Slashdot Mirror
Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Released With Major New Features
An anonymous reader writes "Still the most popular open source office suite, Apache OpenOffice 4 has been released, with many new enhancements and a new sidebar, based on IBM Symphony's implementation but with many improvements. The code still has comments in German but as long as real new features keep coming and can be shared with other office suites no one is complaining." The sidebar mentioned brings frequently used controls down and beside the actual area of a word-processing doc, say, which makes some sense given how wide many displays have become. This release comes with some major improvements to graphics handling, too; anti-aliasing makes for smoother bitmaps. In conjunction with this release, SourceForge (also under the Slashdot Media umbrella) has announced the launch of an extensions collection for OO. Extensions mean that Open Office can gain capabilities from outside contributors, rather than being wrapped up in large, all-or-nothing updates. You can download the latest version of Apache OpenOffice here.
Why haven't the two codebases been merged?
For IBM, Open Source == Out Sourcing.
Cheaper than employing programmers in faraway places is to get them to volunteer for free to maintain their code.
Not new really... They have been doing that for years.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
I'm a Dutchman, my native language is dutch, and I use english for all comments because using my native language seems to screw with the industry-standard english terminology in programming.
Anybody here who comments his/her code in his native language? How do you deal with the jargon and what are the benefits of using your native language, apart from being able to type TL;DR-size comments with ease?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Yes a few years ago some who did not like OO.org structure created an alternative which some prefer, and there is an issue with Oracle buying OO.org, but now Apache has it.
So before we start modded up the MS shills who want to promote the OO.org versus Libreoffice battle, remember that OSS is about choice, and MS is about the destruction of choice.
Thanks to all the people who have put work into OO.org. It is very appreciated. I have downloaded the new version and will look at it as I need it.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Despite all the PR libreoffice gets it looks like the main advances are coming from the Apache guys. Sure, the ASF has no interest in removing Java or translating comments but the sidebar, the new galeries and palette along with the enhanced draw tool and SVG support look very nice.
LibreOffice 4.1 is out later this week and they already imported all the bug fixes from Apache Office. According to https://www.libreoffice.org/download/4-1-new-features-and-fixes/ they picked up at least these improvements:
"A very large number of bugs have been fixed at an estimate of around 3000 bugs, of which 400 came from authors with apache.org mail addresses."
and
"Sidebar (Apache OpenOffice/IBM Symphony) with resizeable layout (LibreOffice team)"
I wonder when apache office will merge fully with LibreOffice.
Finally, somthing that makes sense on 16x9 monitors, instead of the idiotic idea of taking up vertical space in a "ribbon"
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Don't worry, LibreOffice already has all the improvements imported from Apache, see https://www.libreoffice.org/download/4-1-new-features-and-fixes/
Given that it's damn near impossible to find a 4:3 monitor larger than 17" and very hard to find even 16:10, it makes more sense to put in sidebars to use the abundant horizontal space rather than the vertical. Of course, once you get to around 24" monitors, it starts to become much more commonplace to have two apps side-by-side, in which case the argument goes back to having toolbars on the top and bottom.
Or we could, you know, have both as options.
*Two* open source offerings competing against each other instead of against Microsoft.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
One of the things that killed Unity on Ubuntu for me was that I couldn't move the launcher. I agree with you though about putting things on the sides. For the most part the aspect ratio of monitors has been getting wider, but that was because we needed wider screens to read content to help mitigate endless vertical scrolling. Now that we have nice wide screens applications are starting to suck up the left and right making the content viewing area smaller and smaller. But what I find is worse is the stupid ribbon interface for office, it's like poorly organized game of find the hidden object.
I'd propose that you just let people chose where they want to dock tool bars.
What if you had a widescreen monitor? They aren't compatible with horizontal bars.
-- --
Anyone else remember Applixware? I remember buying a shrink-wrapped copy in CompUSA in their Linux section back in the day.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Or we could, you know, have both as options.
Or we could, you know, use the GIMP interface: multiple floating windows!
Seriously, though, if the sidebar can be moved to where I want it, it will be okay with me. I'm not a fan of right-side controls.
Well since they laud the new sidebar so much for better use of widescreen monitors they should love the fact that LibreOffice will have it within a few days...
4.1 is due in a matter of days which has an improved sidebar that's resizeable and not just a static part of the screen.
I really question what the point of AOO is at this juncture given that LO is clearly the more active project and has two years of code clean up and development over AOO due to the way Oracle let it stagnate for so long.
If you want to try 4.1 now it is on the pre-releases page and it's the final RC there ... ie the same that will be released as final GA in a few days.
Start time has been slow for me on OS X
But what I find is worse is the stupid ribbon interface for office, it's like poorly organized game of find the hidden object.
I'm really not sure how its inherently any worse than the old menu structure plus toolbars. Its more consistent and easier to manage than a bunch of disconnected toolbars, and a deep menu hierarchy.
I think its only real disadvantage is that its "different" and people tend to reject change unless there is an overwhelming and obvious immediate benefit to it.
Took me a while to get used to, but I don't dislike it now. And would not prefer to go back.
Does it have a WordPerfect-like Reveal Codes feature?
