Talk:LibreOffice/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Too early?

Isn't it too early to create a LIbreOffice article? The software name isn't final yet! I would have kep the informations in OpenOffice.org#The Document Foundation and LibreOffice and this page as a redirect, as it was until two days ago. --WikiKiwi ^(askme) 14:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No. It's an independent fork with support from big companies and much media attention that justifies its own article. If the name changes it is possible to move this article. --Bothary (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

How is it pronounced?

"The name is a hybrid word with the first part Libre, which means Free in both Spanish and French" - is there an "official" pronunciation of the first part? Spanish or French? Gestumblindi (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

afaik the two are not pronounced too different to work up on it: the spanish version only uses a rolling “r” (fluttering tip of the tongue) while the french version uses a snarling “r” (fluttering back of the tongue)

since the second part of the word is english, and most native english speakers can pronounce either version right (they use an “r” without tongue fluttering), i would say it doesn’t matter. –Flying sheep (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The french 'r' is usually, in no way a fluttering 'r' (exactly as the british 'r' which, usually, is not fluttering), but differently than the british 'r' it is articulated at the back of the tongue (phonetically it is an uvular non obstruent with no flap). Ptyxs (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the French version also has a silent "e", so it's pronounced something like "leeber-office", whereas the Spanish read the "e" and it becomes "leebrey-office". I think that the TDF left the pronunciation up to the user, though, so there's no wrong way to pronounce it. --Mirek2 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As a native English speaker, I pronounce it the intuitive way that I think it appropriate for English; like lee-bruh (with a standard English 'r'). IPA: /'liːbɹə 'ɒfɪs/. For some reason I think most English speakers would do the same, but I might be projecting my own opinion on others here. Lukys (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Political"

Some text was removed to not make this article political... but I put back in "Developers involved in LibreOffice were instructed to resign by oracle" so that the text doesn't imply that the developers up and left on their own free will to work on another project. 98.64.248.133 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC).

Okay, that sounds fine. - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

that is not that fine, since it is factually incorrect. there is a group of 33 persons working on the OOo project, but not working FOR oracle that announced that they will stop participating to the OOo project (see http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@native-lang.openoffice.org/msg04865.html). These persons were not asked to resign by anyone and choose to do so. On the other hand there are few members of to Governance Council of the OOo project that were ask to resign their position by others members of that council (mostly Oracle employee) on the ground that their involvement in Libreoffice constituted a 'conflict of interest'. These individuals did resign and, arguably, indirectly at the request of 'Oracle'. (see http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council_Log_20101014) Shmget (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well since you cite refs, let's fix it then. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why was the document foundation founded and OOo forked?

title says it all: the history section misses information why the fork was made –Flying sheep (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point - fixed! - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The bigger reason was complicated process of copyright assignment to Sun (and later Oracle) so it was hard to contribute and even then not all patches were included to the codebase. This led to friction between developers and the administration several years ago and led to the formation of Go-oo. The acquisition of Sun by the Oracle was the last push to actually take action. I think these points should definitely be also included. 1exec1 (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The refs I found don't go into that, so I can't add it, but if you haver a ref that explains that then please go ahead! - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Release date

Hi. I tried to locate a release date for a real release (a stable release) on their website. I guess they might not have that info readily available. But if anyone finds out when the first release date is for a stable release, please add that to the LibreOffice article. Thanks. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That hasn't been announced yet, but don't worry, many of us are keeping an eye on it and when it is released this article will be updated pretty quickly! - Ahunt (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good. Thanks for responding so quickly, and for keeping an eye on the release too! Sounds like I'm not the only one that is excited to have a free document creator release that isn't tethered to some ulterior motive like greed or Java. :) I don't know if that made sense, but I rarely do, so I'll just leave it at that. :) 24.10.181.254 (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Lots of people use Wikipedia as a reference for gauging the latest release of many applications, so we all do our best here to keep the information up to date! - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Userbox

Wikipedia users who use LibreOffice can add this userbox to their user page:

Code	Result
{{User:Ahunt/LibreOffice}}	This user writes with the LibreOffice suite.	Usage

- Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

First distribution?

Knoppix 6.4.3, released sometime around 12/24 according to distrowatch, comes with libreoffice installed (version string "OOO330m17 (build 3)"). Timestamps on kernel.org download mirror say 12/20. An exhaustive search for the first linux distro to include it by default seems futile, simply remove the line about Pardus being the first? Compwhiz797 (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the doubts, even though there is a ref which supports Pardus' claims, I agree that it should bet be removed. It is at best trivia and at worst a fanboy magnet. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Spanish

- User: Fitoschido

Rewrite needed

Presently this article appears to go out of its way to present LibreOffice as a new product, rather than a continuation of mainstream OOo development. As such it needs a fundamental rewrite. Only one of the two articles should contain a full feature list and history: the other should refer to the main article. As time passed it is likely that this will become the main article, but for now it should refer to the OOo article for the majority of its details. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging this, all the work has been completed and the tag issues all addressed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oustanding work! Many thanks t all involved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagalog edit war

Could you please stop the stupid tagalog edit war and discuss the topic here on the talk page? Here is my opinion: This is an article about software, not about languages. Mentioning Spanish and French is more than enough. RolfSander (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That's started by a sockpuppet harassing me and doing random reverts of my edits. --Denniss (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this has become a nationalism issue. There is no need to mention every language in which "libre" means free, French and Spanish are the major languages and that is sufficient. - Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Spanish and French are the major spoken languages in which Libre means free. The point of the statement in the article is to inform readers why the word Libre was used (because it means free), not to inform them of every language that qualifies for inclusion under the statement. That's what Wiktionary[1] is for. - SudoGhost (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, allow me to introduce you to one surprising concept... LIBRE comes from the latin word "liber" as such is not enough to say that it is Spanish, French -or Tagalog-. I agree that this is an article about a software but you must admit that tagalog is spoken for nearly 90 million people in the world and cannot be ignored. Please watch your language as this is not the right forum to insult people simply because you don't share the same views. Respectfully, Tico! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.59.76 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Link to Software ecosystem in the lead

I removed this link in the lead because it links to an article on a book, not on any useful information on what this term means. The fact that the article there also quotes Richard Stallman as saying that there is no such thing, is just one more reason to not link to that book article. I suggest that the sentence be reworded to remove the term all together since it can be said much better in other ways that won't confuse readers so much. I would suggest "The Document Foundation aims to release new major versions of LibreOffice once every six months, and to eventually align with the March / September schedule of the other major Free Software projects."- Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, sorry for reverting without discussing it here first, I was really rushed at the time and hoped just the note would suffice. I agree that rewording would be better, if it's not a precise and standard term in geek-speak ;-)

(I'm afraid I don't quite follow what you mean, that the 'book' page doesn't have "any useful information on what this term means"... since it actually defines the term, explicitly and clearly, in the first sentence. 'Tis why I thought the link would be okay, page about a book or no. But never mind, your way's an improvement anyway, the less jargon the better :-) ) Cheers, Oolon (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done. - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

libreoffice writer needs its own article

since openoffice writer has its own article libreoffice writer needs its own as well, so that more in depth info can be included ive set one up athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libreoffice_Writer

its mostly copied from the openoffice writer article but in time the two articles will diverg as LOffice's feature set improves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"since openoffice writer has its own article libreoffice writer needs its own as well" isn't a valid reason to split an article that has insufficient content for a stand-alone article. I think instead you need to expand the section in this article first and then gain consensus for a split. I see that Libreoffice Writer is up for WP:CSD, so if it gets deleted perhaps you can go back and expand this article's section first. - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

so the lo.writer article is doing quite well, yay for inclusiveness, im not sure why you would like to delete it, it would probably cause a fuss so its not a good idea to suggest such an aggressive tack, i mean seriously who deletes who deletes articles on open source apps. wikipedia is usually quite inclusive and the deletionists definitely are a loud and colourful bunch, luckily they dont have much serious influence, (except apparently on the german wikip, which is kind of sad) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope

There is a tendency in English Wikipedia to have an article concerning every potato in the world, and such descriptions have to be very detailed by definition, and they are interesting for no one (I was a German Wikipedia admin for a while, I know what we are speaking about).

There is no need to have separate articles for LibO Calc, Writer, if someone needs detailed information, he should follow a link to the LibO documentation).

But still information is missing what makes LibO unique, that should be added to the Wikipedia article. -- 89.182.76.113 (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

deletionists never win, wikipedia admins are all inclusionists. your position is very non-mainstream, and dosnt hav any support in the upper levels of wikip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.32.24 (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Biased / Unnecessary OpenOffice Comparisons

A few comparisons to OOo could possibly be helpful to further understand the nature of LibreOffice, but a features comparison is not needed here. This should be encyclopedic, discussing LibreOffice in its own right without promoting its use over any other software product. For example, the OpenOffice.org page mentions Microsoft Word, but primarily only for describing the OOo components. Plus, it is clearly biased having an Advantages section but no Disadvantages section. It should probably just be removed. Purple Post-its (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree and on top of that the vast majority of the section is unreferenced as well. I will remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why switch? Please explain/elaborate arguements pro and con.

I switched from MS Office to OpenOffice quite some time ago. I am now (figuratively speaking) "scratching my head", trying to figure out WHY I or anyone else should switch from OpenOffice to LibreOffice.

Could someone please compose a section that states the various arguments for such a switch, pro and con, from a consumer's point of view, and NOT from a developer's point of view?
I don't mean for such a section to be a statement of facts, nor even opinions per se, but instead a summary of what is being said.

(An entirely different section could be about MS Office to LibreOffice, I'm speaking of OpenOffice to LibreOffice.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LP-mn (talk • contribs)

I think the main reason to switch would be because OpenOffice.org is no longer being actively developed, there is no one working on it anymore. Regardless, this sort of subject is beyond the scope of this article, and in fact, beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. That really needs to be treated in a free software magazine or other similar publication. - Ahunt (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of scope for Wikipedia, but maybe Wikibooks? —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] \\ 9 August, 2011 [07:17]

"Rich Text File"

Does that mean "Rich Text Format"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

LO calc

calc needs its own article since its been almost 6 months and LO is now quite well established and its devlopment intensity is certianly higher than ooo. any thoughts? do u think its too early? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a case of "too early", it is really whether there is enough text to justify a stand-alone article and especially whether there are a sufficient number of independent third party references to establish WP:Notability. - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

i would have thought its notable enough as it stands, plus even if the article is a bit shoddy to begin with it will be polished up in 6 months or bit more.

also calc 3.4 can now handle a million rows while oo.o and (ms office) can only handle 65536, this is a substantial upgrade that is very notable and being used by my uni for engineering calcs that are fed into matlab (not gnu octave sadly). prior to this we were using a custom compiled gnumeric app that was horribly out of date but could support a million rows.

If you read WP:N you will see that "notability" has specific meaning on Wikipedia. It requires that the subject have been documented in reliable independent third party publications that can be used in the article as references. If you start the Calc article and there are no independent third party refs to show notability then it will likely get deleted as "non-notable". - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

sorry for the rambling aside, but if u think calc is not notable enough im sure in another 6months or yr we can revisit and it will hopefully be more well known by then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

ive just created a new libreoffice calc article, take a look through and make some changes and polish it up, its new so we've all got pitch in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs)

libreoffice impress

impress is gonna need its own article soon, ill make one up as soon as get time, it'd be good if someone could start one, nothing fancy just barebones and then over like a month's worth of time the article should be polished by wandering editors. release often release early is good strategy, usually people who wait until an article is perfect before wanting to make it end up never releasing that illusive perfect article. better to jump in even if its crap at first — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You need good refs to show WP:N first and please, this time, do not just copy the OpenOffice article as it makes a mess, start from scratch instead. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

state specific examples where the a ref is low quality, until then , general criticism of the article is worthless, we require very specific criticisms so we kno wat to focus on.

if you see a low quality ref or sentence just remove, the article needs a huge amount of work, so dont be afraid to modify big chunks of it.

impress is gonna be a big job once that article is created, i might create that article when lo3.5 is released, it should be quite widespread then. also uze the google to refs, if ur using binging search engine it's crap u wont find any refs ther — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs)

I have signed your entry for you, In future please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ so we know who is making these comments. Also, since this is English Wikipedia could you please write your comments in clear English, since I can't understand what you are trying to express above and therefore can't help you with whatever the subject is. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

take it eazy buddy i iz from australia, we speaky a little different, all jokes aside, you should be kinder to people whose english you think is subpar, put yourself in the position of a non-native speaker, would you turn him away and attack his english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs)

If you read my comment you will see that it is in no way an attack, just a request that you write clearly so that you can be understood. And once again please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ so we know who is making these comments. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of LibreOffice Calc

This is to inform editors that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LibreOffice Calc‎. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Portable and Online version sections

I'm not sure where to put them. Should they have their own sections (as they have now). Or should they be put into a "Future developments" section. Or should their position in the article be changed? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree they are too short for their own sections, they need incorporating somewhere, but where? Perhaps a reorg is in order? Ahunt (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Order of operating systems listed in infobox

User:FleetCommand has now three times 1 2 3 changed the order of the listing of supported operating systems from alphabetical order to putting Windows first. His/her edit summaries said respectively "(Infobox: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing)", "(Reverted 1 edit by Ahunt (talk): Contested alphabetization per WP:UNDUE.)" and "(Explained the importance of WP:UNDUE to Ahunt; hopefully he understands now.)". Aside from the sarcastic edit summary, WP:UNDUE actually does not specifically address this sort of issue and neither does Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing, but the documentation with the template in question Template:Infobox software does specifically address this and says "If the software product is released for various families of different operating systems, (such as specific versions of BSD, Linux, Mac OS and Microsoft Windows) so that listing them in the infobox gives it undue length, please leave the details to article body and specify: BSD, Linux, Mac OS and Microsoft Windows" This user also attempted to change the order in the template without consensus, but I have reverted that for discussion on Template talk:Infobox software. In the meantime I contend that the WP:NPOV method of listing operating systems is not to put Windows first, but to list operating systems in alphabetical order as is done on most other computing articles. Doing otherwise seems to be merely trying to promote Windows. Therefore I propose that these edits be reverted back to alphabetical order. - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahunt, what you must understand is that it was I who wrote that part in Template:Infobox software/doc. Back then, I was not aware of WP:UNDUE issue and until recently, I had completely forgotten about it. Hence your edit summary that describes my edit as contentious is wrong – there has never been any contention.

As for WP:UNDUE, yes, it specifically and categorically says that what is prominent must be covered prominently. The big question is always this: Does this piece of software support my OS? Currently, Microsoft Windows with 90% userbase is the most prominent viewpoint when it comes to OS support.

As for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing, I never asserted such. You did.

Finally, I did not mean to comment on your behavior but since you did so on mine, it is only fair that I do so too: I made three edits and posted a talk page message, hoping to clarify the issue for you; however instead of trying to proving me wrong, you tried to pretend that the issue does not exist while you knew that your edit might be contested (see edit warring), tried to use the text of the law in your own favor (Wikilawyering), accused me of being a Windows fan and called me rude. You event tried to attribute my initial use of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing to a perceived malicious intent on my part, despite the fact that I later explained all to you. I do not think you are interested in cooperation and reaching a consensus at all. I think you are interested in conflict.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks for the personal attack. Now that we know what you think, as per WP:BRD, let's see if there is a consensus here for the changes you want to the operating system order. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. Anytime you wanted us to start acting like grownups and just discuss the issue instead of each other, I am ready and eager. Now, please state your reasons: Why do you think WP:UNDUE should be disregarded here? Fleet Command (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think FleetCommand is right here (about content; I'm not commenting on anyone's behaviour and I wonder if you both would strike out those remarks). It makes sense to organise the article in a way that maximises usefulness to the reader, and by putting the highest market share first we minimise the average amount of reading that is needed to get the necessary information. (For what it's worth, I personally despise Windows.) Jakew (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone actually have statistics for LibreOffice use? If not, then it is absurd to put Windows first just because of its general market share; that would be like listing Windows first for Angry Birds because there are more Windows PCs than iPhones. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Thumperward: Thanks for asking that question. It just so happens that I do have a reliable ref for LibreOffice usage LibreOffice Hits First Anniversary, Boasts 15 million Linux Users which states that of the 25M users of the suite, 15M are Linux and the remaining 10M are split between Windows and OS-X. I think this shows that putting Windows first is WP:UNDUE. - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Yes, I see that in the article now. While installation base is obviously not quite identical to user base (every Linux distribution includes a large amount of software that its user never actually runs), it's at least a figure, and one that supports the argument that Linux should be listed first (or, at the least, that there is no compelling argument to specifically list Windows out of alphabetical order). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never argued that Linux should be listed first, but to ensure WP:NPOV and to avoid promoting any one operating system, I proposed that they should be listed in alphabetical order, like they are in most software articles. But you are right, from the ref cited above there is no argument for putting Windows first. - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems there is a bit of misunderstanding here: The question is not whether the operating system is available for the software; the question is whether the software is available for the operating system! The first question that comes into the mind before picking up a software by a user is: Does it work on my computer? And we have stats that says 90% of the times, the computer in question is a Windows computer. So, I strongly believe that, yes, the OS domination IS the factor, especially since we are talking about 90% dominance. And let us not forget that Linux users virtually have no other options. Fleet Command (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right Chris: When it comes to comparing apps between different hardware platforms, the operating systems of the dominant platform must be listed first. For instance, when a software is chiefly written for mobile devices, yes, mobile OSes should come first, with the most dominant mobile OS coming first. Then, there should be desktop OSes, with the most dominant desktop OS coming first. Don't take me wrong, the question hasn't changed: The question is still whether it works with the users' device. Only the answer is no longer black and white. As for Angry Birds however, I think desktop OSes should come first. Fleet Command (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this isn't logical. GIMP is one of the most iconic free software programs, and it is almost certain that its primary use is on Linux. Nevertheless, a Windows port exists (albeit hosted on a third-party site and currently lagging the Linux release by several version numbers). Under your argument, Windows should still be given first if the operating systems it runs on are listed. If popularity is to be taken into account then the only logical method is by current user base rather than potential user base. Otherwise one lends undue weight to a minority use case for that particular piece of software. The ordering change should be undone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think what you said is important. Although, I still think that potential userbase is the important factor, I admit that your point of view has the potential to gather its own proponents.

So, with the interest of negotiating a consensus, I propose the whole issue of the order of operating systems should to be made a matter of optional style, subject to MOS:STABILITY: It means that once the first significant contributor devises a sort order for the list of operating systems in the infobox, that order must not be changed, be it chronological, alphabetical, reverse alphabetical or otherwise. As for WP:UNDUE, I think since there are multiple interpretations, we can safely assume that de minimis non curat lex.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"once the first significant contributor devises a sort order for the list of operating systems in the infobox, that order must not be changed, be it chronological, alphabetical, reverse alphabetical or otherwise." No that won't do - that would give the first person to edit an article a veto over changes, which conflicts with many Wikipedia policies, including WP:Consensus and WP:OWN. I think it is time for you to admit that listing Windows first in this article has no merit and move on. - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would give him veto. They already have a lot of such vetos like those given to them by WP:DATESRET, WP:ENGVAR and MOS:STABILITY. And no, that would not conflict with WP:Consensus because we are establishing one! (I am at a loss how can you miss that!) And with this proposition in place, Windows will no longer be first in this article. I think it is high time you admit that you love your contribution and have become zealously protective of it. And I think it is high time you stopped commenting on the contributor and commented on the contents itself. Fleet Command (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we now seem to have a consensus I will fix the list. - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't. Wait for Chris. Fleet Command (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Thumperward already indicated "there is no compelling argument to specifically list Windows out of alphabetical order" above, sorry that you missed reading that. - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so we have a consensus? Let's see: This edit shows that Gareth Aus is the first major contributor and he used "Windows"-first! Ahunt, you disregarded the consensus, lied and did the change that you love. I shall never again assume good faith in you. Be happy with your alphabetical order, let's see if it does any good to you. Fleet Command (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The "leave it the way it was originally" rule is a compromise which applies to specific situations where there may never be a single consensus position, such as WP:ENGVAR. It is not a blanket rule. I'd have preferred for Ahunt to wait out of a desire to hopefully draw more comments and get a broader agreement, and I'm not happy with the edit warring which preceded this discussion, but this is a rather minor thing to go putting people on enemies lists for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"once the first significant contributor devises a sort order for the list of operating systems in the infobox, that order must not be changed, be it chronological, alphabetical, reverse alphabetical or otherwise." Wikipedia does not work that way. IMHO, placing Windows first is a violation of WP:UNDUE - while Windows may indeed have the most market share, market share doesn't matter to Wikipedia, and it seems to imply that the Windows version is more important than the others. Also, market share can change over time - are we supposed to shuffle the order they're displayed in the infobox every time? Alphabetical order is the most stable order in which they can be placed. And regardless of what order they're in, I fully agree with Chris - the order of things in the infobox is a silly thing to get angry about. WP:MANTRA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Market share"? No one said anything about market share -- at least in your context. It is about availability to user (which concerns Wikipedia), not which company makes most money (which does not concern many, including Wikipedia). Most users have Windows on their computers and they ask themselves "does it works" on my PC?

