Sun Apr 24 18:47:35 NZST 2005
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:48, Graham wrote:
> s swami wrote:
> >And now for a completely off-topic note, Joel in the article
> > shares my healthy disregard for many online journalists:
> > <quote>
> > "... with the imbecile business journalists dripping with glee
> > as they copy each other's stories: "Peer To Peer: Dead!"
> > </quote>
> > ...
> >I still often read:
> > " ... open source software, written by programmers in their
> > spare time and made freely available blah ..."
> >Counterexample: OpenOffice.Org
> > "Sun is still the largest contributor to the project with
> >some 50 developers in Germany, followed by Novell with about 10
> >contributors, and only four active community developers."
> > |___ even took me by surprise.
> > Not worth a new thread sorry.
> > http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1530132226;fp;2;fpid;1
It wasn't worth a new thread :-)
Quoted text is Graham:
> Then given your, quote: "Healthy disregard for many online
> journalists" It would be a good idea to disregard the prattlings
> and misquotations of the Aussie press.
First, there are obvious qualitative differences between the
journalism I characterised as
" ... open source software, written by programmers in their
spare time and made freely available blah ..."
and the journalism I linked to as my counterexample. So your "good
idea" admonition doesn't follow.
> Methinks they were simply overwhelmed to be able to corner Simon
> at the OOo Miniconf that was part of LCA 05.
Second, don't worry about Simon Phipps. The relevant part of the
article, which I quoted, was the statement of Ken Foskey.
> This is a quote of a mail on the OOo Marketing list from OOo
> Community Manager, Louis Suarez-Potts responding to his being
Third, a link would have been useful. I searched in most of the
zillion mailing lists at http://marketing.openoffice.org/ but no
luck. But don't bother, my paragraph below renders what Potts has to
Fourth, let me assume that "his" (in you paragraph quoted above)
refers to Ken Foskey and not Suarez-Potts or Simon Phipps. Then it
would seem that claims of misquotation are incorrect. In fact Foskey
was _not_ misquoted as shown by:
Fifth, as both you and Suarez-Potts say,
#with-commit-access != #developers
nowhere near a good approximation of developer numbers.
Sixth, given the subject I prefer Foskey's comments to those of the
(hardworking) marketing department.
Seventh, apart from you there's only one other who has read so far.
So I'll stop before he too gives up. :-)
> Having said all that, the article is right in part, Sun is still
> the biggest contributor by far, IBM have used the code to create
> Workplace and we haven't seen zip from them and the project still
> needs coders, if only to keep up with the RFEs that keep coming in
> from users.
> However even without the enhancements, OOo 2.0 will still be
> making MS look to it's laurels.
I agree. Looking forward to the 2.0 release. Keep up the good work
and thanks for keeping me honest :-)
PS I won't carry on this thread. So I concede to any further points
you may make. We're on the same side afterall. Or just mail me
offlist and I'll concede in private too. :-)
More information about the wlug
NOTICE: This is an archive of a public mailing list. The University of Waikato is not responsible for its contents.