On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500
> Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100
>>> Hagar Delest <hagar.del...@laposte.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I also saw this:
>>>> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South
>>>> Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote
>>>> from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think
>>>> this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly
>>>> growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from
>>>> corporations," Pfeifer said.
>>>>
>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too,
>>>> something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I
>>>> wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
>>>>
>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
>>>>
>>>> Hagar
>>>>
>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the
>>> LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as
>>> connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list
>>> members here are with the Apache setup.
>>>
>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for
>>> stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can
>>> be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen
>>> many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a
>>> computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence.
>>
>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by
>> enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out
>> South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to
>> be based on anything like fact.
>>
>> louis
>
> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our
> (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions
> of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately)
> insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of
> record.
One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do,
was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the
analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO.
I think we are in agreement not to do that.
What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That
was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long
while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region,
etc.
I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to
critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the
facts.
And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize?
The ones I generally point to:
* QA excellence
* Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That
is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not
actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is
diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point
to the numbers, in the abstract.)
* Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in
as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions?
What languages?
— regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just
by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of
stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the
development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO.
— and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to
have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The
more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the
better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about
their fragilities.
* mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a
mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is,
from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing,
though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but
is just one guy.
The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able
to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the
full suite's formats. (At some point.)
It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box.
No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would
point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as
possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would
illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community.
louis
>
> --
> Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
