Slashdot Mirror

The pages about some topics of nuclear physics were removed from the university textbooks. In some cases the textbooks were collected and destroyed. Knowledge do can be a dangerous thing.
Knowledge isn't necessarily dangerous in and of itself. What you do with said knowledge is more important. Yeah, yeah: "Guns don't kill people rappers do" etc. but are you really trying to make an analogy between censorship and copyright infringement prevention? Regardless of one's views on the censorship you mention (without references BTW) I'm not aware of anyone suggesting U2's music is a threat under anti-terrorism laws?

Now after some secret international consultations the Open Source is about to go this way. MySQL was already bought first by "Sun", then by "Oracle". PHP will be bought before long by "IBM".
And yet MySQL remains free. I have access to the source code and can continue to deploy it as part of free software projects. Sun bought StarOffice and turned it into one of the largest open source projects. IBM is a huge proponent and supporter of free and open source software. What exactly is the concern here?

Network computing will be available only to selected ones, who have an access to the proprietary IDE, like Visual Studio, etc.
Cobblers. Network computing has nothing to do with an IDE. Even if you are referring to some kind of networked development, it's doubtful that the IDE will play a big part. IDEs are generally related to language and OS. Development environment is pretty much irrelevant.

More about these international consultations from this podcast http://feeds.tvo.org/tvo/searchengine from Canada.
Thanks but given the lack of informed view in the rest of your post - I'll pass.

Actually the new World Order is in the making.
Ooh that's a short step from Godwin's Law isn't it?

Often times, for CSV data, it's best to throw up your hands and use a text editor because spreadsheet apps all try to be 'too smart' about the task.

Or you should comment on this bug, which requests that Calc auto-format as per the format which it is recognizing:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=108014

Now, the last field there is an ID number. The zeroes are significant. All of the above spreadsheets will import that as a number and drop the leading zeroes.

You should comment on this bug, which requests just that:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=108014

But the first time someone opens a document that looks wrong, or the first time someone sends a document that nobody else can open, will be the last time they use OO.o

Would you like me to send you a DOCX document? ;-)
I think after the third time my dad phoned me and said other people were having trouble opening his documents he installed OO.o. (He's retired, but does some charity work -- which means people opening the documents have a huge range of old to new software, and often very little technical ability.)

Plus, when things go really wrong you can always call Microsoft and complain... Pay for some technical support or something... Does OO.o offer support contracts?

Paid OO.o support (e.g. from Sun)

Hum, I work in a very large corporation and we use OSS for many tasks and business operations.

Accounting can be done with GnuCash www.gnucash.org

Business forms through OpenOffice. OpenOffice.org

OOo templates from http://templates.services.openoffice.org/

Depending on the type of business model, you may want to look at mind mapping software and planning software.

I use Linux at home and work.

Some Linux based software has been cross compiled for Windows if you are so inclined.

when I ran a business in 1995 to 1997 and 1999 to 2000, I could have used free and open source business documents and software.

Every job I had a manager would say "you nerds don't understand business" when we wrote programs for them, as to calling us programmers as nerds. I went for computer science and information systems college courses and then later went for business management and e-commerce courses so I could learn how to make those documents, do accounting and finances, etc.

I at one time worked for lawyers and wrote a program that filled out legal documents like you describe from their templates. I never kept any of their files nor templates and I wouldn't do things as they did.

But I do have an interest in developing open source business applications and automatically filling out forms via office templates and documents, but I would use OpenOffice.Org as well as MS-Office templates and documents.

Here is the OpenOffice.Org Templates website and I am sure you can search for some of them. OpenOfficeUSA.COM has more of them here and you can Google for "Legal Templates" or "Open Source Legal Documents" and see what comes up by varying your terms to narrow it down.

Yes there is Open Source tax Software and A Classic Slashdot story on Open Source tax software in case you missed it.

Open Office available at openoffice.org is a great open source suite of tools for professionals in any and all-fields. They have a number of business and other templates available on their website...

But as long as OO.o is completely crippled unless you drag Java,

"Java is required for complete OpenOffice.org functionality. Java is mainly required to use the new embedded Java technology based HSQLDB database engine, or to make use of accessibility and assistive technologies. If you do not require database tables or accessibility integration or some wizards, then you do not need to download and install Java.".

I.e. OO Writer, Spreadsheet and Presentation do not need Java.

This is from the OpenOffice wiki at http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Java_and_OpenOffice.org

So (given that hardly anyone uses the OO database) 99% of OO users don't need Java and it will run just fine without it.

