17 thoughts on - Libre Office

  • Michel,

    I believe that is the reason why, I can be wrong

    LibreOffice replaced OpenOffice as the standard office productivity suite in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. The 6.3 upgrade offers a new set of LibreOffice packages to replace remaining OpenOffice packages. There will be complete compatibility of documents between the older packages and LibreOffice

  • Please don’t reply to another thread on a mailing list and change the subject. It screws up the message threading.

  • Not sure. Probably same reason SciFi changed to SyFy; bored marketing people trying to ‘add value’.

  • LibreOffice was created when Oracle bought Sun, a bunch of the core developers quit and started their own project, as Oracle has a nasty history of twisting open source projects to suit their own needs. Oracle was invited to join the LibreOffice foundation, whereupon it would have become OpenOffice again, but instead, Oracle told all OpenOffice board members that they could not be involved with both projects. Shortly thereafter, Oracle laid off all the people worknig on OpenOffice, and ‘gave’ the project to Apache, where its stagnating.

    Meanwhile, Google, Red Hat, SuSE, the FSF, and others have contributed one paid employee each to the LibreOffice project, which started with a fork of OpenOffice 3.3 beta, and is currently up to 3.5

  • [knip oracle/sun contributions to OSS projects]

    As far as I am concerned, any OSS project can be forked. This has happened here and TUV is just eating its own dogfood using LO instead of OO.org.

    Nothing shocking, really. Most informed people know how much Oracle has contributed to OSS, but also how it has tried ‘monetize’ other stuff
    (thinking java here, with the recent android controversy). They routinely profit from other people’s work (their unbreakeble linux distribution is not truly theirs, is it?).

    Sometimes it makes more sense to open source stuff, sometimes it doesn’t. You win some, you lose some. Business as usual.

    Mr Shuttleworth has obviously his own agenda on the discussion. He is the first one to have stuff forked for no (apparently) good reason (unity)
    instead of cooperiting with upstream.

    just my 2 cents.

  • I think it is more the fact the Oracle seems to be two faced in their dealings with foss as opposed to IBM.

  • So correct. Way back in 2001, in London I was there when IBM clearly stated they are going to spend one billion on Linux on that year. They did, all of us benefited, IBM got sued by SCO because of that (the lawsuit was for $1b damages)… All I see from Oracle is talk and then a bit of shafting and backstabbing. They do good work (OCFS2, some of the PHP stuff, btrfs come to mind) and then they do some very ugly stuff (undercutting TUV with the hope of… What exactly I haven’t figured out yet).

    They do a great database product. I only wished they stuck to doing just that.

  • Not really, I just wanted to express my POV, which is not the mainstream opinion. I didn t come here to argue against LO in CentOS, the OP did. For me, fine, I’ll just ignore it, as I don’t use ANY office suite on servers.. End of story as far as I’m concerned.

    FC

  • Since the Sun acquisition, and despite the LO-OpenOffice spat (which btw the ‘community’ forkers destroyed the future of the former Sun StarOffice, in the name of freedom, of course), most of the former Sun FOSS projects -at least the mainstream ones- have been doing well:
    Virtualbox, GPL Java SE (OpenJDK), NetBeans, Glassfish J2EE server, MySQL, even while Oracle had other proprietary products in its arsenal that would overlap (ie JDeveloper freeware overlaped with NetBeans, yet Oracle continued with Netbeans development nevertheless, with v7.2
    just released and extended for better PHP/C++ support).

    Having said that, I wouldn’t touch Oracle’s propietary offerings even with the proverbial 20ft pole -mostly because I cannot afford any and there are worthy alternatives which are totally free- but Sun’s FOSS
    projects I care about are alive and doing well (even OO under Apache’s).

    I recorded some of the doom and gloom predictions (ie “MySQL will die”) vs the reality on a news story last year http://news.techeye.net/software/despite-anti-oracle-hysteria-firm-is-an-open-source-powerhouse

    After that they even complied with their promise of starting to open source JavaFX 2.0
    http://openjdk.java.net/projects/openjfx/

    OK, now let’s concentrate on CentOS… :)

    FC

  • Hakan Koseoglu wrote:

    IBM is also two faced with their OSS engagement.

    They treat linux different from others.

