Talk:OpenOffice.org/Archive 4

Derivations of OOo
At the beginning of the article, OOo is said to be derived from StarOffice. Under "Ownership" however, StarOffice is said to be derived or based on OpenOffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.130.172.10 (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OOo is derived from StarOffice 5.2. Since Staroffice 6.0, both OOo and StarOffice have shared the same codebase. Since roughly the release of OOo 2.0, Linux distros typically have used source from Novell, rather than the official Sun releases. One effect of this, is that the Novell version usually includes new features earlier than the Sun version. jonathon (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, there have been instances of "official Linux" versions having critical bugs. Why clone something rather than using "the real deal", or to use another metaphor, get material "from the horse's mouth"? For a discussion of one such Linux clone failure (Ubuntu), see |the page I put up about fixing broken forms wizards. Tkbwik (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Complementary software" section
This is inappropriate and should be removed. It is entirely opinion, cannot be verified (as it's just a list of random programs), and is of only tangential relevance to the subject matter. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That list is based on the most common suggestions on the OOo users list, when people ask where to find them in OOo. jonathon (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The complementary software section was useful. Its gone now?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.165.234 (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Metadata [ citation needed ]
As with Microsoft Word, documents created in OpenOffice can contain metadata which may include a complete history of what was changed, when and by whom..

I added the [citation needed] tag back. Claiming that it is "common knowledge" doesn't suffice. For starters, the default setting for "Record Changes" is "off". Need I also point out that one can use MSO for more than a decade, without knowing that it exists, much less how to turn it off.jonathon (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Extension packages, EuroOffice
I see that a number of extension packages and OOo derivatives are listed. I'm a developer of EuroOffice that is also a derivative and a set of extensions, so I would be happy to see it mentioned too — but of course I will not add it due to COI.

However here's a brief description that someone could adapt and include in the article in some form:

EuroOffice
EuroOffice 2008 is an OpenOffice.org-derivative that includes support for adaptive menus (similar to those in Microsoft Office). Also using the EuroOffice brand name comes a line of extensions that also work with OpenOffice.org. These include a dictionary toolbar, a solver, a new chart type for geographical data and language tools, such as a grammar checker.

I've kept it short, but if more detail could be fit in, there is a large amount of information on our web site, and you can ask me too of course. There is one good independent online reference about our dictionary extension here, and I can cite a few references from printed press (although mainly Hungarian).

I also think that it may be a good idea to move the list of such third-party enhancements out of this article, perhaps to a "List of OpenOffice.org derivatives" and a "List of OpenOffice.org extensions" page, so that this article does not get bloated over time. Thank you for considering my suggestions. --CyHawk (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

www.openoffice.org was down for a while in October 2008
www.openoffice.org was returning 403 for a while. Now it's not responding at all. --merriam (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You can of course still get OpenOffice.org from the mirrors: distribution.openoffice.org/mirrors/ (download) via Google cache --merriam (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Reportedly it's because everybody is downloading the newly-released 3.0 -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You also can get the new version via BitTorrent (official OOo BitTorrent tracker): Win, Lin32, Lin64, MacOSX, Solaris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.152.28 (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have accessed the site many times, over a period of years... without ever being turned away. As an earlier poster said, I think the "problem" was very isolated, and arose due to a much anticipated major version release. Tkbwik (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Portable version
Hey people, I just found a portable version of OpenOffice.org 3.0 here: http://hacktolive.org/wiki/Portable_Applications —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.72.162 (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice. Jerebin (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mac needs update
The Mac situation is apparently changed with the release of 3.0 -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What Mac situation? If you are referring to the use of X/Aqua, the article has already been updated to reflect this.  [ジャム] [talk] 07:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OpenOffice.org 3 included in Super Ubuntu
I don't know if it's appropriate for this article, but I just found out that the new version of Super Ubuntu already includes OpenOffice.org 3... Jerebin (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe many Linux distros include oo as a standard package. Maybe a section in this article listing distros that do, distros that don't include it would be of interest to readers? Additionally, perhaps the Super Ubuntu (and similar) page(s) should mention that oo is included?Tkbwik (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image edit war
There seems to have been a minor edit war recently over the infobox image - with different versions of an OOo.Writer screenshot being applied. To stop this warring, I have changed the image to the application chooser, which has the added advantage of showing in the infobox the choice of apps in OOo i.e. OOo is more than just a word processor. --TimTay (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Market share needs updating
Additionally, many UK higher education institutions use Openoffice.org on their networked computers - due to the number of students using non-microsoft operating systems on their own computers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OpenOffice.org and Linux distros
Actually, most Linux distros (at least Ubuntu and Debian) use Go-oo.--Kozuch (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do they? I don't think Fedora does... and that's a fairly major distro.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 18:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that many distros are packing Go-oo instad of OpenOffice.org, see Chris Cheney, Ubuntu's OpenOffice.org package maintainer comment (number 5) in Launchpad.net, Bug #151829 in openoffice.org (Ubuntu): “Include go-oo in Ubuntu” —Preceding unsigned comment added by KDesk (talk • contribs) 00:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed external links and x-reference: OO generally, and for ooBase
1) Suggested external links, for people wanting help with the use of Open Office...


 * Excellent set of forums, one for each module, plus "set up", etc: http://www.oooforum.org/
 * Tutorials on using the database module: http://sheepdogguides.com/fdb/fdb1main.htm

2) Cross-reference "ooBase" is pretty well established (37,000 hits on a Google search) as the English name for the database module. Should Wikipedia at least have a page for "ooBase" redirecting to the Open Office page? Tkbwik (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

— — — — — Further from original poster (tkbwik): After a number of days, under the above, in red, appeared...

Cite error: tags exist, but no  or  , then sign your comment with  ''. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.''


