On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ----- 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 >
I'm too charitable to assume that level of stupidity. -Rob > cheers, > > Pedro.
