Slashdot Mirror


LibreOffice 5.0 Released

New submitter ssam writes: The Document Foundation has announced LibreOffice 5.0, the tenth major release since the launch of the project, bringing new features including Windows 10, Android and Ubuntu touch compatibility, superior interoperability features, an updated UI, and lots of under the hood improvements. For people still running OpenOffice it is probably time to move over.

29 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. OpenOffice vs LibreOffice by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So what is the story between the two? I know that LibreOffice is a fork of OpenOffice and that some/most/all of the devs moved to LibreOffice.
    Is LibreOffice now far enough ahead to say forget about OpenOffice?

    --
    wot no sig
    1. Re:OpenOffice vs LibreOffice by nine-times · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, LibreOffice just hit version 5.0, while OpenOffice is at 4.1.1. Obviously, LibreOffice is exactly 0.8.9 amount better.

    2. Re:OpenOffice vs LibreOffice by CritterNYC · · Score: 5, Informative

      You've got it the wrong way around license-wise. LibreOffice can pull anything they'd like from OpenOffice, but OpenOffice won't because they don't want LGPL/GPL code polluting their code-tree. OpenOffice spent a long time rewriting GPL/LGPL code to ensure they could keep their license pure which is one of the reasons they're so much further behind LibreOffice.

    3. Re:OpenOffice vs LibreOffice by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm waiting for Nacho LibreOffice.

    4. Re:OpenOffice vs LibreOffice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Have you considered that it would've taken lots longer for oracle to give up the code, if the devs had stayed? And it might've not happened at all. Of course you haven't. Not to mention that at the point where oracle gave the code, there was lots and lots of done for libre office. Sure it'd be nice to be able to combine the effort, but licensing does not allow that. I don't have anything against open office, but i'm not going to change from libre office until open office is not only to the par with libre office, a lots better than libre office.

      But seriously, your description of libre office people running at first sign of trouble is complete bullshit. You are a douche, there's no way around that fact.

    5. Re:OpenOffice vs LibreOffice by TemporalBeing · · Score: 3, Informative

      You've got it the wrong way around license-wise. LibreOffice can pull anything they'd like from OpenOffice, but OpenOffice won't because they don't want LGPL/GPL code polluting their code-tree. OpenOffice spent a long time rewriting GPL/LGPL code to ensure they could keep their license pure which is one of the reasons they're so much further behind LibreOffice.

      That's what I said. The "they" in the GP consistently referred to LibreOffice.

      LibreOffice uses the GPL/LGPL code because they had no choice - it was the only option available to them since they were forking the source code.

      OpenOffice is purely and solely licensed under Apache License version 2. They also didn't have to rewrite code for GPL/LGPL compliance - Oracle wholesale relicensed the work to Apache version 2 before they could contribute it to Apache to start with. A lot of their time was in integrating IBM's Symphony changes, and catching backup after several months of minimal to no development going on; but they've re-established that.

      So LibreOffice can pull chances from OpenOffice since Apache License V2 code can be easily relicensed to GPL/LGPL, but OpenOffice cannot pull changes from LibreOffice.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    6. Re:OpenOffice vs LibreOffice by ssam · · Score: 5, Informative

      Many of the developers were already fed up with Sun's poor stewardship of the OpenOffice.org project, hence the go-oo project which hosted many improvements that Sun did not integrate and was the basis of OpenOffice packages that most Linux distributions shipped. Oracle was just the final straw that catalysed a true fork (go-oo was more of a patch set that needed to follow OOo). LO used the GPL because that was pretty much the only option (and maybe the developers think it is better for LO than a permissive licence). LO made big strides, for example in code clean up and build systems even before Oracle decided dump the code on the Apache foundation. The permissive was probably to keep IBM happy, as they have previously released closed derivatives of OO.

      What code exactly have LO stolen from AOO? There is nothing new in AOO to be worth taking, LO has always been a step ahead of AOO (and is about 3 steps ahead now). The only possible example is the sidebar, but that was developed by IBM, not Oracle or Apache.

      Personally I think Apache should de-list AOO on the grounds that they can't even produce security updates in a timely manor.

    7. Re:OpenOffice vs LibreOffice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's because we found all the emacs supporters, went to their houses, and killed them.

    8. Re:OpenOffice vs LibreOffice by danbob999 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your macro isn't GPL if you don't want it to. LibreOffice is LGPL to begin with, not GPL.

    9. Re:OpenOffice vs LibreOffice by TemporalBeing · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Have you considered that it would've taken lots longer for oracle to give up the code, if the devs had stayed? And it might've not happened at all. Of course you haven't.

      If Oracle had managed the project at all instead of just not saying anything LibreOffice probably wouldn't exist. Most in the community jumped because Oracle wasn't saying anything - period.

      Now, if Oracle had done something other than what it did, then OpenOffice would probably be in a state similar to MySQL. May be LibreOffice would exist, but not likely since there was no OpenOffice equivalent of Michael Widenius.

      Not to mention that at the point where oracle gave the code, there was lots and lots of done for libre office.

      The devs that continue just worked on a lot of technical debt. But they did so at the expense of any future integration with any OpenOffice related project because of the license changes and the fact that they were pretty much guaranteed that the licensing used by LibreOffice would prohibit contributions back to OpenOffice regardless of what happened.

      Sure it'd be nice to be able to combine the effort, but licensing does not allow that.

      IIRC, that was purposeful, and also a side-effect.

      I don't have anything against open office, but i'm not going to change from libre office until open office is not only to the par with libre office, a lots better than libre office.

      Fair enough. I prefer OpenOffice over LibreOffice. To each their own.

      But seriously, your description of libre office people running at first sign of trouble is complete bullshit. You are a douche, there's no way around that fact.

      Well, it wasn't really a "first sign of trouble". It was a lack of trust in Oracle, lack of any communications from Oracle, etc - there were numerous and valid reasons for it. That said, the LibreOffice community also has its own issues in that respect. I participated in the early community building and dropped out when it was clear what kind of community was being formed - and it wasn't what was being advertised. May be that's changed; I don't know - but I'm still not really interested in LibreOffice seeing the product they've put out, I personally find it inferior to OpenOffice.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    10. Re:OpenOffice vs LibreOffice by JImbob0i0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I wrote about this on reddit only recently ... Link to the discussion there

      Copied in full to here:

      So back when Sun maintained OpenOffice.org and sold StarOffice they had a Contributor License Agreement that required handing over ownership of patches to them so they could sell the closed source supported suite and license out to IBM for Symphony.

      To get around this bureaucracy and to not sign over ownership for patches most distributions used go-oo.org (aka ooo-build) that was the source code of OpenOffice.org with a bunch of patches on top to help compatibility with MS Office and some other things that Sun could or did not want in the upstream oo.org code.

      When Oracle bought Sun they left oo.org languishing with no maintenance for months. This was naturally unacceptable to the various linux distros and they didn't want to be beholden to Oracle's whims (for good reason given the state of the various projects that used to be with Sun). Due to this they got together and formed The Document Foundation and took the go-oo.org code (which was basically what this group used and collaborated on anyway) and forked it to LibreOffice.

      Fast forward some more time and Oracle decide they don't want anything to do with OpenOffice.org after all and essentially (with IBM's help ... presumably so there would be a sort of maintained base for Symphony) dumped it on the Apache Software Foundation. As per their requirements it went through an incubation process and all the code was relicensed to the Apache Public License. This was months after LibreOffice had been created and worked on and most consider it a pretty petty move rather than giving the brand to TDF to work with.

      From that point on it's pretty much been IBM driving Apache OpenOffice (as they renamed oo.org to) although they appear to have stopped caring about it mid to end last year. The amount of development work on AOO is minimal compared to LO and the number of active committers is in the teens (at best) for AOO compared to the hundreds for LO.

      Due to the way the licensing works out LO can merge in any fixes (there were some in the early days, not many now as can be seen in the CVE issue I mentioned) but AOO cannot merge in work from LO.

      The last release of AOO was August 2014 and if you go look at the changelogs from 3.4 (the first AOO release as opposed to oo.org IIRC... mostly rebranding) up to the 4.1.1 then you'll see there's been minimal work - mostly translations. Anything developed/fixed in AOO is either merged into LO or improved/obsoleted by other work. Compare these to the release notes for each LO release from the forking point of 3.3 and it really is quite significant - the heavy work on clean up and better build systems for LO lower the barrier to entry for LO contribution by the common person too.

      The proposed AOO release of 4.1.2 is going forwards at the moment - driven mostly by only a few people Apache OpenOffice Dev mail archives.

      To give an idea how bad this has got the no-interaction code execution as privileges of user bug by a special HWP file was announced publicly last April. It was fixed in LibreOffice the same month and users would have had the update notification and been protected. Anyone using Apache OpenOffice is still vulnerable and although there was a disclosure on the security part of the AOO site at the time, the workaround was to 'delete .dll/.so' ... not a release with a fix and unless anyone actively went to check up on this they would not have known the issue.