And let us worry about the future when it comes: The infoboxes are the most fluid things in the articles; if any change occurred, we change them. Their version, release date, size, language and screenshot parameters always change over time.

And I am not angry; just disappointed to see a Wikipedian who brags about having made 60000 posts doing everything in his power to avoid his viewpoint being challenged. But de minimis non curat Fleet Command.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Dubious edit

This is a highly dubious edit and it cluelessly makes greatly exaggerated claims in its second paragraph. Maybe someone can sort that out and separate the wheat from the chaff. 31.16.123.164 (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see a problem? It just paraphrases a fairly reliable source. 1exec1 (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem? They seem to say the same thing.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The source is a reliable source, but it is not a third-party source, which would be preferred given the claim. However, I think if "LibreOffice is the office suite of choice for all Linux distributions" were to be changed to something along the lines of "The Document Foundation states that LibreOffice is the office suite of choice for all Linux distributions" it would be true to the source and also correct even if the former were incorrect. It does seem a bold claim, given that lightweight distros do not use LibreOffice. Lubuntu, for example, does not include LibreOffice by default, using AbiWord instead.[2] - SudoGhost 11:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not just lightweight distress that don't use LibreOffice. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, including it's derivatives like CentOS, still use OpenOffice.org by default. I've changed the word "all" to "many". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Puppy Linux also does not use LibreOffice, so there are a number of very popular ones that don't use it. The statement "LibreOffice is the office suite of choice for all Linux distributions" is obviously self-serving and just plain wrong. - Ahunt (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Could someone clarify if it's free for commercial use?

I know software can be free for personal use only, so, is this one free for commercial use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.217.180 (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is licenced under the LGPL - it is free for all use, including commercial. - Ahunt (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Supported platforms/processor architectures

Hi! I'd like to discuss about the list of supported architectures which is included in the infobox of this article. I removed the list in a previous edit (when I was not logged in) and it was readded by User:Ahunt who disagreed with me. Therefore I'm bringing up this topic to find a consensus here.

At the moment the infobox lists IA-32, x64 and PowerPC as supported computer architectures. Those are the platforms for which binary images are available at http://www.libreoffice.org/download/ . However the source code of LibreOffice can be downloaded as well. The source code can be used to build and install the program on many other computer architectures. For example the Debian Linux distribution provides LibreOffice packages for eight different computer architectures.[3] It's hard to give a definitive list of computer architectures on which LibreOffice can be installed, but I think that most computer architectures should be supported. Listing all of them would make the infobox very big. I have looked at articles on other open source software and most of them seem to have no information on supported architectures (for example, Firefox, Google Chrome, WebKit, KDE SC, GNOME). The only exceptions I found were the articles on OpenOffice.org and Linux kernel. The article on OpenOffce lists two architectures. It is obviously incomplete as there are downloads for four different architectures at the OpenOffice website.[4] The list of architectures supported by the Linux kernel was moved to a seperate page at List of Linux supported architectures because it is very long.

Personally I would prefer to have this attribute removed from the infobox. Another alternative would be to state that LibreOffice is cross-platform (though this is discouraged according to the documentation of Template:Infobox software). As a list of supported processor architectures will likely be incomplete I would prefer not to include it. What do others think?--Marko Knoebl (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning is sound, but for me the key is that those other projects are available and officially supported on many platforms. I suspect that they went through a similar discussion. The ones listed here are both referenced and a reasonably short list. I would rather not remove it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't normally removed sourced information, so I don't see any reason to remove the text and certainly not the whole parameter. We have sources that give the architectures officially supported, if there are more unofficially built and we have refs then we can add them and indicate which are official and which are unofficial. If the list gets too long for the info box then we can move it to the article text and note that in the info box. - Ahunt (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I wanted to remove this parameter was tat it's misleading in my eyes: It makes readers believe that LibreOffice is available only for a limited set of architectures when actually I personally don't know any architecture where it wouldn't work.

Please note that the fact that there are no binaries available for some processor architectures at LibreOffice's downloads page doesn't mean that these platforms are not officially supported. Users of Linux or BSD will most likely download the binaries provided by their distributions or build it from the sources. If you look at the website of the Linux kernel you won't find any binaries at all - those are provided by the distributions. Furthermore if you look in the LibreOffice bugtracker you will find issues which concern the ARM platform as well - a platform for which there are no pre-built binaries available at the LibreOffice website.

I'd like to take the discussion to the Template talkpage in order to decide on a set of guidelines which can be used throughout Wikipedia. Is that ok? --Marko Knoebl (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Being a Debian user I do understand what you are saying about how Linux distros handle these applications. Actually Template talk:Infobox software is probably the best place to have this discussion as any outcome really will affect every article that uses that template and there should be some uniformity, if possible. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just removed BSD from supported operating systems since there's no direct download for it from the project. While one may be able to build from source, that's a very different animal. It would open the list up to a great many more OSes this way: Solaris, AIX, HPUX, and the list goes on. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As long as developers of ports for other operating systems work directly in LO’s git infrastructure, the support is official. If the ports require external patches, the support is not official. There is no point in offering binary downloads for FreeBSD if said LO developers provide the packages via the FreeBSD distribution infrastructure. In case of FreeBSD the reference that indicates that the port is external, looks very outdated. (Last change 8 months ago.) Looking at the official documentation, LO clearly has build options for (among others) AIX, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Solaris – the only build requirements seem to be GCC and associated GNU tools to be present on the system. Experimental cross-compilation is also available for Android and iOS according to another official document. The official contributors list specifically mentions a developer with an openbsd.org e-mail address and another with an netbsd.org e-mail address. That means they work upstream in LO’s git.

That confirms official support for all popular Unix-like operating systems. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What about having "cross platform" in infobox linked to a section which would give information about supported platforms and possibly degree of support. --Jakubt (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Opening lines

The changes to the opening lines were for tighter writing. The fork is already history, important history that should still be there, but not part of the opening sentence. I'm not going to spend more energy on something so insignificant. But the writing should be sharper, and there was no need for snark comments about Simple English Wikipedia. Dovi (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't tighter writing though. It made short sentences. The comment about simple English wasn't "snarky" either, it was a comment that reflected what I felt was the nature of the change: to simplify it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. It is a free and open source office suite currently developed by The Document Foundation. Period. It is not developed as a fork by the Document Foundation but rather began that way. I.e. that is history. The opening lines need to be changed. Thoughts from other contributors? Dovi (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Dovi, you are right. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is Dovi's edit. Almost all of what Dovi wrote above was already there in the lede sentence. I take issue with the way you chopped up a sentence that was flowing well. Perhaps a better edit on my part would have been to change it to:

LibreOffice (pronounced /ˌliː.brəˈɒ.fɪs/) is a free and open source office suite developed by The Document Foundation which began as a fork of OpenOffice.org.

And if you had actually used your edit summary better you could have resolved this earlier. And if you hadn't been so married to your bad edit, it would have already been resolved. When you get a better writing and communicating style, feel free to contribute. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the fix. It's a small thing, but in the opening sentences it's important. I'll certainly try to find ways to improve my edit summaries; let's leave aside the mutual disagreement between us about writing and communication style. Dovi (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Libreoffice writer .png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Libreoffice writer .png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Libreoffice writer .png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Information box and "Preview release"

I honestly think that "Preview release" is meant to include "forward-looking" releases. Providing information on an "old" Release Candidate of a published stable version seems a bit pointless. So in this case (23 March 2012) the entry should be empty. The LibreOffice team want to have the first RC of 3.5.2 out by Sunday (cf. release plan at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/3.5#3.5.2_release). This should then be added under "Preview release". So the entry would be empty as long as the team is working on the first RC, and it will include the release candidates as long as no final release of that version has been made. I'll delete the current entry... CarlMosel (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

More easily said than done; I've never come across these templates. So I haven't actually changed it. I still think "old" release candidates are odd. Perhaps someone can come up with an easy way to "delete" the "Preview" entry and add it back on as soon as a really "new" RC is published. Perhaps the date code could be added in the notes of the template for simple copy&paste.CarlMosel (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC))

Fixed? Next time just swap out the commented part with the uncommented part ie. > nothing official as of < with the > 3.5.2 < and some-time(s) later swap 'em back.

Templates: lov 'm or hate 'm :)

--Mkouklis (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Advisory board

What an advisory board does ought to be in that article. Stewardship is a complex concept nowhere mentioned in the LibreOffice Governance Bylaws. See http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws#Governance Cgmusselman (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Platforms

Debian also lists the LibreOffice package as available for Alpha, Arm, ia64, MIPS, PowerPC, S390 and SPARC. --46.78.67.224 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above in the section #Supported platforms/processor architectures (or click that link). Regards, mabdul 18:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

3.5 bullet point revert

"Undid revision 487202256 by 81.110.205.9 (talk) don't need a complete list with bullet points"- why? All the other releases have a "complete list with bullet points"- it's in the public interest considering the amount of media coveage the release had- PC Pro reviewed it, Engadget did- a fair few well known blogs. Any way a complete list would not be possible- the release notes is quite a long page (http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/3.5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.205.9 (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

We should really get rid of the bullet points on the previous versions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to support Walter: These list are sometimes useless big and after a few years/releases most of the readers don't want to know useless facts of old builds. The presentation (the bullet points) is also badly styled and should be avoided as described at Wikipedia:BULLET. mabdul 19:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

commercial support

I just noticed Lanedo (lanedo.com) provides commercial customisation and development support, should they be mentioned? It's rather hard to tell with these huge open source software projects which vendors should be mentioned and not since there are so many involved.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.60.249 (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Reading that page and the small blog entry of the TfD of last May showing nothing that should be mentioned. They helped a bit and uploaded three extensions, but I don't see anything which is relevant to mention in an encyclopedia. mabdul 21:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Extensions

Shouldn't we mention that LibreOffice has extensions and moreover that the extension page was opened for open source extensions? [5] mabdul 10:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Components section

This section was just reordered alphabetically again. I don't think this is appropriate: it inconveniences readers by placing information in a random order of importance. I'd prefer if the components were ordered as they are on the product website, which places the most prominent components for most users (word processor, spreadsheet, presentations) first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with doing it that way, although the previous version before I alphabetized it didn't have it in the website order as Math was ahead of Base. That made me think that it was just an arbitrary order, rather than order of usefulness, since obviously Math is rarely used by most people. - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My apologies: the previous version was from memory, and I should have checked it before setting the order. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No sweat, let me re-order it then. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem with pronunciation guide

The link given in support of the pronunciation guide at the start of the article goes to a page which tells us not 'how to pronounce LibreOffice' but rather 'If you want to hear Google Translate pronounce LibreOffice...' and provides a link to Google Translate for the French language. This gives a French pronunciation of 'Leebr-Ofees'. Nowhere does it suggest that this French pronunciation is correct for English speakers who would naturally pronounce the last syllable 'fiss', not 'fees'.88.167.22.75 (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing pronunciation transcription

The link [6] does not provide any transcription into phonetic symbols, and the [ʁ] in this article's transcription indicates a uvular sound which the great majority of English speakers are incapable of pronouncing... AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Any word yet on whether it's going to merge back into OpenOffice??

