openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
Date Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:46:34 GMT




----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: Rob Weir 
...
> 
> https://plus.google.com/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> "OO is dead, LO is alive, switch immediately.
> 
> The article sorta gets that across - read the history and LibreOffice
> sections. Apache OpenOffice is a moribund shell, which will live
> precisely as long as IBM is interested in keeping it alive. And
> they've shown not all that much interest of late, either."
> 
> and
> 
> "It was dead from neglect; Oracle donated the corpse to Apache as part
> of their (details unrevealed) 2008 deal with IBM, with a side order of
> f*ck-you to LO thrown in for free."
> 
> and
> 
> "The talk page discussion on naming of the article is interesting.
> Basically, once AOO 4.0 is out (if it ever comes out - IBM doesn't
> seem to have merged their Symphony code as yet, and it was supposed to
> be released next month) there'll be a serious proposal to make AOO a
> separate article and keep this one as being about the OpenOffice.org
> that existed from 2000 to 2011.
> 
> If/when AOO 4.0 comes out with the horrible Symphony interface, expect
> millions of previously-happy OOo users to absolutely sh*t. It'll be
> the Windows 8 of office suites."
> 
> So this does not suggest "good faith".  In fact, it suggests a
> profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as well
> as having an axe to grind.  These comments, plus your mendacious
> editing in the article suggests you are using Wikipedia to push a
> point of view.
> 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

cheers,

Pedro.

Mime
View raw message