Ask any company that got in bed with Bill Gates and came away with Corporate Aids?
Remember Lattice? The maker of the C compiler Microsoft private labeled and had a non-compete with stating they would never develop their own C compiler? Remember Mosaic (sp?). The Web browser developed by a company in Naperville, IL that Microsoft signed a percentage of sales contract with, then bundled the thing for free as IE so they wouldn't have to pay another dime. Even IBM got Corporate AIDS from Microsoft with OS/2 which Microsoft deliberately buggered while using _all_ of the money IBM paid them to develop the DOS APPLICATION KNOWN AS WINDOWS. The list is too long and tragic to continue. On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 02:24 +0100, John B wrote: > I do not think there would be a problem with OOo & LO working together > in co-operation, its the getting into bed with IBM that could. > > As they say "if you fail to learn from history ....." > > Ask Bill Gates, ask Lotus users after IBM took over - it does look good > at first, but in the long run..... > > > regards > > John B > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > On 18/07/2011 02:03, Roland Hughes wrote: > > Try KOffice.or as it is now called Calligra. It will be bundled with > > most major distros next release. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calligra_Suite > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 20:18 -0400, Paul W wrote: > > > >> Why don't all the OOo devs just come to TDF? I mean isn't this further > >> splitting up the community? What I want to see is a single powerful office > >> suite to kill Microsoft. I want to see them buried. I want to see a free, > >> open product that is perfect in it's seamlessness, transparency and ease of > >> use. I hope LO is the one to do it. We need to kick some ass! > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 6:06 PM, John B<[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> As a disgruntled Lotus Smart Suite user, abandoned by IBM as are the Lotus > >>> Amipro users, I am well aware of the link between Symphony& OOo, as one > >>> reduced its support for LSS, so did the other one. In fact IBM have now > >>> turned its back permanently on LSS and not so surprisingly in Windows so > >>> has > >>> OOo; with still thousands and thousands of requests (pleads) for IBM not > >>> to > >>> do so (there is one request for compatibility - requested some 15,000 > >>> times). Whilst at the same time, LO increases its support - all praise to > >>> LO > >>> > >>> I understand from reading the on-line guessing politics that IBM will at > >>> some point bring out a Paid for version, to link into Lotus Notes, so is > >>> this the "Price" OOo have had to pay to get IBM's blue interface:- the > >>> "cost" of not being LSS compatible - Hold this space! > >>> > >>> Beside, IBM's Symphony hardly stood as an "office suit" with only 3 > >>> programs - and it was far to buggy for me. > >>> > >>> I am very happy for LO to stay on course. > >>> > >>> regards > >>> > >>> John B > >>> > >>> ------------------------------**------------------------------** > >>> ------------------------------**------------ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 17/07/2011 22:01, Tom Davies wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi :) > >>>> My emails are just my own opinion. I'm not even a proper member yet! > >>>> Regards from > >>>> Tom :) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ______________________________**__ > >>>> From: Andy Brown<[email protected]**> > >>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> Sent: Sun, 17 July, 2011 20:23:30 > >>>> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] IBM Donates Lotus Symphony Source Code > >>>> to > >>>> the > >>>> Apache OpenOffice Project > >>>> > >>>> Luuk wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> http://www-03.ibm.com/**software/lotus/symphony/buzz.** > >>>>> nsf/web_DisPlayPlugin?open&**unid=**955E9C0EC712EC47852578CD0063A2** > >>>>> 09&category=announcements<http://www-03.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony/buzz.nsf/web_DisPlayPlugin?open&unid=955E9C0EC712EC47852578CD0063A209&category=announcements> > >>>>> s > >>>>> > >>>>> Is it time for the LO-developers to get back with OpenOffice too ? > >>>>> > >>>>> In a word, no. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > >>> [email protected].**org<users%[email protected]> > >>> In case of problems unsubscribing, write to postmaster@documentfoundation. > >>> **org<[email protected]> > >>> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.**documentfoundation.org/** > >>> Netiquette<http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette> > >>> List archive: > >>> http://listarchives.**libreoffice.org/global/users/<http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/> > >>> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > >>> deleted > >>> > > > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] > In case of problems unsubscribing, write to [email protected] > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Roland Hughes, President Logikal Solutions (630)-205-1593 http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com http://www.infiniteexposure.net No U.S. troops have ever lost their lives defending our ethanol reserves. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] In case of problems unsubscribing, write to [email protected] Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
