Slashdot Mirror


OpenOffice Is Now, Officially, Apache OpenOffice

rbowen writes "Apache OpenOffice has graduated from the Incubator, and now is officially a top-level project at the Apache Software Foundation." From the announcement: "As with all Apache software, Apache OpenOffice software is released under the Apache License v2.0, and is overseen by a self-selected team of active contributors to the project. A Project Management Committee (PMC) guides the Project's day-to-day operations, including community development and product releases. Information on Apache OpenOffice source code, documentation, mailing lists, related resources, and ways to participate are available at http://openoffice.apache.org." (Download mirror on Sourceforge, too.)

266 comments

  1. who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we all moved to LibreOffice

    1. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's true that those looking inward who refer to themselves as "we all" might have moved elsewhere. Me, I've still got all my users on OpenOffice. I'm willing to bet I made the right decision... (I already bet my reputation at work on it)

    2. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      we all moved to LibreOffice

      So who downloaded OpenOffice 20 million times?

    3. Re:who cares? by angelbar · · Score: 2

      I am a LibreOfficeMan now..... so, I dont

      --
      -no sig today-
    4. Re:who cares? by ChronoEngineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only time will tell whether or not Apache Open Office will thrive. The one thing Open Office has going for it is brand recognition by the average user. It's much easier to just give them Open Office than to explain that LibreOffice is a derivative and the reason it forked.

    5. Re:who cares? by JavaBear · · Score: 1

      People moved from Open Office because of the insecurity of its future, I'd hazard a guess that as graduated from the Apache Incubator, there is a good chance that things will look up, especially because of the name.

      OO will be around for a while yet. Personally I use LibreOffice.

    6. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's much easier to just give them Open Office than to explain that LibreOffice is a derivative and the reason it forked.

      Who would ever try to explain it like that?

      Me: "LibreOffice is the new version of OpenOffice."
      Co-worker: "Oh, ok."

    7. Re:who cares? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      20 million since when exactly?

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    8. Re:who cares? by aaron44126 · · Score: 2

      We've all moved to LibreOffice, but I still know a number of people who use or are interested in using OpenOffice, just because that name has been around long enough. If you don't follow sites like this, you might not know that LibreOffice exists. When I mention that they should look at LibreOffice instead, they say "Huh?"

      OpenOffice development was somewhat stalled for a while after the LibreOffice fork happened. If development is going to continue, I hope they pick up the improvements from LibreOffice so that everyone can benefit.

    9. Re:who cares? by QuasiSteve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      we all moved to LibreOffice

      No, not all of 'us'.

      If they decide to stop copying the bad things about MS Office (cell selection navigation in Excel), and start copying the good things instead (dynamic charts), I'll happily give LibreOffice another shot. For now, I've moved back to OpenOffice.

    10. Re:who cares? by Palestrina · · Score: 1, Interesting

      we all moved to LibreOffice

      Who is "we"? Here's what I see:

      Apache OpenOffice claims 20 million downloads of OpenOffice.

      LibreOffice claims 20 million downloads of LibreOffice.

      So they are equal, yes?

      However, take a closer look. Apache had its first release just back in May, so they have 20 million downloads in *4 months*. Compare that to LibreOffice's 20 million downloads in *2 years*.

      You bet on the faster horse. The one with the little head start was just passed.

    11. Re:who cares? by Palestrina · · Score: 4, Interesting

      20 million since when exactly?

      You can see the details here: http://www.openoffice.org/stats/

      I find it interesting that Apache gives the details to support their download numbers while LibreOffice merely waves their hands and makes claims.

    12. Re:who cares? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      All of us who use whatever came with the Linux distro that we use on our desktop will only count as one download. Figures like this are always misleading.

    13. Re:who cares? by ChronoEngineer · · Score: 2

      You'd be surprised at how many people who are resistant to that explanation. The change in name is a change and that scares them. They want an explanation. They're used to version numbers changing, not names.

    14. Re:who cares? by Palestrina · · Score: 4, Informative

      But both projects claim that 80%+ of their downloads are for Windows users. So you can't really escape the numbers. Apache has then 80% of 20 million Windows downloads in *4 months* whereas LO has 80% of 20 million Windows downloads in *2 years*.

      Similar for Mac at around 15%.. No doubt that LO has the advantage on Linux desktops. But all reports indicate that is 3% or so of the desktops. Even 100% of 3% is still only 3%, That doesn't look like a growth play to me,

    15. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most (All?) linux distros have switched over to libreoffice as the default office suite.

      To be fair, the windows users I know are split about 50/50 between Open/Libre. I have never downloaded LibreOffice from their website but have used every update for over a year and a half now through linux repos.

      I remember this same debate back in the IE vs Mozilla days, when it was about total downloads. 'But for Linux users, there is one download then it is in a repo!'

    16. Re:who cares? by bigtomrodney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not so sure about that. I've seen cases where big-guns enterprise software has changed name and it's had a more positive impact. Users might have ignored a few point-version upgrades, even the occasional major upgrades. However when that new banner goes up it must be all new and good!.

      Colours and words have a more tangible effect on the non-technical.

      --
      I never get used to these constant resurrections
    17. Re:who cares? by ChronoEngineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suppose the experience I've had with the switch is with the average consumer and not enterprise users. They have the tendency to ask very strange questions.

    18. Re:who cares? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      People who didn't get the memo?

      I'm not really sure it matters which is better if they're both open source and open development. OpenOffice would still be sucky if not for libre. There were contributers that tried for years to get things upstreamed only to be rejected and ignored by Sun/Oracle. Only after the revolt and the creation of Libre did openoffice actually open up their development.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    19. Re:who cares? by Enry · · Score: 4, Informative

      Since LO is bundled with many Linux distros, it's almost impossible to know the full user base of LO.

    20. Re:who cares? by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Informative

      LibreOffice had a long-running bug on documents with wrap set on certain objects that rendered my invoices almost unusable, so I'm still on OpenOffice. I do appreciate the work they've done, though.

      If I were going to do coding work on one of the suites, I might pick OpenOffice for the more permissive license.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    21. Re:who cares? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why would you bet your reputation on an office suite?
      The nature of software changes rather fast. A perfectly logical and reasonable choice 6 months ago, today may be a bad decision.

      When .NET started to get popular, I recommended that they if they are going to go with .NET they should do VB.NET not C#.NET because at the time more people knew VB over C# (in the current area). However after taking that direction in about a year C#.NET became more dominant. Mainly because colleges who taught Java liked doing C# more and didn't bother with VB any more.

      OK I was wrong, but my reputation wasn't affected, why? Because I try to be right more than I am wrong, I had a good reasoning behind my decision. However this industry changes, we get factors such as change in college course changes, software delivery methods, Economic pressures, Mistakes made from other companies, unexpected success...

      For Open Office vs Libre Office vs Microsoft Office. I wouldn't put my reputation behind it. Ok LibreOffice got popular but Open Office isn't that much better or worse so it may not be worth it to change.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    22. Re:who cares? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Sence that newbee who keeps on falling for the rm -rf / trick on the internet.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    23. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. It was clear that C# was where all the action was going to be from the start. VB.NET was just a sop to the legacy VB users and not a very compelling one at that.

    24. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ethereal to Wireshark.

      Or Windows 98 to Windows Millenium Edition. That was a kind of name change. Maybe not the luckiest one. XP to Vista to 7 and 8.

      That was a suffix change, this (*Office*) is a prefix. Not so different but I understand your concerns. Just tell them the development team moved to a new "home" and changed name. If they want to know more, development on the original OpenOffice code stagnated for a while and eventually restarted this year.

    25. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's much easier to just give them Open Office than to explain that LibreOffice is a derivative and the reason it forked.

      Your doing it wrong, just give them office. They really don't care what office it is, as long as it opens documents and they can type.

      Better yet, call it the NEW office, and they will be eager to learn all its features.

    26. Re:who cares? by Grizzley9 · · Score: 2

      As someone that occasionally uses OpenOffice at home and has recommended to friends/family, I'm not sure I got the memo. If I was searching for openoffice today it would point me to the Apache version at the website I've always gone to.

      What's the difference? Why is one better than the other?

    27. Re:who cares? by shitzu · · Score: 1

      I used to. But LibreOffice (on OSX) STILL nags me occasionally on missing Java runtime although use of java is switched off in preferences. Mainly on keyboard shortcuts like cmd+s, cmd+c. It is totally random and annoying.
      I now tried Apache OpenOffice, and this doe not nag me - so out goes Libre-, welcome Open-.

    28. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moved to LO, but went back to OO in the last few weeks due to too many bugs and crashes with LO on Mac.

    29. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you knew about this bug, and cared about it, why didn't you submit the fix?

    30. Re:who cares? by pmontra · · Score: 2

      You can count as LO all Ubuntu installs and upgrades in the last year. Canonical switched to LO and my computer followed suit automatically. I could have overridden that but I knew LO and OO are about the same. However as a Linux user myself I think Windows users's downloads dwarf Linux downloads. I really don't know how many Windows users, which don't have a distribution upgrade system, bothered moving to LO. To be fair, there are not many visibile improvements I can think of. They might have stuck to OO because of inertia or even because they didn't knew about LO.

    31. Re:who cares? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some big-name government organizations ban C#.NET because their codebase is in VB.NET and they don't want rogue developers making a mixed codebase like OpenOffice.org with some of it in Java, some in C, some in C++, some in Haskell.

    32. Re:who cares? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Informative

      NeoOffice is the OSX port.

    33. Re:who cares? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      LibreOffice. You know, like Nacho Libre. OpenOffice had issues, so since it wasn't getting fixed fast enough a bunch of people started putting the upgrades in a different place and just called it something else.

    34. Re:who cares? by helix2301 · · Score: 2

      Honestly I been using Google Docs lately since I been traveling a bit. Word, Google Docs, LibreOffice and Open Office all really do the same thing they are word processors. Most customers I install open office and they do not even know the difference between that and word. Let a lone Libre office and open office. Most just care that it's free.

    35. Re:who cares? by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because there was an un-broken version of the software?

      I submitted the bug, provided sample documents, and ran tests that they asked me to. I don't think anyone wants me submitting C++ code...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    36. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I find that OpenOffice works a lot better then Libreoffice, it also has the benefit that it can still be compiled on OS/2 (that code was not removed), unlike LibreOffice which had all the OS/2 code removed from the source - despite the fact that there are still people using OpenOffice on OS/2.

    37. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As in "Windows Vista" -> "Windows 7"?

      MS just fixed some of the more egregious problems and waited for hardware to catch up, and voila, the "horrible" Vista becomes the "wonderful" Win7.

      I guess "Windows 7" is a catchier name than "Windows Vista.1"

    38. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've moved, too, but hate the name. I wish they'd merge their changes back and use the OpenOffice.org name.

      Hell, I've been using it since it was named StarOffice. OO.o was not half a bad of a name, but LO is just awkward.

      (no, I'm not one of those people who hate gimp for its name. but then again, I'm not american.)

    39. Re:who cares? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      One thing, when working in the FOSS community a certain amount of political correctness is required to ensure no communities are insulted. Whilst s web server is reasonable obscure as far as the wider community is concerned. When it comes to an office suit that ideally would be used in all environments, this means it pushing into schooling environments. I'm not sure how appropriate the 'Apache' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache name and that it is very likely appropriate to ensure those people approve the use of the name and endorse the product as such but simply running rough shod over the identity is definitely not appropriate where a product hopes to be widely used in educational environments.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    40. Re:who cares? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no wonder you post as AC, you chose the inferior software with less features that the smart developers left to go to LibreOffice. good non-move there, dumb-ass.

    41. Re:who cares? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Not sure what users your referring to, you'd have to explain either or to most business users. Now as to for the reason it forked...

    42. Re:who cares? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      And people who were using ethereal, or windows, did the upgrade and were done with it. I don't think brand recognition is nearly as big a deal in the software world as you guys are making it out to be. Windows, Office, OSX... they sell because they offer features and usability nobody has rivaled, not because they're made by fortune 500 companies, well maybe a little bit of market cornering here and there, but the opportunity had to initially present itself. People upgrade to ME because it was better than windows 98, and people switched from ethereal to wireshark to get updates and new features, I don't think anybody gave a second thought to the naming of the software.

    43. Re:who cares? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      I hope you lose that job. LibreOffice was clearly the better choice.

      Not for me. I tried it but unfortunately the install routine fell on it's arse at the end of the install and just left me with a mangled installation.

      At that point I walked away. Hopefully Apache will be able to dedicate the testing resource that seemed to be missing from LibreOffice.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    44. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's much easier to just give them Open Office than to explain that LibreOffice is a derivative and the reason it forked.

      Who would ever try to explain it like that?

