On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Raphael Bircher <rbircherapa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Roman > >> The challenge that is unique to OpenOffice as you are well aware is >> the fact that >> it is both a product and a project. > > It's a bit provocative. What would happened if we drop the product, but > don't retire as a project.
True story; Apache Subversion ships no binaries, yet is build-able on most older and all the most recent operating systems. There is a broad network of different builds across all of these architectures. There are very platform specific deviations; there were interesting Windows solutions long before Microsoft took an interest and integrated it entirely into Visual Studio. I don't know what it looks like, but I've long advocated for AOO to 'own' the underlying document processing source code. Retain one GUI layer as long as there are developers around it, but recognize that no single implementation can be performant over the entire universe of UI implementations, even those such as QT don't behave the same way between Linux and Win32. We aim to promulgate open standards by being the best implementation of those standards. I don't anticipate LO or AOO walking away from some sharing of the documentation code base. But if the ASF's releases will further more implementors shared goals, then AOO will continue to succeed in that aspect. If not, let closed providers such as LO keep running with it, and allow Oracle to have succeeded in their goal. There is the secondary effect of online document processing; few want to be entirely crippled by an outage, but the convenience of the world of Google Docs/Office 360 is very compelling. Unless there are great solutions that straddle the two well, there is no connection between these two interested communities. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
