Tue 13th Aug 2002 02:42 UTC

>> Bruce Hammond: We plan to dual license the software. The
>> GPL has teeth in it that helps to prevent another commercial
>> competitor from forking the code. Also, GPL is well liked
>> and well understood by the hacker community.


> I'm curious to know how such a dual-licensing scheme like
> this can work. Will the other license be a typical commercial
> one? If so, how does that not violate the GPL?

A releases code under two licenses 1 which is commercial or 2 which is GPL. B decides to use the product he either pays for it under (2) or he is bound by (1). Thus if he writes an extension he either A's permission (since its a commercial setup) or he has to release his changes back the community (including A) under the GPL.

A however still has privledges since he doesn't need any license to use or distribute his own software.


I'm not sure if this clears it up if not what do you think is violated?

RE: low end systems
by Eugenia on Tue 13th Aug 2002 02:44 UTC

>Its hard to justify building office suites for old hardware.

I would not use Gobe Productive 3 on anything smaller than an Intel Pentium 166-MMX with at least 48 MB of RAM on Win95 or Win98. And that's already _slow_ for GP3. The vectors used by the office suite (by design) need a much faster cpu. The rest of the suite, like spreadsheet or word, should be adequate on this low end machine, but still slow-ish.
Gobe Productive 2 on BeOS was able to run better on these slow systems, but that was one version ago, and BeOS naturally needed less memory than Windows anyway.

re. GPL commercial
by johnG on Tue 13th Aug 2002 02:58 UTC

jbolden1517 wrote:
> I'm not sure if this clears it up if not what do you think is violated?

Yes, I'm clear on it now, thank you. ;)

I just hope that FRS can make this business model work.

Good luck FreeRadicalSoftware!

ProSuite,
by Glidedon on Tue 13th Aug 2002 03:03 UTC

Gobe Team,

Thanks for following your dream and all your hard work. Productive is sweet software.

So I propose ProSuite . ProSuite for BeOS, ProSuite for Linx, ProSuite for Windows and so on. On the other hand just call it ...FWord.

Thanks again Gobe Team members

Don

A Little OT
by Ores on Tue 13th Aug 2002 03:18 UTC

(hope no one elese said somthing simerlar im too lazy to read all 100messsages)

But what would be the chances for getting the BeOS API bindings released under an alternative liecence such as the LPGL so that those people and companys who wrote commerial (closed source) software for BeOS could more easly port software to Windows and linux?

Latex as a standard
by jbolden1517 on Tue 13th Aug 2002 03:29 UTC

There is a little discussion of Latex as a standard for word processing docs. First off Lyx and Klyx both use this standard to some extent (i.e. they "print" by exporting to Latex and running Latex to generate the print file). Both of them can pass through raw Tex and LaTeX commands.

The real problem I see is what the original poster cited as an advantage. LaTex uses logical design and most word processors use graphical design. That is in in LaTex you would use emph to indicate emphasis and would expect the style sheet to determine if emphasized text should be bolded or italics or a larger / different font or... Word supports style sheets and can be used for logical design however in general users specify bold or italics or... That is the philosophy of LaTex makes it a poor choice for a universal document format.

DVI on the other hand might not be a bad choice for a universal format.

Shocked...
by LeftTurn on Tue 13th Aug 2002 03:50 UTC

Wow. I'm really saddened that Gobe couldn't hang in there. It's a rough marketplace. Like usual, the superior technology/product takes it in the shorts.

I wish all the Gobe employees well in their future endeavors. Thanks for bringing us a great product in BeOS and now Windows. I use both versions.

One of the great things about Gobe, well, more specifically Tom Hoke, he periodically dropped in the chat on BeShare and spent time in the BeGroovy forums, answering questions, asking us questions, and plain being a nice guy.

Also, thanks for GPLing the product so that it may yet live on.

Sad to Hear...
by HonestABE on Tue 13th Aug 2002 06:30 UTC

Good Luck. We hoped for a giant killer and all you got was stepped on by the giant. I will use your product until I can no longer. You were heading in the right direction and I had hoped it would last. GPL...? I just hope it doesn't lose it's uniqueness with too many mechanics. Too many cooks spoil the broth or something like that...

Al my GRmerer was cheaked by Microsnot Werd [smarttag]

Boy this really sucks...

...
by rajan r on Tue 13th Aug 2002 08:18 UTC

Have the Gobe Office and GNOME Office people considered merging their projects? If I remember correctly, Gobe Office is based on GNOME's libs, so there's real potential for GNOME office to be merged with a GPLed Gobe Office.

Quite impossible.
1) License issues: The free version of Productive would have a dual-license. One Free Software, and another probably something like NPL/MPL...
2) The current port of Productive uses Be API wrappers that uses GTK+. In other words, all they need is someone to write a QT-BeAPI wrapper to make it a QT app!
3) Besides that point above, there are many technical difference. The most major one is that Productive is written in C++, and GNOME Office apps is in C, mostly.

