Re: Regional AOO sites [was: Re: openoffice.fm]
Hi 2012/3/28 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org: We have the ability to host such sites here at Apache, as subdomains of the openoffice.org domain. For example, http://de.openoffice.org is for German. It then redirects to http://www.openoffice.org/de/ which is a subdirectory of our web site's content tree. Yes, that is (practically) the same thing that before. If a website is done that way, then project committers have direct access to checking in changes, via the CMS or Subversion. Other contributors can submit patches. I see different, Rob, why in this way is good to maintain a core pages, like in Debian (where i help too) that all content are under CVS using WML, giving a very good support to manage and see how old is a translation. A example is this page[1]. [1]http://www.debian.org/devel/website/stats/pt#outdated Can we follow this strategy? Which strategy? Calling something BrOffice? To have a regional site out of Apache's infra. For a website hosted at Apache, as part of the openoffice.org website, the CMS is available by default. humm... a Wiki can be considered as CMS, but isn't easy or with same resources/features that a communicative site. But with this phrase i understand that here isn't the correct place to discuss this, and yes in mkting list. I will do it. It is also certainly possible to have your own website, external to Apache, and run by local volunteers. But it would be important to choose a domain name that did not imply that it was an official OpenOffice website. As BrOffice, always became clear that was a *community* website, and was a strategy to bring more volunteers and promote the product, like a adaptation land before to jump for international project. We can receive good efforts from a non-english community speakers inside each country/region, finding people that can to do this bridge (or facilitator) for AOO project. The simplest thing, I think, would be to host your website at Apache, something like http://br.openoffice.org. Would that work? As i said, I see fine to translate the portal for all languages, like in Debian, but when we start to bring news, localized material (or more specific like spreadsheets based in a local law), isn't interesting to share. Others, like presentation templates, i agree that is interesting to converge and to join. However, i will rewrite this email in mkting list. Best, Claudio
Re: Regional AOO sites [was: Re: openoffice.fm]
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Claudio Filho filh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi 2012/3/28 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org: We have the ability to host such sites here at Apache, as subdomains of the openoffice.org domain. For example, http://de.openoffice.org is for German. It then redirects to http://www.openoffice.org/de/ which is a subdirectory of our web site's content tree. Yes, that is (practically) the same thing that before. If a website is done that way, then project committers have direct access to checking in changes, via the CMS or Subversion. Other contributors can submit patches. I see different, Rob, why in this way is good to maintain a core pages, like in Debian (where i help too) that all content are under CVS using WML, giving a very good support to manage and see how old is a translation. A example is this page[1]. [1]http://www.debian.org/devel/website/stats/pt#outdated I see three models: 1) Core English portal that is translated into other languages. So no local variation, other than translation. 2) Each language creates its own NL entry page, with design and content determined by the NL community 3) A core English page that is modular, that has core content that is translated for other languages, but also has a panel for local news stories, and additional NL-specific content available on pages linked to from the home page. Today, with the openoffice.org, we have a mix. And some would say we have a mess. My personal preference would be something like #3. Get a basic translation for all languages, with static content that will remain valid for a long period of time. We might not have a vibrant Bulgarian or Albanian community in the project today, but we can have a website translated once, and still be useful to end users. But then we need additional flexibility for active NL communities, so they can customize and enhance. Can we follow this strategy? Which strategy? Calling something BrOffice? To have a regional site out of Apache's infra. For a website hosted at Apache, as part of the openoffice.org website, the CMS is available by default. humm... a Wiki can be considered as CMS, but isn't easy or with same resources/features that a communicative site. But with this phrase i understand that here isn't the correct place to discuss this, and yes in mkting list. I will do it. The Apache CMS allows someone to edit files via a browser-based interface. So it is very easy for a committer to make changes. Not as easy as a wiki, but a lot easier than checking out files via SVN. And I think we could do a hybrid model as well. For example, we could have a static HTML homepage for a language, but then have the links from that page go to a wiki that the NL community maintains. That would give us a consistent look feel for the homepage, but also give easier authoring for the other pages. It is also certainly possible to have your own website, external to Apache, and run by local volunteers. But it would be important to choose a domain name that did not imply that it was an official OpenOffice website. As BrOffice, always became clear that was a *community* website, and was a strategy to bring more volunteers and promote the product, like a adaptation land before to jump for international project. We can receive good efforts from a non-english community speakers inside each country/region, finding people that can to do this bridge (or facilitator) for AOO project. I think this approach can be done at Apache as well. You have a pt_br mailing list for the NL community, to coordinate the contents of the website. The simplest thing, I think, would be to host your website at Apache, something like http://br.openoffice.org. Would that work? As i said, I see fine to translate the portal for all languages, like in Debian, but when we start to bring news, localized material (or more specific like spreadsheets based in a local law), isn't interesting to share. Others, like presentation templates, i agree that is interesting to converge and to join. However, i will rewrite this email in mkting list. Best, Claudio
Re: Regional AOO sites [was: Re: openoffice.fm]
On Mar 29, 2012, at 7:11 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Claudio Filho filh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi 2012/3/28 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org: We have the ability to host such sites here at Apache, as subdomains of the openoffice.org domain. For example, http://de.openoffice.org is for German. It then redirects to http://www.openoffice.org/de/ which is a subdirectory of our web site's content tree. Yes, that is (practically) the same thing that before. If a website is done that way, then project committers have direct access to checking in changes, via the CMS or Subversion. Other contributors can submit patches. I see different, Rob, why in this way is good to maintain a core pages, like in Debian (where i help too) that all content are under CVS using WML, giving a very good support to manage and see how old is a translation. A example is this page[1]. [1]http://www.debian.org/devel/website/stats/pt#outdated I see three models: 1) Core English portal that is translated into other languages. So no local variation, other than translation. 2) Each language creates its own NL entry page, with design and content determined by the NL community 3) A core English page that is modular, that has core content that is translated for other languages, but also has a panel for local news stories, and additional NL-specific content available on pages linked to from the home page. Today, with the openoffice.org, we have a mix. And some would say we have a mess. That we still have the whole mess is an achievement. My personal preference would be something like #3. Get a basic translation for all languages, with static content that will remain valid for a long period of time. We might not have a vibrant Bulgarian or Albanian community in the project today, but we can have a website translated once, and still be useful to end users. But then we need additional flexibility for active NL communities, so they can customize and enhance. +1. I agree and when I have another volunteer window we can make some progress on improving the main, download, some policy pages, a how to contribute site translations. Also news feeds etc. We already discussed some of the technical details. Can we follow this strategy? Which strategy? Calling something BrOffice? To have a regional site out of Apache's infra. For a website hosted at Apache, as part of the openoffice.org website, the CMS is available by default. humm... a Wiki can be considered as CMS, but isn't easy or with same resources/features that a communicative site. But with this phrase i understand that here isn't the correct place to discuss this, and yes in mkting list. I will do it. The Apache CMS allows someone to edit files via a browser-based interface. So it is very easy for a committer to make changes. Not as easy as a wiki, but a lot easier than checking out files via SVN. And I think we could do a hybrid model as well. For example, we could have a static HTML homepage for a language, but then have the links from that page go to a wiki that the NL community maintains. That would give us a consistent look feel for the homepage, but also give easier authoring for the other pages. What's important to know in this discussion is that the modular parts that I plan should be in markdown and not html. I already have the ability to have translated top nav buttons, branding text, search and home be translated All these files so far are markdown / .mdtext files. I plan to have the modules be mdtext as well. I have the plan, I just need to find the time. Regards, Dave It is also certainly possible to have your own website, external to Apache, and run by local volunteers. But it would be important to choose a domain name that did not imply that it was an official OpenOffice website. As BrOffice, always became clear that was a *community* website, and was a strategy to bring more volunteers and promote the product, like a adaptation land before to jump for international project. We can receive good efforts from a non-english community speakers inside each country/region, finding people that can to do this bridge (or facilitator) for AOO project. I think this approach can be done at Apache as well. You have a pt_br mailing list for the NL community, to coordinate the contents of the website. The simplest thing, I think, would be to host your website at Apache, something like http://br.openoffice.org. Would that work? http://www.openoffice.org/pt-br/ exists and already has a simple page. I'd help if someone provided a translation for the topnav. Or, shouldn't we work to co-ordinate with the pootle translators? Probably after 3.4. Meanwhile my plan can proceed and we can decide later what is special and what is piped in from pootle. As i said, I see fine to translate the portal for all languages, like in
