On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Dave Barton <d...@tasit.net> wrote: > 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 >
Not so sure this is practical, but a noble goal, nonetheless; i.e. spirit of genuine open source cooperation. > > > 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. +1, let's move on from unproductive bashing. Pls. > 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. > Indeed. > > 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 > >