Well, this would explain why it has been so quiet on the Gobe Forums lately. This is a real tragedy and another underdog is slayed by the mighty dragon of MS.

You couldn't possibly put all the blame on MS. Gobe entered the Windows market when Sun decided to pack StarOffice 6.0 with some marketing sense. At $75 dollars, it is the same price as Gobe. That means, you for the same amount of money, you can get better support, more features and better Office support. Plus a database app (just have to put it in :-). To the average Joe, if they would to buy a new Office-like app that isn't Office, StarOffice would be a better choice, to them, than Gobe's.

The XML file format they have allows for "extensions" [...]

Not certainly the best solution to the problem. Because a document from OOo may look differently in KOffice. And vice versa. But if KOffice supports OOo's XML's file format, while keeping its own, probably there is a greater chance of success. :-D.

how about sahare? like gobe for the gobi desert and sahare for the sahara desert! and the sahara desert is expanding, see

Actually it isn't. It is loosing grown in the north and west faster than it is gaining ground in the south.

I'm curious to know how such a dual-licensing scheme like this can work. Will the other license be a typical commercial one? If so, how does that not violate the GPL?

Would be the same way OpenOffice.org, Mozilla got to be under 2-3 licenses. The GPL doesn't disallow the writer of the software to license the software under another license besides GPL (that is, if you own the code).

Rather than Apple chasing OpenOffice, I do not see why they haven't bought Productiva yet.

It makes much more commercial sense to use OpenOffice.org. Sure, porting is long and hard, but notice, Gobe has so little features, and OpenOffice.org has the best MS filters...

Why aren't the FREE ones and the DIRT CHEAP ones more popular? Any ideas?

Chances of you not watching a Office XP ad during the launch of Office XP is low. But I have never seen any ads in any major Average Joe media that promotes the use of an non-MS Office app.

The users here aren't nearly as comfortable with Microsoft products (and we don't get Microsoft Office slapped onto our system at purchase, generally),

Weirdly, a lot of even anti-MS users like Office 2001 (didn't bother to hunt down for reviews for Office v. X). Besides, most PCs are solded WITHOUT Office. That's right. Even with tier one OEMs, the most is that Office is an option.

The school gets free copies of Office at a very low cost [...]

Huh? A school gets free copies at a very low cost? Isn't free=no (direct) cost???

Just think of him/her struggling with MS Works and then getting Gobe

Works 2002 is much harder to use than previous versions. Reason: The word processor is seperate, not integrated. But alas, Gobe didn't have an OEM price as good as Works.

[...]as many aren't satisfied with OO's lack of integrity[...]

What did OOo did that was so bad? You mean integration? Hehe

So the reason that M$ gets so much of the market can be contributed to one fact "It won't change that much".

Office 97 was much different to Office 95 (and one of the major difference cause a huge backslash).

I think OpenOffice can't do scripting either.

IIRC, the CVS version could. But I'm not sure.

Why don't you download the Windows demo to check it out (version of the demo is 3.02, current full version is 3.04). It is only 12 MB to download and it is linked from ther article.

I uninstalled it the minuted I installed it: I won't save the documents. I don't mind the 14 days evaluation thingy, I don't mind forking 75 bucks over this product if it is good... but?

I wish it had not been GPL'd, I wish it had been shifted to something more like the MIT liscense.

Then any company can fork it and make their own product. There is no reason why the product would have "no guiding course and fall in disaray", when the same would happen in other licenses (except anti-fork ones). Besides, FreeRadical plans to make money out of it..

ok well I love [...] Republican Party.....

God no!!!!!!'

personally, i'm not a huge GPL fan...i like the BSD license (W/O advertising clause)

BSD without the advertising clause would be... MIT license.. Oh well...

OpenOffice is too big and too slow.

Uhmmm, this is not because it is open source. It is because of the legacy Star Division gave it.

For those of your who think GPL is such a bad idea, go ask the guys at Wine about why they went to a GPL license after they got screwed by TransGaming.

Most Wine guys says it is to screw up Lindows, not Transgamings. Transgaming is quite happy with its current codebase, no need to fork from Wine... after all there hasn't been much significant change in Wine.

How about SahareSuite?

It isn't a suite of applications, like Office.

You could call it CrossWorks with CrossWord and CrossCalc etc.

All of which runs on CrossOver plugins?

In reality I think the greatest need for supporting inexpensive hardware is in the third world [...]

And they don't buy stuff like 486s :-D.

But what would be the chances for getting the BeOS API bindings released under an alternative liecence such as the LPGL so that those people and companys who wrote commerial (closed source) software for BeOS could more easly port software to Windows and linux?

The wrappers are only for APIs Gobe uses in 3.0. So only Gobe clones or really basic stuff would find this great.

