Talk:KOffice

Mobile support

I think the section mobile support in koffice is in conflict with several policies:

• No reliable sources, No sources were quoted to substantiate the claim mobile support was removed.
• Burden of evidence - similar in spirit to the entries above - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it"

• Possible Original research and/or Synthesis - Claims multiple (plural) mobile platforms were dropped, without proof that they actually existed. Also claims the maintainer is 'zander' without proof, also claims zander stated mobile is not a focus without a source saying that.
• Possible libel - quoting from the policy "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" and "[…] It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. […]"
• Likely violation of Biographies of living persons policy - while this article is not about a person, the (poorly-sourced) statements about zander making statements that are not supported by sources can be easily viewed as a breach of policy: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis is from the policy, not mine)
• WP:NPOV - giving undue weight by overly broad interpretation of not on topic sources.

As it stands, it seems very clear this section has to go until we find some decent sources. Input welcome. 89.253.119.50 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no conflict. You are making it up for whatever reason. I'm the one constantly improving this article with more and more references. You are just destructive. For a change, add information, not remove it. You are the one breaking Wikipedia rules by adding made-up info about an alleged “obsolete” platform. The removal of mobile support does not contradict that in any way. Maemo is a mobile platform and when support for that was removed, mobile platform support was removed. You were phrasing it as if other mobile platforms were still supported by KOffice, yet there is not a single file in KOffice's git repo that specifically targets any mobile platform. But you know that already. I tried to explain that to you when you brought that topic to the dispute resolution board, where you were told that you acted wrong by not even invoking the Talk page first. Now you act as if that didn't happen. You were also strongly advised to finally get a login which – apparently – you chose to ignore.

Claiming that I broke the NPOV rule after I chose the most neutral wording possible (“mobile platform support”) after you continued to add the non-neutral word “obsolete” over and over again, is just weird.

Now you are citing ridiculous Wikipedia policies like Biographies of living persons? Really?

I hereby ask you to stop accusing me of wrongdoings, just because you lost an argument over the non-neutral word “obsolete”, and improve the article by adding information. When you find an oversight eg. like not referencing Zander as maintainer, just add the reference instead of splitting hairs and accuse me of breaking the Original Research rule.

If you are as competent regarding KOffice as you pretend to be, you'd know where to find the maintainer info of any KDE project. Did you not know where to find that info or did you prefer to continue to cause trouble instead?

--KAMiKAZOW (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

KAMiKAZOW, please don't keep re-adding the statements, instead search for consensus. If you have been around Wikipedia for this long, you know that this is the preferred way.

You have not really addressed any of the policies that were broken, other thay saying I am making it up. Which is not entirely constructive, you won't get proven right by being a bully. So please play by the rules. Sourcing is one of the pillars of WIkipedia, saying that others should be well aware where to find sources to sustantiate your written statements is just a blunt violation of the rules. Again, burden of evidence is on the editor adding the statement.

To stay constructive I would suggest we write about the mobile part something like this

the Maemo5 mobile frontend f-office

in the list of applications that was removed. If you disagree with this, please state why. 89.253.119.50 (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no rule on Wikipedia regarding consensus about your hurt ego. f-office is a specific form of dedicated mobile platform support. It existed in KOffice SVN-trunk and was not migrated to git, nor are there any other dedicated support files for other mobile platforms. You claim over and over again (dispute board, edit summaries,…) that other mobile platforms are still supported and only Maemo 5 support was removed. You quoted "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" and "[…] It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. but the information I gave is neither misleading nor false and I gave sources. In fact your information is misleading because it suggests that other mobile platforms are actively supported by KOffice these days. You are violating the rule you cite against me.

So, please stop your destructive attitude and stop making rule violations by me up. What you are doing to me is an actual real-world case of libel. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Soo many accusations and mis-interpretations. Seems to me that English is not your native language. :)

Lets cut to the chase and address the one thing that seems to be ignored here;

support was removed in the context of a suite like KOffice has a meaning that is much broader than what actually happened. The concept to support something in a suite of the amount of applications that koffice has implies that each and every application has a set of features added. Each application has had a lot of work done to make sure that 'mobile' not just works, but is supported by them. In other words; writing "KOffice supports X" means X can be build on top of KOffice. And that requires all the plumbing needed for X to be in place. Logically (and lexically) removing support means removing all support, not just one small piece of it.

