Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apache OpenOffice Releases Version 3.4

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the onward-and-upward dept.

Open Source 151

An anonymous reader sends word that Apache OpenOffice 3.4 has been released (download). This is the first release since OpenOffice became a project at the Apache Software Foundation. The release notes list all of the improvements, the highlights of which The H has summarized: "According to its developers, Apache OpenOffice (AOO) 3.4.0, the first update since OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 from January 2011, now starts up faster than its predecessor and introduces a number of new features such as support for documents secured using AES256 encryption. The Linear Programming solver in the Calc spreadsheet program has been replaced with the CoinMP C-API library from the Computational Infrastructure for Operations Research (COIN-OR) project. As in LibreOffice 3.4.0, the DataPilot functionality has been renamed to Pivot Table, and now supports an unlimited number of fields. A new 'Quote all text cells' CSV (Comma Separated Values) export option has been also added to Calc. Other changes include improved ODF 1.2 encryption and Unix Printing support and various enhancements to the Impress presentation and Draw sketching programs."

cancel ×

151 comments

Apache ftw! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39933821)

Good. We need a free software office suite untainted by the GPL.

Re:Apache ftw! (5, Funny)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39933907)

LibreOffice isn't GPL

It's GPL. There's a huge difference.

I suggest you read it.

--
BMO

Re:Apache ftw! (5, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39933933)

Ah dammit, i meant to say LGPL

http://www.libreoffice.org/download/license/ [libreoffice.org]

--
BMO

Re:Apache ftw! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39933989)

lol, I can just imagine everyone reading your first error post nodding at eachother in agreement, all pretending to see some sort of open source legal subtly between the two. There are too many licenses in any case, its ridiculous.

 

Re:Apache ftw! (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934129)

it could be a v2 v3 thing or it could be a gpl but not run by gnu but it was a typo :-\

Re:Apache ftw! (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934175)

And they all aim to give more rights to users then traditional copyright does. This is not a bad thing in any way.

Re:Apache ftw! (0)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39933949)

There's a huge difference between the GPL and the...GPL? lolwut?

Re:Apache ftw! (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934063)

Yes, there's a huge difference between the GPL [gnu.org] and the GPL. [gnu.org] Not to mention the much bigger difference to the GPL. [yahoo.com] :-)

Re:Apache ftw! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39934527)

Ha! I suggest you read your own post before hitting submit.

Re:Apache ftw! (3, Funny)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39936719)

I suggest you're correct!

--
BMO

Re:Apache ftw! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39933911)

How does the Apache license benefit you personally as opposed to the GPL?

Re:Apache ftw! (4, Insightful)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 2 years ago | (#39933965)

Not sure if troll, or actually insightful.

Both Apache and Berkeley licenses are quite business-friendly. OTOH, I get raised eyebrows when I want to add even a LGPL library.

Re:Apache ftw! (5, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934061)

How are they not business friendly?
There are very few businesses who will want to modify OO/LO and release derivative versions to third parties... Most companies simply want to use the software as-is, and a very small minority might want to modify it for internal use. For these uses, even the full blown GPL has no impact whatsoever.

Also the main competitors to OO/LO are licensed under considerably more restrictive terms than the GPL.. While the GPL may place restrictions on redistribution, the MS license prevents redistribution or modification at all under any terms.

Re:Apache ftw! (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934513)

LGPL is more friendly because you can link to code and apis without the license applying to their own code.

Many corporations have anti gnu policies for that reason. LGPl gets around that. I wish more code on sourceforge had it as many developers are not aware of that issue.

Re:Apache ftw! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39935021)

LGPL is more friendly because you can link to code and apis without the license applying to their own code.

Many corporations have anti gnu policies for that reason. LGPl gets around that. I wish more code on sourceforge had it as many developers are not aware of that issue.

Strictly speaking, if you link GPL code with your own proprietary non-GPL code, the result is an infringement of the GPL license for which you could be sued. Your code does not become GPL, and the GPL code does not become proprietary. In the same way, if you were to infringe Microsoft's copyright you would not get copyright over their code and they wouldn't get copyright over yours - although they may claim damages from you.

Re:Apache ftw! (3, Interesting)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39935149)

LGPL is more friendly because you can link to code and apis without the license applying to their own code.

