Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > As different "technical press" outlets make their own derivations of other > articles, there is incorrect quotation and reference to historical matters > that have nothing to do with the present state and how

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

che.org >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long) >> >> On 2016-09-06 17:06 (+0100), Simos Xenitellis >> <simos.li...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> Just responding to these specific bits with my Apache Brand Management >&

Re: Differentiate or Die

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote: > Sure, I don't claim it's a perfect analogy between "their" world and the > world of F/OSS. > But I think the broad point generalizes well enough to apply to us: > > Have *some* differentiating factor that defines

Re: future of OpenOffice

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote: > Hello, > > this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend tasks yet. > > If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find us. And vice > versa. > > We have talked a lot in the

Re: ooowiki continuation (was: Re: OpenOffice)

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jörg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote: > >> From: Simos Xenitellis [mailto:simos.li...@googlemail.com] > >> > Maybe I would also like to be a participant in the >> LibreOffice Certification >> > Program

Re: ooowiki continuation (was: Re: OpenOffice)

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: > Hello, > >> From: Thorsten Behrens [mailto:t...@libreoffice.org] > >> I think at the time of your posting, that topic was somewhat on >> hold/stalled. Being 2 months late to a discussion sometimes gets you >> no