I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
to damage OpenOffice?
Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:
There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one
this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes <motley.crue....@gmail.com>
wrote:
Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
Phil
This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <max.merb...@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi Phil,
what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.
The
presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in
the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
they'll
start looking for different office software.
Max
Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see
any
supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
"Should I
Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or
how
LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
Phil
This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Max,
On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <max.merb...@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi there,
the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where
they
have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
it's
definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about
it.
The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0
and
is getting ahead of us.
thanks for the alert.
Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
entry
to reflect the facts.
So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
arduous.
Louis
Max
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
