AOO -> LO or MS O

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

AOO -> LO or MS O

Tony Stevenson-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

Fernando Cassia
"After LibreOffice came out, Oracle released one version of Oracle Open
Office before deciding that the project wasn’t worth the effort
<http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/04/oracle-gives-up-on-ooo-after-community-forks-the-project/>.
It laid off the programmers and gave the code and trademarks to the Apache
Software Foundation, under Apache’s liberal open source license."

That's one version of events. Another version of events is this.
http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder

"Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun made a $100
million "gift" to the community when it opened up the OpenOffice code. But
a "radical faction" made the lives of the OpenOffice developers "hell" by
refusing to contribute code under the Sun agreement. That eventually led to
the split, but furthermore led Oracle to finally decide to stop OpenOffice
development and lay off 100 employees."

That's different from "deciding it was not worth the effort".

Why the FUD on a dev list, anyway?

FC

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Tony Stevenson <[hidden email]> wrote:



--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary
act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto
Revolucionario
- George Orwell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

Rory O'Farrell
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:33:02 -0300
Fernando Cassia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "After LibreOffice came out, Oracle released one version of Oracle Open
> Office before deciding that the project wasn’t worth the effort
> <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/04/oracle-gives-up-on-ooo-after-community-forks-the-project/>.
> It laid off the programmers and gave the code and trademarks to the Apache
> Software Foundation, under Apache’s liberal open source license."
>
> That's one version of events. Another version of events is this.
> http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder
>
> "Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
> OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun made a $100
> million "gift" to the community when it opened up the OpenOffice code. But
> a "radical faction" made the lives of the OpenOffice developers "hell" by
> refusing to contribute code under the Sun agreement. That eventually led to
> the split, but furthermore led Oracle to finally decide to stop OpenOffice
> development and lay off 100 employees."
>
> That's different from "deciding it was not worth the effort".
>
> Why the FUD on a dev list, anyway?

The posting was for information; if it contains inaccuracies, that is a different thing to posing direct FUD to the list.  A messenger is not responsible for the content of the message he bears. "Don't kill the messenger!"

Rory O'Farrell
 


> FC
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Tony Stevenson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > This is an interesting read:
> >
> >
> > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office?CMP=twt_a-technology_b-gdntech
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Tony
> >
>
>
>
> --
> During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary
> act
> Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto
> Revolucionario
> - George Orwell


--
Rory O'Farrell <[hidden email]>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

Rich Bowen
In reply to this post by Fernando Cassia


On 09/03/2015 08:33 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:

> "After LibreOffice came out, Oracle released one version of Oracle Open
> Office before deciding that the project wasn’t worth the effort
> <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/04/oracle-gives-up-on-ooo-after-community-forks-the-project/>.
> It laid off the programmers and gave the code and trademarks to the Apache
> Software Foundation, under Apache’s liberal open source license."
>
> That's one version of events. Another version of events is this.
> http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder
>
> "Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
> OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun made a $100
> million "gift" to the community when it opened up the OpenOffice code. But
> a "radical faction" made the lives of the OpenOffice developers "hell" by
> refusing to contribute code under the Sun agreement. That eventually led to
> the split, but furthermore led Oracle to finally decide to stop OpenOffice
> development and lay off 100 employees."
>
> That's different from "deciding it was not worth the effort".
>
> Why the FUD on a dev list, anyway?

It's not FUD. It's a link to an article.

What would be awesome is if someone would write a counterpoint, which is
non-confrontational, non-rageful, non-hateful, and non-reactionary, but
just calmly presenting the reasons why someone might want to stay on
OpenOffice.

Refuting the article on this list, where we all already know the story,
is a good start, but if you could turn it into an article that's less
political, more practical (features, community, timelines, and so on),
that would actually help our cause. The person asking the original
question doesn't care about politics, hurt feelings, and "radical
factions", I guarantee. They want to know which product is better for
them, now, and in the long term.

Thanks.

--
Rich Bowen - [hidden email] - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

Louis Suárez-Potts-3

> On 03 Sep 15, at 09:54, Rich Bowen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 09/03/2015 08:33 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>> "After LibreOffice came out, Oracle released one version of Oracle Open
>> Office before deciding that the project wasn’t worth the effort
>> <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/04/oracle-gives-up-on-ooo-after-community-forks-the-project/>.
>> It laid off the programmers and gave the code and trademarks to the Apache
>> Software Foundation, under Apache’s liberal open source license."
>>
>> That's one version of events. Another version of events is this.
>> http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder
>>
>> "Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
>> OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun made a $100
>> million "gift" to the community when it opened up the OpenOffice code. But
>> a "radical faction" made the lives of the OpenOffice developers "hell" by
>> refusing to contribute code under the Sun agreement. That eventually led to
>> the split, but furthermore led Oracle to finally decide to stop OpenOffice
>> development and lay off 100 employees."
>>
>> That's different from "deciding it was not worth the effort".
>>
>> Why the FUD on a dev list, anyway?
>
> It's not FUD. It's a link to an article.
>
> What would be awesome is if someone would write a counterpoint, which is non-confrontational, non-rageful, non-hateful, and non-reactionary, but just calmly presenting the reasons why someone might want to stay on OpenOffice.

