Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Two questions about course of LO


Hello,


Le Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:05:19 -0700 (PDT),
aqualung <xfekdcugjrkz@mailinator.com> a écrit :


Mark Preston wrote:

But to be honest, the code was such a tangled and complex
mess that I would have needed months of work just going through code
before I even tried to change a single command.

I am slightly concerned that, even now, there is a damn good chance
the code for LibreOffice is still much the same tangled (and
uncommented) mess.

Interesting... If I were in a snarky mood, I might note that the word
"kludge" comes from klug, a German adjective meaning
smart/intelligent. (Most likely, though, this is only an exaggerated
stereotype and cultural differences are not that large.)

But, if the original developers who are intimately familiar, from 10+
years of daily work, with the codebase are all still at Oracle... how
is that knowledge going to migrate to LibreOffice?


The knowledge was shared beforehand. :) And we want to
improve/clean/change that codebase and not continue this legacy that
will be a burden for anyone, including Oracle, to support.


Also: what's to stop Oracle from doubling or tripling its resources on
Oracle OpenOffice (not OpenOffice.org) development to pull far ahead
of LibreOffice? This may be a very dumb question to ask, so please
forgive my ignorance.


No, not at all, it's a very good question, and its answer is very
simple: business. Oracle wants to maximize its revenue, and it seems to
be going through the slow death of the OpenOffice codebase and the
development of Oracle Cloud Office.

The links you posted are indeed quite relevant. 
@Mark: you write that you were able to see the source code of OpenOffice
before Oracle bought Sun, but OpenOffice was Open Source anyway, so
anybody could see the code. Did I get your point right?

Best,
Charles.


To save yourself typing, feel free to point me at webpages where these
questions were discussed already.

Here are some pages that I've come across as I've looked for
information:

https://liorkaplan.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/oracle-open-office-3-3-vs-openoffice-org-3-3/#comment-1499
(highly critical of the LibreOffice "fork")

https://lwn.net/Articles/414051/ (pretty bullish on LO)

http://asay.blogspot.com/2005/09/analyst-nature-and-size-of-open-source.html
(nuanced skepticism about the open source "community")



--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Two-questions-about-course-of-LO-tp2757230p2761051.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@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

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.