On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 12:18 -0400, Doug wrote: > On 05/29/2012 09:32 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote: > > Fernado, > > > > Thanks! > > > > I started to respond here and decided that would be a distraction to > > the community. > > > > I started to respond on one of the blogs but decided that would be a > > distraction from my working on the standard. > > > > I think intelligent users will consider the source and make the > > appropriate evaluation. > > > > Hope you are having a great week! > > > > Patrick > > > > PS: One factoid for anyone who does have the time/interest in > > responding: Where are the LibreOffice members in the ODF TC at OASIS? > > The non-contribution of LibreOffice to the standard is another example > > of their free rider status in the open source community. The taking of > > the OpenOffice source code is another. > > > > On 5/29/2012 9:08 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote: > >> After "Can Apache OpenOffice still compete with LibreOffice?" > >> http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=0049362B-A9A4-500D-DDCDBD374AC219B5 > /snip/ > > And so on. If the LO and OO people would stop feuding with each other > and devote just a little time to > fixing the few remaining bugs in Lotus Symphony, they would have a > professional office suite, not > something cobbled together like the tweedle-dum/tweedle-dee OO and LO. > You OO and LO guys > just can't stand to see a name like IBM on anything, can you? It _is_ > open source. > Hi doug
Only one comment for you - Symphony is not open source, never has been - not all of it just some of it is being open sourced during the merge with the Apache OpenOffice code. //drew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