"Completely crippled"? I don't think so.

Sorry to reply to myself, but how exactly is this a troll? If i wanted to troll I would say that Open Office is am pitiful wannabe office suite, or it is a POS. I simply pointed out that it isn't the right tool if you are gonna have to be dealing with businesses, which are 99.999% using MS Office.

If you would like a source here you go, and this is just one of thousands found under "Open Office MS Office formatting error" on Google. You know, zealotry really doesn't help anyone. pretending that Open Office doesn't have any problems when dealing with large complex .doc files just runs new users off when they get told by someone in HR that their .doc is a mangled mess. And a PHB doesn't give a damn about 'free as in freedom' or FLOSS ideals. As far as he/she is concerned their stuff works, yours don't.

And in this dead economy the last thing folks need is to have their resume shitcanned because they made it in OO.o and it looks like shit when opened in MS Office. I know I shouldn't give a shit but between the fanboy wank offs and the broken mod system the shit is getting pretty thick around here. There was a time when Slashdot was THE place for tech guys to come and share ideas. Now it is becoming just another Digg style circle jerk, where your answer had better be "Boy isn't product x great? Gee, it sure is!" or everything you say gets buried. And that is just sad.

I agree that a gradual approach is probably the best. I was lucky enough to be brought on board as IT manager (for a small accounting firm) just when the company was expanding and purchasing a lot of new hardware. From the beginning I advocated using as much FOSS as possible. Management, who had never heard of the concept, was excited that they could get legit, good quality software at no cost. There was a bit of grumbling in the beginning about some of the FOSS since there was a learning curve for some. Once people got used to it, though, it became a non-issue. For any non-open-source software that was free (as in beer) I made doubly sure that commercial use was permitted under the free license, otherwise it was gone. I was also fortunate in that the most critical software for the firm was already SaaS, and there was no need to change there.

As we upgraded the existing hardware, any questionable software on the old hardware has been removed and replaced with FOSS, or software that was definitely properly licensed. Now nearly everyone is now using OpenOffice.org, although we do have a couple of machines with legit Microsoft Office licenses (necessary, for example, when we have a spreadsheet that requires macros to work right. Also, the boss wanted to keep Outlook because of some issues with scheduling meetings with clients in Thunderbird+Lighting). In cases where no good FOSS alternative was available, we purchased (legit, unused) licenses from ebay or elsewhere, and documented this fully in case of any audits down the road. (If a license sounded like it MIGHT not be legit we stayed away. We looked for original disks, packaging and manuals before buying.)

The most important step, I believe, was to get management interested in the idea of FOSS early on as an alternative to more expensive options. I also gently warned them about the potential for software "not working right" if it was not properly licensed (because of lack of updates or activation issues). I never had to mention the BSA at all to convince management that adopting FOSS was a smart move.

• By phone: 1-888-NOPIRACY
• Online: Business Software Alliance reporting form
• For management: What to do when you receive a BSA audit letter.
• Download OpenOffice
• Download Linux (Debian)

This should give some insight into the problems with Linux and how it could be addressed: for all it's strengths, it's not something people want. They want Windows, despite it's weaknesses. Make Linux wantable, watch market share change dramatically.

The problem with Linux's market share is that few PCs sold in stores come with Linux installed. And not many people have heard of Linux. Sure geeks and hackers on Slashdot have but they are not the typical computer user. Also most people do not necessarily want Window but think they need it. Talking with others about computers I've heard a lot of complaints about their PCs, and almost every tyme the problem is Windows. When I ask them if they thought of trying Linux or a Mac I'm asked if they can run MS Office, they say they have to have Office. When asked why they can not give an example of what only Office can do except Office macros, while Open Office can use Excel macros macros for Word have to be rewritten. There is also WordPerfect Office, Lotus SmartSuite, and other office suites.

Simply many people have the perception they need Windows because they need MS Office.

Make Linux wantable, watch market share change dramatically.

Fact is is no one knows what Linux's market share is. Estimates are Linux has a market share in the single digits on desktops with Linux, and Apache, having large shares of servers. Even with internal servers though it's hard to know how many MS Windows servers there are because IT departments of businesses and other users of servers switch from Windows and IIS to Linux and Apache without telling others. There have been articles linked to on Slashdot about how the London and New York Stock Exchanges have moved from MS Windows and .net to Linux and other open source platforms. The London Stock Exchange not only switched to Linux but actually bought the company that developed the trading system the exchange will use.

Falcon

If you have access to the source, you can always compile a version for your platform.

. Yes ... you can.

Let's use OpenOffice.org as an example, if for no other reason than I was looking into building it optimized specifically for my computer (Windows).

Step 1) Getting the source

The source tarballs linked here contain a snapshot from SVN:
core source package
system source package
binfilter source package
l10n source package
extensions source package
testautomation source package

Okay, I probably don't need testautomation. Might be able to do without extensions. Wtf is l10n ? Okay, I probably don't need that either. Unless it can't build without it - after all, English is technically a localisation.

Screw it - I'll get them all.

2) Compile the damn thing
Build instructions. Gotcha, I'm on Windows, I have Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Express Compiler (well better). Instructions:

This page is moved into the Building Guide. Please make sure to add new information there and make this page a redirect if it only contains duplicate information.

Well, at least the build instructions are completely updated and the wiki-editors have made sure that all the pages are up to date. I mean, it's not like that particular page has remained unchanged for a full quarter of a year.

Anyway, onwards and upwards. Build guide for Windows. Software requirements:

Cygwin, C/C++ Compiler (VC++ 2008 Express), Windows SDK Server 2008, GDI+ Redistributrable, unicows.dll from Microsoft Layer for Unicode, dbghelp.dll, instsmiw.exe and instmsia.exe, various extra dll files, Apache Ant, Mozilla binary distribution, and yet more dll files.

Now, once you have Cygwin installed, you need to configure that properly. Breaking links to executables, ensuring filemode is unix, installing yet more perl modules and possibly fixing a few issues you might come across.

So, yeah, sure, you could build it yourself, if you have the source. And it comes with build instructions for your platform. And you know what you're doing. Good luck getting Joe Sixpack to compile OpenOffice.org from scratch.

Now, I'm sure some people will argue, that OpenOffice.org isn't free in the proper sense, but it's licensed under LGPL v3.

No, my example wasn't a Linux one. Who cares. The main point is that it's not just that easy to build from source. Especially if you're talking about products, that didn't have that platform as its first intended target.

Besides, what is so horrible about having fat binaries on Linux? Wouldn't it be kinda cool, if you could simply pop your installation dvd of RAGE and support for a Linux installation out of the box, instead of requiring you to buy the game and then download the installer from their website? Or having to hunt down a limited Linux edition somewhere?

Or are you sure a frothing at the mouth fanatic, that the very idea of having ANY kind of proprietary software taint your harddrive makes you go into anaphylactic shock? If you are, you need to go find your epinephrine pen, because the hardware platform you're using is very likely to be closed off for mere mortals by the sheer number of patents covering it.

Some of us would like to use our computers as tools. If

If you have access to the source, you can always compile a version for your platform.

. Yes ... you can.

Let's use OpenOffice.org as an example, if for no other reason than I was looking into building it optimized specifically for my computer (Windows).

Step 1) Getting the source

The source tarballs linked here contain a snapshot from SVN:
core source package
system source package
binfilter source package
l10n source package
extensions source package
testautomation source package

Okay, I probably don't need testautomation. Might be able to do without extensions. Wtf is l10n ? Okay, I probably don't need that either. Unless it can't build without it - after all, English is technically a localisation.

Screw it - I'll get them all.

2) Compile the damn thing
Build instructions. Gotcha, I'm on Windows, I have Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Express Compiler (well better). Instructions:

This page is moved into the Building Guide. Please make sure to add new information there and make this page a redirect if it only contains duplicate information.

Well, at least the build instructions are completely updated and the wiki-editors have made sure that all the pages are up to date. I mean, it's not like that particular page has remained unchanged for a full quarter of a year.

Anyway, onwards and upwards. Build guide for Windows. Software requirements:

Cygwin, C/C++ Compiler (VC++ 2008 Express), Windows SDK Server 2008, GDI+ Redistributrable, unicows.dll from Microsoft Layer for Unicode, dbghelp.dll, instsmiw.exe and instmsia.exe, various extra dll files, Apache Ant, Mozilla binary distribution, and yet more dll files.

Now, once you have Cygwin installed, you need to configure that properly. Breaking links to executables, ensuring filemode is unix, installing yet more perl modules and possibly fixing a few issues you might come across.

So, yeah, sure, you could build it yourself, if you have the source. And it comes with build instructions for your platform. And you know what you're doing. Good luck getting Joe Sixpack to compile OpenOffice.org from scratch.

Now, I'm sure some people will argue, that OpenOffice.org isn't free in the proper sense, but it's licensed under LGPL v3.

No, my example wasn't a Linux one. Who cares. The main point is that it's not just that easy to build from source. Especially if you're talking about products, that didn't have that platform as its first intended target.

Besides, what is so horrible about having fat binaries on Linux? Wouldn't it be kinda cool, if you could simply pop your installation dvd of RAGE and support for a Linux installation out of the box, instead of requiring you to buy the game and then download the installer from their website? Or having to hunt down a limited Linux edition somewhere?

Or are you sure a frothing at the mouth fanatic, that the very idea of having ANY kind of proprietary software taint your harddrive makes you go into anaphylactic shock? If you are, you need to go find your epinephrine pen, because the hardware platform you're using is very likely to be closed off for mere mortals by the sheer number of patents covering it.

Some of us would like to use our computers as tools. If

If you have access to the source, you can always compile a version for your platform.

. Yes ... you can.

Let's use OpenOffice.org as an example, if for no other reason than I was looking into building it optimized specifically for my computer (Windows).

Step 1) Getting the source

The source tarballs linked here contain a snapshot from SVN:
core source package
system source package
binfilter source package
l10n source package
extensions source package
testautomation source package

Okay, I probably don't need testautomation. Might be able to do without extensions. Wtf is l10n ? Okay, I probably don't need that either. Unless it can't build without it - after all, English is technically a localisation.

Screw it - I'll get them all.

2) Compile the damn thing
Build instructions. Gotcha, I'm on Windows, I have Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Express Compiler (well better). Instructions:

This page is moved into the Building Guide. Please make sure to add new information there and make this page a redirect if it only contains duplicate information.

Well, at least the build instructions are completely updated and the wiki-editors have made sure that all the pages are up to date. I mean, it's not like that particular page has remained unchanged for a full quarter of a year.

Anyway, onwards and upwards. Build guide for Windows. Software requirements:

Cygwin, C/C++ Compiler (VC++ 2008 Express), Windows SDK Server 2008, GDI+ Redistributrable, unicows.dll from Microsoft Layer for Unicode, dbghelp.dll, instsmiw.exe and instmsia.exe, various extra dll files, Apache Ant, Mozilla binary distribution, and yet more dll files.

Now, once you have Cygwin installed, you need to configure that properly. Breaking links to executables, ensuring filemode is unix, installing yet more perl modules and possibly fixing a few issues you might come across.

So, yeah, sure, you could build it yourself, if you have the source. And it comes with build instructions for your platform. And you know what you're doing. Good luck getting Joe Sixpack to compile OpenOffice.org from scratch.

Now, I'm sure some people will argue, that OpenOffice.org isn't free in the proper sense, but it's licensed under LGPL v3.

No, my example wasn't a Linux one. Who cares. The main point is that it's not just that easy to build from source. Especially if you're talking about products, that didn't have that platform as its first intended target.

Besides, what is so horrible about having fat binaries on Linux? Wouldn't it be kinda cool, if you could simply pop your installation dvd of RAGE and support for a Linux installation out of the box, instead of requiring you to buy the game and then download the installer from their website? Or having to hunt down a limited Linux edition somewhere?

Or are you sure a frothing at the mouth fanatic, that the very idea of having ANY kind of proprietary software taint your harddrive makes you go into anaphylactic shock? If you are, you need to go find your epinephrine pen, because the hardware platform you're using is very likely to be closed off for mere mortals by the sheer number of patents covering it.

Some of us would like to use our computers as tools. If

If you have access to the source, you can always compile a version for your platform.

. Yes ... you can.

Let's use OpenOffice.org as an example, if for no other reason than I was looking into building it optimized specifically for my computer (Windows).

Step 1) Getting the source

The source tarballs linked here contain a snapshot from SVN:
core source package
system source package
binfilter source package
l10n source package
extensions source package
testautomation source package

Okay, I probably don't need testautomation. Might be able to do without extensions. Wtf is l10n ? Okay, I probably don't need that either. Unless it can't build without it - after all, English is technically a localisation.

Screw it - I'll get them all.

2) Compile the damn thing
Build instructions. Gotcha, I'm on Windows, I have Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Express Compiler (well better). Instructions:

This page is moved into the Building Guide. Please make sure to add new information there and make this page a redirect if it only contains duplicate information.

Well, at least the build instructions are completely updated and the wiki-editors have made sure that all the pages are up to date. I mean, it's not like that particular page has remained unchanged for a full quarter of a year.