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. mabdul 17:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the "common name" is OpenOffice, not OpenOffice.org. The ".org" is just an official branding wart, the same as "Apache". Anyway, we can expect Apache OpenOffice to overtake OpenOffice.org as the more common name in good time, as Jakew suggests below&mdash;there's no reason to expect users to stubbornly stick with the ungainly OpenOffice.org. Clconway (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL is a pretty good reason not to "expect" it. I didn't say OpenOffice.org was or was not the commonly used name, but "Apache OpenOffice" sure isn't, and I have very strong doubts that this would change any time soon. - SudoGhost 19:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See below for some data. Clconway (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME, articles titles are determined by the name most commonly used by English language reliable sources; articles titles are not determined by any official name (or renaming, in this case). - SudoGhost 17:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. However, it seems possible (perhaps even likely) that sources will start to refer to the project using the new name.  I'd therefore suggest that it would be wise to reconsider the name in, say, a year. Jakew (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to OpenOffice for the time being instead. The most concise, common name should be preferable. I still disagree with the current article title because the subject of the page is a software program, not a web site per se. "OpenOffice.org" and "Apache OpenOffice" are more official names for the software. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I started this move discussion and I now support this alternative. "OpenOffice" is the common name (see data below), which has remained consistent through the stewardship of Sun, Oracle and Apache, and all the associated official renamings. Clconway (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Apache OpenOffice is now the software's correct name. Just as the New Jersey Nets article was renamed Brooklyn Nets when the team moved, so should Apache OpenOffice be renamed since it, too, has "moved." Raider Duck (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Apache OpenOffice now is new brand of OpenOffice.org and this is undoubted. I don't think common name for something on OLD REFERENCES is a good reason for being outdated on Wikipedia. [In my opinion] WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable for here, it is very clear OpenOffice.org is renamed to Apache OpenOffice. If you see Apache OpenOffice website, you can see name of Apache OpenOffice everywhere [on page title, on news, on...]. –ebraminiotalk 14:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The product has formally been renamed/rebranded from OpenOffice.org to Apache OpenOffice, so the current title is actually incorrect. As long as there are redirects from the other common names, everything should be fine Janhoy (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
The name change took effect in December. Here are the results of some Google News searches as of May 4, 2012: Per WP:COMMON, I think the common name is in fact OpenOffice. I still support a move to Apache OpenOffice, as it is the proper name and sufficiently similar to the "common name" to avoid confusion. Clconway (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "openoffice.org -apache": 65 results, including many phrases such as "LibreOffice and its ancestor OpenOffice.org".
 * "openoffice -openoffice.org": 182 results, including sources such as ZD Net, PC Magazine, and IT World.
 * "apache openoffice" (phrase): 12 results, most duplicated from above.

Another point for discussion: it's incongruous to have the lede, the InfoBox and the logo image all read "Apache OpenOffice" when the title is "OpenOffice.org". If the consensus is not to move the article, what should we do to avoid confusion? Should the lede be "OpenOffice.org, commonly known as..." Clconway (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

New Suggestion
I suggest that the article not be moved, but rather that a new Apache Open Office article should be started. This article should discuss the classic OpenOffice.org and its history under Sun, through the Oracle purchase and its ultimate consequences. Because "Apache Open Office" is a major effort at rebranding following a major discontinuity (during which the project went into hibernation for a long time, no updates were done, and a large part of its developer community, perhaps the majority, left it for a fork). Just like LibreOffice (the fork) has its own article, so too should the Apache Open Office rebranding have its own article. Both of them are separate attempts at the future, while "OpenOffice.org" is the past. Dovi (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of that solution, but I belive that we have to wait for - say - a year until a) OOo 3.5 and OOo 4 is released. OOo 3.5 includes the major cleanup work of the IP and some small new features/faster work (e.g. for SVG) and OOo 4 should be released within 2012 with the merge of IBM Lotus Symphony. Until now, it's all CRYSTAL and unlikely notable. mabdul 11:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Why wait for any certain release? The first release (3.4) is enough, along with the corporate effort (IBM) if it's verifiable and notable. Don't know why it should be "unlikely notable" when there has been tons about Apache Open Office in the mainstream press. Even the verifiable plan for a merge with IBM Lotus Symphony along with what already exists is enough to justify an article. Dovi (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Until now, there is no "new" release. There is no 3.4 and moreover I highly doubt that some announcements are enough to create a new article in an encyclopedia. At least I would !vote in an AfD for merge and I know that some other contributors would likely do the same. Simply wait until a new major release is published and then we can go on an split the article. Keep in mind: we have no deadline! mabdul 16:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * True enough. Dovi (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So OpenOffice will get an overhaul in a new major version. Big deal… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes and no: the proposed move is still valid: moving this article to what (or leave it here). I discussed only against the proposal to create now a separated 'Apache Open Office' article. mabdul 08:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of waiting for an actual final release. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, [In my opinion] Apache OpenOffice is not a new software project. It is just a new brand of a transferred project (from Oracle Corporation to Apache Foundation). –ebraminiotalk 14:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's not a new or different project, and to my knowledge it isn't being described as such by any reliable sources. - SudoGhost 15:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No - This is an owner change as before. Sun -> Oracle -> Apache. They simply chose to drop the .org to simplify things. The article should be renamed Apache OpenOffice but tell the story in the History section. The LibreOffice fork is another concurrently developed product, OOo is not. AOO is the continuation of OOo Janhoy (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Apache incubator
The current status of the project is an "incubator" project http://incubator.apache.org/ - "The Incubator project is the entry path into The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) for projects and codebases wishing to become part of the Foundation's efforts.", it seems still unclear in how far the ASF backs OpenOffice as "their" product and whether the incubated project OO.org is already part of the Foundation's efforts. I am sure it it possible to find an official statement.--Arebenti (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's now top-level, so this is moot - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Open Office vulnerability?
Check out www.engr.colostate.edu/~sudeep/teaching/ppt/lec12_security.ppt go to slide 19, enter slide show mode, continue the slide until you should reach slide 20... vulnerability attack inside a honeypot lecture about security... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.177.199 (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

OxygenOffice
What is OxygenOffice? I thought it was different from Open Office, but I got redirected to Open Office. 202.179.16.80 (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please check OpenOffice - OxygenOffice is (or beter saying was) a fork which extends the macro extensibility of OOo. See their official sourceforge site. mabdul 20:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I started a new article at User:mabdul/OxygenOffice. Feel free to read that before taht is published and feel free to help me. ;-) mabdul 13:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Open Office sans .org
Shouldn't there be some mention, even if it's only a "Not to be confused with", of the original Open Office (Which was the reason for the '.org' suffix)? --Deke42 (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is still in: OpenOffice: "The project and software are informally referred to as OpenOffice, but since this term is a trademark held by other parties, OpenOffice.org was its formal name.[101]" Regards, mabdul 23:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Logo in SVG
The logo used on this page is bitmap. There is a SVG file present on Apache OpenOffice website. Churchyard (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks and uploaded. mabdul 13:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

unbundling subsections Go-oo and LibreOffice
Why were these two subsections unbundled? The Go-oo project was merged and discontinued in favour of the LibreOffice project. I think these two projects hould be discussed in one section! mabdul 17:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Concur. ooo-build -> Go-oo -> LO have been very much the same continuous project for nearly a decade - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