The event you are referring to removed none of this plumbing, it didn't change the ability for the suite to be compiled on the ARM processor, just as it didn't remove any of the many other things that make up the concept of 'supporting mobile'. All it did was remove one application. In my personal opininion that application was worthless anyway since it only runs on a phone model that is not sold any longer. But you are right I should not put any of my personal opinion in there. This doesn't take away that you have to provide a source to a statement that more was removed. As it stands the only thing that I can see that has happened is the removal of one app that happens to be made specifically for 1 mobile platform.

Hope this explains why you broke all those wikipedia policies better. Apologies for not explaining the implications of your word choice before. HasanTeczan (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, you fail to understand the basics of KDE software. Just like when you lectured me to give a reference for the KOffice maintainer and you were not able to simply add the reference yourself or when you claimed in the edit summary that lists.kde.org was a Calligra site (it’s a site by KDE where all mailing lists are hosted).

You equate “mobile support” with the ARM instruction set which is outrageous as there are also desktop platform using ARM and there are mobile platforms using Intel Atom. I already explained to you on the dispute resolution board that just because a smartphone with an Atom CPU may be able to execute Windows XP, Windows XP does not suddenly become a mobile OS.

KOffice, as almost any KDE software, is written on top of KDE Platform (which the infobox already states). The ability to compile KDE software for ARM CPUs is a KDE Platform (and in turn Qt) feature, not a specific aspect of KOffice. If KOffice can be compiled for ARM CPUs, it’s a feature of KDE Platform, not KOffice itself.

I tried a lot to reach a consensus. I rephrased the problematic part to be even more neutral than before. Once again, you did nothing constructive to the article. You just reverted my edits AND accused me on no base at all of breaking rules.

--KAMiKAZOW (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Does KOffice have a future?

The official website (koffice.org) has been changed to read in its entirety, "I like white empty spaces".

Not the kind of thing you'd do if you want your software project to remain viable.

If KOffice has indeed met its demise, this article needs better coverage of its demise. GPS Pilot (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to cover: There is no public announcement – neither a blog post or a mailing list message. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

KOffice was removed from KDE Quality Website Tools which is the closest thing to a discontinuation announcement I could find. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, KAMiKAZOW, you reverted my edit found here.[2] Calling it useless trivia was pretty unfair, I must say. But let us see if we can figure out a consensus on what should be in the article. First of all, KOffice means at least two distinct things: it is not only a project to write source code for a KDE-based office suite, but also the results of that programming project, namely the KOffice executables/packages/etc. You have found some recent evidence -- but no actual Reliable Sources may I gently point out -- that the first portion, the active development project, has ended. Be that as it may, the *second* portion of KOffice, the packages and executables, do not suddenly disappear just because the active front-line developers have lost interest at present. There are plenty of distros that still offer KOffice in their repos, and in fact there is ongoing commitment by paid programmers of at least one or two enterprise Linux distros that will be backporting security-patches to KOffice for several years yet. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is what you have the article saying now. Your focus is on the active-development-project.

KOffice was a free and open source office suite, which was available for FreeBSD, Linux, OS X, and Windows. It contained...

Here is my correction. My focus is on the availability of executable packages.

KOffice is a free and open source office suite, available for FreeBSD, Linux, OS X, and Windows. It contains...

I think my version is correct, since KOffice refers to *either* the app or the project, but I would also be satisfied if you prefer this compromise version:

KOffice was an actively-developed free and open source office suite, which as of 2013 is still available for FreeBSD, Linux, OS X, and Windows. It contains...

Let me know what you think. See also, next section of the talkpage, below. Thanks. Below are the citations about current-in-2013 support for KOffice; it might need to be summarized, but it has cites, and is definitely not useless trivia (since the fact that some major distro is still backporting fixes to koffice packages proves that those packages are still actively supported -- even if the main codebase is no longer under active development -- and as I've tried to explain both the dev-project and the pkg-apps are part of what koffice actually stands for). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As of September 2013, at least two major Linux distros offer KOffice packages. Patches to the KOffice 2.2 suite are being maintained by Canonical Ltd. through April 2015 for Ubuntu 10.04 LTS (aka Lucid).[3] Red Hat's RHEL v5, and clones thereof including CentOS v5 and SciLin v5 and OraLin, offer KOffice 1.6[4]; however, although RHEL5 (and clones) will receive security patches through 2020, the KOffice package is not in the official RHEL repo, but rather in a secondary EPEL repo for which continued maintenance is not guaranteed. Other distros also offer KOffice 2.2 or 2.3 packages[ftp.opensuse.org/update/12.1/x86_64/koffice2-2.3.1-12.4.1.x86_64.rpm][carroll.cac.psu.edu/pub/linux/distributions/mandrakelinux/official/2011/i586/media/contrib/release/koffice-core-2.3.3-6-mdv2011.0.i586.rpm][download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/16/x86_64/koffice-core-2.3.3-22.fc16.x86_64.rpm][5], but without ongoing patches.

