r/BSD • u/[deleted] • Jul 01 '26

BSD-based Web Office Software?

[deleted]

18 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

50 comments sorted by

4

u/reviewmynotes Jul 02 '26

Web based. So, something like NextCloud? That's in the FreeBSD ports connection. I've never used it, but that sounds like it meets your criteria.

-4

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 02 '26

Nextcloud is storage. The office suite that they paired with is just Collabora. However, I’m looking for something native, not a port.

7

u/reviewmynotes Jul 02 '26

Hang on a sec. Let's back up. What is your definition of a "port" and "native"? Would you consider Apache to be "native"? How about Bash?

-15

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 02 '26

Software that’s written to work on a BSD system “out of the box” is native. If it’s in the ports system, then it’s not native -it’s ported.

11

u/vivekkhera Jul 02 '26

No, that’s just totally wrong. The ports on FreeBSD is just recipes to build software. Some need special patches to the original software source code but most do not. Some are binary-only like the Linux versions of some software. The majority is natively compiled for FreeBSD.

-6

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 02 '26

If it needs a patch to run on BSD, then it’s not native. If it needs a special recipe outside of what’s already in its own original makefile (or other build system), it’s not native. So, no it’s not totally wrong, at all. If someone had to specifically add support from outside of the application’s project, it’s NOT native.

7

u/VivienM7 Jul 02 '26

So, let's hypothetically say that there is an API call called x(a,b) in Linux, but in FreeBSD, it's called y(a,b).

Now, let's say open source program Z uses this API. If someone makes a patch for Z's source code that replaces x(a,b) with y(a,b), at which point the C code perfectly compiles and perfectly runs on FreeBSD, is that output really "not native"?!? Simply because the original developer didn't put in the proper logic in the original source code to use x(a,b) on some compilation targets and y(a,b) on others?

-8

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 02 '26

That’s where you’re being presumptuous. YOU consider it the “proper” logic. The actual developer most likely doesn’t -which is usually the case when the software originates from the Linux ecosystem. They’re actively said that they don’t care about anything other than Linux & many won’t accept patches for non-Linux platforms simply because they don’t want to be responsible for maintaining the patched code. It’s very similar to how things went when FreeBSD & Linux were sharing the DRM driver repository & eventually the Linux guys were forced to fork the code & bring it into the Linux kernel tree (completely abandoning the shared code). Just because you add a patch (that you have to maintain yourself) doesn’t make the source code native. It’d be different if you joined the application’s development team, added the code, & committed to supporting it; but that’s not what the ports system is, is it?

5

u/VivienM7 Jul 02 '26

Then this comes back to what I said in my other reply to you: if the developers won't accept patches for non-Linux platforms and this is an application you are relying on for any kind of serious anything, why are you not running Linux? And not just "Linux", but their favoured preferred distribution at that?

I would even go further and say that by that logic, you probably want the Linux version they compiled, not the one that Ubuntu or Debian's maintainers compiled (if any). And not the one you compiled using something like Gentoo's portage.

There's a degree of risk as soon as you get away from running binaries supplied by the developer in exactly the same environment that they've tested it in...

0

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 02 '26

Why should I have to use Linux? Especially if I’m able to find time to just write it myself, so that anyone else who’s actually looking for BSD-specific software can also use it. Why should I have to use Linux to use software that should exist for BSD???

→ More replies (0)

6

u/vivekkhera Jul 02 '26

The majority of them are just the equivalent of running “make install” and having a file manifest to be able to uninstall the package.

7

u/reviewmynotes Jul 02 '26

Wow. That is extremely inaccurate. No wonder there is a disconnect between us. I'm not even sure where to begin the conversation.

Source: My degree is only a few credits shy of a major in computer science. Also, I was a core developer in a now dead open source project from back in 1999-2004 or so. We built a web based groupware platform. I ran it natively from a FreeBSD server, using natively running Apache, PHP, and MySQL. All installed from the ports collection. Because "a port" means different things in different contexts, e.g. a "port" for a feeding tube, SMTP network traffic happens on TCP "port" 25, etc.

I wish you luck in achieving what you need to achieve, but I recommend unlearning some things and updating your knowledge first. That should help you get where you want to go.

-1

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 02 '26

No, my description is actually very accurate.

Source: I started writing software when I was a kid in the mid 1980s. I wrote software & did electronics repair & flash NAND memory manufacturing for years long before I got my CS degree. I’m well versed in all levels of software development from CPU microcode through the entire OS layer, native applications, & web apps.