      To add to this (if it's not enough already) AOO can still only read and not write docx/xlsx/pptx (OOXML) files produced by MS Office whereas LibreOffice can

  2. Three cheers for liberty! by LichtSpektren · · Score: 5, Informative

    LibreOffice now supports amd64, which is a huge boon for people that work with very large documents. It purports to have better .docx compatibility, although I myself have found that MSWord is more likely to screw up the formatting in .docx documents than LibreOffice is. All-in-all, a good day for free software, and a bad day for Microsoft.

    1. Re:Three cheers for liberty! by LichtSpektren · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wait. This libre office has no outlook component? That is the only thing I use that forces me on windows office 2010.

      An office suite does not need tight integration with a mail client. If you want a free replacement for Outlook, try Claws Mail or Thunderbird. (Migration will likely be difficult because Outlook has some of the worst exportation functions I have ever seen, but it will be worth it.)

    2. Re: Three cheers for liberty! by corychristison · · Score: 3

      While I have no doubt Outlook can be useful in a giant corporate environment, its IMAP implementation is a horribly slow pile of excrement.

      I had a client consistently complain to me his email was always so slow, and he wanted to switch email providers. Specifically, things like loading hia mailbox in the morning would take up to 10 seconds just to sync the header info of less than 20 emails, let alone actually download the whole message. Simple things like moving emails into folders/subfolders was even slower. There were points where the application would freeze up and Windows would do its thing and notify you the application had haulted. Waiting it out it would usually sort itself out in 25+ seconds.

      I looked into it and he was using Outlook 2010 and Google Apps over IMAP. I, at the time, was using Google Apps over IMAP in Mozilla Thunderbird with zero issues. Always speedy and never an issue, despite the fact I am not a fan of how Google handles IMAP.

      I switched him to Mozilla Thunderbird with the Lightning Calendar Addon and the problem has been solved. It is now 2 years later and haven't heard a peep about his email.

      And just for reference the office computers are all of the same built. AMD 6-core full size CPU (not APU), 8GB RAM, Win7 Pro.

    3. Re: Three cheers for liberty! by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Funny

      I switched him to Mozilla Thunderbird with the Lightning Calendar Addon and the problem has been solved. It is now 2 years later and haven't heard a peep about his email.

      Email didn't happen to be your only method of communication with him was it?

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    4. Re: Three cheers for liberty! by ahodgson · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google over IMAP is ridiculously slow, whenever I've tried it. But yeah Outlook also hobbles IMAP. They want you to buy Exchange, not use free email servers.

    5. Re:Three cheers for liberty! by almitydave · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thunderbird + Lightning Extension + Davmail replaces Outlook in Exchange Server environments.

      Thunderbird ships with the Lightning add-on enabled by default as of June.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
  3. Apache Openoffice is "dormant"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Having no release manager and no one contributing code for 9 months seems like more of a "Dead but hasn't stopped twitching" sort of state.

    1. Re:Apache Openoffice is "dormant"? by Translation+Error · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry! I'm sure SourceForge will revive it and add a shiny new installer!

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  4. Re:Question for user community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's quite a long time, and by the way, open office was not massive pile of shit. It worked great for me 7 years ago. I've been using libre office instead of open office ever since libre office was released.

    As for starting up, libre office writer seems to start about as fast as word 2010, which is a massive pile of shit. And you can use that quick start thing, that loads on windows start.

  5. Oracle Happened by BrendaEM · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oracle bought out Sun. When they looked at their IP portfolio, they appeared to have lost their minds, and assert their ownership over several open-source projects. Yes, I believe it was some 26 programmers who left Open-Office and started LibreOffice. Then Oracle was falling out of brainshare, and didn't seem want to appear as an orgre, but it was already out of its cave by then.

    What happened: Oracle's possessiveness made LibrieOffice into the superior office suite it is today!

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  6. Re:Question for user community by CritterNYC · · Score: 4, Informative

    Grab LibreOffice and check it out. If startup time is a key point for you, install and enable the QuickStart feature. It'll pre-load part of LibreOffice as Windows starts up and then let it sit idle in the background, just like Microsoft Office does to improve startup time.

  7. Re:Question for user community by RazorSharp · · Score: 4, Funny

    I understand why you're hesitant to try it out and see for yourself, being such a costly program and all.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  8. LibreOffice works great for my company by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Last time I tried using Open Office 6 or 7 years ago it was a massive pile of shit.

    I standardized our company on OpenOffice (and later LibreOffice) about 5 years ago. It's worked great. There may be specific features in Microsoft Office that make it a non-starter for some people but I think most people will hardly notice the difference. If your company already is tied to Microsoft then switching might be painful but if you are starting from scratch I would go with LibreOffice in most cases over Microsoft Office.