Anyway, onwards and upwards. Build guide for Windows. Software requirements:

Cygwin, C/C++ Compiler (VC++ 2008 Express), Windows SDK Server 2008, GDI+ Redistributrable, unicows.dll from Microsoft Layer for Unicode, dbghelp.dll, instsmiw.exe and instmsia.exe, various extra dll files, Apache Ant, Mozilla binary distribution, and yet more dll files.

Now, once you have Cygwin installed, you need to configure that properly. Breaking links to executables, ensuring filemode is unix, installing yet more perl modules and possibly fixing a few issues you might come across.

So, yeah, sure, you could build it yourself, if you have the source. And it comes with build instructions for your platform. And you know what you're doing. Good luck getting Joe Sixpack to compile OpenOffice.org from scratch.

Now, I'm sure some people will argue, that OpenOffice.org isn't free in the proper sense, but it's licensed under LGPL v3.

No, my example wasn't a Linux one. Who cares. The main point is that it's not just that easy to build from source. Especially if you're talking about products, that didn't have that platform as its first intended target.

Besides, what is so horrible about having fat binaries on Linux? Wouldn't it be kinda cool, if you could simply pop your installation dvd of RAGE and support for a Linux installation out of the box, instead of requiring you to buy the game and then download the installer from their website? Or having to hunt down a limited Linux edition somewhere?

Or are you sure a frothing at the mouth fanatic, that the very idea of having ANY kind of proprietary software taint your harddrive makes you go into anaphylactic shock? If you are, you need to go find your epinephrine pen, because the hardware platform you're using is very likely to be closed off for mere mortals by the sheer number of patents covering it.

Some of us would like to use our computers as tools. If

If you have access to the source, you can always compile a version for your platform.

. Yes ... you can.

Let's use OpenOffice.org as an example, if for no other reason than I was looking into building it optimized specifically for my computer (Windows).

Step 1) Getting the source

The source tarballs linked here contain a snapshot from SVN:
core source package
system source package
binfilter source package
l10n source package
extensions source package
testautomation source package

Okay, I probably don't need testautomation. Might be able to do without extensions. Wtf is l10n ? Okay, I probably don't need that either. Unless it can't build without it - after all, English is technically a localisation.

Screw it - I'll get them all.

2) Compile the damn thing
Build instructions. Gotcha, I'm on Windows, I have Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Express Compiler (well better). Instructions:

This page is moved into the Building Guide. Please make sure to add new information there and make this page a redirect if it only contains duplicate information.

Well, at least the build instructions are completely updated and the wiki-editors have made sure that all the pages are up to date. I mean, it's not like that particular page has remained unchanged for a full quarter of a year.

Anyway, onwards and upwards. Build guide for Windows. Software requirements:

Cygwin, C/C++ Compiler (VC++ 2008 Express), Windows SDK Server 2008, GDI+ Redistributrable, unicows.dll from Microsoft Layer for Unicode, dbghelp.dll, instsmiw.exe and instmsia.exe, various extra dll files, Apache Ant, Mozilla binary distribution, and yet more dll files.

Now, once you have Cygwin installed, you need to configure that properly. Breaking links to executables, ensuring filemode is unix, installing yet more perl modules and possibly fixing a few issues you might come across.

So, yeah, sure, you could build it yourself, if you have the source. And it comes with build instructions for your platform. And you know what you're doing. Good luck getting Joe Sixpack to compile OpenOffice.org from scratch.

Now, I'm sure some people will argue, that OpenOffice.org isn't free in the proper sense, but it's licensed under LGPL v3.

No, my example wasn't a Linux one. Who cares. The main point is that it's not just that easy to build from source. Especially if you're talking about products, that didn't have that platform as its first intended target.

Besides, what is so horrible about having fat binaries on Linux? Wouldn't it be kinda cool, if you could simply pop your installation dvd of RAGE and support for a Linux installation out of the box, instead of requiring you to buy the game and then download the installer from their website? Or having to hunt down a limited Linux edition somewhere?

Or are you sure a frothing at the mouth fanatic, that the very idea of having ANY kind of proprietary software taint your harddrive makes you go into anaphylactic shock? If you are, you need to go find your epinephrine pen, because the hardware platform you're using is very likely to be closed off for mere mortals by the sheer number of patents covering it.

Some of us would like to use our computers as tools. If

There are tools for excel VBA in OO. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/VBA

Great idea, please comment here:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=106241

Calc is the Hyundai of spreadsheets. Works fine for ma and pa, but it sucks for anything significantly complicated.

