Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi :)
I have always thought LO seriously underestimates it's number of users.  I grumbled about it years 
ago.  On the other hand (as people pointed out to me at the time) at least TDF only counts numbers 
that we can be reasonably confident of.  

Tim downloads the latest release and builds up a Dvd with a couple of other OpenSource programs 
that people might want in an office, some dictionaries, some fonts and bits&bobs and then gives 
away the Dvds at local events and to people and organisations locally.  He then supplies User 
Support occasionally asking the lists here if they ask something weird.  As they get more 
knowledgeable about LO they can help each other.  The entire infrastructure he has been building up 
counts as 1 user.  Rob Weir would spin that into being a dubious figure and say it's just 1 user 
being wrongly re-counted for each release.  

My boss uses LO nowadays when i send him a document but when he starts to write  document he uses 
MSO, similarly for the manager and my colleagues.  When they have a bunch of images such as logos 
that don't line-up or space out well enough or any of the many and varied problems that MSO creates 
they get me to fix it (if there is time) with LO.  Obviously they don't get counted as users either 
despite the fact that they do rely on LO.  

Regards from
Tom :)  

From: Italo Vignoli <>
Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012, 8:43
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: Dubious claims

Il 08/11/2012 07:08, Alex Thurgood ha scritto:

In other words, at least for download/user stats, the answer is "no",
and for the other points Rob mentions, obtaining raw data of any
significance is for the git expert.

Downloads are extracted from the mirrors, and there is a script for that. GIT is for development 
related figures.

Thanks, I'll check it out, but basically what you are saying, if I
understand correctly, is that the data in question is provided in a
format which is not necessarily comparable to that which Rob has used
for AOO, and thus a certain amount of internal interpretations,
assumptions, etc are made by the LO project to arrive at its view of the
data. Are these methods/assumptions, as used by the LO project,
publicly documented on the LO wiki ?

Our data are in a simple format (sum of units), while Mr Rob Weir is using complicated 
interpretations to hide the truth, which is that the developers and the community are with LO and 
not with Apache OO.

There is no interpretation and assumptions in our data: the number of developers is a sum of 
individual developers, the number of commits is a sum of single commits, and so on.

The number of community members has never been calculated using wiki subscribers (in this case we 
estimate around 1,000 contributors), and Mr Rob Weir has just got that number because it could be 

The number of community members is estimated using global + local mailing lists (many people are 
subscribed only to mailing lists in their native language) + wiki contributors + developer 
numbers, etcetera.

So, being the method that we use a simple sum of data (and this should be easy to understand by 
looking at the charts published on a monthly basis), I do not think that we have to document such 
a methodology.

The number of users is estimated (and the term "estimated" has always been associated to it). Of 
course, any estimate might be right or might be wrong, according to the point of view.

Apache OO has a higher number of downloads, of course, but I wonder - for instance - if users who 
were previously used to get the software in their native language are as happy as in the past when 
have discovered - after having downloaded the software - that the software is not available in 
their language).

By using this metrics, for instance, it would be possible to reduce Apache OO download numbers at 
least by one third (but maybe even more), because you could easily cut downloads in countries 
where the software is not available in the native language (version 3.4 was not even available in 
British English).

Bus, as we are not Mr Rob Weir - and having him as an opponent is a blessing (please ask 
Microsoft) - we are not going to embark in such a useless calculation.

Apache OO is available in 20 languages, and they are currently adding Danish and Norwegian (but 
many major languages are missing).

LibreOffice is available in over 100 languages (over 95% of the world population), and the 
community is now working at Filipino/Tagalog or other minor languages.

Number of languages available is a simple measure of community numbers (although estimated, 
because many people involved in localization do not show up in maling lists) but of course Mr Rob 
Weir is not looking for simple measures because they can be understood by everyone, and by using 
obscure measurements he does try to obfuscate the reality.

Best regards, Italo

-- Italo Vignoli -
mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP
skype italovignoli - gtalk

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

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.