Weekly Edition
Return to the Development page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Go-oo - a true OpenOffice.org fork?
The longstanding ooo-build
project would appear to have matured into a project called Go-oo, and that, in turn, increasingly looks
like a fork of OpenOffice.org. "We believe that copyright assignment
to a single corporate entity opens the door for substantial abuse of the
best-interests of the codebase and developer community. As such, we prefer
either eclectic ownership (cf. Mozilla, GNOME, KDE, Linux), or an
independent, meritocratic foundation (cf. Eclipse, Apache) to own the
rights." See this page for
Go-oo features not (yet) found in OpenOffice.org.
(Log in to post comments)
Go-oo - a true OpenOffice.org fork? Posted Jul 29, 2008 14:10 UTC (Tue) by andrel (subscriber, #5166) [Link] Suse, Debian, Ubuntu, and Gentoo all build from this tree.
Go-oo - a true OpenOffice.org fork? Posted Jul 29, 2008 15:23 UTC (Tue) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] That page is not clear. It provides a go-oo build from source, then says gentoo (for instance) has an openoffice build, which is the original, not go-oo. Probably the go-oo source build will build and run on gentoo, but it is not a gentoo build, it is the normal configure-make-install build of whatever variety go-oo uses.
Go-oo - a true OpenOffice.org fork? Posted Jul 29, 2008 15:34 UTC (Tue) by tetromino (subscriber, #33846) [Link] Gentoo provides two ebuilds. The default, app-office/openoffice, is the go-oo version (with some Gentoo-specific patches on top). But there is also app-office/openoffice-bin which is the binary straight from Sun, with no customization whatsoever.
Well, well! Posted Jul 29, 2008 15:57 UTC (Tue) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] Right you are -- I had never looked at the ebuild itself, which does download go-oo. The description itself doesn't say so. I wonder how many people are using go-oo and don't know it isn't the Sun variety.
Go-oo - a true OpenOffice.org fork? Posted Jul 29, 2008 17:09 UTC (Tue) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link] The latest (experimental) Debian package's copyright file says: Package: OpenOffice.org Obtained from: http://download.go-oo.org/DEV300 Upstream authors: The OpenOffice.org and go-oo.org teams Debian package authors: Peter Novodvorsky, Jan Palic, Chris Halls, Rene Engelhard
Go-oo - a true OpenOffice.org fork? Posted Jul 29, 2008 14:39 UTC (Tue) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link] I hope they'll choose a better name if they end up being a real fork.
Go-oo - a true OpenOffice.org fork? Posted Jul 29, 2008 20:51 UTC (Tue) by darwish07 (guest, #49520) [Link] Yes, the name is too ugly. I'd love a more attractive name like 'Ruby, Python, Beryl, Azureus, ...'.
Go-oo - a true OpenOffice.org fork? Posted Jul 30, 2008 7:30 UTC (Wed) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] just go or go office would do fine i guess.
Novel Office is an improvent how? (Freedom wise) Posted Jul 29, 2008 17:09 UTC (Tue) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] Call me a cynic, but I don't see how exchanging the potential (but as yet unrealized) for Sun to hose us for Microsoft/Novell to get the honor is an improvement. Look at the features they added and you don't even need to actually go research who is driving go-oo except to confirm one's suspicions.. OOXML, Mono, VBA, improved Excel import?
Novel Office is an improvent how? (Freedom wise) Posted Jul 29, 2008 17:50 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] > Look at the features they added and you don't even need to actually go research who is driving go-oo except to confirm one's suspicions.. OOXML, Mono, VBA, improved Excel import? Hrmmm... Your right, because making a program more useful for it's intended purpose is a sure fire sign of secret patent conspiracies.
Novel Office is an improvent how? (Freedom wise) Posted Jul 29, 2008 19:49 UTC (Tue) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] > ..is a sure fire sign of secret patent conspiracies. Microsoft. If I have to say more you are new to the game. Sure Sun has been late to the party but while their movement has been glacial it has pretty much been in the right direction. So for anyone to be throwing FUD bombs at them is probably unfair. For Microsoft/Novell to be doing it just confirms everyone's suspicions about their ultimate motives. OO.o is probably the greatest threat to Microsoft these days and for them to make such transparent play to wrest effective control over OO.o development so soon after losing the standards war should make anyone suspicious.
Novel Office is an improvent how? (Freedom wise) Posted Jul 29, 2008 20:46 UTC (Tue) by Sutoka (guest, #43890) [Link] >OO.o is probably the greatest threat to Microsoft these days and >for them to make such transparent play to wrest effective control >over OO.o development so soon after losing the standards war >should make anyone suspicious. As far as I can tell, this is simply a new website and new name for the oo-build tool thats been around for a while and making OOo better for users of most of the major Linux distros (Mandriva and Fedora being the two main exceptions from a quick glance). Doesn't seem like anything to be concerned about, seems more like something that really needs to happen if we want OOo to be a serious contender.
Novel Office is an improvent how? (Freedom wise) Posted Jul 29, 2008 21:42 UTC (Tue) by alecs1 (subscriber, #46699) [Link] Agree. More, I don't quite understand why would MS pay to have better concurence. While I am Linux user and open-source supporter, OOO really need these improvements to compare to Microsoft Office (now, there are big improvement as the time passes, but I am really trying to leave the boat in favor of KOffice and LyX).
Novel Office is an improvent how? (Freedom wise) Posted Jul 31, 2008 2:23 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] Regardless of whether or not you're right, your use of the term "transparent" is open to question if you're the only person who can see it.
Novel Office is an improvent how? (Freedom wise) Posted Jul 29, 2008 20:13 UTC (Tue) by Coren (subscriber, #39136) [Link] Well ... they accept patches freely, they even give commit rights some times and more over ALL their developper use Linux as their main desktop. Novell pay nearly all the developpers which are integrating OOo with a Gnome/KDE Desktop : you know, qt/gtk dialogs, theming, file associations, protocol support, etc, etc. The only failure they have made so far is this so pitiful name.
Novel Office is an improvent how? (Freedom wise) Posted Jul 30, 2008 0:46 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] You are exchanging a product that is solely owned by Sun (who in turn uses their special position to take contributions proprietary in StarOffice) for a project that will accept your contributions without assigning copyright to such a corporation. If the changes result in a larger development community, then it seems like a big improvement.
Novel Office is an improvent how? (Freedom wise) Posted Jul 30, 2008 15:43 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] An office suite is pretty much expected to offer good compatibility with Microsoft Office. Whoever is behind the effort, it's still good to have a more open project that has no single point of failure, such as dependency on a particular company for development.
Go-oo - a true OpenOffice.org fork? Posted Jul 30, 2008 7:33 UTC (Wed) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] Two things that look strange to me: 1. The "about" page. So who is *really* behind this? 2. IIRC OpenOffice 3 should include several of the features named here as "exclusive". IIRC "should include" means "the current snapshot already includes", but I don't follow OO.o closely.
Go-oo - a true OpenOffice.org fork? Posted Jul 31, 2008 11:16 UTC (Thu) by janneke (subscriber, #15012) [Link] 1. The "about" page. So who is *really* behind this?What a bunch of losers. They try to create a big misty mystery and then forget to disable svn annotate. Shees. ;-) 2. IIRC OpenOffice 3 should include several of the features named here as "exclusive".Time will tell. While vapourware sells very well in certain circles, others like to show off what they have available right now.
vapourware ? Posted Aug 2, 2008 17:35 UTC (Sat) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] You have strange definition of vapourware indeed. Common definition of vaporware is "something promised but not delivered". Hardly applicable to the code which already can be downloaded and tested.
|
|
||||||||||||