Apache OpenOffice Community Forum

Saturday I dropped LibreOffice (which was packaged with Ubuntu 12.04LTS) and moved to Apache OpenOffice. LibreOffice was just too buggy (copy-and-paste was iffy) and getting stuff from it into Microsoft's software just wasn't working worth a hoot.

The problem is, I use Bibus a LOT, and it doesn't recognize OpenOffice. I've gone through everything I've found... modding the bibus.cfg file so it knows where to look, etc. I even tried installing python-uno (where the problem is, or it's connected to that module) and while I got it installed without LibreOffice, I had to fight with synaptic to do so. After putting python-uno on my system, Bibus recognized that OpenOffice was there, but locks up when you try to do anything with it, including saving the configuration.

Is there a version of python-uno that will work with OpenOffice 4... it seems that the other versions of python-uno (in the repositories) automatically has links to LibreOffice. You try to do something with Bibus, it sees "OpenOffice" is there, but when you try to set it up, it's actually looking for LibreOffice and can't find it, so it just sits there waiting. That's the best explanation of what I'm seeing.

From what I'm reading, there is a differently named program coming with OO 4 that functions the same as python-uno. If that's the case, would creating a virtual link to the file with the name python-uno solve the problem?

I've got a paper due Monday (plus poster and presentation), plus another major project due two weeks from now, and a 20 page paper due at the end of the month. I need to get Bibus working! (I've got the citations in Bibus, I just need to be able to get the interface going.)

Please help!

Thanks!

No good news: [Issue] Still can't connect to Bibus...

It seems that older version can do it (2.4).

Does anyone who works on OpenOffice code view these threads? I don't want to go back to the piece of $@#$^ that comes with Ubuntu, but I REALLY need Bibus to work with OpenOffice (like it used to). If I could find an old Python-Uno module that pointed to OpenOffice (and which would install in Precise) I'd even try that. There MUST be some way to get around this python-uno bridge problem (I've tried all of the solutions mentioned in threads I've read... nothing works).

I should add that the Bibliography software that comes with OpenOffice is pretty much worthless for me. I've got well over five hundred, maybe as many as a thousand citations in my database, and under Bibus they're organized into topics and themes (i.e. Archaeology/Cultural Anthropology/Linguistic Anthropology, Ancient Diet/Materials Analysis/technology development/site files, etc.). I've got the Bibliography software for OO working with my Bibus database, but having to scan through all of those titles just to find one citation (in Bibus I click on the overall topic-specific subject-and have a short list of maybe a couple of dozen related citations - takes me seconds the first time and less when writing). If it could be made as easy as Bibus I'd give it a whirl, but so far... don't like it at all. So that's not a solution to the problem.

Discussion on the Bibus forum suggests that it needs porting to Python 3
http://sourceforge.net/p/bibus-biblio/bugs/308/

A quick search found this on porting from Bibus to Mendeley
http://www.schwarzburgland.de/blog/?p=176

Another quick search could not find any method of porting from Bibus to Zotero.
A bibliographic system I examined some years ago, which seemed powerful, was Citavi (commercial). I never followed this up, as my need was outmoded by events.

Devs don't read the forum. You have to file a bug report for that: [Tutorial] Reporting bugs or suggestions.

There is discussion and at least one fix at
http://www.bio.brandeis.edu/~shaikh/linux/office.htm

Whether this fix will work with OO 4 and Ubuntu 12.04 (or later) I cannot say. The nature of opensource software is that the source is available - if you need it patched, then patch it!

I already know about opening the pipe on the OO side, and that doesn't do anything. I don't have the time to learn python and uno, dig into the code, and patch it myself. (I need to learn python as well as R in the next year, but have far too much on my plate to take the time out to do so now or for the next six to nine months.)

It looks like what is needed is some sort of linking that LOOKS like python-uno to Bibus. I've checked the Bibus site (long ago), even left a request for help, but no replies. It looks like the software had lost a maintainer - no replies in about a year. Which is bad, because it is awesome software and easy to get the hang of (I've used three different packages, and found Bibus to be the most versatile). I would suggest that Bibus be updated to match OpenOffice, but since the main person hasn't posted anything in a long time... I doubt my request for help will be heard. (The porting to Python 3 may also be an issue that is specific to Bibus and not Apache.)

I won't use an online program like Zotero for a number of valid reasons. I've tried what is available through Apache OpenOffice but it was too cumbersome and unpleasant to use... the last three papers I did the works cited "by hand" as it was faster and less of a headache. Going back to that POC "LibreOffice" from Ubuntu isn't an option either.

I'd suggest that Apache take on Bibus as an offering, but whoever worked on the features would have to be someone who does a lot of technical or academic writing. I've heard of "Ideas" that were really bad - for people who write a lot - be proposed in the past by people whose typing was mainly confined to coding. If you do a lot of citing, you need something like Bibus (and not a 'rather standard database frontend' like what we find with Write).

