On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:43 PM, M Henri Day <[email protected]> wrote: > 2012/11/28 Coll-Barth, Michael <[email protected]> > >> >> > From: M Henri Day [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> > >> > 2012/11/28 Johnny Rosenberg <[email protected]> >> > >> > > Unfortunately it seems like most of the Swedish translators moved to >> > > LibreOffice, which is a shame, because LibreOffice is crap these days. >> > > For every new feature they introduce a dozen of bugs which will never >> > > be corrected. Something like that, anyway. I was planning to go back >> > > to OpenOffice, but I'd like to have it in Swedish, so maybe not… :( >> > > >> > >> > The above statement to the effect that «LibreOffice is crap these days» >> > does not at all correspond to my experience ; quite the contrary.... >> > >> > Henri >> >> It is truly a shame that there had to be this fork. The 'eyes' have been >> effectively cut in half between the two products. And for what, minor >> differences? Is one product really so much better than the other? Yeah, I >> see the differences, but they are less than between versions of MS Office. >> > > Agree - but the responsibility for the forking should be placed squarely > where it lies - on Oracle. Moreover, the forked paths would have > automatically rejoined had Oracle, when it decided to dump OOo, chosen to > assign it to the Document Foundation, which was already up and running and > which requested that this be done. Instead, the firm decided to assign all > the rights to Apache, in the knowledge that doing so would perpetuate the > fork. Thank you, Mr Ellison.... >
And the fork would automatically end if SUSE today decided to end LibreOffice and work with Apache. It is entirely symmetrical. -Rob > Henri --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