Regional AOO sites [was: Re: openoffice.fm]
Hi 2012/3/14 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org: 2) Domain name openoffice.fm Both are likely confusing to the consumer and falsely imply the identity and source of their goods. BTW, I created a place in Bugzilla to track things like this: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/enter_bug.cgi?product=trademark Rob, a NL related question: if someone of us bring up a website for regional/local group, in native language, how do you will see this act? A example was here, in Brazil. At begin, the openoffice.org.br was with us, and we created a portal with Drupal, talking in brazilian portuguese all news about ODF/OOo in our country and the world (with the respective translation, when was the case). At final, in function of the trademark problems with openoffice, we changed to broffice, but always clearly linked with main project. Can we follow this strategy? A CMS can give us a more flexibility to work. Is possible? What you (and Apache) think about? best, Claudio
Re: Regional AOO sites [was: Re: openoffice.fm]
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Claudio Filho filh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi 2012/3/14 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org: 2) Domain name openoffice.fm Both are likely confusing to the consumer and falsely imply the identity and source of their goods. BTW, I created a place in Bugzilla to track things like this: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/enter_bug.cgi?product=trademark Rob, a NL related question: if someone of us bring up a website for regional/local group, in native language, how do you will see this act? We have the ability to host such sites here at Apache, as subdomains of the openoffice.org domain. For example, http://de.openoffice.org is for German. It then redirects to http://www.openoffice.org/de/ which is a subdirectory of our web site's content tree. If a website is done that way, then project committers have direct access to checking in changes, via the CMS or Subversion. Other contributors can submit patches. A example was here, in Brazil. At begin, the openoffice.org.br was with us, and we created a portal with Drupal, talking in brazilian portuguese all news about ODF/OOo in our country and the world (with the respective translation, when was the case). At final, in function of the trademark problems with openoffice, we changed to broffice, but always clearly linked with main project. Can we follow this strategy? Which strategy? Calling something BrOffice? A CMS can give us a more flexibility to work. Is possible? What you (and Apache) think about? For a website hosted at Apache, as part of the openoffice.org website, the CMS is available by default. It is also certainly possible to have your own website, external to Apache, and run by local volunteers. But it would be important to choose a domain name that did not imply that it was an official OpenOffice website. The simplest thing, I think, would be to host your website at Apache, something like http://br.openoffice.org. Would that work? -Rob best, Claudio
Re: openoffice.fm
On Sunday 25 of March 2012 03:14:56 Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Marc Sanders marcsander...@gmail.comwrote: Rob Weir robweir at apache.org writes The MO is typically to install adware, not viruses. Virus writing is not a business model. Some anti-virus apps report adware, some don't. But if you don't see anything, that might be a good sign. After all, adware that you can't see is not a business model either. When I get a chance I'll try installing on a virtual machine and see what I get. -Rob Installing on a virtual machine--great idea. Let me know what you get. Tried on an XP SP3 VM. DIfferent results that you had, and different what I saw on the website last week. Now it appears to offer the full 150MB 3.3 download, as signed by Oracle. Evidently some cat mouse going on. In any case, the safest way to download is always via http://download.openoffice.org. -Rob Thanks! -Marc It seems they change their site. It's now look different from that was befobe to my mind and now download links lead to http://download.services.openoffice.org (does it still official download link ?) while curently on official site http://openoffice.mirrorbrain.org download link is represented for me. Maybe they saw this discussion? It look suspiciously :\ If they curenly supply the Official builds and wiil not change download links to any different from official mirror when it looks like some advertising resource. But the page: http://www.downloadadmin.com/consumers/general-uninstallation-instructions confuse me. What Advertiser’s Software is question? So it is realy safest to use officeial site to dowbload, as Rob said, at least while the owners of that resouce contact with AOO developers. There is no any contact information on their page but only the form for question is there.
