Go-OO vs. OOo - Opinions?

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Fri Jul 16 21:40:50 PDT 2010


William Immendorf wrote:
> 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).

I agree.  I am not in favor of anything that contains mono.  Think 
mononucleosis.

   -- Bruce



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list