If so, that should definitely be in both this and the other article, though there is no trace of it currently... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.118.48 (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's 'cos there isn't any word of such. LibreOffice would quite like to be able to use the name OpenOffice, but the Apache OpenOffice team think otherwise. A merge would be sensible for various reasons but there's no immediate prospect. I think this is a well-enough documented conflict we should at least mention it, fwiw - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Moreover it isn't that easy: Apache won't give AOO out of their hands and LO can't be merged into AOO because of the license. I doubt that the two projects ever will get merged. On the other hand: LO can easily "backport" at the moment the improvements by AOO (and is allowed to, because that way round it is possible (license)).

A news entry at register, CNET or somewhere else of the big news mags was guessing that AOO could become the "reference implementation" for ODF through the powerful support by IBM (the main contributor to the specification). mabdul 12:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

http preferred to https?

Just saw the revert and wondering: Why is http preferred to https? --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Template updating

Hello folks, I updated the template for the preview release to 4.0 RC 2 but it isn't reflected on the main article. Why? Release notes for that RC (the most recent one) are already available on the LibreOffice website. I give up. If someone's able to put the updated template on the main article, great, I'll be gratefully for that. Regards.

John --190.1.102.152 (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I just checked it and it looks like your change worked fine and is now being seen in the article itself. Perhaps the Wikipedia servers were just a bit slow when you edited it? , Regardless, they seem to have caught up. - Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I modified the template moving one line down the string. It seemed to me the one way to let the update being reflected on the main article. Anyway thanks for replying. Yours.

John --190.1.102.152 (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed for release schedule of the major free software projects

Hi, you removed a flag asking for a reference supporting that the major free software projects use a "March/September schedule", which is implied in the Release schedule section of LibreOffice, commenting "that isn't what you wanted to do and its supported in the reference.". What I did was what I wanted to do and I restored the flag. If that's not what I wanted to do, explain what you think I wanted to do. --Chealer (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Quote moved from User talk:Walter Görlitz. --Chealer (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed it again because there's already a reference there: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan : "In consequence, we will aim at six monthly releases, and over time nudge them to align well with the March / September norms." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that LibreOffice wants to have releases in March and September. What the reference requested needs to support is that the other free software projects use a "March/September schedule". --Chealer (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't because the reference states that as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"Synchronizing our time based release schedule with the wider Free Software ecosystem". And If you would actually spend time reading the reference rather than imposing your opinion of what you think on article, we could both save time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What? Please save us further waste of time and go read Wikipedia:No original research. Removing original research is not imposing an opinion, it's a necessity to keep our encyclopedia verifiable. In this case, this means a reliable source stating that the major free software projects other than LibreOffice have a March/September schedule is needed. --Chealer (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The ref cited supports that statement. It is not OR. - Ahunt (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Where do you think it does? --Chealer (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The cited ref says "Synchronizing our time based release schedule with the wider Free Software ecosystem also has huge advantages, by getting our new features, out to users as quickly as possible - with a minimum of distribution cycle lag. In consequence, we will aim at six monthly releases, and over time nudge them to align well with the March / September norms." This supports the text and is also factually correct as well. The text it supports is "The Document Foundation intends to release new major versions of LibreOffice once every six months and to eventually align with the March/September schedule of the other major free software projects." This is totally consistent with the ref. The ref is a WP:RS on this subject. - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The reference does support the bulk of the statement - that the Document Foundation intends to release new major versions of LibreOffice every six months - but that is not the problematic part, i.e. that the major free software projects other than LibreOffice have a March/September schedule. A reference which does not contradict a statement does not necessarily constitute a reliable source; for that, the reference needs to claim the same thing claimed in the article. In this case, a reliable source surely doesn't exist, but if it did, it would claim that the major free software projects other than LibreOffice have a March/September schedule.--Chealer (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

All we are doing is quoting the source. The best you can do is question whether the source is reliable, not add a CN to the statement that they're making. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the objection either, as I detailed above the ref exactly supports the text in the article. If you still object we could substitute a direct quote from the ref if that would help you to see that the ref and the article text agree. - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I certainly "still object"; the reference supports LibreOffice's release schedule, the problem is it fails to support the challenged claim. A direct quote would certainly be verifiable if done properly. --Chealer (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing to object to. https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan reads in part: "In consequence, we will aim at six monthly releases, and over time nudge them to align well with the March / September norms." So once again, it's a completely groundless objection as has been pointed out several times. I'm not sure why you can't see that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that the reference is only sufficient for confirming LibreOffice's release schedule and the motivation behind it. However, the article here makes claims about more than just the one project. That claim of a universal March/September release cycle needs its own references. Either that or a rewording making it clear that the Document Foundation is making the claim, rather than the article. Four Tildes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.56 (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The article makes no claims at all. The article simply parrots the claims made in the reference, which is our job.

Again, https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan reads in part: "In consequence, we will aim at six monthly releases, and over time nudge them to align well with the March / September norms." Sorry you can't read. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Great point! A few recent edits should put this ridiculous debate to rest. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Linux vs GNU/Linux

An IP changed "Linux" to "GNU/Linux". Ahunt reverted it, claiming consensus from Talk:Linux. I re-reverted it, since GNU/Linux versus Android Linux (where LibreOffice isn't yet) is a live issue for LibreOffice, so the distinction is highly relevant to serve the reader. What do others think on the topic? - David Gerard (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Are all supported Linuxes(is that the proper spelling?) GNU? I doubt it at the moment. mabdul 14:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What do the sources say? Do they state GNU/Linux or just Linux? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Linux refers to the kernel. GNU is a project to create an OS built with entire 'free'/libre software. Arguably most flavors of Linux use many GNU components and therefore could be referred to as GNU/Linux. However, it isn't in common usage. To address David's original point, no one would expect a Linux program to necessary work on Android. Programs that support Android should say so explicitly, see Dropbox (service). Also so, http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1636901/can-linux-apps-be-run-in-android Jonpatterns (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The main point here is that Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus that "GNU/Linux" is a POV term used by the FSF and few others. The consensus is found at Talk:Linux and all its many archives. Also see Talk:Linux/Name where much of this debate is. The note at the top on Talk:Linux explains it best and in summary. The consensus says that the introduction of the term "GNU/Linux" is not to be piecemeal used on topic pages like this one and instead a new global consensus should be sought to avoid inconsistencies across the encyclopedia, thus this this talk page is not the proper venue to decide this issue. In fact if you read Talk:Linux and Talk:Linux/Name and all the archives in detail you will see that this issue has been decided many, many times and the overwhelming consensus has remained for many years that "GNU/Linux" is a POV term used only by a very small number of sources and is not used on Wikipedia. The sole exception to this is in an article about a Linux distro that calls itself "XX GNU/Linux", when it is part of a proper name. That doesn't apply here. So, as per the consensus, this term should not be used in this article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

So Jonpatterns, it seems that only Android Linux needs to be distinguished since it's not a standard Linux. Since LibreOffice doesn't run on Android Linux, I don't see the need to distinguish standard Linux from the variant. The fact that no sources call it GNU/Linux doesn't help your case.

While I understand your point, that wasn't the question that was being asked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have miss understood 'my case'. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia rules are not laws to be followed by the letter. WP leaves lots of room for editorial judgment. I used to be an opponent of “GNU/Linux” but since the advent of Android as part of the main stream, there are cases where the term “GNU/Linux” is a sensible term to make a clear distinction against Android if a clear distinction is needed. Eg. the lead currently states “Linux-based systems running Linux kernel version 2.6.18 or newer” which would include Android. And while LO is being ported to Android (and experimental builds exist), there is no way on earth LO will ever officially run under Android 1.5, based on Linux kernel 2.6.27. In this specific case the argument can be made that “GNU/Linux-based systems running Linux kernel version 2.6.18 or newer” is sensible, although a more thorough rewording would make probably more sense. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's sensible to follow a fringe designation to differentiate from "Android Linux", something that Android is not referred to as by reliable sources. If the lede were to change "Linux-based systems" to "Linux distributions" that would clear up any confusion since Android is not a Linux distribution. - SudoGhost 03:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you actually read what I wrote before complaining. I wasn't talking about the term “Android Linux” but “Linux-based systems running Linux kernel version 2.6.18 or newer”. Android 1.5 is a “Linux-based system running a Linux kernel newer than version 2.6.18”.

I rewrote the sentence slightly to focus on dependencies that standard Android does not meet to make the distinction clear. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you erred in thinking I'm "complaining" merely by disagreeing with you and others and that you're assuming that I didn't read something, the comment was not solely directed at you. Try reading the discussion as a whole, and it'll help you avoid that confusion in the future. - SudoGhost 19:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The current wording in the article by User:KAMiKAZOW is an improvement. Even the problem of distinguishing Android doesn't make much of a case for introducing the term "GNU/Linux" in articles such as this. There are more more clear ways of explaining things that don't use a POV term to do so. - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

“Linux-based operating systems that are built upon a libc provided by the GNU project and not another libc” are commonly referred to as “GNU/Linux”. Blind POV-phobia can hurt article readability. If an article or just a single sentence is ambiguous otherwise. Sure, LO does not fall into that category but some low-level software (a driver or so) that supports both GNU libc-based Linux and Google bionic-based Linux could be described as “driver for use with Linux kernels with official support for Android an GNU/Linux” instead of lengthy readability-impairing explanation that a driver built against glibc does not work with bionic but in this case the project supports both and yaddayaddayadda.

