Hi Chad, *
Chad Smith wrote:
On 7/2/06, André Wyrwa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Chad,
Chad Smith wrote:
First of all, I took the logo off the sitet - so you guys can
stop whining about that. (Even though I have writen
permission from the Community Manager to use it.)
Thank you!
Without that logo the site does look much more as your private one
than an official OOo page.
Even if this wasn't my primary goal, it is better than before IMHO.
[... conversation with Louis about using official logo and
layout ...]
I didn't know that it was only 6 months ago - thanks for that
information.
I remember visiting your page some time ago (don't remember the
circumstances, but you showed us some web content, IIRC) and thought
it was earlier...
So, i want to ask you - here where it's quiet - what do you
want to achieve with your site?
When I first made the site, (which again, was 6 months ago), it
was merely an attempt to help explain what OpenOffice.org is
(hence the title and the URL). At the time I felt that the front
page of the OOo website did little to explain whatit actually
is, and why one would want to use it. Sure, it gave a one or two
sentence description, but I wanted something more meaty than
that. I don't think at the time we had started the Wiki - and as
I have tried and failed a number of times to get changes made on
the official OOo site - I took it upon myself to build my own
site to explain it. And hence, WhatisOpenOffice.org was born.
At the time, (again, 6 months ago), the Official OpenOffice.org
(tm) website openly promoted the use of and support of NeoOffice
- including, but not limited to, virtually equal billing with
the Mac OOo X11 port on the Mac OOo download page - complete with
links, logo, explaination, and download instructions. So,
having used (or attempted to use) both pieces of software - I
elected to, on my personal site, make it less confusion for
users, and just tell them which one to use. This was a message
that the Mac OOo download page did not deliever - it was
confusing most of the time which was newer, which was more
stable, and most importantly, which freaking one should I
download? (I mean it seemed to me that it would be confusing to
someone who only had *that page* to go on. Being involved on the
lists, and having actually visited NeoOffice's website, wiki, and
using both - I knew which was which.)
Thanks for your thoroughly explanation - and thanks to André who was
able to calm you down (You're right - I didn't really try to).
Again, you have to remember that I created the site 6 months ago.
It was a far simpler time then, a time of peace, and a time of
innocence. A time when two open source office suites based on the
same source code could coexist, side-by-side, and actually work
together in harmony. But that was before the dark times.
The greater part of the community didn't know about the problems
between NeoOffice and the OOo Mac port - Eric described us in his mail
http://marketing.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=23837
more about it (with a link to the NeoOffice forum).
The discussion in the NeoOffice forum took place in November 2005,
so the dark times started before in the background.
I used the look and feel of the official site - with the above
quoted permission - in order to make it mesh with the official
site. I wanted my site to merely be an explanative portal to the
official site. Not to suplant the offical site, nor replace it,
nor subvert it, merely to provide yet another link to the site.
Could I have done that without copying the CSS? Sure I could
have. But I had just been to a web conference where they were
teaching brand identity. So I figured, it would be good for
people to think "Hey, this is just like the page I was just on.
I'm in the right place."
Yes - this approach was right IMHO.
My concern was about using this impression to turn people off the
OOo Mac port.
If you wouldn't have used such a hard description "I *strongly*
suggest..." and added a word about the work being done there, I
hadn't had any problems with that page.
Of course it's up to you to write what you want to - nobody will be
able to hinder you. But I think we both are part of the marketing
project, and so I told you what in my eyes would serve better to
promote OOo.
[...] My purpose in mirroring the look and feel of the official
site was not some evil plot to foil the Mac team - it as a
possibly stupid way for me to promote the project. [...] I mean,
if promoting OOo, then looking like OOo can't hurt.
Nobody will change this!
[...] I guess it's okay for OOo to work with Mozilla, since
Mozilla doesn't make an office suite.
No - that's not the reason IMHO.
But not NeoOffice.
Right - and you know why: The OOo Mac port and NeoOffice can't work
with each other. Everybody thinks, the reason lies at the other side
of the battlefield:
The OOo Mac port complains that they use OOo code and don't
contribute back their improvements (and using a license that hinders
OOo to re-integrate the code).
The NeoOffice people (sorry for possible incorrectness - that's what
I read from the thread Eric linked) don't want to give up their name
and fear that they could be incorporated by OpenOffice.org without
the regard they deserve.
