Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: IBM is alive ;)
Pedro, My mistake then. I didn't read deeply enough into the thread. I still submit that none of these open source projects and their products compete in the sense of meaningful market share. With MS-Office dominating so thoroughly the only thing that makes sense is to build a shared sense of opportunity, rather than bickering incessantly. IBM Docs will be a component of the IBM Connections offering later this year. I don't know how that looks like a competitor to LibreOffice. Lotus Symphony was primarily offered to Lotus Notes customers in large enterprise as a no charge entitlement. Integrated in this fashion, it offers customers an alternative to MS-Office if they choose. We have no evidence that these customers consider LibreOffice, so I don't think it's fair to say we are in a sort of competition. What matters most is to help end users understand the benefits of ODF as their file format, and improve interoperability with the dominance of MS-Office formats. I hope you can at least agree on this last point, if not the others. Regards, /don Donald Harbison Program Director IBM Open Document Format Initiative Software Group Mobile: +1-978-761-0116 From: Pedro pedl...@gmail.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org, Date: 02/07/2012 01:38 PM Subject:[tdf-discuss] Re: IBM is alive ;) Hi donald, donald_harbison wrote What is this talk about a competitor product? The Apache OpenOffice project does not seek to compete with LibreOffice. *I* mentioned a competitor to LibreOffice (not Italo) and was referring to IBM Lotus Symphony and the web service IBM Docs. Quoting my email to answer Italo doesn't make sense because I wasn't attacking Apache or even IBM (IMO some IBM employees bashing TDF on their blogs and on public mailing lists and forums, does not make it a corporate decision ;)) I think you two should exchange private email ;) Regards, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/IBM-is-alive-tp3715436p3723417.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: IBM is alive ;)
IBM has not been bashing LibreOffice. Italo, call me if you want to discuss. There is no 'bashing' going on. Please stop. We are both open source projects, Apache and TDF. Let's start to have some respect showing please. It will help everyone. Personal blogs are personal blogs. There is no enmity toward LibreOffice from IBM. Let me be clear. Yes, we have some difference of opinion on foundations and licensing and so on, but we share a common passion. I hope you see this. What is this talk about a competitor product? The Apache OpenOffice project does not seek to compete with LibreOffice. It's time to stop this nonsense. Respectfully, /don Donald Harbison Program Director IBM Open Document Format Initiative Software Group Mobile: +1-978-761-0116 From: Pedro pedl...@gmail.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org, Date: 02/04/2012 09:37 AM Subject:[tdf-discuss] Re: IBM is alive ;) italovignoli wrote IBM has never been involved in TDF, and has been openly bashing TDF and LibreOffice on personal blogs of IBM employees and AOOoI mailing lists. Sorry, but IBM is off topic here. I am well aware of all that (IMO some IBM employees bashing TDF on their blogs and on public mailing lists and forums, does not make it a corporate decision ;) ). Yet, this is also about a competitor product based on the same (original) source code. The migration to the Cloud seems quite interesting and fit for a general discussion list ;) Especially because a cloud version or cloud connected version of LibreOffice is in TDF's plans? -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/IBM-is-alive-tp3715436p3715573.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Don Harbison Program Director, IBM ODF Initiative Tel. +1-978-399-7018 Mobile: +1-978-761-0116 Email: donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/08/2011 07:55:02 PM: From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Date: 06/08/2011 07:55 PM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join ApacheOpenOffice On 9 Jun 2011, at 00:43, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is just a legally established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the 'independent' part is important. Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to scrutiny and beyond the control of any interested party - transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation can be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since every system of rules contains within it the game that plays it and ultimately subverts it[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF is able to complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop. Agreed... the only reason I mention independent is that even a clearly independent foundation such as the ASF has been alluded to be in cahoots with IBM/Oracle regarding all this, so I'm sure that TDF will get the same amount of scrutiny and baseless claims, and being able to point to their independence will nip that in the bud. I'm always amused when Apache is accused of collaborating with any corporate entity - it's obviously almost impossible for that happen. The problem is not collaboration; it's gameability, and all rule- based and transparent entities eventually suffer from it once they are fully understood by those most likely to benefit from doing so. Is there something useful to be said here? If so, what is it? Non-sequitur? S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/08/2011 08:56:17 PM: From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Date: 06/08/2011 09:00 PM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join ApacheOpenOffice On 9 Jun 2011, at 01:47, donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com wrote: Don Harbison Program Director, IBM ODF Initiative Tel. +1-978-399-7018 Mobile: +1-978-761-0116 Email: donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/08/2011 07:55:02 PM: From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Date: 06/08/2011 07:55 PM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join ApacheOpenOffice On 9 Jun 2011, at 00:43, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is just a legally established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the 'independent' part is important. Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to scrutiny and beyond the control of any interested party - transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation can be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since every system of rules contains within it the game that plays it and ultimately subverts it[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF is able to complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop. Agreed... the only reason I mention independent is that even a clearly independent foundation such as the ASF has been alluded to be in cahoots with IBM/Oracle regarding all this, so I'm sure that TDF will get the same amount of scrutiny and baseless claims, and being able to point to their independence will nip that in the bud. I'm always amused when Apache is accused of collaborating with any corporate entity - it's obviously almost impossible for that happen. The problem is not collaboration; it's gameability, and all rule- based and transparent entities eventually suffer from it once they are fully understood by those most likely to benefit from doing so. Is there something useful to be said here? If so, what is it? Non-sequitur? I'm not sure what you mean by that, honestly (and welcome to the list by the way, perhaps you should introduce yourself). But you really need to get that mailer of yours sorted out, it keeps top-posting a huge signature block each time you reply. Yes, I am now properly chastised. Well, so be it. Blame it on my newbie-ness. With respect to my introduction, I think you must have been off making very professional photographs and did not notice my post[1] I'm also a passionate photographer, and welcome an opportunity to share with you. Peace. /don S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Unsubscribe
-- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
