On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Sounds as though the need for LibreOffice is about over,
There was never a "need" for LibreOffice. Only competing companies
wishing to wrest control of the project away from Oracle, like Novell
wanted to do for a long time to take control aw
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 20:10:06 -0400
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Sounds as though the need for LibreOffice is about over, we don't need two
> project if Oracle is serious about having letting OO go. The people at LO are
> mostly former OO developers, so hopefully the projects could be unified.
Yes th
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Sounds as though the need for LibreOffice is about over, we don't need two
Or, perhaps it's now clear to Oracle that the need for OOo is over.
We've heard these promises from Oracle before, frankly I think the
Document Foundation is in a mu
On 18/04/11 10:48, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> I keep up with Ars Tecnica, Slashdot etc. but have seen nothing about
> this. Some kind of reference would be useful.
One article:
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/254803,oracle-hangs-up-the-gloves-on-openoffice.aspx
--
users mailing list
users@lists
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 20:10 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Sounds as though the need for LibreOffice is about over, we don't need
> two project if Oracle is serious about having letting OO go.
I keep up with Ars Tecnica, Slashdot etc. but have seen nothing about
this. Some kind of reference would b
Sounds as though the need for LibreOffice is about over, we don't need two
project if Oracle is serious about having letting OO go. The people at LO are
mostly former OO developers, so hopefully the projects could be unified.
FOSS is like archery, it's good to have all the wood behind the arrowh