CFD notice
mabdul 00:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Windows screenshot
This is not acceptable for Commons - the software is Apache-licensed, but Windows is not. If we want a screenshot, it's going to have to be in a freely-licensed system such as Linux. Is there anyone reading this and running Linux who actually has Apache OpenOffice installed? - David Gerard (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I went through the remarkable faff and multiple attempts at downloading to get a copy installed on an Ubuntu VM and screenshotted. If this is typical Sourceforge download performance, I can see where they get such high numbers from - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm currently downloading AOO 3.4.1 and will post a screenshot very soon if AOO installs correctly. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice one! I missed that that one was in Windows - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What other screenshots do you want? --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * None occur to me. What screenshot would be useful? I can't really think of one (I have 3.4.1 installed in a Xubuntu 12.04.1 VM here.) An AOO 4.0 screenshot will be very useful, particularly if they have a new interface, but I can't find builds of that code as yet - is the IBM branch just source as yet? Does it build easily? - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

File format table
Can't get "sortable" to work. What am I doing wrong? - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * mabdul 15:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice one! I had the words the wrong way around ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

AOO 3.4 and late Mac OS X?
I'm seeing a couple of forum reports that AOO doesn't actually work on later versions of Mac OS X, despite the release notes claiming support (and it's not the Gatekeeper kicking in). Is this the case? Can anyone with a recent Mac verify the fact, if not find a citation (even a bug report) for it? - David Gerard (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bug report, unconfirmed and lacking any detail - David Gerard (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not alter reference quotes
This edit changed a claim in the article ... and also attempted alteration of the supporting quoted text of the referenced source. Of course, the alteration is obvious if one goes to the referenced source. Please take care in editing not to accidentally do this - there are strong opinions surrounding this project (or, per the above, these projects), but that's why referencing is so popular on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

SISSL retirement
I recalled at the time that the retirement of the SISSL was actually about IBM not releasing modifications, which they would have had to do under LGPL. All I can find about this is a blog comment: which isn't much. Anyone else? - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have found some, not really exactly clear, but between the lines:
 * http://www.itpro.co.uk/99409/novell-boosts-microsoft-office-and-openoffice-xml-interoperability
 * http://www.itpro.co.uk/124598/ibm-signs-up-with-the-openoffice-project
 * http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9037499/Can_IBM_save_OpenOffice.org_from_itself_ and http://www.itpro.co.uk/610553/ibm-sun-and-openoffice-org (", [such as] Apache and Eclipse, that we can look to as models of open governance, copyright aggregation and licensing regimes that would make the code much more relevant to a much larger set of potential contributors and implementers of the technology...." on page 3)
 * http://www.openoffice.org/press/ibm_press_release.html
 * mabdul 22:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's the later partnership (the 2008 deal which apparently meant Sun giving IBM OOo code, which was the contractual obligation that led to Oracle dumping OO's remains at Apache), not the time of the SISSL - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I searched again, but with less relevant results:
 * https://w3.linux-community.de/Neues/story?storyid=17604 (German) retirement because of OSI
 * http://www.computerwoche.de/archiv/pdf/2007/leseprobe_37.pdf the best one (and reliable, because of being a big computer magazin in Germany but sadly only the first lines of a 'cover'); relevant parts saying that IBM is still using the OOo 1 code basis for Symphoney because of the license.
 * http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/european-technology/open-source-development-the-history-of-openoffice-shows-why-licensing-matters/1079 an explanation why IBM was able to fork
 * http://news.cnet.com/Sun-retires-one-open-source-license/2100-7344_3-5847484.html?tag=nefd.top the OSI explanation again
 * and another http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/for-non-proliferations-sake-sun-asks-osi-to-retire-older-open-source-license/1805 OSI explanation
 * Regards, mabdul 22:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The comments on that last one are particularly interesting, but of course don't constitute a "reliable source" - David Gerard (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not? ZDNET is reliable, although this is something like a blog. Only because it is a blog entry, it isn't less reliable! mabdul 20:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant the actual reader comments, below-the-line, not the post itself :-) Have a look, the first one claims to know a lot about the situation. Though of course that's something we'd have to consider just gossip, not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that "garyedward" (if it is he) isn't reliable. more "primary source" - he is (was?) a major contributor in the OOo space! <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 15:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Google alerts
I'm finding a daily Google alert on "OpenOffice" and "LibreOffice" very useful (it's where I got that Sourceforge post on AOO downloads and the AOO 4.0 feature list, for example) - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is also http://planet.documentfoundation.org . <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 10:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be an equivalent for AOO - all the "planet" links on the project site are dead - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Badly in need of copyediting and sensible revision
I've just been doing copyedits. Things like tenses, doubled titles in references, etc. Could others please help? The article is also in need of a general revision - structurally it's a mess, and presently reads a bit like an advertising brochure that's been run through Google Translate twice - David Gerard (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up about the first third (including the section header foulup that someone left there for months). Everything from "File formats" down needs going over for grammar, clarity, redundancy and obsolete present- and forward-looking statements.