Write to the Guardian? I would do it, would love to do it, and clear up issues. But I’m one of the *last* people who could do it, as I was so involved in the project, from its inception to … now.

Besides, Mark S is not entirely bending history. There was a contingent, led by a very talented developer formerly employed by Novell and still associated with LibreOffice, who *did* make the lives of the Sun/Hamburg devs—or at least their boss, who was also mine—at times unpleasant. And one of the bones of contention was Sun’s widely criticised copyright assignment policy, which it did modify over the years. But that policy did have real consequences, despite Sun’s choosing to deprecate them. Whether the IP policy is the primary cause of the ultimate split—that would be a simplification and evaluating it would take more words than would stun an ox, if printed. But the policy did little to warm the hearts and soothe the nerves of those who felt that for all the license asserted, OOo tested the limits of what constituted open source development. (In contrast, AOO really is open source de jure and de facto.)

The history of the radical faction, btw is scripted online and accessible via the Internet Archives, if one wishes to look for Go-ooo and the blog entries of the primary developer working on Go-ooo.
>
> Refuting the article on this list, where we all already know the story, is a good start, but if you could turn it into an article that's less political, more practical (features, community, timelines, and so on), that would actually help our cause. The person asking the original question doesn't care about politics, hurt feelings, and "radical factions", I guarantee. They want to know which product is better for them, now, and in the long term.

Your last point is the interesting one. These ancient corporate battles and community disputations have left a torn legacy that has done exactly what any competitor of OOo would want: Divide and Conquer. The user is left uncertain. If I were counselling any user, would I point to AOO for its… what? support of users? UI? Templates? updates? Please. We’ve sputtered on about an incremental release now for over a year and meanwhile, LO is at 5.0.1, which I just downloaded. Numbers are arbitrary tokens, they mean little, we all know. But they look great.

Louis

>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - [hidden email] - @rbowen
> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: AOO -> LO or MS O

Dennis E. Hamilton
In reply to this post by Rich Bowen
There are users who will find the political drama compelling.  There is nothing to be done about that.  It does not make the product better and it distracts those who want to find ways to serve the broad community no matter what code base is being worked on.

The asymmetrical situation around licenses is a factor, although what matters more to users is how that shows up in what they have in their hands to use.

I found the greatest value in the linked article to be about the fairly balanced view of the three productivity-suite options, assuming that the reader is on a platform where all are available.

It seems to me that the greatest concern to this community is the practical experience users are and will have and how this project can serve those concerns, especially with regard to assured usability of present documents and also the skills that have been developed in working with them.

 - Dennis

PS: On the interoperable-use challenge lurking in the article,

The historical business was too long and not so meaningful to user needs compared to the -- important for us -- slow but steady divergence of the two OpenOffice.org descendants not so much in features and release cadence but core functions around format conversion/interchange.  That divergence is eroding common support for the ODF format and OOXML interchange (i.e., functioning in a world where Microsoft Office documents cannot be ignored).  Incompatibilities at that level impede interoperable multi-product and cross-platform use where that is important.

One of the greatest appeals of the OpenOffice.org family is the presence of consistent cross-platform support not available anywhere else (yet) in conjunction with the ODF format.  This appeals to civil authorities and institutions not just for economy under actual user conditions (which may or may not be achievable as promised in a particular situation).  

The free ODF/OOXML-supporting products matter for durable preservation and interchange of documents, especially those employed in public services, without *requiring* use of commercial software as institutions move to delivery of services and coordination with the public by digital means.  Substitutability has been promoted to those organizations as a safeguard for adoption of these products.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Bowen [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 06:54
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: AOO -> LO or MS O



On 09/03/2015 08:33 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:

> "After LibreOffice came out, Oracle released one version of Oracle Open
> Office before deciding that the project wasn’t worth the effort
> <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/04/oracle-gives-up-on-ooo-after-community-forks-the-project/>.
> It laid off the programmers and gave the code and trademarks to the Apache
> Software Foundation, under Apache’s liberal open source license."
>
> That's one version of events. Another version of events is this.
> http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder
>
> "Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
> OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun made a $100
> million "gift" to the community when it opened up the OpenOffice code. But
> a "radical faction" made the lives of the OpenOffice developers "hell" by
> refusing to contribute code under the Sun agreement. That eventually led to
> the split, but furthermore led Oracle to finally decide to stop OpenOffice
> development and lay off 100 employees."
>
> That's different from "deciding it was not worth the effort".
>
> Why the FUD on a dev list, anyway?

It's not FUD. It's a link to an article.

What would be awesome is if someone would write a counterpoint, which is
non-confrontational, non-rageful, non-hateful, and non-reactionary, but
just calmly presenting the reasons why someone might want to stay on
OpenOffice.

Refuting the article on this list, where we all already know the story,
is a good start, but if you could turn it into an article that's less
political, more practical (features, community, timelines, and so on),
that would actually help our cause. The person asking the original
question doesn't care about politics, hurt feelings, and "radical
factions", I guarantee. They want to know which product is better for
them, now, and in the long term.

Thanks.

--
Rich Bowen - [hidden email] - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

Kay Schenk-2
In reply to this post by Tony Stevenson-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 09/03/2015 04:11 AM, Tony Stevenson wrote:
Interesting yet not quite accurate.

- --
- --------------------------------------------
MzK

“The journey of a thousand miles begins
 with a single step.”
                          --Lao Tzu


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV6HFBAAoJEJ8zlgVF1Gcu+FMH/2MixeKyhboLR0Y3RMzFCAoP
lN3giuU7s/uq7LwrP21G3YZVq8BQaIfnySCnZXAnJTle452M0idkFWLdtvnr1JOO
Dg344GeWqFk9bvtJZXfySyCfywfx8D3CKF5TLruEMxertUaO7+5YIqIJf/QK8NkY
2wAHydR6E3c60Yv1SKAsZhK/zuGHAilnfa/EcCspV+QedQr2uRF+gVK0FthWmlkl
SrQpVhgLm5hanlF8Kne8IaVDFV8zOe84Hq15S0rnM8nlQ/0Pa+JtxSOdxhfzAa5t
CIDHI937gLQm8VjU7rcZDq2cJzkgcehKVPgtcjRNRDgFA1wUiY6rg8jvhE9kpsY=
=5iKG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

Tony Stevenson-2


> Interesting yet not quite accurate.

I never made any claims to it's accuracy.  I was hoping someone would do
exactly what Rich suggested, but preferably without the prompting that
Rich afforded the group.

The reason for sending it to this list was to see the reaction it got,
and how that reaction was handled within the group.

I would still say that there needs to be a positive reply to this
article. Framed correctly and without any tension, animosity, or
negative connotations at all. To demonstrate how grown up we are.  Hell,
it could even acknowledge and accept that the project is struggling and
is trying a,b, and c to address those.  

Just a thought.

Many thanks,

--
Tony

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

Kay Schenk-2
In reply to this post by Louis Suárez-Potts-3


On 09/03/2015 07:22 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:

>
>> On 03 Sep 15, at 09:54, Rich Bowen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/03/2015 08:33 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>> "After LibreOffice came out, Oracle released one version of
>>> Oracle Open Office before deciding that the project wasn’t worth
>>> the effort
>>> <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/04/oracle-gives-up-on-ooo-after-community-forks-the-project/>.
>>>
>>>
It laid off the programmers and gave the code and trademarks to the Apache

>>> Software Foundation, under Apache’s liberal open source
>>> license."
>>>
>>> That's one version of events. Another version of events is this.
>>> http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder
>>>
>>> "Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
>>> OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun
>>> made a $100 million "gift" to the community when it opened up the
>>> OpenOffice code. But a "radical faction" made the lives of the
>>> OpenOffice developers "hell" by refusing to contribute code under
>>> the Sun agreement. That eventually led to the split, but
>>> furthermore led Oracle to finally decide to stop OpenOffice
>>> development and lay off 100 employees."
>>>
>>> That's different from "deciding it was not worth the effort".
>>>
>>> Why the FUD on a dev list, anyway?
>>
>> It's not FUD. It's a link to an article.
>>
>> What would be awesome is if someone would write a counterpoint,
>> which is non-confrontational, non-rageful, non-hateful, and
>> non-reactionary, but just calmly presenting the reasons why someone
>> might want to stay on OpenOffice.
>
> Write to the Guardian? I would do it, would love to do it, and clear
> up issues. But I’m one of the *last* people who could do it, as I was
> so involved in the project, from its inception to … now.

I would think this would make you one of the best people to do it!

>
> Besides, Mark S is not entirely bending history. There was a
> contingent, led by a very talented developer formerly employed by
> Novell and still associated with LibreOffice, who *did* make the
> lives of the Sun/Hamburg devs—or at least their boss, who was also
> mine—at times unpleasant. And one of the bones of contention was
> Sun’s widely criticised copyright assignment policy, which it did
> modify over the years. But that policy did have real consequences,
> despite Sun’s choosing to deprecate them. Whether the IP policy is
> the primary cause of the ultimate split—that would be a
> simplification and evaluating it would take more words than would
> stun an ox, if printed. But the policy did little to warm the hearts
> and soothe the nerves of those who felt that for all the license
> asserted, OOo tested the limits of what constituted open source
> development. (In contrast, AOO really is open source de jure and de
> facto.)
>
> The history of the radical faction, btw is scripted online and
> accessible via the Internet Archives, if one wishes to look for
> Go-ooo and the blog entries of the primary developer working on
> Go-ooo.
>>
>> Refuting the article on this list, where we all already know the
>> story, is a good start, but if you could turn it into an article
>> that's less political, more practical (features, community,
>> timelines, and so on), that would actually help our cause. The
>> person asking the original question doesn't care about politics,
>> hurt feelings, and "radical factions", I guarantee. They want to
>> know which product is better for them, now, and in the long term.
>
> Your last point is the interesting one. These ancient corporate
> battles and community disputations have left a torn legacy that has
> done exactly what any competitor of OOo would want: Divide and
> Conquer. The user is left uncertain. If I were counselling any user,
> would I point to AOO for its… what? support of users? UI? Templates?
> updates? Please. We’ve sputtered on about an incremental release now
> for over a year and meanwhile, LO is at 5.0.1, which I just
> downloaded. Numbers are arbitrary tokens, they mean little, we all
> know. But they look great.
>
> Louis
>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -- Rich Bowen - [hidden email] - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/
>> - @apachecon
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

--
--------------------------------------------
MzK

“The journey of a thousand miles begins
 with a single step.”
                          --Lao Tzu



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

Louis Suárez-Potts-3

> On 03 Sep 15, at 12:33, Kay Schenk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 09/03/2015 07:22 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>
>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 09:54, Rich Bowen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/03/2015 08:33 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>>> "After LibreOffice came out, Oracle released one version of
>>>> Oracle Open Office before deciding that the project wasn’t worth
>>>> the effort
>>>> <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/04/oracle-gives-up-on-ooo-after-community-forks-the-project/>.
>>>>
>>>>
> It laid off the programmers and gave the code and trademarks to the Apache
>>>> Software Foundation, under Apache’s liberal open source
>>>> license."
>>>>
>>>> That's one version of events. Another version of events is this.
>>>> http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder
>>>>
>>>> "Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
>>>> OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun
>>>> made a $100 million "gift" to the community when it opened up the
>>>> OpenOffice code. But a "radical faction" made the lives of the
>>>> OpenOffice developers "hell" by refusing to contribute code under
>>>> the Sun agreement. That eventually led to the split, but
>>>> furthermore led Oracle to finally decide to stop OpenOffice
>>>> development and lay off 100 employees."
>>>>
>>>> That's different from "deciding it was not worth the effort".
>>>>
>>>> Why the FUD on a dev list, anyway?
>>>
>>> It's not FUD. It's a link to an article.
>>>
>>> What would be awesome is if someone would write a counterpoint,
>>> which is non-confrontational, non-rageful, non-hateful, and
>>> non-reactionary, but just calmly presenting the reasons why someone
>>> might want to stay on OpenOffice.
>>
>> Write to the Guardian? I would do it, would love to do it, and clear
>> up issues. But I’m one of the *last* people who could do it, as I was
>> so involved in the project, from its inception to … now.
>
> I would think this would make you one of the best people to do it!
 :-)
But I like to believe I’m unbiased, and school myself in ways that hide from myself me. And I’ld like to think that letters to the editor, esp. to the Guardian, which I rather admire, ought to be impartial. (Note, impartial is not the same as unbiased.) I’m partial.

But I also have another problem. This one is a particularly deep one. It has to do with the value of AOO for *users* if not *developers*.

Bluntly: What is the value of AOO to users? What claim do we have over LO to *users*?

I’ve been trying out LO now for some time, comparing it to AOO, looking at its UI, seeing what templates, etc. they have that we don’t. Frankly, both our ecosystems are wanting. They once were better, they once certainly promised more, they now languish.

But if I’m a naive user, or even a company wanting support, what options do we offer? And say that I, as a company, want some special features. What extensions outreach do we have? What are we doing to make the community interesting?

My challenges are not coming from a bad mood. It really has to do with looking at it from a user’s perspective, from that of someone who just wants to write, say, or have a spreadsheet. Once, we had good answers, good promotions. I think we still could have these. But perhaps our efforts could be better spent devising ways to collaborate with LO and give users the best experience we can put together.

As to the realities of collaboration, including personalities and license? Yes. I know. I was wounded by the TdF and felt betrayed; nor do I relish the continued journalistic bias against us, nor the etceteras that one could add. But I think this rather something to put aside.

Or do others on this list have a compelling reason to favour AOO over LO *for the user*?

If so, what is it?

