FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-11-2012, 02:17 AM
"Michel Donais"
 
Default libre office

Why in 6.3 they move OpenOffice to LibreOffice?


---
Michel Donais
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-11-2012, 02:23 AM
Earl Ramirez
 
Default libre office

On 11 July 2012 11:17, Michel Donais <donais@telupton.com> wrote:

> Why in 6.3 they move OpenOffice to LibreOffice?
>
>
> ---
> Michel Donais
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

Michel,

I believe that is the reason why, I can be wrong

LibreOffice replaced OpenOffice as the standard office productivity suite
in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. The 6.3 upgrade offers a new set of
LibreOffice packages to replace remaining OpenOffice packages. There will
be complete compatibility of documents between the older packages and
LibreOffice’s newer ones. *This offers faster bug fixes and improved MS
Office compatibility*


--
Kind Regards
Earl Ramirez
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-11-2012, 02:54 AM
Spiro Harvey
 
Default libre office

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:17:43 -0400
"Michel Donais" <donais@telupton.com> wrote:

> Why in 6.3 they move OpenOffice to LibreOffice?

Please don't reply to another thread on a mailing list and change the
subject. It screws up the message threading.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-11-2012, 03:22 AM
Joseph Spenner
 
Default libre office

On Jul 10, 2012, at 7:17 PM, "Michel Donais" <donais@telupton.com> wrote:

> Why in 6.3 they move OpenOffice to LibreOffice?
>
>
> ---
> Michel Donais
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Not sure. Probably same reason SciFi changed to SyFy; bored marketing people trying to 'add value'.

---

http://microflush.org/stuff/stickers/heartFix.html
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-11-2012, 04:14 AM
Fernando Cassia
 
Default libre office

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Michel Donais <donais@telupton.com> wrote:
> Why in 6.3 they move OpenOffice to LibreOffice?

The jihadists against Sun Contributor Agreement created the so-called
"exodus" of programmers from OpenOffice.org to "Libre" Office, then
spit Oracle in the eye and subsequently invited them for dinner (to
join "the document foundation"). Actually, the so-called "exodus" left
about 50-60 employees at ORCL, but still that wasn´t enough to
contribute development.

Then a series of articles came out claiming that OpenOffice.org was
"dead" and that was about the same time many distros decided they
would package the "new" LibreOffice. Of course the OpenOffice first
forkers, Novell, celebrated the move (remember Novell´s Go-OO fork,
which supported MS-OOXML which Sun refused).

But the reality was a bit different and not so certain as TDF painted
it... Oracle decided to contribute OpenOffice.org trademarks and
source code to the Apache Foundation. Apache OpenOffice was thus born
and IBM later announced its intention to support the project and
contribute the former Lotus Symphony source code to the project, too.

That leaves us where we stand, with two free office suites forked from
the same code.

For more read this from Ubuntu´s Shuttleworth: http://ho.io/libreoffice

Just my $0.02
FC
--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
- George Orwell
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-11-2012, 04:15 AM
Fernando Cassia
 
Default libre office

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Fernando Cassia <fcassia@gmail.com> wrote:
> but still that wasn´t enough to
> contribute development.

sorry, typo, I meant "to continue development" (of Sun/Oracle´s
propietary product alongside OO.o on a dual-license, namely StarOffice
which Oracle had renamed "Oracle Open Office" -without the .org).

FC
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-11-2012, 04:25 AM
John R Pierce
 
Default libre office

On 07/10/12 8:22 PM, Joseph Spenner wrote:
> Not sure. Probably same reason SciFi changed to SyFy; bored marketing people trying to 'add value'.

LibreOffice was created when Oracle bought Sun, a bunch of the core
developers quit and started their own project, as Oracle has a nasty
history of twisting open source projects to suit their own needs.
Oracle was invited to join the LibreOffice foundation, whereupon it
would have become OpenOffice again, but instead, Oracle told all
OpenOffice board members that they could not be involved with both
projects. Shortly thereafter, Oracle laid off all the people worknig on
OpenOffice, and 'gave' the project to Apache, where its stagnating.

Meanwhile, Google, Red Hat, SuSE, the FSF, and others have contributed
one paid employee each to the LibreOffice project, which started with a
fork of OpenOffice 3.3 beta, and is currently up to 3.5


--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-11-2012, 09:50 AM
Fernando Cassia
 
Default libre office

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 1:25 AM, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> wrote:
> LibreOffice was created when Oracle bought Sun, a bunch of the core
> developers quit and started their own project,

BS if you ask me...
Oracle bought Sun in APRIL 2009.