Linux and Windows BeAPI Libs
by Maverick on Tue 13th Aug 2002 13:14 UTC

Gobe made a wonderful office suite, I just wish that their libs would be released under MIT/BSD. Thats just me though.

Regards,
Jason

re. Linux and Windows BeAPI Libs
by johnG on Tue 13th Aug 2002 13:54 UTC

Jason wrote:
> I just wish that their libs would be released under MIT/BSD.

As I understand it, their business model depends on going GPL. It gives them a competitive advantage. ;)

If they went MIT/BSD, any other company could take their hard work (code), relicense it, and do exactly what FRS is doing with it.

There's a difference between what FRS is doing (will be doing -- selling custom software) and simply offering consulting services. Going with the GPL allows them to do the former. MIT-licensing would have them doing the latter and that (in this particular case) would be a Bad Thing.

MAC???
by Mike on Tue 13th Aug 2002 14:44 UTC

I'm amazed that FreeRadical and previously GoBe are blind to a golden opportunity... Productive for Mac!!
Microsoft are probably going to abandon Office for Mac, Star Office doesn't seem likely these days... a huge void is opening, and Productive could step right in.

Mike
by Jay on Tue 13th Aug 2002 15:16 UTC

Mike I think Gobe faced hurdles whichever way they turned. Apple has AppleWorks, which is actually a great program and has a database module, which Gobe doesn't. And it's bundled with every consumer Mac. So, I guess they figured Windows might be their best shot. The market is huge, of course. And the other competition (besides MS Office of course) is mostly bloatware or not compelling. I think there was just no way Gobe could get the word out enough, couldn't get any OEM's (as far as I know). The reviews were great, the price was right - the Windows world is an odd oneI

One name suggestion
by anon. on Tue 13th Aug 2002 15:49 UTC

I suggest the name "FreeWorks" if that's not already taken.

FireWorks
by SaulCJakk on Tue 13th Aug 2002 16:33 UTC

FireWorks? Sounds dynamic and exciting.

RE: FireWorks
by Eugenia on Tue 13th Aug 2002 22:10 UTC

FireWorks is already taken by Macromedia and it will be conflict, because both FireWorks and GP do vectors.

I would like "OpenWorks".

...
by rajan r on Wed 14th Aug 2002 07:53 UTC

I'm amazed that FreeRadical and previously GoBe are blind to a golden opportunity... Productive for Mac!!

The Mac BU said it is giving the Mac one more chance. That means one more version. And if Sun place the same amount of money on the Mac version as on the Windows version, the version of Mac would be completed by time Office is killed by MS... if it is killed by MS.

Also, Gobe would be dirrectly competiting with AppleWorks, not Office. It's feature-base is relatively the same as AppleWorks.

No, i don't see a bigger market opportunity than on Windows.

The reviews were great, the price was right - the Windows world is an odd one

The price wasn't right. My brother said (he is an ex-OEM) he tried to make a deal with Gobe for OEM versions in quantity of a thousand. The price was two times the price of MS Works. Guess which one my brother used? (If you said Works, wrong. He didn't bother with neither).

FireWorks? Sounds dynamic and exciting.

A trademark of Macromedia. How about WaterWorks?

OpenWorks sounds nice, but for the propreitary version?

not just Gobe, now Pepper/PE
by JJ on Wed 14th Aug 2002 15:53 UTC

http://www.hekkelman.com/

Seems to have closed shop too, shame

Thanks for trying, Gobe - Productive rocks!
by Jace on Wed 14th Aug 2002 18:52 UTC

I continue to use Gobe Productive on BeOS. I am very saddened to see this news. I am relieved that the software will not be taken to the grave. Maybe I will see version 3 on BeOS some day soon.

Best wishes to all the people at Gobe. You made a difference and there are those of us that REALLY appreciate you.

-Jace

Too bad...
by Bardo on Wed 14th Aug 2002 20:44 UTC

Too bad... Really...
And 'FreeProductive' would be a good name (since Google cannot find anything like it), but names with 'Productive' are not welcome. So strange: GP is not wellknown, why not use something in connotation to the past? As a tribute to the 'fans'!

to Eugenia
by s_d on Wed 14th Aug 2002 23:38 UTC


I would not use Gobe Productive 3 on anything smaller than an Intel Pentium 166-MMX with at least 48 MB of RAM on Win95 or Win98
Huh. They tied GP to some libs used for needs of IE and all that "web-integration" M$ crap. So GP cannot work on 95 or on 98 with removed IE.

This is the reason why i dropped my initial intentions to support this woderful team and didn't buy Windows version of GP, despite GP for BeOS is still my main workhorse - i simply haven't IE on my home machines.

Hekkleman takes his ball and goes home...
by Shice on Mon 19th Aug 2002 13:55 UTC

...again!