I am simply parroting the expected date given by, I think it was Meeks. As has been said, getting the entire suite running on a mobile platform will be...difficult (however, I also think that for the near term, at least, it would also be overkill since it would only be really usable with a keyboard/pointer).
I'd say a year is overly optimistic. To get an actual mobile version, real modularization is required: A task that already failed several times.
So? Most work is already done. Calligra didn't start from scratch but – at least partially – dates back to 1997 (KPresenter was started then). KOffice was mostly held back by text rendering bugs in Qt. It took a motivated Nokia employee to finally fix that bug in Qt 4.8.
Wait, Calligra is based on code that's FIFTEEN YEARS OLD!!! That simply cannot be
I don't know how your math skills make an 1980s code base 20 years old but whatever.
Fair enough. So say twenty-three years (you didn't specify when in the 80's). That is a whole seven years older than some of the Calligra code.
Since this should all be POSIX, I don't see where having an older codebase is NECCESSARILY worse. All things being equal, yes, I would agree, but optimizations are happening since this isn't new information you are giving.
That’s a claim often repeated by LO devs but it only is a small fraction of the true story.
LO’s biggest problem aren’t the unused functions, but the crappy functions that are actually used and not replaced! Its VCL toolkit needs to go ASAP but there are absolutely no attempts at all to completely rewrite the GUI using a modern non-buggy toolkit within the LO community.
The funny thing is that Apache OpenOffice will get a completely new GUI IBM developed years ago for Lotus Symphony, although LO fans already declared OO dead.
At least you didn't call me a fanboy
Meeks pushed a pure gtk3 effort back in Oct (http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...er/000302.html), though I haven't noticed much since. Otherwise, I don't disagree, but, IMHO, the interface isn't a huge priority.
I'm not quite sure why you are asking this question since you've already said the answer. The codebase has needed vast amounts of work. Office suites, as I said earlier, require fidelity, and that can sometimes be hacky (depending on the standard), but it always requires ungodly work to make sure formats are treated the same across platforms (not easy, obviously, when dealing with something like Word's ooxml). Toolkits (unless they actually implement these standards for you) don't really help beyond getting up a skeleton with a bit of skin. It's the stuff inside that takes so damn long, but it's not terribly visible. If you want to criticize LO for anything it should be for not using robust enough format testing. That is the thing that bugs most users.…that achieved almost nothing. Where is the VCL-less GUI? Why are all LO components still in one huge “soffice.bin” process? Why is KDE integration still broken?
Both projects – LO and Calligra – were initiated in late 2010. During pretty much exactly the same time LO devs were struggling removing unused code whereas Calligra devs built a completely new word processor from scratch!
Fact is nonetheless that Calligra has better MS OOXML import support than LO – a feat achieved in a shorter time than LO even with Red Hat’s and SUSE’s full-time employees.
How do you judge this? The only thing I found that compared the two's ability to deal with formats was a slashdot comment that said that Calligra's equation handling is a bit broken.
IMO it’s a testament to the quality of the code base when a handful of mostly hobby developers achieve more in Calligra than the army of full-time devs achieve in LO during the same time.
TDF will need to invest lots of development time in cleaning up LO’s rotten code base to make it easily extendable.
I think that it is extremly arguable that they have achieved more, but I'm not going to take away from the work they've done. At the same time, do they support ALL of the same formats as LO, and to at least the same degree? If they have, then they are geniuses without parallel in the history of computing and Turing bows to them.