Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi :)
Many projects have 2 branches so that;  

1 is stable (because it has been around for longer and received more "service packs", bug-fixes, 
patches and all the rest).  Generally it continues to recieve more updates and people do continue 
to work on it because whatever issue they were working on is easier to finish without starting 
again from scratch or radically re-thinking it.  Hopefully after their work has been completed they 
and others are able to convert it to work on another branch.  It's difficult to drag people away 
just as it's difficult to drag a gamer away from "just completing ths 1 more level.  I'm nearly 
there, honest"

The other takes whatever is already done or near enough finished and then adds tons of new features 
without having to worry tooooo much about how usable the new branch is going to be.  It's where new 
devs are initially attracted to, where the greatest excitement and activity is generated.  

Then once that new branch has been around a while, and the people working on the newer features 
have fixed any problems they hadn't anticipated or solved completely unrelated breakages, then that 
starts to become "the stable branch".  That usually seems to happen around x.x.3.  The x.x.4 is 
usually fairly rock-solid.  Big cheers all round.  

So there are 2 very different types of devs at any 1 time and if we don't supply the type of 
activity they get a real buzz from then many  may well  just wander off to some other project that 
does.  It's not really the case that taking people off one thing means they will focus on what you 
want them to do.  It's better to just have them all and make the most of what they do 'enjoy'.  

Regards from 
Tom :)  

From: Amit Choudhary <>
To: Andrew Brown <> 
Cc: Tom Davies <>;; 
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 9:33
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3

On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Andrew Brown <> wrote:


Your knowledge of the document standards is limited by your reply here.
This issue of the document standards and naming convention was covered by a
world body of multinationals and the preservation of all things in human
digital text etc. This was to allow anyone, alien or earthly, thousands of
years from now, to decode and read and modify the history in the digital
world of mankind. So the open document standards were born and ratified and
accpeted by the majority of the world that counts. MS did not agree and
tried to introduce their own so-called opens standard with the .xml base,
i.e.x docx, xlsx, and so forth.

But it has not been accepted by the world bodies, even though the MS
document standard does survive. As you will now notice MSO 2007
(partially), MSO 2010 and 2013 all can reads and write in the ODS standard
used by OOo, AOO and LO. MS had no choice but to fit in and follow suit, so
it's not the other way around that we and all other s outside of the use of
MSO, must fit in. The ODS standard is here to stayt and will dominate over
time, no matter what the masses say and want. It's about education that we
all have choices and many efficient and useful alternatives in the digital

I might be out-of-date of what had been decided. But what I see is this: MS
Office everywhere I worked which translates to possibly billions of
doallars in MS pcokets.

My agenda with whatever I have wrote till now is: Why should MS get
billions of dollars?

The open formats should be supported, I am not against that, I am against
the timing.

MS Office will win because 90% of computers have Windosws on them. Until
Linux desktops/laptops become popular people will not switch to open
document format.

My strategy would be similar to MS: Make users switch to LO and then give
them open dcoument format and remove MS formats. Since 90% of the
installations will have LO, no one is going to complain and they will
happily settle for open document format and MS can't do anything.

It is the strategy and timing I am talking about. Doing both together (MS
compatibility + Open document) is a strain on developers and QA.

Given that LO has very few developers and QA, then why should LO focus on
two product lines. It is not correct strategy.


PS: I am not pushing my ideas but I do not want to pay MS. Also, I will be
using LO but if the person who is receiving my document has MS Office, then

MS is a clever, arm-twisting company. You never know what they can come up
with. Bill Gates knew about monopoly and that's why all MS components are
intertwined with each other so that if you remove one component then other
component will not work properly. Bill Gates did this even before question
arose about breaking up MS, and after this happened in Europe, MS avoided
it easily by stating that if they remove IE then Windows will not work
properly and got away with not breaking up.

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

To unsubscribe 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.