How on earth do you expect to find “reliable sources” for the end of a project that just vanished into thin air? There was simply no announcement that KOffice ended; commits just stopped and the website went offline. And that's exactly what the article says.

Details of packages are either useless trivia or at least so uncommon, I fail to understand how they'd conform to WP standards (does any other article have such a section?), esp. when ridden with unproven claims that Canonical et al. would actually support it (Canonical fired its KDE staff, so good luck proving your claims…).

PS: Learn how to use footnotes! --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What caused the (alleged) end of active development of KOffice?

Greetings, KAMiKAZOW, you reverted my edit found here.[6] As noted above, parts of the edit were specifically to document (with cites) that KOffice-the-executable-app is still quite available, as of 2013. However, there is evidence (somewhat circumstantial however) that active development on the codebase has ended -- domain name emptied a few months ago, and now parked, plus changes in upstream KDE listings, and distro package-manager-outputs. Beyond documenting that Koffice packages are still available, my edit was intended to cite some sources which shed light on *why* the active development of Koffice has seemingly ended, namely that there was a fork, and the other project (Calligra) seems to have become the de facto standard-bearer of the idea. Below is the relevant portion of my edit. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

After the Calligra Suite was forked from it in 2010, it was unclear whether KOffice 2.4 or Calligra 2.4 would be the official successor to the original codebase (the KOffice 2.3.3 release in 2011). As of September 2013, Calligra has released 2.4 and 2.5 and 2.6 and 2.7, whereas KOffice 2.4 is still pending. The KOffice.org domain name went offline as of September 2012.

Do you have specific problems with this text? It is not reliably sourced, as Jbwatson pointed out with the failed-verification-tag. But as both KAMiKAZOW and myself have found, the details about why koffice devs have gone silent do not seem to be readily available on the interwebs. Maybe reliable sources are out there, but so far neither of us has turned up anything. That said, the source which I cited *was* a semi-official KOffice-developer website, and does in fact document the statements I entered (specifically that whether koffice 2.4 or calligra 2.4 would 'carry on the torch' was unclear at some point -- to the now-forked koffice 2.3 devs themselves).

p.s. You also removed this, which I assume was by accident, lost in your hurry to revert the other 2kb of text I added -- is there any controversy below?

KOffice and Calligra are also competitors with standalone word processor and spreadsheet applications, such as AbiWord and Gnumeric from the GNOME project. Microsoft Works is similar.

I reverted these edits because your claims were made up by you out of thin air (that's why it says “Failed verification” in the first case). There are lists of office software in WP, so there is no need to list all “competitors” here. How on earth MS Works is supposedly similar to an office suite whose word processor is frame-based is something I'll probably never understand, esp. considering that it is once again an unreferenced claim out of thin air.

Quite frankly I have problems understanding your edits (they seem mostly random to me) – e.g. you added the sentence about KOffice 2.3.3 having been released in 2011 (with 'citation needed' tag) even though just the sentence before that, the release of KOffice 2.3.3 is not only mentioned but also backed up by a reference. Edits like these make me believe that you didn't even read the article you extended. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on KOffice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403000238/http://dot.kde.org/2006/10/16/koffice-16-released to http://dot.kde.org/2006/10/16/koffice-16-released
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121220212724/https://projects.kde.org/projects/koffice/repository to https://projects.kde.org/projects/koffice/repository
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://projects.kde.org/projects/websites/quality-kde-org/activity?from=2012-10-22
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120717023117/http://dot.kde.org/2007/11/22/koffice-2-alpha-5-released to http://dot.kde.org/2007/11/22/koffice-2-alpha-5-released

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)