As someone above posted, if you have to do complicated spreadsheets why not use Mathematica or Matlab? Financial calculations can be pretty complicated yet with a quick Google I found this: Documentation/How Tos/Calc: Derivation of Financial Formulas.

Falcon

I can easily contact the developers. I can submit bugs.... ...and have them ignored. (Request for feature in OpenOffice. Has 215 votes and 30 printed pages of comments, the vast majority of which are "the lack of this feature is the only thing keeping me from using OO." Been open over 7 years now, and we don't have anything even remotely like a timeline. I chose that one because I've had 2 votes (the max for a single issue) sitting on it for a couple years now.)

Will this be backported to Ubuntu 9.04? I'd like to upgrade to OOo 3.2 because there are some features that I need,

sudo apt-get install Open-Office[version no.]

or try this page for a manual download. Ubuntu is a Debian distro so even if Canonical does not include OO.o 3.2 as an update (my money is on the fact they will) there is nothing stopping you from downloading the DEB file and doing it yourself.

(Sorry I cant remember the exact apt-get command, I'm unfortunately on my windows box at work)

http://download.openoffice.org/next/other.html has .deb's for you dowload and double-click to install. Or check for a ppa.

looks like it's:

"undo doesn't restore chart changes"
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=36432

Again, I'm tapped out.
I wish we had more than just 5 votes to give for writer and calc issues.

It currently has no votes so you should try to vote for it.

Dear Sir,
this might be relevant to your interests.

Yours truly,

Anon

Here is a list of the new features (in case you can't access the page like me, because the server is busy)

I was going to say post links to the RTF issue that you are talking about but I did a Search and H01y$hit!
229 issues!

http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi?issue_type=DEFECT&issue_type=ENHANCEMENT&issue_type=FEATURE&issue_type=PATCH&issue_status=UNCONFIRMED&issue_status=NEW&issue_status=STARTED&issue_status=REOPENED&issue_status=RESOLVED&email1=&emailtype1=exact&emailassigned_to1=1&email2=&emailtype2=exact&emailreporter2=1&issueidtype=include&issue_id=&changedin=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=&chfieldvalue=&short_desc=rtf&short_desc_type=allwords&long_desc=&long_desc_type=allwords&issue_file_loc=&issue_file_loc_type=fulltext&status_whiteboard=&status_whiteboard_type=fulltext&keywords=&keywords_type=anytokens&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&Submit+query=Submit+query

I voted for the big ones I could see but all you can do is vote for the big ones for you.

You are correct but I only have 5 votes for the wordprocessing feature to give.

3959 depends on:
Refactor sw code to support multiple layouts
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81480

which depends on:
  add form layer support for virtual objects on form controls
  http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=87241
and
  Refactoring of Writer's usage of the Drawing layer
  http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=100875

However, people discussing issue 3959 are now even willing to just have a way to toggle between the outline view and the editing view instead of being able to see both at the same time like in Word(tm).

You are correct but I only have 5 votes for the wordprocessing feature to give.

3959 depends on:
Refactor sw code to support multiple layouts
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81480

which depends on:
  add form layer support for virtual objects on form controls
  http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=87241
and
  Refactoring of Writer's usage of the Drawing layer
  http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=100875

However, people discussing issue 3959 are now even willing to just have a way to toggle between the outline view and the editing view instead of being able to see both at the same time like in Word(tm).

You are correct but I only have 5 votes for the wordprocessing feature to give.

3959 depends on:
Refactor sw code to support multiple layouts
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81480

which depends on:
  add form layer support for virtual objects on form controls
  http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=87241
and
  Refactoring of Writer's usage of the Drawing layer
  http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=100875

However, people discussing issue 3959 are now even willing to just have a way to toggle between the outline view and the editing view instead of being able to see both at the same time like in Word(tm).

One of the "fixes" is that it will convert text cells to numbers in formulae if it can. This is one of the major differences from Excel that led Microsoft to move all their formulae into a different namespace, in order to prevent users from seeing behavioural inconsistencies across products. That's the way they put it, The Internet described it as deliberately breaking interoperability. I'm agnostic on that distinction, but OOo is now in line with just about every other spreadsheet in existence including Excel, Gnumeric, and Google Docs in this respect. It will be interesting to see what happens to the msoxl namespace when this comes out. I don't know if 3.2 will convert the msoxl namespace formuale to the default namespace when it opens an Excel ODF file.

