On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 11:40 +0100, Alan Madden wrote: > Hi Rick, > > Rick Barnes wrote: > > >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.
Actually, after looking at this in the chapter, I see how another editor confused this...and I let it go. In a well meaning effort to add "buzzword" points to the "advantages listing these two (obviously) separate items were listed as "Cross-platform"...if they would only leave my work alone when I am right ;-) You are right here and I concede... > >>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. > > > > > 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: > > *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 supports > >Microsoft Windows, Linux, and Sun Solaris. I removed the reference to > >MacOS X because it wasn't in the official listing... > > > > > Quite 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 > 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... There doesn't appear to be a viable beta 2.0 for the MacOS. I guess we are going to have to ask Daniel to settle this by using his contacts on high. > >Look here for the system requirements: > >http://development.openoffice.org/releases/2.0_beta.html#mozTocId75173 > > > > > > > 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. > > >> > 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)? > > > > > > > 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. It is still too short for me...in this we agree, and we could form a mighty coalition to press for our ideals. > >> 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. I think we should stick with over 40...we will be more accurate for longer, even as new localizations are added or old ones dropped. > > 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 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. > > > > > I 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 > > >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 ;-) > > > > > heh, 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 :) Precisely...and your comments are well thought out...and you can back them up with real research...hmmm, a troublemaker I think... -- 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
