Hi Rick,
Rick Barnes wrote:
Well I agree that cross-platform is often a definition of the CPU architecture, but I think that we are okay with that one; generally speaking many F/OSS projects use the term to refer to the compatibility of various operating systems. I had a quick check on www.dict.org:Hello Alan,
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 21:22 +0100, Alan Madden wrote:
===========================================Theoretically the platform is the hardware (or processor) type, so we're
>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."
wrong there. Solaris (the OS) runs on the x86 and SPARC platforms.
*From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03) <http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict3&Database=foldoc>: *
cross-platform
A term that describes a language,
software application or hardware device that works on more
than one system platform <http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=platform> (e.g. Unix <http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=Unix>, Microsoft Windows <http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=Microsoft+Windows>,
Macintosh <http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=Macintosh>). E.g. Netscape Navigator <http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=Netscape+Navigator>, Java <http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=Java>.
(1998-02-24)
So it looks like we're perfectly justified in saying cross-platform. If you don't wish to use the term, we could always go with "Portable", "Widely Compatible", "System Compatibility", or something similar. Thoughts?
I changed the list of supported OSes because OOo version 2 only supportsQuite so... I just went to the download page (http://download.openoffice.org/2.0beta/index.html) and checked the "Choose your Operating System" dropdown, for an idea of the officially listed stuff. I am aware that the OOo OSX port isn't particuarly popular as it uses the X11 windowing system which from
Microsoft Windows, Linux, and Sun Solaris. I removed the reference to
MacOS X because it wasn't in the official listing...
a Mac user's perspective, looks like crap (*g*), but the OSX download page for 2.0 beta (http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/ooo-osx_downloads.html) does say that OOo (and the NeoOffice project) is available for download, and that OOo is an "Official OpenOffice.org distribution". Seems to be some ambiguity as to just what is officially available...
Yeah, I see that... again, it's very odd that there is an "official" version and download page for the OSX version (which has a link to NeoOffice) yet no official system requirements.Look here for the system requirements: http://development.openoffice.org/releases/2.0_beta.html#mozTocId75173
Well I didn't mean to go off on one about F/OSS, I think just the one extra part of the line I had suggested would be enough; it would simply be too much for the 'average' person to start getting their head around. You do have a really good 'What is "open source"?' section near the bottom, which is small and simple, and I think just mentioning that because of the license, you can redistribute it, then providing a link to the later section is more than enough. When someone comes along and reads that line, then wonders about open source, they might get worried that they don't really understand it and have no where to consult about it; but if they have a link provided, they'll know not to be concerned, as there is a small section later in the document which goes into a little more detail.> 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)?
I agree entirely, I was just shuffling what you had already said around a bit, and cutting down on the ambiguity. To a technically inclined person, they'll get the whole open/proprietary format concept, but for the average non-technical person, it could lead them to assume that they can edit any of their OOo files in absolutely any text editor they choose, which is not quite the case; any text editor can be *made* to read them, but not all will make sense 'out of the box'.>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.
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.
Well it's a *bit* petty, I know; and absolutely insignificant on the modification front.. but with that said, you might as well remain consistent about it, for the sake of not throwing two different numbers into the mix.
As Daniel said, using the OOo Notes and Changes features are the bestI will most certainly do so in the future, once I get this cursed computer sorted out... random lock ups and the network *randomly* deciding to refuse 100% to upload, or deciding to let me out on nothing but port 80... a rather bizarre state of affairs when I can't hit IRC, can't FTP, can't SSH, yet can quite happily hit webpages. :P
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 isheh, many thanks :) I don't mean to be correcting you per se, I think that we have quite a similar outlook on how it should go (half a dozen one-line changes in a ~20 page document isn't that monumental ;)), I just thought that one or two little tweaks would make it even better, and I suppose that's what the review process is all about :)
welcome...after all if they put up with me, they'll put up with
anyone ;-)
