On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Jörg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote: > Hello, > >> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > >> So what does this mean? > > Thanks for the information. > >> 1. We're *not* promoting a separate version of OpenOffice. There is >> no "IBM Edition" or "IBM OpenOffice". Historically, these things, >> whether Novell Edition, or Oracle Open Office, have created conflicts >> and tensions. > > well, tensions were probably other causes. > > I and some of my clients (You know I offering professional support for > OpenOffice), regret that there is no specific AOO version for business user. >
How would a "business" version of AOO differ from the version that we release from Apache? How would the code be different? > It is true that Sun had problems to assert itself with StarOffice in the > market, but IBM could do better. > I believe we can do better as well, by not repeating the same mistakes. > It is a sovereign decision by IBM that does not want to, but I'm afraid it is > not an optimal decision. In any case, it was not a good signal to the market > only to publish this document: > http://oakmont.co.uk/Download/Symphony%20Apache%20Future%20FAQ%2002-2012.pdf > > and now to see otherwise. Sorry, but that's my opinion. > I believe what we're doing now is superior to what was talked about two years ago. Much has happened since then, including graduation and successful releases. It is clear to me that professional quality code can be developed and delivered from within the project. >> Our goal is to make the version of AOO that anyone can >> download from the www.openoffice.org stable enough for anyone, >> including our customers, to run. > > In my opinion it is wrong to assume that a distribution of AOO would (whether > from IBM or other) directed against the interests of AOO itself. > The issue is not packaging. The issue is the implicit forking that comes from having an "IBM Edition" versus a "Community edition". Remember, that was essentially the approach used by Symphony. There is a lot of overhead in such an approach, as well as the tensions it raises in the community. I realize this may be the business model of some Linux vendors. "If you want quality you need to pay for it", I remember one LO developer saying. But this doesn't feel like a good fit for OpenOffice. And remember, we're making good use of extensions, which are specific to IBM products. I don't see any reason why the core code in AOO needs to be different for business users. The bug fixes and features they want are ones that anyone would want. So if it makes it easier, think of IBM Edition = AOO + IBM Extensions. But it makes no sense to offer that as an individual package, since our customers almost all want custom deployment support. We're not selling individual shrink wrapped licenses to consumers. Regards, -Rob > > That's just my opinion, I would not discuss it. > > > Greetings, > Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
