Why Caligra?

[Loaded4th]

I stopped using MS Word when they introduced that funky Ribbon. Now I see that Kubuntu 12.10 is using Caligra with the same sort of thing. Also, Caligra does not seem to support saving to Ms-Word .doc RTF and .docx format, supporting only the Open Document Format (ODF).

If I fully install 12.10 can Caligra be totally purged from the system?

[OneLine]

Earlier but now

The Calligra was tested as the default office suite for the Kubuntu 12.10: http://www.kubuntuforums.net/showthr...-Quantal-Plans .

It was decided that the LibreOffice is the default for the Kubuntu 12.10: http://www.kubuntuforums.net/showthr...l=1#post308712

...If I fully install 12.10 can Caligra be totally purged from the system?

You could pick your palette of applications - the metapackage /1/ kubuntu-desktop /2/ is only recommending /3/ certain packages. You could remove them if you want to.

The metapackage kubuntu-full /4/ is depending the calligra and recommending the LibreOffice.


Links:

1. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/MetaPackages
2. http://packages.ubuntu.com/quantal/kubuntu-desktop
3. http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-pol...tionships.html
4. http://packages.ubuntu.com/quantal/kubuntu-full

[NoWorries]

I was always mystified as to why effort was put into developing calligra. I think that this effort would be better devoted to improving Libreoffice - particularly the libreoffice-presenter-console which, in its current state, is rather limited particular when videos are displayed.

[buzzmandt]

I agree. I read some time ago that calligra would never offer support to anything other than open formats. I personally don't care for calligra in its current form but not supporting ms formats is a deal breaker for myself and most of those that I IT Linux for. It is easily removable and libreoffice is just an apt-get install away.

[Loaded4th]

Thanks for the replies, I realize that some packages can be purged, but some cannot, and as a Linux novice it's nice to know that a heavy package like Caligra can be removed. I read some time ago in a Windows Secrets poll that more people disliked the office ribbon than were in favor, so I guess I'm not alone. It's because of these kinds of trends by Microsoft that I'm using Kubuntu, but if this desktop follows too much along the lines of Windows 8 and Ubuntu, I'll have no choice but to use Xfce. My comfortable inertia goes back to the days of Xerox Bravo—the first WYSIWYG word processor, so it's hard for me to change.

[woodsmoke]

Hi Loaded4th.

I'd like to comment on your observation about the Calligra "approach" and that of the MS Ribbon.

THERE ARE TWO SECTIONS:

A) the reason for the Calligra interface.
B) MS will read and display an ODF Presentation IF....IF......the Presentation is on a CD or DVD.

A) the reason for the Calligra interface

If you would care to read my extended comments about what is now Calligra, but used to be Koffice, I would direct you to Linux Forums.

However, to not use up server space repeating those comments in full, I'd say this.

I agree about the uselessness of the "ribbon", it was, when released, touted as being a "universal" menu thing that was not dependent upon "text" so that it could go "worldwide".

Well, that flies in the face of the obvious fact that people use a word processor to process....well.....text.

I think that anyone who looked at it a little more deeply decided that it was just a way to force people to drop older versions of the office suite and purchase newer, more expensive ones.

However, that said:

Koffice, now Calligra, really was, and is, and attempt to really change the working "interface" to make it more "ergonomic".

Yes, one can "move" sections of the LO, formerly OO, upper menu panel to the right but it is just moving a "block of buttons" to the right.

If one actually uses Calligra for a while one notices that the "most often used" functions are on the right, and the less used ones are above, (for most users of course).

Thus, in terms of heavily using the suite, one does not need to physically move the mouse "up and over" on the mousepad to get at a function over and over and over.

(Yes one can also use keystrokes, if one is of a CLI frame of mind.)

But, the over and over and over functions are, mostly, done with a simple "sweep" of the moust to the right.

This reduces writst and elbow fatigue and time spent on task.

B) As to the ODF format in general and using ODF Presentation in a MS environment.

One of the "points" of Linux is to NOT be "Microsoft" or "Apple", that is "proprietary".

But a second point that is overlooked is a very simple one.

If one does not NEED to actually interact with a Microsoft document, then one does not need.... to be able to convert to a MS....format.....

If one merely writes a document to print it, if one merely does e-mail, if one merely does a spreadsheet to print it, then one can use ODF with impunity.

But..... your comment about Impress indicates to me that you need to be able to use the presentations in a MScentric situation, possibly a college.

I am in exactly the same situation.

I teach at college level and use "Presentations" daily.

Three semesters ago Microsith decided to put a "wrapper" on any of it's OWN older .doc and .ppt items that announced that the doc. or .ppt were "damaged" and that MS had very nicely replaced the offending slides with a "blank slide".

However, when one took the .ppt back to the house and ran it on a Vista machine, all the slides were there.

The file size was larger and one can find the added code if one looks at the source of the file.

I indicated such to the IT people at the college and they told me to "get on with the program".

The trick is very simple:

Put the .ppt on a cd and MS will AT FIRST act as if it is a contaminated .ppt and put the "black folder" on it for a second and then will just show the .ppt because it cannot put the "wrapper" on something on a cd.

But, for grins and giggles....

I took the exact same file as an odf presentation, and....as long as there was not an external link to something like a DRM video or something, and as long as there were not certain NEWER forms of animated gifs...

the ODF was shown by MS at the college. !!!! WOW,

I have not extensively tested this but am in the process of so doing.

Now, AGAIN, if you do not need to GIVE the odf presentation to another person so that they can then interact with it using MS products....

you might try it.

However, if you do, indeed, have to let other MS using people work with it then LO is the obvious choice.

woodsmoke

[claydoh]

Do not forget that there are a number of places in the world where the Open Document format is an accepted format, if not the standard, for official documentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_adoption

[Spadge]

Do not forget that there are a number of places in the world where the Open Document format is an accepted format, if not the standard, for official documentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_adoption

I wish we'd do that where I work!

[Loaded4th]

I appreciate your constructive response to the Calligra interface and ODF format. As a power user of word processors, I have little need for many of the so-called "most functions" which could be better served with customizable icon commands (as in versions prior to Word 97) and perhaps placed as a floating toolbar for individual preference. I perceive the notion to ignore existing formats as a block to widespread acceptance, even if newer formats are superior. The "Mac" thought it could be independent and proprietary, and it failed to make a presence in corporations and business. To date, the most common and reliable format across word processing has been RTF, even though it may be shy of certain features, to which many users find this acceptable simply because a lot of word processor usage is elementary. It's unbelievable the number of people who use spaces instead of tabs, or ignore the various forms of indentation and alignment. Perhaps it is because of this that a simple ribbon approach was taken in an effort to improve general layout and formatting. However, for heavy formatting and a power user like myself who likes to control all-point-placement, it's a nightmare. It's hard to satisfy both ends of this spectrum unless it is customizable. This is exactly where new so-called ergonomic features become problematic--it's just not made configurable for easy adoption.

[woodsmoke]

I agree COMPLETELY about RTF.

The college whereat I teach first provided all documents from teacher to student that were in a digital format in BOTH rtf and .doc.

I was rather amazed.

Now, it is assumed that all outgoing documents will be in the .docx format. And all computers are one "semester" behind the latest releases of Windblows.

I, personally, always provided both .doc and .rtf formats for any stuff that I uploaded to Blackboard or sent as e-mail attachement.

But, it is now .docx.

woodsmoke

[NoWorries]

In my retirement world, I get emails with extensions: doc, docx, ppt and pptx. Libreoffice is able to open all of these quite successfully. In my brief test of Caligra I had no such luck.

Today I tested a Libreoffice presentation that I have prepared with imbeded graphics and movies. When I attempted a simple example of this with Caligra it failed! As a consequence of this I removed Caligra.

[vw72]

In my retirement world, I get emails with extensions: doc, docx, ppt and pptx. Libreoffice is able to open all of these quite successfully. In my brief test of Caligra I had no such luck.

Today I tested a Libreoffice presentation that I have prepared with imbeded graphics and movies. When I attempted a simple example of this with Caligra it failed! As a consequence of this I removed Caligra.

I have had almost the exact opposite experience. For the documents I use, Caligra is much better at opening them. However, since I need to save them back to their original format and Caligra won't do this, I use LO.

[woodsmoke]

Well, again, I'll comment that the Raison d'être of Calligra(formerly Koffice) is to promote "open document formats"......

It will never, as far as I have been able to discern, work directly with a proprietary document format unless it so happens that the people who code the proprietary format make their format available to open document encoding.

LibreOffice is the "open source" application which works very assiduously to try to somehow become compatible with various proprietary formats.

The Raison d'être of the two applications are not the same.

And again, if one does not NEED to interact with ANY proprietary format one can use Calligra with no problems.

MAC people were as happy as clams not interacting with MS products for years.

The FIRST reason that I, personaly go to EXTRA STEPS to move a document/ppt from Calligra to LO if I do need to interact with a MS product is very simple.

"Give me Liberty give me death!".

Now, it is not as extreme as that, but I, personally will do something that MS will never even notice to give MYSELF the satisfaction of using something that a "predatory company" does not like.

I have PURCHASED each and every MS product that there is.

I pay for goods that provide something that I need and that provides a profit for the company.

I have ZERO problems with profits.

I have a BIG problem with a company using "surreptitious" and "obvious" ploys in a predatory manner for it's aggrandizement.

woodjustmythoughtssmoke

[vw72]

My comment was only to that Caligra works pretty well in opening Microsoft formats. It intentionally does not write these formats. The developer's idea is that they make Caligra able to read a closed format and then you save it back as an open format which of course M$ can read and write.

I don't mind paying for an office suite. I do mind being forced to continually purchase upgrades because of intentional incompatibility issues introduced with each new version. Even M$ has difficulty opening and saving documents between versions!

I do like the way Caligra works, however, as I stated previously, I have to be able to interchange M$ Office documents and Caligra doesn't let me write them out, so I use LO.

The difference between Caligra and Mac users is that when the Mac first came out, computers were not everywhere and Office didn't dominate the landscape. Office was released first on Apple, if I'm not mistaken, at least the graphical version. However, today, Office is everywhere and to not support it means you cut out a large portion of your potential market. To succeed, today, Caligra needs to do two things. First, it needs to officially support multiple platforms, at least on Linux and Windows. Second, it needs to be able to write M$ Office file formats (or somehow get Window's users to switch to ODF). Writing shouldn't be too difficult as they code is open source in LO. This isn't a technical problem but a philosophical one.