That must be an entirely insignificant proportion of the users of something like LO/OO.

Many corporations have anti gnu policies for that reason.

Silly corporations. If they want to have silly policies, that's their problem. Many many many many corporations have accepted Linux and/or gcc, which means accepting the GPL. Even Microsoft had to bow to the inevitible and make Linux work well under Hyper-V. If some corporations reckon they know better than Apple, Google, Intel, AMD, ARM, Samsung, HTC, NVidia, Nokia (well, who doesn't know better than them these days), Cray, SGI, Amazon, Facebook, huge numbers of banks, every smartphone manufacturer, every supercomputer vendor, every vendor which makes SoCs large enough to run a proper OS, and untold numbers of other companies, then I guess that's their choice.

Re:Apache ftw! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39935413)

What do all these companies have in common you ask? They all have a fuck-ton of resources and money, that's what. They can afford to give away both software and human productivity in an effort to draw users to their more lucrative products.

Re:Apache ftw! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39935753)

Don't switch the argument to match your preference. Many companies simply want to use the software as-is, but for companies that wish to modify it, maintain control of their own code AND distribute it, BSD fits their needs better.

The BSD license is very simple and short: it has few restrictions compared to LGPL, or even the default restrictions provided by copyright.

BTW the MS license was never part of this discussion. Diversion does not help, If your a GPL fanboi, fine, but most of the confusion between licenses come about because people insist on making their philosophy paramount instead of the need of the client.

Re:Apache ftw! (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#39937095)

There are very few businesses who will want to modify OO/LO and release derivative versions to third parties... Most companies simply want to use the software as-is, and a very small minority might want to modify it for internal use. For these uses, even the full blown GPL has no impact whatsoever.

"Very few businesses" isn't a valid argument. The license is business friendly even if it only interests an audience of one.

And there are all kinds of situations where having a "business-friendly" open source license is desirable; you're just thinking of the wrong business cases. Sure, most end users of the suite aren't going to want to modify it. But one example of a derivative version of OpenOffice.org would be IBM Lotus Symphony (recently donated to the Apache Foundation). Might no one ever want to create such a product ever again? Or how about this: What if a company wanted to write an actually decent database manager that could compete with Access, keep it proprietary, but bundle the rest of LibreOffice with it so it could compete with Office as a suite? I bet they could find customers.

Re:Apache ftw! (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934793)

It's not about Apache or Berkeley being business friendly. It's about how *un-friendly* they are for downstream users and other people wanting to maintain the code and also ensuring that the rights continue to be maintained.

Good luck with that happening with Apache or Berkeley licenses.

Only one 'good' that users don't care about (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39934019)

If it is a win not to have GPL included user don't care: they click through agreements instantly without reading anyways. Lots of companies helping LibreOffice too - RedHat, Intel, Ubuntu, Google and other. Why bother waste time with Apache deadproject place ?

Re:Only one 'good' that users don't care about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39936711)

Really, whether the license is GPL-like or BSD-like makes no difference to an end-user. Neither of those licenses place any restrictions on actually using the software, so they're entirely irrelevant to users. They're distribution licenses, not usage licenses - you may distribute (potentially modified) copies of the software, provided you agree to the license terms.

It's completely the opposite of EULAs on commercial software. Those licenses are usage licenses - you may use the software, provided you agree to the license terms, and distribution is specifically forbidden.

I never understood why some open-source projects bother to put the GPL in their installer, as if it were a click-through EULA.

Re:Apache ftw! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39934025)

And people say only GPL advocates are zealots.

Re:Apache ftw! (3, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934257)

Are you planning to modify your office suite and distribute those modifications as closed source? If not, the differences between GPL and BSD are irrelevant to you. If so, why?

Re:Apache ftw! (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934551)

Many large corps consider this a big deal and have strict policies.

Re:Apache ftw! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39934649)

Why? Are these large corps planning to modify the software and distribute those modifications as closed source?

Re:Apache ftw! (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39935487)

Yes, IBM for one which did so with their Lotus Symphony Suite.

Re:Apache ftw! (1)

hendridm (302246) | more than 2 years ago | (#39935841)

Wow, one company. I guess they'll have to avoid anything under the GPL or BSD.

Oh, wait...

