3 ms·

I remember how promising AbiWord (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiWord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiWord) and GNUmeric (http://www.gnumeric.org/ http://www

I remember how promising AbiWord (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiWord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiWord) and GNUmeric (http://www.gnumeric.org/ http://www.gnumeric.org/) were 20 years ago when I first started using Linux and FreeBSD. Back in 2004, OpenOffice was slow on my hand-me-down PC running a 475MHz AMD K6-2 processor and with only 64MB RAM, but AbiWord ran well; it was a nice, lightweight word processor that was decently compatible with Microsoft Word for my needs as a high school student who needed to turn in essays and other reports. I've never tried GNUmeric, but I remember people singing its praises back in 2004. I haven't heard anything about AbiWord and GNUmeric in recent years, though. I haven't kept up with them since my college days.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
It is sad to see these projects disappear in obscurity. But what other outcome is even possible? It is incredibly expensive to build such complex software. these projects do not have an adequate amount of funding. There’s just no way random developers can devote years of their life to something like this and not earn a living. Even if they did, it would take at least 1000 of them for each of these products to rival commercial ones.
- linguae 2y ago
  This is one of the reasons why I'm curious about Alan Kay's STEPS project, which attempted to build an entire desktop environment in just 20,000 lines of code via the use of bespoke domain-specific languages (https://tinlizzie.org/VPRIPapers/tr2012001_steps.pdf https://tinlizzie.org/VPRIPapers/tr2012001_steps.pdf). Building feature-rich software applications using conventional technologies is very labor-intensive, but one of the things I'm curious about is whether the combination of DSLs to define subsystems and the promotion of component-based software (a la Apple's OpenDoc strategy from the mid-1990s before Steve Jobs' return; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFJdjk2rq4E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFJdjk2rq4E for a very 1990s video) could reduce the cost of writing software that meets modern expectations regarding functionality.
  - pastage 2y ago
    It seems to me the STEPS project is vaporware there is no code. It would be interesting to see basic code for how to handle small custom GUI changes in widgets that have been the same for 40 years e.g. calendar picker and file chooser.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

It is sad to see these projects disappear in obscurity. But what other outcome is even possible? It is incredibly expensive to build such complex software. these projects do not have an adequate amount of funding. There’s just no way random developers can devote years of their life to something like this and not earn a living. Even if they did, it would take at least 1000 of them for each of these products to rival commercial ones.

linguae 2y ago
This is one of the reasons why I'm curious about Alan Kay's STEPS project, which attempted to build an entire desktop environment in just 20,000 lines of code via the use of bespoke domain-specific languages (https://tinlizzie.org/VPRIPapers/tr2012001_steps.pdf https://tinlizzie.org/VPRIPapers/tr2012001_steps.pdf). Building feature-rich software applications using conventional technologies is very labor-intensive, but one of the things I'm curious about is whether the combination of DSLs to define subsystems and the promotion of component-based software (a la Apple's OpenDoc strategy from the mid-1990s before Steve Jobs' return; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFJdjk2rq4E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFJdjk2rq4E for a very 1990s video) could reduce the cost of writing software that meets modern expectations regarding functionality.
- pastage 2y ago
  It seems to me the STEPS project is vaporware there is no code. It would be interesting to see basic code for how to handle small custom GUI changes in widgets that have been the same for 40 years e.g. calendar picker and file chooser.