Sun programmers, on Oracle´s payroll, kept developing OpenOffice.org
and release 3.3 was done under Oracle´s management. Even 3.4 Alpha was
there when LO forked.

Under Oracle, OOCon in Budapest was done. Oracle also renamed the
commercial build of the product (formerly known as "StarOffice" as
"Oracle Open Office" -without the .org in the name), and even released
an update to StarOffice 9 that included plenty of commercial
filters...

Of course, the LO "freedom fighters" have another story of events, but
what I´m saying here was told to by a member of the German team that
stayed at Oracle until the last.

> as Oracle has a nasty
> history of twisting open source projects to suit their own needs.

Oh really? the projects they are PAYING FOR in the first place?. Do
you mean they have no right to influence the direction of the FOSS
products they´re paying for?

I guess you will uninstall the Btrfs from your Linux kernel, then,
(merged back in February) which was developed, gee, by an Oracle
employee during several years, and which puts Linux on equal footing
with Microsoft´s ReFS filesystem...

And OpenJDK 7, and MySQL Community Edition, and will never use
VirtualBox (which Oracle made totally GPL, eliminating the separate
"OSS" edition), or NetBeans, or Glassfish, just to name a few of the
flagship Sun FOSS projects that Oracle has not only kept investing on,
but increased the pace of development...

But hey, hating companies that put a lot of money in FOSS development
just because they have some non-free products that pays for it all
seems to be the latest vogue.

In the words of Shuttleworth (http://ho.io/libreoffice)

---
Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun made a
$100 million "gift" to the community when it opened up the OpenOffice
code. But a "radical faction" made the lives of the OpenOffice
developers "hell" by refusing to contribute code under the Sun
agreement. That eventually led to the split, but furthermore led
Oracle to finally decide to stop OpenOffice development and lay off
100 employees. He contends that the pace of development for
LibreOffice is not keeping up with what OpenOffice was able to achieve
and wonders if OpenOffice would have been better off if the
"factionalists" hadn't won.

There is a "pathological lack of understanding" among some parts of
the community about what companies bring to the table, he said. People
fear and mistrust the companies on one hand, while asking "where can I
get a job in free software?" on the other. Companies bring jobs, he
said. There is a lot of "ideological claptrap" that permeates the
community and, while it is reasonable to be cautious about the motives
of companies, avoiding them entirely is not rational.
---

Just my $0.02
FC
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-11-2012, 10:36 AM
Natxo Asenjo
 
Default libre office

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Fernando Cassia <fcassia@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 1:25 AM, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>
> wrote:
> > LibreOffice was created when Oracle bought Sun, a bunch of the core
> > developers quit and started their own project,
>
> BS if you ask me...
> Oracle bought Sun in APRIL 2009.
>

[knip oracle/sun contributions to OSS projects]

As far as I am concerned, any OSS project can be forked. This has happened
here and TUV is just eating its own dogfood using LO instead of OO.org.

Nothing shocking, really. Most informed people know how much Oracle has
contributed to OSS, but also how it has tried 'monetize' other stuff
(thinking java here, with the recent android controversy). They routinely
profit from other people's work (their unbreakeble linux distribution is
not truly theirs, is it?).

Sometimes it makes more sense to open source stuff, sometimes it doesn't.
You win some, you lose some. Business as usual.

Mr Shuttleworth has obviously his own agenda on the discussion. He is the
first one to have stuff forked for no (apparently) good reason (unity)
instead of cooperiting with upstream.

just my 2 cents.

--
groet,
natxo
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-11-2012, 11:28 AM
Fernando Cassia
 
Default libre office

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Natxo Asenjo <natxo.asenjo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most informed people know how much Oracle has
> contributed to OSS, but also how it has tried 'monetize' other stuff

Gee, someone could think that they are a for-profit corporation, like
IBM (whose DB2 is NOT open source, or Lotus Notes, also NOT open
source), yet I don´t see the level of IBM hatred that I routinely see
wrt ORCL.

When any corporation puts money into the development of FOSS
technologies (like IBM, Oracle, and RedHat has done, I applaud them).
Yet, some people always find a need to bash those, as having an evil
agenda, namely *god forbid* the PROFIT word...

But like you say business as usual or "move along, nothing to see here".

FC
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:16 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org