Updating Libre Office to Ver 24.8

[Roomuz]

I have Libre Office Ver 4.3.6.2 on my old Mac, and I see Libre has an updated version 24.8 to download. I've downloaded it and tried to open the .dmg, but I get an error message that it is a "corrupted image". Tried downloading it with a different browser, but got the same result. Tried downloading it from a mirror site, but got the same result.

I know this is a Mac site, but my enquiries to the Libre forum haven't been successful so far.

Is this kind of error message on a Mac typical? Does it indicate a flaw in the download, or a flaw in the computer?

Thanks.

 

[Nermal]

I've just downloaded it myself and it mounts successfully. I suggest checking the SHA-256 hash, which should be 0bb0c8a5befe0470b7a7c4f3c04af353561e261145c82052a8aa601ffb1993d7 according to this page.

Open Terminal and type openssl sha256 (with a space on the end), then drag the image into the Terminal window and press Enter. It should return the hash given above. If not, then the download didn't complete successfully. On the other hand, if it's correct, then the issue is with your Mac.

 

[Roomuz]

I've just downloaded it myself and it mounts successfully. I suggest checking the SHA-256 hash, which should be 0bb0c8a5befe0470b7a7c4f3c04af353561e261145c82052a8aa601ffb1993d7 according to this page.

Open Terminal and type openssl sha256 (with a space on the end), then drag the image into the Terminal window and press Enter. It should return the hash given above. If not, then the download didn't complete successfully. On the other hand, if it's correct, then the issue is with your Mac.

Thanks for that. The one reply that I've received so far from the Libre site suggested pretty much the same thing. But the instructions to check the "hash" criteria was a bit complex for me. Your way sounds much more straightforward, so I'll try it.

And if it turns out that the hash is correct, what exactly would that indicate about my Mac?

 

[Nermal]

I'm hoping the hash is incorrect because I have no idea how to debug it if it's correct!

 

[MilaM]

I can think of two things that could cause this problem.

1. The file has been damaged, resulting in a problem with checksums. This could happen at the source, during transport (not so likely) or on your drive. In this case the calculated hash would be different from the one published by the authors of LibreOffice.

2. DMGs for software distribution nowadays have a digital signature attached to them. Maybe your old version of macOS has problems decoding and interpreting this signature.

Can you post which version of macOS you are using?

 

[Roomuz]

I'm hoping the hash is incorrect because I have no idea how to debug it if it's correct!

😄 Well, it might not become a problem because when I typed that into Terminal, it said sha256 was an "invalid command."

 

[Roomuz]

I can think of two things that could cause this problem.

1. The file has been damaged, resulting in a problem with checksums. This could happen at the source, during transport (not so likely) or on your drive. In this case the calculated hash would be different from the one published by the authors of LibreOffice.

2. DMGs for software distribution nowadays have a digital signature attached to them. Maybe your old version of macOS has problems decoding and interpreting this signature.

Can you post which version of macOS you are using?

It's an iMac running Version 10.6.8. Dates given in "About this Mac" are 1983-2011.

Very likely it's too old, eh.

 

[MilaM]

It's an iMac running Version 10.6.8. Dates given in "About this Mac" are 1983-2011.

Very likely it's too old, eh.

That's Snow Leopard released in 2008 🙈.

I don't think your Mac will be able to run the latest LibreOffice, even if you managed to open the DMG. You might be able to find an old release that is still compatible. Not sure if LibreOffice has an archive of old releases.

 

[Roomuz]

Yes, that's what I was thinking. Never mind, the present version that I have is more than enough for my uses. I think I got sucked into the "Get the new latest thing!!" trap. 😏

Thanks everybody, for your help. Cheers. 🙂

 

[zapmymac]

Hi, 3rd post down links to older releases of Libra office. I believe post even speaks to Snow Leopard. Long live Snow Leopard!

Cheers

Will LibreOffice work with an Apple MacBook with a Mac OS X 2.6 Snow Leopard operating system?

Will LibreOffice work with an Apple MacBook with a Mac OS X 2.6 Snow Leopard operating system? Thanks

ask.libreoffice.org

 

[Siliconguy]

The page you and any other old Mac users need is here;

Documentation/System Requirements - The Document Foundation Wiki

wiki.documentfoundation.org

The system requirements for the current version of Libreoffice are here;

System Requirements | LibreOffice - Free and private office suite - Based on OpenOffice - Compatible with Microsoft

www.libreoffice.org

Catalina or newer.

