Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LibreOffice Online: A Cloud Version Of LibreOffice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by killyou View Post
    That's a nice feature to have but I think putting more work in desktop version so it could compete with MS Office would make more sense.
    lol, this is not just a "feature" this is one of the better and quickest solution to take marketshare away from MS OFFICE.

    Every traditional LO version has "improved INTEROPERABILITY" with MSFT FORMATS... yet it will NEVER CATCH UP and be 100% compatible (and if for some miracle it happens, MSFT will just break compatibility YET AGAIN).

    this is EXACTLY LIKE WINE...

    So F*ck this rat race!

    The CLOUD changes things.

    G-Docs is more popular than LO, because there's nothing to install, you collab and share stuff with no fuzz, no messy exchange of formats or extensions, installing/ maintaining/ updating software, etc.

    Now g-Docs has limitations, so if LO can become a hybrid online/offline suite (similar to office 365) and gets rid of the mentioned complexities that inhibit instant collaboration / sharing, then it can become that much more appealing.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by curaga View Post
      Except LO is full-featured, all other online "docs" are stripped down in functionality, as well as breaking in various browsers. GTK3 Broadway is fully server-side I understand, which would make it work in all HTML5 browsers unlike Google Docs.
      LibreOffice Online doesn't use or depend on GTK3 Broadway. Only the early prototype used that.

      Comment


      • #13
        So it too will be a JS hack that breaks in browsers the devs did not use? Ouch.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by curaga View Post
          So it too will be a JS hack that breaks in browsers the devs did not use? Ouch.
          Yes, exactly like every other page that uses JS out there.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by quikee View Post
            Yes, exactly like every other page that uses JS out there.
            Nope. There is a great difference between properly made pages, that use 10-20 lines of standard JS for optional features, and a 10+mb monstrosity that doesn't do anything without JS.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Azrael5 View Post
              HTTP/2 makes useless websockets!?
              HTTP2.0 and websockets are somewhat orthogonal in purpose. HTTP2.0 is about efficiently transferring HTTP headers and payload in potentially server-pushes, websockets are about changing from HTTP to a different wire protocol that has very low overhead and can be used to transmit custom payloads. What makes it a hack is it's promoted from HTTP. W3C has been having ideas of true socket connections from JS. This would be the proper replacement for websockets

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                HTTP2.0 and websockets are somewhat orthogonal in purpose. HTTP2.0 is about efficiently transferring HTTP headers and payload in potentially server-pushes, websockets are about changing from HTTP to a different wire protocol that has very low overhead and can be used to transmit custom payloads. What makes it a hack is it's promoted from HTTP. W3C has been having ideas of true socket connections from JS. This would be the proper replacement for websockets
                Thanks for reply, so both can be enabled?

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Azrael5 View Post
                  Thanks for reply, so both can be enabled?
                  I would expect so though I don't have hard evidence at hand. Websocket connection will most likely consume the HTTP2.0 connection though

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                    I would expect so though I don't have hard evidence at hand. Websocket connection will most likely consume the HTTP2.0 connection though
                    I ask because I thought websocket works specifically on HTTP 1.1 so I would avoid interference or conflicts between http/2 and other standards eventually.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Azrael5 View Post
                      I ask because I thought websocket works specifically on HTTP 1.1 so I would avoid interference or conflicts between http/2 and other standards eventually.
                      Either way I expect eventually you can just spawn a normal socket connection from JS for two-way low-overhead data transfer. All HTTP versions are pretty silly for this and at worst leads to people using even outside browsers the ugly hack of websockets where HTTP could have more easily been avoided

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X