back to article LibreOffice 4.0 ships with new features, better looks

The Document Foundation has announced LibreOffice 4.0, the latest version of the free software competitor to Microsoft Office that spun off from the OpenOffice.org effort in 2010, describing it as nothing less than "the free office suite the community has been dreaming of since 2001." "LibreOffice 4.0 is the first release that …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

          1. hplasm
            Devil

            Re: The more MS pushes people to rent their software

            Renting MS software is like renting a condom.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: The more MS pushes people to rent their software

              Renting MS software is like renting a condom.

              ... but much less fun!

            2. TheVogon
              Mushroom

              Re: The more MS pushes people to rent their software

              Like renting a CONDO, yes.

            3. Dazed and Confused
              Facepalm

              Re: The more MS pushes people to rent their software

              Renting MS software is like renting a condom.

              Nah, if I rented a condom I wouldn't expect it to be so full of holes.

        1. TheVogon
          Mushroom

          Re: The more MS pushes people to rent their software

          https://www.alliance-leicestercommercialbank.co.uk/bizguides/full/cheesemaker/parkes-lease.asp

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The more MS pushes people to rent their software

        If I lease a car and return it, every journey I made in it doesn't suddenly cease to have happened unless I lease a new car from the same company.

        1. Neil B
          Meh

          Re: The more MS pushes people to rent their software

          @ribosome If you cease to subscribe to Office, all your docs still exist you just can't use Office to edit them. If you believed any different, you scare me.

  1. Dave Pickles

    Still some niggles

    I've been using Release Candidates of LO4 for a while courtesy of Mageia and it's pretty good. Annoyingly they haven't fixed my pet peeve which dates back to the days of StarOffice; the 'recently used files' list is global across all applications rather than having a separate list for each. So if I go browsing through documents looking for something, my frequently-used spreadsheets disappear off the bottom of the list and I have to look for them manually.

  2. Sirius Lee

    Headline touts 'Better looks'

    Might have been an idea to have included a screenshot. Even the LO web doesn't include a screenshot, pictures of people and some icons but nothing of the product. Suggests to me there's not a lot of confidence in the UI.

  3. JDX Gold badge

    Party like it's 2007

    Only 6 years later, you're supporting 2007 doc format properly?

    I might try it out - the utter failure to maintain formatting/styling in .docx files is the reason all my attempts to use OO in the past ended quickly.

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: Party like it's 2007

      "Only 6 years later, you're supporting 2007 doc format properly?"

      Yup, maybe Microsoft will catch up some day and support the 2007 format properly, too, but I'm not holding my breath.

      I assume you've never tried to use the 2007 compatibility pack to view or edit DOCX stuff in an older version of Office. Even Microsoft don't claim this works. The converter comes with a list of all the stuff that gets broken.

      Yes, life *is* easier if everyone else agrees to buy the same software package that you use and agrees to upgrade when you do. Meanwhile back in the real world, even Microsoft aren't sufficiently compatible to let a group of people jointly author a document with different versions of Office. Why should LO (or OO) be judged by a standard that MS don't meet?

      1. JDX Gold badge

        Re: Party like it's 2007

        >>Why should LO (or OO) be judged by a standard that MS don't meet?

        Because they are the ones trying to steal market share, not hold onto it. If you want to win MS users you need to make the transition absolutely super slick.

        If LO's main goal is to win users from MS (is it?) then 100% perfect support for MS docs should be their absolute #1 priority. Otherwise it doesn't matter how good LO is, people won't switch.

  4. Bill the Sys Admin
    Mushroom

    Just upgraded on my work laptop OpenSUSE 12.2

    Seems fine to me, (Im no power user btw) both suites offer great functionality its just when you start trying to jump between them you see problems.

    MS just makes it harder for everyone else by changing the ppt, pptx, doc, docx blah blah blah every year! So its hard to use both which i do in my Office. I sent a ppt file to a MS Office user and they just sent it straight back saying it was broken i opened it in a virtual machine and it was a mess. This isn’t Libre Offices fault in my opinion. Its MS stupid proprietary formats. ODT should be used then you can choose to use whatever suite you want without any problems!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Just upgraded on my work laptop OpenSUSE 12.2

      So that your crappy freeware can't create a file properly is Microsoft's fault?!

      1. Avatar of They
        Happy

        Re: Just upgraded on my work laptop OpenSUSE 12.2

        Says the MS employee, why the anon? Your name ballmer?

        An open standard means it should be an open standard. MS fecking with it breaks the rules of being an open standard. That is the fault of Microsoft.

        Loving Libre office on my linux mint, not had any problems opening the docx files, but looking forward to the latest release when I get it.

        1. Bill the Sys Admin
          Happy

          Re: Just upgraded on my work laptop OpenSUSE 12.2

          @AC Really that is all you have to contribute? Jesus these comments are grim sometimes.

          @Avatar of they - Yes Docx seems to be ok, its power points that go off their nut when you change suite. Something that wont change so i guess you have deal with it, unless companies realise they can use libre office for nothing (or supported)and save a lot of money.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Just upgraded on my work laptop OpenSUSE 12.2

        No but Microsoft not being able to produce compliant ODF files is.

  5. Jim Willsher

    Not a great outlook

    For most of our users, Outlook is the key component of Office. Word and Excel are important of course, but many of our users spend 50% of their day using web-based in-house apps, 10% on Excel+Word, and 40% in Outlook - and they don't like web-based Outlook / OWA. So to them, Outlook is the most important component, something LibreOffice seems to completely ignore.

    We would love to break free from the MS Office stranglehold, but can't due to Outlook (with Exchange).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not a great outlook

      Au contraire...

      I use OWA in preference and so do several of my colleagues because actual Outlook (2010) takes about 5 minutes from startup to become usable (i.e. you can actually click on something and it responds) and frequently slows down throughout the day. Might just be our setup but it's a dog. If we didn't use the group calendaring functions it would be completely pointless and any old mail client would do anyway. OWA 2010 is actually reasonable, and a lot quicker (for us) than the fat client.

      1. JDX Gold badge

        Re: Not a great outlook

        It Outlook takes 5min to start up, the problem is your sysadmins. I work remotely on a VM and it takes ~2s - and this isn't a tiny setup either, it's been ongoing for 10+ years so the dataset on the server must be pretty horrific!

      2. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

        Re: Not a great outlook

        Outlook (2010) takes about 5 minutes from startup to become usable

        I am willing to bet you have data stored on network drives. Outlook seems to be extremely inefficient with file access, and by using a network mounted drive for storage you *seriously* multiply that problem.

        If we didn't use the group calendaring functions it would be completely pointless

        There are other ways to give you corporate group calendaring which would free you from the clutches of Microsoft (and, as a consequence, enable email and shared calendaring on any electronic device you care to use), but even sticking with Exchange you guys *really* need to stop using network drives for a local cache - it's the only thing that can explain this. Outlook may suck, but it doesn't suck *that* much :)

        The reason OWA works quicker is because you then have all the file access done on the Exchange server (i.e. local to the software doing the work), with OWA only giving you an interface to it. That is also why a VM desktop works quicker: the files stay local, you only export the display.

  6. paulc
    Stop

    Embedded Visios?

    How the heck do you get it to open up embedded visio files using visio? Currently clicking on a visio just brings it up as a picture instead of the embedded object it really is...

    we use embedded visios and Jude diagrams a lot in our software documentation...

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: Embedded Visios?

      Works just fine with Word & Visio 2007 installed.

      However, you need to check how the Visio objects are being copied and pasted into your document.

      For technical documentation that is to be released to third-parties, I've tended to paste 'esoteric' objects such as Visio and Organisation Charts as pictures so that I can be sure others can read what I intended, it also helps to reduce the size of the Word document being sent to all and sundry (I complain when others email me a large file and I'm in a hotel room with only a dial-up connection...).

  7. The FunkeyGibbon
    Unhappy

    Sometimes it's not an option.

    Do you know what would happen if I suggested some of our customers switched to LO from MO? They'd look puzzled and ask why. I'd tell them the cost benefits. They'd say that they have to retrain users. Business fears change and some of them would rather piss away money on Microsoft's evil licencing than make a change for the better...

    Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft Office... :-(

  8. Fading
    Linux

    Hows Office 2013 to 2007 compatability?

    Just a quick question as 2007 to 2003 is terrible (even with the "compatability" added) - if you want an example try just changing the cell colours in excel and opening in a different one. I have Libre office at home (and MS office 2003) and will be trying the new version later (and reporting any bugs I find - only thing I have time for at the moment - to give a little back) . As to the ribbon interface - just hide mine at work and use it like a horizontal menu system.

  9. Jim 59

    LibreOffice

    LibreOffice is great but it looks fugly and feels ungainly. A drab, 1993 style UI spangled with random icons like a badly decorated Christmas tree. It won't do. Managers today like things to be shiny, snappy and above all slick, so give them what they want. LO should divert all coding efforts from the engine and into the UI. Heck, give them a ribbon if that's what they want, or a menu that spins around, just make sure it is smooth and fast.

    1. Chemist

      Re: LibreOffice

      "LO should divert all coding efforts from the engine and into the UI"

      Oh yes, style over substance every time </sarcasm>

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: LibreOffice

      So you are suggesting to polish the turd?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: LibreOffice

      @Jim A few months ago the LibO user menus were detidied up, looks so much better, staff at my workplace like it. It's a tool, does the job fast, smoothly and reliably.

  10. The Axe

    64?

    When will we LibreOffice 64-bit for Windows. It's available for Linux variants, but not Windows yet. Why the hold up?

  11. A J Stiles

    Sounds good

    I've just downloaded the Source Code, and am now working my way through installing the heap of -dev packages I need to build it.

    If there's anyone from Canonical listening, the one feature I would really, really, really like in Ubuntu 13.10 -- and the one that might finally get me off Debian -- would be to merge all -dev packages in with the respective main package. Separating them out made sense 10 years ago, when drive space was measured in gigabytes, processor speed in megahertz and everyone was expected to know exactly what they were doing. Today, -dev packages are a PITA. If somebody really doesn't need the development files, they can delete them; but HDD space is not really a valid concern anymore, compared to not making it needlessly complicated to build packages from Source Code.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sounds good

      I;ve never really thought of Ubuntu being aimed at people who want to build stuff from source - more at people who don't. Not sure they'd want to drop a load of extra packages into an install that their target demographic is unlikely to want. If I'm reading what you're saying correctly that is; I have to add in dev packages in Debian too so I might have missed your point.

      1. A J Stiles

        Re: Sounds good

        For clarification, I'm currently running Debian on most of my boxen (including servers and desktops); but after trying Ubuntu on a laptop, I quite like it. It's not dumbed-down; I can still edit files in /etc/ with nano -- or even gedit with sudo --if I choose to do it that way, and it won't confuse the GUI configuration tools. (And I really love the Unity interface on a widescreen display, with its vertical launcher down the left-hand side; but I can see why classic GNOME 2.x users might find it different.)

        It's simply wrong to imagine that compiling software from Source Code should be beyond "normal" users. Precompiled binaries are a legacy of Windows, not the traditional way complex software has been distributed. Actually, assuming that users are stupid -- as opposed to merely ignorant, but capable and ready to learn -- is a legacy of Windows.

        Separate -dev packages make it harder for "normal" users to make the "leap" to building from Source Code, by putting that gap there in the first place -- by assuming that users will not, by default, want to build from Source Code. Disk space and bandwidth are cheap nowadays.

        One alternative to "forcing additional stuff onto users" (most of whom, I'm sure, wouldn't even notice it till they double-clicked a .tar.gz file and it just installed itself) would be to extend dpkg to include, besides "depends", "recommends", "suggests" and "conflicts", a "dev-depends" category. With a simple configuration setting, installing a package could automatically install its -dev files or not; a database of -dev packages already required / installed would make it even easier to switch routes, by suddenly requiring or de-requiring a bunch of packages which will then get installed or uninstalled automatically at the next upgrade.

        Another idea would be creative misuse of "suggests": optionally automatically install anything from "suggests" that has -dev in its name, and make every package suggest its own -dev. But this is not really the right solution, as it will involve just as much upheaval again if and when a "dev-depends" category is created.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Sounds good

          "It's simply wrong to imagine that compiling software from Source Code should be beyond "normal" users."

          I've never thought or claimed that. It does seem that Ubuntu, with the goal of getting people into Linux, tried to remove/minimise the need. For what seemed to be their target audience. As I recall Ubuntu was met with a lot of derision by Linux diehards when it came out. Remember the old "Ubuntu means too stupid to install Debian" jokes?

          "Actually, assuming that users are stupid -- as opposed to merely ignorant, but capable and ready to learn -- is a legacy of Windows."

          You seem to have misunderstood what I said. As I see it, Ubuntu's target audience has been people who want it to "just work" (sorry for trite phrase,) ideally out of the box. Which would imply no compilation. The assumption that users are stupid is not a legacy of Windows at all - it's the prevailing opinion of the IT community, and one I've railed against before on these forums given how often it's voiced. Glad to see someone recognising the difference between ignorance and stupidity; I hope others here will take note.

          "Separate -dev packages make it harder for "normal" users to make the "leap" to building from Source Code, by putting that gap there in the first place -- by assuming that users will not, by default, want to build from Source Code."

          To be honest, it looks like you're asking for your personal preference to be made the default. Essentially making the reverse assumption. If you make neither, it seems more sensible to me to go for a more minimal install - avoiding "bloat", to use another trite phrase. I don't agree that stuff should be put on someone's hard disk "in case they decide to use it in the future". They shouldn't have to decide to remove stuff they haven't asked for - another argument generally used against Windows. It's not mitigated by Linux letting you remove things more easily (or at all,) compared to Windows; it seems like a violation of the ideals.

          "Disk space and bandwidth are cheap nowadays."

          That's a matter of circumstance, really. Throwing silicon/money (even if the latter cost is comparatively small to you,) at a problem is inelegant. And *definitely* not for you to decide on others' behalf. I'm sorry to say that smacks of arrogance - "Eventually everyone will want to do it my way, because they're not stupid." Isn't that the "No True Scotsman" fallacy or something?

          One alternative to "forcing additional stuff onto users"

          Putting it in quotes doesn't negate that you're suggesting it.

          (most of whom, I'm sure, wouldn't even notice it till they double-clicked a .tar.gz file and it just installed itself)

          I don't see how that ties in with having the dev libraries automatically installed.

          "would be to extend dpkg to include, besides "depends", "recommends", "suggests" and "conflicts", a "dev-depends" category. With a simple configuration setting, installing a package could automatically install its -dev files or not; a database of -dev packages already required / installed would make it even easier to switch routes, by suddenly requiring or de-requiring a bunch of packages which will then get installed or uninstalled automatically at the next upgrade."

          Now that sounds eminently sensible to me. I'd get behind that.

          1. A J Stiles

            Re: Sounds good

            "As I see it, Ubuntu's target audience has been people who want it to 'just work' (sorry for trite phrase,) ideally out of the box. Which would imply no compilation."

            No apology required. I get exactly what you mean. The problem as I see it is, compiling software from Source Code doesn't "Just Work, out of the box". When you find out about some obscure package foo that your distribution's maintainers haven't thought to package, so you download the Source Code foo.tar.gz and it says you need to have package bar installed, and you know you have got bar installed, that's as confusing as hell -- and it sends a wrong message. What it actually means is that you need some file that would have been "left behind" if you had built bar yourself from Source Code, but you don't actually need for day to day use of bar. And your distribution's maintainers have helpfully separated those files out into a different package just for developers: bar-dev. But this is not obvious. And from the point of view of the user -- who really doesn't think of themself as a developer -- it ends up looking as though compiling software from Source Code is some sort of black art, some arcane magic, something they aren't meant to understand. It reinforces a view of "them and us". And it should not be like that, because everybody has something to give to the Free and Open Source Software movement -- unless they get so deterred by one bad experience that they defect to Windows. And what's that done for the hapless developers of package foo? Somebody wanted it so badly, but now they've been dissuaded from trying to install it.

            My point is that, once upon a time, separating out developer files was beneficial to the "normal" user; including the developers' files in the main package would have done them a greater disservice than omitting them did the potential developer. I am no longer sure that this is the case: the inconvenience to users wishing to compile packages from Source Code as a result of separating out the developers' files now exceeds the inconvenience to other users that would result from including them.

            Some users certainly will make the effort to learn about developers' packages, or even learn the hard way -- I ended up reinstalling a whole bunch of libs from Source Code one one box, once in my younger days, just because I didn't know about developers' packages. And that experience has informed the position from which I argue. If you'll allow me to use a cliché of my own, I just don't want anyone else to have to go through that.

            Compiling a package from Source Code really needn't be any harder than double-clicking on a tar.gz file to start the configuration (./configure) and compilation (make) process, then supplying a password to allow installation to system-wide folders (sudo make install). And if it barfs for want of a dependency, then it isn't unreasonable to assume that installing the named package from repository ought to be enough to satisfy that dependency. Now, if the file manager (or its archive plugin) is really smart, it could detect that this is the first time you've ever double-clicked on a Source Code file, and turn on (if my hypothetical dev-depends: existed) automatic installation of developer packages. A smart "installable Source Code archive" plugin could even parse the error log and suggest a fix. Result: Compiling a package from Source Code is now as easy as (even although it will take a bit longer than) installing a pre-compiled binary package, for the casual user who -- for whatever reason, of their own business -- would like to install something that has not yet been packaged for their distribution.

            Anyway, you've convinced me to put my money where my mouth is. I'm going to take a look at dpkg and see if I'm up to the task of adding the needed feature myself; and if I should bottle it, then I will at least suggest it to the developers. Either way, I plan to offer my bunch of patches or humble feature suggestion to Ubuntu first, because I think they do try hardest to have "everyone" as their target demographic. To prove I'm not as bitter as I may have sounded, I'm going to say this: Be my guest and suggest the dev-depends: idea to Debian -- or even Fedora; I'm sure they'd love an advantage over dpkg and apt-get. This is not a zero-sum game; we'll all come out winners if it's adopted, whoever is first.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Will every 0.0.x release require a 180 MB download and 10 minute installation?

    Tell me they've fixed that in LO 4+

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Will every 0.0.x release require a 180 MB download and 10 minute installation?

      Roll it out with a GP startup script, upgrades in the background, not had a problem with this yet even on the older computers.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Looks like the MS staff are out in full force today.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Looks like it, they're crapping themselves!

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ... and support for Macros / VBA....?

    "The Document Foundation has announced LibreOffice 4.0, the latest version of the free software competitor to Microsoft Office that spun off from the OpenOffice.org effort in 2010, describing it as nothing less than "the free office suite the community has been dreaming of since 2001."

    In the other Office / Excel threads comments were sparse from those who had successfully migrated users off their Office addiction and onto LO! Until there's deep support for Macros & VBA legacy spreadsheets LO is not a serious competitor to MS-Office IMHO!

    There are comments on here as if Excel macros are limited to the financial community solely. I've personally witnessed a huge number of small business with macro based spreadsheets and even some medium sized restaurant chains too relying on them. Excel and its macros are far more pervasive that some imagine.

  15. Zola
    Flame

    Would love to switch to Libre Office

    But when it can't open spreadsheets* that have total wank in them such as:

    Application.CommandBars("Task Pane").Visible = False

    then it forces the user to pony up the £200 and buy the full MS Office suite. If LibreOffice aims for compatibility with the MS Office suite, then at the very least it should handle gracefully this sort of shit which attempts to disable an Excel toolbar that doesn't exist in LibreOffice.

    * A client, using a custom written and password locked spreadsheet, wanted 8 new PCs without the cost of MS Office... I had hoped LibreOffice would do the job but even the latest 4.0.0.3 version I just installed falls at this first and most basic (no pun intended) of hurdles. Shame, as it's 8 more client licences for Microsoft.

    1. Test Man
      Stop

      Re: Would love to switch to Libre Office

      "Shame, as it's 8 more client licences for Microsoft."

      Except in a lot of cases it isn't (volume licensing).

    2. Carl
      Thumb Down

      Re: Would love to switch to Libre Office

      Feel free to send the invoice to whoever supplied the s/sheet.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Would love to switch to Libre Office @Carl

        With a copy of the requirements doc highlighting the bit showing why the spreadsheet author shouldn't have used that call and is therefore liable, of course.

    3. A J Stiles
      Holmes

      Re: Would love to switch to Libre Office

      But if you rewrite the macros, you only have to do that once. You would have to keep paying out for a new Office licence every time Microsoft brought out a new version. In a really pathological case, Microsoft could deprecate or remove a feature you were relying on; and then you'd have to do some rewriting anyway. (Open Source can't do that so easily, since removed features can usually be hacked back in when necessary. This can lead to patch wars and eventually forking, as one party storms off in a huff or gets banned -- vide OpenBSD. The users will eventually decide which one they prefer. Occasionally, there is even room for both versions to co-exist.)

      In the end, it's a trade-off. At some point, the cost of keeping legacy VBA code outweighs the cost of getting rid. When that happens, rewriting to use LibreOffice becomes "doing it properly", and keeping Microsoft becomes the bodge.

      1. Danny 14

        Re: Would love to switch to Libre Office

        Unless you leverage software assurance. At less than 30 per pc per year for windows, cals, office pro it works out cheaper than employing a Linux chap to keep the non windows systems running (the apprentice can keep windows stuff running)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Would love to switch to Libre Office

          But a local school here switched to Ubuntu several years ago and have been saving on support costs, and now don't use any Microsoft licenses either, Perhaps you're a troll!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Would love to switch to Libre Office

            Yes and none of their pupils have any jobs from stating 'Libre Office skills' on their CV either...

            Glad that's not where my kids go.

  16. Carl
    Alien

    I personally hope it doesnt...

    "close the gap" with MSOffice.

    MSOffice sucks donkey balls.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I personally hope it doesnt... @Carl

      "MSOffice sucks donkey balls."

      After such a cogent point, I hope the Internet can take the strain of the mass downloads that will follow. What reasonable person wouldn't be swayed by such an argument?

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like