Re:Apache ftw! (1, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39935019)

Many large corps consider this a big deal and have strict policies for absolutely no good reason.

FTFY.

Re:Apache ftw! (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39936363)

Oh the reason is, perhaps not entirely good, but at least solid. Yes, a very solidly understood reason at that. One begins with an understanding that there are busybodies, a class of people whose superiors obviously had better things to do. Looking for work and not finding any, they had to come up with something to keep them occupied. For reasons lost in the mist of history, such occupation never involves things that are pleasant, like, say, reading a comic book, shooting one's sister with pebbles from a blowpipe, or even soaping up the bottom of the teacher's chair. No, definitely not. You see, a busybody's job must maintain tangential relevance and progressive outlook. That alone should sound serious enough, but in case it didn't, busybodies always work on honing their talents. A policy of tangential relevance as applied to writing strict policies of tangential relevance to corporate mission. You can't stray too far without pulling from a swarm of buzzwords, after all. A well appointed smoker is your friend in that task.

With apologies to Sir Pratchett.

Re:Apache ftw! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39936289)

Then fuck them. Who cares? I guess I am lucky that I do not absolutely have to work for the few ridiculous large companies that you have in mind. I have worked for a number of large corps and some of them had very nuanced policies and individual review run through their legal department. For general users, it was totally cool to use GPL software. For developers the legal department had a canned statement, unless there was an exception, absolutely do not link the code into any internal products. Obviously departments with linux projects needed special attention... but they figured it out.. This was a Fortune 500.

Find a new employer that isn't so retarded or just deal with it.

Re:Apache ftw! (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39935215)

If it was so simple, ZFS would already be in the Linux kernel.

OSS libraries are often incompatible with each other, and not everyone is willing to change theirs to accommodate mixes.

Re:Apache ftw! (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39935313)

It is exactly that simple. Including ZFS in the kernel is a modification. The kernel is distributed, so that's distributing a modification. The differences between BSD and GPL matter.

But that's off topic, we're talking about an office suite. Using an office suite is neither modification nor distribution, so BSD or GPL is entirely irrelevant to the end user.

Re:Apache ftw! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39935513)

You said it only mattered if the person is planning to "distribute those modifications as closed source", and that's not true; it matters if you're planning to distribute it at all, closed or open.

Cutting the l(gpl)eg you stand on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39934497)

Nonsense. With an application that high up the software stack, deliberately cutting you off from using half of the free software ecosystem is just silly - or guess why Apache is shipping OpenOffice _binaries_ with weak copyleft code included ... ;)

Re:Apache ftw! (1)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#39937721)

Good. We need a free software office suite untainted by the GPL.

Stupid troll. No we don't. What we do need is good healthy competition, with Apache Openoffice provides for Libreoffice. And we have a good healthy competition going between Apache permissive licensing and GPL copyleft licensing. Let the best suite win, and let the best development model win. Or just let them both just keep competing to the benefit of users and developers.

So like... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39933843)

Which office suite are we supposed to be cheerleading for here at slashdot? I though it was LibreOffice

Calligra (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39933877)

No, it's Calligra. :P

Re:So like... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39933957)

Well, vi vs. Emacs was getting old already, thanks to Oracle we now have a more modern target: OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice. :-)

Re:So like... (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934073)

Or Calligra Suite vs KOffice

Re:So like... (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934279)

LaTeX and R.

Re:So like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39936747)

Hush! The first rule of \LaTeX is that you don't talk about \LaTeX.

Re:So like... (4, Insightful)

cupantae (1304123) | more than 2 years ago | (#39936537)

I'm glad both LibreOffice and OpenOffice exist.
# The two will mimic each other's positive changes
# They will presumably stay compatible, but distinct
# One is a community effort, the other is a corporate effort (or at least, that's the image each has)

The dream is that high-quality open formats become standard in all major office suites, so that people can choose to buy or download what they want. The choice should be in the interface used, and not the level of compatibility with the rest of the world.

Re:So like... (1)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#39937741)

Which office suite are we supposed to be cheerleading for here at slashdot? I though it was LibreOffice

We like both now. Because Oracle is not involved in either. Oh, and we like Libreoffice just that little bit more because it is copyleft to the benefit of users and developers.

And... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39933855)

Nobody Cares

Too late! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39933869)

I already switched to MS Office and I'm quite happy with it.