Just use common sense and if LO at some point in the future does fully support Android and/or Wayland, that distinction may possibly be required. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Since it's a common term, please show me where LibreOffice and other sources use the term. Just use common sense: we don't use terms unless they're used in the sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.libreoffice.org/features/

That settles it for me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that it doesn't matter what terminology they use, it doesn't override a longstanding Wikipedia consensus. Just think: if Ford Motors started calling their products "autodynes" instead of cars, would we change every article on Ford cars to reflect this? Or would we identify this is a POV marketing term and continue to use the WP:COMMONNAME and go with the longstanding consensus? - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the sources that matter to me. Now, do have GNU/Linux naming controversy that discusses this and, yes, consensus is important. However, for this package, I would side with the GNU/Linux side, but not all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant this is: LibreOffice DOES run on Android, but it's still under development: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Android . Something like "a development version runs on Android" would probably be most appropriate. 131.111.184.82 (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, been largely-offline in the past few days ... Usage on the LO site "Features" page (a major page linked off the front); installation page on official wiki (largely using it as a clarification in body text from "Linux" in section header); official LO 4.0 publicity PDF. That's literally from the first page of a Google search for "libreoffice" "gnu/linux" requiring considerably less time and effort than writing the above would have been. "GNU/Linux" is a distinct form clearly used by the project itself, and Ahunt's apparent belief that the mere use of the term "GNU/Linux" constitutes POV-pushing is simply false and makes for a worse and less-helpful article - David Gerard (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Even that single usage on that single page is uncommon on LibreOffice's site, as the download page, system requirements page, 4.0 features page, release policy page, release notes page, Installation of LibreOffice on Linux page. all use "Linux" with no instances of "GNU/Linux" to be found; even on the LibreOffice website "GNU/Linux" is a seldom-used term. Even in conjunction with LibreOffice, reliable sources overwhelmingly use "Linux", even when distinguishing it from Android. Most of the sources that I could find using "GNU/Linux" related to LibreOffice was in a language other than English, or were not reliable sources (blogs, open wikis). Reliable sources don't support the use of GNU/Linux on this article. - SudoGhost 20:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Features removed from 4.0

I was entertaining the idea of including this:

Removed features:

• Deprecated Mac PPC support; Mac platform baseline raised to 10.6;
• Dropped support for Windows 2000;
• Removed support for legacy binary StarOffice 1.x–5.x formats (retained the old OpenOffice XML format used in StarOffice 6 and 7);
• Removed Word 6.0/95 and Excel 5.x/95 export (export support for Office 97 and newer formats retained).

Then I came to have second thoughts, as to whether it would introduce any additional confusion, while all that information and more is available at the reference source. -Mardus (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

References

I think that we should mentioned these dropped features simply to explain the reader why LibreOffice 3.7 was renamed to 4.0 simply because there was a clear line of deprecating features and changing/deprecating APIs with improving the stability, making it faster, and adding some (although not that many) features. The average user/reader doesn't understand why this version jump was legitimated. Similar to OOo 3... mabdul 22:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that 3.6 note "Last version to ..." for all those things - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

GPU in Calc

Anyone feel like writing this up properly? - David Gerard (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't think it makes sense right now. Currently we have just an announcement and a log post, telling that AMD wants to do that but also that it will be very difficult. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

History appears incomplete

The LO group didn't just spontaneously form on the 28th October - there was quite a bit of talk of forks before, mostly from the direction of the ooo-build/go-oo group. In particular, there were rumblings in July 2010 as well, though "the news was there was no news" appears to have been the final straw. The build was also basically go-oo's. Anyone agree/disagree/etc?

Years-long dissent: [7] "The Go-oo project ( a de facto fork of OpenOffice.org maintained by Novell) has laid down the foundation for the fork" [8] Situation re: go-oo patches [9] Can't find the July 2010 stuff I spotted a few days ago ... looking ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Some paragraphs of prehistory added, and the links to Go-oo made clearer - David Gerard (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Version history table

I like to add a version history table, just like on the german WP. Any thoughts on that? Jesus Presley (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As long as you consider WP:NOTCHANGELOG. - Ahunt (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I prepared the version history table here: User:Jesus_Presley/sandbox/LibreOffice_Version_History. Anyone is invited to contibute. I'd like to add this table to the version history. However, due to redundancies, I willl shorten the verbosity of the table. As I do not want to question the current format of the release list, I guess the best is to keep current release list (in prose) more verbose, while the version table can be kept very brief. Your thoughts on that? Mateng (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The shortened table is inserted under the version history paragraphs, as a collapsed section: LibreOffice#Release_history_overview I encourage others to shorten it if necessary. If we can shorten it to apprx. 5 lines per table row, it can be placed above the verbose part IMHO. Mateng (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I had a look on the german LibO version history table (de:LibreOffice#Versionen_und_Versionsgeschichte) and thought about the idea of adding the minor releases, too. What do others think? I am unsure about that, as mentioning security releases might not stand a relevancy check and fall under WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Mateng (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to merge both version lists/tables and better add a table like in the section above the version table of the German article.

It simply explains better that there are multiple versions supported and that these versions have different kind of targets: testing, devs, and "kids" - and on the other hand "productive" customers not needing the very newest version but stable applications. mabdul 19:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

With LO's clockwork release schedule, I don't see much point in noting the minor releases unless there's something really special about a given minor release - David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I also doubt that the table mentioned by mabdul can be maintained well over a long period. From my experience in other Software articles, a table showing only important releases is enough, when having the option to add detailed information in a notes section. I support Davids opinion. Mateng (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the table would be more convenient for the reader in most recent first order. — Scott • talk 12:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Individual programs

How come there are articles for Writer and Calc, but none for Impress, Draw, Math and Base? George8211 ^{conversations} 21:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd suspect because there's very little to say about them independently of the main article and very little evidence of individual notability. I merged all the individual subprograms of OpenOffice.org into the main article a while ago for this reason. I'd question there was much evidence of anything independent to say about LO Writed or LO Calc, or evidence of individual notability - David Gerard (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't meet WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Reason for forking?

Why was it forked from Open Office? --209.203.125.162 (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

See the history section of the article - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

What should go in the "notes" for releases?

We have a random selection of stuff some editor thought was worth noting. The results of this aren't bad, but I'm wondering if there's a slightly more objective method. The entire release notes are rather long; what gets written about in the press is a copy from the release notes, finishing when they run out of space. (Though sometimes a feature rates a whole article, e.g. OpenCL on Calc.) Any ideas? - David Gerard (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

EMF+ implementation

In the Release History table, one of the points against the v4.1 release states "Basic implementation of EMF+ metafiles" and cites an article at The H online. This makes it sounds like EMF+ support did not exist before this point and (to me) would seem an inaccurate comment or at least poor wording. There were commits made in this release to improve EMF+ support, but the code for EMF+ has been improving since first being introduced in 2010-09-10. The OpenGrok history for this piece of code can be found http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/history/core/cppcanvas/source/mtfrenderer/emfplus.cxx. Owen.genat (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Release history" and "Release history overview" are largely redundant

Both are mostly lists of features in that version. Any reason not to combine them? - David Gerard (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I support that in general. I just added the table to the article a few days ago. I didn't want to piss anyone off by replacing the exisiting text-based section. If others agree, I'll place the existing information into the Notes/Major changes column, "uncollapse" the table and then remove the text-based version history . An alternative (as stated above): Keep the text and reduce the table to a minimum of information. Mateng (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I like the table myself, but either will do. OpenOffice has a very abbreviated table, with an explanatory text section, that complement each other - perhaps that might be a model - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Definetely, I like that. So that's the plan:

• Keep "readable", story-like version history that gives insights into the development processes. Remove functional changelog info from this section.
• Keep abbreviated table as an overview over current and past versions and to display technical information. Mateng (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Now one of us just has to actually do it %-D - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

One step ahead of ya :). Please modify, I guess a little more detail on the 3.5-4.0 versions might help. Also, let's reorganize the screenshots. I'll take care of the broken references. Mateng (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice one! - David Gerard (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Y Thanks. Mateng (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Returning to this ... the textual version history is getting skimpier and the table version is getting bigger. I'd like to put it all into the table (screenshots as another column). Any deep objection? - David Gerard (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No-one squawked for a week, so I've merged them. The text version was almost completely redundant with the table version. I also put the screenshots in the table (leaving some obvious gaps to fill when someone's bored) - David Gerard (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Any reason the release dates in the table are in DD Mmmm YYYY format, when the same table for related products (StarOffice, OpenOffice.org, Apache OpenOffice) are all given in YYYY-MM-DD (ISO) format? Owen.genat (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

None, go for it. Call it an EasyHack ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Italian province of Umbria

At the end of this article, I noticed several big projects that switched to LO. Once it's completed, we should probably also include the Italian province of Umbria switches from Microsoft Office to LibreOffice Slacka123 (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

ibus-anthy and other input methods

LibreOffice inter-operates with ibus input methods such as ibus-anthy to provide the ability to create (in the case of Anthy) Japanese documents. Some mention should be made of this powerful capability, which is mature and well integrated as of LibreOffice 4.1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article is Intelligent Input Bus and while it's interesting, it would need a reference, ideally from a secondary source, to support it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Supported format

In the supported format section, I do not see any references to the OpenDocument Format (odt, etc.), one of the main characteristics of LibreOffice. Did I missed it somewhere? Pierre van Male 03:42, 03 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmalep (talk • contribs)

Now added. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Versions under Release History

Please add the latest x.y.z Version in the table. E.g.in the row of 4.2 it should say that 4.2.6 is the current version. TIA.--89.13.137.126 (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision 645605547 by David Gerard

@David Gerard: Why you reverted my edit? And also you didn't leave an edit summary – please don't forget about it, especially if you're an administrator. Screenshot from my edit just depicts better the entire program and also fits better in WP:SCREENSHOT policy. Walter Görlitz (the author of first revert) didn't oppose, he even thanked me for this. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 21:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

2014 TDF annual report

http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2015/06/03/read-about-the-document-foundation-achievements-in-2014-download-the-annual-report/ has the 2014 annual report lots of data, but also some diagrams and graphics that can be incorporated here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.46.49.194 (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Esp. https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8831/18443580031_c3d10b5d1c.jpg from that report should be considered to be using (extracted from that report by: http://ostatic.com/blog/the-libreoffice-report-40-pages-of-yippee 84.46.0.2 (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

SGF

SGF is, in this case, NOT the Smart Game Format but an old Star Writer graphics format from Star Writer for DOS. Libre Office Draw and OpenOffice Draw are, as far as I know, the only software which can still open files in this old graphics format as they're a distant offspring of Star Writer for DOS.