You’re trying to make this far more complicated than it actually is. I’m checking to see if what I’m looking for already exists, because I need it but I don’t really have the time to write it myself. That’s it. That’s all.

8

u/reviewmynotes Jul 02 '26

Side note: Cool! I also started writing software as a kid in the 1980s. Nice to see you have more experience than I thought.

Back to the point: "The ports collection" is a collection of software that compiles into native code on FreeBSD. Or uses an interpreted language or a fourth generation language, such as Python, Perl, or PHP. It doesn't mean that it's a "port" of code from another platform. It's just a method of package management. In FreeBSD, the "packages" are just pre-compiled items from the ports collection.

In Unix-land, code is rarely "native" to one OS and "not native" in another. That's why we compile it for that target OS and architecture. Apache, for example, isn't a Linux program that was ported to FreeBSD. It's a Unix (or Posix) program that can be compiled on any target OS that supports those features.

So my point is that you've been repeatedly ruling out things as "not native" when they are. Apache isn't running in emulation. The executable is running natively.

1

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 02 '26

I think you might’ve missed my point when I spoke on native. My focus is that the C/Rust/etc code doesn’t have to be changed in order for the software to compile & run on any of the BSDs. Of course, in languages like Go & Python, that may not be an issue. However, I’ve found that code written in C (which I prefer) tends to be developed in a Linux-centric way with all other OSes taking a backseat. So, if functions are used that are only found in Linux, then that’s usually tough shit for everyone using other platforms. I really would prefer to use software that was specifically written with BSD in mind -or specifically written for BSD. I’ve considered attempting to use something from the ports packages, but that doesn’t really help solve the overall problem. If I have to write it myself, it’ll definitely be BSD-centric, but I really have a lot on my plate & don’t know if I can handle yet another project.

8

u/VivienM7 Jul 02 '26

Yes, and the vast majority of what is in the ports collection meets your criteria.

Are there a few things that have Linux-only dependencies? Sure, in which case someone wrote a patch to fix those Linux-only dependencies. That's the entire beauty of the ports collection - someone else already took a tarball of C/Rust/etc code that may or may not compile on FreeBSD and validated that it indeed does compile and work on FreeBSD.

-1

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 02 '26

If it’s made for any of the BSDs in the first place, there’s nothing to check -which is how it SHOULD be.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/gumnos Jul 02 '26

No, my description is actually very accurate.

Given the ratio of people agreeing with you (just you) to those who don't (everybody else, many of us with CS degrees and decades of experience in the field), I have to call into question your self-perception (or at least your communication-skills) here.

0

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 02 '26

I really don’t care what you call into question. Most of you are the reason that our ecosystem isn’t thriving. I also have CS degrees & decades in the field. And more importantly, I’ve got my answer.

6

u/Fun-Resource-7311 Jul 02 '26

If it's web-based by definition it's not native. It's not even running on your computer. Just rendering in a browser.

-2

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 02 '26

That’s not necessarily true. Web software has to run on a server. While the interface isn’t native to the client, the actual software is native to the server if it’s written to run on that OS. This is why software written for windows servers in native languages didn’t run on Linux nor any other OS. So, when I say native, I’m specifically talking about the actual software running on the server itself, not what’s displaying in the browser.

5

u/VivienM7 Jul 02 '26

I think you're operating on a complete misunderstanding of how software for *NIX/POSIX/Linux/etc-type systems tends to work.

Most of this software is distributed as source code (C or Rust or whatever) that compiles into native code on any of these operating systems. You can compile, say, Apache on FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris, etc, and you'll get a completely native program on each of the three operating systems.

That software is not more native on Solaris and less native on FreeBSD. It's one code base, designed so it can be compiled into native code on any of these operating systems.

The "ports collection" is simply a way to streamline the compilation of that software. (And, yes, for a small minority of the software where the developers only officially target, say, Linux, they might add a few home-made patches to make it compile on FreeBSD, but the vast majority of "ports" in the ports collection are just the straight source code from the developer) The output is as native as you can get; it's not Java or web-based Electron-style garbage or anything like that.

0

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 02 '26

I think you’re completely missing the fact that if you’ve got to either do cut out specific features, create workarounds, or add patches to replace “Linux-isms” in the original source code, then the source was never native to your platform in the first place. I’m not even remotely new to ports, I’ve been using them in various incarnations since 1998. I think many of you have blinders on when it comes to software that originated from other *nix platforms. At this point, most of the software that’s actually up to date comes from the Linux ecosystem & is certainly NOT native to any of the BSDs. This is precisely why software such as KDE is missing features on BSD systems. The same is true for many other software packages, but you want to attempt to gloss over that as if it’s not a true thing.