Microsoft will probably just revert to how they used to do it in Office 2010, leaving OOO and all the rest high and dry.

"Will this be backported to Ubuntu 9.04?"

Once it's in the main repository you can upgrade using synaptic, else download the tar.gz file and extract to a /tmp location and type the following five lines, at a command prompt:

su root
tar -zxvf OO.version.tar.gz
./configure
make
make install

.. and that's the sum total of my knowledge of compiling ...

http://download.openoffice.org/other.html#en-US

Has a list of binaries to download for multiple platforms, including Debian/Ubuntu Linux.

Ian

I can't confirm either way, but last I heard the plan for a new UI was a very long-term one, and, though spurred by the ribbon, wasn't necessarily aiming to mimic it.
Of course, I'm equally worried about them abandoning moves towards something similar to the ribbon UI purely on the grounds that a lot of noisy people dislike it - the huge bulk of office users to whom we've rolled out Office 07 are quite content with it, and I find it a definite improvement.

The project page is here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Renaissance and is both short on information and sarcastically Web2.0.

Here are some of my pet peeves:

Need Comment/UnComment button in Macro Editor
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=87296

Generated HTML changes default spacing
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=14600

Outline View (aka MS Word)
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3959

(Vote for mine and I'll vote for yours if I can!)

Here are some of my pet peeves:

Need Comment/UnComment button in Macro Editor
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=87296

Generated HTML changes default spacing
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=14600

Outline View (aka MS Word)
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3959

(Vote for mine and I'll vote for yours if I can!)

Here are some of my pet peeves:

Need Comment/UnComment button in Macro Editor
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=87296

Generated HTML changes default spacing
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=14600

Outline View (aka MS Word)
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3959

(Vote for mine and I'll vote for yours if I can!)

"Yay! I think people were beginning to dislike me a little when I'd ask them to convert and resend an attachment that I couldn't open. Looks like I'll have to hunt around for some other subtle way to annoy my co-workers :)"

Why not point them to where they can download Open Office?

'Import of password protected Microsoft Office XML documents has been implemented in CWS dr72'

One of the "fixes" is that it will convert text cells to numbers in formulae if it can. This is one of the major differences from Excel that led Microsoft to move all their formulae into a different namespace, in order to prevent users from seeing behavioural inconsistencies across products. That's the way they put it, The Internet described it as deliberately breaking interoperability. I'm agnostic on that distinction, but OOo is now in line with just about every other spreadsheet in existence including Excel, Gnumeric, and Google Docs in this respect. It will be interesting to see what happens to the msoxl namespace when this comes out. I don't know if 3.2 will convert the msoxl namespace formuale to the default namespace when it opens an Excel ODF file.

Let's see if I can do what you just did too:

A dell machine eligible for windows 7 upgrade: $399.99
Open office:$0.00

Total: $399.99

Seriously, since when does upgrading an operating system require you to buy a new word processor? Since when do people pay full retail price for components of a new machine?

Now those freeloaders are given a choice: a pirated OS and paid-for AV, or a paid-for OS and a free AV.

Or they could choose a free OS with no need for AV and plenty of free software. But that's the kind of a crazy idea that I'm sure would never work.

Damn, I posted before reading the link!

Turns out there are currently 22 issues regarding Row Height.

http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi?issue_type=DEFECT&issue_type=ENHANCEMENT&issue_type=FEATURE&issue_type=PATCH&component=Spreadsheet&issue_status=UNCONFIRMED&issue_status=NEW&issue_status=STARTED&issue_status=REOPENED&issue_status=RESOLVED&email1=&emailtype1=exact&emailassigned_to1=1&email2=&emailtype2=exact&emailreporter2=1&issueidtype=include&issue_id=&changedin=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=&chfieldvalue=&short_desc=Row+Height&short_desc_type=allwords&long_desc=&long_desc_type=allwords&issue_file_loc=&issue_file_loc_type=fulltext&status_whiteboard=&status_whiteboard_type=fulltext&keywords=&keywords_type=anytokens&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&Submit+query=Submit+query

In theory, yes, it can be fixed. In practice, you get stuff like this, which is a request to add something like Word's 'normal' mode, or at least a way to collapse the top and bottom margins of a page -- an issue that has over 200 votes for fixing, dozens of people reporting that this is a blocker for their use of OO, and, at least in terms of visible progress, the issue has been ignored for over 7 years.

