On Sep 26, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
Another one of those larger ecosystem things I'll be pushing on.
If you recall the legacy OpenOffice.org project had a webpage that
listed various consultants who provided services for OpenOffice. We
took it down because it
On Sep 10, 2012, at 7:46 PM, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com wrote:
Good news to report! My wife will likely be discharged from the hospital
later this week.
Super great news!
A force quit is SIGKILL, so I would assume that it will create
a whole bunch of inconsistencies...
On Sep 6, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-09-06 3:46 AM Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 9/6/12 9:59 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2012-09-06 1:26 AM Jürgen Schmidt
Will try to recreate on 10.8.1...
On Sep 5, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote:
Is any work being done on this serious bug on Macs OS X ver. 10.7 10.8?
There have been many help requests on the user forum and on the ooo-users
mailing list.
There are many
The ASF releases source code. We produce it, we develop it, we license it
and we release it.
We have also, as a courtesy to the community, released binaries (read: pre-
compiled and built s/w) as well. The binaries MUST be based on
the actual released code. But the s/w itself is what is produced
On Aug 26, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
No. There is NO WAY IN HELL the org can indemnify
a volunteer who produces a binary build themselves.
Please don't bother asking legal-discuss to tackle this.
Here's an analogy: for a long, long time Bill Rowe has
On Aug 27, 2012, at 8:56 AM, donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Yes, that's what end users care about. But it's not sufficient for AOO
since we are seeking alternative distribution channels.
What does that mean? Can I grok alternative distribution channels
as more mirrors or something else?
Re adding ooo-dev@ since this is STILL an AOO issue.
On Aug 27, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Aug 27, 2012, at 8:56 AM, donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Yes, that's what end users care about
After this, please drop general@
On Aug 27, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
A signature does 2 things:
1. Ensures that no bits have been changed
2. That the bits come from a known (and trusted) entity.
Almost. It doesn't guarantee trust.
Sure it does. If
, 2012 9:57 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
wrote:
...
But recall in all this that even when the PMC releases code, it is
signed by the individual RM, and not by the PMC itself.
Apache Subversion releases tend to have a half-dozen signatures. Thus, I'd
say they are signed by the PMC
On Aug 27, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
Identity != Trust.
Identity + Reputation == Trust.
The signature only guarantees identity.
Signature does not guarantee reputation though. The point
is that reputation is dependent upon identity. And
identity is ensured
Graduation Vote
On Aug 27, 2012 9:57 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
wrote:
...
But recall in all this that even when the PMC releases code, it is
signed by the individual RM, and not by the PMC itself.
Apache Subversion releases tend to have a half-dozen signatures. Thus, I'd
say
On Aug 27, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
People trust the Apache brand.
They download Apache stuff from somewhere.
That stuff is signed by an entity that is associated
with the Apache brand.
As you know, that last step does not occur today. If it did, then
we'd
On Aug 16, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
The vote starts now and will be open until:
Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2.
After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on
gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours.
On Jun 26, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
I took all the tweets from June that mentioned 'OpenOffice' and then
removed the word 'OpenOffice' as well as the string 'RT/. (If they
were left in they would dominate over the other terms). I then
created a 'world cloud' using the Wordle
I'm creating some OSX 10.6 and 10.5 VM partitions, mostly to
play around with building AOOo (as you know, 10.7 and the latest
Xcode are no-nos)... what's a realistic expectation regarding how
much available disk space is needed?
Thx
Well, the intent for AOOo from the very beginning was to provide an ALv2
licensed version of the OOo codebase for *all* codebases in the OOo
ecosystem to be able to consume. The very fact that LO and TDF are
also implying that this makes sense by admitting that they will be
AOOo consumers is nice.
Well, the intent for AOOo from the very beginning was to provide an ALv2
licensed version of the OOo codebase for *all* codebases in the OOo
ecosystem to be able to consume. The very fact that LO and TDF are
also implying that this makes sense by admitting that they will be
AOOo consumers is nice.
Please avoid the loaded term free...
Also, you need to differentiate between s/w available directly
from the ASF, which is always no-charge, to Apache s/w available
from vendors which may have a cost associated with it (What
do you mean you're charging me for Hadoop!? Apache sez their
s/w is
On May 9, 2012, at 11:03 AM, drew wrote:
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 10:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
There are a small number of active, vocal and
negative people at LibreOffice who like to beat up on OpenOffice and
the work we do here.