      Me: "LibreOffice is the new version of OpenOffice."
      Co-worker: "Oh, ok."

      Co-worker: "Wait, hang on, then what's this OpenOffice I'm seeing over here?"
      You: "That's the older one. LibreOffice is the newer-"
      Co-worker: "Huh? But this version of OpenOffice was just released today! The most recent LibreOffice is from a month ago!"
      You: "Yeah, but, um, LibreOffice is going to be updated more regularly and be more up-to-"
      Co-worker: "But this is more up-to-date NOW! And what's with that name, LibreOffice? I don't want some baguette-wearing* frog messing with my office! Just what are you trying to pull here?"

      *: Please stop reading these footnotes if you found the humor already and don't need it explained to you. It will only serve to hurt you both from having a joke be over-explained and the sad, dreadful realization that some people need the joke to be explained to them**.

      **: The humor comes from the assumption that your co-worker is an idiot who doesn't know anything about the French and is throwing around non sequitur stereotypes to "prove" his "point".

    45. Re:who cares? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      So are you, a lot of people come from MS Office backgrounds, I've gotten questions before: how do you do this, I had it set up this way and that... in MS Office, deploying open source solutions risk mainly lies in this, a bunch of disgruntled users who can't do things the way they liked to in MS Office. For a new business with a small closed group of users that I know reasonably well, to provide a solution to office, I would deploy open source in a heart beat. For something more established, it gets a few levels more complicated.

    46. Re:who cares? by curcuru · · Score: 1

      Yeah, as Palestrina notes, the AOO project provides the raw numbers for actual downloads. You can even get the source for generating the numbers: https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/ooo/devtools/aoo-stats Apples to apples is difficult to get to. I mean, seriously: of all those LO's bundled with linux distros, how many are being actively used? It's like getting a copy of IE with a Windows build. Aren't most cool /. people the type who use perl and pipes instead of spreadsheets anyway? 8->

    47. Re:who cares? by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Ethereal to Wireshark.

      The people that used Ethereal were not tied to brands; further, IIRC there was a legal reason for the name change and the people that used Ethereal would have been aware of the reasons behind it.

      Or Windows 98 to Windows Millenium Edition. That was a kind of name change. Maybe not the luckiest one. XP to Vista to 7 and 8.

      While (as you admit) it's just a suffix change, people understood that those suffixes (95, 98, 98SE, ME, XP, Vista, 7) were just version branding. So they didn't think twice of it. The brand they were buying, however, was Windows and Microsoft.

      That was a suffix change, this (*Office*) is a prefix. Not so different but I understand your concerns. Just tell them the development team moved to a new "home" and changed name. If they want to know more, development on the original OpenOffice code stagnated for a while and eventually restarted this year.

      The OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice name change is quite a bit harder to instill - especially if they ask the reason, and even more so since OpenOffice is still around. OpenOffice will probably (probably already has) get the larger brunt of resources behind it than LibreOffice will (has).

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    48. Re:who cares? by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      we all moved to LibreOffice

      I give people OpenOffice. While my Linux computers (Gentoo and Kubuntu) have LibreOffice on them for the time being, I'll be moving them back to OpenOffice once an AOO package is available.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    49. Re:who cares? by ilsaloving · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, I'm getting really tired of seeing people say this, although it doesn't happen as much nowadays.

      Just because someone has found a bug doesn't in any way, shape or form mean that they have the time, energy, or the skill to fix it.

      Just because the source code is available for anyone to tinker with does not mean everyone wants to, so please stop being such a knob. Nobody likes an uppity holier-than-thou nerd.

    50. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even easier if you don't have to explain why OpenOffice isn't Microsoft Office.

    51. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistics are all about presentation. How many LO were ubuntu base installs? How many AOO were windows users that are trained to uninstall the old version and download and install the new one instead of just "apt-get upgrade"?

    52. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need a GPL3 based Office. Maybe a GNU Office?

    53. Re:who cares? by Omnifarious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not a single one of my co-workers would ever use the word 'gay' as a pejorative (well, aside possibly from one, and very likely not at work). None of them are gay either (AFAIK). They all just have an IQ higher than 90.

    54. Re:who cares? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Well, a good reason to use AOO is because of the KDE integration. It seems to be more seemless than LO. This is more apparent in the open and save dialogues.

    55. Re:who cares? by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      I actually enjoy explaining the history.

      I actively work to help the people around me use Open Source software when they can. And if they start using it, I also start giving them small lessons on the culture behind it.

      I think understanding how a disagreement like this plays out is actually important for understanding why Open Source software is so fantastic for users. A lot of things like this would've resulted in a proprietary software product somehow becoming much less useful over time. One company buys another and thinks the software the bought company made is redundant with their other 'competitive' offerings and so kills it. One company goes out of business and the users of the software are left hanging. etc...

      Seeing how this plays out in the Open Source world is instructive, and I think empowering.

    56. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanda? Is that you?

    57. Re:who cares? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      But there were a lot of those legacy VB users out there. Most colleges in Comp Sci 101 taught VB first. Then went to C++ or Java. A lot of the Comp Science Majors when offered a chance to develop in whatever language they wanted they did it in VB because it was faster and the output looked nicer. Pre .NET when looking at resumes 80% had VB in their resumes, 30% had C++ 25% had Java.

      C# wasn't clear, It could have been another J++. Just because microsoft but faith behind it doesn't mean people will use it. They could have just used VB.NET and liked it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    58. Re:who cares? by mattr · · Score: 2

      We all switched from NeoOffice to LibreOffice Mac!

    59. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be surprised how many people have not heard of OpenOffice.org either.

    60. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i got annoyed just imagining your smug explanation about your superior moral system that you inflict on the poor people who probably squirm and desperately try to think of a polite way to get away from you while you obliviously prattle on about shit no one wants to hear.

    61. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly why I could never bring myself to call it LibreOffice. To me it was always NachoOffice.

    62. Re:who cares? by anagama · · Score: 1

      Well, Libre/OpenOffice now also run natively on OSX. Maybe I'll give NeoOffice a try again -- back in the G4/5 days it was nice to have -- but even on intel hardware it was dog slow. Once OpenOffice went native, I was pretty happy.

      But then after an update to OpenOffice, things went downhill because they broke the ability to do a dual data-to-fields operation easily (select one table, sort alphabetically on a column, highlight row, press data-to-fields, select second table, select colum -- can't sort it, have to hunt through randomized records).

      I was pretty stoked when LibreOffice fixed that issue, but every time I press print, my computer goes into about 20s of color-pinwheel spinning death. Also annoying.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    63. Re:who cares? by Teckla · · Score: 1

      we all moved to LibreOffice

      That may be the case, but you know, competition is good, even in the free software space...

    64. Re:who cares? by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to bet I made the right decision... (I already bet my reputation at work on it)

      They're office suites, not presidential candidates. When I entered my sig there wasn't enough space to attribute the quote properly but it's by Simon Phipps. If your "right decision" means you're vendor locked in to Apache OpenOffice, you've still lost the game.

      --
      "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
    65. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      soo.. what specifically is derogatory about this name?

    66. Re:who cares? by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 1

      Tell that to all the people who happily upgraded from MS Office 6 (version number) to MS Office 95 (name change) to MS Office XP (name change) to MS Office 2003 (name change) to MS Office 2007 (name change) to MS Office 2010 (name change) to MS Office 14 (version number).

      Not really that different going from OpenOffice to LibreOffice (name change).

    67. Re:who cares? by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

      Strange as in real questions that seek to gain actual knowledge you mean. When you are talking to your management peers it helps to know exactly what you are talking about or you run the risk of someone else at the table one upping you in front of everyone and the boss(s).

      --

      Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    68. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OpenOffice is way more popular than LibreOffice especially on Windows and Mac, which is what matters. LibreOffice is more popular in Linux but also more unstable on other other plarforms.

    69. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess either way would be a right decision. While OpenOffice might have been a bit sluggish in development under Oracle, I still think it is a solid application. And if your users should eventually ask for LibreOffice, it will be an easy switch.

    70. Re:who cares? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      It all depends on what you want to do. If someone wanted to build an app that needs an office backend? I'd say Apache OO would be the way to go as you can actually sell your program, unlike GPLed LO thanks to the redistribute cause, whereas if you are just gonna be opening some Word docs at home then LO would be the way to go.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    71. Re:who cares? by narcc · · Score: 1

      When .NET started to get popular, I recommended that they if they are going to go with .NET they should do VB.NET not C#.NET because at the time more people knew VB over C# (in the current area).

      You should have made an informed recommendation, instead of clearly based solely on the name. Had you taken a moment to try the two languages, you'd have known that VB.NET was so far removed from VB6 that it didn't matter that your developers already new VB. (Additionally, it was pretty clear at the time that C# was the way forward, as far as Microsoft's tools were concerned.)

    72. Re:who cares? by narcc · · Score: 0

      It's nacho fathers office suite, that's for sure!

    73. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, all 3 of them. Dude, nobody cares about OS/2. That OS hasn't been relevant for over 10 years. The reason they removed the code is probably to make the code base smaller and have it compile faster.

      OS/2 = 0xDEADC0DE

    74. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you want to deploy openoffice by force, just say that the company now only pays for the cheapest adequate software alternative, which obviously is openoffice or libreoffice. If they want ms office, they pay the licences, upgrades and licence management themselves. Such cost-cutting moves works fine for operating systems too . . .

    75. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've all moved to LibreOffice

      Actually, some of us moved beyond ms compatible office suites long ago. libre-/open-office aims too low, when they aim for ms word compatibility. Libreoffice is a nice "word document reader", but I wouldn't dream of writing anything with it. Too cumbersome. Lyx for better documents & presentations, gnumeric for spreadsheets. Well, perhaps gnumeric isn't "better" as such, but it starts way faster.

    76. Re:who cares? by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      And on top of that, with Apache's stance on DNT with IE, they won't be winning me over. Go LibreOffice.

    77. Re:who cares? by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      >(I already bet my reputation at work on it)

      Sorry to hear it.

    78. Re:who cares? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Somewhat? The same version stuck for more than a year IIRC. It's as good as a dead project from user viewpoint. No updates for a couple months in a project of such scale and you have every reason to worry.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    79. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, but, that is the whole snobbery holding back open source. The expectation that every user must also be a developer.

      This is why open source bugs persist, and why closed source software seems so much more functional and professionally developed.

    80. Re:who cares? by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      but understand that nerds wont make toys usable by anyone but themselves unless they are paid a good amount of money....

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    81. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a single one of my co-workers would ever use the word 'gay' as a pejorative (well, aside possibly from one, and very likely not at work). None of them are gay either (AFAIK). They all just have an IQ higher than 9.

      FTFY.

    82. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am using and waiting for OpenOffice to continue past the incubator stage ... there seem to be several bugs in LibreOffice that are not in OpenOffice

    83. Re:who cares? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The one thing Open Office has going for it is brand recognition by the average user.

      Well you're half right: they'd recognise the Office part of the brand all right.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    84. Re:who cares? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Are you, like, Larry as in Leisure Suit Larry?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    85. Re:who cares? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      we all moved to LibreOffice

      So who downloaded OpenOffice 20 million times?

      Me. It was just me. Over and over again. I was having personal issues at the time and needed something to keep my mind off things. Soz.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    86. Re:who cares? by shitzu · · Score: 1

      NeoOffice is not free nor open:

      To download the NeoOffice-3.3-Intel.dmg file, please login so that we can verify that you have paid US$10 (or €7 or £6 or CA$10 or AU$10 or ¥834) or more within the last year.

      Why would i prefer this over Open or Libre which both have native OSX builds nowadays.

    87. Re:who cares? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Well. That's new. How is this legal? You can just get it from another bloke who has it already or what?

    88. Re:who cares? by GerryHattrick · · Score: 1

      And for any 'mass market', the 'Apache' tag is really strange. In this country, most people see some kind of aggressive (defensive?), er, 'Native American'. Just about as silly as 'Adobe', where people ask about the connection with mud huts. Could try raising brand awareness, or just something sensible, or meaningless, instead.

    89. Re:who cares? by shitzu · · Score: 1

      I did not say that its illegal.
      I was answering to a post stating that "NeoOffice is the OSX port". I tried to hint that Libreoffice and OpenOffice also run natively on OSX nowadays, i.e. they are themselves OSX ports. And there is no reason for me to "get it from another bloke" if i can download Libre- or Open- without the hassle and keep them up to date.
      You should really work on your reading skills.

    90. Re:who cares? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      No, I mean, GPL allows you to copy things and doesn't allow them to link and ship this kind of modification without GPL. I'm just trying to make sure my understanding of the licensing involved is correct, i.e. that they're charging for access to their download site and not charging what they presume to be an enforceable license fee.

    91. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. I didn't even remember the old name of Wireshark.

    92. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, all of "us". You're clearly not "us".

      This is not exclusionary. Read it as "get with the program". ;)

    93. Re:who cares? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Wow, I have Wireshark installed (even though I have no use for it) and I had no idea it was a newer version of Ethereal.

    94. Re:who cares? by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Although I am happy with Libreoffice, use it every day without complaint, failure or problems (and in a Win7 environment at work) I am happy to see that Apache is supporting another source for developer interest and input to the Office Suite business. It is an incredibly difficult market, well saturated with big players (anybody thinking about IBM Symphony/Lotus) who are all feeding the .odf formats with lots of good stuff. Lets welcome them, encourage them and enjoy the fruits of their labor, as we always have with Open Office and its offspring.

      Thanks Apache!

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    95. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be surprised at how many people who are resistant to that explanation. The change in name is a change and that scares them. They want an explanation. They're used to version numbers changing, not names.

      This is true - I had to communicate this change to users (and support it) a year and a half after moving from Windows XP & Office 2003 to Ubuntu 10.04 LTS & OpenOffice 3.1.x. Unfortunately there were still document compatibility problems, further supporting ChronoEngineer's notion about users.

    96. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, you walked away because one install failed and never filed a bug report probably?

      Sounds like a great user error report. I'll stick to the better office distribution rather than OO.o, thanks.

  2. Ahh, the ASF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where one-time promising projects go to die.

    1. Re:Ahh, the ASF... by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 2

      Say what you want, but I love the ASF and the projects they maintain. I'm grateful for the work they do and the software they provide.

      --
      I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    2. Re:Ahh, the ASF... by curcuru · · Score: 1

      Thanks Ninjaroach! Both for the thanks and for posting with your ID and not AC.

    3. Re:Ahh, the ASF... by foma84 · · Score: 0

      Do you even know what gives Apache Software Foundation its name?
      Yeah, it's almost extinct by now... we should just euthanise it.

    4. Re:Ahh, the ASF... by Teckla · · Score: 1

      Thanks Ninjaroach! Both for the thanks and for posting with your ID and not AC.

      A lot more people than just TheNinjaroach think Apache does a really great job on a lot of projects! :-)

      Apache is very much appreciated!

    5. Re:Ahh, the ASF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even know what gives Apache Software Foundation its name?

      Yeah.
      Signed,
            nginx

  3. The problem with FOSS office suites by concealment · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem with F/OSS office suites is that their audience tends to be uncritical, so much as in the fairy tale "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" (but in inverse), professionals have stopped listening.

    I remember at least three incidents where I was instructed to evaluate Open Office, Libre Office or other F/OSS word processing or layout packages. In each instance, the F/OSS products fell short in fundamental ways, and were a total disaster for larger documents. Their main strength was that it was often easier to export data from them than it was in certain commercial products.

    The point of this is that in order for one of these FOSS office suites to survive, people who are critical and have use requirements beyond short documents get involved. For these packages to be competitive, they need to rise to a higher standard than Grandma's recipes, Son's book report, a weekend memo to the boss, etc.

    1. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife wrote Her PhD thesis in first Open then Libre Office...

    2. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by JavaBear · · Score: 2

      People will settle for less, when they get it for free, the question really is, how much less are people willing to settle for?

      That said, often less is more (no pun) and F/OSS is the superior alternative.

    3. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Chemisor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps you should follow your own advice and post the failing test cases so we could see what's broken. Then some enterprising developer could figure out how to fix them. Complaining without specifics, as you are doing, is not practically different from being "uncritical".

    4. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Tastecicles · · Score: 2

      Define "larger documents"? For example, I've created 500+ page legal documents in OpenOffice Writer with no issues - including lots of graphics. So what's the tipping point?

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    5. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      professionals have stopped listening. ...
      a weekend memo to the boss, etc.

      See how I can tell you're a professional? You write memos, to the boss. On the weekend!

      Who writes memos anymore? And who sends .doc files when email suffices for short documents just fine and works way better on mobile devices.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by leandrod · · Score: 5, Informative

      I remember at least three incidents where I was instructed to evaluate Open Office, Libre Office or other F/OSS word processing or layout packages. In each instance, the F/OSS products fell short in fundamental ways, and were a total disaster for larger documents.

      Quite to the contrary, LibreOffice deals better with long documents than the proprietary alternative, and also it never
      corrupts complex documents like the proprietary alternative.

      The only fundamental way where LibreOffice falls short is when dealing with unnecessary complexity in the proprietary suite
      files. Complexity which is fairly common, given the proprietary suite deficiencies in structuring documents.

      --
      Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
      DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
      GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
    7. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of crying wolf,
      can you list any of the major issues that made OO or LO a no-go? (pun not intended)

      (Mod Posting as AC)

    8. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That would explain why LibreOffice can't actually save in some of the file formats I try to save and doesn't seem to be able to correctly read formatting more complicated than the basic paragraph justification.

      Since I'm a programmer, not a writer, I don't consider the cost of MS Office to be a reasonable business expense. On the other hand, I sometimes need to read, edit, or write documents, and both OO and LO have failed quite dramatically just often enough to get annoying.

      I know that document handling is more complicated than it was in the days of Windows 3.11 for workgroups, but could they work on actually supporting what the documentation indicates they support?

    9. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      This. I can't name a single feature that I need for business use that is not included in LO. I really wonder why parent is rated 5 Interesting.

    10. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need the ability to save in .docx so that people with Word 2007 can read and edit my document. I need to be able to have this make a full cycle, from MS to LO and back, or better yet, several cycles, without the formatting or inline equations getting garbled.

      This isn't currently possible. I suspect it never will be.

    11. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder if the problem isn't more that people are failing to recognize that there are different audiences with different needs. For example in office suites, there are loads of people who just need a decent work processor for typing up simple documents, and then there are people who really want integration between their word processor, spreadsheet editor, and groupware client, and groupware server. The latter audience may be well served by going with the full MS Office/MS Exchange combination, and that keeps a lot of people using MS Office.

      It reminds me of an argument between a GIMP fan and a Photoshop fan. The Photoshop user was saying, "GIMP is terrible because it doesn't have good support for CMYK." and the GIMP user responded by saying, "Well nobody actually uses CMYK, but GIMP lets me script things easily, so GIMP is much better!" These two users were talking past each other, failing to recognize that each had probably chosen their solution well.

    12. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by javilon · · Score: 4, Informative

      I remember at least three incidents where I was instructed to evaluate Open Office, Libre Office or other F/OSS word processing or layout packages. In each instance, the F/OSS products fell short in fundamental ways, and were a total disaster for larger documents.

      Quite to the contrary, LibreOffice deals better with long documents than the proprietary alternative, and also it never
      corrupts complex documents like the proprietary alternative.

      The only fundamental way where LibreOffice falls short is when dealing with unnecessary complexity in the proprietary suite
      files. Complexity which is fairly common, given the proprietary suite deficiencies in structuring documents.

      From your comment and his comment I suspect that his test involved getting huge documents from different MS office versions and loading them. Then deciding that OO can't handle big documents in general. This is a very skewed test. For people moving completely to OO that's a non issue.

      --


      When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
    13. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      As a small aside to your experiences, I found that when using LibreOffice and I want to use the following as a separator:
      ______________ (that's holding down Shift to get the underline)

      in LibreOffice, it creates an entire line across the page whereas in Word 2010, it creates the line exactly as shown. If I try to delete the extraneous lines, the entire line is deleted in LO.

      I did do some looking, but did not find a way in LO to stop this "feature" from occurring.

      This is why everything except the bare essentials should be turned off in such products. Then, create an easy-to-find menu system for the user to turn on what they want instead of the current way of turning everything on by default and having to turn them off just so one can get work done.

      Opt in rather than opt out. Sound familiar?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    14. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by RobertLTux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      try this with MSO2009 and MSO2007 and see if it works

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    15. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by melikamp · · Score: 1

      I remember at least three incidents where I was instructed to evaluate Open Office, Libre Office or other F/OSS word processing or layout packages. In each instance, the F/OSS products fell short in fundamental ways, and were a total disaster for larger documents.

      One would think, after reviewing them 3 times, you could be more specific. Can you name one fundamental way in which LO fell short? Define "large document" and "disaster"? No, of course not, because LO is strictly better than MSO: it doesn't spy on you, doesn't hold your data hostage, not a significant malware vector, has simpler, more familiar, and highly customizable interface, can be fully supported (including adding features and bug fixes) by a third party, runs natively on every major consumer OS, streamlines licensing. Notice that every point above is a fundamental flaw in MSO. So stop it. We all know that MS Office has always been a steaming pile of crap, and it remains a popular program today for one reason only: MS spent years of time and billions of dollars perfecting their "solution", which is to tie together OS, Internet utilities, and the productivity suite, so that abandoning any one component is impossible without dropping the rest, and hence unaffordable.

    16. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Edzilla2000 · · Score: 0

      Word 2007 is perfectly capable of reading and editing .doc documents, and as far as I know, Openoffice can read and edit both .doc and .docx.

      Your objection is a non issue.

    17. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Crass+Spektakel · · Score: 1

      You are a paid FUD spreader, aren't you?

      Reads pretty much like the average Copy&Paste FUD, useable for Slashdot to Financial Times: Little hard facts, lots of feat, uncertanity and doubt.

      --
      "Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
    18. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by codguy · · Score: 1

      This is so true--I really want to use open source software, but it simply doesn't cut it for some things. This is painfully obvious with some packages more than others, for example, LO Calc is just ridiculously clunky and slow compared to MS Excel. I use Excel almost every day of my working life to look at data sets, usually as scatter plots. Even with several thousand data points to plot up, when you click Ok, Excel basically displays your plot immediately. In turn, LO Calc can take many seconds up to minutes to display a plot, and this is with even small sets of just a couple hundred data points. Every time there was a new major or even minor release, I'd go back to OO or LO hoping that they would have this under control, but no dice. I had to stop holding my breath for this a while ago.

    19. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      "F/OSS is the superior alternative"

      How does your license make a crappy product any better? There are thousands if not millions of F/OSS apps out there that just suck. There are a few real Gems, but a lot of cheap crap. There is also a lot of Crap Closed Source apps too. But at least those companies in general will go out of business.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    20. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From actual experience, it can read and save in .doc most of the time, but has only basic support for reading .docx (numerous formatting errors) and only a token effort at saving .docx (with no warning that it cannot save formatting more complicated than newlines).

      If you're not going to properly support a file type, include some indication that people should not try to use it.

    21. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      OTOH, I have "saved" several Word/Excel documents that had become too corrupted to be used in Microsoft Office. All I had to do was load them in OpenOffice and then save them with a different name, and they suddenly worked again in MS Office.

    22. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So your using ms office 2010 or something?
      Legacy formats of MS are better supported in OO or LO than in their later products. At least, that's my experience.

    23. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by melikamp · · Score: 1

      The only fundamental way where LibreOffice falls short is when dealing with unnecessary complexity in the proprietary suite files.

      I think it's pretty clear that this is a fundamental shortfall of those files and formats, not of LO. The latter would have no problem opening and saving them if they were not obfuscated and undocumented. Just as with the nouveau driver, it's Jesus- worthy miracle that it works at all.

    24. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by theJML · · Score: 1

      I've got the same background and needs... and I've found more and more that Google Docs seems to work pretty well 98% of the time. It keeps getting better and better and for most interoffice stuff just works. Sometimes it hits a macro or something that it doesn't get and I have to download it, but the last time I did that was about 2 years ago (and it's improved a lot since then anyway).

      I'm quite happy that I'll be able to completely ditch office software installs soon.

      (Disclaimer, we have gmail for business here so if you open anything from the webmail client, it does it through Google Docs.)

      --
      -=JML=-
    25. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      hit ctrl+z to undo auto-shit.

    26. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Copy & Paste isn't fud, it's real. AbiWord had a crasher for TWO YEARS where if you pasted stuff it would just abruptly segfault.

    27. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by leandrod · · Score: 1

      The only fundamental way where LibreOffice falls short is when dealing with unnecessary complexity in the proprietary suite
      files.

      I think it's pretty clear that this is a fundamental shortfall of those files and formats, not of LO. The latter would have no problem opening and saving them if they were not obfuscated and undocumented. Just as with the nouveau driver, it's Jesus- worthy miracle that it works at all.

      That was my point.

      But I actually think it is not only the proprietary file formats being bad. It is also that the proprietary suite falls short
      in organising documents with styles and templates, so people use very complex direct formatting.

