On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Oh, but what you are missing is that Wikipedia is the 31st highest source of referrers to our website. #31 !!!! Don't you see???? If we don't maintain **absolute control** over this page, then we could LOSE LITERALLY DOZENS OF POTENTIAL USERS !!!! This is an existential crisis, live or die. It is obviously worth giving up our holidays to defend our view of the truth, If we're not going to go to the mat with Gerard over the minutia of the project's history, then we might as well just pack up and quit. Really. It is that important. Not. ;-) Like I said before, let him find other things to play with. I've seen this before repeatably with other obsessive types on Wikipedia. Like bad weather and food poisoning, it is just passing through. -Rob > Plus. these people usually change sides frequently :). > > > Pedro. >