 * I'm also not sure about whether to put "Features" (what it actually is) before "History" - what do people think a reader would come here to find out? - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Basically, the further you go down the article the less organised it is and the more it reads like people just throwing stuff in. I'm now trying to integrate the random sections into a decent history that will be useful to the reader. Needs better coverage of what the project achieved in the bigger world during Sun's custodianship, not just a timeline of features - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Historical importance of OOo: Anything else?
 * The stuff in "Partnerships" is stuff that may have sounded important at the time, but is it actually relevant to 2012? Why does anyone want to know this? The stuff in "Reviews" looks old and random, and needs to be part of a proper history of OO's importance - David Gerard (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Old OOo press page - hopefully the dead links are in archive.org - David Gerard (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

File formats
I thought OO did MS Works and Office 2007 - but they're not in the references. Anyone got references for these? - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidently not - its go-oo (and now LibreOffice) that reads and writes these. OOo reads DOCX since 3.0, but whenever someone asks on the OO forums how to write DOCX they're told this is a wrong thing to want (and LO doing them just fine is not mentioned) - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable users, Retail
These are the only two sections I haven't gone through myself. Anyone? - David Gerard (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

LO as successor
Per the naming discussion above - AOO has the trademark, but that's about all. There's about ten press sources in the article already to support a statement that OOo was succeeded by LO, and that AOO is a rump, a moribund shell; and only IBM sources seriously pretending AOO is a live project - as far as I can see looking through AOO commits, IBM hasn't even committed the Symphony code and it's supposed to come out in February. We'll see with AOO 4.0, but if it looks anything like Symphony (which I've used at work, and it's horrible), that will be the day old OOo users notice something has gone terribly wrong and it'll be appropriate to make this article all about OpenOffice.org and make Apache OpenOffice a separate article - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For someone doing so many edits, your inability to even read the 4.0 section is stunning. OO 4.0 in February? WTF? March/April is the target date.
 * IBM’s Symphony contribution is here: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/symphony/
 * As with all professional software projects, major new features (in OO4’s case IAccessible2 and the Sidebar GUI) are developed in separate branches: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/
 * And while there is nothing wrong with new articles for new major versions of software (as it’s done with MS Office), your reasons are emotional (=non-neutral) and therefore a violation of WP’s NPOV policy. I hope we won’t see any of your aversion against AOO leak into the article. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Seeing the obvious and being able to cite it are of course different things - David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Aha, the licensing hasn't actually been sorted out yet in svn, which appears to be at least one source of confusion . (Though I see no reason to presume they won't sort it out in time.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * IMHO, the status and notability of Apache OpenOffice as a software product, from the perspective of the article, should not be dependent on opinions on the underlying open source project. 30 million downloads (as claimed by the project), press coverage, etc., establishes that notability.  We do not, for example, question the size or employment status of Microsoft's development team when we write about Microsoft Office.  And we do not denigrate the Microsoft Office product because it is the product of a single company.


 * Now are there disputes? Yes.  Some in Greece claim Macedonia is part of Greece.  And China similarly with Taiwan.  Wikipedia articles generally lead with the de jure facts, and if there is a controversy then state that as well.  De jure, Apache owns the trademarks for OpenOffice.org, the website/domain name for OpenOffice.org, they were granted the source code for the product from the owner of the product (Oracle) and they have continued to develop that software, with a slight rebranding of the name to "Apache OpenOffice".  We shouldn't ignore the LibreOffice claims, but emotional claims shouldn't trump de jure facts. Vaccinium (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * These are strong arguments, but then Santa Cruz Operation, SCO Group and Caldera (company) went the route of three separate articles; so there's arguments all possible ways. I'd say it can wait, then we can have another discussion and/or straw poll - David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * SCO Group is a particularly apposite example, actually: they quite definitely were the owners of the trademarks, they owned and continued the Unix business, and they claimed the history of the old Santa Cruz Operation in their publicity materials - but we have separate articles. So owning the trademarks and claiming the mantle of successor is not at all a slam-dunk in therefore putting them in the same WP article - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Apache has much more than the trademark. They have the OpenOffice code, the OpenOffice website, the OpenOffice wiki, the Openoffice support forums and a large number of volunteers from OpenOffice, as well as millions of OpenOffice users who have upgraded directly from legacy releases of OpenOffice.org to Apache OpenOffice.  So the continuity is there on every level.  These are the facts, with authoritative references easy to obtain.  I think the contrary argument is the harder one to make, though you are welcome to try.  Vaccinium (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Repeated assertion doesn't in fact make it a slam-dunk, there's still good argument either way - David Gerard (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And one could argue that Microsoft Office 2013 is not the successor to Microsoft Office 2010 because they had some developer turnover. One could make that argument.  But one could not win that argument. Vaccinium (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A closer analog would be the Hudson-Jenkins story. the main difference being that in the OpenOffice.org case Oracle abandoned the project few months before dumping the code into a foundation (Apache instead of Eclipse in this case). Also, some other NL wikipedia have gone the route of maintaining an OpenOffice.org 'legacy' article, starting a new page for AOO and LO. Shmget (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Licensing
I admit to confusion. I understood that there was code under licenses other than the Apache Licence in the tarball and the resulting binary. Is this not actually the case? Is every line and byte under the AL or an equivalent permissive license? Weak copyleft licenses such as the MPL are allowed, but is there actually no code under this variety of licence? - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A license comes from a copyright owner. A copyright might exist on individual files, but it also exists on the "arrangement and selection" of the entire work.  This is called a "compilation copyright".  So a uniform license can apply to the whole as well.  For every other software article I see on Wikipedia, the license listed is the license on the whole, the compilation. For example, the LibreOffice article lists LGPL as the license.  But LibreOffice includes code taken from Apache OpenOffice as well, under the Apache License.  But that does not change the license on the whole. Vaccinium (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm talking much more about the contents of the compilation, given how much concern Apache notably had over licence checking. And that wouldn't apply to the binary. Also, the LO situation is different: AL code can be incorporated into a project with a LPGL licence, but you can't do the opposite (LGPL into AL), which is precisely Apache's concern - David Gerard (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Look at any other Wikipedia article on a software product. The license listed in the lead paragraph, if it is mentioned at all, is the one that the product declares for the whole.


 * To your second point, whether or not Apache OpenOffice may use LibreOffice is not relevant to the question of what the license on Apache OpenOffice is. A product only includes 3rd party software where the license permits them to do so.  (Unless you have a reference for the contrary.)  This would be true of Apache OpenOffice as well as LibreOffice.  My point was that the article on LibreOffice, and every other Wikipedia article I've seen on software, states the license on the software product as whole.  The situation is identical here.  I don't see sufficient reason to recommend deviating from that editorial practice.Vaccinium (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that while the SVN tree includes code under less permissive licenses than the Apache licence, Apache's rules prohibit any of that code from making its way into tarballs (and hence binaries). Doing the work to separate the two (which involved replacing any critical parts of the code that relied on copylefted libraries, for instance) comprised the majority of the work in the initial release. The situation is, IMO, significantly less clear on the LibO side, as the LibO release really does consist of code under a collection of licenses: The OOo codebase that was forked from was LGPL only, as was go-OO, and thus TDF has been chasing anyone who contributed to it to get them to relicense under MPL/GPL3 (I'm not sure if that work is complete): meanwhile, there's been work to rebase on the 3.4 code dump contibuted to Apache. Ultimately LibO's source will all be tri-licensed GPL/LGPL/MPL, though much of the underlying code (bits not modified since the original code dump) will have Apache headers on them. That all comes from discussion on the AOOO incubating list from the last year or so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was thinking in terms of what makes its way into tarballs and binaries. Is there a reasonable cite to this effect? (I'm happy with the statement as is, but a cite would be nice) - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Only Category A software allowed in releases; no Category X (which includes GPL/LGPL). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That link doesn't say "category A only" (permissive) - and it links to another page that, under category B (weak copyleft), says "Software under the following licenses may be included in binary form within an Apache product if the inclusion is appropriately labeled" - so is there nothing in the AOO tarball under a category B licence? - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What I understand of those pages (I agree that the wording could be more definitive, rather than implicative) is that tarballs may only contain source which falls under category A, but can contain precompiled blobs from category B. There is a limited exception for category B source if the final product consumes that source directly (implying that the code is either a script or textual data) so long as said source is unmodified from the original. In terms of what matters to this article, the practical aspect is that the AOO tarballs can contain no cat X code (so no strong copyleft) at all and that any cat B code either has to be precompiled (which negates the reciprocal aspect of weak copyright licenses) or, as an exception, used sparingly in source form in the final product if unmodified from the original. This generated quite a bit of heated debate on the OO incubator list, so I'd suggest that the finer points here are still up for debate at Apache itself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I note also for binaries, Apache actually serves up a pretty comprehensive collection of old Sun versions of OOO - all of which have plenty of Category X going into them. (In fact, I'm annoyed I didn't find this a year ago, when I had cause to seek out a Linux binary of OOo 3.1 for use as a daemon at work - we eventually resorted to the Ubuntu distro version of 3.2, which was of course go-oo, and I suspect next upgrade will be LO as that's in Ubuntu.) - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure that the project really should be hosting content which is expressly not Apache-licensed on Apache infrastructure, but in any case they aren't claiming that it is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, they're actually on Sourceforge, just linked from Apache. See here, go into each of the language subdirectories and you'll find an odd assortment of old versions. So it's not as comprehensive as I said, or perhaps I was thinking of another archive. (Or was just wrong.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is starting to sound like Original Research. The product itself clearly states the license.   Unless you have a more authoritative reference than what the product itself says (and I have no idea what could be more authoritative)???  Vaccinium (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't seem clear on what WP:OR is - talk page discussion is entirely appropriate to get the article right, as long as what's in there is supportable - David Gerard (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Only Category A software allowed in releases; no Category X (which includes GPL/LGPL) : this apply to 'source release'. Apache does not officially 'release' binaries, so binary that people download to install may incorporate, for convenience, stuff that are not part of the source release, and have a different set of licenses applicable to them. Shmget (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Short lead section?
So what should go in the lead, if what's there is inadequate? OO's most significant (to the point of being lead-worthy) achievement would be ODF, second would be providing practical competition to MS Office - what else? - David Gerard (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sometimes people overthink the lead. If the article is fully-developed and presents the key points of the subject in the correct proportions, writing the lead is basically just a case of taking every paragraph or section from the article body and distilling it into summary form. Right now it reduces about 50% of the article content (features and history) into a mere two sentences and has nothing at all on market share or derivatives (which is about another 50% of the article content). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The market share section is terrible, it was the last bit I didn't give a thorough working over - there's something to be said on the subject but that isn't it. As for forks, it's slightly important that OO was the basis for other stuff, but the article already contains rather a lot of LibreOffice (not that I could see any that should be cut) ... anyone want to work over the market share section? - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite honestly, I don't see the point in trying to flesh this out further until the long-overdue split of the Apache stuff to its own article is completed. That will leave this as an article on the legacy codebase. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * +1 - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * +1 - Shmget (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Challenging the claim: majority of developers left for LibreOffice (from History)
I've changed the claim to state that a group of developers left for LibreOffice. The claim that "a majority of developers" left was poorly supported. Two references were given. One did not even support the claim, but merely said a "group of key contributors" went to LibreOffice. The 2nd reference was not primary and gave no evidence to support the claim.

A simple reality check: It is rather well known that Oracle (and Sun previously) did almost all of the coding for OpenOffice. So how could the majority of developers have left for LibreOffice? That is not a credible claim. Maybe it is meant to say "the majority of non-Oracle developers left for LibreOffice" ??? 23:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaccinium (talk • contribs)


 * All you're saying is "I don't like those WP:RSes, so I'm removing them" - you don't have any countervailing sources. Surely you can find them if they exist. If not, you can't really just delete them - David Gerard (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I am challenging the reliability of the references and the plausibility of the underlying claim.  You can't claim purple unicorns on the dark side of Pluto and argue that there are not authoritative references to the contrary.  The references you provide must be credible.  They must pass the sniff test.  A quote from a blog, merely regurgitating the unsubstantiated claims of LibreOffice, is not credible.  Quoting Verifiability, "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  Also, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources".   Claiming that the majority of developers left for LibreOffice when any observer would know that the majority of the development work was done by Sun/Oracle employees is an exceptional claim.  (Remember, even this article says "Development of OpenOffice.org was sponsored primarily by Sun Microsystems")


 * To your second point, there have been other blog posts that challenged these claims, e.g., http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/11/libreoffices-dubious-claims-part-3-developers.html  A credible statement would be one based on actual numbers.  The presence (and repetition) of a quantitative claim ("the majority of...") with zero references to actually substantiate that claim, is suspicious, don't you think? Vaccinium (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is he-said she-said project politics. For matters of politics, the project itself is not a sufficient source. This is why I went to some effort to find third-party sources. You are making assertions about politics - do you have RSes to back them up? - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, I am challenging the reference given. It purports to be a secondary source, but if so it must be providing reliable commentary/synthesis of a primary source.  That is why we use secondary sources.  But there is nothing there to suggest that this actually is a secondary source.  First, the mention of "majority" is merely in passing.  It is not a main point of the article, or argued, or asserted as a finding of the author.  No indication is give that any primary source was consulted.  Since, as you seem to agree, there is a good deal of "he-said-she-said" about this, there is the likelihood that the reference is merely repeating propaganda from LibreOffice.  I'm not saying that we should cite a primary source for this.  Secondary sources are preferred.  But the total absence of a primary source to even point at on this Talk page is troubling.  If we can't find a primary source to back this, then is a passing remark in an article really reliable?   As to your point of opposing RS's. I did provide a link above, one that actually did analyze primary sources. Vaccinium (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems fairly evident that the "most" claim means "most of the paid developers" in the context of Sun/Oracle's layoffs. The vast majority of the ~hundred developers paid previously by Sun to hack on OOo are no longer active contributors to either codebase by the looks of things. That leaves third-party developers, primarily those at Red Hat / SUSE / Canonical, all of whom did indeed move to LibreOffice. From the former developers at Sun / Oracle, some went to "Team Openoffice.org e.V" (independent, AFAIK), some to LibreOffice and some to Apache. I'm sure reliable secondary sources can be found for all of that: I agree that we should refrain from putting conflicting assertions from primary sources into the article until said sources can be located. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The chronology does not work for that interpretation. The article says that the majority of developers left in September 2010.  But it also says that Oracle did not shutdown their efforts until April 2011.  So how could "most of the paid developers" have left in September 2010, when they were still working at Oracle?  Do you see how this doesn't work out logically? Vaccinium (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. One possible alternative interpretation is that the assertion has been mangled from an original one referring to "the community" rather than "the developers", where "the community" is defined as "people working on OOo who are not part of the OOo development team". But you're correct that without a source we shouldn't be asserting facts. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Team Openoffice.org e.V is a ver small NGO with four developers from Hamburg who were developing original for Star Devision (StarOffice). (Not really the big mass of developers)
 * Moreover many developer went to LO including the City of Muinch, TATA and many mores, see the official blog post.
 * <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 13:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Many", "several", "some" are all uncontroversial statements I think. But to make a specific quantitative claim ("majority") on a specific date (September 2010) requires a credible reference.  I have not see one.  Have you? Hopefully we're agreed now that on that date Oracle employed a hundred or more OpenOffice developers and did so through at least April 2011.  So to show that the majority of paid developers moved to LibreOffice in September 2010 should not be hard to do, if this statement is true.  There would be 50 or more Oracle employees leaving Oracle to work on LibreOffice.  This would not happen without leaving some verifiable mark.   So if this assertion is true, how come no one can find a primary source on this?  Or a secondary source that analyses a primary source?  Vaccinium (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I know and have read: On AOO nobody is working except 50 (Chinese) developers of IBM, a few volunteers andThat was it. So AOO is defacto the predecessor of Symphony because of the defacto domination of IBM. Moreover I read a CNET/ZDNET blog post (sry, don't know exactly where it was) that the author believes that AOO could become something like a "reference implementation" of ODF and LO as the real and defacto predecessor of OOo. So something of a community split and a new orientation for AOO getting more into a (new) niche.


 * I've read that as well, but I would not count the places I read it as reliable sources, e.g., ZDNet blogs. Right now our main reference is The Register, a tabloid that is considered by many to not be a reliable source, e.g., Potentially_unreliable_sources and Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Vaccinium (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The problems on the sources is that getting the numbers isn't easy. Joel Madero started two weeks ago to collect bugzilla information and creating some charts. I believe over time some statistic fans and marketing geeks will create such charts, but at the moment both projects are working on the next big release and having not the time to invest their time in such stuff.
 * OTOH collecting such statistics isn't easy and needs many time especially for some independent blogger/newspage writer and thus is not the favorite job...


 * Right. And good luck getting a RS for exactly what Oracle's pre-LO staffing level was.  Corporations tend not to make that information available.  So it seems perilous to make a statement in the article of a specific quantitative figure on a specific date, with a dubious reference from The Register. I know we all hate weasel words like "many" or "some" but an expression of our honest ignorance of the actual figures is better than a false statement of precision.  In other words, we can substantiate the claim, "Many developers left for LibreOffice", but not "the majority of...".   Vaccinium (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 14:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Hopefully we're agreed now that on that date Oracle employed a hundred or more OpenOffice developers and did so through at least April 2011."  No we do not agree on that at all, as the number was more about 50. Shmget (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "So to show that the majority of paid developers moved to LibreOffice" The quote never talked about 'paid' developers. "There would be 50 or more Oracle employees leaving Oracle to work on LibreOffice" beside being over-inflated by at least 100, that is narrowing the set of developers to a specific sub-group that had little choice in the matter. Shmget (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I was responding to the suggestion from User:Thumperward above that the referenced quote could have been talking about paid developers. I don't know.  As mentioned before I have not seen any interpretation that is feasible for a statement that the majority of developers left for LibreOffice in September 2010, a time when Oracle still employed almost all of the OpenOffice developers.  Vaccinium (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "And good luck getting a RS for exactly what Oracle's pre-LO staffing level was." well "Corporation tend not to make that information available", but ex-employee don't have too much problem with that. so no, it is not very hard to get that number. Shmget (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have a RS for that Vaccinium (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That appears more evidence for splitting an AOO article from this article too - David Gerard (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Linux distros with OpenOffice?
Are there any current Linux distros carrying OpenOffice? Not just old versions that are still patched - I can think of Ubuntu 10.04, Debian stable and RHEL 5 carrying the then-current versions of OOo (or go-oo) - but e.g. is there any distro that has AOO in its repos? - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting: distro-watch doesn't let filter on ooo/go-oo/aoo, but libreoffice, abiword, calligra, gnumeric are in the list. I would guess: no. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 10:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No seems not. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wonder how we can reasonably cite an absence ... no current distros carrying it strikes me as relevant and important, given OOo's previous dominance on Linux, but I suppose it would require a RS noticing and saying so - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I found that a few moments ago in my lunch break. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 12:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Although Apache is talking about that they were delivered by most distributions ... <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 12:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * All that link says is that they were planning to be included in most distros, not that they were. Additionally, the download stats page doesn't have per-OS figures. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Apache says 2% Linux (this is referenced in the article). [Italo Vignoli of LO comments on that article that even LO is 80% Windows downloads.] But AOO isn't even in the repos for any distro?
 * (I've seen discussion on the AOO dev list about how to make it more suitable to be put into repos, and this message talks about trying to get it into Debian (with evidently no movement in a year), though the present Wheezy and Sid OO 3.4 package is a transitional package that installs LO.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If anyone has packaged it, it'll be one of the Chinese distros who are closer to the current AOO hackers. There is an official FreeBSD port, though; that was released last February. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

