| |||||||||||||
IBM to contribute Symphony to OpenOffice.orgIBM to contribute Symphony to OpenOffice.orgPosted Jul 15, 2011 2:16 UTC (Fri) by Hausvib6 (guest, #70606)In reply to: IBM to contribute Symphony to OpenOffice.org by jonabbey Parent article: IBM to contribute Symphony to OpenOffice.org
I can't get those grinding harddisk noise off my head after reading your comment, I accidentally started imagining the splash screens of "Eclipse" and "OpenOffice.org" at once.
Anyway, it looks like that IBM wants to steer the development of AOOo (and I'm sure Oracle know this would happen) which may push further dependencies on Java regardless of whether it's a good or bad. It would be great if TDF can eradicate the (currently optional) dependencies of Java in LibreOffice since they have liberated theirselves from the evil kingdom of Oracle in the first place. Bonus points for having a lean and mean office suite that starts as fast as nano.
(Log in to post comments)
IBM to contribute Symphony to OpenOffice.org Posted Jul 15, 2011 11:29 UTC (Fri) by kragilkragil2 (guest, #76172) [Link]
If you think that the DF can make LO as fast as nano, or just fast in general you probably also believe in aliens, easter bunnies, Santa Clause, some $Deity, miracles and tooth fairies.
LO might get a lot faster (than it currently is or faster than Symphony), but it will never be fast. Just like a 16-Wheeler will never win a Formula 1 race. A thing called reality will make sure of that.
IBM to contribute Symphony to OpenOffice.org Posted Jul 15, 2011 12:37 UTC (Fri) by oblio (guest, #33465) [Link]
It's not about performance, it's about perceived performance. And it's 95% doable.
Think Chrome > galculator.
IBM to contribute Symphony to OpenOffice.org Posted Jul 15, 2011 13:42 UTC (Fri) by Hausvib6 (guest, #70606) [Link]
Relax, it's just a hyperbole.
STOP THAT. Posted Jul 16, 2011 14:44 UTC (Sat) by jensend (guest, #1385) [Link]
One of the things which makes LWN a better forum than Slashdot etc for real tech discussion is that not every single topic devolves into adolescent religion-bashing.
Quite a lot of the most important contributors to computer science, open source, etc are deeply religious people (Larry Wall and Donald Knuth are the first two that come to mind, if you're looking for concrete examples) and quite definitely believe in God and in miracles. These people deserve your respect.
If you want to discuss the rationality of believing in God and in miracles, you're quite welcome to: 1) take a good philosophy of religion course so you understand the theist responses to the silly arguments atheists are used to trolling everybody with and then 2) find a forum more appropriate for the topic. But presuming that everybody thinks religion is idiotic and then using it as a way to insult people is a puerile way to drag the level of discussion at this forum into the mud.
Stop yelling Posted Jul 17, 2011 1:56 UTC (Sun) by kragilkragil2 (guest, #76172) [Link]
I am well aware that most people think relegion is a good thing. But facts and reality don't matter to people in that regard, they have their believes (probably tought by their parents) and I am not going to change that.
And I didn't say those people are stupid, they are just irrational and believe in imaginary things. They can believe in God and miracles all day long, that is fine by me, but don't call it facts or rational. You can pray all day for the miracle that will make LO as fast as nano. It won't happen. I am sure. But I also think there are a lot of bright people in FOSS and science who don't believe in superstion, for sure more than in the general population. Go read Linus' blog and his comments in there and find out where he stands for yourself. I know that the net result of all religions on this planet is utterly detrimental to mankind (how many wars and genocides have/had strong religous aspects?). So the world would be a much better place without them. Human beings in general are hard wired for compassion, love and help etc. We need money- and power-grabbing religions for nothing. Being guided by the wisdom of your fellow man, facts, reality, by science and by lessons learned from our history would be a much better thing for mankind than hypocritical false religions.
Over and out (for real) I know you won't agree and tell me how wrong I am and that is fine. I won't come back here to these comments. This discussion is off topic anyways. There will be no LO miracles.
Why are you so sure? Posted Jul 17, 2011 9:16 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I know that the net result of all religions on this planet is utterly detrimental to mankind (how many wars and genocides have/had strong religous aspects?). Sorry, but I don't see the logic: how second part is related to the first one? Most technical wonders (both in ancient times and today) are created for the war (the latest, most well-known example is the Internet), so I'm not all that sure religions and wars are somehow "detrimental". And even if you ignore that aspect you must remember that religions do not create or start wars - they are used as justification, sure, but actual reasons are usually deeper. Think Crusades (the original ones: 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries in Europe). They were side-effect of the solution to quite real and acute problem: overpopulation. Rules which governed inheritance were actually quite positive WRT to overall progress of the society, but they created lots of "excess people" who had titles but no land and little money; Crusades neatly tied up this dangerous mass. When another solution to the problem was found Crusades stopped. Religious people still wanted to continue, but society rejected these pleas. Thus no, I don't think it can be easily said that "the net result of all religions on this planet is utterly detrimental": they play role of "safety valve" and pacify the population (give good, noble, justification for objectively needed atrocities) and in fact it looks like net sum is quite positive indeed. Human beings in general are hard wired for compassion, love and help etc. Where such crazy ideas come from? It's just stupid. Yes, humans are capable of compassion, love, help and so on - but to say that are hardwired to do that... Sorry, but not even close. They are hardwired to survive and propagate (just like all other creatures). When compassion, love and other such qualities are helpful (and they often do) - everything is fine and religion takes a backseat, when they are detrimental - you need a religion to justify you actions. Being guided by the wisdom of your fellow man, facts, reality, by science and by lessons learned from our history would be a much better thing for mankind than hypocritical false religions. What this has to do with anything? Religions rarely (if ever) actually guide the mankind. Sure, they are used to justify things a lot, but to actually guide? Nope. You've put them on pedestal they don't deserve - no wonder you've gotten wrong impression about them.
Why are you so sure? Posted Jul 17, 2011 13:40 UTC (Sun) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] OK, folks, can we stop this one here? Religion is getting pretty off-topic for LWN, and I'm not sure that much good will come from discussing it further.Except, of course, that blasphemous users of the wrong editor are still fair game.
|
|||||||||||||