[CS-FSLUG] Christiansource Digest, Vol 80, Issue 3

Tue Oct 19 15:07:30 CDT 2010

I think Oracle's misunderstanding of and intentions about open source
have been clearly revealed:
<http://sstallion.blogspot.com/2010/08/opensolaris-is-dead.html>
To me, their language clearly indicates their possessive attitude not
only to Solaris and its source code, but they also seem to think that
Sun's developers and the open source community are theirs to possess
as well. They clearly have a materialistic world view that one must
lose in order for another to gain that they apply to all subjects in
their memo.

On 10/19/10, christiansource-request at ofb.biz
<christiansource-request at ofb.biz> wrote:
> Send Christiansource mailing list submissions to
> 	christiansource at ofb.biz
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://ofb.biz/mailman/listinfo/christiansource_ofb.biz
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	christiansource-request at ofb.biz
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	christiansource-owner at ofb.biz
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Christiansource digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Oracle, OO.org and LibreOffice (Marco Tedaldi)
>    2. Re: Oracle, OO.org and LibreOffice (Ed Hurst)
>    3. Re: Oracle, OO.org and LibreOffice (Cia Watson)
>    4. Re: Oracle, OO.org and LibreOffice (Ed Hurst)
>    5. Re: Oracle, OO.org and LibreOfficet, CS Vol 80, Issue 2
>       (George W. Rodier)
>    6. Re: Oracle, OO.org and LibreOffice (Cia Watson)
>    7. Re: Oracle, OO.org and LibreOfficet, CS Vol 80, Issue 2 (Ed Hurst)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:15:24 +0200
> From: Marco Tedaldi <marco.tedaldi at gmx.ch>
> To: "A Christian virtual Free Software and Linux Users Group."
> 	<christiansource at ofb.biz>
> Subject: Re: [CS-FSLUG] Oracle, OO.org and LibreOffice
> Message-ID: <4CBC9CCC.7000106 at gmx.ch>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Am 18.10.2010 01:24, schrieb Ed Hurst:
>> Is there anyone on the list competent to comment on what appears a
>> rather ugly disagreement on the OO.org planning council? I don't want to
>> steer the conversation in any particular direction; I'm just curious if
>> someone I know is close to the story, and if they'll comment.
>>
> A bunch of people had gotten the feeling, that Oracle would not really
> support the development of OO. but since the name OpenOffice belongs to
> sun which was aquired by oracle, they had to choose a new name.
>
> Thats the great thing on Open source. If you don't agree, you can fork.
> time will tell which side is "right". Many forks have led to interesting
> developments and late to remerges, where the features of both branches
> have been merged again to the benefit of all users.
>
> Now oracle seems to be a bit upset about this fork and clings to the
> name OpenOffice. The refuse to join the Organisation behind libre office
> ansay, that they want are committed to develop OO themselfes. Only time
> will tell.
>
> Last know to me is, that Oracle has asked the people that support labre
> office to leave the open office project.
>
> I think, most distros will soon switch to libre office in favor of
> openoffice.
>
> Greets
>
> Marco
>
> http://medienkommentare.blogspot.com/ (in german)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:54:47 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Ed Hurst <ehurst at soulkiln.org>
> To: "A Christian virtual Free Software and Linux Users Group."
> 	<christiansource at ofb.biz>
> Subject: Re: [CS-FSLUG] Oracle, OO.org and LibreOffice
> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1010181447570.25909 at pursuit>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>
>
>> Thats the great thing on Open source. If you don't agree, you can fork.
>> time
>> will tell which side is "right". Many forks have led to interesting
>> developments and late to remerges, where the features of both branches
>> have
>> been merged again to the benefit of all users.
>
> Yes. I found out recently, for example, Alpine had a fork as Realpine
> (or "re-alpine"), but the original developers froze their project
> anyway. I've built the new and I'm using it right now.
>
> As for distros moving to LibreOffice, it's funny quite a few had already
> switched to Go-oo (SUSE, Ubuntu, etc). Now I'm reading suggestions Libre
> will end up being absorbed by, or merge with, Go-oo. Don't know how
> true, but I feel sure Go-oo can use some better organization in one
> thing: Yum-based clients have no idea what they need to install and
> nothing on the site will help you figure it out. They very much need
> some user documentation, because the tell you absolutely nothing beyond
> "install this release package for a Yum repo."
>
> Ed Hurst
> --------
> Open for Business - http://ofb.biz/
> Kiln of the Soul - http://soulkiln.org/
> blog - http://soulkiln.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:39:21 +0000
> From: Cia Watson <ciamarie at my180.net>
> To: christiansource at ofb.biz
> Subject: Re: [CS-FSLUG] Oracle, OO.org and LibreOffice
> Message-ID: <20101018183921.693abf24 at amd3c-lmde>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:54:47 -0500 (CDT)
> Ed Hurst <ehurst at soulkiln.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Thats the great thing on Open source. If you don't agree, you can
>> > fork. time will tell which side is "right". Many forks have led to
>> > interesting developments and late to remerges, where the features
>> > of both branches have been merged again to the benefit of all users.
