On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Danese Cooper <dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 4) most customers use OOo on Windows > > Last time I checked, the percentage of Windows users was still in the high > 90s percentile. But it builds on the various Linux distros, as well as > MacOSX and a bunch of other platforms, each with their own lovely and unique > quirks. This complexity is one of the reasons it might be a good idea to > behave like kernel.org and let OOo "distros" handle end-user packaging and > distribution. Another reason would be that consumers are relatively > unsophisticated and ask a lot of silly questions... > > Thanks, Danese, that does clarify things a bit for those of us who haven't been involved since the beginning. One question about the comment above though: Are you advocating that Apache OOo stick to source-only releases, and avoid building and delivering binaries altogether? Or is your idea that Apache OOo would deliver builds, but that they be "Vanilla OOo" , ala the "vanilla kernel" from kernel.org, with a presumption that (some|most|all) end-users will choose to use a distribution provided by somebody else... where somebody else could be IBM, Novell, LibreOffice, Red Hat, etc.? Thanks, Phil
