> On 21 Apr 2015, at 17:37, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hm. I think the issue below is serious. And one we can address. But do >> others think that way or believe otherwise? > > > Not sure how we can really address this, considering our challenges making > a new desktop release. >
Thanks, Jan. Well, just by stating what you said is a start. Stating that we have limits here, in AOO, and that to pursue other ways of cracking this problem is okay and ought to be endorsed is a good next step. We’ve done this unofficially; but why not have a page that identifies not just derivatives but avenues of exploration and discovery, with the point of identity being ODF support (and license). > Rgds > jan i > >> >> louis >>> On 20 Apr 2015, at 13:25, Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com >> <javascript:;>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 20 Apr 2015, at 13:06, Guy Waterval <waterval....@gmail.com >> <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Or have you not noticed that there are >>>>> precious few native (as opposed to virtualised) open-source >> productivity >>>>> tools to be found ready for the enterprise? >>> >>> to rephrase: productivity software, especially for enterprise, is >> overwhelmingly dominated by proprietary apps sold by very large >> multinational corporations. The apps available are often "free," as in beer >> but not free as in speech. They are not open source. It does not matter if >> the operating system is Android or iOS or whatever, though there are some >> differences, at least in the marginal OSs, which represent a minute >> fraction of the total used. >>> >>> What this means is that as tablets (however imagined) are brought into >> the enterprise (public or private sector), open source is almost entirely >> absent. Yes, many apps use open source languages but so what? The UX model >> promoted by the smart, mobile device shuts out user intervention, with some >> exception, and there seems to be nothing organised that I can see that’s >> trying to change this arrangement and make it easier to create, distribute >> and even promote open source productivity apps on mobile devices. >>> >>> Yes, I am aware that tablets are falling out of popularity, but I also >> am aware that the tablet as imagined by Apple and incarnated in the iPad, >> was designed and is still envisioned as a consumer entertainment device, >> not as a work device (though that is changing) and that efforts to >> insinuate the tablet form factor into enterprise, as Microsoft has tried, >> have not succeeded. However, the mobile device is succeeding in areas where >> investment capital is less visible and it is likely to be the preferred >> mode for the billions that will be coming fresh to school, work, and other >> areas where computing devices are de rigeur (now or soon). And these users, >> in Africa, Latin America, and the rest of the world, rich or poor, will be >> using… proprietary software. >>> >>> So, although the situation on the desktop (and by this one means also >> the laptop, of course; one refers here to the UX not hardware) is generally >> not bad for open source, that’s not so for the mobile UX. I doubt very much >> that Ubuntu or Moz. will put a dent into hard proprietary wave. What would, >> however, would be mobile apps that can work smoothly with existing desktop >> productivity software installations. Like Corinthia. >>> >>> best >>> louis >> >> > > -- > Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
