Talk:OpenOffice.org

Question about wording in the initial introduction

Given the overall and somewhat convoluted history of the OOo project (speaking generically about Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice and their ancestor forks), the initial text of the article states, "OpenOffice.org (OOo), commonly known as OpenOffice, is a discontinued open-source office suite. It was an open-sourced version of the earlier StarOffice, which Sun Microsystems acquired in 1999, for internal use." Even with the disclaimer above that this project has been forked to Apache/OpenOffice, the description of both OOo and OpenOffice.org may mislead the casual reader into thinking the project, which is quite viable in both LibreOffice and Apache/OpenOffice is moribund.

I suggest this wording be changed to show that there are at least two viable forks being actively supported, so as to not lead the reader to the thought that the descendants of the StarOffice project are non-viable. The opening comment is technically accurate, but given the plethora of search engine returns on these forks when generic searches for openoffice.org show two contradictory returns.

For example: ixquick/startpage returns a bold right-sided frame displaying the old OOo logo and underneath, the wikipedia discription which reads "Discontinued free software office suite" Clickin on this prominent return calls up this wikipedia page. However, the actual search return as first result is Apache OpenOffice - Official Site - Free and Open Productivity . . . , which links to the Apache page showing that the software is clearly not discontinued.

I am very concerned that this wiki article is highly misleading in the overall context of web search engines, and will lead internet users astray. The fact is that Oracle did turn over OpenOffice to Apache, and Apache is using the OpenOffice.org domain, and this wiki is entitled OpenOffice.org. The present wording fails to recognize the organic nature of the activities with this highly useful and important software and may lead potential users into abandoning consideration of it.

I have no interest of any kind in either OpenOffice.org or LibreOffice except that I have been a heavy user, of the software in my personal practice on a variety of platforms including FreeBSD, Linux, OSX, Windows both personally and corporately. I do experience frustrations with some of the obtusities of extending them, which is how I came upon the wiki article and was surprised (to put it mildly) that the wiki popped up as "discontinued software" which is inaccurate in my opinion except from a highly narrow perspective which is at variance with the internet at large. If I hear no objections, I will make an edit change to the page to more accurately reflect the state of the project(s), unless of course, someone else beats me to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N81260 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC) N81260 (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a mess and still filled with advocacy. I think the current intro is noticeably worse and reads like trying to get successor projects advertised higher up. It's not an improvement over what was there before and I think we should go back to the old one - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

David, I have read your comments, but respectfully disagree with you on this, as have others. I do not use openoffice, favoring LibreOffice, personally. What concerns me is that the search engines display prominently, with eye-candy the Wikipedia assertion that the software is discontinued, when in fact, this is not true. When Wikipedia does this, and people learn that Wikipedia is inaccurate, Wikipedia loses credibility. Concerning your opinion that it is "still filled with advocacy" my thought is this is a two way street. Perhaps you could rewrite and propose a new article that is not, from your perspective, filled with advocacy. An article can aggressively advocate for or against. Both are advocacy. Oracle did horrible things, in my opinion, to both OOo and Java, but that is not a reason to use a powerful tool like wiki to visit the past upon the present. I am totally new to any edits but I think a wikipage that misleads the casual user into believing the topic of the page is discontinued is also advocacy. When people find out an assertion is not true, wikipedia loses credibility which extends beyond the current page. As an example, one of my grad students did a research paper on a certain aspect of radiation characteristics. Among his references was a well written, but scientifically inaccurate wikipage description of a portion of his topic. Together we came up with a significant revision to both his paper and the wikipage. The outcome: wiki was improved, but at a cost of 40 or so grad students at a major research university wondering just how accurate wikipedia is, and my admonition to future classes that wiki had to be verified against a second source and points would be subtracted without mercy if they used wiki and it was wrong. A teaching point was born and about half of those 40 students go on to teach at their own universities.

Concerning your thought that it reads like trying to get successor projects advertised higher up, again, I disagree. Someone has identified, in the eye-candy, that OpenOffice is discontinued. The general reader will immediately get this impression. From Oracle's perspective this is true. From Apache's and the continuing users' perspective this is not true. There has been a period of uncertainty and disruption in the code development line, and as has been newly stated, in the intro, many OOo developers joined the LibreOffice code line. This was adequately discussed in the article below, as I recall, but now moved to the header. The changes now reflect clearly that the eye-candy's assertion that the project is discontinued is misleading, which I do believe needs to be made clear early on. I think the simplest edits would be to consider changing the eye-candy from Discontinued to Not Discontinued, remove references to discontinued in the opening statement and refer to a transfer of the intellectual property and control from Oracle as a donation, or if the animus to Oracle is so great, then just a transfer to Apache. I think that would solve many of the problems, but I also assert that we must not mislead people into thinking that OpenOffice.org is defunct. It may become that in the future, depending on how Apache behaves, but right now, I do not believe that to be true.N81260 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

But ... OpenOffice.org the software was discontinued. That there's another site there doesn't change that. Have you read the archives of this page? - David Gerard (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, I would argue that disambiguation should take a user searching for "OpenOffice" to the page for Apache OpenOffice. Most people searching for information about "OpenOffice" are probably interested in the still-active project under the same name. 108.48.43.209 (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear what a reader wants to know about when they search for OpenOffice. Do you have statistics to show that "most people" are interested in the current project? I don't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the change. In the WP:BRD cycle it was a Bold change, which has been Reverted. I strongly suggest Discussion coming to consensus before changing it again - David Gerard (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@ David Gerard - Open Office is a mainstream product offered by one of the premiere open software development organizations. It is a gross mischaracterization to claim that it is "discontinued" when it is under *active* development. "In celebration of OpenOffice's triple anniversary this month —17 years as an Open Source project, 6 years at the ASF, and 5 years as an ASF Top-Level Project— the Apache OpenOffice Project Management Committee also announced the immediate availability of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4". Apache does not agree with you that "it was discontinued and there's another site", and neither would any reasonable human being. I have no idea how you expect "discussion to come to consensus", but as a disinterested observer it is my opinion that you give both yourself and the Wikipedia process a bad name by reverting a clearly-needed change. The only reason I'm here is that Google searches prominently highlight Wikipedia articles, and after seeing such a ridiculously absurd introduction I had to see if it was for real. It apparently is, and it's your fault. Dava5 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dava5: Are you conflating Apache OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org? The website is the same, but the underlying company and organization is not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

AOO asserts unbroken continuity, a whole pile of verifiable third-party reliable sources disagree. This is literally in the article. Once again, I strongly suggest you read the past talk page discussion - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

David Gerard, I think the consensus has changed visibly, and you're a minority voice with your suggestion. I don't see any consensus that OpenOffice is discontinued, as you put it. With all due respect, it's now time to go with the new consensus as shown above and be done with the notion that OpenOffice is "discontinued". Santamoly (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The Sun-maintained project forked into two projects with a claim to be a successor. Both are well represented on Wikipedia. Among active editors the consensus remains that the current approach is the least problematic, which is why none have made any change since this subject went quiet last November. There is no reason to re-run it again now. ClareTheSharer (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Santamoly: It is my understanding that Sun OpenOffice has been discontinued. If you can link to the current project by Sun, I'd be happy to reverse my opinion. Until then, I'll assume that this release is authoritative and Apache OpenOffice is the successor to the Sun product. In other words, OpenOffice.org is the successor to OpenOffice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The article doesn't say "Sun OpenOffice", it says "OpenOffice.org". The website for "OpenOffice.org" says,"Apache OpenOffice - formerly known as OpenOffice.org. . ." In other words, it's the same project with a different name. You can't be supporting two contradictory positions on something like this because Wikipedia suffers a credibility hit. It's embarrassing. So please find a way to fix it. Santamoly (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

http://www.openoffice.org/ is the website for Apache OpenOffice. This is the article for the Sun version. It's the same domain but different projects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You're saying that http://www.openoffice.org/ is not the website for OpenOffice.org? Honestly, this is starting to sound like Alice in Wonderland. If you actually believe what you're saying here, can you at least try to explain it with greater clarity for the poor confused readers who might stumble across it? Or, on the other hand, could you possibly step out of the way and allow for a more logical explanation from other editors with a better command of the language? The way it's written, the entire first line just sounds deliberately confused and obtuse. Santamoly (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

OpenOffice.org was the name of the Sun version of the program. It was also the url for that project. The project was discounted and the code and website passed on to Apache. Apache called their version "Apache OpenOffice" and took over the OpenOffice.org url.

Looking at the versions map it appears there was briefly a version called Oracle OpenOffice LibreOffice#/media/File:StarOffice_major_derivatives.svg Jonpatterns (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Santamoly: I'm not saying that the URL isn't the website (and more correctly, domain) of the former project. It was, but since that former project doesn't exist it is no longer the representative for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, it's just that your command of the English language (and others, too) is so weak that you're leaving the reader with a misunderstanding of the present situation. My suggestion is for you (and the others defending the present wording) to step aside and allow for an explanation of the facts-on-the-ground from someone with a better command of the language. Santamoly (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

My command of the English language is absolutely fine. The two projects are not the same. The facts are obvious to most. You clearly are not one of those who understand the differences. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Apache OpenOffice

Hi, there. I invite everyone to participate in the polite ongoing discussion. --Entalpia2 (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:Apache OpenOffice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Lede clarity, conciseness and accuracy

The lede could do with rewriting for clarity and conciseness. For example, does so much information need to be given about the name of every software component. Also, the summary of the history could be one paragraph? Finally, my understanding is that LibreOffice was started before Apache OpenOffice; this is not apparent from the history in the lede. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suggest any proposed rewrite needs talk page consensus - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

clarity is most urgently needed. it took me ten minutes or so to realise this page is not about the constantly updated current software which is at Apache OpenOffice. it was so puzzling that i thought the page was not updated since 2011. RZuo (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

How can I call the timeline.org.?

Money that i own the company 174.251.241.92 (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)