openoffice-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From M Henri Day <>
Subject Re: StarOffice (was RE: users Digest 28 Nov 2012 19:50:51 -0000 Issue 232)
Date Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:14:04 GMT
2012/11/29 Fernando Cassia <>

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:21 PM, M Henri Day <> wrote:
> > I suspect, Fernando, that «the freedom fighters» at LO would find that
> your
> > description of events had omitted a significant detail - i e, that
> Oracle's
> > «development» of OO.o was half-hearted at best and that that that was why
> > they decided to create a fork, as nothing much seemed to be happening
> under
> > Oracle's leadership.
> >
> I guess that like in any historical event, there´s two versions of history.
> What I know was that certain press (the same that later insisted AOO was
> overkill, and that LO was best) trumpeted news stories about an alleged
> "massive exodus". And when I digged a little, it turns the massive exodus
> was 30 devs (initially).
> Then someone who had jumped ship and admitted that there 100 people at
> Sun/Oracle told me I could not quote that info with his name.
> > The fact that so many of the OOo developers went over
> > to TDF would seem to corroborate this version....
> >
> Again, it seems that "so many" was actually a third.
> Here, Shuttleworth says:
> " He said that Sun made a $100 million "gift" to the community when it
> opened up the OpenOffice code. But a "radical faction" made the lives of
> the OpenOffice developers "hell" _by refusing to contribute code under the
> Sun agreement_. That eventually led to the split, but furthermore led
> Oracle to finally decide to stop OpenOffice development and _lay off *100
> employees*_."
> That means that Oracle had 100 people working on OO. Not very "half
> hearted" and I guess it´s a bit difficult to have 100 people doing nothing.
> And why would they do an OO conference in Hungary in 2010 if they wanted to
> kill the product?
> Perhaps what I hate more about this whole ordeal is the arrogant attitude
> of  the forkers. Akin to spitting someone in the face, saying "I hate you"
> then inviting them for dinner as if nothing had happened, which is what
> happened when TDF "invited" Oracle to join TDF. Then they acted surprised
> when Ellison gave them the finger and gave OO to Apache instead...
> I know my point of view -or Shuttleworth´s- is not a popular one, as it
> contradicts what much of the IT press reported at the time -the usual
> portrayal of bad, bad Corporation vs the Freedom Fighting community.
> What I care about is the results of their actions: a great commercial
> product like StarOffice which at one point I believe had close to 4-5% of
> the corporate office suite market share has been lost. (19% if you added
> StarOffice with OO.o - Yankee Group, 2005).
> Anyway... I guess this will be a debate for historians, if they cared about
> software. :-P
> FC

Fernando, I wasn't around at the time - were you ? - so I don't know who's
right - but I am mathematically acute enough to know that 1/3 is not quite
the same thing as 1/2. When you write that «"so many" was actually a
third», I can't help but note the discrepancy with your earlier statement
to the effect that «After OO.o had lost half its devs (that´s my
estimate)... » But of course, I don't expect to be in complete agreement
with someone who applauds that kindly open source supporter Lawrence Joseph
Ellison's action in, as you put it, giving TDF the finger....


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