    Is LibreOffice a significant improvement?

    OpenOffice in my experience has been progressing more slowly than LibreOffice for the last few years. I switched our company to LibreOffice as a result.

    Does the word processor start up as fast as M$ Word?

    Kind of a meaningless question. Both can be loaded on system startup and thus will "start up" in just a few seconds as a result. If that is your biggest concern however I think you really didn't take a very hard look at OpenOffice "6 or 7 years ago".

  9. Re:apache foundation? by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would the GPL license be a problem for corporate environments?
    Unless you change the code and distribute the changed version outside your organisation, the license really doesn't matter much.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  10. Re:apache foundation? by ssam · · Score: 4, Funny

    Companies won't use any software that they can't make closed source derivatives of. That why no company uses MS Office.

  11. Re:Question for user community by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh, you silly kids! What the OSS fanatics fail to understand is that once a person leaves graduate school to get a "real job" in the "real world" that time suddenly becomes much more important to money for many, many people. Saving a few hundred bucks on software is pointless (to me) if I have to spend more than an hour dicking with it, for example.

    I understand exactly what you're talking about, and I agree that cost-benefit analyses have to be made.

    But there is also a problem in corporate culture where cost-benefit analyses are focused too much on the immediate future. Paying $100/year to license software may seem worth it if you're just using that software for a year and retraining may require a few hours.

    But what about after 3 years? Or 5 years? Or 10 years? And what about other fringe benefits of OSS, like your ability to customize the code yourself if you want a new feature? If you're a big business and you want to complain that you lack feature X in LibreOffice, you could either pay Microsoft thousands of dollars annually (perhaps tens of thousands, in a big company), or you could use that money to pay a developer to add feature X to LibreOffice and customize it to do exactly what you want (rather than what Microsoft gives you).

    And then there's end-of-life concerns, too. Do you want to pay to retrain all your employees when Microsoft decides whatever its next random mutation of UI happens? Or do you pay Microsoft extra to continue security patches after your version is no longer supported? Or do you just use that money to pay people who can patch your free OSS suite, which can be maintained by anyone since the source is available?

    These are all cost-benefit analyses. But often they aren't actually decided on that basis by large corporations -- they are decided because "Microsoft Office is the standard" and people in power to make decisions don't want to have to deal with the switch or don't believe "free" could possibly be as good, or they don't consider alternatives to get the features they want in OSS that might be cheaper than paying licensing fees for many years.

  12. Re:Question for user community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...once a person leaves graduate school to get a "real job" in the "real world"...time suddenly becomes much more important to money for many, many people. Saving a few hundred bucks on software is pointless (to me) if I have to spend more than an hour dicking with it, for example. For other people, a few hundred bucks (actually Office 365 is only $100/year) might be worth two hours of their time to dick with. Anything more than that, and it's not worth my time

    Well, whatever works best for you, works best for you, of course. But my mileage has varied.

    Whenever I've started a job someplace that uses a lot of proprietary, licensed software, it always takes quite a while for me to get a license. I invariably have to explicitly ask my manager or the IT department to get me a license, even though there's no possible way I would have been able do my job without it. I can only ask for the license after I find out I need a particular product, of course, and in extreme cases it may take a few days just to find that out, because for some reason people try to conceal the very need for a license like it's Voldemort's name or something. Whoever I ask first is never authorized to just buy these things and hand them out, and so they have to run the request past three more layers of management and the accounting department. Half the time the answer comes back "no", in which case you, the new guy, have to go before some tribunal of trolls to argue your case. Or they might tell you to "share" the license with some other guy, maybe by (illegally) sharing a login, maybe by passing a physical device back and forth. Multiply all this wasted time by the number of licensed products in use, and the amount of time sucked starts to get significant.

    Compare this to: "Oh, we use Apache Gimmudgy. Just download it from their site."

    Then there's the whole multiplatform issue. Maybe a third of the team uses Linux, a third uses Windows, and a third use Macs. Proprietary packages aren't really great about working across platforms. Neither is FOSS, of course, but it is usually a little better about it--or at least they're more likely to use an open format for their save files.

  13. Re:It's a word processor by steelfood · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's because MS Word and L/OO Writer are not word processors anymore. They're WYSIWYG document creation tools, i.e. they attempt to combine text input, text management, and document layout into one tool.

    Besides which, word processors aren't feature complete yet. Even advanced text-only word processors like Textpad and Notepad++ are constantly adding new features, and has a leg up on Word/Writer on things like search and cursor movement.

    And with persistent connectivity, there's a whole new layer of features for everyone to add.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."