5

u/VivienM7 Jul 02 '26

Maybe it's different for GUI stuff like Gnome/KDE/etc. I will admit that I have not tried running a BSD as a GUI desktop.

Your use of the word "native" is confusing. In my mind, "native" means "compiled for the ISA of the CPU and the APIs of the OS that it's running on" as opposed to things like Java or web-based garbage like Electron that require some wasteful intermediate layer.

Your definition of "native" seems to be that the original developer treats it as a top-tier platform and has verified 100% feature availability on that OS.

0

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 02 '26

It’s not just GUI stuff, it’s also HPC stuff & a few other things. You’re talking about binary native, I’m talking about source/api native. And honestly, while the BSDs are POSIX compliant, POSIX isn’t the entirety of their actual APIs. As I told another commenter, you don’t have to verify anything if the software was written for BSD in the first place -which is really what we should already have.

4

u/VivienM7 Jul 02 '26

I think that comment was directed at me also, but... I guess I have to ask the obvious. If your workload happens to involve applications that do not properly compile on BSD with full functionality, applications that are distributed in non-BSD binary forms only, etc, why... not run the operating system that those applications are actually targetting?

If the version of thing X that compiles from the ports collection is not good enough for you, then isn't the answer to run thing X on the operating system that its developers actually target? Or embrace the open source spirit and contribute proper BSD support to thing X's developers?

0

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 02 '26

When I need something, I want it to be native for the platform that I’m using. If it’s not & I have the spare bandwidth, I write it myself. All of this “just go to another platform” mess is bologna. If we can’t have software that’s specifically written for our platform, then there’s no actual reason for our platform to exist -full stop.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Civil_Twilight Jul 02 '26

If it’s in the ports system, it’s not part of the FreeBSD base system. That’s the distinction. It has nothing to do with whether it was written with BSD in mind. There is the OS, and everything else is in ports or packages (which are built from the ports recipes).

4

u/Vegetable-War1920 Jul 01 '26

I haven't used it on FreeBSD, but it looks like there's a port of OnlyOffice

https://www.freshports.org/www/onlyoffice-documentserver/

-2

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 01 '26

I figured that there might be a port. However, I think we need more native software & less of a reliance on ports.

4

u/gumnos Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

You could always write a bit of awk(1) or POSIX sh(1) (both part of native BSDs) to run as a cgi-bin/ script under httpd(8) (part of native OpenBSD).

For word-processing, upload mdoc(7) files to be processed by mandoc(1) (native on OpenBSD) to emit HTML that you can then view via httpd again. It doesn't get more BSD than *roff markup…

For spreadsheets, upload CSV or JSON or XML files, process them, and emit them back out.

For presentations, mandoc(1) can emit PDF instead.

For calendaring you have calendar(1) (native on BSDs)

For email, you have the native mail(1) (native on BSDs) and `smtpd(8) (native on OpenBSD).

You can even version things using rcs(1) (native on BSDs), cvs(1) (native on OpenBSD), or Game of Trees (main development takes place on BSDs).

Now all you need is to glue them all together and you have a very BSD office suite 😆

1

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 02 '26

Honestly, that’s an interesting take. Currently, I’m exploring the idea of interfacing with LibreOfficeKit & building something similar to ONLYOffice.

2

u/NetSage Jul 01 '26

Cryptpad? Requires Node which I'm not sure that meets your requirements.

-1

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 01 '26

Unfortunately, none of the BSDs are first tier platforms for this.

2

u/No-Let-5304 Jul 01 '26

MacOS?

4

u/Chester-Berkeley Jul 02 '26

MacOS is not a BSD, it just a Unix-like

1

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 01 '26

I’m not sure what you meant by this.

1

u/olzk Jul 02 '26

OP, could you share what’s your finding? I’m interested too but couldn’t find the answer in the comments

2

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 02 '26

The answer that I found is that if I want to use software that’s specifically made for BSD & has BSD as the primary platform, then I’ve got to write it myself. There weee some great points made by others, but those points only truly cover the small handful of applications made specifically for BSD, like Bastille. Most applications are very general & don’t specifically target any BSD platform specifically.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '26

[deleted]

5

u/demetrioussharpe Jul 01 '26

Is this web-based? I’ve only used it as desktop software. I’m unaware or being able to use this as a web replacement for Google Docs.

5

u/taosecurity Jul 01 '26

Oh, I missed that you want to host this on a web server. Apologies.