That's an article from 2004 that's not fully relevant anymore. The GNOME IPC method described there, Bonobo, was mostly replaced by D-Bus in GNOME 2.4, with a full deprecation planned for GNOME 3.0; there are some lingering accessibility issues left to resolved before all the Bonobo is gone.

With KDE also adopting D-Bus some time ago, Open Office is the slow kid here. Everybody else is jumping on D-Bus as the way to handle cross-application message passing on Linux systems, because it's not like anybody ever really like all those awful CORBA-derived message bits anyway--that's some of the worst software ever designed. People have been suggesting that the UNO object model only used by OO be replaced by a D-Bus based approach for at least some things for years now. But since that object model is central to so much of Open Office and the code base is huge, that's a really hard bit of refactoring to do. Frankly, I'm surprised that the OO Clipboard works as well as it does, and I'd rather see people continue hammering away at the data problems there first before moving on to message passing.

That's an article from 2004 that's not fully relevant anymore. The GNOME IPC method described there, Bonobo, was mostly replaced by D-Bus in GNOME 2.4, with a full deprecation planned for GNOME 3.0; there are some lingering accessibility issues left to resolved before all the Bonobo is gone.

With KDE also adopting D-Bus some time ago, Open Office is the slow kid here. Everybody else is jumping on D-Bus as the way to handle cross-application message passing on Linux systems, because it's not like anybody ever really like all those awful CORBA-derived message bits anyway--that's some of the worst software ever designed. People have been suggesting that the UNO object model only used by OO be replaced by a D-Bus based approach for at least some things for years now. But since that object model is central to so much of Open Office and the code base is huge, that's a really hard bit of refactoring to do. Frankly, I'm surprised that the OO Clipboard works as well as it does, and I'd rather see people continue hammering away at the data problems there first before moving on to message passing.

That's an article from 2004 that's not fully relevant anymore. The GNOME IPC method described there, Bonobo, was mostly replaced by D-Bus in GNOME 2.4, with a full deprecation planned for GNOME 3.0; there are some lingering accessibility issues left to resolved before all the Bonobo is gone.

With KDE also adopting D-Bus some time ago, Open Office is the slow kid here. Everybody else is jumping on D-Bus as the way to handle cross-application message passing on Linux systems, because it's not like anybody ever really like all those awful CORBA-derived message bits anyway--that's some of the worst software ever designed. People have been suggesting that the UNO object model only used by OO be replaced by a D-Bus based approach for at least some things for years now. But since that object model is central to so much of Open Office and the code base is huge, that's a really hard bit of refactoring to do. Frankly, I'm surprised that the OO Clipboard works as well as it does, and I'd rather see people continue hammering away at the data problems there first before moving on to message passing.

Little programs connected by pipes, right. Back in 1978, that was kind of cool. Anyone remember when you got multiple columns from ls by writing ls | mc ? "ls" originally just produced a one entry per line list; if you wanted multiple columns, you used the "mc" filter to create them. Now, the feature list of "ls" is huge.

Actually, UNIX and Linux are way behind in inter-program communication. Using pipes for message passing is like hammering a screw. Windows at least has a standard way for programs to talk to each other in a coherent way. UNIX has about five such ways, none of them very good. OpenOffice and GNOME both have reasonable message passing systems, but they're different and don't talk to each other. Attempts to get out of this mess have produced things like AJAX and JSON, which are widely used and ugly, and more elegant schemes like Google's message marshaling system, used by few outside Google.

Given that Best Buy employees still have to pay a Sawbuck to M$ for the win7. Ubuntu can be downloaded for free. Word Processing, Spread Sheets, and Presentation software can be downloaded for free from openOffice. for Bitmap, and Vectored Art there is GIMP, Inkscape, and Blender3D. For software development there is Eclipse. The current major development war going on is "Flash verses SVG"; it's not that Flash products can do more, it's that SVG can be done in Notepad++.

I think that main point I am trying to get across is that in general OO saving files in *.doc and *.docx format doesn't work as well as if Word was saving the file. Whether that is a bug in OO or another Word processor etc doesn't matter. Word is the only choice for saving doc files reliably and fair enough too, it is Microsoft's format. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/FAQ/General/Is_OpenOffice.org_compatible_with_MS_Office_and_StarOffice_file_formats%3F

OpenOffice is *better* than MS Office

Keep dreaming. Get back to me once OpenOffice adds an outline mode to Writer. The bug for outline mode has been open since 2002. OpenOffice is pretty good, but there are some basic features that MS Office got right and I miss not having it around because of them.