Ellison's Oracle washes hands of OpenOffice

Tom_Davies · April 17, 2011, 11:37am

Hi
An accountant once pointed out to me that although we keep hearing farmers
complain about too much sun, too much rain or too little sun, too little rain
and the state of the economy he had never met a poor farmer.

I asked if he had ever met a poor anyone given that he was an accountant.

An IT company reporting itself as having low cash would normally come under
attack because it's competitors might be able to win court cases more easily if
it couldn't afford good lawyers. Also it would make people lose confidence in
it and look around to spend money elsewhere. Do we see either really happening
with MS?
Regards from
Tom

Wayne_Borean · April 17, 2011, 3:03pm

Glenn,

I think he's currently second richest, I can't remember his name, but
there's a guy in Mexico who owns a telecom company who is currently richer.
Of course at that level, what's a billion or two?

Wayne

Simos_Xenitellis · April 17, 2011, 3:21pm

Glenn,

I think he's currently second richest, I can't remember his name, but
there's a guy in Mexico who owns a telecom company who is currently richer.
Of course at that level, what's a billion or two?

On this note, I think we went well off-topic on the discussion.

The next steps are critical for LibreOffice and the Document Foundation.
Specifically, what's to happen with the (currently) Oracle employees
that work on OpenOffice?
Many of them are experienced OOo programmers. Will they be picked up
by someone to continue working on LibreOffice or [OpenOffice]?
Is Oracle talking to the Document Foundation to wrap up the hand-over
of OpenOffice?

As a community we should be ready for the outcome of these discussions
and contribute where we can.

Simos

Wayne_Borean · April 17, 2011, 4:15pm

Right.

It would be best if they could form a separate self sustaining project.
Let's take a look at a different type of software, desktops or interfaces.

Currently we have a large number of interface projects, some closed, some
open, some mixed, on a wide variety of platforms ranging from extremely
small devices like the IPod Nano to extremely large like the Jumbotrons in
many stadiums.

These interface projects drive a wide variety of hardware, everything from
watches, MP3 players, phones, televisions, TV set top boxes, printers,
desktop/laptop computers, tablets, microwave ovens, refrigerators,
automobile entertainment systems, televisions, etc.

A large number of these projects are actually Free Software/Open Source.
Let's concentrate on the Laptop/Desktop market for now. Windows is a slowly
evolving proprietary (closed) interface. OS X is a slowly evolving mixed
interface.

As you may have guessed, I didn't pull the list from memory - I pulled it
from Wikipedia. The point is that the separate projects each have their own
aims and goals. Each produces different results. Each produces different
source code. Each ends up influencing the other projects, and also the
closed source projects. And they are currently evolving at a far faster pace
than the closed source projects, just like Libre Office is evolving at a far
faster pace than any other office suite, due to the competitive pressures
provided by the other projects.

Merge Open Office and Libre Office and you kill the competitive pressures
that would drive both projects to greater and greater heights. Keep them
apart, and you'll end up with projects that will quickly make Apple's IWork
and Microsoft's Office obsolete.

Anyone arguing for a merger is your greatest enemy, or a damned fool.
Competition drives innovation. If you merge with Open Office you'll be
handling Microsoft an easy victory.

Wayne aka The Mad Hatter
http://madhatter.ca

Simos_Xenitellis · April 17, 2011, 5:33pm

The view is that OpenOffice is currently manned by Oracle employees, which
might also be out of work soon. And any community members have moved already
to the Document Foundation and LibreOffice.

We are just chatting here in this thread with the limited information
that is publicly
available.
What we should agree on is that we want what's best for LibreOffice.

Simos

Wayne_Borean · April 17, 2011, 6:09pm

Oracle laying off the paid developers wouldn't be good for those people.
It's quite possible that we could make a push to get them hired elsewhere.

I'm due to send in an article, and they allow me a hell of a lot of freedom
on what I write about - can you give me a list of companies which would be
likely to hire OO programmers who have offices close to Oracle's office?
Does IBM for example have an office near there? If I have a list, I can
include it in the article

You know, a suggestion of places where they can look for work. They probably
already know where to look, but every little bit helps some times,
especially in a down economy.

Wayne

Simos_Xenitellis · April 17, 2011, 6:27pm

Oracle laying off the paid developers wouldn't be good for those people.
It's quite possible that we could make a push to get them hired elsewhere.

I'm due to send in an article, and they allow me a hell of a lot of freedom
on what I write about - can you give me a list of companies which would be
likely to hire OO programmers who have offices close to Oracle's office?
Does IBM for example have an office near there? If I have a list, I can
include it in the article

You know, a suggestion of places where they can look for work. They probably
already know where to look, but every little bit helps some times,
especially in a down economy.

You can probably use the list of the companies that gave support to
the Document Foundation,
http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/announce/msg00000.html

The way I envision LibreOffice to grow, is to have developers,
employed by different organisations,
which all work together openly through the Internet, much like the
case of the Linux kernel development.
Therefore, it makes sense to advocate the idea that if an organisation
is banking on LibreOffice,
they should support at least a developer, so that they have access to
expertise and they can help drive
the development.

Simos

Tom_Davies · April 17, 2011, 8:15pm

________________________________
From: Simos Xenitellis <simos.lists@googlemail.com>
To: users@libreoffice.org
Sent: Sun, 17 April, 2011 18:32:43
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Ellison's Oracle washes hands of OpenOffice

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Wayne Borean <wborean@gmail.com> wrote:

Merge Open Office and Libre Office and you kill the competitive pressures
that would drive both projects to greater and greater heights. Keep them
apart, and you'll end up with projects that will quickly make Apple's IWork
and Microsoft's Office obsolete.

Anyone arguing for a merger is your greatest enemy, or a damned fool.
Competition drives innovation. If you merge with Open Office you'll be
handling Microsoft an easy victory.

The view is that OpenOffice is currently manned by Oracle employees, which
might also be out of work soon. And any community members have moved already
to the Document Foundation and LibreOffice.

We are just chatting here in this thread with the limited information
that is publicly
available.
What we should agree on is that we want what's best for LibreOffice.

Simos

Hi
Co-operation does drive innovation too. OpenSource is excellent at combining
both co-operation and competition at the same time.

Many people work in both projects and there is a lot that can easily be copied
between them to help both develop faster rather than re-inventing the wheel.

I agree that it is important to have 2 projects rather than 1 but we can
re-absorb OpenOffice if that helps save them because there is other competition,
such as iWorks. We would do well to start working with some of the competition
in mutually beneficial tasks such as formats, perhaps at Trade Shows or
Conferences to help boost each other.

Regards from
Tom

Wayne_Borean · April 18, 2011, 12:49am

Good points - but separate projects allows for more experimentation.

Sorry, I'm one of the crazies. I read books on Evolution, and try to apply
the principles that scientists are using to determine how homo sapiens
sapiens and other species evolved, to how software is evolving. One of the
benefits of having groups of small islands which are close enough for
mammalian species to manage to cross from island to island is that you'll
get different developments on each island. The individuals who manage the
crossing are often among the fittest, and carry excellent genes over to the
next island. If there's something they can breed with, it improves the
species on that island. If there isn't, they breed, and push out a weaker
species from a niche on that island.

In this case Libre Office is one island. Open Office is another. Ideas and
concepts are the species - like the ribbon toolbar from the Microsoft Office
Island which either hasn't managed to swim to another island yet, or hasn't
managed to survive if it has, unlike the ODF file format, which has swum to
several islands, and survived quite well.

That's why you want lots of islands (projects) so that there's more
evolutionary options (experimentation with ideas and concepts about how
software should work).

Wayne

Pedro_Lino · April 18, 2011, 1:12am

@Wayne

Being a biologist, I find your Evolution parallel quite interesting.

Answering your previous question: of course IBM has it's own flavour of
Office (based on OpenOffice in fact): it's called IBM Lotus Symphony
http://www-03.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.nsf/products

Enjoy!

Wayne_Borean · April 18, 2011, 1:42am

In that case, you can see where I'm leading the conversation, and why my
concept of 'Free Software Darwinism' could be really important to us, and
scary as hell to Microsoft.

Wayne

planas · April 18, 2011, 3:28am

Wayne

I would think some the hardware vendors would promote FOSS more. They
can benefit from the hardware sales. I can see why MS hates FOSS, they
are almost a pure software vendor and FOSS hurts their sales.

Dave_Stevens · April 18, 2011, 3:53am

Quoting planas <jslozier@gmail.com>:

In that case, you can see where I'm leading the conversation, and why my
concept of 'Free Software Darwinism' could be really important to us, and
scary as hell to Microsoft.

Wayne

> @Wayne
>
> Being a biologist, I find your Evolution parallel quite interesting.
>
> Answering your previous question: of course IBM has it's own flavour of
> Office (based on OpenOffice in fact): it's called IBM Lotus Symphony
> http://www-03.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.nsf/products
>
> Enjoy!

almost no-one buys windows software from MS, it comes preinstalled, mostly by manufacturers, but often by resellers. Any analysis of Linux SW uptake considerations that doesn't take into account the games MS plays with distributors is seriously lacking.

Dave

NoOp · April 18, 2011, 4:18am

I _think_ you are looking for the the discuss list; two doors down on
the right.

http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/

"users@libreoffice.org: User support list for LibreOffice users needing
help with a problem. "

discuss@documentfoundation.org: Mailing list for general discussions
about The Document Foundation.

