Apache OpenOffice Releases Version 3.4 151
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."
The Real Question (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Apache ftw! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Great news (Score:5, Insightful)
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:So like... (Score:5, Insightful)
LaTeX and R.
Not so great news (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Great news (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Apache ftw! (Score:2, Insightful)
Many large corps consider this a big deal and have strict policies for absolutely no good reason.
FTFY.
Re:So like... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
GNU phobia (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a few reasons that corporations have anti GPL policies. One is that when the license is put in front of their legal departments, many of them, from a reading of the license, and also from the well known fact that so many others have read it that way, conclude that if a GPL software is combined w/ software under any other license, the combination becomes GPL. People may argue that point here, but the fact remains that there isn't a consensus that when combined, the license of one doesn't affect that of the other.
There is another thing @ play here - the FSF. Organizations like the OSI are interested in promoting the philosophy of open sourced software, and they do so working w/ software companies and factoring in their interests as well. As a result, more companies are only too happy to work w/ them. With the FSF, otoh, there is this obsession w/ 'software freedom', and nothing illustrates this better than a look @ what's changed when going from GPL2 to GPL3. While GPL3 is compatible w/ more licenses than GPL2 was, certain aspects, such as termination clauses and expanded scopes of what's covered. For instance, in AGPL2, all that was there was that users of a web application would be able to receive its source: in AGPL3, coverage is expanded to all network-interactive software, so it will 'also work well' for programs like game servers i.e. force them to distribute their source code as well.
But one of the biggest problems w/ the FSF is the perception that it's business hostile - one that's richly borne out by its treatment of TiVo, in a way that it's actually used that company's name as a slur on one of the policies it deems unacceptable. Under GPL2, while it was necessary for a provider to provide the source code, it was not necessary that the provider should provide an unlocked box so that the user can modify the code and run it himself. In TiVo, which uses Linux to run the various STB functions, it makes sense that the company not allow its customers to alter the contents of the firmware, and thereby potentially damage the box and making it unusable for themselves or anyone else. So Tivo supplied the box w/ the OS locked - maybe put into an OTP or some such mechanism. GPL2 didn't consider this problem, which is why TiVo is GPL2 compliant, but GPL3 does. GPL3 forces a company that locks down its GPL3 software i.e. provides the source code, but provides the product on something that can't be altered, to to provide the recipient with whatever information or data is necessary to install modified software on the device. And it uses the word 'TiVoization' to describe this 'problem', as though the company was guilty of heresy in the religion of St IGNUtius.
This is why no company whose executives have a brain will touch the GPL, particularly GPL3. Let's say a company - a competitor to TiVo - were to come up w/ a similar box. They too would need to lock down their firmware, so that customers can't accidentally render the box unusable. But if they are forced to provide some customers w/ ways to unlock the box so that they can install their own firmware then, who takes care of the liabilities? As it is, it's a freeloader society where people who do such things are more likely than not to go back crying to the manufacturer when the altered thing doesn't work and they want to restore the last known good configuration, and while the EULA may have freed the vendor of any liability, fact remains that to avoid any negative publicity, most companies actually would do what they can to fix it. Given that reality, it makes sense for such companies to prevent customers from tinkering w/ their set top boxes. The reasons could be not just the above, but maybe the service provider doesn't want the customer to unlock the STB and set it up so that it can start receiving free (as in gratis) channels from Australia, Russia, South Africa and Mexico, or domestic unsubscribed channels not in the paid plan. It would not be difficult to convince the OSI that an STP is different from a
Well, F Me Sideways! (Score:4, Insightful)
I just never thought about it THAT way! You are so right!
My car isn't a car, it's a TDUPR (transportation device using public roads). Lock it Down! No modifications!
My house isn't a house, it's a PDIN (person domicile in neighbourhood). Lock it Down! No modifications!
My job isn't a job, it a GEAS (gainful employment aiding society). Lock it Down! No changes!
Can't be rendering anything unusable; the companies have said so.
Wait a minute -- you nearly had me. We have a word to describe this. Facism. No, wait, its TIVOIZATION!
Can be efficient, though.
If the point of tivoizing was to prevent negative publicity -- didn't work that well, did it?
Tivoization! Everyone knows what it is, and WHO invented it. (well, maybe they didn't, but I'll give them the credit)!
Take THAT publicity.
Re:GNU phobia (Score:4, Insightful)
Regarding the FSF and Tivo, if you read the background and history the entire purpose of the license was that "the user can modify the code and run it himself". It was always intended as a personal right to modify your own equipment and the source was your means, that the hardware would run any code you put on it was implied but never explicitly stated. It's like realizing your license said "There must be a switch to turn function X off" and someone provided the switch glued stuck in epoxy to follow the letter but not the meaning of the license. I'd be pretty angry too.