No?
No dice.
Here we go again with all the ranting about the mexican wrestler version. *sigh*
Or we could, you know, have both as options.
That's crazy talk.
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Office 97 or something have floating tool-windows that could be docked on the toolbar, or the sides (any side) of the document window?
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
No it does not make sense to do this. It makes sense make menus moveable, up the side if that is where you like them, across the top or simply detached.
Just because my monitor is wider does not mean I want my applications that way. I might you know what to be able to have things side by side for comparison. Multiple displays is one solution but isn't so good on the go with a notebook.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Strange how no-one "rejected change" in any other office version. Except for the one with Clippy.
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
/sarcasm: Exactly! Who are you mere mortal to dare question the infinite wisdom of the UX designers!! *cough*
Virtually every PC sold today has a widescreen monitor. Stop putting full-width toolbars on the top and bottom. You are the problem.
captcha: "tyranny"
Strange how no-one "rejected change" in any other office version.
What change? Seriously, what was the big UI change between Office 95, 98, 2000, and 2003 that people would have objected to?
Did you read more than just the first sentence I wrote? I pointed out that multiple visible windows is becoming common, especially with larger displays. And then I concluded that it would be best to make it an option so people can set it how they want.
Up until Office 2003 (iirc), you could float most of the toolbars. However, I don't recall if you could dock them anywhere other than the top. That option went away with the ribbon, unless they've buried it somewhere in there.
As an added benefit you can store your documents in a source control system such that you can actually keep track of changes. (The change tracking I have seen build into some office suites was fundamentally flawed. They could only compare with one previous version and not show in which order changes were made. And they were relying on all the software used by the various parties to accurately record what was changed. Not really useful as anything other than a toy.)
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
You do have some flexibility in AOO. The Sidebars detach and you can make the into floating palettes and put them where you want, even onto a 2nd monitor if you want. Or collapse them and have the same UI layout you had in 3.4.1. Having the Sidebar UI available does not force you to do anything. It just permits you to do some new things.
I don't know about you, I feel like exposing my erotic story I write to NSA. If openoffice does not have a back door to NSA, it will not cut it for me. Just saying.
I don't think it is juvenile at all to point out that comparisons of committer counts is meaningless where the contents of the commits, in terms of how many files are changed, varies by a factor of 4 between the projects. The difference in VCS used as well as what kinds of contributions are measured by Ohloh (and are not measured) makes any naive comparison hugely problematic. In fact I'd say it is intellectual dishonest to perpetuate these kinds of apples to oranges comparisons. On the other hand, if your only story is Ohloh code statistics, what else are you going to do?
Rather than looking at the code, I've focused more on looking at the users, doing apples-to-apples comparisons, looking at name recognition, usage stats, user satisfaction, etc., comparing OpenOffice and LibreOffice. And the real world numbers show LibreOffice is in a bad position and declining:
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2013/06/the-power-of-brand-and-the-power-of-product-part-2.html
So please, tell us more about how many lines of code were removed by your long tail. We'll all entranced and want to hear more about how hard you think you are working. But also occasionally take a peak at the real world and see how you are really doing. There is a big difference between riding a stationary bicycle in a gym versus traveling cross country. Personally, I think LO is mainly churning code and spinning its wheels, though the sweat you feel is real.
I'm not a Libreoffice developer, just a reader of these fora and a former OpenOffice user who is sick and tired of reading your bull. (I originally left OO because your license purge removed features I needed; so much for your silly attempt in another post to try to take the "pragmatic high ground" by characterizing LO's position as "that license bullshit.")
I'm not interested in hearing your eternal rationalizations about why your statistics are so much better than LO's. I've been hearing this crap for years now. You start frothing at the mouth any time somebody says something positive about LO, you don't release anything notable for 2 1/2 years, and you call this "letting the code speak for you."
Meanwhile LO may
Aargh, mistakenly submitted when I brushed off something that'd fallen on my keyboard.
Anyway, meanwhile LO may commit the oh-so-very-grievous sin of putting out some PR once in a while trying to promote their project, but they don't waste their breath continually trying to tear AOO down. Instead they've busily been putting out a stream of releases with features I needed. That's who's letting the code talk for them.
Of course they did. The shift from DOS to Windows is what caused the shift from Lotus-1-2-3, WordPerfect and Harvard Graphics to Excel, Word and PowerPoint.
Strange how no-one "rejected change" in any other office version.
What change? Seriously, what was the big UI change between Office 95, 98, 2000, and 2003 that people would have objected to?
Word 5.1 for the Macintosh was obviously the best version ever.
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4008/4477954904_003108c675_z.jpg
Interestingly, it has a floating sidebar.
> people tend to reject change
> Took me a while to get used to, but I don't dislike it now. And would not prefer to go back.
Nice example.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
The ribbon takes up more space, requires more clicks, and is less customizable.
> people tend to reject change
> Took me a while to get used to, but I don't dislike it now. And would not prefer to go back.
Nice example.
I admit I'm a person. :)
The ribbon takes up more space
Does it now?
Office 95, 800x600
http://softpick2.com/uploads/posts/2011-08/1314566684_word-2010-screenshot-1.jpg
Office 2010, 800x600
http://kkcdn-static.kaskus.co.id/images/2013/03/04/5230853_20130304074203.png
Yes, ok, it looks like the ribbon is only ever so slightly larger. I imagine you were expecting something more. But its not 1995 and 800x600 is a distant memory. I'm running 1980x1200 now. And the ribbon takes up a smaller fraction of my screen than the toolbars+menu did in the mid 90s.
No to mention the ribbon is easily minimized (that little caret, next to the help icon on the right, minimizes the ribbon).
requires more clicks
You are going to need to cite some hard data to back that claim.
The ribbon is shallower with much more functionality at the surface than the old system. That was one of the primary design objectives.
and is less customizable.
Erm...what? The ribbon is fully customizable.
Amen.
I write in DocBook. Content and structure, nothing else.
Then it's just a matter of running the right XSLT on it to get whatever end-user format and styling I want.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It is inherently worse, in my opinion, because it takes up a great chunk of screen real estate. It also makes it harder when you're trying to do phone support for a relative novice. Trying to describe the appearance and location of a particular icon (assuming they're even on the right tab) takes longer than telling them to select this from this menu.
Sun Microsystems got bankrupt and then was bought by Oracle. Oracle did diddly squat after the acquisition but IBM had a lot of work from Lotus Symphony which they wanted to merge back. So Oracle decided to push the code to the Apache foundation and IBM is working on it there now. AFAICT.
It is inherently worse, in my opinion, because it takes up a great chunk of screen real estate
Very nearly the same actually.
Office 95, 800x600
http://softpick2.com/uploads/posts/2011-08/1314566684_word-2010-screenshot-1.jpg
Office 2010, 800x600
http://kkcdn-static.kaskus.co.id/images/2013/03/04/5230853_20130304074203.png
And screens have gotten a lot bigger since then. And you can minimize it when you just want to type...
It also makes it harder when you're trying to do phone support for a relative novice.
Fair enough. but
a) optimizing the user interface for remote-support phone support of novices is up there among the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
b) who is doing even semi-regular remote support without a remote assistance tool at this point?
Trying to describe the appearance and location of a particular icon (assuming they're even on the right tab) takes longer than telling them to select this from this menu.
Home tab, respond section, forward ... Folder tab, cleanup section, run rules now. everything is labelled with text.
Why use something as complicated at LaTeX if you don't care about formatting? Use something that looks like plain text until you want to apply formatting, like reST, Markdown, or Asciidoc. Using LaTeX as your example of a non-WYSIWYG editor just scares people off, when they could just \relax and type simple text.
Do you have a source?
TeXmacs is pretty great; the UI has a lot of issues (menus are a mess, keyboard shortcuts are really unusual, too many damn preferences...), but the core functionality is solid.
Apache claims it's more "interoperable" with OOXML. This is a lie: it doesn't *write* OOXML at all. LO does that.
So what this claim means is "we don't read OOXML files as hideously badly as we used to, though still not as well as LO does. And we can't write them so you can't just use AOO at work, you'd still have to use LO."
Linux users do not appreciate how terrible AOO is to use - because for years Linux users were really running the Go-OO fork of OOO, which has written OOXML for years, and all those changes went to LO. OOO basic never had them and AOO never got them.
tl;dr AOO doesn't write OOXML, can't slot into your actual office work, LO can.
and reduce bugs.
My point was entirely relevant and you're just trying to weasel out of it with a false dilemma. Then you attempt to sweep inconvenient facts under the rug as "irrelevant," and you have the bombast to attempt to portray your willingness to do so as generosity. Such an argument is worthy of Schopenhauer's Art of Being Right; for you to argue in such a fashion and then perpetually loudly claim that everything anybody else says is fallacious is pretty laughable.
You were saying there are tons of LO contributions being dual-licensed for AOO inclusion because all those who "don't care about the license bullshit" are "happy to work with both projects." I countered that the dual-license contributors are not that numerous, and that an absence of philosophical objections to the Apache license does not entail a willingness to license LO related work for use by AOO-- in particular, some people have become unwilling to do so because of the caustic, acerbic, and rude behavior that has been exhibited on the AOO dev list and elsewhere.
Any search for your posts here, at lwn, or on the Apache mailing lists will turn up this kind of stuff. From the security list debacle two years ago to the present, just about any time you've opened your mouth you've alienated people, including many who might otherwise have contributed in some way to AOO's success. I haven't been following aoo-dev for a while, and I'm not on top enough of all the drama you generate to give an itemized list here, but it doesn't take much looking to find you behaving like an adolescent and people being disgusted by it.
In any case, I too am done talking with you. Maybe once you've driven AOO into the dirt with your toxic "leadership" and been let go by IBM you'll rethink your ways of dealing with people.
The community moved on to LibreOffice after Oracle bought Sun and gained control of OpenOffice. The motivating fears were later confirmed by subsequent actions.
...than either AOO and LO. Much more optimized for OS X. And its engineering team of two is supported by their user base, not by IBM or Oracle or whosever, so that they can work full-time on improvements. Still open source, of course (GPL). It's a real success story. See http://www.neooffice.org./