Just get on the cart (5, Funny)

russlar (1122455) | more than 2 years ago | (#39933883)

This should really be from the I'm-not-dead-yet! department

Re:Just get on the cart (1)

jsepeta (412566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39937169)

I know! I just migrated my company to LibreOffice, and I'm not sure why I would want to migrate back.

The Real Question (4, Insightful)

clarkn0va (807617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39933919)

The question on my mind as I read this, and I think many here would agree, is "so what makes this different from or better than Libre Office, now that Oracle has alienated a significant portion of OpenOffice's users and developers?"

Yeah, diversity is good, but I'd like to see this project tout its advantages if they think there be any.

Re:The Real Question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39934011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUKThYfZuzY

Re:The Real Question (4, Funny)

X3J11 (791922) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934837)

The narrator sounds like Kermit the Frog finally hit puberty.

Re:The Real Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39935465)

Upvote.

Re:The Real Question (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39934053)

Well, I still use OpenOffice at home because based on the LibreOffice install at work what's changed is mostly bugs, crashes, and perverse behaviour.

For example: it seems to be impossible to open a tab-separated file in Calc. Try it from within Calc, and it'll dump the file into Writer instead.

Re:The Real Question (2)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934671)

Well, I still use OpenOffice at home because based on the LibreOffice install at work what's changed is mostly bugs, crashes, and perverse behaviour.

For example: it seems to be impossible to open a tab-separated file in Calc. Try it from within Calc, and it'll dump the file into Writer instead.

Confusing language. Are you saying that this happens in OpenOffice or LibreOffice? I use Calc/LibreOffice all the time to import tab-delimited files with no trouble. Writer's not involved at all.

Re:The Real Question (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39936425)

He may be trying to open a csv file with an ambiguous extension. In that case. If you do not select Text CSV as the file type when opening the file, the document opens in Writer, not Calc. Actually he mentions specifically that he is opening a tab file. Which is sufficient for the program to not be able to read his mind.

Re:The Real Question (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934581)

+ 1 You-read-my-mind.

Now we need someone to answer it. LibreOffice is free (both cost and open source). OpenOffice is???

Re:The Real Question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39937533)

Known outside of slashdot

Re:The Real Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39934771)

Maybe LibreOffice should explain why it cannot work with Apache and produce a better product than they can do on their own?

Their entire raison d'etre was to fight against Oracle and their control of OpenOffie.org. That is a moot point now. Maybe it is time for the rebels to come out of the jungle and join a government?

Re:The Real Question (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934995)

Sure, you go ahead and persuade all the individual contributors to switch the license on their code. I'll wait. I mean, nobody in the world actually supports the GPL for its own sake, right? I'm sure you won't have any problems. [tvtropes.org]

Re:The Real Question (4, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39935127)

At this point the rebels are in control of more territory than the government - LibreOffice had integrated the Go-OO patchset.

I've got one possibility (3, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 2 years ago | (#39935701)

I've got a great reason that I'm downloading openoffice right now for. It's this [freedesktop.org] issue. In a nutshell, many moons ago Excel changed their selection rules behavior for no explicable reason and every other spreadsheet on the planet has been copying their behavior. When you call the developers on this, like the guy who submitted this bug report, the developer response is "everyone else does it this way so I won't change it". If Libreoffice is going to strive to be the best clone of Excel that it can, why would I use it? Given the choice, I'll just use Excel. Maybe the Apache version of OO.org still has some distinct behavior instead of just being a clone of something else.

Re:I've got one possibility (4, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 2 years ago | (#39935969)

I can confirm that the Apache OO still follows the sane way to select multiple cells unlike Libreoffice. For me, this is a "killer" feature -- I can't live without this so libreoffice has been uninstalled and OO has come back onto my desktop.

As an aside, why is it nowadays that I spend more time trying to get software to behave the way it used to behave before it was updated? I've had problems with "upgrades" of MS Office, OS X, Windows, Openoffice, gnome, kde, and even just getting e17 to work any more on my home machine is an issue. Either I'm just getting old or the productivity of software on the desktop has peaked and in the continual drive for improving things, we're just making worse software. I still upgrade, because there are often some new features that I like in the new software, but it often feels like one step forward, one step back.

