Hi Eric, >> You can't be serious. NeoOffice *IS* OpenOffice.org. > > NO, NeoOffice IS NOT OpenOffice.org; > > - license modified, not compatible with LGPL (and this is intended) > > - other name AFAIK different letters have been used > > - they fix bugs without return code > > - they ask for money and never reverse anything > > Last but not least these people "claim" they are another product. > > So, please, stop to confuse people, or yourself. NeoOffice is not > OpenOffice.org, and has nothing to do with OpenOffice.org project, simply.
here we go again...did you get the notion that you quoted Chad's remark out of the context he had made it in? Did you get that that context was that technologically NeoOffice is pretty much OpenOffice.org because it is 98% (or whatever) OpenOffice.org code? Did any of your comments relate to that particular fact that Chad's remark was about or are you just once again stressing the ridiculous conflict we all are - thanks to your great efforts and the recent discussions - pretty much aware about already? So, if you want to oppose Chad's notion that the functionality in NeoOffice would be pretty much the same as OpenOffice.org because the codebase is pretty much the same, please do so. But please, next time your red alert lamp starts flickering at the notion of NeoOffice and OpenOffice.org in one sentence, please read the whole paragraph. God damned! We got it, ok? Yes, NeoOffice is a *different project* and not OpenOffice.org. Technically, though, it *is* 98% OpenOffice.org. Technically, though, it *is* a port. A lot of the program is the same. Would you otherwise be so bothered about that they let you do all the bugfixing work? Eric, please! Get sinsible, again! I really see your point in making clear that it is a different project. I really understand that you have resentments for them because of the conflicts you pointed out. I really understand that you do a lot of work there and I really, really, really admire that. I really think that a lot about NeoOffice sucks (like the way they propagate themselves in contrast to OOo and that ridiculous "Early Access Program" - I wonder if that's according to the GPL - shouldn't you make the source available as soon as you make the program available? And shouldn't you do that for free? But then I don't know the GPL in that aspects all too well). Anyway, besides all that, I really, really, really want to ask you to take some time and think about your ways of communication on that topic. Because i personally think it really sucks as well. Even though i might repeat myself: I don't like the ways of NeoOffice, either, but you are terribly starting to go on my nerves. And no, that doesn't mean i disrespect your work or you as a person or anything, but it means that i disrespect the way you take every single smallest occasion to throw your "NeoOffice IS NOT OpenOffice.org" onto the masses. And to put my own confusion into the whole topic: OpenOffice.org is about openness, right? Does that openness include openness to co-existing projects or not? Do we tolerate different approaches or do we want to be "the only one"? Furthermore, does the LGPL give everyone the right to just fork off and not contribute back? Could that maybe one of the aspects of openness that we have to wrap our minds around as well, when we praise it? (There was an interesting discussion recently on the firefox-dev list about exactly the same topic.) And i really don't think one has to necessarily agree to that joining efforts into one project is better than working side by side in different projects. It can inspire each side as well. That there is a one-sidedness about the code exchange is rather bad, of course. >> They took the source > > A lot of workarounds to make believe the user it works. It seems that for a lot of users it actually *does* work. >> code and made it run in Java instead of X11. > > We, not me alone, but a Team (Mac port), are working to a REAL** NATIVE > product : using Carbon API, and we refuse to use Java. Is that the third time you state that in the same thread? We got that, thanks. Yes, really, we got that you guys are working on a technologically superior (and in that sense "correct" - if you want to) mac port of OpenOffice.org. A port, as well, that contributes back, doesn't ask for money and *is* officially and in all aspects OpenOffice.org. Doesn't change the fact that *currently* a mac user who find OpenOffice.org for Mac and NeoOffice, might choose NeoOffice, because the user experience is better, no matter how crappy it is implemented. And this is exactly what Chad's site said from the very beginning. It is not disrespectful of your work, because it doesn't say anything about your work. If for you disrespectfulness equals not praising your work wherever NeoOffice is mentioned, ... i don't think i need to continue this sentence. > BTW, Java is Sun and is like X11 : not native on Mac OS X. Well, i really don't have a big clue about Mac OS X, but as i understood it, Java comes preinstalled with the system. Hence the user doesn't need to install it separately like X11. Furthermore, Chad's explanations about that the X server being represented as a separate program is bad user experience also makes sense to me. And BTW: in one of your other mails you blame Chad for considering people stupid and then say "what if Sun drops Java support for Mac". How likely is that? > One more time for the deafs : NeoOffice IS NOT OpenOffice.org One more time ... blablabla: We got it! Just because you are doing a lot of good work, you shouldn't feel entitled to behave in a way that draws people willing to support OOo in other ways than in which you do support it, away. And BTW, that "Let's talk about personnal contributions for OpenOffice.org project..." paragraph...really don't know if i shell laugh or cry about that. How about we all just put our dicks on the table and measure them, to get over with it? Yes, Eric, we - Chad, I, a few others i have come to know within the arts project so far, and probably 95% of OpenOffice.org supporters - are not doing as much as you. But in the context that you did put that paragraph in - a context that was about Chad defending himself as being an OpenOffice.org supporter (bad enough he has to) - your whole paragraph together with that "What is your contribution?" at the end, does state nothing else than "your support is inferior to mine". So thanks for making us feel small and incapable, even though we already spent voluntarily whatever time and efforts we are willing and able to, on our support. Did you express your respect for our work here as much as you want everyone to express their respect for yours? Please, think about all this. You are starting all these fights because you think supporting NeoOffice is bad for our community, but what do these rants do to our community? They piss them off. So what, we don't need such minor contributors like Chad as long as we have heros like you? Wrong. Plain wrong. Think about it. Please. André. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
