Okay. Hold your horses. Let us not forget one of the most major reasons for SUN
open sourcing this project in the first place. To promote competition. If it
wasn't open source, StarOffice would most likely still be free to non-commercal
customers.
I think SUN's biggest concern was communicating more intimately with the user
base, and getting people involved with people. This does not negate the fact
that SUN has still added a huge amount of work to the project, but it is STILL
their baby, and their not about to see it lie down by teh wayside.
Reality folks! SUN has a steak in its software suite, and one of the motives
may be to get a step up from a collaborative community effort, even if SUN does
most of the development themselves. Sun's end goal is to sell as many copies of
StarOffice as they can. And if they can get a better idea of where customers
want to go with the software, and what the development community feels is a
good direction then they have a much better marketing and development strategy.
As far as I'm concerned, the OOo community has contributed far more than some
on this list give them credit for, and I personaly congratulate them and give
thanks to all those that have even blinked an eye at the software. This project
doesn't belong to any one person, organization, or even group. It is a
collaboritive effort, and I want to make that clear! Every line whether code or
otherwise is equaly valuable!
So don't get your panties in a bunch!!
Rigel
--- Andrew Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erwin Tenhumberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > Some people might interpret the article in a way that the ration
> > between Sun and non-Sun developers is something like 50:14. If that
> > really was the case wouldn't that mean that a little more than 20% of
> > the features (= functionality) in OpenOffice.org 2.0 would have been
> > developed by non-Sun developers? Is that the case?
>
> I'd have thought it was a gross over-estimate, frankly. I can't think of
> a single addition to the functionality of OOo 2.0 that has come from
> outside Sun.
>
> Let's see -- we've got the new database framework: that was done by Sun
> developers. We've got the 64,000 row limit in Calc. That was Sun.
> There's the new scripting framework. That was Sun.
> There is the improvement to Impress. That was Sun; and when the new
> charting module comes round, that will also be the work of Sun
> developers.
>
> I don't know who was responsible for the redesigned icons and generally
> improved UI, but I''d be surprised if it were outsiders.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I think all these things are admirable, and I am
> grateful for them. but all the volunteer effort I have come across has
> gone into either localisation, support, marketing, or (with spell
> checking) making up in OOo for things that are already in StarOffice.
>
> Genuine improvements to the functionality that depend on volunteer
> labour, such as the bibliographic project, don't seem to have got
> anywhere much in the last four years.
>
> It may be that Novell, Suse and Redhat people have done lots and lots of
> work under the hood that we don't see (and does Caolan Macnamara count
> as both Sun and Red Hat?). But when a user looks at the functionality,
> the rule seems simple. If Sun doesn't do it, nothing happens.
>
> --
> Andrew Brown
> The email in the header does not work.
> Contact details and possibly useful macros from
> http://www.darwinwars.com/lunatic/bugs/oo_macros.html
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
