You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> on 2013/11/27 20:23:02 UTC

80 million downloads

Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.

Regards,

-Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
<ar...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 02:23:02PM -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>
> It would be good to update the charts at
> http://www.openoffice.org/stats/downloads.html The most recent data is
> from 29/10 with 75 million downloads.
>

Yes, I'll do that tomorrow.  I want to get the full month data for November.

-Rob

>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 02:23:02PM -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.

It would be good to update the charts at
http://www.openoffice.org/stats/downloads.html The most recent data is
from 29/10 with 75 million downloads.


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>.

Le 30/11/2013 22:10, Rory O'Farrell a écrit :
> It would be best if the silent mapping of OpenOffice to LibreOffice on many linux distros could be stopped. Use a common linux distro, try to install OpenOffice using the package manager, and what does one get - LibreOffice.

Exactly.
We still have many users complaining that they can't install AOO because a libreoffice package (integrated in the default ubuntu install) is preventing the completion of the process.

There had been a discussion about AOO in the GNU/Linux distros some time ago. There had been good progress IIRC but I've lost sight of it. Should we make it a target for the next Ubuntu release for example?

I agree that GNU/Linux desktop for business is not something we should care for the moment but for the personal use, I think it's important.

Hagar

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

Hi
On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:10, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:06:01 -0500
> Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
> 
> It would be best if the silent mapping of OpenOffice to LibreOffice on many linux distros could be stopped. Use a common linux distro, try to install OpenOffice using the package manager, and what does one get - LibreOffice.

Perhaps this could be a key part of messaging? That for Linux distros, choice should be possible, and the user should be able to choose freely what he or she wants; that it seemingly violates the spirit of free and open source software to bind users to a set of software and to make actual choice nearly impossible for regular users; and to then claim, deceptively, that the user has choice (if that is what is going on; I would need to check) is just sad.

Louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:06:01 -0500
Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
> > Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
> >
> >> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
> >
> >
> > Well, I also saw this:
> > https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South
> > Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote
> > from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think
> > this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly
> > growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from
> > corporations," Pfeifer said.
> >
> 
> 7000 desktops?  Really?  We get more than that many downloads every
> *hour*, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (on average).  Just because
> our users are anonymous does not make them any less relevant.
> 
> > LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too,
> > something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder
> > why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
> >
> 
> South Tyrol has been migration to OpenOffice for nearly a decade now.
> I remember seeing them give a presentation on this at the Orvietto
> OpenOffice.org conference, for example.  Hopefully one of these years
> they will complete this task.  But this is hardly news.
> 
> > Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
> >
> 
> It depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  Any one migrating to
> a free office suite as part of a migration to Linux will either take
> LibreOffice or Calligra.  If we want to give them the easy choice of
> AOO as well then we need to get AOO packages for the distros.
> Personally I don't think the Linux desktop is worth the effort.  That
> is my personal view, and I don't force it on anyone else, but that's
> my honest opinion.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
> > Hagar
> >
> >
> > 

It would be best if the silent mapping of OpenOffice to LibreOffice on many linux distros could be stopped. Use a common linux distro, try to install OpenOffice using the package manager, and what does one get - LibreOffice.


-- 
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Think Marketing, WAS: Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.

Hello, 

> From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:luispo@gmail.com] 

> And that as LO and AOO are functionally very similar, any 
> support company stands to gain—they do not have to limit 
> themselves only to AOO or LO; we, at least, probably won't 
> enforce such a draconian limitation and we, at least, are not 
> interested in invidious comparisons. I'm sure that the 
> majority of the LO brethren are not, either.

And I'm sure there is a huge difference between the LO-community and the TDF
policy here.
The community is not interested in dispute, but the TDF is interested in power for
themselves and their backers, so the TDF will do anything to distort the truth in
their favor.

Trust the LO-community, but never trust the TDF and their backers.



Greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org

Think Marketing, WAS: Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

Changed subject.

On 01-Dec-2013, at 09:53, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:

> I learned that my region is migrating to OpenOffice from a post by Rob to this list. They had never contacted the project in public or in private. It's OK of course; they are not forced to do so; but it deserves a reflection. How many other "silent" decisions to migrate (or not to migrate) are taken every day without the project being aware of it? And can we as a project do something more for decision-makers to be properly informed?

This is the way it is with open source. We're lucky if we get notified, but happy enough if we don't. The point of the knowing, as I see it, is that it gives substance to the companies interested in supporting the software. In this case, the few supporting LO do so, I imagine, because they can point to the rhetoric as substance; and it becomes, in a small measure, self-fulfilling.

For this reason, we created the various sites on Ye Olde OOo documenting usage, esp. by enterprise size groups. The point was not to move enterprises over, but to do give raison d'être to the ecosystem. It worked, sort of.

What I think we could do, given the limited resources is

a) renew the Major Deployments page and update to AOO. The point: factual accounts of usage by enterprise. (Major deployments is here:

https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments

You will notice that it's old.

b) identify that we actually do invite support organizations and the like to constitute the ecosystem.

And that as LO and AOO are functionally very similar, any support company stands to gain—they do not have to limit themselves only to AOO or LO; we, at least, probably won't enforce such a draconian limitation and we, at least, are not interested in invidious comparisons. I'm sure that the majority of the LO brethren are not, either.

I would also like to suggest that peripheral groups or people working on ODF editors for mobile devices gain more attention. Our focus is, to be sure, on the desktop. I get that. But we cannot ignore (and ought not) mobile devices. Here, I mean not ports of AOO, though those can be useful. I mean ODF editors. The point is to be able to edit an ODT document on a mobile device; not just view it, edit it.

louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Think Marketing, WAS: Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

Changed subject.

On 01-Dec-2013, at 09:53, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:

What I think we could do, given the limited resources is

a) renew the Major Deployments page and update to AOO. The point: factual accounts of usage by enterprise. (Major deployments is here:

https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments

You will notice that it's old.

b) identify that we actually do invite support organizations and the like to constitute the ecosystem.

louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.

On 4 December 2013 20:10, Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com> wrote:

>
> On 12/4/2013 10:19 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@gmail.com]
>>>> I have no problem to make this more public. If LO want to be
>>>> independent
>>>> they should not use our package names, binary names etc.
>>>>
>>> in fact, so you're absolutely right. I am a normal Linux user and the
>>> situation on Linux is extremely confusing.
>>>
>>> But what can we do? I think here are problems that need to be resolved
>>> legally.
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Jörg
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>  One of the "confusing" issues comes from LO's continued use of
>> "soffice" as
>> the launchpad binary. We've been down this road  before  to no avail.
>>
>> See, for example --
>>
>> http://www.libreoffice.org/developers/
>>
>> On SOME distros who handle this a little better/politely, the LO  binary
>> has been renamed to "libreoffice", and  a symlink from "soffice" to
>> libreoffice (/usr/bin/libreoffice --a custom packaging  ) is supplied
>> which
>> can easily be removed.
>>
> I believe we should create a plan to have a binary named openoffice with a
> symlink to soffice.
>
+1 we need to protect the copy right. The longer we allow the distros to
use openoffice, the less likely it is that they will (and need to) change.

rgds
jan I.

We should announce this very publicly and communicate to LO and the distros
> when we make the change.
> This would also be a good topic to discuss with LO at FOSDEM this year.
> It would be good to get agreement from LO that they agree with this
> approach and will (over time) implement this across all of the distros (as
> it is a reasonable and fair way to deal with the overlap between the
> products)
>
> A.
>
>
>> bottom line -- even if we are successful in getting AOO into some
>> repositories, how to deal with this naming clash.
>>
>> Maybe someone who has downloaded LO packages directly from their site can
>> provide more information.
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.

On 12/4/2013 10:19 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
>
>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@gmail.com]
>>> I have no problem to make this more public. If LO want to be
>>> independent
>>> they should not use our package names, binary names etc.
>> in fact, so you're absolutely right. I am a normal Linux user and the
>> situation on Linux is extremely confusing.
>>
>> But what can we do? I think here are problems that need to be resolved
>> legally.
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Jörg
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
> One of the "confusing" issues comes from LO's continued use of "soffice" as
> the launchpad binary. We've been down this road  before  to no avail.
>
> See, for example --
>
> http://www.libreoffice.org/developers/
>
> On SOME distros who handle this a little better/politely, the LO  binary
> has been renamed to "libreoffice", and  a symlink from "soffice" to
> libreoffice (/usr/bin/libreoffice --a custom packaging  ) is supplied which
> can easily be removed.
I believe we should create a plan to have a binary named openoffice with 
a symlink to soffice.
We should announce this very publicly and communicate to LO and the 
distros when we make the change.
This would also be a good topic to discuss with LO at FOSDEM this 
year.   It would be good to get agreement from LO that they agree with 
this approach and will (over time) implement this across all of the 
distros (as it is a reasonable and fair way to deal with the overlap 
between the products)

A.

>
> bottom line -- even if we are successful in getting AOO into some
> repositories, how to deal with this naming clash.
>
> Maybe someone who has downloaded LO packages directly from their site can
> provide more information.
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.

Kay Schenk wrote:
> On SOME distros who handle this a little better/politely, the LO  binary
> has been renamed to "libreoffice", and  a symlink from "soffice" to
> libreoffice (/usr/bin/libreoffice --a custom packaging  ) is supplied which
> can easily be removed.

Actually, the official LibreOffice packages install to their own subtree 
of /opt by default, so they do not install conflicting aliases (but 
those packages do still use "program/soffice").

Packages that come with distributions, instead, usually store all 
binaries in /usr/bin and in that case we have the double "soffice" 
conflict. I think "unopkg" may have the same problem. This naming is 
chosen by the individual distributions, even though dropping "soffice" 
completely may have some (possibly limited) side effects.

For more details, see the relevant discussions at:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178173.html
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/No-usr-bin-soffice-symlink-on-Linux-td4034854.html

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 04-Dec-2013, at 13:19, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
> 
>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@gmail.com]
>> 
>>> I have no problem to make this more public. If LO want to be
>>> independent
>>> they should not use our package names, binary names etc.
>> 
>> in fact, so you're absolutely right. I am a normal Linux user and the
>> situation on Linux is extremely confusing.
>> 
>> But what can we do? I think here are problems that need to be resolved
>> legally.
>> 
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Jörg
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
>> 
> One of the "confusing" issues comes from LO's continued use of "soffice" as
> the launchpad binary. We've been down this road  before  to no avail.
> 
> See, for example --
> 
> http://www.libreoffice.org/developers/
> 
> On SOME distros who handle this a little better/politely, the LO  binary
> has been renamed to "libreoffice", and  a symlink from "soffice" to
> libreoffice (/usr/bin/libreoffice --a custom packaging  ) is supplied which
> can easily be removed.
> 
> bottom line -- even if we are successful in getting AOO into some
> repositories, how to deal with this naming clash.
> 
> Maybe someone who has downloaded LO packages directly from their site can
> provide more information.
> 

When was the last time we actually contacted one of the people at LO who can effect a change or at least diminish the confusion? I mean, it's silly to have the legacy identity and suggests either a rather tired play at the "real" soffice or laziness. Yes, we could change our package name but…. not only do we have a large installed base but also legacy, copyright, and actual growth. 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:

> > From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@gmail.com]
>
> > I have no problem to make this more public. If LO want to be
> > independent
> > they should not use our package names, binary names etc.
>
> in fact, so you're absolutely right. I am a normal Linux user and the
> situation on Linux is extremely confusing.
>
> But what can we do? I think here are problems that need to be resolved
> legally.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Jörg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
One of the "confusing" issues comes from LO's continued use of "soffice" as
the launchpad binary. We've been down this road  before  to no avail.

See, for example --

http://www.libreoffice.org/developers/

On SOME distros who handle this a little better/politely, the LO  binary
has been renamed to "libreoffice", and  a symlink from "soffice" to
libreoffice (/usr/bin/libreoffice --a custom packaging  ) is supplied which
can easily be removed.

bottom line -- even if we are successful in getting AOO into some
repositories, how to deal with this naming clash.

Maybe someone who has downloaded LO packages directly from their site can
provide more information.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Cats do not have to be shown how to have a good time,
 for they are unfailing ingenious in that respect."
                                       -- James Mason

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.

> From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@gmail.com] 

> I have no problem to make this more public. If LO want to be 
> independent
> they should not use our package names, binary names etc.

in fact, so you're absolutely right. I am a normal Linux user and the situation on Linux is extremely confusing.

But what can we do? I think here are problems that need to be resolved legally.


Greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.

On 12/3/13 10:28 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 December 2013 21:12, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> I have (for ubuntu) tried to read through the policies which was a
>> nightmare.
> 
> 
> The first thing would be to get into Debian. I recall the steps there
> were set out (basically, have an install set that doesn't conflict in
> any way with LO - however fair or unfair that might be, it's what you
> need to do). MATE managed it in the face of GNOME 3, so AOO should be
> able to.

I have no problem to make this more public. If LO want to be independent
they should not use our package names, binary names etc.

Juergen

> 
> 
> - d.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com>.

On 3 December 2013 21:12, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:

> I have (for ubuntu) tried to read through the policies which was a
> nightmare.

The first thing would be to get into Debian. I recall the steps there
were set out (basically, have an install set that doesn't conflict in
any way with LO - however fair or unfair that might be, it's what you
need to do). MATE managed it in the face of GNOME 3, so AOO should be
able to.

- d.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.

On 3 December 2013 21:30, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:

> On 01/12/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>>> It is natural that private or public entities considering a migration
>>> will
>>> have their established consultants and ask them. But we should have
>>> enough
>>> "official" information available to anybody who is considering a
>>> migration.
>>>
>> So the fact that migrations are occurring without contacting the
>> project is a positive sign that the publicly available information, on
>> the website and wiki, is sufficient, yes?
>>
>
> Interesting interpretation! Well, maybe it's true, but then I wonder why I
> still see the occasional blog post or technology news assuming that
> OpenOffice is dead.
>
> But you may be right: indeed, if one makes the small effort to open the
> official home page (search engines lead you to obsolete pages at times for
> specific queries, but the homepage is OK) it's very clear to see that
> OpenOffice is quite active.
>
> So I wonder if the reason could be that these bloggers/experts do not even
> search for information. In that case, I don't think we can do much more.
>
>  Small open source conferences can be
>> fun, I'm sure.  But are we really introducing OpenOffice to new
>> people?  Or are we "preaching to the choir"?   Is this really the way
>> to reach the 70% of computer users who have never heard of OpenOffice?
>>
>
> I'm more interested in decision makers, at any level. For sure attending
> local events won't spread awareness, but we have other channels for that.
> But a small migration to OpenOffice is often done following word of mouth,
> and influencers are often Linux users who have seen OpenOffice disappear. I
> would like them to be properly informed.
>
> Getting OpenOffice back into distributions would be good to that aim.
> Unfortunately, policy is rather complex and is the main obstacle (meaning
> that a lot of work is needed and that our resources are currently focused
> elsewhere).
>

Since I am one of those thinking (and not only thinking) about renewing our
build system, it would be interesting to see these policies.

I have (for ubuntu) tried to read through the policies which was a
nightmare.

If somebody can point at something specific, like a bullet-list or how-to
for the distros we want be in, I would be happy to at least read through
it, and see how it could be fitted.

rgds
jan I.


>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.

On 01/12/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> It is natural that private or public entities considering a migration will
>> have their established consultants and ask them. But we should have enough
>> "official" information available to anybody who is considering a migration.
> So the fact that migrations are occurring without contacting the
> project is a positive sign that the publicly available information, on
> the website and wiki, is sufficient, yes?

Interesting interpretation! Well, maybe it's true, but then I wonder why 
I still see the occasional blog post or technology news assuming that 
OpenOffice is dead.

But you may be right: indeed, if one makes the small effort to open the 
official home page (search engines lead you to obsolete pages at times 
for specific queries, but the homepage is OK) it's very clear to see 
that OpenOffice is quite active.

So I wonder if the reason could be that these bloggers/experts do not 
even search for information. In that case, I don't think we can do much 
more.

> Small open source conferences can be
> fun, I'm sure.  But are we really introducing OpenOffice to new
> people?  Or are we "preaching to the choir"?   Is this really the way
> to reach the 70% of computer users who have never heard of OpenOffice?

I'm more interested in decision makers, at any level. For sure attending 
local events won't spread awareness, but we have other channels for 
that. But a small migration to OpenOffice is often done following word 
of mouth, and influencers are often Linux users who have seen OpenOffice 
disappear. I would like them to be properly informed.

Getting OpenOffice back into distributions would be good to that aim. 
Unfortunately, policy is rather complex and is the main obstacle 
(meaning that a lot of work is needed and that our resources are 
currently focused elsewhere).

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 30/11/2013 Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:22, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> And let's not forget that Emilia-Romagna recently announced a
>>> migration to OpenOffice
>
>
> (the discussion has evolved into many interesting directions, but I'm
> picking this message for answering)
>
> The main issue I see here is that the OpenOffice adoption (or non-adoption!)
> happens without the OpenOffice project being aware of anything.
>
> It is natural that private or public entities considering a migration will
> have their established consultants and ask them. But we should have enough
> "official" information available to anybody who is considering a migration.

So the fact that migrations are occurring without contacting the
project is a positive sign that the publicly available information, on
the website and wiki, is sufficient, yes?

> Something that can immediately reassure them that the "OpenOffice is dead"
> meme is false, that a lot of innovation is ongoing at OpenOffice, that
> OpenOffice is not only maintained, but also getting much better.
>

I'm not seeing any credible arguments to the contrary.

> There's a lot of work to be done here, not only by writing "Why" pages and
> wiki pages, but being more visible at small, local events and conferences.
> Technical excellence is to be pursued and is our main focus at the moment,
> but we also need to improve outreach and to get people to see correct
> information.
>

It depends on the conference.  Small open source conferences can be
fun, I'm sure.  But are we really introducing OpenOffice to new
people?  Or are we "preaching to the choir"?   Is this really the way
to reach the 70% of computer users who have never heard of OpenOffice?

> I learned that my region is migrating to OpenOffice from a post by Rob to
> this list. They had never contacted the project in public or in private.
> It's OK of course; they are not forced to do so; but it deserves a
> reflection. How many other "silent" decisions to migrate (or not to migrate)
> are taken every day without the project being aware of it? And can we as a
> project do something more for decision-makers to be properly informed?
>

The download trend is our best indication of use of AOO.  Because use
of open source in general is no longer novel, I don't expect to hear
much news generated from those who migrate to OpenOffice.  That is
what success looks like.  As OpenOffice becomes mainstream it is not
newsworthy to use it.

-Rob

>
>> And I would also
>> point to Italo V's rather heated denunciation of the migration and
>> AOO about it
>
>
> To the benefit of those who do not speak Italian: that was later somewhat
> retracted/rectified, see same site. But I agree with other people on this
> list that everyone's focus should not be on which open source office suite
> is better; the real obstacle is persuading organizations to adopt free and
> open source software and do it with the right spirit. Fights over which
> variant is better undermine the credibility of free/open source in general,
> and contribute to keep more organizations tied to proprietary solutions.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.

On 30/11/2013 Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:22, Rob Weir wrote:
>> And let's not forget that Emilia-Romagna recently announced a
>> migration to OpenOffice

(the discussion has evolved into many interesting directions, but I'm 
picking this message for answering)

The main issue I see here is that the OpenOffice adoption (or 
non-adoption!) happens without the OpenOffice project being aware of 
anything.

It is natural that private or public entities considering a migration 
will have their established consultants and ask them. But we should have 
enough "official" information available to anybody who is considering a 
migration. Something that can immediately reassure them that the 
"OpenOffice is dead" meme is false, that a lot of innovation is ongoing 
at OpenOffice, that OpenOffice is not only maintained, but also getting 
much better.

There's a lot of work to be done here, not only by writing "Why" pages 
and wiki pages, but being more visible at small, local events and 
conferences. Technical excellence is to be pursued and is our main focus 
at the moment, but we also need to improve outreach and to get people to 
see correct information.

I learned that my region is migrating to OpenOffice from a post by Rob 
to this list. They had never contacted the project in public or in 
private. It's OK of course; they are not forced to do so; but it 
deserves a reflection. How many other "silent" decisions to migrate (or 
not to migrate) are taken every day without the project being aware of 
it? And can we as a project do something more for decision-makers to be 
properly informed?

> And I would also
> point to Italo V's rather heated denunciation of the migration and
> AOO about it

To the benefit of those who do not speak Italian: that was later 
somewhat retracted/rectified, see same site. But I agree with other 
people on this list that everyone's focus should not be on which open 
source office suite is better; the real obstacle is persuading 
organizations to adopt free and open source software and do it with the 
right spirit. Fights over which variant is better undermine the 
credibility of free/open source in general, and contribute to keep more 
organizations tied to proprietary solutions.

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:22, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:

>> 
>> Indeed. In fact, their effort has gone in cycles, and those cycles seem to me related to the job tenacity of a few. Of more interest, as it relates to actualities, would be Munich's migration but also other cities' in Italy.
>> 
> 
> And let's not forget that Emilia-Romagna recently announced a
> migration to OpenOffice:
> 
> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/openoffice-italian-emilia-romagna-save-2-million

Indeed. That was the region I was thinking of, too. And I would also point to Italo V's rather heated denunciation of the migration and AOO about it; see

http://www.libreitalia.it/regione-emilia-romagna-la-migrazione-perduta/

Google translate is adequate. 

louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:06, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I also saw this:
>>> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South
>>> Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote
>>> from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think
>>> this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly
>>> growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from
>>> corporations," Pfeifer said.
>>>
>>
>> 7000 desktops?  Really?  We get more than that many downloads every
>> *hour*, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (on average).  Just because
>> our users are anonymous does not make them any less relevant.
>
> Quite.
>>
>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too,
>>> something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder
>>> why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
>>>
>>
>> South Tyrol has been migration to OpenOffice for nearly a decade now.
>> I remember seeing them give a presentation on this at the Orvietto
>> OpenOffice.org conference, for example.  Hopefully one of these years
>> they will complete this task.  But this is hardly news.
>>
>
> Indeed. In fact, their effort has gone in cycles, and those cycles seem to me related to the job tenacity of a few. Of more interest, as it relates to actualities, would be Munich's migration but also other cities' in Italy.
>

And let's not forget that Emilia-Romagna recently announced a
migration to OpenOffice:

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/openoffice-italian-emilia-romagna-save-2-million

-Rob

>
>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
>>>
>>
>> It depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  Any one migrating to
>> a free office suite as part of a migration to Linux will either take
>> LibreOffice or Calligra.  If we want to give them the easy choice of
>> AOO as well then we need to get AOO packages for the distros.
>> Personally I don't think the Linux desktop is worth the effort.  That
>> is my personal view, and I don't force it on anyone else, but that's
>> my honest opinion.
>
> I agree with Rob. I also tend to think that even for something like AOO, mobile is on the horizon and needs to be embraced. Not all modules of the suite will do well in mobile—I don't relish the idea of doing spreadsheets, for instance, on a tablet. But I also don't relish the idea of doing spreadsheets on anything.
>
> I also don't cotton to the idea of porting AOO straight to Android or iOS. I prefer the idea of developing native ODT editors.
>
> But mobile is an inescapable object in our present's future.
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>
> -louis
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.

Regarding notifying Canonical... I'd be happy to do so, as I'm sure
others would. Just need to get a single assignee for it. I'd be
curious to hear why they wouldn't include AOO as a trusted package, if
they did decline the offer.

louis

On 2 December 2013 13:15, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Has anyone offered to put AOO into the Ubuntu software centre as a trusted
>> package automatically available? If not and there was no refusal to
>> cooperate I don;t see how you can say Ubuntu truncates the freedom of the
>> user. Anyone is free to do with Ubuntu the same things as with any other
>> distro, as with all distros, somethings are easier to implement for
>> non-geeks than others. I should think Ubuntu scores pretty highly on that
>> score as it probably has more non-geek users than any other.
>>
>
> Not that I recall...we have volunteers working on a Fedora effort.
>
> Maybe we need an "Announcement" for this?
>
> @Andrea re the porting info...this is not added to any of our normal
> installation areas --- I'll add it it to some of the "normal" installation
> areas.
>
>
>>
>> On 2 December 2013 03:20, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Glenn,
>> >
>> > On 01-Dec-2013, at 19:45, Glenn Harvey Liwanag <
>> > glennharveyliwanag@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Pardon for not reading the whole thread, but is Ubuntu not shipped with
>> > > AOO? Last time I installed Ubuntu, it had AOO. Or was it LibreOffice?
>> >
>> > LibreOffice.
>> > The issue here, and this is by no means within the proper scope of the
>> > subject line (sigh), is that Ubuntu (or should I say, Canonical) makes it
>> > hard for naive users (that is, those who are not inclined to use command
>> > line interfaces) to replace the LibreOffice default offering with Apache
>> > OpenOffice.
>> >
>> > It is by no means impossible and we've replied on several occasions with
>> > instructions how to do this, but these, afaik, are not posted to the
>> > download page, nor is the information about what is delivered with Ubuntu
>> > there.
>> >
>> > I have no real—well, okay, I do, a little—problem with LibreOffice being
>> > the default. I have a problem with any OS that so truncates the freedom
>> of
>> > the user as Ubuntu does, and yet claims to work with and for a community
>> > that supposedly contributes to instituting freedom, not something more
>> > ironic.
>> >
>> > louis
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> We use Ubuntu throughout the company and don't have any problems with
>> > it -
>> > >> well certainly no more than Windows and Apple Users seem to have. I
>> > suggest
>> > >> if AOO is difficult to install in Ubuntu for a non-developer its
>> really
>> > up
>> > >> to those that have the skills and knowledge to change that..well that
>> > >> assumes that the project isn't just giving up on Ubuntu and leaving it
>> > to
>> > >> LO. I have to say AOO is one of the most difficult to install
>> > applications
>> > >> on Ubuntu. We can blame Ubuntu or Canonical or we can fix it. Depends
>> on
>> > >> whether the Ubuntu market is seen as important because companies like
>> > ours
>> > >> are not going to switch platforms just to run AOO.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On 1 December 2013 23:25, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On 01-Dec-2013, at 18:03, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Some distros make it very difficult for the typical Linux end user
>> to
>> > >>>> install  anything NOT in the distro's repository. This is NOT why I
>> > >>>> switched to Linux, I can assure you.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> It's only—only—been my experience with Ubuntu. With *all* other
>> > LInuxes,
>> > >> I
>> > >>> get joy. (I've not used all there are, I refer just to those I've
>> used;
>> > >> and
>> > >>> at that, via my virtualized environment. Ubuntu pretends to the ease
>> of
>> > >> OS
>> > >>> X but is actually more—!!—tight with proprietary constraints, if you
>> > can
>> > >>> imagine that: if it don't come from Canonical, it ain't canonical.)
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> (At any rate, that's what I would mean. Given the choice of OSs,
>> for
>> > a
>> > >>> lot
>> > >>>>> of stuff I tend toward Linux. It's easier. But I tend then toward
>> > >>>>> non-Canonical Linuxes. Even easier.)
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> And try installing OOo in the latest Ubuntu *as a non-developer.*
>> > Tell
>> > >>> us
>> > >>>>> about it :-).
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I have only used one Linux distro since I started. I do not use
>> Ubuntu
>> > >>> and
>> > >>>> likely never will. I got away from MS because of all kinds of
>> > >>> restrictions
>> > >>>> and I don't need to trade one environment like that for another.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Quite. And I love Linux (and also, for that matter, OS X) because
>> it's
>> > >>> logical in its layout and thus easy to navigate, work with, use.
>> > Whereas
>> > >> I
>> > >>> dislike MSFT's Windows because it is seemingly arbitrary in layout
>> and
>> > >>> operation; and though one can finally *get* that its logic is about
>> > >>> property (MY MY MY things), still, one must then deal with mairzy
>> doats
>> > >> and
>> > >>> dozy doats and liddle lazy divey and not mares and does and lambs
>> > >> scarfing
>> > >>> oats & ivy.)
>> > >>>
>> > >>> louis
>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Ian
>> > >>
>> > >> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications <
>> > >> https://theingots.org/community/faq#7.0>
>> > >>
>> > >> Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
>> > >>
>> > >> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>> > >>
>> > >> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield
>> > >> Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No:
>> > >> 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ian
>>
>> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications <
>> https://theingots.org/community/faq#7.0>
>>
>> Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
>>
>> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>>
>> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield
>> Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No:
>> 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Cats do not have to be shown how to have a good time,
>  for they are unfailing ingenious in that respect."
>                                        -- James Mason

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Has anyone offered to put AOO into the Ubuntu software centre as a trusted
> package automatically available? If not and there was no refusal to
> cooperate I don;t see how you can say Ubuntu truncates the freedom of the
> user. Anyone is free to do with Ubuntu the same things as with any other
> distro, as with all distros, somethings are easier to implement for
> non-geeks than others. I should think Ubuntu scores pretty highly on that
> score as it probably has more non-geek users than any other.
>

Not that I recall...we have volunteers working on a Fedora effort.

Maybe we need an "Announcement" for this?

@Andrea re the porting info...this is not added to any of our normal
installation areas --- I'll add it it to some of the "normal" installation
areas.


>
> On 2 December 2013 03:20, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Glenn,
> >
> > On 01-Dec-2013, at 19:45, Glenn Harvey Liwanag <
> > glennharveyliwanag@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Pardon for not reading the whole thread, but is Ubuntu not shipped with
> > > AOO? Last time I installed Ubuntu, it had AOO. Or was it LibreOffice?
> >
> > LibreOffice.
> > The issue here, and this is by no means within the proper scope of the
> > subject line (sigh), is that Ubuntu (or should I say, Canonical) makes it
> > hard for naive users (that is, those who are not inclined to use command
> > line interfaces) to replace the LibreOffice default offering with Apache
> > OpenOffice.
> >
> > It is by no means impossible and we've replied on several occasions with
> > instructions how to do this, but these, afaik, are not posted to the
> > download page, nor is the information about what is delivered with Ubuntu
> > there.
> >
> > I have no real—well, okay, I do, a little—problem with LibreOffice being
> > the default. I have a problem with any OS that so truncates the freedom
> of
> > the user as Ubuntu does, and yet claims to work with and for a community
> > that supposedly contributes to instituting freedom, not something more
> > ironic.
> >
> > louis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> We use Ubuntu throughout the company and don't have any problems with
> > it -
> > >> well certainly no more than Windows and Apple Users seem to have. I
> > suggest
> > >> if AOO is difficult to install in Ubuntu for a non-developer its
> really
> > up
> > >> to those that have the skills and knowledge to change that..well that
> > >> assumes that the project isn't just giving up on Ubuntu and leaving it
> > to
> > >> LO. I have to say AOO is one of the most difficult to install
> > applications
> > >> on Ubuntu. We can blame Ubuntu or Canonical or we can fix it. Depends
> on
> > >> whether the Ubuntu market is seen as important because companies like
> > ours
> > >> are not going to switch platforms just to run AOO.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 1 December 2013 23:25, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 01-Dec-2013, at 18:03, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Some distros make it very difficult for the typical Linux end user
> to
> > >>>> install  anything NOT in the distro's repository. This is NOT why I
> > >>>> switched to Linux, I can assure you.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's only—only—been my experience with Ubuntu. With *all* other
> > LInuxes,
> > >> I
> > >>> get joy. (I've not used all there are, I refer just to those I've
> used;
> > >> and
> > >>> at that, via my virtualized environment. Ubuntu pretends to the ease
> of
> > >> OS
> > >>> X but is actually more—!!—tight with proprietary constraints, if you
> > can
> > >>> imagine that: if it don't come from Canonical, it ain't canonical.)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> (At any rate, that's what I would mean. Given the choice of OSs,
> for
> > a
> > >>> lot
> > >>>>> of stuff I tend toward Linux. It's easier. But I tend then toward
> > >>>>> non-Canonical Linuxes. Even easier.)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> And try installing OOo in the latest Ubuntu *as a non-developer.*
> > Tell
> > >>> us
> > >>>>> about it :-).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have only used one Linux distro since I started. I do not use
> Ubuntu
> > >>> and
> > >>>> likely never will. I got away from MS because of all kinds of
> > >>> restrictions
> > >>>> and I don't need to trade one environment like that for another.
> > >>>
> > >>> Quite. And I love Linux (and also, for that matter, OS X) because
> it's
> > >>> logical in its layout and thus easy to navigate, work with, use.
> > Whereas
> > >> I
> > >>> dislike MSFT's Windows because it is seemingly arbitrary in layout
> and
> > >>> operation; and though one can finally *get* that its logic is about
> > >>> property (MY MY MY things), still, one must then deal with mairzy
> doats
> > >> and
> > >>> dozy doats and liddle lazy divey and not mares and does and lambs
> > >> scarfing
> > >>> oats & ivy.)
> > >>>
> > >>> louis
> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Ian
> > >>
> > >> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications <
> > >> https://theingots.org/community/faq#7.0>
> > >>
> > >> Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
> > >>
> > >> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
> > >>
> > >> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield
> > >> Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No:
> > >> 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
> > >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ian
>
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications <
> https://theingots.org/community/faq#7.0>
>
> Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
>
> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>
> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield
> Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No:
> 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
>



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Cats do not have to be shown how to have a good time,
 for they are unfailing ingenious in that respect."
                                       -- James Mason

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.

Has anyone offered to put AOO into the Ubuntu software centre as a trusted
package automatically available? If not and there was no refusal to
cooperate I don;t see how you can say Ubuntu truncates the freedom of the
user. Anyone is free to do with Ubuntu the same things as with any other
distro, as with all distros, somethings are easier to implement for
non-geeks than others. I should think Ubuntu scores pretty highly on that
score as it probably has more non-geek users than any other.


On 2 December 2013 03:20, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Glenn,
>
> On 01-Dec-2013, at 19:45, Glenn Harvey Liwanag <
> glennharveyliwanag@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pardon for not reading the whole thread, but is Ubuntu not shipped with
> > AOO? Last time I installed Ubuntu, it had AOO. Or was it LibreOffice?
>
> LibreOffice.
> The issue here, and this is by no means within the proper scope of the
> subject line (sigh), is that Ubuntu (or should I say, Canonical) makes it
> hard for naive users (that is, those who are not inclined to use command
> line interfaces) to replace the LibreOffice default offering with Apache
> OpenOffice.
>
> It is by no means impossible and we've replied on several occasions with
> instructions how to do this, but these, afaik, are not posted to the
> download page, nor is the information about what is delivered with Ubuntu
> there.
>
> I have no real—well, okay, I do, a little—problem with LibreOffice being
> the default. I have a problem with any OS that so truncates the freedom of
> the user as Ubuntu does, and yet claims to work with and for a community
> that supposedly contributes to instituting freedom, not something more
> ironic.
>
> louis
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> We use Ubuntu throughout the company and don't have any problems with
> it -
> >> well certainly no more than Windows and Apple Users seem to have. I
> suggest
> >> if AOO is difficult to install in Ubuntu for a non-developer its really
> up
> >> to those that have the skills and knowledge to change that..well that
> >> assumes that the project isn't just giving up on Ubuntu and leaving it
> to
> >> LO. I have to say AOO is one of the most difficult to install
> applications
> >> on Ubuntu. We can blame Ubuntu or Canonical or we can fix it. Depends on
> >> whether the Ubuntu market is seen as important because companies like
> ours
> >> are not going to switch platforms just to run AOO.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1 December 2013 23:25, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 01-Dec-2013, at 18:03, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Some distros make it very difficult for the typical Linux end user to
> >>>> install  anything NOT in the distro's repository. This is NOT why I
> >>>> switched to Linux, I can assure you.
> >>>
> >>> It's only—only—been my experience with Ubuntu. With *all* other
> LInuxes,
> >> I
> >>> get joy. (I've not used all there are, I refer just to those I've used;
> >> and
> >>> at that, via my virtualized environment. Ubuntu pretends to the ease of
> >> OS
> >>> X but is actually more—!!—tight with proprietary constraints, if you
> can
> >>> imagine that: if it don't come from Canonical, it ain't canonical.)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> (At any rate, that's what I would mean. Given the choice of OSs, for
> a
> >>> lot
> >>>>> of stuff I tend toward Linux. It's easier. But I tend then toward
> >>>>> non-Canonical Linuxes. Even easier.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And try installing OOo in the latest Ubuntu *as a non-developer.*
> Tell
> >>> us
> >>>>> about it :-).
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have only used one Linux distro since I started. I do not use Ubuntu
> >>> and
> >>>> likely never will. I got away from MS because of all kinds of
> >>> restrictions
> >>>> and I don't need to trade one environment like that for another.
> >>>
> >>> Quite. And I love Linux (and also, for that matter, OS X) because it's
> >>> logical in its layout and thus easy to navigate, work with, use.
> Whereas
> >> I
> >>> dislike MSFT's Windows because it is seemingly arbitrary in layout and
> >>> operation; and though one can finally *get* that its logic is about
> >>> property (MY MY MY things), still, one must then deal with mairzy doats
> >> and
> >>> dozy doats and liddle lazy divey and not mares and does and lambs
> >> scarfing
> >>> oats & ivy.)
> >>>
> >>> louis
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ian
> >>
> >> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications <
> >> https://theingots.org/community/faq#7.0>
> >>
> >> Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
> >>
> >> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
> >>
> >> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield
> >> Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No:
> >> 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications <https://theingots.org/community/faq#7.0>

Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield
Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No:
05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

Hi Glenn,

On 01-Dec-2013, at 19:45, Glenn Harvey Liwanag <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pardon for not reading the whole thread, but is Ubuntu not shipped with
> AOO? Last time I installed Ubuntu, it had AOO. Or was it LibreOffice?

LibreOffice.
The issue here, and this is by no means within the proper scope of the subject line (sigh), is that Ubuntu (or should I say, Canonical) makes it hard for naive users (that is, those who are not inclined to use command line interfaces) to replace the LibreOffice default offering with Apache OpenOffice.

It is by no means impossible and we've replied on several occasions with instructions how to do this, but these, afaik, are not posted to the download page, nor is the information about what is delivered with Ubuntu there.

I have no real—well, okay, I do, a little—problem with LibreOffice being the default. I have a problem with any OS that so truncates the freedom of the user as Ubuntu does, and yet claims to work with and for a community that supposedly contributes to instituting freedom, not something more ironic.

louis
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> We use Ubuntu throughout the company and don't have any problems with it -
>> well certainly no more than Windows and Apple Users seem to have. I suggest
>> if AOO is difficult to install in Ubuntu for a non-developer its really up
>> to those that have the skills and knowledge to change that..well that
>> assumes that the project isn't just giving up on Ubuntu and leaving it to
>> LO. I have to say AOO is one of the most difficult to install applications
>> on Ubuntu. We can blame Ubuntu or Canonical or we can fix it. Depends on
>> whether the Ubuntu market is seen as important because companies like ours
>> are not going to switch platforms just to run AOO.
>> 
>> 
>> On 1 December 2013 23:25, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 01-Dec-2013, at 18:03, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Some distros make it very difficult for the typical Linux end user to
>>>> install  anything NOT in the distro's repository. This is NOT why I
>>>> switched to Linux, I can assure you.
>>> 
>>> It's only—only—been my experience with Ubuntu. With *all* other LInuxes,
>> I
>>> get joy. (I've not used all there are, I refer just to those I've used;
>> and
>>> at that, via my virtualized environment. Ubuntu pretends to the ease of
>> OS
>>> X but is actually more—!!—tight with proprietary constraints, if you can
>>> imagine that: if it don't come from Canonical, it ain't canonical.)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> (At any rate, that's what I would mean. Given the choice of OSs, for a
>>> lot
>>>>> of stuff I tend toward Linux. It's easier. But I tend then toward
>>>>> non-Canonical Linuxes. Even easier.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> And try installing OOo in the latest Ubuntu *as a non-developer.* Tell
>>> us
>>>>> about it :-).
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I have only used one Linux distro since I started. I do not use Ubuntu
>>> and
>>>> likely never will. I got away from MS because of all kinds of
>>> restrictions
>>>> and I don't need to trade one environment like that for another.
>>> 
>>> Quite. And I love Linux (and also, for that matter, OS X) because it's
>>> logical in its layout and thus easy to navigate, work with, use. Whereas
>> I
>>> dislike MSFT's Windows because it is seemingly arbitrary in layout and
>>> operation; and though one can finally *get* that its logic is about
>>> property (MY MY MY things), still, one must then deal with mairzy doats
>> and
>>> dozy doats and liddle lazy divey and not mares and does and lambs
>> scarfing
>>> oats & ivy.)
>>> 
>>> louis
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Ian
>> 
>> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications <
>> https://theingots.org/community/faq#7.0>
>> 
>> Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
>> 
>> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>> 
>> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield
>> Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No:
>> 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
>> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Glenn Harvey Liwanag <gl...@gmail.com>.

Pardon for not reading the whole thread, but is Ubuntu not shipped with
AOO? Last time I installed Ubuntu, it had AOO. Or was it LibreOffice?


On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We use Ubuntu throughout the company and don't have any problems with it -
> well certainly no more than Windows and Apple Users seem to have. I suggest
> if AOO is difficult to install in Ubuntu for a non-developer its really up
> to those that have the skills and knowledge to change that..well that
> assumes that the project isn't just giving up on Ubuntu and leaving it to
> LO. I have to say AOO is one of the most difficult to install applications
> on Ubuntu. We can blame Ubuntu or Canonical or we can fix it. Depends on
> whether the Ubuntu market is seen as important because companies like ours
> are not going to switch platforms just to run AOO.
>
>
> On 1 December 2013 23:25, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 01-Dec-2013, at 18:03, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Some distros make it very difficult for the typical Linux end user to
> > > install  anything NOT in the distro's repository. This is NOT why I
> > > switched to Linux, I can assure you.
> >
> > It's only—only—been my experience with Ubuntu. With *all* other LInuxes,
> I
> > get joy. (I've not used all there are, I refer just to those I've used;
> and
> > at that, via my virtualized environment. Ubuntu pretends to the ease of
> OS
> > X but is actually more—!!—tight with proprietary constraints, if you can
> > imagine that: if it don't come from Canonical, it ain't canonical.)
> > >
> > >
> > >> (At any rate, that's what I would mean. Given the choice of OSs, for a
> > lot
> > >> of stuff I tend toward Linux. It's easier. But I tend then toward
> > >> non-Canonical Linuxes. Even easier.)
> > >>
> > >> And try installing OOo in the latest Ubuntu *as a non-developer.* Tell
> > us
> > >> about it :-).
> > >>
> > >
> > > I have only used one Linux distro since I started. I do not use Ubuntu
> > and
> > > likely never will. I got away from MS because of all kinds of
> > restrictions
> > > and I don't need to trade one environment like that for another.
> >
> > Quite. And I love Linux (and also, for that matter, OS X) because it's
> > logical in its layout and thus easy to navigate, work with, use. Whereas
> I
> > dislike MSFT's Windows because it is seemingly arbitrary in layout and
> > operation; and though one can finally *get* that its logic is about
> > property (MY MY MY things), still, one must then deal with mairzy doats
> and
> > dozy doats and liddle lazy divey and not mares and does and lambs
> scarfing
> > oats & ivy.)
> >
> > louis
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ian
>
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications <
> https://theingots.org/community/faq#7.0>
>
> Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
>
> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>
> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield
> Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No:
> 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
>

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.

Am 12/02/2013 08:54 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>> On 01-Dec-2013, at 19:22, Ian Lynch wrote:
>>> We can blame Ubuntu or Canonical or we can fix it.
>> This is not a new thing and I've asked that we provide clear clear
>> instructions to naive users (like, oh, me) about how to change it
>> without going geek.
>
> There's a step-by-step guide at http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ ;
> isn't it easy enough? Does it need more visibility?

when I would search for install instructions, then I won't expect a 
different webpage than for install instructions:

https://www.google.de/search?q=apache+openoffice+install

The first hit wins. ;-)

BTW:
https://www.google.de/search?q=apache+openoffice+install+ubuntu

This gives an interesting first hit. Maybe someone with Ubuntu could 
test this and can report the results (is it working?, is it easy?, 
compatible for non-geeks?, etc.).

Finally, to add this link additionally to the porting webpage due to 
Debian is OK but must not be the only one.

Ciao

Marcus

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 02-Dec-2013, at 02:54, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:

> Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>> On 01-Dec-2013, at 19:22, Ian Lynch wrote:
>>> We can blame Ubuntu or Canonical or we can fix it.
>> This is not a new thing and I've asked that we provide clear clear
>> instructions to naive users (like, oh, me) about how to change it
>> without going geek.
> 
> There's a step-by-step guide at http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ ; isn't it easy enough? Does it need more visibility?
> 

It's easy enough; thanks. But I think we need to give it more visibility, as on the download page. For many not clued into English Geek talk, "Porting" is not obviously the place they would look to find this.

Thanks
louis


> Regards,
>  Andrea.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.

Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> On 01-Dec-2013, at 19:22, Ian Lynch wrote:
>> We can blame Ubuntu or Canonical or we can fix it.
> This is not a new thing and I've asked that we provide clear clear
> instructions to naive users (like, oh, me) about how to change it
> without going geek.

There's a step-by-step guide at http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ ; 
isn't it easy enough? Does it need more visibility?

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 01-Dec-2013, at 19:22, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  We can blame Ubuntu or Canonical or we can fix it. 


This is not a new thing and I've asked that we provide clear clear instructions to naive users (like, oh, me) about how to change it without going geek.

If you, or anyone wants to script a simple How-To that can be tacked to a wiki/download page, great; if a better solution, such as an embedded script that recognizes Ubuntu (yikes, says the script, Ubuntu!), and then behaves appropriately (without exclamations), then better yet.

louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.

We use Ubuntu throughout the company and don't have any problems with it -
well certainly no more than Windows and Apple Users seem to have. I suggest
if AOO is difficult to install in Ubuntu for a non-developer its really up
to those that have the skills and knowledge to change that..well that
assumes that the project isn't just giving up on Ubuntu and leaving it to
LO. I have to say AOO is one of the most difficult to install applications
on Ubuntu. We can blame Ubuntu or Canonical or we can fix it. Depends on
whether the Ubuntu market is seen as important because companies like ours
are not going to switch platforms just to run AOO.


On 1 December 2013 23:25, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 01-Dec-2013, at 18:03, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Some distros make it very difficult for the typical Linux end user to
> > install  anything NOT in the distro's repository. This is NOT why I
> > switched to Linux, I can assure you.
>
> It's only—only—been my experience with Ubuntu. With *all* other LInuxes, I
> get joy. (I've not used all there are, I refer just to those I've used; and
> at that, via my virtualized environment. Ubuntu pretends to the ease of OS
> X but is actually more—!!—tight with proprietary constraints, if you can
> imagine that: if it don't come from Canonical, it ain't canonical.)
> >
> >
> >> (At any rate, that's what I would mean. Given the choice of OSs, for a
> lot
> >> of stuff I tend toward Linux. It's easier. But I tend then toward
> >> non-Canonical Linuxes. Even easier.)
> >>
> >> And try installing OOo in the latest Ubuntu *as a non-developer.* Tell
> us
> >> about it :-).
> >>
> >
> > I have only used one Linux distro since I started. I do not use Ubuntu
> and
> > likely never will. I got away from MS because of all kinds of
> restrictions
> > and I don't need to trade one environment like that for another.
>
> Quite. And I love Linux (and also, for that matter, OS X) because it's
> logical in its layout and thus easy to navigate, work with, use. Whereas I
> dislike MSFT's Windows because it is seemingly arbitrary in layout and
> operation; and though one can finally *get* that its logic is about
> property (MY MY MY things), still, one must then deal with mairzy doats and
> dozy doats and liddle lazy divey and not mares and does and lambs scarfing
> oats & ivy.)
>
> louis
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications <https://theingots.org/community/faq#7.0>

Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield
Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No:
05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 01-Dec-2013, at 18:03, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Some distros make it very difficult for the typical Linux end user to
> install  anything NOT in the distro's repository. This is NOT why I
> switched to Linux, I can assure you.

It's only—only—been my experience with Ubuntu. With *all* other LInuxes, I get joy. (I've not used all there are, I refer just to those I've used; and at that, via my virtualized environment. Ubuntu pretends to the ease of OS X but is actually more—!!—tight with proprietary constraints, if you can imagine that: if it don't come from Canonical, it ain't canonical.)
> 
> 
>> (At any rate, that's what I would mean. Given the choice of OSs, for a lot
>> of stuff I tend toward Linux. It's easier. But I tend then toward
>> non-Canonical Linuxes. Even easier.)
>> 
>> And try installing OOo in the latest Ubuntu *as a non-developer.* Tell us
>> about it :-).
>> 
> 
> I have only used one Linux distro since I started. I do not use Ubuntu and
> likely never will. I got away from MS because of all kinds of restrictions
> and I don't need to trade one environment like that for another.

Quite. And I love Linux (and also, for that matter, OS X) because it's logical in its layout and thus easy to navigate, work with, use. Whereas I dislike MSFT's Windows because it is seemingly arbitrary in layout and operation; and though one can finally *get* that its logic is about property (MY MY MY things), still, one must then deal with mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lazy divey and not mares and does and lambs scarfing oats & ivy.)

louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On 30-Nov-2013, at 17:45, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <luispo@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:06, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Hagar Delest <
> hagar.delest@laposte.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, I also saw this:
> >>>> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425(South
> >>>> Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the
> quote
> >>>> from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we
> >> think
> >>>> this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly
> >>>> growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent
> >> from
> >>>> corporations," Pfeifer said.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> 7000 desktops?  Really?  We get more than that many downloads every
> >>> *hour*, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (on average).  Just because
> >>> our users are anonymous does not make them any less relevant.
> >>
> >> Quite.
> >>>
> >>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO
> >> too,
> >>>> something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I
> >> wonder
> >>>> why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> South Tyrol has been migration to OpenOffice for nearly a decade now.
> >>> I remember seeing them give a presentation on this at the Orvietto
> >>> OpenOffice.org conference, for example.  Hopefully one of these years
> >>> they will complete this task.  But this is hardly news.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Indeed. In fact, their effort has gone in cycles, and those cycles seem
> to
> >> me related to the job tenacity of a few. Of more interest, as it
> relates to
> >> actualities, would be Munich's migration but also other cities' in
> Italy.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  Any one migrating to
> >>> a free office suite as part of a migration to Linux will either take
> >>> LibreOffice or Calligra.  If we want to give them the easy choice of
> >>> AOO as well then we need to get AOO packages for the distros.
> >>> Personally I don't think the Linux desktop is worth the effort.  That
> >>> is my personal view, and I don't force it on anyone else, but that's
> >>> my honest opinion.
> >>
> >> I agree with Rob.
> >
> >
> > but...as a Linux person, this is somewhat sad for me -- although I
> > personally have NO problems with installation. This said, the ease of
> > installation on Linux seems to depend a lot on how easy your distro makes
> > installing non-repo packages. My major concern at this point in the
> > continuation of Linux packaging for AOO in some form.
> >
>
> I think Rob means here that the effort to strongly market Linux in the
> face of corporate marketing muscle by Canonical is not worth it; that good
> Linux may also be reached by the high road, anyway. Besides, I personally
> think that Ubuntu's days are numbered, given the better alternatives out
> there and the very fast, very positive energies Linux engages.
>

I know what Rob is saying and we actually had a similar discussion a while
back with respect to a Fedora build/package. Once we/a volunteer decides to
package for a particular distro, how to keep up this maintenance....it's an
issue. What we are doing with respect to Linux distribution is perfectly
fine in my opinion, but it's sad it is not fine for others.

Some distros make it very difficult for the typical Linux end user to
install  anything NOT in the distro's repository. This is NOT why I
switched to Linux, I can assure you.


> (At any rate, that's what I would mean. Given the choice of OSs, for a lot
> of stuff I tend toward Linux. It's easier. But I tend then toward
> non-Canonical Linuxes. Even easier.)
>
> And try installing OOo in the latest Ubuntu *as a non-developer.* Tell us
> about it :-).
>

I have only used one Linux distro since I started. I do not use Ubuntu and
likely never will. I got away from MS because of all kinds of restrictions
and I don't need to trade one environment like that for another.


>
> best
> louis
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Cats do not have to be shown how to have a good time,
 for they are unfailing ingenious in that respect."
                                       -- James Mason

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 30-Nov-2013, at 17:45, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:06, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>
>> wrote:
>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Well, I also saw this:
>>>> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South
>>>> Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote
>>>> from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we
>> think
>>>> this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly
>>>> growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent
>> from
>>>> corporations," Pfeifer said.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 7000 desktops?  Really?  We get more than that many downloads every
>>> *hour*, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (on average).  Just because
>>> our users are anonymous does not make them any less relevant.
>> 
>> Quite.
>>> 
>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO
>> too,
>>>> something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I
>> wonder
>>>> why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> South Tyrol has been migration to OpenOffice for nearly a decade now.
>>> I remember seeing them give a presentation on this at the Orvietto
>>> OpenOffice.org conference, for example.  Hopefully one of these years
>>> they will complete this task.  But this is hardly news.
>>> 
>> 
>> Indeed. In fact, their effort has gone in cycles, and those cycles seem to
>> me related to the job tenacity of a few. Of more interest, as it relates to
>> actualities, would be Munich's migration but also other cities' in Italy.
>> 
>> 
>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> It depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  Any one migrating to
>>> a free office suite as part of a migration to Linux will either take
>>> LibreOffice or Calligra.  If we want to give them the easy choice of
>>> AOO as well then we need to get AOO packages for the distros.
>>> Personally I don't think the Linux desktop is worth the effort.  That
>>> is my personal view, and I don't force it on anyone else, but that's
>>> my honest opinion.
>> 
>> I agree with Rob.
> 
> 
> but...as a Linux person, this is somewhat sad for me -- although I
> personally have NO problems with installation. This said, the ease of
> installation on Linux seems to depend a lot on how easy your distro makes
> installing non-repo packages. My major concern at this point in the
> continuation of Linux packaging for AOO in some form.
> 

I think Rob means here that the effort to strongly market Linux in the face of corporate marketing muscle by Canonical is not worth it; that good Linux may also be reached by the high road, anyway. Besides, I personally think that Ubuntu's days are numbered, given the better alternatives out there and the very fast, very positive energies Linux engages.

