Talk:Go-oo

Removal of outdated information

Reference 17

The link is broken and the information in the article text: "There is also an unstable version for Mac available.[17]" is outdated. Weakpedia (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

The disadvantages section includes this:

1. "Go-oo 3.0 has a broken function for adding or editing words in spell check dictionaries. In OpenOffice.org this functionality is fully available."
2. "Go-oo Calc 3.0 has missing translation of functions like "Solver", "Share document" in some languages. OpenOffice.org 3.0 has the same functions fully translated."

As these disadvantages are claimed to be specifically in version 3.0, and Go-oo is now at version 3.1, these claims are about a past version and so I propose they be removed, unless there is information about them remaining in version 3.1. Lopifalko (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Noteablility?

I think this article is not needed, it should be merged into the OpenOffice.org article. TorLillqvist (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you if there is a good site to link to which has essentially the same information. That link could be included suitably in the OOo main article making this article redundant. --DuLithgow (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think merging this article into the OpenOffice.org article is a good idea, since that one is already long enough like it is now. I don't see why Go-oo wouldn't deserve its own article. Also, is there a rule somewhere that says that information that is available elsewhere shall not be repeated on Wikipedia, because of redundancy? 84.73.150.199 (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit

If this article is kept then this sentence needs re-working: "Go-oo supports the ISO/IEC standard file formats OpenDocument (full support) and Office Open XML (import only) for data interchange, as well as Microsoft Office '97–2003 formats, among many others." As part of OOo this is self-evident. So either delete it or reword it. --DuLithgow (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Build numbers in the version table uninformative

The numbers after the dashes in the version table are not really informative. For the Linux builds, they are simply the upstream "buildid" which is fixed for each upstream source version. For the Windows builds, they are just a running counter that don't say anything to end-users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TorLillqvist (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but why's that worth mentioning? Those numbers after the dash contain exactly as much information as you need: A higher number means a newer build where some problems have been fixed. In any software versioning scheme, it's the major and sometimes the minor version number that tells the user some information, but certainly not the revision number. 84.73.150.199 (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, yes, my point was exactly that: It is not worth mentioning the build number. Not in the Windows case, as it is not told anyway what has changed between builds (and just one build is mentioned anyway). And even less in the Linux case, as the "build number" that used to be mentioned there isn't a build number, but just an identifier that corresponds one-to-one with the version number like 3.0.0. TorLillqvist (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

I would like to question the neutrality of this page. There seems to be a lot of strong (non-cited) language aimed to sell this as the superior product. Frohike14 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Office Open XML

I use OpenOffice.org/Go-oo on Ubuntu and it appears to have an option to export to Office Open XML (Writer has a "Microsoft Office 2007 XML" option in the "save as" dialog box). Is this an Ubuntu addition, or does the main Go-oo build have it as well? --Evice (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)