 Done Fixed it. The Yeti 05:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Book of collected LO blog posts

TDF has assembled a PDF book of five years of LO blog posts. Just the posts, put into a PDF, not even with clickable links ... nevertheless, if you're bored and feel like going through it, it could be an excellent source for little details that are suitable for citing to a primary source, e.g. [10] which I found just now - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

LWN.net refs

"LWN.net" is the work (the name of the site) - Eklektix is the name of the publisher - David Gerard (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Similar to Microsoft Word

LibreOffice includes, for example, a word processor. Word processors are about 50 years old, and several softwares have existed around that theme. I don't think it is necessary to always define "word processor" by comparison to Microsoft Word. People know what it is. Same goes for spreadsheet and presentation softwares. Most people don't know what Visio is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.225.178 (talk • contribs)

True. OTOH, quite a lot about it has been expressly intended to compete with MS Office. And file format compatibility is something they work very hard on. So the direct comparison correctly informs the reader. I don't think the present degree is unwarranted - David Gerard (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Huge green timeline graphic

Does this actually offer the article much? It's a rather large image for a rather small amount of information, and doesn't say much more than the fork timeline diagram - David Gerard (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've resized the image. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with original - little info in a completely useless graphic form - anyone object if I remove it? 78.144.77.109 (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur it adds nothing ... does anyone think it informs usefully? - David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

License

I changed the license to reflect that their license page now shows it as an MPL v2.0 licensed product. On that page they also list several "secondary licenses" :

"'Secondary License' means either the GNU General Public License, Version 2.0, the GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1, the GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3.0, or any later versions of those licenses."

ClareTheSharer changed the Affero GPL to the Apache License as a secondary license. Their license page mentions the Apache license, but not in the part where they list secondary licenses. And, they specifically mention the Affero GPL. Wickorama (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The text you are referring to is just the standard text of MPLv2, which uses the concept of a "secondary license" to create explicit code compatibility with otherwise incompatible copyleft licenses. There is no evidence that any part of LibreOffice is currently distributed under AGPL and it should not be listed as a "secondary license" for the project. I believe both GPLv2 and LGPLv2 code is present (in addition to ALv2) but would have no objection to the removal of the whole element if others disagree. But there's no meaningful sense in which AGPL should be listed here. ClareTheSharer (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LibreOffice. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for //ooo.ximian.com/ooo-build.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

History rewrite

The history section is largely written and interpreted from primary sources right now, which is not encyclopedic. It should use secondary sources such as this, for starters. czar 19:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

external reference has changed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice#cite_note-collaboraoffice-134 now redirects to somewhere else not related to the citation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.249.147.142 (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Collabora Office Mess

Please repair the link to Collabora Office which mistakenly goes to LibreOffice. They are not the same. I would like to know who thought this was a good idea and why. By the way, I do not understand if this has anything to do with other comments signed or unsigned, but let's be clear about this. - KitchM (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No such link is jumping out at me. How about you fix it and the rest of us review your change? ClareTheSharer (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Because I was hesitant without knowing why it was changed. Heaven forbid we step on the toes of the Wikipedia powers that be. ;) Go to Pydio and see link to Collabora Office under Features. So I removed the redirect to LibreOffice. I hope I don't get in trouble over it, especially as there didn't seem to be a way revert to prior. - KitchM (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Office is simply a redirect (see Wikipedia:Redirect. We can discuss deleting it, at the article page, but deleting the redirect and leaving an empty page is not appropriate. For now, I have added a section to the redirect so that you see the Collabora content, although with the collapsible content, it scrolls out of view. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Your Office link is a dumb idea. It is obviously bad because it takes the user to the bottom of the LibreOffice page, and because that page had nothing whatsoever to do with Collabora Office. Collabora is not Libre and is not associated with such. Perhaps this is not what you wanted to happen, but that is exactly what occurs.

I would much rather have a page that needs editing than the wrong one. The good reasons for that is that it might encourage a knowledgeable person to add the needed content. This is, after all, a way the Wikipedia encourages people to create the content. If you think that a blank page is bad, then a misdirected link as you did it is surely worse.

In any case, I removed the bad link in the original article. - KitchM (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not the correct place to discuss editing other pages; please hold the discussion about the issues you see on the pages you wish to edit. Please note also that Collabora Office is simply a supported version of LibreOffice renamed to comply with The Document Foundation's trademark policy. ClareTheSharer (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I found the problem and fixed it. - KitchM (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Inaccuracy on the historical name

It is mentioned in the "History" section that LibreOffice was initially named BrOffice referring to [96], but nowhere in the referred article it is mentioned that LibreOffice was called BrOffice.

Actually, the article only explains that the organisation behind BrOffice gave their support to the Document Foundation, not that they gave BrOffice as the foundation for the project. Even though one of the co-founders of the Document Foundation is actively behind BrOffice, it has never been suggested that the two projects are the same.

It is even more confusing that not only the illustrated timeline makes no mention of BrOffice, but in the "Users and deployments" section, there are references to the project back in 2003-2005 when it was so-called BrOffice, despite the rest of the article constantly pointing out that the project was initiated in 2010.

I wish I could fix the issue myself, but alas I am neither a native English speaker nor familiar with Wikipedia's policies. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.24.124.72 (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Does LibreOffice Online need its own page or infobox

LibreOffice Online has now been officially released. It's an HTML5-compliant re-implementation of the desktop suite, mainly developed by Collabora, and according to documentation, it is "a server service which - to be fully functional - has to be integrated with file access and authentication provision": https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/e988c37eded954bdbceea0bdafcf130a

I'm not sure if its programming language or license differ from those of the desktop LibreOffice, as this information is currently hard to find. Does the Online version need its own Wikipedia page or its own software infobox on this general LibreOffice page? Danylstrype (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it's actually a capability built into the LibreOffice code itself. So for now I'd expect a seperate section on the current page to be sufficient. ClareTheSharer (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

LangVar?

A recent edit suggested that the article used Oxford English spelling. I thought it was American English spelling. Which is it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

OpenOffice.org XML is no longer supported

OpenOffice.org XML file format (writing) is no longer supported in LibreOffice. Should be fixed in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timur I. Davletshin (talk • contribs) 08:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on LibreOffice. 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/20150319235827/http://en.libreofficeforum.org/node/6062 to http://en.libreofficeforum.org/node/6062
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929232956/http://www.tuxdeluxe.org/node/184 to http://tuxdeluxe.org/node/184
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130221122550/http://www.dailyflux.com/libreoffice-office-suite-microsoft-losing-international-ground-open-source-migrations/ to http://www.dailyflux.com/libreoffice-office-suite-microsoft-losing-international-ground-open-source-migrations/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006105918/https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/elibrary/case/toulouse-saves-1-million-euro-libreoffice to https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/elibrary/case/toulouse-saves-1-million-euro-libreoffice
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://conference.libreoffice.org/2017

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 22:49, 22 December 2017 (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)

LibreOffice Online

Right. The single source from 2015 claims online capability, but this is a case where common sense must take over. Please try looking for LibreOffice's online capability in the standard understanding of that phrase, and if you can find it, I would welcome seeing a citation that is more recent than the 2015 claim. Thanks. 198.81.129.207 (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Since evidently people are confused by the fact that it's not offered on a TDF-maintained server, why not simply add a clarifying note? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - every instance of NextCloud that is offering Collabora Online is an instance of "LibreOffice Online" and that's clearly not a rudimentary facility, so common sense would suggest using citations that show all those commercial deliveries of LibreOffice Online. ClareTheSharer (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Dropped support for XP and Vista

The latest version 6 of LibreOffice requires Windows 7 or higher. agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.167.63 (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 Runtime Libraries

Does this possible inclusion of Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 Runtime Libraries mean that the software is not free and open-source? If the code for creating the distributable binaries or locally compiled software is available, it is open-source. That it requires a set of proprietary libraries to run does not change that fact. That the libraries are distributed without cost does not violate the free nature of the software. It also uses the MySQL Connector/C++ and other software that may not be accessible to anyone editing the source code. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

But the four software freedoms on the Microsoft librairies ? 2A01:CB0C:38C:9F00:C4E:B105:61CA:3CD7 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

You'll have to explain what you mean in greater detail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

(Sorry, my Internet provider changes my IP any time) The 4 software liberties are those written here : https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html (research by Ctrl+f «The four essential freedoms»). Here, it is free as in «freedom», not as in «free entrance». Because of this (the Microsoft…) , I have a doubt if it is actualy false that libreoffice is free as in freedom, and if allwhere they are wrong saying that libreoffice is free as in freedom. I am not a Guru, but I have the doubt against everyone about this…2A01:CB0C:38C:9F00:A410:C9F6:5C5D:5AA0 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to edit signed-out. You can easily create an account. It's not a requirement but it makes communication more consistent.

All four freedoms are met by the software. Even if the C++ Runtime Libraries cannot be reverse engineered, their APIs and use are well published and can be distributed for free. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, here is the licence:

• https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/licenses/

No mention of Microsoft, runtime or similar. And here's the source code:

• https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice

I'm no expert, but at first glance I don't see Microsoft files in there.

