Chuck Davis wrote: > I've seen quite a number of new people show up here lately > indicating interest coming from someplace. If one out of 10 of them > sticks and becomes a regular contributor the project is in a very > good position I think.
Agreed. > My observations regarding LO: 1) They've copied some features from > MS Office that make it equally difficult to use....It's not as > pleasant to use as AOO. Can you please give some specific examples of what you mean by "copied some features from MS Office"? I have been an OOo user since Sun (theoretically) open sourced the code and today I use/test both AOO and LO. Can you please enlighten me in what way LO is more difficult to use than AOO? I am obviously missing something, because I find them equally pleasant to use. > It's very unfortunate the distributions have adopted LO in lieu of > AOO. That's mainly because a number of the distros were already unhappy about the control Sun/Oracle held over the code. When TDF/LO was formed some of code from the (distro driven) Go-OO fork was merged into LO. This happened well before Oracle gave the OOo trademark and domain name to the ASF. > 2) Their constant AOO bashing is a real turn-off for me and I hope > others as well. I don't think I want their people in our camp. Sorry, but this is just FUD. Ignoring the Weir - Vignoli blog battle and other external sources, please give examples of "Their constant AOO bashing" on any the TDF/LO controlled sources (eg. website, mailing lists, etc.). For every instance you can sight, I can match two for one the near vitriol I have seen poured out on this list alone. In another part of this thread there is talk of "better cooperation" between the two projects. Comments such as "I don't think I want their people in our camp." only serve to further promote the silly negative "us & them" attitude. It is not a competition, because neither project is selling anything. Reality Check: Other than the occasional "defector" :)) (in both directions) you don't have to concern yourself about "their people" moving into "your camp". There is no possibility that TDF is going give up years of hard work and expense and hand LO over to the ASF, any more than there is of the ASF handing AOO over to TDF. > 3) They seem to be very proud of getting rid of Java and replacing > it with Python. I've looked at Python a little and it seems to me > any language dependent on indentation rather than syntax is > just........dumb! There is nothing wrong with Java -- especially > now that OpenJDK is the reference implementation and is being worked > on by every major player except MS. The movement to "get rid of" Java has been around even before Sun sold out to Oracle. There are developers working on AOO code today who are on record promoting the removal or reduced reliance on Java. Python is also supported by AOO. > 4) LO seems to have major QC issues. The quality is definitely > several notches below where AOO rests in my experience. Is this just "fan-boy" talk, or can you sight anything to substantiate this (apparently ill-informed) claim. I closely follow the development of both projects and my experience is very different to yours. > These are just my observations as a long time OpenOffice user. And > Apache has some very interesting related projects (i.e. ODF Toolkit) > that can propel ODF as a standard reporting framework as well as the > new project to read and write OOXML for document exchange. True. Hopefully it will not be too long before the fruits of these projects are incorporated into AOO. The TDF has been closely involved with external projects working on improvements to the ODF <-> OOXML document compatibility. I don't have the details to hand right now, but IIRC the code improvements are, or will be, made available under Apache License, Version 2.0 > My advice: stay the course. Emphasize quality and dependability > over glitz. If developers are not attracted to AOO on those terms > they're not developers the project needs. Those of us in business > just need a tool to get our work done and it doesn't need to be fancy > -- just dependable. LO falls on it's face at this point. Please, please, please can we stop this childish nonsense. There is no reason why we should care, one way or the other, if LO is worse or better than AOO. Our only interests should be: 1. Making AOO as good as we can possibly make it. 2. Where possible work cooperatively with TDF and others in the interest of promoting and improving ODF. We already do this on matters of security. It is highly unlikely that AOO is going to die or disappear in the foreseeable future and the same holds true for LO. If, for whatever reason. the existence of TDF/LO upsets anyone here, I suggest they get over it and move on. Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
