Hi Rob;
----- Messaggio originale ----- > Da: Rob Weir > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Pedro Giffuni 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. > What we have to understand here is that there is a group of malinformed people that think everything they hear in the favorite linux *office distribution is true. Yes the guy is enthusiastic about it, but we all know that Wikipedia has that problem and precisely because of that reason is not a good source of information. Plus. these people usually change sides frequently :). Pedro.
