On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 17:10:59 PM -0800, Bruce Byfield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Does anyone have numbers on this? Is OOo the most often included > >office suite on Linux or is it not? > > Well, about the only distribution I've heard of that doesn't include > it is Slackware.
Maybe presented this way it's a bit misleading. The right format of the question(s) should be: 1) How many free (freedom and/or beer) Linux distributions include a *fully* *functional*, that is fully using Java, OO.o? Where "include" means that they can and are shipping binary packages of both OO.o and everything it depends on? Without need for the inexperienced user to hunt down 3rd party unofficial/not really tested stuff and install it himself? Is such a *fully* *functional* OO.o the most often *included* office suite on Linux? 2) (side question) of the distros which do *not* ship fully functional OO.o, how many do it for very practical reasons? (those like "do it and somebody *will* sue your ass 30 seconds later") > At any rate, there's another issue that nobody seems to have picked up > on. When Base was being built, one of the requirements was that it be > open source. How was that requirement dropped? The decision to drop it > doesn't seem to have been taken by the Community Council. Yes, I too would really like to see a complete answer to this. Marco PS: Bruce, may I ask you to check your mail client setup? It breaks threading. Thanks. -- Marco Fioretti mfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ "The SUN TROPIC beauty farm reopens today: featuring exotic swimming pools, and, under the palm trees, **UVA lamps**" (unluckily for humankind, a REAL ad that I read in a real magazine) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