Re: openoffice.fm
On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 12:56 +0400, Torokhov Sergey wrote: On Sunday 25 of March 2012 03:14:56 Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Marc Sanders marcsander...@gmail.comwrote: Rob Weir robweir at apache.org writes The MO is typically to install adware, not viruses. Virus writing is not a business model. Some anti-virus apps report adware, some don't. But if you don't see anything, that might be a good sign. After all, adware that you can't see is not a business model either. When I get a chance I'll try installing on a virtual machine and see what I get. -Rob Installing on a virtual machine--great idea. Let me know what you get. Tried on an XP SP3 VM. DIfferent results that you had, and different what I saw on the website last week. Now it appears to offer the full 150MB 3.3 download, as signed by Oracle. Evidently some cat mouse going on. In any case, the safest way to download is always via http://download.openoffice.org. -Rob Thanks! -Marc It seems they change their site. It's now look different from that was befobe to my mind and now download links lead to http://download.services.openoffice.org (does it still official download link ?) while curently on official site http://openoffice.mirrorbrain.org download link is represented for me. Maybe they saw this discussion? It look suspiciously :\ If they curenly supply the Official builds and wiil not change download links to any different from official mirror when it looks like some advertising resource. But the page: http://www.downloadadmin.com/consumers/general-uninstallation-instructions confuse me. What Advertiser’s Software is question? So it is realy safest to use officeial site to dowbload, as Rob said, at least while the owners of that resouce contact with AOO developers. There is no any contact information on their page but only the form for question is there. I do not know that this has any relationship to why they changed but I did call the owners, the day after the subject came up on the mailing lists. The phone call was short, it was polite and it was in the tone of one person speaking to another, representing only myself. I appealed to their sense of fairness. //drew
Re: openoffice.fm
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Marc Sanders marcsander...@gmail.comwrote: Rob Weir robweir at apache.org writes The MO is typically to install adware, not viruses. Virus writing is not a business model. Some anti-virus apps report adware, some don't. But if you don't see anything, that might be a good sign. After all, adware that you can't see is not a business model either. When I get a chance I'll try installing on a virtual machine and see what I get. -Rob Installing on a virtual machine--great idea. Let me know what you get. Tried on an XP SP3 VM. DIfferent results that you had, and different what I saw on the website last week. Now it appears to offer the full 150MB 3.3 download, as signed by Oracle. Evidently some cat mouse going on. In any case, the safest way to download is always via http://download.openoffice.org. -Rob Thanks! -Marc
Re: openoffice.fm
Rob Weir robweir at apache.org writes The MO is typically to install adware, not viruses. Virus writing is not a business model. Some anti-virus apps report adware, some don't. But if you don't see anything, that might be a good sign. After all, adware that you can't see is not a business model either. When I get a chance I'll try installing on a virtual machine and see what I get. -Rob Installing on a virtual machine--great idea. Let me know what you get. Thanks! -Marc
Re: openoffice.fm
Rob Weir robweir at apache.org writes: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Donald Whytock dwhytock at gmail.com wrote: Looks like they are bundling in known adware apps like PartyPoker, PriceGong, uPlayer, etc. Their link that says Install the OpenOffice suite and get the #1 alternative to MS Office downloads a 33 MB openoffice-suite.exe. This is not a real distribution of OpenOffice.org. It sounds like it is a download admin that will offer the other apps and then download OOo. So a few issues here: 1) Their website and the file name suggest that the user is downloading OpenOffice 2) Domain name openoffice.fm Both are likely confusing to the consumer and falsely imply the identity and source of their goods. BTW, I created a place in Bugzilla to track things like this: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/enter_bug.cgi?product=trademark Once we get 3.4 out maybe we can do an official registration of Apache OpenOffice as a trademark. That will give us some more clout with issues like this. Until then, I suppose we should take it as a compliment that they are claiming to be us, and not some other open source office suite -Rob Don In a moment of carelessness, I downloaded and installed openoffice.fm, but declined all adware apps. After installation, no version of OOo appeared anywhere. (So, *apparently* nothing installed or could be uninstalled.) I've run Sophos AV numerous time and found nothing. Any reason I should be concerned? Thx, M
Re: openoffice.fm