(At any rate, that's what I would mean. Given the choice of OSs, for a lot of stuff I tend toward Linux. It's easier. But I tend then toward non-Canonical Linuxes. Even easier.)

And try installing OOo in the latest Ubuntu *as a non-developer.* Tell us about it :-).


best
louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.

On 11/30/13 11:45 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:06, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>
>> wrote:
>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, I also saw this:
>>>> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South
>>>> Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote
>>>> from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we
>> think
>>>> this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly
>>>> growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent
>> from
>>>> corporations," Pfeifer said.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 7000 desktops?  Really?  We get more than that many downloads every
>>> *hour*, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (on average).  Just because
>>> our users are anonymous does not make them any less relevant.
>>
>> Quite.
>>>
>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO
>> too,
>>>> something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I
>> wonder
>>>> why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> South Tyrol has been migration to OpenOffice for nearly a decade now.
>>> I remember seeing them give a presentation on this at the Orvietto
>>> OpenOffice.org conference, for example.  Hopefully one of these years
>>> they will complete this task.  But this is hardly news.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed. In fact, their effort has gone in cycles, and those cycles seem to
>> me related to the job tenacity of a few. Of more interest, as it relates to
>> actualities, would be Munich's migration but also other cities' in Italy.
>>
>>
>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  Any one migrating to
>>> a free office suite as part of a migration to Linux will either take
>>> LibreOffice or Calligra.  If we want to give them the easy choice of
>>> AOO as well then we need to get AOO packages for the distros.
>>> Personally I don't think the Linux desktop is worth the effort.  That
>>> is my personal view, and I don't force it on anyone else, but that's
>>> my honest opinion.
>>
>> I agree with Rob.
> 
> 
> but...as a Linux person, this is somewhat sad for me -- although I
> personally have NO problems with installation. This said, the ease of
> installation on Linux seems to depend a lot on how easy your distro makes
> installing non-repo packages. My major concern at this point in the
> continuation of Linux packaging for AOO in some form.

I believe the clear message is that we will continue to support Linux
and other platforms in the same way as today. But we need people,
volunteers who have the interest and knowledge to work on a better
system integration, a better build system that allow disros to build
their own version of AOO for bundling easily and to fulfill their build
requirements etc.

And we should simply continue to deliver a good product. A good product
will grow the interest of a good distro to offer it at least as
alternative for their users. And if users ask more often for AOO on
their preferred Linux distro, I am sure it will recognized over time.

I don't have numbers but I heard from several people that customers move
back to AOO from LO. Well I don't know the reason and don't have numbers
but it shows me that we are not so bad and deliver something useful.

Juergen

> 
> 
> 
> 
>> I also tend to think that even for something like AOO, mobile is on the
>> horizon and needs to be embraced. Not all modules of the suite will do well
>> in mobile—I don't relish the idea of doing spreadsheets, for instance, on a
>> tablet. But I also don't relish the idea of doing spreadsheets on anything.
>>
> 
> 
>>
>> I also don't cotton to the idea of porting AOO straight to Android or iOS.
>> I prefer the idea of developing native ODT editors.
>>
>> But mobile is an inescapable object in our present's future.
>>
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>
>> -louis
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:06, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>
> wrote:
> >> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, I also saw this:
> >> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South
> >> Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote
> >> from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we
> think
> >> this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly
> >> growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent
> from
> >> corporations," Pfeifer said.
> >>
> >
> > 7000 desktops?  Really?  We get more than that many downloads every
> > *hour*, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (on average).  Just because
> > our users are anonymous does not make them any less relevant.
>
> Quite.
> >
> >> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO
> too,
> >> something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I
> wonder
> >> why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
> >>
> >
> > South Tyrol has been migration to OpenOffice for nearly a decade now.
> > I remember seeing them give a presentation on this at the Orvietto
> > OpenOffice.org conference, for example.  Hopefully one of these years
> > they will complete this task.  But this is hardly news.
> >
>
> Indeed. In fact, their effort has gone in cycles, and those cycles seem to
> me related to the job tenacity of a few. Of more interest, as it relates to
> actualities, would be Munich's migration but also other cities' in Italy.
>
>
> >> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
> >>
> >
> > It depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  Any one migrating to
> > a free office suite as part of a migration to Linux will either take
> > LibreOffice or Calligra.  If we want to give them the easy choice of
> > AOO as well then we need to get AOO packages for the distros.
> > Personally I don't think the Linux desktop is worth the effort.  That
> > is my personal view, and I don't force it on anyone else, but that's
> > my honest opinion.
>
> I agree with Rob.


but...as a Linux person, this is somewhat sad for me -- although I
personally have NO problems with installation. This said, the ease of
installation on Linux seems to depend a lot on how easy your distro makes
installing non-repo packages. My major concern at this point in the
continuation of Linux packaging for AOO in some form.




> I also tend to think that even for something like AOO, mobile is on the
> horizon and needs to be embraced. Not all modules of the suite will do well
> in mobile—I don't relish the idea of doing spreadsheets, for instance, on a
> tablet. But I also don't relish the idea of doing spreadsheets on anything.
>


>
> I also don't cotton to the idea of porting AOO straight to Android or iOS.
> I prefer the idea of developing native ODT editors.
>
> But mobile is an inescapable object in our present's future.
>

Agreed.


>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Rob
>
> -louis
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Cats do not have to be shown how to have a good time,
 for they are unfailing ingenious in that respect."
                                       -- James Mason

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

Hi,

On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:06, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
>> 
>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>> 
>> 
>> Well, I also saw this:
>> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South
>> Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote
>> from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think
>> this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly
>> growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from
>> corporations," Pfeifer said.
>> 
> 
> 7000 desktops?  Really?  We get more than that many downloads every
> *hour*, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (on average).  Just because
> our users are anonymous does not make them any less relevant.

Quite.
> 
>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too,
>> something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder
>> why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
>> 
> 
> South Tyrol has been migration to OpenOffice for nearly a decade now.
> I remember seeing them give a presentation on this at the Orvietto
> OpenOffice.org conference, for example.  Hopefully one of these years
> they will complete this task.  But this is hardly news.
> 

Indeed. In fact, their effort has gone in cycles, and those cycles seem to me related to the job tenacity of a few. Of more interest, as it relates to actualities, would be Munich's migration but also other cities' in Italy. 


>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
>> 
> 
> It depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  Any one migrating to
> a free office suite as part of a migration to Linux will either take
> LibreOffice or Calligra.  If we want to give them the easy choice of
> AOO as well then we need to get AOO packages for the distros.
> Personally I don't think the Linux desktop is worth the effort.  That
> is my personal view, and I don't force it on anyone else, but that's
> my honest opinion.

I agree with Rob. I also tend to think that even for something like AOO, mobile is on the horizon and needs to be embraced. Not all modules of the suite will do well in mobile—I don't relish the idea of doing spreadsheets, for instance, on a tablet. But I also don't relish the idea of doing spreadsheets on anything. 

I also don't cotton to the idea of porting AOO straight to Android or iOS. I prefer the idea of developing native ODT editors.

But mobile is an inescapable object in our present's future.


> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob

-louis
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
>
>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>
>
> Well, I also saw this:
> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South
> Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote
> from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think
> this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly
> growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from
> corporations," Pfeifer said.
>

7000 desktops?  Really?  We get more than that many downloads every
*hour*, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (on average).  Just because
our users are anonymous does not make them any less relevant.

> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too,
> something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder
> why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
>

South Tyrol has been migration to OpenOffice for nearly a decade now.
I remember seeing them give a presentation on this at the Orvietto
OpenOffice.org conference, for example.  Hopefully one of these years
they will complete this task.  But this is hardly news.

> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
>

It depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  Any one migrating to
a free office suite as part of a migration to Linux will either take
LibreOffice or Calligra.  If we want to give them the easy choice of
AOO as well then we need to get AOO packages for the distros.
Personally I don't think the Linux desktop is worth the effort.  That
is my personal view, and I don't force it on anyone else, but that's
my honest opinion.

Regards,

-Rob

> Hagar
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 30-Nov-2013, at 18:10, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:

> I understand the message you stated is v clear but a personality associated with the product is not a bad thing, since you have declined the role maybe someone will step up into that role…in time 
I have no doubt people will and are in fact filling in the role
But I have not declined it.

I just do not have the resources to pursue it. It takes a lot of time, which is to say, money. 

For instance, it would be quite nice to have an apparatus—a web page wiki—that validates claims about the qualities of AOO we want broadcast.

And it would be nice, very nice, to have a strategy. 

That is not too much. I could surely do it, and would love to do it. But I have also to meet my client obligations in order to actually put the bacon (or vegetarian equivalent—Quorn?) on the table.

best
Louis
> 


> 
> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
> with The Vital Portal 
> 
> Alphonso Whitfield 
> info@thevitalportal.com 
> Vital 
> 912-816-2595 
> Skype: vital.i.net 
> 
> Visit us at: 
> The Vital Portal 
> 
> The Vital Portal On facebook 
> 
> Visit our Google Community 
> 
> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: "Rob Weir" <ro...@apache.org> 
> To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
> Cc: "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com>, dev@openoffice.apache.org 
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:15:14 PM 
> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> 
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:56, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote: 
>> 
>>> Good points Louis., thanks. but we still need a "maven" or two to crack the larger corporate environment. 
>> 
>> Done that, in previous instance of my role at OOo. It's not easy and does require persistence. Then, I was also salaried by Sun/Oracle, though my hot efforts on behalf of the community as such were sometimes met with cool water. 
>> 
>> But I do not think the tactics of yore are the ones to pursue now. 
>> 
> 
> Keep in mind that corporate successes are not necessarily 
> publicly-known. I can say from first-hand knowledge that we're 
> getting a good reaction to IBM's recently-announced service offering 
> for AOO. But these corporations are unlikely to issue a press release 
> announcing this fact. This is different from public agencies where 
> their choices are a matter of public record. 
> 
>> I think that emphasizing, as I did, QA, innovation, and mobile options, as well as the robust community that is reality based, is more important. 
>> 
> 
> 1+ 
> 
> We're in a very different time than say, 2002, when open source was a 
> new concept to many companies. The question is no longer, "Should we 
> use open source?" but "How should we use open source?". We already 
> won that first war, making open source a legitimate option. What 
> remains is a more conventional kind of technology use decision, which 
> considers price, of course, but also features, interop, migration, 
> training, etc., costs. 
> 
> In any case, the thing to keep in mind is that we are in no way 
> diminished if someone decides to use LibreOffice. We should feel 
> good whenever anyone uses our code, whether in the original Apache 
> OpenOffice or whether in the winPenPack verison, the BSD port, the 
> OS/2 port, the Solaris port or in LibreOffice fork. It is all good. 
> 
> -Rob 
> 
>> Louis 
>>> 
>>> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
>>> with The Vital Portal 
>>> 
>>> Alphonso Whitfield 
>>> info@thevitalportal.com 
>>> Vital 
>>> 912-816-2595 
>>> Skype: vital.i.net 
>>> 
>>> Visit us at: 
>>> The Vital Portal 
>>> 
>>> The Vital Portal On facebook 
>>> 
>>> Visit our Google Community 
>>> 
>>> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
>>> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
>>> To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org, "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com> 
>>> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 4:08:52 PM 
>>> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 15:47, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote: 
>>> 
>>>> The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. . 
>>> 
>>> It is claiming to be getting acceptance. It is being touted by a few supposedly prominent organizations, such as the South Tyrol org. But a few things. 
>>> 
>>> 1. We have IBM as a far more powerful and important contributor than LO has Ubuntu and Canonical. We do not trumpet that affiliation as much as we could, no doubt because we do not want to be too tightly affiliated with IBM and be seen as an appendage of IBM. I don't think we are. But I understand the concerns. 
>>> 
>>> 2. We need to use actual facts related to actual usage by enterprise-class users. Download numbers indicate, usually, individual users. These are important. But they do not persuade a lot of larger entities. (The Bring Your Own Device phenomenon is growing and is related to individual download numbers; but in the case of support, etc., one does, usually, need to have an enterprise buy it or enable that market; and support is often the point of decision for many.) 
>>> 
>>> And more on this tangent. The main point: facts and actual evidence. 
>>> 
>>> louis 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
>>>> with The Vital Portal 
>>>> 
>>>> Alphonso Whitfield 
>>>> info@thevitalportal.com 
>>>> Vital 
>>>> 912-816-2595 
>>>> Skype: vital.i.net 
>>>> 
>>>> Visit us at: 
>>>> The Vital Portal 
>>>> 
>>>> The Vital Portal On facebook 
>>>> 
>>>> Visit our Google Community 
>>>> 
>>>> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
>>>> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> 
>>>> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
>>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
>>>> Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM 
>>>> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500 
>>>>> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100 
>>>>>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote: 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit : 
>>>>>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people? 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hagar 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> louis 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO. 
>>>> 
>>>> I think we are in agreement not to do that. 
>>>> 
>>>> What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc. 
>>>> 
>>>> I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts. 
>>>> 
>>>> And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize? 
>>>> 
>>>> The ones I generally point to: 
>>>> 
>>>> * QA excellence 
>>>> * Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.) 
>>>> * Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages? 
>>>> — regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO. 
>>>> — and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities. 
>>>> * mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy. 
>>>> 
>>>> The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.) 
>>>> 
>>>> It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box. 
>>>> 
>>>> No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community. 
>>>> 
>>>> louis 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
>> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org 
>> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 30-Nov-2013, at 18:10, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:

> I understand the message you stated is v clear but a personality associated with the product is not a bad thing, since you have declined the role maybe someone will step up into that role…in time 
I have no doubt people will and are in fact filling in the role
But I have not declined it.

I just do not have the resources to pursue it. It takes a lot of time, which is to say, money. 

For instance, it would be quite nice to have an apparatus—a web page wiki—that validates claims about the qualities of AOO we want broadcast.

And it would be nice, very nice, to have a strategy. 

That is not too much. I could surely do it, and would love to do it. But I have also to meet my client obligations in order to actually put the bacon (or vegetarian equivalent—Quorn?) on the table.

best
Louis
> 


> 
> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
> with The Vital Portal 
> 
> Alphonso Whitfield 
> info@thevitalportal.com 
> Vital 
> 912-816-2595 
> Skype: vital.i.net 
> 
> Visit us at: 
> The Vital Portal 
> 
> The Vital Portal On facebook 
> 
> Visit our Google Community 
> 
> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: "Rob Weir" <ro...@apache.org> 
> To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
> Cc: "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com>, dev@openoffice.apache.org 
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:15:14 PM 
> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> 
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:56, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote: 
>> 
>>> Good points Louis., thanks. but we still need a "maven" or two to crack the larger corporate environment. 
>> 
>> Done that, in previous instance of my role at OOo. It's not easy and does require persistence. Then, I was also salaried by Sun/Oracle, though my hot efforts on behalf of the community as such were sometimes met with cool water. 
>> 
>> But I do not think the tactics of yore are the ones to pursue now. 
>> 
> 
> Keep in mind that corporate successes are not necessarily 
> publicly-known. I can say from first-hand knowledge that we're 
> getting a good reaction to IBM's recently-announced service offering 
> for AOO. But these corporations are unlikely to issue a press release 
> announcing this fact. This is different from public agencies where 
> their choices are a matter of public record. 
> 
>> I think that emphasizing, as I did, QA, innovation, and mobile options, as well as the robust community that is reality based, is more important. 
>> 
> 
> 1+ 
> 
> We're in a very different time than say, 2002, when open source was a 
> new concept to many companies. The question is no longer, "Should we 
> use open source?" but "How should we use open source?". We already 
> won that first war, making open source a legitimate option. What 
> remains is a more conventional kind of technology use decision, which 
> considers price, of course, but also features, interop, migration, 
> training, etc., costs. 
> 
> In any case, the thing to keep in mind is that we are in no way 
> diminished if someone decides to use LibreOffice. We should feel 
> good whenever anyone uses our code, whether in the original Apache 
> OpenOffice or whether in the winPenPack verison, the BSD port, the 
> OS/2 port, the Solaris port or in LibreOffice fork. It is all good. 
> 
> -Rob 
> 
>> Louis 
>>> 
>>> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
>>> with The Vital Portal 
>>> 
>>> Alphonso Whitfield 
>>> info@thevitalportal.com 
>>> Vital 
>>> 912-816-2595 
>>> Skype: vital.i.net 
>>> 
>>> Visit us at: 
>>> The Vital Portal 
>>> 
>>> The Vital Portal On facebook 
>>> 
>>> Visit our Google Community 
>>> 
>>> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
>>> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
>>> To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org, "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com> 
>>> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 4:08:52 PM 
>>> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 15:47, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote: 
>>> 
>>>> The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. . 
>>> 
>>> It is claiming to be getting acceptance. It is being touted by a few supposedly prominent organizations, such as the South Tyrol org. But a few things. 
>>> 
>>> 1. We have IBM as a far more powerful and important contributor than LO has Ubuntu and Canonical. We do not trumpet that affiliation as much as we could, no doubt because we do not want to be too tightly affiliated with IBM and be seen as an appendage of IBM. I don't think we are. But I understand the concerns. 
>>> 
>>> 2. We need to use actual facts related to actual usage by enterprise-class users. Download numbers indicate, usually, individual users. These are important. But they do not persuade a lot of larger entities. (The Bring Your Own Device phenomenon is growing and is related to individual download numbers; but in the case of support, etc., one does, usually, need to have an enterprise buy it or enable that market; and support is often the point of decision for many.) 
>>> 
>>> And more on this tangent. The main point: facts and actual evidence. 
>>> 
>>> louis 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
>>>> with The Vital Portal 
>>>> 
>>>> Alphonso Whitfield 
>>>> info@thevitalportal.com 
>>>> Vital 
>>>> 912-816-2595 
>>>> Skype: vital.i.net 
>>>> 
>>>> Visit us at: 
>>>> The Vital Portal 
>>>> 
>>>> The Vital Portal On facebook 
>>>> 
>>>> Visit our Google Community 
>>>> 
>>>> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
>>>> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> 
>>>> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
>>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
>>>> Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM 
>>>> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500 
>>>>> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100 
>>>>>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote: 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit : 
>>>>>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people? 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hagar 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> louis 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO. 
>>>> 
>>>> I think we are in agreement not to do that. 
>>>> 
>>>> What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc. 
>>>> 
>>>> I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts. 
>>>> 
>>>> And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize? 
>>>> 
>>>> The ones I generally point to: 
>>>> 
>>>> * QA excellence 
>>>> * Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.) 
>>>> * Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages? 
>>>> — regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO. 
>>>> — and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities. 
>>>> * mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy. 
>>>> 
>>>> The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.) 
>>>> 
>>>> It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box. 
>>>> 
>>>> No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community. 
>>>> 
>>>> louis 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
>> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org 
>> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com>.

I understand the message you stated is v clear but a personality associated with the product is not a bad thing, since you have declined the role maybe someone will step up into that role...intime 


Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
with The Vital Portal 

Alphonso Whitfield 
info@thevitalportal.com 
Vital 
912-816-2595 
Skype: vital.i.net 

Visit us at: 
The Vital Portal 

The Vital Portal On facebook 

Visit our Google Community 

Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 






----- Original Message -----

From: "Rob Weir" <ro...@apache.org> 
To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
Cc: "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com>, dev@openoffice.apache.org 
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:15:14 PM 
Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:56, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote: 
> 
>> Good points Louis., thanks. but we still need a "maven" or two to crack the larger corporate environment. 
> 
> Done that, in previous instance of my role at OOo. It's not easy and does require persistence. Then, I was also salaried by Sun/Oracle, though my hot efforts on behalf of the community as such were sometimes met with cool water. 
> 
> But I do not think the tactics of yore are the ones to pursue now. 
> 

Keep in mind that corporate successes are not necessarily 
publicly-known. I can say from first-hand knowledge that we're 
getting a good reaction to IBM's recently-announced service offering 
for AOO. But these corporations are unlikely to issue a press release 
announcing this fact. This is different from public agencies where 
their choices are a matter of public record. 

> I think that emphasizing, as I did, QA, innovation, and mobile options, as well as the robust community that is reality based, is more important. 
> 

1+ 

We're in a very different time than say, 2002, when open source was a 
new concept to many companies. The question is no longer, "Should we 
use open source?" but "How should we use open source?". We already 
won that first war, making open source a legitimate option. What 
remains is a more conventional kind of technology use decision, which 
considers price, of course, but also features, interop, migration, 
training, etc., costs. 

In any case, the thing to keep in mind is that we are in no way 
diminished if someone decides to use LibreOffice. We should feel 
good whenever anyone uses our code, whether in the original Apache 
OpenOffice or whether in the winPenPack verison, the BSD port, the 
OS/2 port, the Solaris port or in LibreOffice fork. It is all good. 