I'm not sure this is a bug or feature request, or how you'd label it. It's really a Bibus problem, but...

This thread is over a year old, I know, but I think it's important to note that I've converted to Mendeley and found it more than adequate. It DOES have its drawbacks, including wanting to store all of your references on their server and the default setting made them available to anyone (which in the case of some of the references I had, a potential issue because they were to confidential sources - and many of them weren't mine to share). However, that drawback (if set up properly) can also be a strength - it's really easy to sync the references database between computers - and it is possible to make all of your references private access only.

That's important because my reference database now has almost 7000 entries (my mentor shared his database with me) and I have three computers I regularly use - and I use them all to find articles and books I need. You can also organize the database with subjects/topics/subheadings. It works seamlessly with OO, and is as easy to use as Bibus was. I've also found it really easy to use to capture bibliographic information - often you can 'command' it to scan a PDF or web page and it will pull the required information out for you (and it works with some of the major databases and library search engines).

I'd have rather had everything strictly on my local machines, but at least there is something that works (and easier to use and friendlier - especially with huge reference lists, than what has been offered by OO).

I have been using Zotero with good results. I liked the look of Mendeley but I had already installed Zotero and since they offered quite similar functionality I decided to stick with Zotero.

Zoterodoes allow you to keep things on your local machine but also offers cloud storage and will automatically sync between all of your computers.

Either one look like a good choice.

WWFY. (Some people like Endnote - but you have to have a Windows machine for that and I think it only works right with Microsoft Office - I haven't tried it because I only use OO and don't do Windows.) I tried Zotero a few years ago - back when you had to use it with a browser. That totally turned me off. I know it's changed since then, but the "bad taste lingers in my mouth" - and the last I looked, the impression was that it didn't offer the organizational flexibility I've found with Mendeley (or Bibus for that matter).

I know this thread is old, but in case someone still comes looking, here is how I got it to work on Debian Jessie. This should likely also work on Ubuntu, although I am not going to test it. It also is a bit technical.

My version of Openoffice (4.1.2), which is current as of March 2016, the Debian packages of which still ship with Python 2 (version 2.7.6) and a corresponding pyuno version. So, in principle, Bibus should work with Openoffice. The reason why it does not is that the system Python is compiled with UCS4 unicode, whereas the Openoffice Python is compiled with UCS2. You can test this as follows:

Run system Python:
Openoffice Python:
Before going any further, please confirm that this mismatch actually exists on your platform. If you get the same number in both cases, Bibus should work. If it doesn't, skip ahead to point 2. below, and see if that helps you.

1. Now, if the mismatch exists, we must resolve it. One way should be to recompile Openoffice, letting it use the system Python executable with UCS4. I tried but did not manage this. Alternatively, we could try to make Bibus work with the OO-Python executable. The problem we have to solve here is wxPython, the system version of which is also compiled with UCS4. It proved easy enough, however, to recompile wxPython from source; there is a single "build-wxpython.py" script that takes care of everything. Make sure to run this script with the OO-Python, and it will work. Also make sure to install in some custom location that does not interfere with the system's PYTHON_PATH. One snag I ran into was that initially I passed the same installation directory for the and the options. If you use these, make sure they are different, or the build will fail.

If you begin the build, you may well receive a couple of failure messages due to missing libraries. If it tells you "library 'sausage' not found" or words to that effect, install package 'lib-sausage-dev' , 'lib-sausage0.10-dev' or something similar through your package manager, then try again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

After this, you must make sure

2. that bibus uses the OO-Python executable. I put that one into my shell's $PATH as "oopython". Then, in bibus.py, I changed the hash-bang line to
3. that OO-Python finds your freshly compiled wxPython install. To do this, I edited the "site.py" file in the Openoffice Python tree:
Note that the line above reflects the installation directory on my computer. Adjust to match the installation directory you chose on your machine.

After that, Bibus should start and use your customized wxPython build.

4. that Bibus finds your Openoffice build. It seems the Debian-packaged Openoffice, by default, creates a named pipe "ooopipe". When OOo is running, this pipe shows up in my /tmp directory as "OSL_PIPE_1000_ooopipe". Using the first start wizard, configure Bibus to use the named pipe "ooopipe". Set OOo's macro security to low.

After that, all should be well. If you can't get the pipe to work, there is still the option of using TCP, however I found that to be slow (which is why I took the time to figure out the pipe).

Good luck. BTW I suggested on the OOo dev list that the OOo Python executable be compiled with UCS4 in the future. If that should indeed happen, things might work again out of the box in the future. Let's keep our fingers crossed.