Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject: More great objective info from our friends
In the Wiki FAQ for OOo X11 vs. Neo:
Quote:
Q5: But it would be more efficient, if there would be only one effort...
A: NeoOffice is not taking developers away from OpenOffice.org: no matter what codebase is used, OpenOffice.org will get the important fixes and patches sooner or later. The Java part of NeoOffice is not interesting for OpenOffice.org since OpenOffice.org project wants to use only Cocoa/Carbon. Otherwise people could have started contributing to Java on NeoOffice in the first place.
We've never used pure Java APIs. If you even look at the source code there's a very very healthy use of Carbon/Cocoa/ATSUI/ApplicationServices and, things even in sal that we've given back to OOo.
Although I enjoy doing it myself, now who's the one shoveling shit?
I love it when douches post information that's technically false while accusing us of criminal behaviour of things that are totally allowable under open source licensing.
Oh, and I made it pertinently clear that neoLight (spotlight plugin) is *L*GPL licensed allowing its inclusion for both OOo X11 and Neo. Since plugins are shared libraries, you have to license them under LGPL regardless since it's not legal to load a GPL library into a non-GPL application. The bitching on the download page that you *have* to have installed it is patently false. It's LGPL and could totally be integrated into stock OOo X11 installers and any source repository tag that drops SISSL and keeps LGPL only.
The fact that it's not there is not the implied licensing crap since it's under the same license as OOo 2.0, LGPL. The only reason it's not there is the lack of "desire" to integrate it into the X11 builds or...perhaps...the ability to turn it into a "conflict" put right on the download pages.
Asshats.
Yes, well all spin things the way we want. It's called politics and has been here since the Greeks and earlier. At least I've never tried to spin things that are patently false, you douches.
ed
Last edited by OPENSTEP on Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject: Re: More great objective info from the french
OPENSTEP wrote:
In the Wiki FAQ for OOo X11 vs. Neo:
Quote:
Q5: But it would be more efficient, if there would be only one effort...
A: NeoOffice is not taking developers away from OpenOffice.org: no matter what codebase is used, OpenOffice.org will get the important fixes and patches sooner or later. The Java part of NeoOffice is not interesting for OpenOffice.org since OpenOffice.org project wants to use only Cocoa/Carbon. Otherwise people could have started contributing to Java on NeoOffice in the first place.
We've never used pure Java APIs. If you even look at the source code there's a very very healthy use of Carbon/Cocoa/ATSUI/ApplicationServices and, things even in sal that we've given back to OOo.
Yeah, I ran across Patrick's code donation message the other day (after the last flare-up) and noticed that some of the donated code was not only shared (Neo/X11) fixes for certain modules but also some "Neo code" in sal for stuff that's only relevant for a native port (like setting type/creator codes). It's not that NeoOffice hasn't contributed anything to the OOo Aqua port/OOo 2.0, it's that the OOo developers chose not to use any of the free code "we" gave them....
OPENSTEP wrote:
Oh, and I made it pertinently clear that neoLight (spotlight plugin) is *L*GPL licensed allowing its inclusion for both OOo X11 and Neo. Since plugins are shared libraries, you have to license them under LGPL regardless since it's not legal to load a GPL library into a non-GPL application. The bitching on the download page that you *have* to have installed it is patently false. It's LGPL and could totally be integrated into stock OOo X11 installers and any source repository tag that drops SISSL and keeps LGPL only.
The fact that it's not there is not the implied licensing crap since it's under the same license as OOo 2.0, LGPL. The only reason it's not there is the lack of "desire" to integrate it into the X11 builds or...perhaps...the ability to turn it into a "conflict" put right on the download pages.
Speaking of which, do you still have cvs access to fix the mess on the download page? The NeoOffice listing is very out-of-date (claims Neo supports 10.2, among other things--"mid2005" has passed and we can read ODF documents; that bit should probably be revised to say "read ODF now, write in mid2006".), and the NeoLight bit is a real mess, since they claim that you have to install both NeoLight *and* NeoOffice, which we know is 1) wrong and 2) a bad thing, since the two copies of NeoLight will compete and mess up Spotlight.
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:56 pm Post subject:
I should still have modify access as it's not something I think I've abused in any way. Fixing the d/l page was actually one of the things that led to me reading the site. I didn't see anything that was stale in the Neo bullet points, though. Thoughts? I think adding the "write in 2006" smacks more of advertising than a "it's what we've got" bullet point. If anything, the WordPerfect stuff for Neo should be removed as X11 2.0 has it now too.
I wrote the bullet points a while back and consciously tried to make them point out the differences while not being advertising or marketing drivel. So anyway, wikifun notwithstanding, the only mods I can see would be to change our supported OSes to be 10.3+ (since 1.2 doesn't do 10.2) and remove the wordperfect bullet point as it's no longer a unique feature. Thoughts?
I should still have modify access as it's not something I think I've abused in any way. Fixing the d/l page was actually one of the things that led to me reading the site. I didn't see anything that was stale in the Neo bullet points, though. Thoughts? I think adding the "write in 2006" smacks more of advertising than a "it's what we've got" bullet point. If anything, the WordPerfect stuff for Neo should be removed as X11 2.0 has it now too.
FYI. Neo 2.0 Alpha should be in early access mode by the end of this month and available for free download at the end of May. Since Neo 2.0 Alpha uses OOo 2.0.2, it has full support for writing of OpenDocument files.
I wrote the bullet points a while back and consciously tried to make them point out the differences while not being advertising or marketing drivel. So anyway, wikifun notwithstanding, the only mods I can see would be to change our supported OSes to be 10.3+ (since 1.2 doesn't do 10.2) and remove the wordperfect bullet point as it's no longer a unique feature. Thoughts?
Well, if you remove the WP filters from the Neo listings, you should remove them from X11 as well--although that would likely set off another flamewar, so I'd keep them both
As I've said before, I also think the wrong sentence about Spotlight at the bottom of the page should be fixed.
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
i have tried in the neowiki to promote neolight as much as possible for OO.oX11 users. I think that it is, perhaps, the single most important aspect of OO.o (other than the program itself). spotlight integration is that one more step to being a part of the mac experience.
as for the wiki, i will simply comment that this is why i have, and will continue to have, as much oo.ox11 information in the neowiki as possible.
Joined: Nov 21, 2005 Posts: 1285 Location: Witless Protection Program
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:18 am Post subject:
jakeOSX wrote:
::shakes head::
i have tried in the neowiki to promote neolight as much as possible for OO.oX11 users. I think that it is, perhaps, the single most important aspect of OO.o (other than the program itself). spotlight integration is that one more step to being a part of the mac experience.
as for the wiki, i will simply comment that this is why i have, and will continue to have, as much oo.ox11 information in the neowiki as possible.
I have been confused why there is so much ... mis-information about NeoLight. Seems simple - works for all OOo documents. Reminds me of the old joke about how many teeth a horse has - after much debate by the "wise" men, some smartmouth kid asks why not open the horses mouth and just count them! OMG
I'm glad that the Wiki has detailed and complete information and I appreciate having lots of OOo X11 information available. Thanks JakeOSX (et al)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