Louis

PS BTW my own tartly bent version of the world is framed by the question, Who benefits from LO, esp. in Linux? A query which could also be sentenced as, Besides Ubuntu (Canonical) what other Linux desktop and now enterprise distros are there that have anything like the same popularity? RH? Implicitly then, collaborating with LO/TDF, putting aside animus, favours those entities. Is that a problem?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

Roberto Galoppini-2
In reply to this post by Dennis E. Hamilton
2015-09-03 17:48 GMT+02:00 Dennis E. Hamilton <[hidden email]>:

> There are users who will find the political drama compelling.  There is
> nothing to be done about that.  It does not make the product better and it
> distracts those who want to find ways to serve the broad community no
> matter what code base is being worked on.
>
> The asymmetrical situation around licenses is a factor, although what
> matters more to users is how that shows up in what they have in their hands
> to use.
>
> I found the greatest value in the linked article to be about the fairly
> balanced view of the three productivity-suite options, assuming that the
> reader is on a platform where all are available.
>
> It seems to me that the greatest concern to this community is the
> practical experience users are and will have and how this project can serve
> those concerns, especially with regard to assured usability of present
> documents and also the skills that have been developed in working with them.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> PS: On the interoperable-use challenge lurking in the article,
>
> The historical business was too long and not so meaningful to user needs
> compared to the -- important for us -- slow but steady divergence of the
> two OpenOffice.org descendants not so much in features and release cadence
> but core functions around format conversion/interchange.  That divergence
> is eroding common support for the ODF format and OOXML interchange (i.e.,
> functioning in a world where Microsoft Office documents cannot be
> ignored).  Incompatibilities at that level impede interoperable
> multi-product and cross-platform use where that is important.
>

I believe this is an issue that is underestimated at the moment. Few Public
Administrations - or more likely smart sales people pointing them in that
direction - are already taking advantage of that to justify their decisions
to go back to MSFT.

The whole OOo ecosystem is at risk because of the present situation, and I
believe we should make an effort to figure out if someone from our
community could join the upcoming ODF Plugfest and talk to the people. If
we can't fix the overall asymmetry of ODF-Support we are at big risk.

Roberto



>
> One of the greatest appeals of the OpenOffice.org family is the presence
> of consistent cross-platform support not available anywhere else (yet) in
> conjunction with the ODF format.  This appeals to civil authorities and
> institutions not just for economy under actual user conditions (which may
> or may not be achievable as promised in a particular situation).
>
> The free ODF/OOXML-supporting products matter for durable preservation and
> interchange of documents, especially those employed in public services,
> without *requiring* use of commercial software as institutions move to
> delivery of services and coordination with the public by digital means.
> Substitutability has been promoted to those organizations as a safeguard
> for adoption of these products.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Bowen [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 06:54
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: AOO -> LO or MS O
>
>
>
> On 09/03/2015 08:33 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> > "After LibreOffice came out, Oracle released one version of Oracle Open
> > Office before deciding that the project wasn’t worth the effort
> > <
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/04/oracle-gives-up-on-ooo-after-community-forks-the-project/
> >.
> > It laid off the programmers and gave the code and trademarks to the
> Apache
> > Software Foundation, under Apache’s liberal open source license."
> >
> > That's one version of events. Another version of events is this.
> > http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder
> >
> > "Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
> > OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun made a $100
> > million "gift" to the community when it opened up the OpenOffice code.
> But
> > a "radical faction" made the lives of the OpenOffice developers "hell" by
> > refusing to contribute code under the Sun agreement. That eventually led
> to
> > the split, but furthermore led Oracle to finally decide to stop
> OpenOffice
> > development and lay off 100 employees."
> >
> > That's different from "deciding it was not worth the effort".
> >
> > Why the FUD on a dev list, anyway?
>
> It's not FUD. It's a link to an article.
>
> What would be awesome is if someone would write a counterpoint, which is
> non-confrontational, non-rageful, non-hateful, and non-reactionary, but
> just calmly presenting the reasons why someone might want to stay on
> OpenOffice.
>
> Refuting the article on this list, where we all already know the story,
> is a good start, but if you could turn it into an article that's less
> political, more practical (features, community, timelines, and so on),
> that would actually help our cause. The person asking the original
> question doesn't care about politics, hurt feelings, and "radical
> factions", I guarantee. They want to know which product is better for
> them, now, and in the long term.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - [hidden email] - @rbowen
> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

