Comments for Moved by Freedom - Powered by Standards | Moved by Freedom - Powered by Standards

Comment on ArchLinux, not just for the elite by msx

msx — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 07:51:45 +0000

“Arch Linux is a very fun and stable distribution that successfully blends the bleeding edge, stability and hackability of Linux.”
Beautiful phrase, indeed!

Compiling latest Liquorix kernel 3.3.1-1 from the AUR right now…

Comment on Brand Confusion by Links 16/3/2012: GNOME 3.4 Beta 2, Cinnamon 1.4 | Techrights

Links 16/3/2012: GNOME 3.4 Beta 2, Cinnamon 1.4 | Techrights — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:26:23 +0000

[...] Brand Confusion I cannot pinpoint accurately what caused to inflate the whole issue, but it seems that some at Apache OpenOffice (incubating) would like to stress that there are the rightful continuation of the now defunct OpenOffice.org project, to the point of showing outright hostility to LibreOffice. They base their claims upon the following elements: [...]

Comment on Brand Confusion by Charles

Charles — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:55:39 +0000

@Larry: Let’s review your assertions one by one.
““Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project, nor its steward, IBM”: you’re right. The Apache Way does not seem to have “stewarts”, my bad. That said, look at the number of IBM developers, and you’ll get a feeling of who’s calling the shots. Pure numbers, no FUD.

“Apache OpenOffice is not so much the continuation of OpenOffice.org “product-wise” as it is the IBM’s productivity suite ‘s future” : Pure FUD you say? Then you’re explaining that Doug Heinzmann (article from him linked in the blog) is writing pure FUD. Look at IBM’s announcement and Doug’s article, they’re very, very clear that AOO will be the future of IBM Symphony, and again, why this should be FUD escapes me. Why is this supposed to be bad news?

“LibreOffice is a fork, plain and simple with strong ties to Novell/Suse.”: And of Red Hat. And Canonical. And Google. And the FSF. And SPI. And Lanedo. And the whole wide OpenOffice.org community. I have a question for you Larry. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t remember having read your posts at the time of OpenOffice.org (again, I might be wrong), but in any case, do you remember Rob Weir being an OpenOffice.org developer? Do you remember all the chinese engineers from IBM being OpenOffice.org developers? Do you remember the OpenOffice.org project amounting to about 80 volunteers? Because I’ve been contributing to OpenOffice.org for 11 years, and I can tell you this: I know where the community has gone. It’s gone over to LibreOffice. Of course, there are exceptions. But nagging about legacy and continuation will not lead you to nowhere pleasant.

Comment on Brand Confusion by Larry Gusaas

Larry Gusaas — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:11:35 +0000

Statements like these “Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project, nor its steward, IBM”. and “Apache OpenOffice is not so much the continuation of OpenOffice.org “product-wise” as it is the IBM’s productivity suite ‘s future” are pure FUD. IBM does not control AOO. Apache does not allow domination of any product by one company.

AOO is the direct continuation of OOo. It is not a marketing device to claim so. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. LibreOffice is a fork, plain and simple with strong ties to Novell/Suse.

Comment on Brand Confusion by Charles

Charles — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:08:13 +0000

Larry, please be more specific about me posting FUD. Am I biased? Of course. So are we all. But please do point out to factual mistakes, I’ll be happy to correct them, as if I were to spread factual errors I would lose my credibility.

Comment on Brand Confusion by sebastian

sebastian — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:13:09 +0000

@Larry Gusaas: “As for the code, you are willing to use AOO code but will not contribute your code to AOO. There is a word that describes that behaviour.”

I don’t see any moral point on this. This is whole purpose of Apache license – take it and do with it what ever you like. But purpose of GPL license is: take it, but if you like to distribute the code, make it possible that the one that gets the binary also gets the source. If you see some moral point on this, then you chose the wrong license and you should re-license the product.

Comment on Brand Confusion by Larry Gusaas

Larry Gusaas — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:51:52 +0000

Charles, your whole post is FUD. Your anti IBM bias is blatant. Apache OpenOffice is not controlled by IBM. As for Novell and Go-OO, their connection to LibreOffice is apparent to anyone willing to look.

As for the code, you are willing to use AOO code but will not contribute your code to AOO. There is a word that describes that behaviour.

Goodbye.

Comment on Brand Confusion by Charles

Charles — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:30:32 +0000

Larry. LIBREOFFICE IS NOT BASED ON GO-OO. Stop spreading FUD. As for quitting using Apache OO code I don’t get what you’re saying. Novell an Libreoffice check our numbers and stats please, they are all provided in the links of the post. Thank you.

Comment on Brand Confusion by Larry Gusaas

Larry Gusaas — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:02:44 +0000

You could make the same comments on the relationship of LibreOffice and Novell as you do about Apache OpenOffice and IBM. You make no mention of LibreOffice being based on Novell’s Go-OO. Are you going to quit using code developed by Apache OpenOffice?

Comment on Brand Confusion by Charles

Charles — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:20:33 +0000

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/filiation