On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:56, Alphonso Whitfield III <awhitfi...@vital-inet.com> wrote:
> Good points Louis., thanks. but we still need a "maven" or two to crack the > larger corporate environment. Done that, in previous instance of my role at OOo. It's not easy and does require persistence. Then, I was also salaried by Sun/Oracle, though my hot efforts on behalf of the community as such were sometimes met with cool water. But I do not think the tactics of yore are the ones to pursue now. I think that emphasizing, as I did, QA, innovation, and mobile options, as well as the robust community that is reality based, is more important. Louis > > Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan > with The Vital Portal > > Alphonso Whitfield > i...@thevitalportal.com > Vital > 912-816-2595 > Skype: vital.i.net > > Visit us at: > The Vital Portal > > The Vital Portal On facebook > > Visit our Google Community > > Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: > The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . > > > > > > > From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lui...@gmail.com> > To: market...@openoffice.apache.org, "Alphonso Whitfield III" > <awhitfi...@vital-inet.com> > Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 4:08:52 PM > Subject: Re: 80 million downloads > > > On 30-Nov-2013, at 15:47, Alphonso Whitfield III <awhitfi...@vital-inet.com> > wrote: > > > The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the > > Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. . > > It is claiming to be getting acceptance. It is being touted by a few > supposedly prominent organizations, such as the South Tyrol org. But a few > things. > > 1. We have IBM as a far more powerful and important contributor than LO has > Ubuntu and Canonical. We do not trumpet that affiliation as much as we could, > no doubt because we do not want to be too tightly affiliated with IBM and be > seen as an appendage of IBM. I don't think we are. But I understand the > concerns. > > 2. We need to use actual facts related to actual usage by enterprise-class > users. Download numbers indicate, usually, individual users. These are > important. But they do not persuade a lot of larger entities. (The Bring Your > Own Device phenomenon is growing and is related to individual download > numbers; but in the case of support, etc., one does, usually, need to have an > enterprise buy it or enable that market; and support is often the point of > decision for many.) > > And more on this tangent. The main point: facts and actual evidence. > > louis > > > > > > Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan > > with The Vital Portal > > > > Alphonso Whitfield > > i...@thevitalportal.com > > Vital > > 912-816-2595 > > Skype: vital.i.net > > > > Visit us at: > > The Vital Portal > > > > The Vital Portal On facebook > > > > Visit our Google Community > > > > Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: > > The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lui...@gmail.com> > > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > > Cc: market...@openoffice.apache.org > > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM > > Subject: Re: 80 million downloads > > > > > > On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500 > >> Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100 > >>>> Hagar Delest <hagar.del...@laposte.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit : > >>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads. > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, I also saw this: > >>>>> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South > >>>>> Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the > >>>>> quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because > >>>>> we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and > >>>>> constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be > >>>>> independent from corporations," Pfeifer said. > >>>>> > >>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO > >>>>> too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). > >>>>> I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes. > >>>>> > >>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people? > >>>>> > >>>>> Hagar > >>>>> > >>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with > >>>> the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as > >>>> connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list > >>>> members here are with the Apache setup. > >>>> > >>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for > >>>> stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and > >>>> can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we > >>>> hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' > >>>> that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his > >>>> incompetence. > >>> > >>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use > >>> by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And > >>> calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they > >>> do not seem to be based on anything like fact. > >>> > >>> louis > >> > >> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; > >> our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported > >> assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot > >> (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in > >> the newspapers of record. > > > > > > One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not > > re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, > > the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO. > > > > I think we are in agreement not to do that. > > > > What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. > > That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for > > a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so > > per region, etc. > > > > I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to > > critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the > > facts. > > > > And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize? > > > > The ones I generally point to: > > > > * QA excellence > > * Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. > > (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the > > innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the > > quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can > > still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.) > > * Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop > > in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile > > ambitions? What languages? > > — regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a > > vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of > > stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on > > the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO. > > — and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to > > have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The > > more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the > > better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed > > about their fragilities. > > * mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a > > mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version > > is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable > > thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has > > to do but is just one guy. > > > > The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be > > able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but > > not the full suite's formats. (At some point.) > > > > It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box. > > > > No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we > > would point to would be factually present and would be identified as > > clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying > > these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength > > of the real community. > > > > louis > >> > >> -- > >> Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
