SUN Microsystems' OpenOffice.org team seems to be responding in a subtle fashion to Novell's most recent strikes against OpenOffice.org [1, 2].
It is crucial to remember that quality assurance is nothing to sneeze at when it comes to software which stores information like medical data and people's wages. Microsoft's quality assurance -- or lack thereof, especially in Microsoft Office -- has already proven to be detrimental, so the last thing the world needs is a leading open source office suite which is equally buggy, to the point where it gets its mathematics wrong (
that would be Microsoft Excel and
Microsoft OOXML).
Those who favour negligence and are willing to accept no level of authority in the development can just hop onto the
Go-OOXML Web site, whose opening words and introduction to the software go like this: "Go-oo has built in OpenXML import filters and it will import your Microsoft Works files."
Yes, these are the very first words one finds in Novell's fork [
1,
2,
3,
4] of OpenOffice.org. It's all about OOXML. Go, Go, OOXML. They even call it
"OpenXML," thus lending credibility to
the confusion which associates "OpenXML" with open source and OpenOffice ("Office Open OOXML"). It's important to remember that
Novell helped the standardisation of OOXML, which was
a corrupt affair.
OpenOffice.org is no sinner. It is also valuable to bear in mind that Linux (the kernel) is built in a similar fashion because of the need for quality control. Patchmasters like Andrew Morton and Linus Torvalds do run a receptive cathedral, not a bazaar (Pamela Jones
applied this same analogy to her work in Groklaw).
As people may recall,
Con Kolivas abandoned Linux development because his admirable role was not wholeheartedly accepted, but should we fault Linux like Novell want us all to fault OpenOffice.org by
poisoning our minds? This is not the first time that Novell slams Sun products out in the open [
1,
2], which is uncalled for and counter productive.
⬆
Comments
AlexH
2008-12-29 21:54:06
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-29 22:04:30
AlexH
2008-12-29 22:20:48
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-29 22:22:18
AlexH
2008-12-29 22:28:03
Maybe they posted it because, y'know, people might be interested in what happened in Beijing recently?
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-29 22:29:25
AlexH
2008-12-29 22:32:12
Where is this specific link you mention?
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-29 22:36:35
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-29 22:38:00
AlexH
2008-12-29 22:38:50
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-29 22:39:25
Index of /~ooocon2008
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-29 22:40:08
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-29 22:43:26
http://robertogaloppini.net/2008/12/14/openofficeorg-extensions-and-templates-ooo-30-book-ooocon-videos-openofficeorg-links-14-12-2008/
"OOoCon videos (temporary folder) - Few videos of the OooCon 2008 are on line, check them out."
Yup. December 14th when he posted this and I can vaguely recall the files being older at the time.
AlexH
2008-12-29 22:45:56
Particularly since the listing you've given shows that it wasn't there when other files dated the 17th actually were.
So you've helped prove my point, thanks :)
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-29 22:49:11
AlexH
2008-12-29 22:52:59
Maybe Sun engineers have a crystal ball.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-29 22:59:14
AlexH
2008-12-29 23:02:42
Given that Michael Meeks' criticism of the project didn't revolve around the success (or not) of the QA project, I don't even understand how you think Sun's presentation even vaguely addresses his concerns, let alone rebut them.
Michael is despairing of the number of people committing code to OOo. QA is only a very small part of that, and indeed Michael says "I'm pleased when people [..] help with the QA burden". And Sun say they want to see wider outside QA participation.
If anything, those two messages on QA actually agree.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-29 23:08:01
AlexH
2008-12-29 23:08:34
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-29 23:09:29
AlexH
2008-12-29 23:12:54
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-29 23:19:08
the11thplague
2008-12-29 23:31:01
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-29 23:34:38
AlexH
2008-12-29 23:37:43
"Maybe" does get added now and then, it usually just means "I know I have no evidence" rather than "I think I have some evidence" (which later turns out to be bad).
What someone interested in the facts would do is write to the person who wrote the post, rather than hang their own opinion on the things someone else didn't say. But the latter is much easier, and you can pump out more articles that way.
Thomas Holbrook II
2008-12-30 09:20:32
AlexH
2008-12-30 09:24:40
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-30 09:26:42
AlexH
2008-12-30 09:39:05
You seem to think that twelve days is weeks, and that their blog is some kind of strategic riposte to a blog post almost three months old, even though the subject matter of the two is entirely different.
I know which explanation looks the simplest to me, and equally which other one looks like tinfoil apparel. But I don't claim to speak for them.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-30 09:42:21
Weasel word noted.
AlexH
2008-12-30 10:01:37
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-30 10:02:58
Weasel word noted.
AlexH
2008-12-30 10:07:19
Answer? No!
Thomas Holbrook II
2008-12-30 10:07:45
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-30 10:11:32
Thomas Holbrook II
2008-12-30 10:11:35
My point: instead of criticizing others for not checking their information, why not do so yourself? I almost asked the question myself.
AlexH
2008-12-30 10:14:06
If it falls to "critics" and "hecklers" like me to do the research and actually sort out the fact from the fiction, then it's a very sorry state of affairs indeed.
I don't hold out any hope of this article being corrected, as Roy has just said, he still thinks it's correct even though nothing supports it.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-30 10:23:57
AlexH
2008-12-30 10:53:43
SR
2008-12-30 10:56:35
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-30 11:03:29
SR
2008-12-30 11:21:10
Can you cite even one source, given that it's a verifiable fact? And opinion blogs are not credible sources ;-)
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-30 11:27:11
homburg-hansen
2008-12-30 14:52:09
You use it or you don't use it, but you can't conspire against it. You might as well conspire against traffic regulations... Bollocks.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-30 14:58:52
homburg-hansen
2008-12-30 15:21:09
That's the joy of Wikipedia.
Which one shall it be, _your_ conspiracy?
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-30 15:34:27
I always use Cambridge, which defines it as:
That's correct. Novell and Microsoft conspired to hack the spirit of the GPL and betray all those who supply Novell's code.
homburg-hansen
2008-12-30 16:07:17
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-30 16:18:25
It says "OR". It can be either "bad or illegal."
Nope. The negotiations took about six months and were held behind closed doors since around May of 2006.
Bad it is from the point of view of:
Who is in favour of the deal? Let's see... Ron Hovsepian, John Dragoon, Susan Hauser, Justin Steinman, Microsoft, Miguel de Icaza...
homburg-hansen
2008-12-30 16:49:07
With that wide interpretation of 'conspiracy' I can mark your website a conspiracy:
1) Secrecy: You and your friend Shane decided a non-public meeting to set up a website. 2) Malicious intent: to hurt Novell (certainly bad from Novell's point of view.)!!
There you are, the big boycottnovell-conspiracy...
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-30 17:00:03
homburg-hansen
2008-12-30 23:38:25
Thomas Holbrook II
2008-12-30 23:44:40
homburg-hansen
2008-12-30 23:44:51
homburg-hansen
2008-12-30 23:47:00
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-30 23:54:38
BN was cited by Spiegel, Forbes, InformationWeek, IDG (e.g. ComputerWorld), OpenOffice.org front page, etc.
Don't try to abolish the site without substantial argument or evidence.
homburg-hansen
2008-12-31 00:16:29
It only draws madmen and mean little boys who like to rip the wings from flies... Just look at all the viciousness in Roy's blog posts and ask yourself whether it has come out of nowhere or whether it's always been in him, waiting a topic to earth itself in.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-31 00:21:26
...And hecklers like yourself, who can't help smearing because a site like this one attracts over 3 million hits per months and you don't like what people see.
FWIW, some CEOs read this site too. Just because they don't comment doesn't mean they don't exist. But they comment privately.
sims
2008-12-31 00:30:00
Roy, first of all, if you want your site to hold any credibility, report facts not opinions. Then let the readers put the pieces to the puzzle and discuss their opinions in the comments.
We all know MS's OOXML is garbage and MS's attempt to pollute standards in order to grab more of the market via vendor lock-in and ghey upgrades so we can give them more money to feed the greed demons.
You don't need to convince us. Just report the facts - the nice little details that don't make it to the front page.
The ghey MS fans will come here and spill vomit on the comments section, and that's too bad. There's nothing you can do about it. Arguing with them only makes it worse. Just let them be ghey and sell their internal organs to MS. I don't really give a what.
Have a nice day and a Happy New Year!
sims
2008-12-31 00:33:38
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-31 07:44:50
Thanks, I was unable to restore any tags (markup) because I do not see any.
sims
2008-12-31 08:40:29
Cheers and good luck next year!
ms
2008-12-31 19:19:12
"that would 'be' Excel"
"...a similar fashion because of the need 'tor' quality control"
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-31 19:21:38
Ren in FL
2008-12-31 19:53:20
Thomas Holbrook II
2009-01-01 05:15:59
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-01 07:50:10
Ari T.
2009-01-01 18:18:21
"It only draws madmen and mean little boys who like to rip the wings from flies"
I'm sorry to say, but this is not too far from the impression I get of you based on your comments.
Roy:
Although I think Boycott Novell is a valuable source of information, I'd like facts, opinions and assumptions to be separated more clearly here. Not doing so just helps your opponents in their efforts to discredit you.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-01-01 18:27:56
Ren in FL
2009-01-02 17:57:48
I also visit AND comment on MS-biased sites as well - doesn't mean that I put any credence in what they have to say either.
Ren in FL
2009-01-02 17:59:47