Rob Weir-4
In reply to this post by Rich Bowen
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Rich Bowen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On 09/03/2015 08:33 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>
>> "After LibreOffice came out, Oracle released one version of Oracle Open
>> Office before deciding that the project wasn’t worth the effort
>>
>> <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/04/oracle-gives-up-on-ooo-after-community-forks-the-project/>.
>> It laid off the programmers and gave the code and trademarks to the Apache
>> Software Foundation, under Apache’s liberal open source license."
>>
>> That's one version of events. Another version of events is this.
>> http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder
>>
>> "Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
>> OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun made a $100
>> million "gift" to the community when it opened up the OpenOffice code. But
>> a "radical faction" made the lives of the OpenOffice developers "hell" by
>> refusing to contribute code under the Sun agreement. That eventually led
>> to
>> the split, but furthermore led Oracle to finally decide to stop OpenOffice
>> development and lay off 100 employees."
>>
>> That's different from "deciding it was not worth the effort".
>>
>> Why the FUD on a dev list, anyway?
>
>
> It's not FUD. It's a link to an article.
>
> What would be awesome is if someone would write a counterpoint, which is
> non-confrontational, non-rageful, non-hateful, and non-reactionary, but just
> calmly presenting the reasons why someone might want to stay on OpenOffice.
>

We did a survey on this question back in 2013.   The question was:
"You have a choice of several open source office suites. Why do you
use OpenOffice rather than alternatives like LibreOffice or KOffice?"

The results were:

Features (47%)
Quality (22%)
Compatibility/Interoperability (22%)
Reputation/Familiarity (9%)


Regards,

-Rob


> Refuting the article on this list, where we all already know the story, is a
> good start, but if you could turn it into an article that's less political,
> more practical (features, community, timelines, and so on), that would
> actually help our cause. The person asking the original question doesn't
> care about politics, hurt feelings, and "radical factions", I guarantee.
> They want to know which product is better for them, now, and in the long
> term.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - [hidden email] - @rbowen
> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

Louis Suárez-Potts-3
In reply to this post by Roberto Galoppini-2

> On 03 Sep 15, at 15:05, Roberto Galoppini <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 2015-09-03 17:48 GMT+02:00 Dennis E. Hamilton <[hidden email]>:
>
>> There are users who will find the political drama compelling.  There is
>> nothing to be done about that.  It does not make the product better and it
>> distracts those who want to find ways to serve the broad community no
>> matter what code base is being worked on.
>>
>> The asymmetrical situation around licenses is a factor, although what
>> matters more to users is how that shows up in what they have in their hands
>> to use.
>>
>> I found the greatest value in the linked article to be about the fairly
>> balanced view of the three productivity-suite options, assuming that the
>> reader is on a platform where all are available.
>>
>> It seems to me that the greatest concern to this community is the
>> practical experience users are and will have and how this project can serve
>> those concerns, especially with regard to assured usability of present
>> documents and also the skills that have been developed in working with them.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> PS: On the interoperable-use challenge lurking in the article,
>>
>> The historical business was too long and not so meaningful to user needs
>> compared to the -- important for us -- slow but steady divergence of the
>> two OpenOffice.org descendants not so much in features and release cadence
>> but core functions around format conversion/interchange.  That divergence
>> is eroding common support for the ODF format and OOXML interchange (i.e.,
>> functioning in a world where Microsoft Office documents cannot be
>> ignored).  Incompatibilities at that level impede interoperable
>> multi-product and cross-platform use where that is important.
>>
>
> I believe this is an issue that is underestimated at the moment. Few Public
> Administrations - or more likely smart sales people pointing them in that
> direction - are already taking advantage of that to justify their decisions
> to go back to MSFT.
>
> The whole OOo ecosystem is at risk because of the present situation, and I
> believe we should make an effort to figure out if someone from our
> community could join the upcoming ODF Plugfest and talk to the people. If
> we can't fix the overall asymmetry of ODF-Support we are at big risk.
>

Roberto, I tend to agree with you, though I’m a little less concerned about the significance of ODF and more about the loss of a commitment to open formats capable of expressing current and future needs.

But to the point Are you volunteering to attend? And when is the plugest?

> Roberto
>
>
>
>>
>> One of the greatest appeals of the OpenOffice.org family is the presence
>> of consistent cross-platform support not available anywhere else (yet) in
>> conjunction with the ODF format.  This appeals to civil authorities and
>> institutions not just for economy under actual user conditions (which may
>> or may not be achievable as promised in a particular situation).
>>
>> The free ODF/OOXML-supporting products matter for durable preservation and
>> interchange of documents, especially those employed in public services,
>> without *requiring* use of commercial software as institutions move to
>> delivery of services and coordination with the public by digital means.
>> Substitutability has been promoted to those organizations as a safeguard
>> for adoption of these products.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rich Bowen [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 06:54
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: AOO -> LO or MS O
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/03/2015 08:33 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>> "After LibreOffice came out, Oracle released one version of Oracle Open
>>> Office before deciding that the project wasn’t worth the effort
>>> <
>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/04/oracle-gives-up-on-ooo-after-community-forks-the-project/
>>> .
>>> It laid off the programmers and gave the code and trademarks to the
>> Apache
>>> Software Foundation, under Apache’s liberal open source license."
>>>
>>> That's one version of events. Another version of events is this.
>>> http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder
>>>
>>> "Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
>>> OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun made a $100
>>> million "gift" to the community when it opened up the OpenOffice code.
>> But
>>> a "radical faction" made the lives of the OpenOffice developers "hell" by
>>> refusing to contribute code under the Sun agreement. That eventually led
>> to
>>> the split, but furthermore led Oracle to finally decide to stop
>> OpenOffice
>>> development and lay off 100 employees."
>>>
>>> That's different from "deciding it was not worth the effort".
>>>
>>> Why the FUD on a dev list, anyway?
>>
>> It's not FUD. It's a link to an article.
>>
>> What would be awesome is if someone would write a counterpoint, which is
>> non-confrontational, non-rageful, non-hateful, and non-reactionary, but
>> just calmly presenting the reasons why someone might want to stay on
>> OpenOffice.
>>
>> Refuting the article on this list, where we all already know the story,
>> is a good start, but if you could turn it into an article that's less
>> political, more practical (features, community, timelines, and so on),
>> that would actually help our cause. The person asking the original
>> question doesn't care about politics, hurt feelings, and "radical
>> factions", I guarantee. They want to know which product is better for
>> them, now, and in the long term.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> --
>> Rich Bowen - [hidden email] - @rbowen
>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

Louis Suárez-Potts-3
In reply to this post by Rob Weir-4

> On 03 Sep 15, at 15:13, Rob Weir <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Rich Bowen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/03/2015 08:33 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>>
>>> "After LibreOffice came out, Oracle released one version of Oracle Open
>>> Office before deciding that the project wasn’t worth the effort
>>>
>>> <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/04/oracle-gives-up-on-ooo-after-community-forks-the-project/>.
>>> It laid off the programmers and gave the code and trademarks to the Apache
>>> Software Foundation, under Apache’s liberal open source license."
>>>
>>> That's one version of events. Another version of events is this.
>>> http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder
>>>
>>> "Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
>>> OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun made a $100
>>> million "gift" to the community when it opened up the OpenOffice code. But
>>> a "radical faction" made the lives of the OpenOffice developers "hell" by
>>> refusing to contribute code under the Sun agreement. That eventually led
>>> to
>>> the split, but furthermore led Oracle to finally decide to stop OpenOffice
>>> development and lay off 100 employees."
>>>
>>> That's different from "deciding it was not worth the effort".
>>>
>>> Why the FUD on a dev list, anyway?
>>
>>
>> It's not FUD. It's a link to an article.
>>
>> What would be awesome is if someone would write a counterpoint, which is
>> non-confrontational, non-rageful, non-hateful, and non-reactionary, but just
>> calmly presenting the reasons why someone might want to stay on OpenOffice.
>>
>
> We did a survey on this question back in 2013.  

2013 was ages ago.


> The question was:
> "You have a choice of several open source office suites. Why do you
> use OpenOffice rather than alternatives like LibreOffice or Office?"

Does KOffice even exist? Is it not Calligra? These data points are also a little murky. Many do obtain AOO and LO by downloading it. Others, say those using Ubuntu or Red Hat installations, or from public sector installations are less able to choose as individuals. The relevant executive makes the decision. Do we know what they are looking for?

Even if we do not know, or cannot guess, the journalists of the tech world seem united to love LO and do the nasty with AOO.

louis

>
> The results were:
>
> Features (47%)
> Quality (22%)
> Compatibility/Interoperability (22%)
> Reputation/Familiarity (9%)
>
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> Refuting the article on this list, where we all already know the story, is a
>> good start, but if you could turn it into an article that's less political,
>> more practical (features, community, timelines, and so on), that would
>> actually help our cause. The person asking the original question doesn't
>> care about politics, hurt feelings, and "radical factions", I guarantee.
>> They want to know which product is better for them, now, and in the long
>> term.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> --
>> Rich Bowen - [hidden email] - @rbowen
>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

