Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon
Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon
Posted May 16, 2012 20:47 UTC (Wed) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828)In reply to: Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon by ewan
Parent article: Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon
On the face of it, the Symphony UI is nice in many respects - but it doesn't look designed. A smarter, leaner, more native UI would be more desirable instead of framing UI in Java.
Posted May 16, 2012 21:01 UTC (Wed)
by markhb (guest, #1003)
[Link]
Posted May 16, 2012 22:22 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted May 16, 2012 22:47 UTC (Wed)
by Zizzle (guest, #67739)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 17, 2012 0:28 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link]
Posted May 16, 2012 22:56 UTC (Wed)
by ewan (guest, #5533)
[Link] (3 responses)
Quite possibly. But if IBM were going to free Symphony anyway, they might just have well done it under the LO licence, no need for AOO at all. The theory was that they were buying the ability to continue with their proprietary branch, but all they've acheived is the ability for other people to make proprietary branches of IBM's code.
So what was the point of the AOO fork again?
Posted May 16, 2012 23:37 UTC (Wed)
by chithanh (guest, #52801)
[Link] (2 responses)
From the article: "We hope everyone is as excited about this contribution as we are. IBM will continue to maintain and support Symphony for our customers until we are able to offer Apache OpenOffice with what we hope will be most of the value we are contributing today."
BTW, calling AOO a fork reveals some cognitive dissonance.
Posted May 17, 2012 9:19 UTC (Thu)
by ewan (guest, #5533)
[Link] (1 responses)
Unless IBM continue to put in the engineering effort to maintain Symphony, I think it's rather unlikely to succeed within AOO either.
calling AOO a fork reveals some cognitive dissonance
Heh. I think it's mostly fair though. Neither AOO nor LO are the same project as the Sun/Oracle managed OOo was, they're both successors to it. LO (and brfore it, go-oo) was well established and up and running, making progress and putting out releases, before AOO was set up. Then a new project comes along to do basically the same thing. I don't think it's completely unjustifiable to call that creating a fork.
Posted May 17, 2012 10:52 UTC (Thu)
by chithanh (guest, #52801)
[Link]
And no, AOO is still not a fork. Even if LO has the larger community and is well established among Linux distros.
Posted May 17, 2012 0:27 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link]
Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon
Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon
Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon
Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon
Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon
Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon
In other words, IBM wants to have others to work for free to maintain their code. As others have already pointed out in this thread, using LO as vehicle for that will probably not succeed.
As others have already pointed out in this thread, using LO as vehicle for that will probably not succeed.
Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon
Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon
Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon