Go-OO vs. OOo - Opinions?
will.immendorf at gmail.com
Fri Jul 16 21:19:22 PDT 2010
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:33 PM, DJ Lucas <dj at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that I've asked on list previously, but I don't recall
> the outcome (or if there were any answers at all). The advantages over
> raw OpenOffice.org are that it includes some pretty significant fixes
> that haven't hit upstream releases yet, including WP and OpenXML
> (Microsoft Office 2007+) import and export out of the box, and native
> dialog boxes (gtk,kde,kde4) which give it a much cleaner look IMO, plus
> it includes patches to build against the latest system versions of
> dependent software. It is also what is currently shipped with most
> distros -- this usually wouldn't be a consideration, but I'd imagine
> that it will provide better support searches and some additional options
> and resources.
I don't really think we should put Go-OO in the book. First off, it's
maintained by a company that I don't trust (Novell, after the deal
with M$), it seems like it promotes OOXML over ODF (ODF is the better
format here), and it increases Mono dependence (Mono, for those who
don't know, is a patent trap disguised as a C#/VB compiler). Even
though there is a speed up over plain OO.org, over the other issues,
I'd take plain OpenOffice.org and not use GoOO. Also, if I want
OpenOffice to speed up, I may just create a patch for that someday.
The ultimate in free computing.
Messages in plain text, please, no HTML.
GPG key ID: 1697BE98
If it's not signed, it's not from me.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
More information about the blfs-dev