Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Interesting

Hi :)
This notion of "bad blood" between LO and OOo Communities seems completely the 
opposite of what i have seen so far.  Interesting articles but i don't entirely 
agree with everything of course.  I tried to post a comment for the IT World one

"
Hi :)
All good except I don't think there is "bad blood" between the OpenOffice 
Community and LibreOffice Community.  On the contrary they seem to work together 
well and happily.  The problem has been the owners of OpenOffice.  Oracle were 
unable to block collaboration between the 2 communities as they were unable to 
break the tight links of friendships and camaraderie that has built-up over 
10years and more.  In many ways it is still 1 community but now with 2 products 
and a large influx of new people doing great work.
Regards from Tom :) 
"

Regards from
Tom :)




________________________________
From: webmaster for Kracked Press Productions <webmaster@krackedpress.com>
To: marketing@libreoffice.org
Sent: Thu, 9 June, 2011 2:07:01
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Interesting

On 06/08/2011 05:05 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
> Brian Proffitt
>
> http://www.itworld.com/software/172393/plea-save-openofficeorg-apache
>
> mentioning http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=2567
>
> Steven Vaughan-Nichols
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/libreoffice-motors-right-along-with-a-new-release/9048
> 8 
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 marketing+help@libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+help@global.libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted