On Feb 19, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On 19 February 2014 20:22, Louis Suárez-Potts <lsuarezpo...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock <dwhyt...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons? >>>>>> >>>>>> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and >>>>>> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if >>>>>> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to >>>>>> "support" more languages. But what kind of support is this? >>>>>> >>>>>> A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated) >>>>>> >>>>>> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a >>>>>> translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases >>>>>> 15% complete UI translations ?! >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their >>>>>> business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false >>>>>> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to >>>>>> note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as >>>>>> greater results. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete. We >>>>>> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95% >>>>>> complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI >>>>>> translation. LO has only 13. >>>>>> >>>>>> Look at the data and make your own comparisons: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/ >>>>>> >>>>>> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> More recently posted on the blog by the author: >>>>> >>>>> "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12 >>>>> am< >>>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950 >>>>> >>>>> Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office, I >>>>> have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by that >>>>> project." >>>>> >>>>> In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an impressive >>>>> list of languages LO is claiming. >>>>> >>>> >>>> :-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new. >>>> When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried >>>> insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support >>>> meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it >>>> does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as >>>> we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and >>>> left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes >>>> acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even >>>> today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of >>>> tomorrows to come. >>>> >>>> Let's be as ruthlessly real uras possible. Money decisions, not >>>> marketing lard, are at stake. >>>> >>> >>> before we we get too far out on theoretical claims. It is true we and LO >>> have different release policies and so be it. >>> >>> But has anyone looked at their po files, I just spent a couple of hours >>> doing so, and reality is that they have many languages that are far more >>> complete that ours (see https://translations.documentfoundation.org/) >>> >> >> How closely did you look? We only put languages in Pootle where a >> volunteer has requested them. LO has 20 translations that have never >> been edited. Some are at 0% complete. Many more that have not been >> touched in over a year. >> >> If you want apples-to-apples comparisons then you should look at the >> ones we have in SVN: >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/ >> >> Both projects have their share of incomplete, neglected translations. >> Nothing wrong with that. But comparing the one project's list of >> active translations with another project's list of inactive ones is >> not very fair. >> > > Here's what I'd call a fair comparison. Use the criterion that OOo > used for shipping a supported language -- 90% UI completion. By that > criterion LO has 47 "complete" translations and AOO has 42. This is > not a very large difference.
I like this it highlights how the two projects have differing priorities. If we lowered our bar and they raised theirs we are roughly equal. Since Italo claims his comparison is with Microsoft then I wonder what % complete they require? I'd guess you would need an NDA to find that one out. Regards, DAve > > -Rob > > >>> They also have the web site templates in pootle, very elegant, something I >>> would like us to have. >>> >> >> We've been doing this in SVN, via a website template. If we had >> MDText support for Pootle we could do more. >> >>> If we claim they compare oranges and apples we should not start doing the >>> same, at least not without having looked at the facts. >>> >> >> Maybe we're not looking at the same facts? >> >>> So, yes maybe LO takes the statement to the limit, but that is called >>> marketing, and in general accepted. >>> >> >> Again, if you are not looking at the same facts and do not know that >> you are not looking at the same facts then you have been deceived , >> not just subjected to marketing. >> >> Regards, >> >> -Rob >> >>> And yes I am still very frustrated about the fact that translators have to >>> translate the same text twice. THAT would be a good answer to the blog. >>> >>> rgds >>> Jan Iversen. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Don >>>> >>>> best >>>> louis >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>>> >>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
