Computing: Software Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]