Re:The Real Question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39936261)

OK ... In LibreOffice try this : Insert Frame ... then set borders - something reasonably wide. On the screen everything looks fine. Now print it and look at the corners of the text box. Now try it In OpenOffice. YMMV.

Re:The Real Question (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#39937017)

I am having problems running installed and portable LibreOffice after v3.3. I posted http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/msg19652.html [libreoffice.org] in the public mailing list and added a bug report: ttps://www.libreoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49499 .... Maybe someone else can help me? For now, I will have to use the old versions like v3.3.x.

Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39933945)

Horribly out of date vs. LibreOffice - see the comparison [gnome.org] - missing a ton of filters, barely interoperable with Microsoft Office, etc. etc.

Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39934127)

Licensing ensures that it will stay that way. ApacheOffice code can be copied into LibreOffice (Apache License -> LGPL), but the reverse is not true.

Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934331)

Plus the last I looked, (not sure if this is still the case), OpenOffice demanded copyright attribution, whereas LibreOffice doesn't. LibreOffice can't realistically change their license to a non-GPL compatible, non copyleft license, because they would have to get permission from every copyright holder. The only reason the Apache foundation could change the license was because Sun / Oracle demanded that all the authors sign their rights away.

Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39936367)

Wow, how do the haters keep that FUD up about copyright assignment?

Sun/Oracle demanded copyright. Why? Who knows (remember, Sun started that practice.)

Apache does not really want your copyright, and it's certainly not asked for, and never required to participate in any Apache project. Only a license. So feel free to send your patches to both teams, licensed both ways if you want.

And the "Apache Software Foundation" didn't change the license. Oracle did, unilaterally - and then gave the AL-licensed code to Apache. It took a while for them to get organized (no surprise, with that dumping), but hey, it's more free software, so what's the bad?

Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934909)

Actually, it is easier for Apache license to be converted to LGPL but it is not completely impossible to do the reverse. To do the reverse, they would have to contact everyone who has made commits to see if they are willing to dual license their potion of the code. Any code that they can't get permission for they will have to rewrite.

Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39936783)

That might be true now, but it's not likely to remain true for long.

Any major changes made to LibreOffice would make it more difficult to copy code from OO into LO. Since LO seems to have more contributors, more backing, more momentum, a much higher rate of development, and a commitment to fixing the architectural mess they inherited, OO and LO are probably going to diverge significantly.

That will make it much more difficult to move changes across, and eventually it would be more difficult to copy changes from Apache's OO than it would be to write them from scratch.

Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (2)

sproketboy (608031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934485)

Yeah an few users by comparison. People don't know what LibreOffice is. Sorry but the Libre folk should merge back with the product which has some market share.

Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (3, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39935147)

You can't merge GPL code into Apache license code, it's not compatible that way.

Instead, Apache should just give the rights to OpenOffice brand to LibreOffice, and merge their changes into LO codebase (which is possible).

Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39936441)

Why on earth would Apache folk want to do that?

Seriously: why do people seem to always believe that Apache people don't actually care about their license? There are plenty of Apache committers who won't use the GPL by choice, and who believe in their license. It's just that many GPL types are always yelling about it, and evangelize to try to convince everyone to only use the GPL. Many Apache people care just as much about their license: they just don't go around yelling at everyone about it.

Anyway, if LO folks want to take any of this code, they're welcome to use it - that's the beauty of the AL, useable just about everywhere.

Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39936921)

I disagree. Why should Apache have to?

This is my only problem with GPL - its adherents think it's the One True License and that everyone else should comply.

Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39936991)

I'm not a GPL adherent, not by a long shot. In this case, the reasons are purely pragmatical: it is already clear that the development of LibreOffice is going much faster than OpenOffice, and e.g. most Linux distro already ship LO. The situation between two forks right now is most closely resembling Xorg vs XFree86, and we know how that went for the latter. There's simply no meaningful purpose in having them different. That the more developed fork also happens to be LGPL-licensed is of no consequence - it's as good as Apache license for code reuse in practice.

On the other hand, OpenOffice is a well-known and recognized brand, and it would be a shame to have it wasted on a stagnating fork.

Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (3, Interesting)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39935219)

Yeah an few users by comparison. People don't know what LibreOffice is. Sorry but the Libre folk should merge back with the product which has some market share.

