![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
Is it time for the LO-developers to get back with OpenOffice too ?
Hi 
no.
regards from
Tom
Luuk wrote:
Is it time for the LO-developers to get back with OpenOffice too ?
In a word, no.
I agree, but I'd like to hear your reasons why "no"...
--David
Hi
It is great news for both LibreOffice and OpenOffice. Consolidating some of the
forks makes it easier to collaborate and give both products a significant
boost. 'Obviously' the different licenses limit the amout of collaoration but
there are still a lot of people that work on both products or work with friends
and colleagues in both. In many ways it is still 1 community with 2 products
that compete co-operatively.
LibreOffice development is very active and has already gone through the process
that Apache are just starting. Some devs and others may enjoy stepping
backwards to repeat that process but it leads in a slightly different direction
this time. LibreOffice continues to be increasingly faster and lighter. TDF
devs have already discussed this at length and all seem to want to stay with LO,
to move forwards faster. I'm not on the devs list so that is just the
impression i have from other people that do follow those lists.
Hopefully with a load of IBM devs paid to work on OOo the Apache Foundation
might recover from some of the damage Oracle & even Sun did by not driving the
product(s) forwards as fast as the voluntary and other community devs wanted.
In LibreOffice the devs are able to get their code through decent QA & into the
releases at their own pace, ie faster. Bugs get fixed faster and new features
get added faster with the freedoms that TDF offers.
Regards from
Tom
See the "News about the world outside LO :)" thread on the discuss list:
<http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.discuss/6496>
Hi
My emails are just my own opinion. I'm not even a proper member yet!
Regards from
Tom
David B Teague sr wrote:
Luuk wrote:
Is it time for the LO-developers to get back with OpenOffice too ?
In a word, no.
I agree, but I'd like to hear your reasons why "no"...
--David
Why would LibreOffice what to go backwards? The last time that OOo code
was introduced into the LO code there were big parts that had to be
redone. LO already has features that OOo does not have. The way it
stands those features will not make it into OOo/AOOo unless the
developers donate the code needed directly to AOOo. With the current
licensing setup LO code can not be used in AOOo, though LO is free to
use any and all code from AOOo. Seems quite simple to me.
Andy
Thanks. Your answer helps me better understand! LO does seem to be better than OO.o, though I only replaced OO.o 3.1 with LO 3.3.x.
I wish they would stop (gratuitously? that may be unkind) moving things around in the UI though. I like learning new bells and whistles, and serious new features, but I hate to have to hunt for the old ones, and wonder if "that" useful old feature has been removed.
--David
David B Teague sr wrote:
David B Teague sr wrote:
I agree, but I'd like to hear your reasons why "no"...
--DavidWhy would LibreOffice what to go backwards? The last time that OOo code
was introduced into the LO code there were big parts that had to be
redone. LO already has features that OOo does not have. The way it
stands those features will not make it into OOo/AOOo unless the
developers donate the code needed directly to AOOo. With the current
licensing setup LO code can not be used in AOOo, though LO is free to
use any and all code from AOOo. Seems quite simple to me.Andy
Thanks. Your answer helps me better understand! LO does seem to be
better than OO.o, though I only replaced OO.o 3.1 with LO 3.3.x.I wish they would stop (gratuitously? that may be unkind) moving things
around in the UI though. I like learning new bells and whistles, and
serious new features, but I hate to have to hunt for the old ones, and
wonder if "that" useful old feature has been removed.--David
The above is just my opinion and has nothing to do with what I would
like to see OOo become. I do not think that combining LO back into OOo
is a good idea. With the move to Apache OOo has a chance to become
more. I will not say that one is better then the other, just different.
Andy
Hi
As a disgruntled Lotus Smart Suite user, abandoned by IBM as are the Lotus Amipro users, I am well aware of the link between Symphony & OOo, as one reduced its support for LSS, so did the other one. In fact IBM have now turned its back permanently on LSS and not so surprisingly in Windows so has OOo; with still thousands and thousands of requests (pleads) for IBM not to do so (there is one request for compatibility - requested some 15,000 times). Whilst at the same time, LO increases its support - all praise to LO
I understand from reading the on-line guessing politics that IBM will at some point bring out a Paid for version, to link into Lotus Notes, so is this the "Price" OOo have had to pay to get IBM's blue interface:- the "cost" of not being LSS compatible - Hold this space!
Beside, IBM's Symphony hardly stood as an "office suit" with only 3 programs - and it was far to buggy for me.
I am very happy for LO to stay on course.
regards
John B
Hi
+1
OpenOffice and LiibreOffice can take different directions and still co-operate.
Oracle didn't really seem to appreciate that but Apache do. As 2 projects it
gives both a strong competitor to measure progress against. It allows
OpenSource enthusiasts to join in with the TDF one and proprietary enthusiasts
to join the Apache one. Most of us are somewhere in the middle and have a
choice but some companies are firmly entrenched one way or the other.
Regards from
Tom
Why don't all the OOo devs just come to TDF? I mean isn't this further
splitting up the community? What I want to see is a single powerful office
suite to kill Microsoft. I want to see them buried. I want to see a free,
open product that is perfect in it's seamlessness, transparency and ease of
use. I hope LO is the one to do it. We need to kick some ass!
Hi
Some of the OOo devs are paid to work were they are told to work. Some just
haven't made the move yet. Some might be halfway through working on things and
don't want to switch systems halfway through. Competition encourages people to
be better than the other team. It's good to have something at our level worth
competing with even if that only in a friendly way.
Regards from
Tom
Try KOffice.or as it is now called Calligra. It will be bundled with
most major distros next release.
The first release was quite stable, though reduced in feature. Stable
enough I could write a best selling book using it. You are all free to
have your own definition of "best selling" as everybody else in the book
industry does. http://www.infiniteexposure.net
The current version of Symphony is pretty pathetic. It was developed
_only_ on Windows. If it happened to compile and install on Linux and
Mac, so be it, but no effort was made to improve these platforms. The
rendering engine has a vanishing cursor and merging text problem which
has gotten consistently worse with patches and IBM has said they won't
fix...Gee, Eclipse had similar problems on OpenSuSE which is why you
have to go to the Eclipse site to find Eclipse for OpenSuSE...the
maintainers couldn't get it to build on OpenSuSE.
What I find most frustrating with KWord, which will hopefully change
with Words, is the fact they don't bundle the font with the style when
you define a style. I understand the logic behind it, but don't know
how OOP I'm willing to be while creating documents.
I still don't think there will ever be a word processor to equal
WordPro. That product was light years ahead of its time. I have
finally either ditched or converted every file I had in that format so,
while I do miss the tabbed document functionality and the numbered
window MDI interface, I must use what I have for today's workflow.
I do not think there would be a problem with OOo & LO working together in co-operation, its the getting into bed with IBM that could.
As they say "if you fail to learn from history ....."
Ask Bill Gates, ask Lotus users after IBM took over - it does look good at first, but in the long run.....
regards
John B
Ask any company that got in bed with Bill Gates and came away with
Corporate Aids?
Remember Lattice? The maker of the C compiler Microsoft private labeled
and had a non-compete with stating they would never develop their own C
compiler?
Remember Mosaic (sp?). The Web browser developed by a company in
Naperville, IL that Microsoft signed a percentage of sales contract
with, then bundled the thing for free as IE so they wouldn't have to pay
another dime.
Even IBM got Corporate AIDS from Microsoft with OS/2 which Microsoft
deliberately buggered while using _all_ of the money IBM paid them to
develop the DOS APPLICATION KNOWN AS WINDOWS.
The list is too long and tragic to continue.