Unofficial
Openoffice: OpenOffice.org Portable
Category: Office
Description: Portable version of a dev build of the free open-source office suite. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL VERSION OF OPENOFFICE
Download OpenOffice.org DEV300m51 Development Test 2 [95.1MB download / 356.7MB installed]
(MD5: b96d915c14f9cd1ba5ef1aeb07171a38 )
(SHA1: 8a14012562a1b3e41f9e58ffc28f5a188c3f4316 )
Release Notes:
Development Test 2 (2009-07-05):
Updated to Dev300m51
used Nsis 2.45 instead of 2.44 for launchers
fixed some bugs that prevented Openoffice from launching
updated installer to .91.7
some improvements to the AppInfo Icons
Development Test 1 (2009-06-23): Initial release
probably not going to update this often due to size (95MB takes 2 HOURS to upload) but this is just a launcher from the default oo.o portable slightly modified and upgraded to DEV300 code line.
btw. DEV300 is like a series of alpha builds that will someday (i think) become oo.o 3.2
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
I know your intentions are good but please remove your link, we have the official stable version and we don't want the confusion by the 2.
your friendly neighbourhood moderator Zach Thibeau
Elsewhere I saw someone had Mozilla Minefield (FF 3.6 nightly build), and the consensus there was to leave it up, but change the topic to clearly state the difference between that and the official releases of FFP stable and the FF 3.5 official betas... perhaps something similar here?
Quamquam omniam nescio, nec nihil scio.
nope the reason for the firefox one is that it was minefield. OpenOffice has no such code name. thus begins the confusion
your friendly neighbourhood moderator Zach Thibeau
I think the deal with it being Minefield was because it would have been illegal to distribute it as Firefox. Hence, the test versions are named Minefield, without branding, therefore legal. OpenOffice.org does not have the same trademark issues with redistribution, so there is no need for a codename. I still think if it is indicated clearly what this is, such as changing the topic and a big fat note at the top of the post saying "this is an unofficial preview of a beta release of the new version and is not supported, blahblahblah..." it would be ok. Yes, it might be confusing, so just clear up the confusion, don't just take it down.
Quamquam omniam nescio, nec nihil scio.