      --
      Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
      DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
      GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
    28. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

      I've found LO spreadsheets to be easier to work with that the Microsoft counterpart. We programs that output information on product, I cannot tell you the number of times I've foamed at the mouth by Excel converting the UPC into scientific notation. LO seems to understand that the column is text, but no matter what we do with Excel, it always wants to turn UPC, EAN, GTIN-14 into a number.

      Additionally, we find that working with large documents to be easier and more fluid with LO than Word or Excel. If someone jacks up the formatting in Word it's a weeks worth of recovery just to get things sane again. In LO it is literally minutes at best. LO handles spreadsheets of 500,000 rows plus way better than Excel any day.

    29. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The LO Calc charting features are so godawful that they should be embarrassed to claim support for charts at all. And no, I don't want to have to learn gnuplot just to make charts and graphs that don't look like ass. That alone is enough to make me stick to Excel.

    30. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that we live in a world where everyone demands MS file formats, and MS doesn't play well with others.

      Or at least I assume that is what you are talking about. Did you really test the ability of Libre Office to handle large ODF files, or was the "total disaster" related to converting to and from MS Office formats?

      If it is the latter, all you are saying is that MS Office offers superior vendor lock-in and incompatibility with products from other vendors. Call it unfairness or just the real world, but it seems to be a case of "If Libre Office is not 100% compatible with MS Office, it is a failure, but MS Office has no obligation to be compatible with anything else".

    31. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define "larger documents"? For example, I've created 500+ page legal documents in OpenOffice Writer with no issues - including lots of graphics. So what's the tipping point?

      Agreed. Microsoft Word, in all the times I have tried to work with very large documents with it, has always failed miserably.

    32. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough, I've had better lucking importing huge documents ( > 400 pages ) into OO and formatting for print than in Word itself.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    33. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your vague statements are completely useless. You should provide specific and precise examples demonstrating your claim that F/OSS products "were a total disaster for larger documents."

      I would suspect that all of your criticisms stem from the fact that you have been so conditioned to the methods of MS Office that you cannot appreciate or even perceive new ways of doing things. IOW, I wouldn't trust you to evaluate software for my company.

    34. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Word is famous for crashing on huge documents, especially master documents. OO is great for large documents.

      OO has fundamental advantages over MS Word for large documents, including the fact that it has page styles while Word does not.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    35. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about now, but several years ago MS Word exasperated me with its inability to handle large documents that Word Perfect had no problem with. I wrote The Paxil Diaries in Oo without any problems at all.

    36. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by HiThere · · Score: 1

      OK.

      1) I want better support for indexes. And in specific I want to be able to maintain several DIFFERENT indexes in the same document. (Think Alphabetic index, index of dates, index of places, etc.)

      2) I want bettersupport for tables of contents. And in specific I want to be able to have several different tables of contents in the same document. (Think Table of contents, list of figures, etc.)

      The difference between tables of contents and indexes is that indexes are sorted by name. Tables of contents by order within the document.

      N.B.: This *MAY* be possible in Open/Libre Office. If so I haven't understood how. So it could just be a problem with interface. (I seem to remember creating a document with several indexes, but I don't currently know how to do it.)

      3) I'd *like* to be able to specify things like index entries via markup. A Macintosh word processor a couple of decades ago allowed .i. when formatted as "hidden text" to initiate an index entry. but HTML or XML style markup would be perfectly acceptable, but note that this isn't to handle things like bold (though that *could* be done the same way) but rather tags for the word processor to pickup and use, like "start of header 1" or "end of header text". Naturally this would need to be "hideable" so that like other "invisible characters" you didn't see it if you didn't want to. And it wouldn't EVER need to be printable.

      I realize that request 3 is a step away from WYSIWYG, which is one reason it should have optional visibility. But the ability to hand edit such things is often much more convenient than manipulating them via GUI. (And also it often isn't. So don't cripple one function to support the other.)

      Another thing I'd like to do is print on quarter sheets, with the text rotated properly to allow the pages to be french folded. Currently this requires a page layout program, and must be manually done. (Or perhaps I don't really understand the page layout program. This is only an occasional requirement after all. I need to do this maybe 2-3 times/year. But then I often need to do it quickly.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    37. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      Your comment is a clear indication that this kind of stuff should not be on by default - like auto-completion, which is just annoying, since I can type faster than I can use the auto complete (Thank you, Mavis Deacon)

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    38. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The automation *is* sometimes annoying. But for that on in particular the FIRST thing I'd try is an underlined tab, with the tab positioned where I wanted the underline to end.

      OTOH, as another answer said, you can just turn off the automation. I have some of it turned off already, as it was just too annoying. Other parts I find quite useful, and I would bet that which parts annoy different people is quite different. (I don't like it's automatically correcting capitalizations, as I find that most of it's "corrections" are incorrect. So I turned that feature off.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    39. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Ibiwan · · Score: 1

      You keep referring to The Proprietary Suite as if you're used to writing documents comparing it to open alternatives. "TPS Reports", if you will.

      --
      -- //no comment
    40. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should follow your own advice and post the failing test cases so we could see what's broken. Then some enterprising developer could figure out how to fix them.

      That's not necessary.

      OO and LO aren't even alpha quality yet, if you're considering using them in a workhorse capacity in the enterprise. These pre-alpha type bugs can easily be found by an internal testing staff within the OO and LO teams. There's no need to get end users involved in reporting problems until the software is realistically beta quality.

      At work one day, I opened a sample of our documents that were all originally created with MS Word. (I'm the lone Linux advocate in our group.) All of them had major formatting problems when displayed in OO and LO. They weren't all created from one common template -- I could tell that many of them had been independently created from scratch. (Lest you think this is an old anecdote, my versions were Linux Mint KDE 13 and LibreOffice 3.5.3.2.)

    41. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      I had one of those. Boiled it down to the smallest possible test case (AFAICT), even.

      https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35664

      Couldn't tell you why it's still marked 'new', though.

    42. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      Let me tell you that, as a developer, you are exactly the type of person I want writing feature requests and bug reports. Those are all necessary or neat features, and your descriptions are good. It's a shame LO doesn't have a feature request section or a task list of requested features being implemented (just check https://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/ , I didn't see it).

      I mean honestly the only rebuttial I could provide would be for 2 + 3, which would be to use documentation/guide generation tools - but that's not a valid argument because the average office user would not be able to use most of the tools out there and those tools don't usually provide print-friendly output.

      Thank you for the excellent reply.

    43. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by mattr · · Score: 1

      This. I have done similar comparisons for myself many times.
      I used OOo way back in the beginning and have contributed bug reports to both OOo and LibreOffice.
      I upgraded from OOo to NeoOffice to LibreOffice Mac version.
      But, Microsoft Office 2004 for the Mac is STILL superior so I need both! It kills me!
      The reason why is "LibreOffice will wreck this layout" and "which means I would not be able to share the document with other people", and also "And even simple things like bulleted or numbered outlines get screwed up and wrongly numbered when sending from LO to MSO"!! How utterly braindead. And wasn't there a thing where "passwords are not secure so we won't implement them"? Anyway you just have to have MS Office if you want to do work in the real world, unless you can live in a perfect LibreOffice Oasis and only send PDF, etc to the rest of the world.
      That, and I was too cheap to buy the most recent MS Office for the Mac which is probably better/faster.
      However, for my own work I prefer LibreOffice. Main reasons are:
      - Autocomplete means less keystrokes, so I think my hands hurt less after a long document.
      - Faster
      - Draw is useful, I can quickly draw something and then print to PDF (I use the Mac print dialog, for some reason I think it's superior to the PDF Export button?)
      - The whole database thing is cool though pretty opaque.
      If only there was a kickstarter to fix LibreOffice, by adding a "Compatibility Mode" that JUST. WORKS. EXACTLY. LIKE. MS OFFICE!
      (Except the crappy Save as HTML in MS Office that needs to be killed.) (And I am just talking about document interoperability. Some things work better in LibreOffice.)
      Incidentally my most recent bug report in LibreOffice was about how you can't open RTF and it silently fails. I recommended also opening RTFD, which if that works would be the only way to open RTFD on Windows. Woot!
      Um, why do I care about OOo anymore?

    44. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by leandrod · · Score: 1

      You keep referring to The Proprietary Suite as if you're used to writing documents comparing it to open alternatives. "TPS Reports", if you will.

      Sorry, I did not get your point. But yes, unfortunately I am often required to use it.

      --
      Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
      DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
      GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
    45. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by leandrod · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough, I've had better lucking importing huge documents ( > 400 pages ) into OO and formatting for print than in Word itself.

      Not strange at all, if the original document used styles sanely instead of going for complex direct formatting.

      When things really break is when one has to collaborate with people who resist to LibreOffice on some badly formatted document, and then you have to convert to
      and back again several times.

      --
      Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
      DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
      GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
    46. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works fine for me. This too is actual experience.

    47. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by maeglin · · Score: 1

      Question:

      How does your license make a crappy product any better?

      Answer:

      There is also a lot of Crap Closed Source apps too. But at least those companies in general will go out of business.

      If we're not talking about Angry Birds then you'll be investing energy in order to learn and use any product regardless of the level of shiny. The greater the chance that the product vendor will disappear in a puff of smoke or EOL the product you are using, the larger the risk to your investment and the more attractive alternatives become.

    48. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by JavaBear · · Score: 1

      Nice cherry picking there.

      Read the entire line before trying to make me say something I didn't.

      often F/OSS is superior, I never said always, and yes, a lot is crap, same with closed source.

    49. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I have been working on collecting a large number of authors and books (perhaps something the guy looking for good reading material last week might be interested in?) I had zero problem moving from Libre Office on Debian to Windows 7 Office Excel 2010 using the Microsoft .xlsx file format. Then, yesterday, I made some formatting changes on the Windows 7 machine, applying a bold font and increasing the font size on a few dozen cells for visual purposes. When I saved the file, the file size (around 10 tabs and probably around 10,000 cells total info) went from below 90K to over 1900K. That is, the file ballooned by 20 times. I took the file back to the Linux machine, and opened it there, and resaved, and the file size dropped back to the mid 80s. I haven't reversed the process to see if Microsoft will re-balloon the file, or if they are holding on to extra versions of the file inside for version control. Very interesting. If I ever run into a file that can't be saved due to size issues, or if I want to save for archive purposes, I know that I'll make a point of saving from Libre office before I consider the document final.

    50. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have published a couple of books in Create Space using OO and Libre Office to create the interior PDFs. I used templates supplied by Create Space that were intended for MS Word. The documents were both several hundred pages and included illustrations. I used The Gimp to create front and back cover images and free fonts from Font Squirrel for the title fonts. OO worked perfectly. I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone publishing a print on demand book.

    51. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by bmcage · · Score: 1

      The problem with F/OSS office suites is that their audience tends to be uncritical, so much as in the fairy tale "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" (but in inverse), professionals have stopped listening.

      I remember at least three incidents where I was instructed to evaluate Open Office, Libre Office or other F/OSS word processing or layout packages. In each instance, the F/OSS products fell short in fundamental ways, and were a total disaster for larger documents. Their main strength was that it was often easier to export data from them than it was in certain commercial products.

      The point of this is that in order for one of these FOSS office suites to survive, people who are critical and have use requirements beyond short documents get involved. For these packages to be competitive, they need to rise to a higher standard than Grandma's recipes, Son's book report, a weekend memo to the boss, etc.

      Hey, these are exactly the reasons I did not use a GUI Office back in 1996 :-)

      Tex for long documents, whatever office is installed for short.

    52. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What, exactly, is "MSO2009"?

      If you meant Office 2007 and 2010, then it works just fine.

    53. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by narcc · · Score: 2

      who sends .doc files when email suffices for short documents just fine and works way better on mobile devices.

      Everyone. It drives me crazy.

      Sometimes it's worse. Occasionally, I get a document that has been printed out and scanned to a pdf and sent as an email attachment.

      If that wasn't enough, often those copied on the email will have a discussion over email and include the original attachments with every reply. That might be tolerable in the age of broadband, except the conversation usually goes like this: "Got it, thanks" followed by "Okay, great -- did everyone else get this?", "Yep, just hit my inbox", "Not sure, can you send it again?"

    54. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Maybe. And maybe I just haven't used OpenOffice diligently enough. But I prefer the section tags of Word 98 to OpenOffice. I can't talk about any later versions of MSWord, however, as I've never used them. (And at that point MSWord was going downhill from version to version. The best version of MSWord I ever used was a version that I used on a Mac LC II. In many ways it was superior to the current version of Open Office (if you got the correct version...prior and later versions tended to crash unexpectedly).

      OTOH, I can imagine scenarios where the page formats would be quite useful. I just don't encounter them.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    55. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by narcc · · Score: 1

      You want LaTeX. Take a look at LyX if you haven't already -- it'll make getting started really easy.

      For the quarter-fold cards, check out the rotating package.

      Just FYI, I found an easy way to create quarter fold cards in LibreOffice. Create two new paragraph styles (e.g. French Fold Inside, French Fold Outside). Modify the styles and, under the 'position' tab, set the rotation to 90 degrees for the outside, and 270 degrees for the inside. You can make a card now by simply setting the page orientation to landscape, creating a 2x2 table (obviously), and applying the appropriate style to the leftmost (inside) and rightmost (outside) columns.

      Granted, this would be easier if you could just set the rotation to 180 degrees and have an upside-down style, but it still gets the job done.

    56. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If OO cannot handle large MS Office documents, it is useless.

    57. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Again, this time applied to MS Word: what's the tipping point? I've had the FractINT 20.0 manual open in Word 95 (runs to I think three hundred pages?), although that has no fancy formatting or illustrations, and all I was doing was fixing justification and pagination prior to printing. Handled that well enough.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    58. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      ok, answered this one myself, and FYI: apparently the limit in Word 2003 is 32767 pages or 32MB-1 byte of text, whichever gets hit first. This has something to do with Words document table it uses for pagination and indexing/spellchecking, etc.

      Which makes sense: I've hit much, much lower limits when doing mail merges for large values of "To:"; apparently Word treats each and every copy of the document you're merging, to each and every recipient, as a bunch of separate pages in the same document. So if you're sending 4096 pages to 8 people you're going to hit the page limit and Word 2003 will crap out on you.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    59. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

      Well, about 6 months to one year back I was trying to show a friend that OpenOffice (or was it LibreOffice, can't remember) was a nice alternative to Microsoft Word. I typed some text in a OpenOffice Writer file, saved it as a doc and went to open it on Microsoft Word. The point I was trying to make was that it was interoperable with the de facto standard office suite. And she would have it legally.
      As soon as I opened it on Microsoft Word, it crashed the program. It had about 20 characters of text. No formatting, no different font or size, nothing!
      She laughed at me and I installed her the illegal version of Microsoft Office she had.

      People want Microsoft Office because that's what everyone else has. And they won't give a rat's ass about OpenOffice if they can't share documents with other people. Doesn't matter if they are doing it for the wrong motives or not. They care about interoperability, even if the content could easily be in a text file and occupy 1/100th of the space of the doc.

    60. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by leandrod · · Score: 1

      I used templates supplied by Create Space that were intended for MS Word. The documents were both several hundred pages and included illustrations. I used The Gimp to create front and back cover images and free fonts from Font Squirrel for the title fonts. OO worked
      perfectly.

      Sanity happens. Now, if the templates are badly done with complex direct formatting, and if you have to go back and forth with
      the proprietary word processor several times, or if it is ‘Open’XML, then bad things happen.

      --
      Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
      DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
      GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
    61. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      on different computers?? (not counting Clone systems) with different default printers??

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    62. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That's on the network with several hundred people sharing documents through Sharepoint, with some of them using Office 2007, and some using Office 2010. So, yes, different computers/printers.

    63. Re:The problem with FOSS office suites by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, I looked at LaTex via KLyx awhile ago, and it wasn't what I want. Sorry. Mainly I want things to work the way they work in Open/Libre Office. I just want a few extensions.

      I do agree that LaTex can do what I want. So can Scribus, and I don't want to use that, either. And Scribus wouldn't require and extensive learning curve.

      OTOH, I may be being unfair. It was quite awhile ago that I looked at KLyx (which I'm assuming is the same program as LyX). So I'll give it another look, just to be certain. But since most of what I need is word processing rather than page layout, I have my doubts. (Still, I've got a couple of other reasons for learning LaTex, even if they aren't quite strong enough to get me to actually do it, so I'll give it another look.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  4. Soooooo......... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The big news with OO over the past couple of years have been a fork and a name change? Great.

  5. Merge Libre and OpenOffice? by shellster_dude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This could be a fantastic thing for the Opensource Community.

    Providing the OpenOffice (OO) and the LibreOffice(LO) developers can get past the bad blood of the past, they could merge their to projects back together and focus their efforts.

    1. Re:Merge Libre and OpenOffice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, why don't you work on that?

    2. Re:Merge Libre and OpenOffice? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Look, in the US, we have this thing where black people and white people don't go well together most of the time.

      In open source software development, what we have is 50 shades of grey and they all hate each other.

    3. Re:Merge Libre and OpenOffice? by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      no point, LibreOffice was a necessary un-merge,forked and has the good developers and features. OpenOffice serves no purpse and is a fringe project now

    4. Re:Merge Libre and OpenOffice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, in the US, we have this thing where black people and white people don't go well together most of the time.

      I'm not sure what this comment has to do with anything, but as an American, I seriously have no idea what you're talking about. You should narrow your focus, because what you describe isn't a "US" thing but perhaps strong occurence in your own area.

    5. Re:Merge Libre and OpenOffice? by BrendaEM · · Score: 2

      What do you work for Oracle?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    6. Re:Merge Libre and OpenOffice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He might just not like the name. Not to mention of the duplicated effort of maintaining two office suites whose codebases haven't diverged far yet.

  6. Why choose OO over LO? by Walter+White · · Score: 2

    For those who know more about this than me, why choose OpenOffice over LibreOffice (or vice versa.)

    I used OO until my distro (Debian/Ubuntu/Mint recently) switched to LO and I just went with it. I'm not familiar in detail with the reason for the fork and whether the issues persist. Nor am I aware of the status of each fork and what is the benefit of one over the other.

    Thanks for any clarification.

    1. Re:Why choose OO over LO? by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1, Troll

      I'll make it short: OO was taken over by Oracle. Oracle is full of jerks who hate freedom and love money. Major part of OO team forks OO to LO in order to save it from Oracle. OO usage drops and Oracle decides they don't want it so they give it to Apache, which seems to no be a foundation for software that people stopped caring about. Now we're here - keep using LO and ignore OO till it goes away or whatever.

    2. Re:Why choose OO over LO? by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, maybe I can clear this up. You see, they're both Open Source, but OpenOffice.org required code writing contributors (like me) to jump through hoops and assign my copyright over to the OpenOffice.org folks (Oracle), or else my contributions were denied. LibreOffice doesn't require copyright assignment to accept my contributions. So, that means it's easier to contribute to LibreOffice, and it gets updates faster. So, OpenOffice.org is missing some things that LibreOffice has. Bonus, because they're both from a common code-base, LibreOffice can just pull in anything that OpenOffice has -- The requirement of OO.o's copyright assignment meant that they could not incorporate LO code though. When Oracle decided to kill off the development of OO.o, instead of just gifting the name / trademark over to the newly forked LO folks (where most of the developers went) they gave us all the finger one more time for good measure by making OO.o an Apache project. I don't know if the Official Apache oversight of the project now means they're doing away with copyright assignments, nor do I care at this point. The name itself brings back infuriating memories of frustration and wasted efforts squandered on bureaucracy. LibreOffice already exists, so if it weren't for the older install base, it would be complete waste of time to re-do the work of merging the code back into OpenOffice.org... From a developer's perspective it IS a complete waste of time. That and there's the trademark issue where OpenOffice is owned by someone else, so you have to say OpenOffice.org when you're talking about it.

      TL;DR: Stay with LO, it's actually better and not a waste of time like OO.org is.

    3. Re:Why choose OO over LO? by curcuru · · Score: 4, Informative

      To clarify: - Sun took earlier work to create OpenOffice.org. They added the .org so they could register the trademark around the world. Oracle bought Sun, and after a while, someone internally said "why are we funding this thing", and essentially stopped their corporate development on the code. Some long-term contributors (from various companies) forked the code, and started a GPL licensed fork called LibreOffice. LO folks went on to create TDF = The Document Foundation as a non-profit to keep building their office suite. At that point, Oracle in all it's wisdom (ha!) decided to transfer the trademarks to the ASF and licensed their code (from their last build) to the ASF under the Apache license. Since a bunch of volunteers (yes, many of them are from IBM) showed up at Apache to work on the code, the Apache Incubator accepted them as a podling, or potential project. Today's news story is about this podling graduating to be a top level Apache project, meaning that as long as there's a community to keep building it, the ASF will provide it a home and support. While the ASF is now the legal owner of the OpenOffice.org trademarks, the product will be called Apache OpenOffice going forward. - The ASF has never required copyright assignments; in fact, we don't really accept them. We require that you license any contributions to us under the Apache license, so that the ASF can then re-ship our Apache projects under our Apache license. Once we ship a release (any project), the world is essentially free to take the code and use it whatever way they want. It's unfortunate that people keep bringing up the Sun/Oracle era copyright assignments in the context of Apache OpenOffice. - I have to laugh when various commenters ask about merging the projects. First, it's clear that the people in the projects - i.e. the volunteers (or $bigco employees paid to work on them) mostly have made it clear that they have some different objectives and ways of working. So for the actual developers working on AOO and LO, it's unlikely the communities will merge. Many people would certainly like to see more code and idea sharing. In fact LO is welcome to incorporate any released AOO code in their project. However since Apache projects don't ship GPL code, the reverse is not always true, unless someone specifically licenses the code under the Apache License to AOO. Fundamentally, AOO is happy to share code with anyone. LO will only share code with people who use the GPL. Which world seems like it would be a larger set of developers?

    4. Re:Why choose OO over LO? by Suddenly_Dead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which world seems like it would be a larger set of developers?

      There are two different underlying questions here which could potentially have two completely different answers:

      A) Which project will have the larger set of developers using its code in some manner
      B) Which project will have the larger set of developers contributing back to it?

    5. Re:Why choose OO over LO? by bobthesungeek76036 · · Score: 1

      Here's my brief personal experience with LibreOffice: I'm a long-time OO user and I have a template status .DOC and a template .XLS I submit every week for my consulting gig. Both are about 40-50K in size when I edit them and save them in OO. I decided to give LO a trial run and found that my timesheet was about 750K when I saved it. WtF? Out went LO and I'm sticking with OO...

      --
      Karma: Bad
    6. Re:Why choose OO over LO? by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      I received some MS word documents via email, opened and edited them in LibreOffice then saved in MSWord format to return them. When I reopened them later I found that sections of the text had been randomly bolded. I checked with a copy of MSWord and yes the bolding was in the saved file. I went back to using Open Office as it doesn't bold the text or otherwise corrupt my work as far as I can tell. MSWord doesn't have this problem at all, of course.

    7. Re:Why choose OO over LO? by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      -1 Troll!? Looks like some Oracle employees are are tromping around Slashdot now. Come on, what about my description wasn't completeley 100% accurate and detailed?

    8. Re:Why choose OO over LO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they;'re not.

      LibreOffice is "free software", by definition, under a GPLv2 license. Apache OpenOffice is "open source", under an Apache license. The difference matters, a lot, because the Apache license based development can be kept in house to commercialize it and take it offline from other developers, and the GPL licensed software has to publish their changes to their users.

      The difference may sound better to a pointy haired boss trying to monetize their next quarter's software updates, but for software stability in the long term, GPL licenses have proven trhemselves time and time again against Apache licenses. (I point to the obscenity that is Lucene and Tomcat for ongoing examples of what happens with Apache license developed internal corporate forks that waste everyone else's time.)

  7. Why not merge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any particular reason why they won't merge with LibreOffice? I can see why Sun/Oracle might have some commercial and proprietary agendas, but what's stopping Apache? AFAIK, LibreOffice already made a difference from OpenOffice by integrating more languages, bugfixes and features. Is Apache OpenOffice going re-develop those improvements?

    Often forks are due to project mismanagement or severely differing development goals, and if nothing like that exists, one of the projects is just going to die. LibreOffice forked due to mismanagement by Oracle. Also ref gcc-vs-egcs in the 90's.

    1. Re:Why not merge? by curcuru · · Score: 1

      It's the licenses, Anonymous Coward. AOO only uses the Apache License, and doesn't care what license anyone else uses. LO only uses the GPL, and wants everyone to use *only* the GPL. The AOO project is happy to accept contributions from anyone - including LO folks - but only under our license.

    2. Re:Why not merge? by stooo · · Score: 1

      Both camps stay on their licensing scheme, refusing to include the other one.
      The GPL has a clear advantage of requiring contribution back to the community => profit for humanity
      The BSD likes have the clear advantage of mixing with any code base, dev work is clearly slower due to less contributions back.

      The LGPL (like LO) is a very good and clever compromise, it's GPL (with all advantages) but you can mix with proprietary/BSD components !

      --
      aaaaaaa
    3. Re:Why not merge? by curcuru · · Score: 2

      The Apache license (like BSD, but better), has the clear advantage of allowing anyone to use the code. Including people who want to add it to something GPL. It's the universal donor.

    4. Re:Why not merge? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Which makes it sound to me like LO will probably be the better product for the end user, since they can take anything good that AOO developers come up with and incorporate it in LO if it is better than what the LO developers came up with.
      That being said, AOO has a slightly better name and the backing of a larger foundation which may result in better developer support, so time will tell how it will work out.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  8. OO and LO are similar enough that... by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 2

    I'm just using Libreoffice now since that is what our distros support out of the box (CentOS and Ubuntu). Since they are functionally the same, I haven't found any reason to cling to OO once all the noise started and resulted in the fork to LO. I haven't had any complaints.

    Best,

    1. Re:OO and LO are similar enough that... by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      Exactly.

      For me: I had to read the comments to get a quick refresh of what happened. My first thoughts were in the lines of "oh, LibreOffice got a new name again?".

      One of the reasons I like to use Linux is the completeness of a distro. You install a distro, and you get pretty much any application you can think of with it (try than with Windows...). Free, maintained, virtually guaranteed virus free as long as you stick to your distro's repositories.

      Now my distro comes with an office suit. It used to be StarOffice (may have been a separate download at the time, I forgot), then OpenOffice, soon after OpenOffice.org, then LibreOffice. It all looks and works mostly the same, I'm happy. Maybe my distro (currently Ubuntu) may switch to Apache OpenOffice in the future, well then I'll have that one. As long as it works.

      Similar with how I and almost anyone else switched from Xfree86 to X.org. It still works.

      I don't care about politics in development, let them figure it out, and let my distro maker figure out which software is overall the best. And for corner cases I may override their choices. I know OOo and LO parted ways, I don't care why, who's running what, I trust my distro to choose the best for me (and if I'm not happy with the distro I'll try another, not going to fiddle around with bits and pieces).

      Who's going to "win"? Well, let them battle it out. Probably no-one. Let there be two, three, four competing but compatible (using ODF) office suits on the market. The more the merrier, competition is what drives us forward. They all want users, and to get users they have to have the better product.

  9. I'm not much of a fan of the Apache foundation by Omnifarious · · Score: 2

    Their projects have a strong tendency to be bloated in code size and kind of bureaucratic in the way they engage the development community. I think, given the history of OpenOffice that this is an excellent home for it. But I don't really think much of the development methodology of the original OpenOffice project either.

    But, time will tell. If the OpenOffice people reach out to LibreOffice and actually try to convince that community to come back, they might have a chance of moving forward in a positive way. The LibreOffice fork was brewing a long time before Oracle dropped the ball on the OpenOffice project. I think that was just the last straw.

    1. Re:I'm not much of a fan of the Apache foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't do it. Lots of work on LO were done under the GPL, by people who do not want anyone to take their work, make it private, _improve it_ and NOT release back the changes to the public. Apache has a more open license, that allows this kind of thing. These two licenses are not mutually compatible, so much of the work done on LO cannot be ported back to OO (the inverse is _NOT_ true BTW. Any work done in OO can be ported to LO, whether it makes sense to do so is an orthogonal issue).

      Apache OO won't change the OO license to GPL, they have stakeholders that want to be able to make proprietary products out of OO (such as IBM). And the LO developers either don't care for the proprietary stakeholders (actually, don't care either way), or are actively against such things, so it won't get relicensed either.

  10. Where is their solution for mobile users? by guanxi · · Score: 1

    More and more people work on mobile platforms. Is OpenOffice going to provide them with a solution?

    1. Re:Where is their solution for mobile users? by ssam · · Score: 5, Informative

      most of the openoffice devs are now libreoffice devs, so most of the recent development happens there. libreoffice is working on an android version.
      http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/07/libreoffice-for-android-advances-document-viewer-is-on-the-way/

  11. We live on different planets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quite to the contrary, LibreOffice deals better with long documents than the proprietary alternative, and also it never
    corrupts complex documents like the proprietary alternative.

    The only fundamental way where LibreOffice falls short is when dealing with unnecessary complexity in the proprietary suite
    files. Complexity which is fairly common, given the proprietary suite deficiencies in structuring documents.

    Because you say so, and yet, you're not a writer :)

  12. Calc killed my spreadsheet, my OOo love died by Andy+Prough · · Score: 2

    I was an OpenOffice fanatic for a number of years, but about 3 years ago Calc killed one of my spreadsheets I had been working on for a week. Like an idiot, I had not been saving frequent incremental drafts, so I lost nearly all the data, and a 1 week project turned into a 2 week project. Since that time, I've learned my lesson to save a new draft copy of an office document after every few hours of work. I've also switched to doing most of my document work in MS Office, as I found it more stable. However, I still keep a copy of LibreOffice on my system at all times, and I do find it much more useful for certain activities, such as importing and exporting a wider variety of file types, working with .csv files, etc. But, I still recall opening that empty spreadsheet after a week's work as the dark day my unwavering love for OOo died a miserable death.

    1. Re:Calc killed my spreadsheet, my OOo love died by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What you experienced can happen with any software, even MsO. You learned a valuable lesson and it only cost you a week of work. Consider yourself lucky.

    2. Re:Calc killed my spreadsheet, my OOo love died by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OOoCalc (and the Libre variant) is the program you use to view Excel spreadsheets. It does that reasonably well.

      If you want a decent, speedy spreadsheet, look at Gnumeric. It is to OOoCalc as Usain Bolt is to a one-legged dog.

  13. Well, they dropped the .org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess that's something. Still not holding my breath for something so redundant. LibreOffice works, has made great progress (with code cleanup in particular) and is tended to by a very active community. Diversity for diversity's sake is nice and all, but what's OO's unique selling point again?

    1. Re:Well, they dropped the .org by stooo · · Score: 1

      The licence ?
      The user base ?

      --
      aaaaaaa
    2. Re:Well, they dropped the .org by higuita · · Score: 1

      the .org was there because of "openoffice" is a trademark of a Netherlands company and its valid in the Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemborg)... adding the .org you have a different trademark.

      Now, its Apache OpenOffice, so you drop the .org and add the Apache, its probably enough to workaround this ...but INAL!

      --
      Higuita
  14. Google docs? by Leejjon · · Score: 1

    I still have open office installed on some of my machines, why should I move if it still works and still has updates. For most documents that are meant for myself or my friends I actually use Google documents nowadays because it's easier than moving files around.

  15. boosts ODF support by ssam · · Score: 1

    A good reason to keep openoffice in existance is to make this list as long as possible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Software

  16. StarOffice by denisbergeron · · Score: 1

    Before Libre, Open, it was a Star, who was my office suite on linux back in y2k. I want my StarOffice back !

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
  17. Seems to me... by Trashcan+Romeo · · Score: 1

    ... that anyone sheepish enough to get freaked out by an OpenOffice to LibreOffice transfer would probably still be using Microsoft Office anyway.

  18. Nothing different from before... by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

    * Emacs vs. VI
    * Windows vs. Linux vs. Mac
    * Debian vs. Redhat vs. Suse vs. etc.
    * Gnome vs. KDE vs. XFCE vs. etc.

    And now for your geek fighting pleasure!

    * Libre Office vs. Open Office!

    Let the battle begin!

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    1. Re:Nothing different from before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * Emacs vs. VI * Windows vs. Linux vs. Mac * Debian vs. Redhat vs. Suse vs. etc. * Gnome vs. KDE vs. XFCE vs. etc. And now for your geek fighting pleasure! * Libre Office vs. Open Office! Let the battle begin!

      more like GCC vs EGCS

    2. Re:Nothing different from before... by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      LO vs AOO is more like GNU emacs vs Xemacs or something.

      The JWZ solution is probably best here too: give up caring and go into the alcohol business.

  19. Stills needs Java? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't somebody please make that go away? Libre/Open office should be more portable, meaning, it would be better if I could just copy it to any machine and run it. You know, the way Mac programs are 'installed'. All programs should be like that.

    1. Re:Stills needs Java? by Andy+Prough · · Score: 3, Informative

      I heard there was a little button thingey you could click to run it without Java. And I heard there was a website called "portableapps" that has portable versions of OOo and LO that you can put on a thumbdrive and run on any computer. I heard all that - but I'm quite sure its all lies - nasty, nasty lies.

  20. Optimistic assumptions by Palestrina · · Score: 2

    But is it really accurate to say that 100% of Ubuntu installs are used for document editing? And that 0% prefer LO to Abi or KOffice or Calligra or Google Docs or anything else? Those are optimistic assumptions, don't you think?

    That's why I focus on download numbers. Someone who intentionally downloads clear has the intent to use the product.

    So if you want to know relative usage numbers, then focus on an apples to apples comparison that makes sense, like the number of Windows downloads.

    1. Re:Optimistic assumptions by pmontra · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm sure somebody has OO or LO on his/her Linux box and never used it. Anyway I read in another comment to this article that Windows accounts for about 80% of LO downloads, Mac 15%. If those numbers are real, and they feel like they are, the influence of Linux distributions on the overall usage is marginal. The popularity of OO vs LO is driven by the upgrade choices of Windows users. But actually, should I care if in a couple of years OO takes again a definite lead in the FOSS office space? I don't have any strong opinion about them. They're both open source and they feel about the same to me. Am I missing anything?

  21. OpenOffice dot org? by Compaqt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Speaking of names, is it actually "Apache OpenOffice" now? That would be an improvement over calling an office suite by the name of its website, "OpenOffice.org".

    I mean, did anybody ever call it "Open Office dot org"? Judging by the comments in this thread, no.

    Same for Postgres / PostgreSQL ("post greh ess queue elle").

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:OpenOffice dot org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But PostgresQL stands for "post-Ingres Query Language" (or possibly "post-Ingres Simple Query Language"), and the "e" in Ingres (the painter) is an unstressed schwa, like the "e" in "libre". Definitely not an "eh". And the "s" in "Ingres" is mute. So shouldn't it be "POST-gruh-queue-elle" or "POST-gress-queue-elle" rather than "post-greh-ess-queue-elle"?

    2. Re:OpenOffice dot org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, did anybody ever call it "Open Office dot org"?

      Of course not, just as nobody is calling this here "Slash dot org". Oh, wait ...

    3. Re:OpenOffice dot org? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I always just read it as a portmanteau of "Postgres" and "SQL": "Post-gress-queue-elle".

    4. Re:OpenOffice dot org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, did anybody ever call it "Open Office dot org"?

      Of course not, just as nobody is calling this here "Slash dot org". Oh, wait ...

      Slash Dot Dot Org?

    5. Re:OpenOffice dot org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I favor Apache Office. Or even Wild West Violence Office.

  22. Re:OpenOffice dot org - Apache OpenOffice by curcuru · · Score: 5, Informative

    The official name of the new ASF project (and the software it ships) is Apache OpenOffice. While the ASF now legally owns the trademarks associated with OpenOffice.org, going forward we'll be using Apache OpenOffice as our trademark. While normally we require Apache projects to live at an *.apache.org domain name, given the broad (non-technical) end-user base of AOO they will still provide a user-based homepage at openoffice.org. Developers should probably go to openoffice.apache.org for technical info. ---- I'm not a lawyer, but I was an Apache OpenOffice podling mentor

  23. No more .org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That and there's the trademark issue where OpenOffice is owned by someone else, so you have to say OpenOffice.org when you're talking about it.

    Not anymore, now it's Apache OpenOffice (TM).

    It's in TFA.

  24. Re:StarOffice - Get some. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Knock yourself out: http://www.staroffice.com/

  25. Posting test cases by concealment · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you should follow your own advice and post the failing test cases so we could see what's broken.

    That's a great idea! Let's think it through, however. I don't own the data; that belongs to the client. Thus, I have to be somewhat vague. Further, I'm available for consulting at my usual rate -- my contact should be on my user page. I give very specific reports (not written in OO, LibreOffice or Word) to clients.

    1. Re:Posting test cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're full of shit

    2. Re:Posting test cases by CowTipperGore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's a great idea! Let's think it through, however. I don't own the data; that belongs to the client. Thus, I have to be somewhat vague.

      You couldn't modify the example enough to use the documents already examined in your tests? Or, if the problem was a missing feature instead of a bug, you couldn't explain it without that specific set of spreadsheet data?

      I'm available for consulting at my usual rate -- my contact should be on my user page.

      So you're saying that you don't volunteer your time to someone's project. Pay to play, right?

      From your journal post earlier today:

      Despite having other demands on my time, I've begun spending a half-hour or so every day making submissions to Slashdot and trying to write quality comments. I am doing this because I think Slashdot is an important part of the internet, which like other forms of media, for good or ill is a part of our "culture."...It's not perfect...I've been modded -1, Flamebait for a post I thought was insightful too. Nothing is perfect...Support Slashdot. With your energy, time, money, whatever. It's worth it.

      Hold on now. If you're willing to take that stance regarding Slashdot, why not just be honest about F/OSS office suites? You don't care about them and have no interest in seeing them succeed. There really is nothing wrong with that position.

    3. Re:Posting test cases by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 0

      If you're willing to take that stance regarding Slashdot, why not just be honest about F/OSS office suites? You don't care about them and have no interest in seeing them succeed. There really is nothing wrong with that position.

      I think you're making his(?) point for him. He never said he cared about F/OSS office suites or had an interest in seeing them succeed. He said he'd been asked to evaluate them on several occasions and found that they fell short. There is no obligation on anyone, or even on everyone who posts on Slashdot, to find F/OSS inherently superior in some way.

      He's not the only one with reservations. I, too, have evaluated many alternatives to MS Office for my own businesses, clients, and others. So far, I am still strongly of the view that for anyone with non-trivial requirements and whose time matters more than a little money (which is almost everyone in business or government for a start) neither the OpenOffice family nor any of the on-line alternatives like Google Docs that I have seen to date are serious competitors. Home users can use toy software and might not mind. Professionals need tools that work reliably and efficiently, and £200 or so is nothing compared to the losses of using substandard and/or incompatible tools.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:Posting test cases by CowTipperGore · · Score: 1

      I think you're making his(?) point for him. He never said he cared about F/OSS office suites or had an interest in seeing them succeed. He said he'd been asked to evaluate them on several occasions and found that they fell short. There is no obligation on anyone, or even on everyone who posts on Slashdot, to find F/OSS inherently superior in some way.

      Indeed. I expect many read his posts and assume he is a troll. I pointed out that perhaps he isn't, but that he probably could have been more forthcoming in his responses.

      He's not the only one with reservations. I, too, have evaluated many alternatives to MS Office for my own businesses, clients, and others. So far, I am still strongly of the view that for anyone with non-trivial requirements and whose time matters more than a little money (which is almost everyone in business or government for a start) neither the OpenOffice family nor any of the on-line alternatives like Google Docs that I have seen to date are serious competitors. Home users can use toy software and might not mind. Professionals need tools that work reliably and efficiently, and £200 or so is nothing compared to the losses of using substandard and/or incompatible tools.

      I used OpenOffice exclusively as the IT Director for a university for several years. At no point did we seriously consider moving the campus there, but I proved to myself that it was very possible to use it day in and day out. In my current job (where I'm back on MS Office), we spend several hundred thousand dollars per year with Microsoft for Office. We are a heavily-invested MS shop and many of my folks are openly hostile to F/OSS. Yet budgetary issues have forced recent discussion toward looking at options to get us off Office, including OO/LibreOffice. We've found that your categorization of "professional" and "toy" is greatly overstated in the real world. Some specific use-case testing would be required for engineers, accountants, executives, etc, and we may have to spring for a handful of MS Office seats to address issues. But the average business is filled with people using Office for things that any of half a dozen alternatives can do with zero problems. The majority of our document creation could be handled by WordPad. A large percentage of our Excel use is either amazingly simple or poorly suited to Excel (from Engineering databases to, and I shit you not, HR's death of employee notice).

      We're not going to dump Office for something that doesn't do the job and I would never claim that the alternatives are ready for 100% of scenarios. But I can promise you that moving our users to OpenOffice would have been no less painful than it was going to Office 2010 (from 2003).

    5. Re:Posting test cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You complain about unspecified bugs in software that other people, often unpaid, developed so you can use it for free, even commercially. When asked to specify and file those bugs, so other people can fix them for free, you reply:

      I'm available for consulting at my usual rate

      You don't get what free software is about, do you?

    6. Re:Posting test cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he doesn't care about F/OSS and doesn't accept its principle of giving back, the honest thing would be to stop using F/OSS, or at least not to complain about supposed bugs while refusing to specify.

    7. Re:Posting test cases by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      Governments should also operate under a constraint they rarely do.

      Governments should avoid forcing their citizens to pay money to a private entity in order for their citizens to interact with them. This means that governments should avoid using software who's data format is largely proprietary.

      Yes, yes, the stupid 'documented' XML format that's not really an open standard at all....

      I think, for a document format to be considered standard, there must be at least one piece of fully-interoperable Open Source software that handles the document format.

    8. Re:Posting test cases by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      OK, I was being a little flippant with the "toy" vs. "professional" thing, but only a little.

      If, as you say, the majority of your document creation could be handled by WordPad, then sure, it probably doesn't matter which word processor you use. In fact, by your own argument, you don't actually need a word processor at all.

      On the other hand, for people who do actually need the kind of extra functionality that a good word processor or spreadsheet offers, the poor usability of the OpenOffice family in comparison to the products of Microsoft's heavily funded and data-driven usability research is a serious consideration. For example, I know many people who complained mightily about the move to the Ribbon UI, but I have never heard anyone I know personally, neither friends and family nor work colleagues, say they had made the move but then wanted to go back after a few days getting used to it. Obviously no one person's experience is necessarily representative here, but still, that's a mighty clear picture for this one person.

      From my own direct experience, even silly little changes in LibreOffice can be incredibly frustrating. For example, Calc used to let you type "18/" in a date cell and have it complete to 18/10/12 today (I'm in the UK, and it's 18 October 2012 as I write this). Now you have to type "18/10". There's no benefit whatsoever to that change, and it breaks something that one person I work with who maintains a spreadsheet full of dates has to type many times every day. That person is, let's say politely, not a fan of LibreOffice right now, and this ill-considered change is about to result in my company spending £200 to purchase Microsoft Office for them so they can use Excel instead.

      As a business owner, I really don't mind that. Of course it's not just that one change that has motivated the decision to switch to Excel, but it's the straw that broke the camel's back after many other poor usability problems with LibreOffice Calc. I expect that the reduction in frustration and corresponding loss of efficiency will pay for the entire MS Office purchase within a few days because of that one bug. A pleasant working environment is worth a lot both commercially and simply because it's nicer for me and those I work with. On the other hand, allowing staff to suffer silly irritations that waste time can be incredibly damaging. So I guess we'll be one more case study of someone switching back to MS after using the F/OSS alternative by default because it was free.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    9. Re:Posting test cases by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Governments should avoid forcing their citizens to pay money to a private entity in order for their citizens to interact with them.

      The trouble with that argument is that taken to its logical conclusion it can't possibly work in general. For many government interactions, I now have a choice of filing on-line (requires an Internet connection), sending everything by post (requires paying postage) or personally visiting a government office (requires paying for transportation to get there and back if I don't live nearby). Life isn't free, which is why we get jobs to earn money that we spend on other things, some of which are essential.

      This doesn't detract from democratic principles like making information from the government available to everyone. But I don't accept any argument in favour of using only OSS-friendly formats that is based on that principle, because in practice way more people know how to read a Word .doc file or an Adobe .pdf than a LibreOffice Writer file, and free-as-in-beer readers for both proprietary formats are available from Microsoft and Adobe respectively, and non-electronic copies of important things are available via other channels for those who don't have access to an Internet-connected computer.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    10. Re:Posting test cases by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      The trouble with that argument is that taken to its logical conclusion it can't possibly work in general. For many government interactions, I now have a choice of filing on-line (requires an Internet connection), sending everything by post (requires paying postage) or personally visiting a government office (requires paying for transportation to get there and back if I don't live nearby). Life isn't free, which is why we get jobs to earn money that we spend on other things, some of which are essential.

      Yes, but the post office is regulated and may only charge a legislatively limited amount of money. And for the others, you have a choice of providers.

      For editing a Microsoft Word document (to, say, fill out a form) you have to buy a piece of software from a particular entity that has been granted a government monopoly on providing you with those bits. The government, in essence, has given them the power to impose an arbitrary tax on you that there is no reason for them to limit.

      For example, it would be permissible (with the way things currently work) for Microsoft to declare that if you used their software to generate a document that you gave to a government entity that you had to pay an additional arbitrary license fee. If they did that, it wouldn't stay permissible for long. But that just means they have to be more clever and subtle about it.

    11. Re:Posting test cases by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, may I ask where you're based? It sounds like this is a real problem for you, and if I had to submit things myself in Word format then I might well agree. Here in the UK, information from the government is often provided as, e.g., a PDF file, but things that are interactive like filing tax returns are typically done using (usually fairly well done) government-hosted web sites.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    12. Re:Posting test cases by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      It's not actually a real problem. I barely interact with the government at all. :-) And the government here is still almost obsessively paper based.

      I have a problem with resume's sometimes. But I'm skilled enough that generally recruiters are more than happy to convert to Word for me, and that has nothing to do with government access.

      But, I live in Seattle, Washington in the USA.

  26. LaTeX by catchblue22 · · Score: 4, Informative

    we all moved to LibreOffice

    My main document producing software is now LaTeX, using TeXShop on my Mac. It does everything I need, and the documents look pretty. Most especially, I love the ability of LaTeX to typeset equations seamlessly. Perhaps there is a slight learning curve, but it wasn't bad. And when I need to do something unusual, I use the google manual.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    1. Re:LaTeX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, some of us do need to make a spreadsheet or presentation. Last time I checked LaTeX didn't do those...
      (Disclaimer: I actually like the concept of LaTex, but haven't gotten around to actually using it in our MS Office corporate environment)

  27. LIbreOffice vs OpenOffice by darth_borehd · · Score: 1

    Winner of this battle will be the first one to offer 100% compatibility with MS Office VBS macros.

  28. We Now, Officially, do not care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Larry successfully destroyed OpenOffice, let it RIP.

  29. Re:FOSS is not compatible with doc/docx by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    I have been turned down for work because my resume looked like crap on their computers but fine on mine.

    I switched back to Windows and Office and never looked back after that. IN the business world where you survive on 10% margins of profit a loss of a supplier, customer, or a good employee can have a staggering impact. When you hear on the phone sorry I have Xoffice people will think you are incompetent. It is like saying I do not have email or a fax number. I have a zigatron instead.

    We got into similar arguments 10 years ago on slashdot on why Netscape and the beta version of Mozilla was alllll so awesome compared to the new IE 6. Fact is, 90% of the world used IE 6 and if you can't code sites for it you did not belong to rest of the world.

    It wasn't until Firefox came along that a real alternative existed and a reason to leave IE behind. Now we have the freedom to use whatever browser because the stranglehold was broke. What does this have to do with office?

    Easy. MS Office is still superior, lighter, and owns the standards the world uses to get shit done. Until there is a better product people like myself will continue to pay money for it and use it. I am not a troll here but this is a serious problem. No StarWritter (or whatever the fuck it is called now) is not fully compatible with Word nor its formatting issues.

    You want the world to switch you need a lighter and supperior product. StarOffice and OpenOffice 1.2 5 years ago was slow as hell. Most users will just stick to what they know and that is Office.

  30. Please mod parent informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please mod parent up. Author "curcuru" was an Apache OpenOffice podling mentor.

  31. Re:You can't really win this way by Billly+Gates · · Score: 0

    The issue always comes back to reading and editing MS Office documents.

    An analogy to another MS proprietary product is IE. The fact is when IE 6 had 90% of the market you couldn't win by emulating IE hacks. Therefore, developers only targeted it and users refused to upgrade. People say Mozilla at the time was perfectly compatible most of the time but that 20% of sites that told you to leave Netscape( as they assumed anything non IE was that) otherwise.

    Until something was much better users had no reason to leave. Once Firefox started gaining 10 to 15% of the market website developers stubbornly had to write 2 versions of the website and then the world could finally leave.

    What does LibreOffice and OpenOffice offer that MS Office does not? Nothing other than trying to re-implement features and be bug compatible with Microsofts formats. Why not just use the real thing and not have to worry about hassles?

    You want people to switch you need to make it very fast and include something innovative that is not in MS office. Cloud integration? Another app? Groupware support that doesn't require exchange? Blogging tool? I don't know something worthwhile. Make it a killer app.

  32. Time for OpenOffice to Climb on the Dead Cart by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    whOracle bought a company, and could have had their name well in the brainshare of the world, but instead, they were greedy, and that greed and disrespect for the open source community has come home to roost. Instead of trying to shake a well-earned bad reputation, I think that OpenOffice should climb on the bring out your dead cart.

    I am not so sure whOracal should be inhibit the Librieoffe steering committee, because that cannot be trusted, and they will wedge proprietary technology into it.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  33. Don't confuse disengagement for opposition by concealment · · Score: 1

    So you're saying that you don't volunteer your time to someone's project.

    No, absolutely not. But in this case, I'm full up with projects and so this should be pay-to-play. As you can see, I give a lot of my time to free projects.

    You don't care about them and have no interest in seeing them succeed.

    Not really. But having an audience that can't tell "doesn't work" from "works" means I wouldn't waste my time on that particular product.

    Further, my belief is that having more different types of word processors is more important than cloning MS Office.

    1. Re:Don't confuse disengagement for opposition by CowTipperGore · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse disengagement for opposition

      I didn't claim you opposed anything; in fact, I specifically suggested that you be honest about your "disengagement". However, your posts would certainly lend themselves to assuming that you are trolling. You hand wave about supposed specific problems but provide no specifics, then when asked to contribute the specifics you suggest that you might if someone pays you for your time. For testing and reporting problems with a F/OSS project. This certainly looks more like opposition, not apathy. But I also consider other posts you've made and that perhaps you simply could have worded your responses better.

      But having an audience that can't tell "doesn't work" from "works" means I wouldn't waste my time on that particular product.

      I don't buy your assertion that this is overwhelmingly true with products like LibreOffice. Spend some time reading bug reports and feature requests; you may be disabused of your claim. I've used OO/LibreOffice and Google Docs at home for years. I am occasionally frustrated by shortcomings of Google Docs and formatting issues in OO/LibreOffice. I would never claim that these are 100% drop-in replacements for MS Office. They do, however, work exceedingly well for the purchase price and are perfectly acceptable Office replacements for many scenarios.

      Are there overzealous evangelists for these products? Of course. What product and audience doesn't have that problem to some degree?

      Further, my belief is that having more different types of word processors is more important than cloning MS Office.

      I'm not sure what you mean here. I agree that competitors shouldn't be trying to clone Office, but they also must be similar enough to be given a chance by most users. What other type of word processor are you imaging?

  34. What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speak for yourself there, bub. In my US, we have an ass-kicking President who will be reelected because his imaginary race is insignificant by comparison to his actual deeds, to his predecessor, and to his current opponent. The part of the US that actually works well goes well together most of the time, and it outnumbers those who think otherwise.

    1. Re:What the hell? by Oloryn · · Score: 1

      Wow. A message from an alternate universe.

  35. Stick a fork in it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And officially Over...

  36. Re:FOSS is not compatible with doc/docx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been turned down for work because my resume looked like crap on their computers but fine on mine.

    I switched back to Windows and Office and never looked back after that. IN the business world where you survive on 10% margins of profit a loss of a supplier, customer, or a good employee can have a staggering impact. When you hear on the phone sorry I have Xoffice people will think you are incompetent. It is like saying I do not have email or a fax number. I have a zigatron instead.

    We got into similar arguments 10 years ago on slashdot on why Netscape and the beta version of Mozilla was alllll so awesome compared to the new IE 6. Fact is, 90% of the world used IE 6 and if you can't code sites for it you did not belong to rest of the world.

    It wasn't until Firefox came along that a real alternative existed and a reason to leave IE behind. Now we have the freedom to use whatever browser because the stranglehold was broke. What does this have to do with office?

    Easy. MS Office is still superior, lighter, and owns the standards the world uses to get shit done. Until there is a better product people like myself will continue to pay money for it and use it. I am not a troll here but this is a serious problem. No StarWritter (or whatever the fuck it is called now) is not fully compatible with Word nor its formatting issues.

    You want the world to switch you need a lighter and supperior product. StarOffice and OpenOffice 1.2 5 years ago was slow as hell. Most users will just stick to what they know and that is Office.

    Use PDFs for resumes. Everyone accepts them now, they look identical across platforms and are immutable -- unless you really need the HR person to make changes for you.

  37. FOSS shoots itself in foot with false claims by concealment · · Score: 1

    You make a really good point:

    The reason why is "LibreOffice will wreck this layout" and "which means I would not be able to share the document with other people", and also "And even simple things like bulleted or numbered outlines get screwed up and wrongly numbered when sending from LO to MSO"!! How utterly braindead. And wasn't there a thing where "passwords are not secure so we won't implement them"? Anyway you just have to have MS Office if you want to do work in the real world, unless you can live in a perfect LibreOffice Oasis and only send PDF, etc to the rest of the world.

    To a businessperson, this can mean hours of time wasted with OO/LO when MSO is only a few hundred dollars.

    This is a problem in that it teaches people a simple lesson: FOSS is bullshit.

    Naturally, I don't agree with that, as a longtime shareware/FOSS user; I want people to see the good examples of FOSS, not the incomplete ones.

    For this reason, I give my professional opinion here: OO/LO is not ready to replace MSO, much less the professional packages.

    We discredit all of FOSS when our solution to non-working FOSS products is zealotry. Zealotry is what happens when people point out flaws in FOSS, and instead of deciding to look into it, the FOSS community spends its time fighting back, and calling them idiots and trolls. That's a hateful and self-destructive attitude.

    The correct response is to value community feedback, and improve the product, not pound on the walls and scream and claim it's perfectly viable. Until that happens, it's stupid and brain-dead to blame the users for not flocking to the defective product.

    1. Re:FOSS shoots itself in foot with false claims by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      I'll agree with you that the answer to someone asking about a particular MSO feature is not to say "You're stupid for requesting it."

      On the other hand, I think OO is perfectly viable for use if you're a new company deciding on your own tech infrastructure as opposed to trying to be the OO loner in a MS-based company.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    2. Re:FOSS shoots itself in foot with false claims by mattr · · Score: 1

      Hi, and thanks for a great comment.
      What have found is that there is a clear road to follow in development. Over the years a number of the issues I have submitted, mostly user experience related, are treated as enhancements, even if they are pretty important. Sometimes these get handled much later I think.

      The most recent issue I mentioned about RTF and RTFD (LO can't open them but should) was picked up and treated seriously by more than one person and I am excited about that. At least, it is silly if you are on a Mac using TextEdit, Bean, etc. to save an RTF (I keep all my notes in these flat files) but can't open it in LibreOffice.

      When I report a bug, I usually find another one or two additional bugs/enhancement issues at the same time. For example, I discovered IIRC that when you try to paste an outline it doesn't work! And I rediscovered the other day (I actually recognized the issue a long time ago) that exporting an LO document with text interleaving two numbered outlines will renumber incorrectly when opened in MS Word. These are really basic!

      But let's take a step back. There really is a finite number of use-cases for an Office suite in business. The real problem seems to be a lack of interest or role in the open source project development for a person or team that steers development to real business world issues and pounds on all aspects of user experience including UI, functionality, expectations, interoperability, etc. to ensure that something of high quality will be the answer.

      This is the only reason I can figure out the LO still does not have a widget in the scrollbar that you can pull down to make a split view like in MS Word. And you can't tile two windows. So if I wanted to say, translate a Word or PDF technical document into another window I have to drag and align windows in 1 or more applications and not have other windows open in those applications at the same time. The issues about RTF, outline export, and cut and paste are similarly, things that just couldn't happen if there was anybody involved who has a vested interest in making a quality business product. That is why I think there should be a new team added to LibreOffice and maybe other projects, that will have a specific mandate of ensuring ease of use by the business user. These are the people who pay for things after all. I think this might improve as European governments move into LibreOffice but since so many businesspeople have given up on OOo already, I feel there are few people who push to solve these problems, or even do user experience testing (eating their own dog food), otherwise they should discover these problems themselves and be frustrated enough to fix them. My two cents and I certainly love LibreOffice but wish it could be a little better. A little can be a lot.

  38. might as well be dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I might as well be officially dead. Everyone has already moved on to LibreOffice.

  39. Better... by BlueTak · · Score: 1

    Openoffice has (much ) better icons than LibreOffice

  40. Here's My List, AGAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. SLOW! Slow to start. Slow to open documents, slow to do anything.
    2. Formatting compatibility. Create MS Office document and save it in any version from 2000 to docx. Open it in Open/Libre Office... shit scattered everywhere.
    3. Printing. I still can't print envelopes properly, the orientation does not shift correctly from one printer to the next.
    4. Support! The above are not new complaints they have been present since the beginning. Responses to complaints about them are;
    -- It's not that slow, MS uses tricks to make theirs seem faster.
    -- Maybe you shouldn't use crappy LaserJets. I use obscure xyz inkjet and I don't have your problem.
    -- Did you file a bug report? Yes, it got folded into a duplicate dead bug report from two years ago. Nothing has changed, but they triaged my report, again, in under four hours!
    -- Well it's free, what do you expect?
    -- Well it's Free, you could fix it yourself.
    5. Compatibility. It doesn't support macros of VBasic automation in a useable fashion so it is not a drop in replacement.
    6. Features, It doesn't have many specific features that are absolute requirements for word processing professionals.
    7. WordPerfect is still available and even it is VASTLY superior.

    The fact is that open office had some major issues, not just with the software but also with its development, but the switch to Libre Office set everything back considerably. Development is even slower now and nothing is being fixed. The project appears, from the outside, to have reached its zenith some time ago and is on its way down. A fact that is causing me to seriously consider abandoning Linux for desktop use, as I have used it solely since 2000.

  41. Wait and see. by formfeed · · Score: 1

    In Openoffice, I once tried some weird footnote stuff (required by a publisher). It would work in MS-Office but not in Openoffice. So, I tried the support list and described the problem. Answer 1: Explaining to me what footnotes and endnotes are. -After me explaining the problem again, answer 2 from someone at Sun: Nobody needs that.

    So, for now I still run Openoffice at home, just because it is installed. And once both projects are past the clean-up stage, I'll pick whoever has a culture that doesn't resemble the old Openoffice.

  42. You forgot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Ubuntu vs. intelligence :-)

  43. Here's a test-case that may work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    though the problem was with Codeweavers/Wine under Office, instead of with LO, but it's the *kind* of thing that fscks-up people's work...

    Say you get a document of 1 kind or another, so you open it,
    but it's got embedded other documents in it ( word in excel, or vice versa ),

    and the embedded document doesn't exist in your Libre-based system,
    but it's there as far as your client is concerned?

    Do you fight with your Libre system?

    Or do you discover that this bug was reported 2 years earlier, realize you will economically DIE if you don't change horses, right now, and switch...

    MS deliberately makes their file-format as impossible to work-with as they can, and it works: it's part of their anti-competitive method. Perfectly legal, so long as no prosecutor prosecutes it, right? & they lobby, now, so that won't happen.

    Choose, though.

    If you're some not-for-profit, maybe you can make-do, but when your clients documents don't work in your Libre system, and you can't legally submit their documents as test-cases, do you keep off the streets, by working effectively, even if it means the spyware + DRM infested MS junk?

    Sometimes paying the bills IS important...

    Cheers,

  44. OSS guys should care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm really surprised; normally, OSS guys are the first in the row to welcome diversity, just with the office packages it's different. Haven't you seen the code being under control of a single entity, and now you want that back under LO? Surprisingly it seem to be the same people who declared Sun and Oracle being 'bad' which now oversee who is mainly behind LO financing. Just google for Novell and where the money comes from, and these guys are still not worried in the slightest sense. Defending something (or better christianizing something?) just because you believe you are on the 'only' 'right side' is a sign of religion, not OpenSource. At least ASF is guaranteed truly independent...

  45. FOSS needs to focus on quality of user experience by concealment · · Score: 1

    Many good points, but these two hit me as particularly relevant:

    Over the years a number of the issues I have submitted, mostly user experience related, are treated as enhancements, even if they are pretty important.

    Steve Jobs left us a hell of a legacy, even for Apple haters. His legacy is the idea that the complete experience is the measure of a product. That includes everything from ordering it, to unboxing, to whether it "just works" when it starts up, to customer service and its ability to stand up to daily real-world use.

    I don't think this is necessarily in opposition to what we conventionally think of as good engineering, which is making the back-end of the product work efficiently and elegantly. In fact, I think these two are different facets of the same goal, but are often seen by developers as oppositional.

    The real problem seems to be a lack of interest or role in the open source project development for a person or team that steers development to real business world issues and pounds on all aspects of user experience including UI, functionality, expectations, interoperability, etc. to ensure that something of high quality will be the answer.

    Great summary. And yet, "real business world issues" and "all aspects of user experience including UI, functionality, expectations, interoperability, etc." are how users pick software. They want it to Just Work. When FOSS accommodates that, it succeeds. Same as for commercial software.

    I remember in the early 1980s how some of the early software firms lost users. They were accustomed to getting calls from harried secretaries and businesspeople who were hopelessly ignorant of basic computing principles. They didn't like taking these calls, and so they started to retaliate by telling users to RTFM.

    The problem was that then, "RTFM n00b!" (or "m0e") became the default response to all user questions or complaints. As a result, people switched to software companies with professional documentation and/or gentler tech support lines. The same thing is true for FOSS: if MSFT (or APPL) seems to care about the user more, people will pay for that.