Rob Weir-4
On Thursday, September 3, 2015, Louis Suárez-Potts <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > On 03 Sep 15, at 15:13, Rob Weir <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Rich Bowen <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 09/03/2015 08:33 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "After LibreOffice came out, Oracle released one version of Oracle Open
> >>> Office before deciding that the project wasn’t worth the effort
> >>>
> >>> <
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/04/oracle-gives-up-on-ooo-after-community-forks-the-project/
> >.
> >>> It laid off the programmers and gave the code and trademarks to the
> Apache
> >>> Software Foundation, under Apache’s liberal open source license."
> >>>
> >>> That's one version of events. Another version of events is this.
> >>> http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder
> >>>
> >>> "Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
> >>> OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun made a
> $100
> >>> million "gift" to the community when it opened up the OpenOffice code.
> But
> >>> a "radical faction" made the lives of the OpenOffice developers "hell"
> by
> >>> refusing to contribute code under the Sun agreement. That eventually
> led
> >>> to
> >>> the split, but furthermore led Oracle to finally decide to stop
> OpenOffice
> >>> development and lay off 100 employees."
> >>>
> >>> That's different from "deciding it was not worth the effort".
> >>>
> >>> Why the FUD on a dev list, anyway?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not FUD. It's a link to an article.
> >>
> >> What would be awesome is if someone would write a counterpoint, which is
> >> non-confrontational, non-rageful, non-hateful, and non-reactionary, but
> just
> >> calmly presenting the reasons why someone might want to stay on
> OpenOffice.
> >>
> >
> > We did a survey on this question back in 2013.
>
> 2013 was ages ago.
>
>
>
I'm happy to repeat the survey.



> > The question was:
> > "You have a choice of several open source office suites. Why do you
> > use OpenOffice rather than alternatives like LibreOffice or Office?"
>
> Does KOffice even exist? Is it not Calligra? These data points are also a
> little murky. Many do obtain AOO and LO by downloading it. Others, say
> those using Ubuntu or Red Hat installations, or from public sector
> installations are less able to choose as individuals. The relevant
> executive makes the decision. Do we know what they are looking for?
>
>
Could deal with that via wording, e.g., offer a choice of "someone else
chose for me".  The point is we do not need to speculate.  This is
knowable.  We just need to ask.

As for public sector, the trend appears to be that when they move to open
source office suites, the press touts their move to "LibreOffice".  But
when the exact same agency decides to migrate from open source back to MS
Office the press reports that they've abandoned "OpenOffice".   Obviously
the 11th Commandment with open source press is "Thou shalt not speek good
of Apache OpenOffice".

Regards,

Rob



> Even if we do not know, or cannot guess, the journalists of the tech world
> seem united to love LO and do the nasty with AOO.
>
> louis
> >
> > The results were:
> >
> > Features (47%)
> > Quality (22%)
> > Compatibility/Interoperability (22%)
> > Reputation/Familiarity (9%)
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> >> Refuting the article on this list, where we all already know the story,
> is a
> >> good start, but if you could turn it into an article that's less
> political,
> >> more practical (features, community, timelines, and so on), that would
> >> actually help our cause. The person asking the original question doesn't
> >> care about politics, hurt feelings, and "radical factions", I guarantee.
> >> They want to know which product is better for them, now, and in the long
> >> term.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rich Bowen - [hidden email] <javascript:;> - @rbowen
> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> <javascript:;>
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> <javascript:;>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> <javascript:;>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> <javascript:;>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> <javascript:;>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: AOO -> LO or MS O

Dennis E. Hamilton
In reply to this post by Roberto Galoppini-2
A little more on the importance of OpenOffice in the context of use in civil administration.

An example of advocacy-organization promotion of ODF-based documents and the primary implementations are presented can be found in the report linked at
<http://www.openforumeurope.org/library/odf-toolkit-2/>.

Download the PDF by using the link "Download the Open Document Format principles for Government Technology".

The more interesting material is on the 4th page of the document (3rd double-page of the PDF) under "Application choices" and then "Variations between applications."  Note the positioning and importance of Apache OpenOffice in that presentation as one of the three "full" ODF 1.2 implementations.

Note the inclusion of Apache OpenOffice among the supporters on the last page.

I am not going to remark on the technical exaggerations an deficiencies in this piece.  The point is how Apache OpenOffice is positioned with other software and that this is a promotion of governmental use of software supporting ODF 1.2.

 - Dennis



-----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Galoppini [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 12:06
To: dev <[hidden email]>; Dennis Hamilton <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

2015-09-03 17:48 GMT+02:00 Dennis E. Hamilton <[hidden email]>:

> PS: On the interoperable-use challenge lurking in the article,
>
> The historical business was too long and not so meaningful to user needs
> compared to the -- important for us -- slow but steady divergence of the
> two OpenOffice.org descendants not so much in features and release cadence
> but core functions around format conversion/interchange.  That divergence
> is eroding common support for the ODF format and OOXML interchange (i.e.,
> functioning in a world where Microsoft Office documents cannot be
> ignored).  Incompatibilities at that level impede interoperable
> multi-product and cross-platform use where that is important.
>

I believe this is an issue that is underestimated at the moment. Few Public
Administrations - or more likely smart sales people pointing them in that
direction - are already taking advantage of that to justify their decisions
to go back to MSFT.

The whole OOo ecosystem is at risk because of the present situation, and I
believe we should make an effort to figure out if someone from our
community could join the upcoming ODF Plugfest and talk to the people. If
we can't fix the overall asymmetry of ODF-Support we are at big risk.

[ ... ]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]