This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Java Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Java, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaWikipedia:WikiProject JavaTemplate:WikiProject JavaJava Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computing: Software This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Apple Inc. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computing High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Software: Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

	OpenOffice.org is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 13, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Have added "3.3.0 Beta 1" in as the most current preview release as FileHippo.com have just posted it for download today. If someone knows how to link to this on the official site (perhaps via an FTP site hosted by OpenOffice.org?) please do. http://www.filehippo.com/latest/ 81.159.193.178 (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go-oo is a patchset. Full stop. Go-oo team is committed to upstream the changes and they upmerge changes from official (ORACLE driven) OO.o source. Therefore they are not a fork. Please check the Go-oo article they have it right there. There is NO official source (Go-oo site preferably) suggesting we are a fork. Even the links provided are not suggesting that or are of a questionable quality.

I am suggesting to change the offending sentence: Although branded as OpenOffice.org, the office suite included in most Linux distributions (including Ubuntu, openSUSE and Mandriva Linux) is actually a fork or an unofficial branch called Go-oo.[9][10][11] to Application branded as OpenOffice.org in most Linux distributions (including Ubuntu, openSUSE and Mandriva Linux) extensively use patchset called [Go-oo], sometimes arguably [9][10] considered to be a special branch of OpenOffice.org. Any comments on this? - by Espinosa - 92.234.28.210 (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fork because it excludes code from upstream, and includes code that will not be included upstream. It is called "a special branch", precisely because it is a fork, with different bugs, features, and functions.jonathon (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"OpenOffice.org, commonly known as OOo or OpenOffice, is a second rate open-source software application suite"

Since when was it second rate? 114.78.249.253 (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draw is a vector graphics editor - not a diagramming tool. The fact that it is possible to draw diagrams using a vector graphics tool does not make it a vector graphics tool. I removed the reference to Visio in connection with Draw. Visio is similar to Dia and Kivio. OpenOffice Draw is similar to the built-in drawing tools in most MS Office applications including Word/PowerPoint/Excel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.137.241 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the article ought to say right away that its a word processor etc? Reading the first paragraph does not tell you. 92.15.1.224 (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've expanded the first sentence to mention the main apps. PL290 (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/04/19/oracle-gives-up-on-open-source-rival-to-office/

Oralce gave up on it now, wiki needs some new updates —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.64.147.249 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see:

• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/28/openoffice_independence_from_oracle/

• http://www.documentfoundation.org/faq/

What should this article be called?

--Cameron Scott (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we might just need a paragraph explaining the split between OpenOffice and LibreOffice and why it occured. The Document Foundation has asked Oracle to grant them the right to use the OpenOffice name. So an article renaming or split doesn't make sense until we learn their response. But the Document Foundation will definitely need its own page at some point in the future. --Xero (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As is presently, The Document Foundation and LibreOffice is a main section, following Oracle Open Office. This is logical in the sense that this potentially challenges Oracle's Open Office strategy (although they have been invited to join The Document Foundation ... with the state of discussions still unknown). However, in the overall structure of this article, this section logically belongs as a sub-section (possibly renamed just simply LibreOffice) under Ownership ... either before or after Go-oo. I could argue it either way, so I am curious what others think.
Enquire (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not called Lotus Symphonoy anymore, it's not base on 00.0.1.x anymore. In fact, every IBM reference in the article is woefully out of date.218.214.18.240 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever that means, it doesn't mean the same thing as

"A spreadsheet similar to Microsoft Excel and Lotus 1-2-3." (Calc)

or

"A word processor similar to Microsoft Word and WordPerfect." (Writer)

So the statement is confusing and inconsistant with the rest of the table.

Calc is used like and as a replacement for Excel. Writer is used like and as a replacement for Word.

Base is not used as an alternative for Access or Framemaker or Crystal Reports. That is because it still has really limited functionality compared to those products. The most important working functionality is as a data connector. Base has got other stuff as well, but it's not very well developed. So Base is not really similar to Microsoft Access, which works as a data connector but is most importantly a report writer.

I removed the mooning reference "The blue circle logo... is designed to give the impression of a back-to-front Internet Explorer icon... the equivalent of mooning Bill..." introduced (repeatedly) by Benjamin von Gherkin. Can this stay out until there is evidence for its implausible claims (other than an out of print romance novel published in 1972). - Paul (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I okay to change the following: "Developer(s) Oracle Corporation and many others[1][2]" to just "Oracle Corporation"?

Since all the "many others" have jumped ship to Libre Office and the two citations are no longer relevant. (the OO website link doesn't have any information on any actual others and the other link points to outdated information.) EvilMonkeySlayer (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no complaints I went ahead and made the change EvilMonkeySlayer (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Developer(s)" supposed to be current or historical? If it's current, then Oracle is correct (more or less, AFAIK). But it seems reasonable to give historical credit to Sun and the outside developers who have left for Libre Office. Clconway (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]