Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/05/2011 06:45:16 PM:
> > I'll lend a voice to the contrary. > > > > I can't see why splitting a community should be a factor in entry to the > > incubator. Just about every new open source community is trying topull away > > developers from another community doing similar stuff. That's the nature of > > the beast. > > True, but when its essentially the same software, rather than > different software solving the same problem? If I proposed a new > project that was a fork of the HTTP project, how would that go down? > Apache is obviously a market success, nearly 63% market share by some studies. OOo, relative to the stature of the main competitor (Microsoft) has had much more modest penetration. Maybe 10%. LO market share is much smaller, but that may be due to its very early status and relatively lower adoption on Windows. Also, it has had only had 2 stable releases so far, compared to the 10 year history of OOo. In any case, I hope you would agree that divergence in market leading project should be evaluated by an entirely different set of criteria than in the open source office suite area. They are not comparable at all. So I recommend the follow question for consideration: What gets us to 60% for open source productivity? Or even a respectable 20% We might have different opinions on that, but is there anyone truly so confident in their own opinion that they would deny an attempt to try a different approach? Apache OpenOffice could go to 20%. It could go to zero. LO could go to 20%. It could go to zero. None of us are omniscient, not even Simon ;-) But we know this much, starting from such humble beginnings, we have far more to gain than lose by permitting multiple horses to run in this race. -Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