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Marc Sanders marcsander...@gmail.com wrote: Rob Weir robweir at apache.org writes: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Donald Whytock dwhytock at gmail.com wrote: Looks like they are bundling in known adware apps like PartyPoker, PriceGong, uPlayer, etc. Their link that says Install the OpenOffice suite and get the #1 alternative to MS Office downloads a 33 MB openoffice-suite.exe. This is not a real distribution of OpenOffice.org. It sounds like it is a download admin that will offer the other apps and then download OOo. So a few issues here: 1) Their website and the file name suggest that the user is downloading OpenOffice 2) Domain name openoffice.fm Both are likely confusing to the consumer and falsely imply the identity and source of their goods. BTW, I created a place in Bugzilla to track things like this: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/enter_bug.cgi?product=trademark Once we get 3.4 out maybe we can do an official registration of Apache OpenOffice as a trademark. That will give us some more clout with issues like this. Until then, I suppose we should take it as a compliment that they are claiming to be us, and not some other open source office suite -Rob Don In a moment of carelessness, I downloaded and installed openoffice.fm, but declined all adware apps. After installation, no version of OOo appeared anywhere. (So, *apparently* nothing installed or could be uninstalled.) I've run Sophos AV numerous time and found nothing. Any reason I should be concerned? The MO is typically to install adware, not viruses. Virus writing is not a business model. Some anti-virus apps report adware, some don't. But if you don't see anything, that might be a good sign. After all, adware that you can't see is not a business model either. When I get a chance I'll try installing on a virtual machine and see what I get. -Rob Thx, M
Re: openoffice.fm
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: There's a site offering, supposedly, a version of OpenOffice called OpenOffice.fm: http://download.openoffice.fm/free/ No mention of Oracle or Apache in the licensing, though it does have a news blurb about OpenOffice joining Apache. FAQ and forum links point to openoffice.org. Links to the source for versions 3.3 and 3.2.1 point to openmirror.org; www.openmirror.org gives a webserver default page. Some of the fine print says the installer will present opt-ins for other software. I guess that's their business model. Looks like they are bundling in known adware apps like PartyPoker, PriceGong, uPlayer, etc. Haven't tried to download the source or binary. Their link that says Install the OpenOffice suite and get the #1 alternative to MS Office downloads a 33 MB openoffice-suite.exe. This is not a real distribution of OpenOffice.org. It sounds like it is a download admin that will offer the other apps and then download OOo. So a few issues here: 1) Their website and the file name suggest that the user is downloading OpenOffice 2) Domain name openoffice.fm Both are likely confusing to the consumer and falsely imply the identity and source of their goods. BTW, I created a place in Bugzilla to track things like this: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/enter_bug.cgi?product=trademark Once we get 3.4 out maybe we can do an official registration of Apache OpenOffice as a trademark. That will give us some more clout with issues like this. Until then, I suppose we should take it as a compliment that they are claiming to be us, and not some other open source office suite ;-) -Rob Don
Re: openoffice.fm
Am 14.03.12 15:53, schrieb Donald Whytock: There's a site offering, supposedly, a version of OpenOffice called OpenOffice.fm: http://download.openoffice.fm/free/ No mention of Oracle or Apache in the licensing, though it does have a news blurb about OpenOffice joining Apache. FAQ and forum links point to openoffice.org. Links to the source for versions 3.3 and 3.2.1 point to openmirror.org; www.openmirror.org gives a webserver default page. Some of the fine print says the installer will present opt-ins for other software. I guess that's their business model. Haven't tried to download the source or binary. What comfuse me is, that the installer is only 33 MB. So they have not the original package for sure. But the site as is looks not as a bad idea like download trap. I think we should contact them, and ask them gently what they exactly want. Greetings Raphael
Re: openoffice.fm
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Raphael Bircher rbirc...@apache.org wrote: Am 14.03.12 15:53, schrieb Donald Whytock: There's a site offering, supposedly, a version of OpenOffice called OpenOffice.fm: http://download.openoffice.fm/free/ No mention of Oracle or Apache in the licensing, though it does have a news blurb about OpenOffice joining Apache. FAQ and forum links point to openoffice.org. Links to the source for versions 3.3 and 3.2.1 point to openmirror.org; www.openmirror.org gives a webserver default page. Some of the fine print says the installer will present opt-ins for other software. I guess that's their business model. Haven't tried to download the source or binary. What comfuse me is, that the installer is only 33 MB. So they have not the original package for sure. But the site as is looks not as a bad idea like download trap. I think we should contact them, and ask them gently what they exactly want. If you look at the digital signature for that file it is really DownloadAdmin. It is from Tightrope Interactive. That name might ring a bell. That was the company that tried (and failed) to register OpenOffice as a trademark in the US three days after Oracle said it was contributing OpenOffice to Apache. Tightrope was also the owner of the the OpenOffice.com website that was distributing similar ad-ware versions of OpenOffice.org. It looks like they've done similar things with other open source projects and have been to court at least once over their practices: http://www.scribd.com/doc/45478724/Geeknet-v-Tightrope-Answer-and-Counterclaims I'm not sure a gentle reminder will accomplish much here,considering they are notorious for this kind of thing. But I suppose that is the Apache Way. let's blow then kisses ;-) -Rob Greetings Raphael
