Jump to content

Talk:Calligra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Separation

[edit]

Do we want to create separate pages for each application, or should they all be described in the main entry?

At the moment I would say it's OK in one page; if the entry gets long I would split. It depends on what you want to say about the application in the future. Other programs which are smaller have their own page too. -- HJH

Infobox_Software - subpages

[edit]

I think it's a good idea to have a page for each KOffice application, but you might want to decide whether KOffice is "Cross-platform" or "Unix-like" in the "Infobox_Software"... Currently Kivio is Cross-platform and GPL and while KWord is Unix-like LGPL. From what I can see at http://koffice.org/info/ it's released under some kind of custom license: 

KOffice, like KDE, is a free project which is released under GPL-compatible open source licenses, e.g. GPL, LGPL and BSD.

If somebody knows more about licens' and licens combability you might want to fix this, I think the KDE project is under same license so take a look at that article too. --Jopsen 10:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The chinese characters displayed in the screenshot is broken

[edit]

The black dots are the ones that can't be displayed.

Please consider to change a screenshot.

-- Kefei (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

due to linux.com's redesign, the articles linked to no longer open. --Medavox (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. :D RP9 (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KOffice is actually available for which OSs?

[edit]

Linux, Mac OSX, Solaris, Windows? For the general public to actually use, I mean; not as a one-off up-all-night hacking experiment. This seems to be a surprisingly close-guarded secret, or else the subject of some FUD.

First it seems that KOffice isn't really available for general public use at all: http://koffice.org says 2.0 "is not aimed at end users, and we do not recommend Linux distributions to package it as the default office suite yet" and 2.1 is in beta. Elsewhere I've read that the public should continue to use 1.6, but I cannot find any reliable download page for this, for any OS.

This article boldly says "The current KOffice 2.0.0 series is designed for Unix, but also added the compatibility for Mac OS X[2] and Windows.[3]", but those refs point to the most unreliable sources and certainly not to trustworthy download pages. [2] is a 'summer of code students' page, that gives "Page not found" and [3] is the archetypal hacker's blog, with screenshots after a long night's coding, dated 2007 - hardly a reliable download or review for the public.

The Office suite article is as bad with "KOffice — free and open-source, native for Windows since version 2.0", "BSD, Linux, Solaris (Mac OS X and Windows in KDE 4)" etc. But where is the verification for any of this? Where are the refs, the downloads and the independent reviews??

I think, if they don't exist, it might be time for some radical changes to these articles. --Nigelj (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The windows version was anounced here--83.135.221.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
That's the Windows version of KDE 4.3. I'm asking about KOffice. Is it officially included in the final release? All of KOffice? Which version of KOffice? What about Mac and Linux? --Nigelj (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll bite. KOffice and most open source projects don't ship installable code, they ship a sources tarball. KOffice has said that it compiles and works on all platforms (see 2.1 release notes again) and with that it means the stuff KOffice ships works. What you seem to attack is if a 3rd party came around and made it easy to install for you or other end users. I think thats not really relevant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.164.27 (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is an old discussion now, and I haven't checked v2.1 yet, but please remember that an 'Office suite' is not some theoretical abstraction. If 'me or other end users' can't install and use it, it doesn't really count, surely? --Nigelj (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calligra suite is not a renamed Koffice

[edit]

Koffice redirects currently to Calligra Suite and the article claims that "In 2010, the KOffice community decided to rename the suite to Calligra Suite". This is actually not correct but the situation is a bit complicated. Koffice was a collection of applications and each application has its own leader/maintainer. Because of disagreements among the developers, Koffice was split (yes, split, it was not renamed) into two independent groups. When the split was announced, Koffice mailing lists used generic terms "Group A" and "Group B". Of the main application maintainers, KWord maintainer joined group A and KSpread, KPresenter and Krita maintainers joined group B. Later on group B announced its new name: Calligra Suite. Group A has not yet announced its name, they have planned to continue using name Koffice, but Calligra Suite group opposes this, because the rights of the Koffice name are controversial. When it comes to individual applications of the old Koffice and Calligra suites, Tables and Stage are KSpread and KPresenter renamed , but Calligra Words is a fork of KWord. Group A has mentioned plans not to rename KWord in their suite but continue with the old name. Then again, group A needs to create a (renamed) fork of KSpread, KPresenter and Krita in order to include them in their suite. So neither of the groups is a fork from the other group and neither of them is the exact continuation of the old Koffice suite, thus the renaming issues. 88.148.183.180 (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. My bad. I've recreated the German KOffice page to reflect this. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the time that was technically correct but it seems now that KOffice development has stagnated if not stopped entirely. The KOffice article remains for historical reasons but it might be time to consider again merging it into this article. -- 109.79.100.242 (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well...

[edit]

...but what was the difference of opinion which led the Calligra people to split from the other Koffice people. I think we should be told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 13:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true and I tried to add that info to KOffice[1] but a troll (User:89.253.119.50 aka. User:HasanTeczan) revert-warred my edits until I lost interest.
The conflict was basically KWord maintainer Thomas Zander against everybody else. The referenced mail[2] shows Zander’s point of view (“effort to get KOffice successful for desktop usage” vs. “effort to get a KOffice […] in such a state that Meego can ship this with their own user interface on top”)
The POV of the others was (colloquially speaking) that Zander behaved dickish (see other mails in that thread, as well as mails from around 15 July 2010 regarding his blog post the also linked in his mail.
Feel free to add that info yourself. At least for the time being I have no strength to potentially fight with User:89.253.119.50 aka. User:HasanTeczan again. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance

[edit]

I'm not sure Haiku is relevant. The Desktop section of the article mentions that a version of KOffice was ported to Haiku but even then it was only one version that was ported and it did not receive ongoing maintenance. It seems to be of very little relevance to Calligra and I would remove it but I thought I might ask here first in case anyone thought it was still relevant. There are probably other sections of the article that could be trimmed or otherwise tightened to keep the article to the most important and relevant facts. -- 109.79.100.242 (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Haiku has nothing to do with Calligra per se. Also zapped the Wayland mention until there's an actual source. This article suffers slightly from people adding anything they can think of - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calligra Suite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calligra Suite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Calligra&oldid=1206514836"