According to a recent Phoronix article an Apache member wants to package OO for Fedora, maybe even as soon as Fedora 19. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a good example of why Phoronix isn't a remotely reliable source. "Fedora To Look At Reviving Apache OpenOffice" actually translates to "the release manager for AOO has created a wiki page proposing its inclusion in Fedora". The extent to which anyone involved in Fedora has looked at this is that said proposal, like any other, has been forwarded to the development list. So far as I can see, there's been no other action here, which makes it no more likely that AOO will be accepted into Fedora's repos than to, for instance, Debian's (where the OpenOffice maintainer explicitly rejected the idea). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrea Pescetti is not asking others to package but wants to package it himself. Unlike Debian where personal animosities play the overwhelming role in rejecting packages (cdrecord, ffmpeg,…), Fedora accepts pretty much anything that just has to conform to a set of rules. If Andrea maintains the packages, it's only a question of time when they appear. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence that the proposer will be the one doing the work from the wording of the wiki page. (As an aside, cdrecord's forking was due to the author relicensing the project under something that Debian doesn't consider to be a free license, and ffmpeg's problems were more to do with upstream's stance on versioning than on "personal animosities" IMO.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And I no longer consider you being worthy even discussing with. All you do is bitching. Work on the actual article (no, adding a template claiming that the lead is too short does not count) or leave us alone. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be more civil, there is no reason we can't keep a reasonable tone working on this article - David Gerard (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not one of the people who mistake Wikipedia for a social network. I'm not here to make friends. That said, bluntly pointing out that a user is only complaining instead of actively contributing is not an insult. On the contrary I'd argue that complaining without contributing is the actual uncivilized behaviour. So if Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) had anything to contribute he'd modify the article.
 * Back on topic: Fedora 19 may feature OO in the repos. Andrea will attempt to package it during FOSDEM with help of a Red Hat employee according to a post on the mailing list. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My contributions to this article stretch back over nearly seven years. You'll watch your manners when you're addressing me, or anyone else on the project, in future; minding your manners is not an optional part of participation here, and those who are unwilling or unable to do so are not welcome. You made an unsupported argument and I challenged it. That's precisely what the talk page is for. Jaroslav Reznik is the Fedora program manager, and he forwards all proposals to the list for consideration. There's no indication in any of these mails that he's making a particular additional effort in the case of AOO. If you have evidence to the contrary we have something to discuss. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No newbie (compared to me, as I “celebrated” my 10th anniversary in WP in January) lectures me, especially if you are even unwilling to read the link I posted. What do you think Jaroslav Reznik reply “I'll be glad to help/find help for you” means? --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Attempting to drive others off an article's discussion page is pernicious behaviour, and directly damaging to the process of the encyclopedia. Attempting to excuse it by saying "I've been here years" is marking yourself as part of the vested user problem. Please desist. - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Help/find help for you" can mean a lot of things. It is certainly not an unambiguous "I will package it for you". This is not sufficient evidence to warrant inclusion in the article right now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I never intended to add that packaging proposal to the article. If I did, I had simply added it. The question was raised which Linux distributions ship it and I simply gave a pointer to look out for Fedora 19.
 * And next time, please, read before posting. I nowhere claimed that Jaroslav will do the packaging. I wrote that Andrea wants to do that but asked for help and held is exactly what Jaroslav offered. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And again: simply WP:CBALL: Fedora19 isn't released. So what are we discussing here right now? We were original searching for a distribution which is still including AOO... <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 12:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in actually cleaning up this article?
I've done some Wikipedia editing over the years, not a lot, but some, in my areas of expertise, or where I thought I could help out. Of course, I have read many more articles. But I've never seen an article so poorly written, and so resistant to improvement, as this one appears to be. Case in point: I made a small set of edits earlier today, to remove some editorializing that was pushing a non neutral POV in the article. Nothing controversial, IMHO. Each change was justified. But evidently User:David _Gerard disagreed and reverted the changes, without explanation or justification, saying I should discuss them here first.

A few examples of the NPOV flaws I found, fixed and which David summarily reverted.

Grammatical ambiguous or editorializing?
Original:

"With the donation to Apache, development slowed while the foundation moved the codebase and infrastructure to its servers. Apache OpenOffice 3.4 was released on 8 May 2012.[54][11] The work done in the thirteen months since the OpenOffice.org 3.4 beta was mainly license changes,[138] removing or replacing as much code, including fonts,[139] under licenses unacceptable to Apache[140] as possible."

The elliptical use of "as much code...as possible" is ambiguous. Is it saying that Apache removed as much code as possible? None of the references cited support that odd claim. Is it meaning that Apache removed code that was unacceptable, in so much as this was possible? That at least is sensible, but again, that is not backed up by the references cited. In fact the references cited don't even speak to the effort Apache made to revise its code. They certainly don't support either meaning of "as much code...as possible".

So I changed the sentence to, "The work done in the thirteen months since the OpenOffice.org 3.4 beta was mainly license changes, removing or replacing code, including fonts, under licenses incompatible with Apache policies." So I changed the statement to one supported by the references.

This is what David reverted. I'd like to know why this was reverted without David first bringing this to the Talk page. I don't see anything controversial here. (At the same time he reverted an unrelated grammatical fix to harmonize the verb tenses. Again, no explanation for the revert.)

Unreliable sources as crystal balls
Another example of an edit that was summarily reverted. The original said, "Apache OpenOffice 4.0 is due in March or April 2013". Two references were given. One says absolutely nothing about the date. The second reference given was to a single developer on the Apache OpenOffice's internal mailing list who in a discussion on possible target dates for 4.0 wrote:

"Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of March or April we will have more time." The speaker there, a native German speaker, was apparently making a common grammatical error, confusing "if" with "when". (English speakers who learn German often make a similar reversal). But there is no reliable source here to justify saying "Apache OpenOffice 4.0 is due...". The reference given is not an official statement from the project at all. It is not a reliable source for the assertion made. Someone evidently manufactured a crystal ball out of this statement.

So I changed the text to read, "One project participant has suggested Apache OpenOffice 4.0 could be ready in March or April 2013", which is actually supported by the references given. David reverted this, again, with no justification given.

And so on. It would be very useful to me to understand what the other editors think the rules are here.


 * 1) Should references actually support the statements that they are associated with?  Or should they be used as decoration?
 * 2) Should editorial color be added to push a PoV?
 * 3) Should statements made in blog posts and opinion articles be used to support factual assertions that otherwise lack reliable references?
 * 4) Should statements in a blog post that amount to hearsay (I heard that X happened) be taken as a reliable source for evidence that X actually happened?

Vaccinium (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I will post my thoughts on that later, but at least the release date is more or less uncontroversial: The official blog is claiming "We don't have a date set yet, but we think it will be before mid-year." <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 07:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So that confirms that my edit was appropriate. To take "we don't have a date set yet but we think..." or a single developer's musings on a mailing list and turn that into "Apache OpenOffice 4.0 is due" by a specific date is to misrepresent the tentativeness in the date as given in the references. You can't represent as a fact (a crystal ball no less) when the reference clearly expresses it merely as a possibility. Vaccinium (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * " The reference given is not an official statement from the project at all. It is not a reliable source for the assertion made. "  Since the statement is made by the 'Release Manager' of the project, one would think that it is as reliable a source one can get about 'Release' schedule. Shmget (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * But he does not claim that the release is in April or May. He says that if it were in April or May the project would have more time.  Pay attention to the specific words he wrote.  Also, the more reliable (and more recent) source from the project's official blog (referenced above) says "We don't have a date set yet". Vaccinium (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I added two references to give context. The second ref can hardly be understood if the first is missing. On top of that, “the participant” is not some random person but the one who was made release manager for the 4.0 release in this mail thread! That means he can decide about when merging new features would no longer be allowed etc.


 * You are making an assumption about what a Release Manager does in an Apache project. See:  http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing#release_manager   The Release Manager does not determine release dates. Vaccinium (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I was making the assumption that the 'release' manager, of all people, should have a pretty good idea about the planned/projected/anticipated release date, and therefore is a pretty reliable source for that piece of information. Anyway... I have no objection to this particular line of edit... as what matter is to give accurate information as of _now_, regardless of what the plans where a couple of month ago. The argument was about the accusation of 'unreliable source'. if we can't consider the Release Manager of a project a reliable source wrt to Release Management... then who is ? Shmget (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I left the ref in there because it was the release manager saying this. I see that KAMiKAZOW took it similarly above. If Apache have redefined the words otherwise, I confess to missing it (and I don't think the link given quite achieves that level of redefinition) - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My original wording, however, was different. I think I wrote “is expected to be released March/April” or so to make clear that no date is set in stone. A more recent blog post is less specific but still says that the release is expected to be released in the first half of this year. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That is a better reference Vaccinium (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * KAMiKAOW, you mentioned a page as a reference for planned Fedora Packaging effort earlier that clearly state: "...and a major update, 4.0, is in the works and scheduled for April 2012." Shmget (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, they mentioned that as Phoronix c'n'ping a typo on said wiki page. Phoronix may indicate newsworthiness, but it's famously sloppy on small detail amongst the subjects of its coverage. (That said, they all read it.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * sure, I actually missed the 2012/2013 typo myself reading it... :-) my point was on the 'April' date... Shmget (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Uhm really, we are discussing about a release date? In a few months this is a totally obsolete discussion. Simply write/add that AOO4 is expected to be released in the first half of 2013 and stop discussing about such a stupid minor problem. We should focus on the real problems like improving the article of the early history (see SISSL retirement above) or the feature set, or if you want about any other more important stuff.
 * TL;DR: Discussing about a future release is totally wasting of time. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 07:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Such is commenting on articles you didn't read. “Apache OpenOffice 4.0 is expected to be released in the first half of 2013” is there since before your comment. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. But why do we still arguing in that thread? <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 12:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Write support for MS Office 2007 documents?
This article does say "OpenOffice does not write Office Open XML (Office 2007, Transitional or Strict)". However the Office Open XML article says "(OpenOffice.org) Version 3.2 improves this feature with read/write support even for password-protected Office Open XML files." One of the citations talks about ability to "open" files, and another talks about just "support" without specifying read or write. I just added a citation that talks about "import" support. I checked with the author who added the part about write support, and he says he was able to test out writing into a .docx file.

Apart from wanting to know about the write support, my question is about policy as well. The author says his statement about write support does not constitute original research as the OpenOffice software is a published source, and anyone can validate what he is saying is correct. WP:PRIMARY says "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.". Please comment on how to proceed. Jay (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Go-oo branch could write OOXML, Sun/Oracle OOo and AOO couldn't. I compiled the table in this article from the AOO release notes. I suggest the other editor was using OOo on Linux, which was actually Go-oo by 3.2 (which was included in Ubuntu 10.04). OOXML writing code is apparently in the software but not enabled; AOO is currently discussing whether and how to enable it, probably not in 4.0 but they hope to in a later 4.x release, using patches being developed for LibreOffice (I asked about it) - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I added a note to Talk:Office Open XML to this effect - David Gerard (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the other editor agreed that he was using the Go-oo branch of OpenOffice. Thanks for clearing the confusion, and modifying the article! Jay (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Tested with a preview version of OO 4.0: No write support for OfficeXML. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Help wanted
I have had OpenOffice installed for a couple of years. Has been fine.

Now, the spell check highlights each word, has no suggestions, and apparently no dictionary.

I just downloaded the latest version of Open Office (on top) and steel no spell check.

HELP! What can I do to fix this?

Ron Manning ronmanning@earthlink.net69.230.160.102 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/dictionary <- There. And next time simply google the problem. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the article and not a support forum. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)