Marketshare (as opposed to usage share or other shares) is usually defined as "$ sales for product/$ sales for all products in the market". As such, both LO and AOO have either 0% marketshare or undefined marketshare, depending on how you draw the boundary of the market.

Usage share, I suspect that LibreOffice has at least as much as AOO (which, after all, just had its first stable release), though they both probably have less than their common ancestor, OOo.

LibreOffice is also more feature rich and under more active development, so from all indications AOO is likely to get further and further behind over time, which is going to make it very hard for it to maintain, much less gain, usage share against LO.

Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 2 years ago | (#39935697)

"Marketshare (as opposed to usage share or other shares) is usually defined as "$ sales for product/$ sales for all products in the market". As such, both LO and AOO have either 0% marketshare or undefined marketshare, depending on how you draw the boundary of the market."

No it doesn't

1) Microsoft Windows is free with a PC.

2) Mobile Phones are free with a Service

3) All Google Products are Free

4) Free to Play Games are Free

5) My Hand me down electronics are all free

6) My Second electronic Device was Free

7) Firefox is Free

8) Internet Explorer is free with Microsoft Windows

The truth is "Market share is the percentage of a market (defined in terms of either units or revenue) accounted for by a specific entity." not my definition Wikipedia, that's not to say your definition is wrong its just not right. You have an outdated concept of product at a price.

Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39934813)

Indeed. OpenOffice is missing dozens of bugs that LibreOffice has introduced!

Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39936907)

Your beliefs do not depend on others agreeing with you. Repeat that 100 times.

I need something that works. I know Libreoffice works now, but in the past basic functionality has been subservient to features. It doesn't matter if you disagree. This is my experience. At some point if OO.org stops doing what I need it do, then I will try Libreoffice.

MS functionality is very important to those that have depended MS for their livelihood. This is beyond just a workflow to the point where the MS lords give then a reason to live. I do not have this need. I need to read basic MS files, but I left the word processor years ago due to the technical nature of my writing. I can see Libreoffice as the alternative for people who do not want for MS products, but really that is not my need.

Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39936995)

Heh .. That subjective comparison was done by a LO developer from what he read in the Release notes.

It would be nice to see a real conparison by someone running the code.

Great news (5, Insightful)

Palestrina (715471) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934169)

I've been using OpenOffice.org for years. I just want it to work. I don't care so much about the bickering about whose license is better. So it is good to see the code land at Apache, a foundation with a decade of experience running open source projects. I think the move to Apache shows a seriousness of purpose and a focus on producing a solid product and growing a open source community free from corporate domination.

And in the end, the question is not how this compares to LibreOffice. That is a non-question considering that their market share is a round-off error. The real question is how Apache OpenOffice compares to Microsoft Office, and what will they do to make it something that users will prefer. Free is nice, I don't question that. But debating who is free and who is libre and who is more free, etc., misses the point entirely. Users have work to do, and generally don't care about licenses. If they did then 90%+ would not be running MS Office.

So good news. I've upgraded. But the big question is, "What next?" And maybe, "How can we help?"

Re:Great news (2)

Harbo (111712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934311)

Subscribe to their lists. http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
Some ideas here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Help+Wanted
Also it's fun to write extensions...which are hosted over on SourceForge.

Not so great news (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39934327)

Picking Apache "because they know how to do this OpenSourc-ey thing" is like buying IBM because it never gets you fired - a pointy-haired boss decision of cluelessness. It meanwhile looks like the folks at LibreOffice know how to build nice communities just alright.

Re:Not so great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39936485)

Gosh, I think the "people at Apache" might just have a few nice communities over there with their 100 or so projects. They might not be linux distros, and there might be a lot of that Java crap, but I bet you use some of their stuff all over your servers.

Anyway "people at Apache" is like saying "readers of Slashdot". It's not one community - it's about 100 communities, one for each project. Some are definitely nicer than others.

Re:Great news (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39934459)

But debating who is free and who is libre and who is more free, etc., misses the point entirely.

No, thinking that the main difference between OpenOffice and LibreOffice is about one being more free than the other is missing the point.

