Hello Alan, On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 21:22 +0100, Alan Madden wrote:
> =========================================== > >Cross-platform. OOo 2.0 runs on Microsoft Windows, Linux, and Sun > Solaris, and is available in over 40 languages. > > I think that this part should be slightly modified for two reasons. > Firstly, I think that the list of compatible operating systems should at > least include all the OSes that have download sections on the OOo > download page, which is Windows/Linux/FBSD/Mac. Secondly, the 40 > languages part is an important point, but (imo) has nothing to do with > the software being cross-platform. I think that language versatility > should be moved to a separate point. I think the "Cross-platform" part > should read: "Cross-platform. OOo 2.0 runs on many Operating Systems, > including Microsoft Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, MacOS X, and Sun Solaris." > Theoretically the platform is the hardware (or processor) type, so we're wrong there. Solaris (the OS) runs on the x86 and SPARC platforms. I changed the list of supported OSes because OOo version 2 only supports Microsoft Windows, Linux, and Sun Solaris. I removed the reference to MacOS X because it wasn't in the official listing... Look here for the system requirements: http://development.openoffice.org/releases/2.0_beta.html#mozTocId75173 If we can get official confirmation on additional OSes or platforms that are "supported", not "ported" then we should add them. The availability of the source code (most of which is in a fairly universal language, C) allows for several porting projects: http://porting.openoffice.org/ > > > International. OOo is available in over 40 languages. > > I think that this point needs its own point; it has nothing to do with > being cross-platform (imo), and doesn't really fit into any other section. > > > > Open source. You can distribute, copy, and modify the software as > much as you wish. > > I think this section needs slightly modified. If you are technically > inclined, and know what the open source movement is about, then the > original point will make perfect sense. However, to someone who is not > technically inclined, and/or who is not aware of the Open Source > licensing scheme or methodology, the original point on its own doesn't > necessarily make sense. I think a reference to the source code and > license is required here. It should also provide "For more information, > see "What is 'open source'?" which would be a bookmark to the > appropriate section, so that people are aware that an explanation is > available within the document. I think it should read something like: > "Open source. As the source code is available, and the license permits > modification and derivative works, you can distribute, copy, and modify > the software as much as you wish. For more information, see <What is > “open source”?>" My original text that went into some detail regarding FOSS and the OOo licensing was whittled down to what you see (I did my Master's project on FOSS, so it is a subject dear to me)...I kicked and screamed (and got kinda nasty about the edits <blushing>), but in the end the consensus rules here. I'm not really a consensus kind of guy, but I am trying to play well with the other kids. Maybe we should look at this from another point of view (as long as I'm not the instigator)? But we do have to serve both the technically proficient types and newbies with our guides...most of the readers of the licensing and Open Source sections will probably be newbies, or at least new to FOSS and OOo. > >No vendor lock-in. OOo 2.0 uses an XML (Extensible Markup Language) > file format developed as an industry standard by OASIS (Organization for > the Advancement of Structured Information Standards). These files can > easily be read by any text editor and their framework is open and published. > > Again, this part will make perfect sense to someone who is technically > inclined and who will know about open formats in general, but the last > part will not necessarily make sense to someone who is unaware of these > factors. Additionally, I don't think it's quite accurate to say that it > can be easily read by any text editor, since it isn't quite as simple as > opening the file in Notepad/GEdit, and being able to make sense of the > file. I guess reading the words and understanding what you read should be explained? This sentence really is a comparison of Open and Proprietary file formats...can a text editor "read" the file or not. When I try to open a Word document with gedit I get this error message: "Could not open the file "/../word.doc" because gedit has not been able to automatically detect the character coding." Basically, the file is unreadable (except with Word). > > OpenOffice.org has been translated into over 45 languages from Arabic > to Zulu, so your language probably is supported. There are many spelling > checkers and thesauri available for languages and dialects that do not > have a localized program interface. They are available from the > OpenOffice.org website. > > In the "Is OpenOffice available in my language?" FAQ section, it > mentions that OOo is available in 45 languages, whereas the earlier > point about the suite being international mentions "over 40". While both > are technically accurate, there should be some consistency in that both > should be the same number. I think since the former is more specific, > the latter should be updated to match the 45 count. You are right, both usages are technically correct. > I am still new to the list/group, so some of this stuff may have been > discussed before, so forgive me if I am rehashing old debates. I do > think that those changes are quite small but important, to make the > document more accessible to non-technical people, and to generally > ensure continuity. > > Comments? As Daniel said, using the OOo Notes and Changes features are the best way to review a document. However, I support you bringing these issues up on the list...but the best way to get it considered by the author is to use the Notes and Changes features. Everyone here sees things a little different, and your outlook is welcome...after all if they put up with me, they'll put up with anyone ;-) -- Regards, Rick Barnes www.nostabo.net ******************************************************************* PRIVILEGED - PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL This electronic mail is solely for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is confidential or privileged. If you receive this electronic mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify the sender by electronic mail or using any of the contact details noted herein. This e-mail sent via Evolution 2.0.4 running on a Linux 2.6.11 kernel.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
