2012/11/29 Fernando Cassia <[email protected]> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:21 PM, M Henri Day <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I suspect, Fernando, that «the freedom fighters» at LO would find that > your > > description of events had omitted a significant detail - i e, that > Oracle's > > «development» of OO.o was half-hearted at best and that that that was why > > they decided to create a fork, as nothing much seemed to be happening > under > > Oracle's leadership. > > > > I guess that like in any historical event, there´s two versions of history. > > What I know was that certain press (the same that later insisted AOO was > overkill, and that LO was best) trumpeted news stories about an alleged > "massive exodus". And when I digged a little, it turns the massive exodus > was 30 devs (initially). > > Then someone who had jumped ship and admitted that there 100 people at > Sun/Oracle told me I could not quote that info with his name. > > > > The fact that so many of the OOo developers went over > > to TDF would seem to corroborate this version.... > > > > Again, it seems that "so many" was actually a third. > > Here, Shuttleworth says: > > http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder > > " He said that Sun made a $100 million "gift" to the community when it > opened up the OpenOffice code. But a "radical faction" made the lives of > the OpenOffice developers "hell" _by refusing to contribute code under the > Sun agreement_. That eventually led to the split, but furthermore led > Oracle to finally decide to stop OpenOffice development and _lay off *100 > employees*_." > > That means that Oracle had 100 people working on OO. Not very "half > hearted" and I guess it´s a bit difficult to have 100 people doing nothing. > And why would they do an OO conference in Hungary in 2010 if they wanted to > kill the product? > > Perhaps what I hate more about this whole ordeal is the arrogant attitude > of the forkers. Akin to spitting someone in the face, saying "I hate you" > then inviting them for dinner as if nothing had happened, which is what > happened when TDF "invited" Oracle to join TDF. Then they acted surprised > when Ellison gave them the finger and gave OO to Apache instead... > > I know my point of view -or Shuttleworth´s- is not a popular one, as it > contradicts what much of the IT press reported at the time -the usual > portrayal of bad, bad Corporation vs the Freedom Fighting community. > > What I care about is the results of their actions: a great commercial > product like StarOffice which at one point I believe had close to 4-5% of > the corporate office suite market share has been lost. (19% if you added > StarOffice with OO.o - Yankee Group, 2005). > > Anyway... I guess this will be a debate for historians, if they cared about > software. :-P > > FC
Fernando, I wasn't around at the time - were you ? - so I don't know who's right - but I am mathematically acute enough to know that 1/3 is not quite the same thing as 1/2. When you write that «"so many" was actually a third», I can't help but note the discrepancy with your earlier statement to the effect that «After OO.o had lost half its devs (that´s my estimate)... » But of course, I don't expect to be in complete agreement with someone who applauds that kindly open source supporter Lawrence Joseph Ellison's action in, as you put it, giving TDF the finger.... Henri