I can understand both positions (and I think, there would be a
solution, if both parts tried to take the concerns of the other side
into consideration), but as member of OpenOffice.org I try to
promote the project - and the work the Mac team does deserves any
support they could get.
[...] So I don't really understand when it is okay to
crosspromote, and when it is not. Especially when OOo did
crosspromote NeoOffice up until last month, or was it last week?
I don't know until when our site mentioned NeoOffice as Mac port and
not as "derived work" like nowadays. Eric would be able to tell more
exactly.
But OOo stopped doing so. What do you think, why?
Probably because more people (and I assume that some of the hard
core of our project have been involved) thought it would be better
not to do so. Better for OpenOffice.org.
The Mac port fiasco, (and yes, I just said fiasco) has been a
thorn in my side for years. Sun doesn't seem to give a rats ass
about Macs, (as evidenced by their refusal to release StarOffice
for Mac), and the use of X11, even eric agrees, is/was a
mistake. However, for over 2 years, I have been told "officially
by the community" that X11 was the way to go, and was the way of
the future. Which I see now, was bullshit.
I'm not an developer, so I can't disprove your argumentation. But
from all I know, X11 was a workaround because there was no chance to
build a native version on Mac without the necessary monetary and
programmer's support. (I've been told that NeoOffice people still
think it will never be possible).
Now, the Mac port is working on that builds - and they solve one
problem after the other. So I think, this effort should be supported.
Leading Mac users away from OOo to NeoOffice is no support for this
effort at all.
To be clear: Every other paragraph on your site supports
OpenOffice.org - and I really appreciate your work there.
[...]
Despite eric's claims, as a Mac user I can tell you NeoOffice
opens a lot faster and a hell of a lot smoother than X11 OOo.
On that point you both could argue for a long time. But there will
be no final solution, I think.
The point is, just because some jerk (and yes, eric was very much
a jerk to me) tells me the official port will be more Mac Native
than NeoOffice "soon" - don't be surprised when I don't wet
myself with joy. Especially when he does so in such a arrogant
jack-off manner.
See, you are supporting OOo but then at the same time those OOo
guys consider your way of supporting non-supportive. It's an
unfortunate situation and i personally surely find the whole
NeoOffice totally off, but still, it's a bit twisty and
considering the concerns of these OOo guys might be a good
thing to do, anyways. (Because i also think they have a poin in
their argumentation.)
Maybe they do - (again, "they" seems to be eric and bernard) -
but I'm not going to change it for them. I may change my site -
but I'm not going to stop promoting NeoOffice. I've been burned
too many times by the "official OOo" Mac-stance to think that
they'll get it right this time. As I've said before, I'll
believe it when I see it. Until OpenOffice.org is better than
NeoOffice - I will not promote it's use to Mac users.
I told you what I think would be good for OOo in general (move this
paragraph and mention the work being done by the Mac port team), I
don't want you to tell something you don't believe. But for me it
looked as if you didn't want to tell your readers that this
team is doing hard work.
As said above: I don't have any right to tell you what to do or not
to do. I just want to let you know my personal opinion in order to
promote OpenOffice.org (as the whole project) best.
[...] the proof is in the pudding. There have been other people
who said "Let's fix this Mac thing!" and --- nothing. I truly
hope it is better. I truly hope it is truly Mac Native (and
UniBin MacNative at that). I would love to be able to tell
anyone, no matter what operating system they use - Grab a Copy of
OpenOffice.org.
If you really hope they'll make it - support them by mentioning
their effort. You don't need to be enthusiastic. Just tell on your
page that they are working on the native port.
[...]
You know, if someone had said "Hey Chad, we're working on a
Mac-native port of OpenOffice.org - something far better than
the X11 port, and even better than NeoOffice! Would you like
to tell people about the work we are doing?" - Then I might
have done that - I probably would have been excited about it.
Here you go. Exactly how i wish it had happened. That's
basically all I'm talking about here.
Yeah, well, that's not how it happened. And maybe this makes me
just as guilty of playing politics as eric - but I'm not going
to pretend that it did happen that way.
I know you as becoming aggressive when you feel hurt or treated
unfair. And this is (at least partially) understandable in most cases.
I'm sorry that I didn't manage to remove all the parts of my mails
that caused such a reaction (or to modify them so that you could
understand what I meant without feeling attacked).
Perhaps we'll find a better way in our next discussion.
Best regards
Bernhard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
