Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software Linux

OpenOffice.org 2.0 Released 525

Posted by Zonk
from the i-like-toys dept.
Da Massive writes "The official release of OpenOffice.org 2.0 has been pushed to the download servers, as of Thursday the 20th." From the article: "OpenDocument is an XML file format for saving office documents such as spreadsheets, memos, charts, and presentations. It was approved as an OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards) standard at the beginning of this year. OpenDocument, set as a default in OpenOffice, is cited by proponents as a way of fighting vendor lock-in associated with proprietary formats. Already, it is the required office format for internal archives of the US State of Massachusetts." You can download, or read past coverage including a preview or a comparison with MS Office. Update: 10/20 17:22 GMT by Z : Made date reference more topical.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenOffice.org 2.0 Released

Comments Filter:
  • by bcat24 (914105) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:43AM (#13835804) Homepage Journal
    My milk hasn't expired yet.
  • Excellent!!!! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by RapidEye (322253)
    I've been eagerly awaiting 2.0 Official release for 6 months - its about time!!!

    Going to download and install it tonight - WOOT!
    • Re:Excellent!!!! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Wornstrom (920197) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @10:17AM (#13836145)
      I push openoffice on anyone who asks me if I have a "copy" of office they can "install" on their new computer. Now with the more advanced Access style database stuff and general improvements, I couldn't imagine the "need" for MS Office anywhere. Except maybe in schools where the classes they teach on basic computer skills require that students have a copy of the latest version of Office. That is one thing that needs to be changed. Users are getting their basic education in productivity applications without any alternatives. Amazon is preselling the openoffice 2.x resource kit for $32.99, which comes with the cd with several versions (MS, Linux, Solaris, Apple) of OOo, plus macros and such. Might make a good gift for someone with the in-depth manual that explains how to do everything.
      • Re:Excellent!!!! (Score:3, Informative)

        by joeljkp (254783)
        I haven't tried 2.0 yet, but I've found Excel to have far more advanced charting options that are simultaneously easier to use than those in OOo.

        If they've revamped charting in Calc, I'll be very very pleased.
        • Re:Excellent!!!! (Score:3, Informative)

          by jamesshuang (598784)
          That is one thing distinctly missing in OO2.0. Charting options are the same as in OO1.0. In fact, almost all the features are the same, but the stability and the looks improved quite a bit.

          As a college student in many labs, this lack of advanced graphing features is amazingly annoying- trendlines can't be extended, custom scatterplots are impossible. Hell, gnumeric does a FAR better job with graphing. Quite annoying in the end...
      • Re:Excellent!!!! (Score:4, Informative)

        by skyshock21 (764958) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @12:36PM (#13837538)
        Now with the more advanced Access style database stuff and general improvements, I couldn't imagine the "need" for MS Office anywhere.
        Are you kidding me!?!? Do you have any clue how many businesses and corporations use applications that use specific tie-ins to Office applications, not to mention directly BUILT on Access with macros and provisional scripts that simply aren't compatible with this or any version of Open Office? OO.org might be fine for your occasional light home use, but it's simply not flexible or extensively integrateable enough for large-scale corporate use. I can cite you specific examples (document management packages, database scripts, etc...) in my line of work if you'd like.
        • Re:Excellent!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Doctor O (549663) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @04:26PM (#13839635) Homepage Journal
          Actually I found the opposite to be true - if Access is the answer, somebody has asked the wrong questions. We have lots of clients for whom we replaced existing Access processes because they find it performs poorly when you put it under real load - and most of those came to us because they found that they had to hunt down heisenbugs with every update of Access and MSSQL.

          Please note that I blame the latter on the 'developers' who built the processes, not the software. I haven't been using Access much, but from what I have seen, it seems to be a good tool in the hands of someone who knows what he's doing. So the clients are rather switching from a 'have the secretary click together the logic' approach to an 'hire real developers for real-world stuff' approach.

          (I've seen many *really* mindboggingly slow things, however, but this might as well result from bad practices, stupid code or any combination of the two.)

          The bottom line is, among our clients are many global players and none of those would touch any solution with a ten foot pole if they include Access anywhere. Most have well-engineered in-house software, we are just helping them in adding web accessible interfaces. It always strikes me as funny that they have great in-house developers but need external help with web applications.

          So, now we're as OT as we could be, but I wanted to add another perspective. And yes, I am aware that my experience probably isn't very representative.
          • by Burz (138833)
            The question is: How do tech-savvy office clerks and frontline managers automate data that is too extensive or dependant on forms/reports to handle in a spreadsheet? Especially when they need to apply this on a relatively small scale within a large corporation?

            Of course, another answer is to impose a locked-down environment where very little is programmable and worker initiative is viewed with suspicion. I've experienced that too, in the form of mainframe- and Unix-centric environments. This MS-hater will h
  • by jferris (908786) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:44AM (#13835812) Homepage
    ...it would be before my milk expired. Well, they are a day late. This is just udderly devastating.
  • 10th? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Scrameustache (459504) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:44AM (#13835816) Homepage Journal
    That's l33t speak for 20th? : )
  • Ehh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by carguy84 (897052) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:45AM (#13835818)
    Did some one read the date wrong? 20/10/2005 is the 20th, not the 10th.

    Can't help but wonder what kind of press release MSFT will put out today.
    • Re:Ehh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mjlner (609829) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @10:13AM (#13836108) Journal
      "Did some one read the date wrong? 20/10/2005 is the 20th, not the 10th."

      Argh... All these problems stemming from different systems. We non-US people always forget that the American year has 30 months (sometimes 31) and 12 days in a month.
      In other news:
      Rest of world still waiting for America to adopt the metric system

      Sure, mod me a trolling flamebait, you humourless twat.

      • Re:Ehh (Score:3, Funny)

        by xs650 (741277)
        Argh... All these problems stemming from different systems. We non-US people always forget that the American year has 30 months (sometimes 31) and 12 days in a month.

        You're just jealous because we have more months than you do and they're all the same length.

      • Re:Ehh (Score:3, Insightful)

        by einhverfr (238914)
        Argh... All these problems stemming from different systems. We non-US people always forget that the American year has 30 months (sometimes 31) and 12 days in a month.

        Real geeks follow the SQL standard in all dates. That is 2005-10-20 to you :-) Wholely unambiguous :-)
  • by aurelian (551052) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:45AM (#13835821)
    Surely cross-platform nature of OO.o is the whole point?
    • by Iriel (810009) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @10:00AM (#13835981) Homepage
      I see your point, but keep in mind that when OO.o has been a major factor in companies switching from Windows systems to Linux ones.

      "What will happen to all our Word documents, and spreadsheets, oh! oh! and what about PowerPoint?"
      Say it with me together now: OpenOffice!

      Yes, MSOffice compatibility has become a nearly ubiquitous feature by now, but not too many offices switch from Windows to use Joe. So the strength it has given to the Linux community as an alternative to 'get everyday tasks done' can't be stated enough. Hence, this appears in the Linux section of Slashdot.

      This public service annoucement was brought to you by penguins, and a OSS/Linux advocate.
      • That may all be true, but it doesn't change the fact that OO.o is not available only for Linux, or even mainly for Linux. Unless v2 is only currently available for Linux, it's in the wrong section.
  • Speaking of milk... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:45AM (#13835829)
    Directly after the release this morning, Mad Penguin published a lengthy interview with OOo's Lois Suarez-Potts which represents part 3 of their OpenOffice.org interview series [madpenguin.org] (part 1 [slashdot.org] and 2 [slashdot.org] were covered previously on Slashdot). The article is 3 pages long but an excellent read all the same.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:45AM (#13835830)
  • by krygny (473134) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:46AM (#13835842)
    Soon, MS Office will have native support for PDF (like OOo has always had). Now, all they have to do is add support for ODF, give it away free along with the source code, and it will be almost as good as OOo.
  • OSX (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fatwreckfan (322865) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:47AM (#13835856)
    It'd be nice if they released a build for OSX. The only 2.0 build they've had for as long as I've been checking is a development build in french.
  • Torrent Links (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lawpoop (604919) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:47AM (#13835857) Homepage Journal
    This page [openoffice.org] has bittorrent links.
    • by squoozer (730327) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @10:00AM (#13835989)

      You've got to just love P2P for things like this. My country mirror is already doing a good impression of a three legged dog but the torrent has more seeds than a farmer at harvest time.

  • Mac OS X (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:48AM (#13835865)
    No support for the Mac OS X is a show stopper for me. :(
  • by MCHammer (110588) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:48AM (#13835867)
    A great accomplishment. I've been using the product for a couple of years now and really love it. My wife's entire business is based on Open Office as well. Thanks for all of the hard work!
  • by rheotaxis (528103) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:51AM (#13835894) Homepage
    I feel a productivity surge bubbling up inside me.
  • Grrrr (Score:5, Funny)

    by squoozer (730327) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:52AM (#13835908)

    I don't believe it! I only downloaded and installed RC3 4 hours ago. Grrrr.

  • by Odocoileus (802272) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:53AM (#13835917)
    It is not in portage yet, therefore it must not exist.
  • Office Key... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Buddy_DoQ (922706) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @09:54AM (#13835934) Homepage
    I just recently restored my laptop, and rather than go fishing for my MS Office 2001 disk with the faded product key, I opted to give OpenOffice.org a shot. For me, a casual .doc reader who just needs something light and quick to open and read with, OO.org is a great solution. It does just about everything a cheap guy like me could want. Plus I didn't have to dig in that dreaded closet of PC past and type in a cd key I can barely make out anymore. I had no idea a new version was coming out so soon, so this is great news to me! I even began spreading whispers about it at work, it may not be the juicy Lost roundtable, but a free alternative to something Microsoft for our Macs always perks some ears.
  • by Nimey (114278) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @10:00AM (#13835992) Homepage Journal
    Has anyone repackaged it in a straight tarball? This is inconvenient for people who use other distributions.
  • Fantastic (Score:5, Funny)

    by damm0 (14229) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @10:04AM (#13836031) Homepage Journal
    This is great! Congratulations to the OpenOffice folks. Now all OpenOffice needs is a good vi keymap.
  • by raitchison (734047) <robert@aitchison.org> on Thursday October 20, 2005 @10:11AM (#13836091) Homepage Journal

    I have the distinct feeling I'll be losing some Karma for saying this but I'm REALLY disappointed that they didn't solve the Java issue.

    According to the System Requirements [openoffice.org] page it still requires the Sun JVM.

    Last I heard (admittedly sometime last year) they had found a likely solution in the ability to compile the Java stuff into binary for each platorm, I guess that didn't pan out.

    I've said it before but I really don't see the advantage of having an OSS product if you are still dependent on a definitively non-open product. Ofr course I know it's completely different sice Sun isn't evil like Microsoft is.

  • by caluml (551744) <slashdot@NOsPam.spamgoeshere.calum.org> on Thursday October 20, 2005 @10:12AM (#13836102) Homepage
    I'm hoping to be able to run v2 on my AMD64 box sometime - but reports of it even compiling are pretty sketchy, and it runs like a dog, unless you disable java in the build. (Why are the words java and slow always appearing in the same sentence...)
    Anyone know of any AMD64 v2 binary packages until that time? (Binary - I feel dirty saying that word.)
  • by codepunk (167897) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @10:32AM (#13836320)
    I created a program for here at work just yesterday that logs machine PLC data to a ods formatted sheet. I just created a ods template and my logger program written in python opens content.xml and feeds the log data into it. Now of course I could do that with office also but it would require either macro programming and or automating excel to do it, far uglier than just producing straight ods output from a program. Not to mention having to run a office suite on a server just to produce a document. For the developer ODF is a god send!
  • by L. VeGas (580015) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @10:44AM (#13836475) Homepage Journal
    Not to totally plug my own article, but I have a detailed comparison between the two here [nedwolf.com] that some might be interested in.
  • by Danathar (267989) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @10:46AM (#13836486) Journal
    If you are downloading via Azureus...PLEASE do the following

    Post the Azureus Magnet URI to Slashdot by doing the following

    Go to "My Torrents"

    Right click on your torrent and choose "Copy Magnet URI to clipboard"

    Please paste this in your post.

    This will allow people to join the swarm without having to get the tracker file which is TOTALLY swamped at the moment.

    thanks!
  • by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @10:56AM (#13836606) Homepage
    Yuck. they screwed up big time by getting rid of the linux installer.

    now those of us that do not run a popular rpm based distro are forced to fight our way into installing it.

    they had a great graphical/text installer that worked very well even had provisions for network based install and they dumped it.

    worst move they could have made. I really hope that someone digs out the old installer and makes it work with 2.0 so we can get back to advancing linux software instead of stepping backwards by getting rid of the installer.
  • osx version (Score:3, Insightful)

    by raceface (715858) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:22AM (#13836889)
    I dont see the osx version anywhere and there are three days left on my milk.
  • by antdude (79039) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:06PM (#13837791) Homepage Journal
    Click here [filemirrors.com] if you can't or don't want to use P2P method. Note this is Windows version.
  • MS Office vs. OOo (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Angst Badger (8636) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @02:54PM (#13838756)
    Whenever OOo comes up, I make the same complaint, and invariably, someone tells me I'm a clueless asshole, but it's gotten to be a tradition now, so I'll do it again.

    My benchmark for office suite comparisons is MS Office 97. I have used all of the subsequent versions of MS Office at work, but I always install Office 97 on my own machines. The reason for this is that, aside from functionality mostly aimed at group collaboration, there have been no significant changes in Word or Excel in the last eight years, so why bother upgrading?

    Well, there has been one significant change -- the same functionality requires vastly more resources in later versions of Office. Office 97 runs comfortably on an old 120MHz Pentium I laptop with 32 megs of RAM that I like to haul around when I'd rather not risk losing my more recent and expensive desktop replacement laptop. Office 2003 or XP? Forget it.

    As near as I can tell, OpenOffice has reached feature-parity with MS Office for single-user purposes; I can't speak to its collaboration features. There are some aspects of its interface that I don't much like, but I suspect that's mostly a matter of familiarity. But it is a giant, shrieking, slow resource hog, and I wouldn't use it on anything other than a fairly recent machine. It is, moreover, slower than Office 2003.

    Now, as I noted at the start of the post, someone will inevitably -- and generally without much tact -- argue that some theoretical user population, like corporate office users, will have the latest machines and not be bothered by this. That might even be true in some cases, though my experience has been that most companies don't upgrade machines unless they absolutely have to. But that's the point to some extent: why should anyone have to perform a hardware upgrade to get the same level of functionality that was available back in 1997? Word processors and spreadsheets are mature application categories; shouldn't they become more efficient as time goes by?

    Make no mistake about it, I am not a Microsoft partisan. I am as enthusiastic about the promise of FOSS as I was a decade ago. I am thrilled that OpenOffice exists. But I am deeply disappointed that in so many cases -- and OpenOffice is but one of many -- free software is just as bloated as its commercial counterparts. It may be that in the corporate environment, the cost of hardware upgrades is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of endless Microsoft software licenses. (In fact, I'm pretty sure it is true.) But for the private individual, that's often not the case.
  • by chrysalis (50680) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @04:23PM (#13839603) Homepage
    Although there is no native build for OpenBSD yet, OpenOffice.org 2.0 runs fins on OpenBSD through Linux emulation.
    Here are instructions to run it on OpenBSD: http://www.00f.net/php/show-article.php/openoffice _on_openbsd [00f.net]

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan

Working...