    J

  • Joerg Schilling wrote:

    Well, but IBM *loves* Linux, and I saw that 10-12 years ago. Let me put it this way: you’re one of the world’s largest companies, and you make a wider range of computers than pretty much anyone, and you’ve been doing it longer than almost anyone.

    Now, would you like to support S/38 (I’m sure some are still running), AS400, RISC6000, AIX, DOS/SP/VME (and I have no idea how many more acronyms have been added since I last worked on one in the mid-nineties), MVS, etc, etc… or run Linux on *everything*, and tell users, when they want to go to a larger system, “sure, same o/s, nobody needs to learn a new system, just recompile your in-house software….”

    mark

  • The main reason for the switch to LO from OO is Oracle Corporation’s buyout of Sun. Shortly after that event the principal developers of OO left that project and forked LibreOffice. Oracle went through some handwaving exercise about being committed to open source but development of OO stalled, either by design or neglect. Evential Oracle turned OO over to Apache.org but by then a large portion of the OO audience had already switched to LO and never looked back.

    OO has had its first release since being adopted by the Apache Foundation but that release did not support any form of English other than en_US. I do not know what other language packs are available now.

    Since Oracle is now out of the picture it is possible that LO and OO
    may again merge into a single project, eventually. On the other hand, maybe not.

  • The jihadists against Sun Contributor Agreement created the so-called “exodus” of programmers from OpenOffice.org to “Libre” Office, then spit Oracle in the eye and subsequently invited them for dinner (to join “the document foundation”). Actually, the so-called “exodus” left about 50-60 employees at ORCL, but still that wasn´t enough to contribute development.

    Then a series of articles came out claiming that OpenOffice.org was “dead” and that was about the same time many distros decided they would package the “new” LibreOffice. Of course the OpenOffice first forkers, Novell, celebrated the move (remember Novell´s Go-OO fork, which supported MS-OOXML which Sun refused).

    But the reality was a bit different and not so certain as TDF painted it… Oracle decided to contribute OpenOffice.org trademarks and source code to the Apache Foundation. Apache OpenOffice was thus born and IBM later announced its intention to support the project and contribute the former Lotus Symphony source code to the project, too.

    That leaves us where we stand, with two free office suites forked from the same code.

    Just my $0.02
    FC

  • sorry, typo, I meant “to continue development” (of Sun/Oracle´s propietary product alongside OO.o on a dual-license, namely StarOffice which Oracle had renamed “Oracle Open Office” -without the .org).

    FC

  • BS if you ask me… Oracle bought Sun in APRIL 2009.

    Sun programmers, on Oracle´s payroll, kept developing OpenOffice.org and release 3.3 was done under Oracle´s management. Even 3.4 Alpha was there when LO forked.

    Under Oracle, OOCon in Budapest was done. Oracle also renamed the commercial build of the product (formerly known as “StarOffice” as “Oracle Open Office” -without the .org in the name), and even released an update to StarOffice 9 that included plenty of commercial filters…

    Of course, the LO “freedom fighters” have another story of events, but what I´m saying here was told to by a member of the German team that stayed at Oracle until the last.

    Oh really? the projects they are PAYING FOR in the first place?. Do you mean they have no right to influence the direction of the FOSS products they´re paying for?

    I guess you will uninstall the Btrfs from your Linux kernel, then, (merged back in February) which was developed, gee, by an Oracle employee during several years, and which puts Linux on equal footing with Microsoft´s ReFS filesystem…

    And OpenJDK 7, and MySQL Community Edition, and will never use VirtualBox (which Oracle made totally GPL, eliminating the separate “OSS” edition), or NetBeans, or Glassfish, just to name a few of the flagship Sun FOSS projects that Oracle has not only kept investing on, but increased the pace of development…

    But hey, hating companies that put a lot of money in FOSS development just because they have some non-free products that pays for it all seems to be the latest vogue.

    In the words of Shuttleworth (http://ho.io/libreoffice)

  • Gee, someone could think that they are a for-profit corporation, like IBM (whose DB2 is NOT open source, or Lotus Notes, also NOT open source), yet I don´t see the level of IBM hatred that I routinely see wrt ORCL.

    When any corporation puts money into the development of FOSS technologies (like IBM, Oracle, and RedHat has done, I applaud them). Yet, some people always find a need to bash those, as having an evil agenda, namely *god forbid* the PROFIT word…

    But like you say business as usual or “move along, nothing to see here”. ;)

LEAVE A COMMENT