I have a couple of Mohave boxes that are staying at 7.5.9. For them remember to turn on Skia in the preferences or the Metal driver does odd things.

 

[bzgnyc2]

The page you and any other old Mac users need is here;

Documentation/System Requirements - The Document Foundation Wiki

wiki.documentfoundation.org

The system requirements for the current version of Libreoffice are here;

System Requirements | LibreOffice - Free and private office suite - Based on OpenOffice - Compatible with Microsoft

www.libreoffice.org

Catalina or newer.

I have a couple of Mohave boxes that are staying at 7.5.9. For them remember to turn on Skia in the preferences or the Metal driver does odd things.

Does anyone know why many software developers have settled on Catalina as the oldest supported macOS for now? Firefox, Tableau, and a few others have done the same. I am surprised as there's nothing I've seen Catalina do that Mojave can't. I've seen some (small) API benefits to Big Sur/Monterey and I get those. And I get, though dislike, the last Apple supported version (which now means Ventura or bust). I just don't get supporting back to Catalina but not Mojave.

 

[Bustycat]

Does anyone know why many software developers have settled on Catalina as the oldest supported macOS for now? Firefox, Tableau, and a few others have done the same. I am surprised as there's nothing I've seen Catalina do that Mojave can't. I've seen some (small) API benefits to Big Sur/Monterey and I get those. And I get, though dislike, the last Apple supported version (which now means Ventura or bust). I just don't get supporting back to Catalina but not Mojave.

Catalina dropped the support of 32-bit apps.

 

[bradman83]

Does anyone know why many software developers have settled on Catalina as the oldest supported macOS for now? Firefox, Tableau, and a few others have done the same. I am surprised as there's nothing I've seen Catalina do that Mojave can't. I've seen some (small) API benefits to Big Sur/Monterey and I get those. And I get, though dislike, the last Apple supported version (which now means Ventura or bust). I just don't get supporting back to Catalina but not Mojave.

There were a lot of under the hood changes that took place between Mojave and Catalina outside of dropping 32-bit app support, especially surrounding the transition between KEXTs to system extensions. (Catalina was the first version to support system extensions and the last to support KEXTs).

Mojave is also 6 years old. That's a lot of variation in APIs and other techs that change over time, and it creates a burden on developers to ensure compatibility.

 

[MBAir2010]

if this helps, I purchased a copy of iWork 09 since Libre Office was acting up lately
on my Mountain Lion infested early intel Macs.
an example was the writing app would stutter and the numbers could not format "time" all of the sudden last week

 

[bzgnyc2]

There were a lot of under the hood changes that took place between Mojave and Catalina outside of dropping 32-bit app support, especially surrounding the transition between KEXTs to system extensions. (Catalina was the first version to support system extensions and the last to support KEXTs).

Mojave is also 6 years old. That's a lot of variation in APIs and other techs that change over time, and it creates a burden on developers to ensure compatibility.

Thanks bradman83. I get that each version brings forth variations in APIs that, even if small, accumulate and therefore developers need to draw a line in the sand somewhere. I noticed the other day that even the C89-vintage mbtowc(3) works different with non-UTF-8 locales (which are of course not supported anyway) starting somewhere between Catalina and Monterey. I am just surprised that the line in the sand for developers settled on Catalina over Mojave.

For the typical applications like I mentioned -- Firefox, Tableau, etc -- KEXT and system extensions are non-issues. GUI looks the same. I've also yet to see differences in API for 64-bit applications, which should be all applications these days since I believe the last version of Xcode for Mojave didn't support 32-bit targets anyway.

 

[bzgnyc2]

Catalina dropped the support of 32-bit apps.

Yes since Mojave was full 64-bit (and MacOS has 64-bit primary for many versions prior) in addition to 32-bit, how would dropping support for 32-bit make Catalina more attractive as the baseline/minimum?

 

[bradman83]

For the typical applications like I mentioned -- Firefox, Tableau, etc -- KEXT and system extensions are non-issues. GUI looks the same. I've also yet to see differences in API for 64-bit applications, which should be all applications these days since I believe the last version of Xcode for Mojave didn't support 32-bit targets anyway.

This was Mozilla's official statement regarding Firefox:

Why has Firefox ended support for macOS 10.12, 10.13 and 10.14 users?​

While Apple doesn’t have an official policy governing security updates for older macOS releases, their ongoing practice has been to support the most recent three releases. The last security update for macOS 10.14 was in July 2021. Unsupported operating systems receive no security updates and have known exploits. With no official support from Apple, maintaining Firefox for obsolete operating systems becomes costly for Mozilla and dangerous for users.

Firefox users on macOS 10.12, 10.13 and 10.14 moving to Extended Support Release | Firefox Help

Firefox version 115 ESR will be the last supported release for macOS 10.12, 10.13 and 10.14

support.mozilla.org

 

[bzgnyc2]

This was Mozilla's official statement regarding Firefox:

Why has Firefox ended support for macOS 10.12, 10.13 and 10.14 users?​

While Apple doesn’t have an official policy governing security updates for older macOS releases, their ongoing practice has been to support the most recent three releases. The last security update for macOS 10.14 was in July 2021. Unsupported operating systems receive no security updates and have known exploits. With no official support from Apple, maintaining Firefox for obsolete operating systems becomes costly for Mozilla and dangerous for users.

Firefox users on macOS 10.12, 10.13 and 10.14 moving to Extended Support Release | Firefox Help

Firefox version 115 ESR will be the last supported release for macOS 10.12, 10.13 and 10.14

support.mozilla.org

Right but actually Apple hasn't been releasing security updates for Catalina for years now either. By the security update policy they would drop support for Catalina as well as Big Sur and now Monterey.

Dropping Monterey support would upset a lot of people (though I am guessing MS will do so soon) so not doing so implies a pragmatic rather than rigid policy approach. But keeping support for Catalina suggests this isn't about missing OS functionality that was too much to workaround.

But then it is interesting that most developers have settled on Catalina as the last supported version of macOS.

 

[andreamb]

Yes, that's what I was thinking. Never mind, the present version that I have is more than enough for my uses. I think I got sucked into the "Get the new latest thing!!" trap. 😏

Thanks everybody, for your help. Cheers. 🙂

You may consider updating your old Mac with a recent OS using OCLP. I did it on my MacBook and iMac 2009, and everything runs great. OCLP is a "middleware" boot manager that stays between our old hardware and OS to make the new version run. Query Google for some instructions, and you can also install the latest version of Libre Office. There are some downsides on using OCLP, but in my opinion, they are less than running an old OS. I hope that may help.

 

[Roomuz]

You may consider updating your old Mac with a recent OS using OCLP. I did it on my MacBook and iMac 2009, and everything runs great. OCLP is a "middleware" boot manager that stays between our old hardware and OS to make the new version run. Query Google for some instructions, and you can also install the latest version of Libre Office. There are some downsides on using OCLP, but in my opinion, they are less than running an old OS. I hope that may help.

I'm usually the kind of guy who operates on the principle, "Leave well enough alone". I got drawn to this new version of Libre only because I thought it might make an already excellent program even better. But evidently I can't have it without a lot of fiddling about with my system, and a lot of time spent, which I could be spending on using the Libre that I already have.

I'll give it a miss. But thank you for the suggestion, andreamb. Cheers.

 

[Roomuz]

Hi, 3rd post down links to older releases of Libra office. I believe post even speaks to Snow Leopard. Long live Snow Leopard!

Cheers

Will LibreOffice work with an Apple MacBook with a Mac OS X 2.6 Snow Leopard operating system?

Will LibreOffice work with an Apple MacBook with a Mac OS X 2.6 Snow Leopard operating system? Thanks

ask.libreoffice.org

Thanks for that, but I'm going to stay with what I already have. It works perfectly well on my machine. According to that post you linked, I'm already using the version of Libre that best suits my Snow Leopard. Bit of serendipity there.

 

[zapmymac]

Thanks for that, but I'm going to stay with what I already have. It works perfectly well on my machine. According to that post you linked, I'm already using the version of Libre that best suits my Snow Leopard. Bit of serendipity there.

Well I’m glad you found an answer nevertheless. Cheers