That cuts both ways.
That's true... In general though,
On May 8, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 8 May 2012, at 21:18, wrote:
Just another warning to not feed the trolls. Now that AOOo 3.4
has been announced, we are starting to see some really untoward
behavior by some of the more vocal LO people.
Just let them go... the world
On Apr 5, 2012, at 10:29 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
Finally, I think this project is very happy to talk to reporters who might
have questions when preparing an article. It is not an imposition. It is
part of what Apache PMC's do. It is an easy way to avoid sloppy errors.
Yeppers... I seem to
Scott McNealy did his keynote on a Mac running an old version
of OOo. He complained in his talk that OOo was abandoned (obv
not aware of the recent history of LO and AOOo) after a slide
he was trying to present didn't render right. Out of the audience
I said that we were giving love to OOo and
On Apr 3, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
He has the skill of convincingly
representing a given piece of work on very short notice with the right
briefing...but his depth of knowledge was always bounded by briefings
immediately beforehand. Fundamentally he was an actor more than a
As a quick note, I'd *love* to dive in and start doing some
coding on AOOo; it's just that I've no idea where in the
heck to start... :)
+1... I trust Joe's PoV here implicitly.
On Mar 19, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Given the initial feedback Jurgen provided on the infra lists about
the potential number of downloads a day and expected size of each
download, I think it would be prudent to take advantage of any
On Mar 14, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Carl Marcum wrote:
On 03/14/2012 01:22 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
snip
For me it shows that some people get nervous because they see that the
stuttering engine of AOO runs better and better. So let us oil the
engine that it runs constantly and smooth.
Juergen
On Nov 17, 2011, at 7:24 AM, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
If we (Apache) use OpenOffice as product name and Apache OpenOffice as
project name, then we can give Team OOo the OpenOffice.org brand and
trademark?
Why would we want to? You don't reward bad behavior so even
if the ASF did want to
On Nov 15, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 15 November 2011 18:31, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Why the AL is important for such a standard
such as Open Office and ODF;
Hey, we can even quote Stallman there.
I'm not sure I'm +1 on an open letter or not. I certainly
I have been mulling this over for a long time...
Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
control and distort the message, paint things as a us vs. them
battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the
whole debacle), and foster FUD to the clear harm of the
The httpd community is looking for help and guidance regarding
revamping our Windows build implementation for Apache httpd 2.4.0...
I would think there would be a LOT of expertise regarding that
here and am sending out the request that if you have some insights
and cycles to spare, to check out
On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
Who are your targets, Jim?
I believe I mentioned them in the original post... In summary:
the entire Open Office ecosystem.
On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I have been mulling this over for a long time...
Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
control and distort the message, paint things as a us vs
On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
Who are your targets, Jim?
I believe I mentioned them in the original post... In summary:
the entire Open
Great job… I even liked that fact that even they understood that
the warm-wishes to TDF were sincere. I also appreciate that they
used the term pointedly to enforce that.
On Oct 14, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
And I'm on El Reg!
On Oct 14, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Oct 14, 2011 6:22 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
If LibreOffice, as an entity, or people behind or involved
with LO are guilty of the above, then of course the PR applies
to them. If innocent, then of course it does
On Oct 14, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Oct 14, 2011 7:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org
wrote:
My unsolicited advice:
There are several topics in the single announcement from ASF. My
recommendation is to read the paragraph that mentions TDF as independent
On Oct 14, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Oct 14, 2011 7:12 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
The intent is address anyone and everyone who is creating the FUD.
Was the Team OpenOffice PR the straw the broke the camel's back?
Pretty much, yeah. Are they the only guilty
, 2011 7:12 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
The intent is address anyone and everyone who is creating the FUD.
Was the Team OpenOffice PR the straw the broke the camel's back?
Pretty much, yeah. Are they the only guilty party? Hardly.
Are we pointing fingers at who are? Nope, they know
On Oct 14, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Oct 14, 2011 7:28 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
My only wish is that we had someone at the conference who
was supportive of the ASF and the AOOo podling in this
matter who was able to explain this in a positive light
On Oct 6, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik
di...@webweaving.orgwrote:
Reading the exchanges - I think language was getting in the way of things.
I really don't think so. I think two issues have been conflated:
A: How AOOo
41 matches
Mail list logo