I found some old discussions via google. One says it's not a problem, the necessary files are redistributable, and a second person closed the question as being answered.[11] A link is given but the question is old and the link no longer works. The second question I found was answered by a link to microsoft's site, suggesting you have to get the files yourself, which means LibreOffice isn't distributing them.[12]

So I'm going to remove the "disputed" tag. If someone wants to re-add it, please point to what LibreOffice is doing, and why it might make LibreOffice not free software. Great floors (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's the LibreOffice licence text that mentions Microsoft: LibreOffice SDK master licence

I'm looking at it now to see if this changes anything. Great floors (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

While analysis here is fun, there needs to be an external reliable source cited to justify a change like this, not original research. I have not seen an RS cited, and since the license included is for a platform runtime rather than an actual part of LibreOffice I doubt one will emerge. I have thus undone the change. ClareTheSharer (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. On one hand, of course we have an RS, we have a link to LibreOffice's own licence file, and it says "You may not (...) reverse engineer, (...) make more copies of the software (...) publish the software for others to copy". On the other hand, LibreOffice is clearly published for others to copy, so they're either violating Microsoft's licence or they are not relying on it. Which raises the question of why the Microsoft licence text is in LibreOffice's licence file. So in summary, I don't think anyone here can explain the situation, which means we don't have an RS to call into question the numerous RS's that exist saying that LibreOffice is free software. Great floors (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Add column titles to the "File supported formats" table

There are no column headers in the table, and the meaning of highlighted columns is uncomprehensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.28.168.23 (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It was in the code, but not showing. I made a change so it's showing now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Graphic Export

One of the major advantages of LibreOffice is the ability to export as .png graphic files. It is not in Apache OpenOffice 4.1.6, nor in Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2019 Word Version 1808 (Build 10354.20022). The pixels per inch can be set as high as 600, although 300 gives beautiful results for text. The disadvantages are that it can only do one highlighted page at a time, and the settings must be reentered for each page. This can be useful when a font is used that does not allow publication that can be captured by an end user. Another use is when you need to adjust text in some way that is difficult or impossible in the editor, such as upside-down or angled. agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.43.136.16 (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering recent edit of pronunciation reference

In my opinion, the text That is, as 'Libra' should not be present in the reference of pronunciation. First of all, reference is a place for source link, not for additional comment. Secondly, the written pronunciation 'Libra' does not appear in the source. It is WP:OR and probably wrong, as it doesn't perfectly match IPA spelling and can be spoken incorrectly, for example as laibra. For all those reasons I firmly believe it should be reverted. — K4rolB (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I will add, "libra" is not an English word, but it is a loan word and the primary meaning is "a southern zodiacal constellation between Virgo and Scorpio represented by a pair of scales" and a lesser-known meaning is as a Roman unit of weight. The actual reference, https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/Branding#LibreOffice, makes no use of the word.

Was this an attempt at pronunciation? It needs to be referenced and it's not a short "a" sound, but a short "e" sound so the pronunciation is not libra and is simply wrong. The previously linked branding page at the project links to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHBve8v13VY and you can clearly hear the short e in the first sentence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Walter, please don't argue about things you don't understand. You evidently don't know how English is pronounced. (If I'm wrong, I must be very wrong, and the same with the OED, so please provide a source.) Short 'a' and short 'e' do not occur at the ends of English words, with the exception of a few paralinguistic things like "meh", and then only when stressed. And if you listen to the video, the 'e' of "Libre" is clearly not pronounced like "meh". And even if it were, then the IPA would also be wrong, so why haven't you deleted the IPA?

(I suppose it's possible that you speak a dialect of English that was not considered by the compilers of the OED or of any other English dictionary that I'm aware of, but the speaker in the video does not, and in any case that would mean most of our pronunciations on WP, even those referenced to the OED, are wrong by your standards. But WP pronunciations make certain assumptions, spelled out at the IPA key, such as 'pork' rhyming with 'fork', that are not true for all people. These distinctions are ignored across the board. The OED likewise transcribes a certain range of English. There's little we can do about that.)

And "Libra" is not an English word? Is "London" not an English word? (It's also a loan.) That's beyond silly.

K4rolB, as for this being OR, no more so that the IPA is OR. The video doesn't spell that out either. Should we delete the IPA? And the two do match exactly. If you don't know how the IPA works, you can hover over the symbols to get respelling equivalents. I added the homophone "Libra" for readers such as yourself who may not be familiar with the IPA.

The one potentially valid point that been raised amid all this pile of nonsense is that "Libra" may be pronounced /ˈlaɪbrə/. I'm aware that that is the pronunciation of lower-case-el 'libra' (the Roman unit of weight), but that's a rather obscure word and in any case is distinguished by capitalization (like 'Polish' and 'polish'). I thought capital-el 'Libra', the constellation, was only pronounced /ˈliːbrə/. Am I wrong? If 'Libra' varies in pronunciation, then of course that would make it problematic. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand? I linked to the word and your edit was so poor I had no clue what you were talking about.

I tried to ask a question, but you missed it. What are you trying to do with your original research? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't answer your question because it was nonsensical. What should I even answer?

As for your MW link, it's self-contradictory and therefore essentially worthless. But the sound file does confirm my edit. Why would you use a source that supports my edit to justify reverting it? Please talk sense. Since your source does show that "Libre" and "Libra" (at least the constellation) are pronounced the same, I will restore the pronunciation with the clarification that it's the constellation Libra that's pronounced the same. — kwami (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It supports nothing, which is why it was reverted. In short, the two are not pronounced the same. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

In short, the vowel is sounded as though it were a short e, as in "brethren" not a short "libra", so do stop adding that it is pronounced like it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

English does not have such a distinction, certainly not the dictionaries you're using. If you can't even read a dictionary, you shouldn't be arguing about things like this. — kwami (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Canadian Oxford Dictionary

I think I see the problem: language variants. I speak Canadian English, which is close to American English in pronunciation, libra has more of an a sound, like "baa". It appears that in British English, the final vowel sound is shorter, and it that is closed to, but not identical to, the sound of "libre". In short, WP:LANGVAR, and it will confuse readers. Find a better sounding word. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If Canadian English differs from US and UK and Australian and NZ English in this regard, then you should be able to demonstrate that with the Canadian Oxford Dictionary. If you could copy us on the pronunciation of 'Libra' and it shows that word does not end in a schwa, then you'll have proven your EnVar argument. I'm not holding my breath, though. — kwami (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No, Canadian and American English have this distinction.

Walter, "Libra" does not end with a 'baa' vowel in Canadian or US English. Your MW link shows it to have a final schwa, just as in British English. That is, it makes my point and contradicts yours.

Did you not notice that both Merriam-Webster (US) and Macmillan (UK) transcribe it /ˈliːbrə/, with the same final /ə/? So, since you obviously don't know what you're talking about, would you stop butting in to things you don't understand?

Besides, if you were correct, the current IPA would also be wrong, so why aren't you deleting that? — kwami (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No, Walter, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (entry words and pronunciations available online) also has "Libra /ˈliːbrə/", exactly as in the US and UK. It also has "Libreville /ˈliːbrəˌvɪl/". So this does not appear to be a EngVar issue. — kwami (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Correct Libra does end in a BRAA sound while libre does end in a shorter e sound. The two sounds are not the same and sok stop stating that they are.

The Meriam Webster link shows American pronunciation of Libra, and it is different than the UK pronunciation of Libra. Both are different than pronunciation of libre. Again, there is a different sound, and again, what variant of English are you speaking?

Finally, please leave it without your changes per WP:STATUSQUO until we reach agreement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Since you know best, and the OED, Merriam-Webster, Macmillan and Canadian Oxford are all wrong, we need to correct the rest of the lead. Currently, we give the IPA for 'Libra', not 'Libre'. I have therefore tagged it 'cn' so you have a chance to rectify it before deleting it. — kwami (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

We should fix the IPA then, because it's not LIBRA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

How do you propose to fix it? — kwami (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The way you tagged the reference is wrong, because the pronunciation in the audio file is correct, but your conversion to an English word is where the problem lies. The pronunciation is clear, and the recorded pronunciation is not the same as the vowel sound in Libra in either American or British English. Are you familiar with phonemic awareness? I don't think you can distinguish between the sounds. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for interjecting in the middle of all this fun, but are we certain that the [laɪbrə] pronunciation is confined to the unit of weight? That's not the impression I get from OED's entry. – Uanfala (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Any chance you could answer the question of where you're from or at least what variation of English you speak?

While you're at, what qualifications do you have for creating either respell or IPA?

I was raised speaking another language and I have been told that I have a very good ear for phonemes and can imitate sounds in many languages so that native speakers cannot tell, so I believe my ear is quite good. I can hear a difference between the ending vowel sound in the American and British pronunciations I provided and I don't think you can. You have stated that they are the same. Can you really not hear the difference? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: what do you see at OED? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

There's a single entry (not updated since 1902) that encompasses all meanings, and both pronunciations are given at the top. – Uanfala (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how to interpret the OED, as "Libran" has only the FLEECE vowel. The more recent Macmillan and the Canadian Oxford show only FLEECE for "Libra". Lexico, which is OED, has only the PRICE vowel for the unit of weight, and the FLEECE vowel as primary for the constellation. But that's a different point than Walter's. — kwami (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Walter, both of us understand phonemic awareness. But this is a phonemic transcription. "Libre" and "Libra" are phonemically identical. The video has the pronunciation of "Libra". If you disagree, tell me what the vowels of both words are using Wells' lexical set. BTW, I speak fairly standard US English.

The idea that as a L2 speaker you hear subphonemic differences and that therefore all English dictionaries are wrong is ridiculous. And are you even able to tell it's a difference between words, rather than just the accent of the speaker in the video? — kwami (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you're hearing something that is not present.

In other words, where is the IPA for Libreoffice? All we have is someone saying it and you have equated it to the IPA for Libra, and they do not match. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Walter, repeating the same allegation over and over without evidence, especially given that you can't read a dictionary and apparently don't understand the sound system of English, is not convincing. You're making the claim contrary to all evidence, so you need to justify it. — kwami (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This thread at LibreOffice also contradicts you.

Although not authoritative, this and this are the same. All sources state that "Libre" and "Libra" are homophones, with the exception that some people may pronounce the 'i' of "Libra" as the PRICE vowel.

MW gives the same pronunciation for vers libre.[13] — kwami (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, Kwamikagami, do you have a reliable source that provides an IPA or respell of the pronunciation of LibreOffice? Chats where someone comments are clearly not reliable and the other two are no better. They do not match the pronunciation provided by LibreOffice itself. Of course the sources you present state they're homophones, but they're clearly not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Random House also states that Libra, vers libre and Libreville are pronounced the same.

Do you have any evidence for your claim? And you still haven't told us what you think the 'e' vowel is, since what you have said is nonsensical. Choose on of Wells' words from his lexical set. Until you do that, your argument is gibberish.

Telling native speakers that they can't understand their own language is rather arrogant of you, especially given that you don't know the sound system of English. — kwami (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record the MW IPA for vers libre https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vers%20libre is ver-ˈlēbrᵊ while the IPA for Libra https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libra is ˈlē-brə. You will notice that rᵊ is not the same as rə, which is what I've been saying all along. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not what you've been saying. You've been saying that "Libra" is pronounced "lee-BRAH", which you have zero evidence for. MW is trying to show the French pronunciation, but you have already rejected foreign pronunciations, so according to you that's irrelevant. The OED for example has "vɛr libr" and tags it as a non-English pronunciation. Random House just has "ˈlibrə".

And please learn how to read a dictionary before arguing about what a dictionary says. Otherwise you're just screaming "I'm an idiot!". — kwami (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

As for whether we have an IPA transcription, the only authority here is LibreOffice itself, and they released a sound file. The sound file shows it to be /ˈliːbrə/. The fact that you, as an L2 speaker, can't hear it is not pertinent. Regardless, saying that a pronunciation is correct when given in IPA but incorrect when given in respelling is silly. — kwami (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No, you hear it as that. Supply a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for confusing you. I was adding unnecessary emphasis to make it clear that your ears are not tuned well.

IPA is clear. Superscript is used in a specific way Help:IPA/English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't understand the footnote at the key that you linked to. (I don't remember if I wrote that footnote, but I probably wrote half of that IPA key.) Please, learn what you're talking about before making pronouncements. Otherwise you're merely advertising your ignorance. — kwami (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, just to clear the air. I have lived in Canada all my life. I am a native speaker of English. I'm not telling you that you do not understand your language, you cannot hear the phonetic variations in various words in English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary contradicts you. I suspect that you don't know your language as well as you think you do. Please answer the question you've been asked multiple times now -- WHAT IS THE VOWEL YOU CLAIM APPEARS AT THE END OF 'LIBRE'? — kwami (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The COD has vers libre /ver ˈliːbrə/, 'Libreville' /ˈliːbrəˌvɪl/, and 'Libra' /ˈliːbrə/. Do you have any evidence, apart from your superior ear, that the national dictionary of your country is wrong? — kwami (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Please answer the question you've been asked multiple times. What is your location?

I do not engage in WP:OR so I Ill not provide any vowel that appears at the end of libre. I suggest that you stop engaging in OR as well. I also suggest that you learn how to indent replies correctly. I also suggest that you stop typing in all caps. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I have already answered the first question. I am indenting replies correctly, but you insist on scrambling them. You are engaging in OR, by supposing that your understanding is greater than our sources (e.g. claiming that 'Libra' ends in the BRA vowel, when all dictionaries show that it does not). I will use all caps when you repeatedly ignore a simple request. And I suggest that if you refuse to justify your claims (I suspect because you can't), then you stop disrupting WP. For example, which other word in English is pronounced the same at the end as "Libre"? If you can't answer that, you have no business here. — kwami (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No, you're not following MOS:INDENTGAP or WP:THREAD.

You have no sources that offer in IPA for LibreOffice. If you want to use one for another word, feel free to, but 1) it's WP:OR, isn't it? 2) do not use an English word, use the IPA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

So, I (1) must not use IPA and (2) must use IPA. As for the OR question, no, it's not. WP has long accepted spoken evidence for how to pronounce a word or name. Conversion to IPA is not considered OR, any more than converting from AHD transcription to IPA is considered OR. If you wish to claim that the final vowel is not /ə/, then you need to say what you think it is. Then we can have a discussion as to who is correct. But until you make that effort, no productive discussion is possible. As for using 'sound-alike' words, that has also been accepted practice on WP for years, probably since its beginning. It helps with readers such as yourself you do not understand IPA, and many WP editors value it for that reason. — kwami (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Not what I wrote. If you supply your own IPA for LibreOffice, it would be OR, correct? It would be best to use official IPA not extrapolated or IPA you assume. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

If the IPA were ex nihilo, then yes, you'd be correct. But as I said, we've long accepted recorded pronunciations as evidence. There is of course always the possibility of misinterpreting a source, recorded no less than written. But if you're going to argue that a source has been misinterpreted, you need to say how. Then we can discuss it, and use WP's various forms of dispute resolution if we cannot agree. But you have refused to take that first step: If the libre of LibreOffice is not pronounced /ˈliːbrə/, the way Libreville, vers libre and Libra are (according to the national dictionary of your country, one I know that Canadians are proud of), then how is it pronounced? (Your argument so far is that all English dictionaries are wrong as to how 'Libra' is pronounced, and that 'Libre' has a pronunciation that, if I understand it correctly, standard descriptions of English phonology state does not exist in English.) — kwami (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No, you've refused to provide your credentials and your providence.

You've shown no proof that you actually know how to edit (yes, you're semi-retired and you have a long edit history, but you have no clue how to follow talk page formatting, and blame me for ineptitude, so while I WP:AGF, you've shown no ability).

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You heard a phoneme in an audio file where the pronunciation was made. It's not in the reference, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHBve8v13VY is linked to from the reference, although https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIBjmHSHs-w is a bit more clear and from the same speaker. You then made the assumption of the phonemes and determined that it sounded like another word. You claim that this is standard practice on Wikipedia. I tried, but failed to state that the words are not pronounced the same way. I offered two sound files of the word you proposed and the final vowel sound is somewhat different between them and I claim that neither matches what I hear in the audio file. You cannot supply an official IPA for this word, but you have some for other words with similar spelling. I am not playing your game of suggesting a pronunciation, but I have suggested that you could use an IPA.

You blatantly lie when you claim that I am stating that dictionaries dictionaries are wrong as to how "Libra" is pronounced. I have not made that claim anywhere, I have simply stated that it's not the way "Libre" is pronounced. You are easily confused ()or are playing games) and you refuse to discuss things on terms other than your own.

Further, you tagged a reference as requiring a citation to make a WP:POINT, which is clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. We don't need an English word next to the IPA. When you address my questions, I'll re-engage. I plan to remove the {{citation needed}} by the weekend. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, apologies for entering the discussion. I'm the one who transcribed the phonemic IPA and added the reference link. You must keep in mind with these phonemic IPA transcriptions for English that, if you turn your mind to the details, they are in fact highly abstract. Please scroll down the page Help:IPA/English and have a look at how many phonemes are e.g. technically two phonemes that are simply not distinguished in the notation adopted at Wikipedia. Considering also the possible dialectal realizations, in the craziness that is English, if you adopt the angle of scrutinizing one speaker's pronunciation, you must recognize that it can only be useful if a pronunciation of "Libra" is also supplied from his exact variety of English, or even from his own idiolect. In light of dictionaries specifying the pronunciation of libre in a uniform way with /ə/, I pondered also the possibility that the speaker himself was under the impression that he was enunciating /ˈliːbrə/, if he had consulted any dictionaries or received instruction from those who did. In principle, I think that the Wikipedia phonemic notation just doesn't let one transcribe it with any more precision, and it is conscious of its limitations; the /ə/ also certainly seems good enough for the real dictionaries. If one native speaker believes that libre and Libra sound slightly different within one system of English pronunciation, it has to be demonstrated that that speaker cannot be trusted, because phonemic notations of English are most commonly not all-encompassing even with regard to phonemes. I added, therefore, the IPA while believing that it was as good as it could be, next to the spelling "Libre", having the "e", to say nothing of the video that is accessible through the link (that most will never click, I think). Whether the reference was well-done or the act of transcribing the IPA myself is allowed is another question, though. I am a very minor editor. Draco argenteus (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I realized as I lay in bed last night that I would look at the article again to see what I was missing and it was Draco argenteus' IPA that has been in place since 2019-12-15T18:18:38. In my haste, I had not noticed that, I simply saw the pronunciation. While I disagree that "libre" and "Libra" are pronounced the same way, I accept the volume of proof that Kwamikagami has supplied that linguists use IPA to show they are the same. I have self-reverted and apologize for missing that key fact and for pressing so hard on this issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Space between "libre" and "office"

"libre" and "office" are two word. separate them by space. Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a table for Operating System support

Collabora Office for on Chromebooks https://www.collaboraoffice.com/press-releases/collabora-office-ships-for-chromebooks/. The app, like Collabora's iOS and Android apps depends on the LibreOffice core. I don't know the politics; I believe many readers who would read this page would like to know the variety of OS that files created by LibreOffice can be edited on. I appended a table under the text at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice#Operating_systems to include these OS, the table is intended to make it clearer too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12think (talk • contribs) 01:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think they do. They're here to read about the product, not see a table of various derivatives and which CPUs they work with. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Weekly Downloads

First question: Does anyone agree that the weekly downloads graph in the Users and deployments section is crying out for an explanation of the enormous spike in 2019? Second question: Can anyone explain why that spike occurred?115.69.35.19 (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

not really, and I can't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Platforms: Android/iOS not officially supported by TDF

The "platforms" list is fraught: there's the ones TDF officially supports with binaries - but then there's a vast number of OS/CPU combinations that happen to be supported by a distro, a packager or just some dude, with varying degrees of robustness.

But Android/iOS appear to be officially unsupported: [14] TDF refers people to Collabora if you want that. So I removed it from the info box.

OTOH, would the Collabora builds count as third-party builds of LibreOffice? They're proprietised offerings - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I think Collabora should count as a fork and should be considered as such throughout the article, so its features can't be mixed with LO and cause confusion. Maybe it is worth its own section? – K4rolB (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Collabora has its own articles, so small pointers there might be appropriate - particularly as TDF links their Android/iOS versions.

I think my point is that when we talk about platforms for LO, there's important differences between (1) TDF supplies a binary, (2) a Linux distro acts as a third-party vendor for an older version of the software (3) a third-party vendor will sell you the software (4) some guy compiled it on an Amiga in 2012 - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

File Formats

I see Lotus 123 support is listed as "WK1, WKS, 123, wk3, wk4". Is wk2 missing on purpose,or a mistake?

4 rows for Microsoft Excel 2007-2016, Powerpoint, Office and Word, all go to 2016, should these be 2019 now?

12think (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the referenced sources. In case of Lotus, wk3, and wk4 are not supported by any reference, and the source for wks and 123 does not point to wk2 support either. The source is also disputable. When it comes to Microsoft Office, there's no reference at all, so it is wrong to claim that they even are supported (except for the fact that you may use LO and know that Office documents work okay). So, a reliable source is needed. – K4rolB (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Users and deployments section

The users and deployments section strikes me as verbose and overly detailed, almost bizarrely so. For example, I count 29 various records of deployments in various places. I do not think this level of description is noteworthy for an encyclopedia article, and although I am no expert, generally I do not recall other software articles including this degree of information on deployments. I would suggest that it is condensed and summarized, for example, as in the charts. --Kmonkmon (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)