Rob_Smith · April 18, 2011, 5:06am

Not quite so sure I would agree with that one Dave. I supported a Fortune
100 at one point, and they spent a bundle on MS Office licenses to be sure.
They also paid site licenses for all their Windows servers. At the time,
Server came with 5 seats.

Quoting planas <jslozier@gmail.com>:

In that case, you can see where I'm leading the conversation, and why my
concept of 'Free Software Darwinism' could be really important to us,

and

scary as hell to Microsoft.

Wayne

> @Wayne
>
> Being a biologist, I find your Evolution parallel quite interesting.
>
> Answering your previous question: of course IBM has it's own flavour

of

> Office (based on OpenOffice in fact): it's called IBM Lotus Symphony
> http://www-03.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.nsf/products
>
> Enjoy!

almost no-one buys windows software from MS, it comes preinstalled,
mostly by manufacturers, but often by resellers. Any analysis of Linux
SW uptake considerations that doesn't take into account the games MS
plays with distributors is seriously lacking.

Dave

>
> --
> View this message in context:
>

http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Ellison-s-Oracle-washes-hands-of-OpenOffice-tp2826546p2832723.html

> Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+help@libreoffice.org
> Posting guidelines + more:

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette

> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/users/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>
>

Wayne

I would think some the hardware vendors would promote FOSS more. They
can benefit from the hardware sales. I can see why MS hates FOSS, they
are almost a pure software vendor and FOSS hurts their sales.
--
Jay Lozier
Jslozier@gmail.com

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+help@libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot
be deleted

--
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick

society."

Krishnamurti

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+help@libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

deleted

Mark_Stanton · April 18, 2011, 6:18am

A side note really, but that's quite a leap to suggest that Symphony
has anything to do with OO.

Lotus wrote Symphony, maybe coming on 25 years ago now. I worked
with one of the four (I think) guys who wrote it for a while. One of
the dinosaurs that died out, the tightly integrated office suite.

Mark Stanton
One small step for mankind...

smaug42 · April 18, 2011, 6:55am

It's not a leap... the current incarnation of IBM's Lotus Symphony
actually is based on OpenOffice.org.
http://www-03.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony/help.nsf/GeneralFAQ#1

Pedro_Lino · April 18, 2011, 7:19am

@Mark Stanton

What you say is true. Symphony was indeed created in the 80's. But that
doesn't mean that version 3 is not based on OpenOffice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Lotus_Symphony

BTW If you follow the link I provided you will notice at the end of the page
the following sentence just after the OpenOffice logo and before the
Copyright notice "Lotus Symphony is based on OpenOffice.org Technology and
supports the ODF standard, ISO 26300"

As you can see we are both right

Mark_Stanton · April 18, 2011, 9:29am

@Plino
Win/win? Fabulous!

Nope, didn't have a chance to read to the end of the page.
I probably don't believe them, in any but the most superficial sense,
but then I get very cynical sometimes

Thanks for that
Mark Stanton
One small step for mankind...

Tom_Davies · April 18, 2011, 11:28am

________________________________
From: planas <jslozier@gmail.com>
To: users@libreoffice.org
Sent: Mon, 18 April, 2011 4:28:00
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Ellison's Oracle washes hands of OpenOffice

On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 21:41 -0400, Wayne Borean wrote:

In that case, you can see where I'm leading the conversation, and why my
concept of 'Free Software Darwinism' could be really important to us, and
scary as hell to Microsoft.

Wayne

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:12 PM, plino <pedlino@gmail.com> wrote:

> @Wayne
>
> Being a biologist, I find your Evolution parallel quite interesting.
>
> Answering your previous question: of course IBM has it's own flavour of
> Office (based on OpenOffice in fact): it's called IBM Lotus Symphony
> http://www-03.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.nsf/products
>
> Enjoy!
>
> --
> View this message in context:
>
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Ellison-s-Oracle-washes-hands-of-OpenOffice-tp2826546p2832723.html

> Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+help@libreoffice.org
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/users/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>
>

Wayne

I would think some the hardware vendors would promote FOSS more. They
can benefit from the hardware sales. I can see why MS hates FOSS, they
are almost a pure software vendor and FOSS hurts their sales.

Jay Lozier
Jslozier@gmail.com

Hi
unfortunately hardware vendors profit from selling MS pre-installed and the more
junk they can have pre-installed the more they profit. MS sells them special
licences to install at a discount bargain rate. If hardware vendors put Free
Software on instead then their profit margins would be lower.

If you try to buy something with NO software on it then the hardware actually
costs more so people buy stuff that already had MS pre-installed even if they
don't want to use it and then wipe the MS stuff to install Linux or Bsd or
something.

This sounds completely mad to me. It's one way that MS can claim such high
figures when we know that linux usage is so much higher than MS sponsored
surveys show.
Regards from
Tom