My latest, "LibreOffice, OpenOffice, and rumors of unification" http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/LibreOffice-OpenOffice-and-rumors-of-unification
4 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 15 previous comments
- : my name is Schulz without a "t" :-) thanks !Oct 2, 2014
- My apologies! I'll correct that immediately.Oct 2, 2014
- Why is it so much easier to discuss who is dying and who should just give up....we all have a common goal to provide OO (that be AOO or LO) to the whole world.
Looking at this thread and others makes me sad, if we spent the same energy in finding common ground, we would be a long way in having an overall better OO (again AOO and LO).
Just one stupid example our translators translate for AOO and LO, while (during my last count) 84% of the strings are identical....is that a waste of resources ?
I am a apache member, committer in AOO (no longer PMC), and my aim is simple "provide free software to the world".
Seriously if the "big chiefs" in the OO world cannot talk together, then let the doers talk !
just my humble opinion.
jan I.Oct 4, 2014
- I guess it's human nature. In any case, the fact that there are two projects, one with the name and trademark, the other with most of the development, results in most users getting an inferior product. So the fact that both are open source and have a common goal doesn't make it allright that they exist. The common goal is NOT well served having two projects - it is harmful. The Open/LibreOffice space would have been better off if AOO would never have started - millions of users now would have had a better office suite, for one, and development would have been focused on one solution.Oct 5, 2014
- Jos Poortvliet: I agree that the world would have been a lot better had there only been one community, and maybe still several products/projects. That would have been the better use of volunteer resources. However you jump to conclusions when you judge AOO should never have been started, you could just as well have said the original split should never have happened. This kind of conclusion does more to secure the projects will never cooperate than anything else, and I am convinced that, that is not what you want to achieve.
Fact is LO and AOO both exist and we can either continue doing silly things, or try to find some commonalities. It would e.g. be extremely easy for the 2 projects to share po files, and thereby free up translator time, that could be used better. I have looked into ways of more efficiently sharing code. However I also have to admit that most of my attempts have been effectively blocked by statements like "AOO should never have been started" or "LO will never cooperate".
Lets agree history is history, we live with the consequences, so lets just try to make a few changes, and secure that the millions of end-users get better products.Oct 5, 2014
- Of course LO should never have started. And the LO project would never have started if OpenOffice wasn't under such horrible 'management'. It was very much a necessity.
Now yes, we can't fix that AOO started - what we can do is get rid of it, moving all OpenOffice trademarks and sites to the LibreOffice (Open Document) foundation - they can rename LibreOffice back to Open Office, or not, their choice.
That would be the best solution for the millions of end users and the longer it takes for AOO to die, the worse it is... So the fact that it seems to be dying is good news for the users. Especially if it is a final and quick death - the sooner OpenOffice.org and similar sites get redirected, the better.
Sorry, I can't for the love of $DIETY think of a single reason why AOO would have to continue to exist to confuse users...Oct 5, 2014
Add a comment...