Talk:OpenOffice.org/Archive 2

message: "spreadsheet program called Lotus 1-2-3, a program similar to Microsoft's PowerPoint"
Shouldn't it say Microsoft's Excel?
Sadman64 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It is saying that Lotus SmartSuite has Lotus 1-2-3 (a spreadsheet program that is similar to Excel), as well as a presentation/slideshow/beamer program that is similar to OO.o Impress or MS PowerPoint.--Karnesky 23:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction? 

message: I'm trying to avoid the kind of detailed, time-sensitive statements that require somebody to edit this page every time a bug-fix release of OOo comes out.  Today it's 1.1.4 and NeoOffice is up-to-date; next week it might be OOo 1.1.5 and NeoOffice isn't up to date.  Then it is.  Then OOo 2.0.0 is released and it's not for a while.  Then it NeoOffice 2.0 comes out, except OOo 2.0.1 has come out in the meantime, and so on.  NeoOffice releases lag behind OOo and apparently always will.  Saying so is not POV-pushing (especially since my POV is pro-NeoOffice). Tverbeek 15:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. Our articles should focus in supplying useful background information, such as the history and evolution of such packages, rather than up-to-the-minute release details. That's rightfully the job of others. -- Viajero 16:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NeoOffice

message: Is there a macro or export filter that will allow one to create documents in OpenOffice, and export them in MediaWiki format? -- 68.10.113.7 21:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still looking for an OpenOffice to MediaWiki export filter... -- BBlackmoor (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an extra bit of code that claims to give this functionality. A link to it is available at the official bug report for this issue. If you think an OpenOffice to MediaWiki export filter is a good idea, VOTE  FOR IT on that page!--None Error 15:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenOffice 2.0 (Open Document) to MediaWiki format 

message: Just to let you know.  The purpose of the featured article section is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. Gronky 12:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On [[Portal:Free software]], OpenOffice.org is current featured article 

message: Is it really useful? I don't see a point to it. a thing 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives section 

message: Not long ago I converted the article to the note/ref template system to clean up the links used as references within the article body. A new system is now available to make this simpler and avoid orphaned or misordered footnotes Wikipedia:Footnotes. It's more straightforward, and the references are embedded in the text right next to the place they are used. I've converted a few articles already myself... but I'll not get around to this one for a while. Does anyone feel like doing it themselves? It's easy enough, but you do have to ensure that the information is converted correctly, and fix any mistakes in the original note/ref system (misordering and the like). Thanks. - Motor (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the conversion myself. In the process I've removed some links, done some rewrites and generally tried to clean things up. I'd appreciate anyone going through the article and verifying that the references supplied actually do verify the claims in the copy (I've did a cursory check, but I'm running out of steam!). Also, I've had to replace some links with the fact template... if anyone could supplied good sources for these, that'd be great. - Motor (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good. Thanks for the conversion. --Zero0w 23:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: On the subject of too much info in the introduction: 
:"The source code for the application suite was previously available under two different software licenses: the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) and Sun Industry Standards Source License (SISSL); starting with version 2.0, the code is only available under the LGPL."
This is unneccessary... in the introduction. It's something better left in the history section. It just needs "The source code for the application suite is available the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)". - Motor (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction