Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Calligra 2.6 Released

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,693

    Default Calligra 2.6 Released

    Phoronix: Calligra 2.6 Released

    Version 2.6 of the KDE-focused Calligra office suite was released today...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI5NDA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    after some of the other forum members suggested libreoffice was crap and calligra was so superior, I figured I'd give it a shot, especially considering I'm a KDE user so I wouldn't have too many dependencies. All i have to say is for a 20 year old project, I'm not impressed. calligra shines in some aspects that libreoffice doesn't, but calligra is heavily outnumbered by libreoffice's benefits. What I would have to say though is whatever LO doesn't do, calligra might make up for it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Krita is a great painting program! Can't wait till Arch gets 2.6 so I can play with all the improvements

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    after some of the other forum members suggested libreoffice was crap and calligra was so superior, I figured I'd give it a shot, especially considering I'm a KDE user so I wouldn't have too many dependencies. All i have to say is for a 20 year old project, I'm not impressed. calligra shines in some aspects that libreoffice doesn't, but calligra is heavily outnumbered by libreoffice's benefits. What I would have to say though is whatever LO doesn't do, calligra might make up for it.
    Well from an architectural and development perspective Calligra is superior, however it is indeed lacking parity in terms of features at this point in time. Over the long term though it'll likely catch up and surpass Libreoffice, unless LibreOffice really takes the time to clean up and restructure their code. I'd even go so far to say that LibreOffice would need to switch over from the document model to a frame based model to really succeed long term over Calligra as that sets up a lot less code maintenance and development over time.
    Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 02-06-2013 at 02:26 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    221

    Default two points on my wishlist

    There are two things that I feel are needed in order to be able to use Calligra instead of LO:

    - ability to save in legacy (.doc, .docx) formats (+ improve LO .odt compatibility, especially presentations can look very different)
    - ability to use a reference manager like Zotero

    Otherwise I really like it, but out of laziness I will stay on LO for now and keep Calligra in the background...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    154

    Default

    WRONG : .mobi isn't yet supported, that will come with 2.6.1

    -improve LO .odt compatibility, especially presentations can look very different
    Wrong wording IMO: under no circumstances should they strive for supporting a specific implementation, if that implementation is broken; LO should be fixed. (I don't know if that's the case).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    141

    Default

    I tried to use it several times, when I felt like "give it a chance". Words for writing a simple text document. It just crashed - when writing simple plain unformatted text (as you do with text editors).
    The other time I used sheets. Filling in some cells + sum up values. I don't know what I did wrong, but from a certain point the document took about 1 minute to load or to save. Loading this document once in libreoffice took the same time, but after that it was fixed even in calligra (instant loading/saving).
    There are some really bad crashers/bugs when addind a spreadsheet shape (all reported, not yet fixed in git master...).

    This was with calligra-2.5.2+2.5.3, so no "ancient" versions... (wasn't 2.5 when they claimed calligra - at least some parts - finally was ready for productive use?)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Serafean View Post
    WRONG : .mobi isn't yet supported, that will come with 2.6.1


    Wrong wording IMO: under no circumstances should they strive for supporting a specific implementation, if that implementation is broken; LO should be fixed. (I don't know if that's the case).
    I think I'm seen some blog when a calligra developer wrote aboute LO don't always follow the specifications. I got the impression he hoped the LO/OO split should enforce this in long term.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    527

    Default

    ePub 3.x is the target they should have shot for and not 2.x.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
    ePub 3.x is the target they should have shot for and not 2.x.
    The target was to get started and fully support a version. As eBub 3 seems to introduce quite some complicated stuff they sticked to 2.x FOR THE BEGINNING! As I understood 3.x is definitely planned for the future.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •