openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Harbison <>
Subject Re: Concerns about the AOO community
Date Fri, 03 Oct 2014 01:43:27 GMT
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Dave Barton <> 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.


> 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:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message