Re:Great news (4, Insightful)

feranick (858651) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934493)

"the question is not how this compares to LibreOffice. That is a non-question considering that their market share is a round-off error. "

I am sure you have actual evidence to back your statement. Libreoffice is the de facto standard office suite in any linux distro. Besides, the fast pace and the publicity coverage it received (correctly so, I should say), compared to OO.org, made it a much more known product that you think it is (The Document Foundation in September 2011 claimed an installed based of about 25 million users).

Do the math (1)

Palestrina (715471) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934731)

Microsoft claimed 750 million users of Office back in 2010. LibreOffice claims 25 million. OpenOffice claims 100 million. Add in WordPerfect, Symphony, Google Docs, etc., and LibreOffice would struggle to make 1%.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/about-that-1-billion-microsoft-office-figure-/6555 [zdnet.com]

Re:Do the math (4, Funny)

burne (686114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934807)

Wow. I am the one percent. Cool :)

Re:Do the math (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39934905)

Mod parent up

Re:Do the math (1)

feranick (858651) | more than 2 years ago | (#39936793)

Although it's statistically meaningless to perform even the most basic mathematical analysis with data from different times (MS Office statistics are from 2010, LO are from last year, etc), let's do the math. If Libreoffice claims 25 millions and OO.org 100 million, the math says Libreoffice user base is 25% that of OO.org, hardly the round-off error claimed by parent and about twice the percentage that OO.org is compared to MS Office. In any case, we are not comparing either one with MS Office, but LO and OO.org alone. Also keep in mind that LO started only at the beginning of 2011. Arriving at 25 % of OO, with no name recognition in less than a year is no small feat.

Re:Great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39935269)

I think he means that OOo users are a roundoff error compared to LibreOffice users now.

Re:Great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39936399)

Crap... my RHEL6 Desktop subscription still runs OpenOffice.org... what should I do ? :)

Re:Great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39934499)


And in the end, the question is not how this compares to LibreOffice. That is a non-question considering that their market share is a round-off error.

It's only "a round off error" because the LibreOffice is less than 1.5 years old. The license doesn't matter to end users, what matters is the product. From what I hear LibreOffice has more developers and more features. If that adds up to a better product, I'd say OO has some serous competition.

Re:Great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39934777)

I've been using OpenOffice.org for years. I just want it to work. I don't care so much about the bickering about whose license is better. So it is good to see the code land at Apache, a foundation with a decade of experience running open source projects. I think the move to Apache shows a seriousness of purpose and a focus on producing a solid product and growing a open source community free from corporate domination.

And in the end, the question is not how this compares to LibreOffice. That is a non-question considering that their market share is a round-off error. The real question is how Apache OpenOffice compares to Microsoft Office, and what will they do to make it something that users will prefer. Free is nice, I don't question that. But debating who is free and who is libre and who is more free, etc., misses the point entirely. Users have work to do, and generally don't care about licenses. If they did then 90%+ would not be running MS Office.

So good news. I've upgraded. But the big question is, "What next?" And maybe, "How can we help?"

Another interesting comparison - at least from a user perspective - is: how AOO 3.4 compares to OOo 3.3? Don't forget there are few millions OOo users out there..

Re:Great news (1)

Harbo (111712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934963)

So if you want to know, take a moment and read the Release Notes. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Release+Notes
You'll see two sections, one 'New Features from the OpenOffice.org 3.4 beta' and one 'New Features for Apache OpenOffice 3.4. So LibreOffice 3.x is based on the same source code for the first section since they forked it under LGPL and worked on that. Same thing with the Apache OpenOffice community. The second section describes the features added by the Apache project, now available to the LibreOffice project if they choose to build it in and presumably re-license under MPLv2 which appears to be their preferred license going forward for new contributions from their community.

Oracle (4, Funny)

dmbasso (1052166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39934873)

So, how long until Oracle sues them for using Java? :p

DITA support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39935989)

Does it have the one innovative feature that I need? No.

So competition is good.... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39936547)

I guess anyway.

To be honest, its hard to get excited when there are 2 competing groups using basically the same code-base, targeting the same audience... Seems like such a waste of talent.

Apache OpenOffice (1)

nighty5 (615965) | more than 2 years ago | (#39936773)

Dead Man Walking.

Well then... (1)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39936819)

Well then, the 10 people still using OpenOffice will be able to update... I mean, LibreOffice is faster and their template site works. Plus it does not have that Oracle logo...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...