>
>> As for distros moving to LibreOffice, it's funny quite a few had
>> already switched to Go-oo (SUSE, Ubuntu, etc). Now I'm reading
>> suggestions Libre will end up being absorbed by, or merge with,
>> Go-oo. Don't know how true, but I feel sure Go-oo can use some better
>> organization in one thing: Yum-based clients have no idea what they
>> need to install and nothing on the site will help you figure it out.
>> They very much need some user documentation, because the tell you
>> absolutely nothing beyond "install this release package for a Yum
>> repo."
>
> I used to have a small ad account with yahoo, and was advised that I'd
> have to sign up with Bing to continue having ads served due to their
> ad-sharing agreement. I looked into that, and they wanted me to install
> Moonlight which requires Mono. I decided to pass, after doing some
> research on Moonlight.
>
> All of that as background for my question, I thought I read somewhere
> during my research that Go-oo might tie into Mono? Do you know whether
> that's the case or not? If it does, I can guarantee you that Redhat
> wouldn't go there. (no pun intended... haha)
>
> Cia
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:29:51 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Ed Hurst <ehurst at soulkiln.org>
> To: "A Christian virtual Free Software and Linux Users Group."
> 	<christiansource at ofb.biz>
> Subject: Re: [CS-FSLUG] Oracle, OO.org and LibreOffice
> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1010190517100.29978 at pursuit>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Cia Watson wrote:
>
>> I thought I read somewhere during my research that Go-oo might tie
>> into Mono? Do you know whether that's the case or not? If it does, I
>> can guarantee you that Redhat wouldn't go there. (no pun intended...
>> haha)
>
> Well, a major sponsor for Go-oo is Novell, but I don't know if we can
> say they actually control it; "dominate" may be more correct. My
> impression is this is simply the result of circumstances. Sun had the
> original, and I rather doubt something as massive as OO.org would not
> have arisen without some big pockets behind it, regardless of motive.
> Thus, I tend to see Novell dominance as just changing dance partners.
>
> This naturally means Mono shows up, but I understand it is merely a
> module which need not even be installed for Go-oo to work. However, last
> time I checked, Red Hat still has Mono in the repositories. (Since I
> hate it for being such a horrific resource hog, I try to avoid it.) The
> big sparkle for Go-oo is that you can do far more with it, as all the
> patches rejected by Sun (now Oracle) are given a chance to work, but
> they are all modules, not dependencies.
>
> As always, it's possible I am completely mistaken on some of this.
>
> Ed Hurst
> --------
> Open for Business - http://ofb.biz/
> Kiln of the Soul - http://soulkiln.org/
> blog - http://soulkiln.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:22:52 -0700
> From: "George W. Rodier" <gwgr at shaw.ca>
> To: christiansource at ofb.biz
> Subject: Re: [CS-FSLUG] Oracle, OO.org and LibreOfficet, CS Vol 80,
> 	Issue 2
> Message-ID: <4CBDB7CC.40808 at shaw.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Le 2010-10-18 10:00, christiansource-request at ofb.biz a ?crit :
>>
> [snip
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>     1. Oracle, OO.org and LibreOffice (Ed Hurst)
>>     2. Re: Oracle, OO.org and LibreOffice (Eduardo Sanchez)
>>
> [snip
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 07:37:50 -0300
>> From: Eduardo Sanchez<lists at sombragris.org>
>> To: "A Christian virtual Free Software and Linux Users Group."
>> 	<christiansource at ofb.biz>
>> Subject: Re: [CS-FSLUG] Oracle, OO.org and LibreOffice
>> Message-ID:<201010180737.50446.lists at sombragris.org>
>> Content-Type: Text/Plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> On Sunday 17 October 2010 20:24:08 Ed Hurst wrote:
>>> Is there anyone on the list competent to comment on what appears a
>>> rather ugly disagreement on the OO.org planning council? I don't want to
>>> steer the conversation in any particular direction; I'm just curious if
>>> someone I know is close to the story, and if they'll comment.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ed Hurst
>>
>>
>> I really don't know what's going on. It's rather disappointing to see a
>> fork,
>> though.
>>
>> Eduardo
>>
>
> Ed, Eduardo and friends,
>
> Although a rank outsider, as I read the Document Foundation info it
> would seem that as in the history of table cutlery a knife was needed
> even before a fork. By that I mean that the strangle hold Oracle had on
> OOo really required a separate foundation not controlled by one
> commercial company.
>
> Is anyone getting a sense that Oracle wants to be a company encouraging
> and supporting FLOSS? Then too there is the near constipation of
> Oracle's internal development processes and practices that was slowing
> development to a crawl (at least as expressed by some, if not many, of
> the developers).
>
> There does not have to be a final fork as Oracle has been asked to join
> the Document Foundation ( http://www.documentfoundation.org/ ) and to
> transfer the OOo name thus setting the whole work free. See especially
> the DF FAQ page.
>
> It is my understanding that the version of OOo included in the various
> releases of Ubuntu is, in reality, their version of Novell's earlier OOo
> fork and incorporates certain Ubuntu modifications which in turn have
> been contributed back to OOo.
>
> Do I think Oracle will set OOo free so Canonical, IBM, Novell and others
> can join in supporting and contribute to the development of OOo? No. And
> that is the sad reality behind the LibreOffice fork.
>
> Georges
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:42:01 +0000
> From: Cia Watson <ciamarie at my180.net>
> To: christiansource at ofb.biz
> Subject: Re: [CS-FSLUG] Oracle, OO.org and LibreOffice
> Message-ID: <20101019084201.20c52679 at amd3c-lmde>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:29:51 -0500 (CDT)
> Ed Hurst <ehurst at soulkiln.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Cia Watson wrote:
>>
>> > I thought I read somewhere during my research that Go-oo might tie
>> > into Mono? Do you know whether that's the case or not? If it does, I
>> > can guarantee you that Redhat wouldn't go there. (no pun intended...
>> > haha)
>>
>> Well, a major sponsor for Go-oo is Novell, but I don't know if we can
>> say they actually control it; "dominate" may be more correct. My
>> impression is this is simply the result of circumstances. Sun had the
>> original, and I rather doubt something as massive as OO.org would not
>> have arisen without some big pockets behind it, regardless of motive.
>> Thus, I tend to see Novell dominance as just changing dance partners.
>>
>> This naturally means Mono shows up, but I understand it is merely a
>> module which need not even be installed for Go-oo to work. However,
>> last time I checked, Red Hat still has Mono in the repositories.
>> (Since I hate it for being such a horrific resource hog, I try to
>> avoid it.) The big sparkle for Go-oo is that you can do far more with
>> it, as all the patches rejected by Sun (now Oracle) are given a
>> chance to work, but they are all modules, not dependencies.
>>
>> As always, it's possible I am completely mistaken on some of this.
>
> I believe you're correct, mono is probably in the RH and/or Fedora
> repo's, but  no mono app's are part of any default installation. On
> Fedora they use gnote instead of Tomboy and Shotwell in place of
> F-Spot.  So if mono isn't a dependency for Go-oo then it probably
> wouldn't be an issue. It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:39:05 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Ed Hurst <ehurst at soulkiln.org>
> To: "A Christian virtual Free Software and Linux Users Group."
> 	<christiansource at ofb.biz>
> Subject: Re: [CS-FSLUG] Oracle, OO.org and LibreOfficet, CS Vol 80,
> 	Issue 2
> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1010191127100.2793 at pursuit>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, George W. Rodier wrote:
>
>> Do I think Oracle will set OOo free so Canonical, IBM, Novell and
>> others can join in supporting and contribute to the development of
>> OOo? No. And that is the sad reality behind the LibreOffice fork.
>
> >From what I've read, you are surely not alone in this assessment. Oracle
> is a strange and erratic beast among tech corporations. What little
> consistency we might think we see tends to point in bad directions. I
> don't view Oracle as a friend to anybody, although perhaps useful now
> and then.
>
> I believe we can philosophize that out in all directions, in the sense
> that everyone determined to make a big profit from Open Source is
> inherently suspect until they establish a track record for being
> helpful, or at least harmless.
>
> As a curmudgeon, the whole question of office suites eludes me somewhat,
> since I have yet to find anything useful in 90% of the features. Sure, I
> love some innovations (XHTML is way smarter than old HTML), and I'm
> really glad people are getting more of what they demand with all those
> features. At the same time, I'm not sure the world is a better place
> with most of what I've seen added, particularly in making them so
> doggone complex. I still consider the old Enable Suite for DOS
> altogether adequate in terms of features, and WordPerfect 5 was kinda
> bloated.
>
> Ed Hurst
> --------
> Open for Business - http://ofb.biz/
> Kiln of the Soul - http://soulkiln.org/
> blog - http://soulkiln.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ______________________________________________
> ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
> Christiansource at ofb.biz
> http://ofb.biz/mailman/listinfo/christiansource_ofb.biz
>
> End of Christiansource Digest, Vol 80, Issue 3
> **********************************************
>