Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 06/08/2011 05:05 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
Brian Proffitt


Steven Vaughan-Nichols

I wonder what really is going with the first 2 links listed.
Something does not make sense to me. Is he for and against "the vote" being yes or no. I have not sure who is voting and on what. Is it that OOo is going to Apache or is it the license issue[s]? Some of the blog's list seems to swing both ways. I just do not know what is actually being said.

For me, I did not know about the Java vs. Python issues between OOo and LO. Since I have been out of the programming field for many years, I do not know why Python might be the better way of dealing with the code base for LO instead of using Java. So beyond the people who can tell me why it was done, it would make sense for the future of sharing code between the two projects to use the same coding resources. The thing to me is that LO coders have done a lot of things to fix the code that Oracle [and maybe Sun] could not do with their paid people. You cannot pay people to rewrite the old code and still see it as progress in the project's development. If you are not being paid, you will look at the old code and say "this is where some problems are and it need to be fixed, so it is now going to be fixed". So LO coders have recoded parts of what came from OOo and made it better. They are still doing this, along with adding to the suite. That is what I found so interesting with some of the early articles about the difference between OOo 3.3.0 and LO 3.3.0. TDF/LO fixed a lot of things that Oracle/OOo did not bother to do and still TDF/LO put out a better version and sooner than Oracle/OOo did. TDF/LO is still working to put out a better product as well as fixing all that code that was not "worth" fixing and was what other parts of the suite was built upon. The old saying of building a house on a foundation of sand is a good one. TDF/LO are working on replacing the "foundation of sand" with something that is more solid. That is what I understand is the real benefit of TDF/LO over Oracle/OOo and that is what I wonder about for the Apache/OOo work to come. Will Apache want to spend the time, money, and manpower to fix the foundation[s] of OOo code the way TDF/LO has done and will continue to do. How long will "house" fall down and crash if the foundation is not made more solid?

Then there is fact that if TDF/LO continues to take the market share away from OOo, how long will Apache want to continue with it. Oracle sure dumped OOo quickly when articles announced that LO was better than OOo and most Linux distros went with LO as their default over OOo, which was "the" default for how many years?

My opinion is that if Apache does not put the manpower [i.e. a lot of money] into their OOo project, it will die a bad death. But, what company can spend its manpower, even if it is free, on one more project that takes it away from their core project/product. TDF only project/product is LO and all its resources, manpower and money, is dedicated to making this project the best office suite it can be. Apache has other projects that are more important to it than OOo. That can be a bad thing.

So, for me, I went from OOo to LO and am doing all I can to get people to switch to it.

I think it is a better product.

I think it is the right thing to do by fixing the old code that other code may use or need, and get rid of the code that no longer is used but still in the lines of code that is used in the "compiling process".

It could have been great if LO got OOo's branding so LO could continue on with making LO better and better and bring OOo along with all that better coding being shared back and forth freely and easily.

In the end, if LO and OOo end up unable to share all of its fixes and advances, one of the suites will end up far behind. I do not think it will be LO.

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.