Revisionism is a marketing issue that we can take a more active
stance on.
On 04/18/2010 03:45 AM, Bernhard Dippold wrote:
In the past we copied MS Office by creating sub-applications to be
comparable to their single apps, but internally, we just opened a
new text, spreadsheet or presentation document in OpenOffice.org.
If you notice, that response was yet another try to negotiate an
incremental revision of history. OOo has about a 20 year history,
which establishes an experienced, stable, and above all, hardy, team.
That also puts its origins back to a time when WordStar was fading out
and WordPerfect rising to the top of the field. IIRC WordPerfect and
its formats still havae a presence in some professional areas.
The repeated attempts at revisionism are counter productive and probably
pure troll, and warrants reprimand. Revisionists have been set straight
on that before, such as Hoeger has done here:
(http://marketing.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=29754)
On 3/16/10 18:44 , Lutz Hoeger wrote:
[snip]
> We once stated this direction in a concept for OOo 2.0
> (http://tools.openoffice.org/releases/q-concept.html),
> and it hasn't changed a lot since then:
[snip]
> Again, in all clarity: We don't copy. Neither colors nor
> applications nor features. SO/OOo has a 20+ years history
> (10 years as OOo) and applications and features were
> added to and dropped out of the suite as customers
> demanded and the availability of alternatives permitted
> us to do.
>
> I hope that clarified it a bit. As for a strategic marketing
> plan, it is critical this is not being based on false
> assumptions or strongly skewed summaries of OOo's
> overarching objectives. Please let's make sure we are all
> on the same page about this.
From a marketing perspective, the direction needs to be periodically
stated to maintain visibility.
Specifically to deal with revisionism (if not also revisionists), it is
a good idea to periodically have articles or series of articles about
OOo's history of development and its road map. In no particular order,
there are several reasons, but the main three would be .
+ address the use revisionist history against OOo and counteract the
active spread of disinformation regarding the origins,
history and goals of SO/OOo
+ address the status of the project under Oracle. Oracle has a lot
to gain with OOo and many related projects are based on OOo,
including Oracle's né Sun's StarOffice.
+ proactively disable the ability for fifth columnists to re-flag OOo
as a clone. Being re-flagged as a clone has not only marketing
connotations but also legal problems, considering the role of
software patents in Microsoft's strategy against ICT use and
especially in the context of its partners (e.g. Novell) constantly
trying to inject toxic code, counter productive ideas and individuals.
On the marketing team, we can answer Martin's request:
http://marketing.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=29824
From Sun and Oracle, it would help to have some public reminders to
find in Google regarding SO/OOo's 20+ year history.
Regards
/Lars
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