-Rob 

> Louis 
>> 
>> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
>> with The Vital Portal 
>> 
>> Alphonso Whitfield 
>> info@thevitalportal.com 
>> Vital 
>> 912-816-2595 
>> Skype: vital.i.net 
>> 
>> Visit us at: 
>> The Vital Portal 
>> 
>> The Vital Portal On facebook 
>> 
>> Visit our Google Community 
>> 
>> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
>> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
>> To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org, "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com> 
>> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 4:08:52 PM 
>> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
>> 
>> 
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 15:47, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote: 
>> 
>> > The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. . 
>> 
>> It is claiming to be getting acceptance. It is being touted by a few supposedly prominent organizations, such as the South Tyrol org. But a few things. 
>> 
>> 1. We have IBM as a far more powerful and important contributor than LO has Ubuntu and Canonical. We do not trumpet that affiliation as much as we could, no doubt because we do not want to be too tightly affiliated with IBM and be seen as an appendage of IBM. I don't think we are. But I understand the concerns. 
>> 
>> 2. We need to use actual facts related to actual usage by enterprise-class users. Download numbers indicate, usually, individual users. These are important. But they do not persuade a lot of larger entities. (The Bring Your Own Device phenomenon is growing and is related to individual download numbers; but in the case of support, etc., one does, usually, need to have an enterprise buy it or enable that market; and support is often the point of decision for many.) 
>> 
>> And more on this tangent. The main point: facts and actual evidence. 
>> 
>> louis 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
>> > with The Vital Portal 
>> > 
>> > Alphonso Whitfield 
>> > info@thevitalportal.com 
>> > Vital 
>> > 912-816-2595 
>> > Skype: vital.i.net 
>> > 
>> > Visit us at: 
>> > The Vital Portal 
>> > 
>> > The Vital Portal On facebook 
>> > 
>> > Visit our Google Community 
>> > 
>> > Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
>> > The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > 
>> > From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
>> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
>> > Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
>> > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM 
>> > Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
>> > 
>> >> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500 
>> >> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> >> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
>> >>> 
>> >>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100 
>> >>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote: 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit : 
>> >>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads. 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said. 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes. 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people? 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> Hagar 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup. 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> louis 
>> >> 
>> >> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO. 
>> > 
>> > I think we are in agreement not to do that. 
>> > 
>> > What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc. 
>> > 
>> > I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts. 
>> > 
>> > And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize? 
>> > 
>> > The ones I generally point to: 
>> > 
>> > * QA excellence 
>> > * Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.) 
>> > * Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages? 
>> > — regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO. 
>> > — and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities. 
>> > * mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy. 
>> > 
>> > The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.) 
>> > 
>> > It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box. 
>> > 
>> > No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community. 
>> > 
>> > louis 
>> >> 
>> >> -- 
>> >> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> 
>> >> 
>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org 
>> > 
>> > 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org 
>

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com>.

I understand the message you stated is v clear but a personality associated with the product is not a bad thing, since you have declined the role maybe someone will step up into that role...intime 


Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
with The Vital Portal 

Alphonso Whitfield 
info@thevitalportal.com 
Vital 
912-816-2595 
Skype: vital.i.net 

Visit us at: 
The Vital Portal 

The Vital Portal On facebook 

Visit our Google Community 

Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 






----- Original Message -----

From: "Rob Weir" <ro...@apache.org> 
To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
Cc: "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com>, dev@openoffice.apache.org 
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:15:14 PM 
Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:56, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote: 
> 
>> Good points Louis., thanks. but we still need a "maven" or two to crack the larger corporate environment. 
> 
> Done that, in previous instance of my role at OOo. It's not easy and does require persistence. Then, I was also salaried by Sun/Oracle, though my hot efforts on behalf of the community as such were sometimes met with cool water. 
> 
> But I do not think the tactics of yore are the ones to pursue now. 
> 

Keep in mind that corporate successes are not necessarily 
publicly-known. I can say from first-hand knowledge that we're 
getting a good reaction to IBM's recently-announced service offering 
for AOO. But these corporations are unlikely to issue a press release 
announcing this fact. This is different from public agencies where 
their choices are a matter of public record. 

> I think that emphasizing, as I did, QA, innovation, and mobile options, as well as the robust community that is reality based, is more important. 
> 

1+ 

We're in a very different time than say, 2002, when open source was a 
new concept to many companies. The question is no longer, "Should we 
use open source?" but "How should we use open source?". We already 
won that first war, making open source a legitimate option. What 
remains is a more conventional kind of technology use decision, which 
considers price, of course, but also features, interop, migration, 
training, etc., costs. 

In any case, the thing to keep in mind is that we are in no way 
diminished if someone decides to use LibreOffice. We should feel 
good whenever anyone uses our code, whether in the original Apache 
OpenOffice or whether in the winPenPack verison, the BSD port, the 
OS/2 port, the Solaris port or in LibreOffice fork. It is all good. 

-Rob 

> Louis 
>> 
>> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
>> with The Vital Portal 
>> 
>> Alphonso Whitfield 
>> info@thevitalportal.com 
>> Vital 
>> 912-816-2595 
>> Skype: vital.i.net 
>> 
>> Visit us at: 
>> The Vital Portal 
>> 
>> The Vital Portal On facebook 
>> 
>> Visit our Google Community 
>> 
>> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
>> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
>> To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org, "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com> 
>> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 4:08:52 PM 
>> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
>> 
>> 
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 15:47, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote: 
>> 
>> > The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. . 
>> 
>> It is claiming to be getting acceptance. It is being touted by a few supposedly prominent organizations, such as the South Tyrol org. But a few things. 
>> 
>> 1. We have IBM as a far more powerful and important contributor than LO has Ubuntu and Canonical. We do not trumpet that affiliation as much as we could, no doubt because we do not want to be too tightly affiliated with IBM and be seen as an appendage of IBM. I don't think we are. But I understand the concerns. 
>> 
>> 2. We need to use actual facts related to actual usage by enterprise-class users. Download numbers indicate, usually, individual users. These are important. But they do not persuade a lot of larger entities. (The Bring Your Own Device phenomenon is growing and is related to individual download numbers; but in the case of support, etc., one does, usually, need to have an enterprise buy it or enable that market; and support is often the point of decision for many.) 
>> 
>> And more on this tangent. The main point: facts and actual evidence. 
>> 
>> louis 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
>> > with The Vital Portal 
>> > 
>> > Alphonso Whitfield 
>> > info@thevitalportal.com 
>> > Vital 
>> > 912-816-2595 
>> > Skype: vital.i.net 
>> > 
>> > Visit us at: 
>> > The Vital Portal 
>> > 
>> > The Vital Portal On facebook 
>> > 
>> > Visit our Google Community 
>> > 
>> > Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
>> > The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > 
>> > From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
>> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
>> > Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
>> > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM 
>> > Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
>> > 
>> >> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500 
>> >> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> >> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
>> >>> 
>> >>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100 
>> >>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote: 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit : 
>> >>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads. 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said. 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes. 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people? 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> Hagar 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup. 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> louis 
>> >> 
>> >> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO. 
>> > 
>> > I think we are in agreement not to do that. 
>> > 
>> > What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc. 
>> > 
>> > I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts. 
>> > 
>> > And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize? 
>> > 
>> > The ones I generally point to: 
>> > 
>> > * QA excellence 
>> > * Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.) 
>> > * Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages? 
>> > — regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO. 
>> > — and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities. 
>> > * mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy. 
>> > 
>> > The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.) 
>> > 
>> > It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box. 
>> > 
>> > No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community. 
>> > 
>> > louis 
>> >> 
>> >> -- 
>> >> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> 
>> >> 
>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org 
>> > 
>> > 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org 
>

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 30-Nov-2013, at 17:15, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:56, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Good points Louis., thanks. but we still need a "maven" or two to crack the larger corporate environment.
>> 
>> Done that, in previous instance of my role at OOo. It's not easy and does require persistence. Then, I was also salaried by Sun/Oracle, though my hot efforts on behalf of the community as such were sometimes met with cool water.
>> 
>> But I do not think the tactics of yore are the ones to pursue now.
>> 
> 
> Keep in mind that corporate successes are not necessarily
> publicly-known.  I can say from first-hand knowledge that we're
> getting a good reaction to IBM's recently-announced service offering
> for AOO.  But these corporations are unlikely to issue a press release
> announcing this fact.  This is different from public agencies where
> their choices are a matter of public record.

Yes. I know. I was many times asked to itemize which companies were using OOo. I could have cited several. But to a corporate lawyer, they insisted that to speak of their usage was to speak my last public sentence..


> 
>> I think that emphasizing, as I did, QA, innovation, and mobile options, as well as the robust community that is reality based, is more important.
>> 
> 
> 1+
> 
> We're in a very different time than say, 2002, when open source was a
> new concept to many companies.  The question is no longer, "Should we
> use open source?" but "How should we use open source?".  We already
> won that first war, making open source a legitimate option.  What
> remains is a more conventional kind of technology use decision, which
> considers price, of course, but also features, interop, migration,
> training, etc., costs.
> 
> In any case, the thing to keep in mind is that we are in no way
> diminished if someone decides to use LibreOffice.   We should feel
> good whenever anyone uses our code, whether in the original Apache
> OpenOffice or whether in the winPenPack verison, the BSD port, the
> OS/2 port, the Solaris port or in LibreOffice fork.  It is all good.

+1.


> 
> -Rob

Cheers,
Louis

> 
>> Louis
>>> 
>>> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan
>>> with The Vital Portal
>>> 
>>> Alphonso Whitfield
>>> info@thevitalportal.com
>>> Vital
>>> 912-816-2595
>>> Skype: vital.i.net
>>> 
>>> Visit us at:
>>> The Vital Portal
>>> 
>>> The Vital Portal On facebook
>>> 
>>> Visit our Google Community
>>> 
>>> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at:
>>> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center .
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com>
>>> To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org, "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com>
>>> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 4:08:52 PM
>>> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 15:47, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. .
>>> 
>>> It is claiming to be getting acceptance. It is being touted by a few supposedly prominent organizations, such as the South Tyrol org. But a few things.
>>> 
>>> 1. We have IBM as a far more powerful and important contributor than LO has Ubuntu and Canonical. We do not trumpet that affiliation as much as we could, no doubt because we do not want to be too tightly affiliated with IBM and be seen as an appendage of IBM. I don't think we are. But I understand the concerns.
>>> 
>>> 2. We need to use actual facts related to actual usage by enterprise-class users. Download numbers indicate, usually, individual users. These are important. But they do not persuade a lot of larger entities. (The Bring Your Own Device phenomenon is growing and is related to individual download numbers; but in the case of support, etc., one does, usually, need to have an enterprise buy it or enable that market; and support is often the point of decision for many.)
>>> 
>>> And more on this tangent. The main point: facts and actual evidence.
>>> 
>>> louis
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan
>>>> with The Vital Portal
>>>> 
>>>> Alphonso Whitfield
>>>> info@thevitalportal.com
>>>> Vital
>>>> 912-816-2595
>>>> Skype: vital.i.net
>>>> 
>>>> Visit us at:
>>>> The Vital Portal
>>>> 
>>>> The Vital Portal On facebook
>>>> 
>>>> Visit our Google Community
>>>> 
>>>> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at:
>>>> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center .
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> 
>>>> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com>
>>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500
>>>>> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100
>>>>>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hagar
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> louis
>>>>> 
>>>>> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO.
>>>> 
>>>> I think we are in agreement not to do that.
>>>> 
>>>> What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts.
>>>> 
>>>> And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize?
>>>> 
>>>> The ones I generally point to:
>>>> 
>>>> * QA excellence
>>>> * Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.)
>>>> * Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages?
>>>> — regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO.
>>>> — and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities.
>>>> * mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy.
>>>> 
>>>> The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.)
>>>> 
>>>> It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box.
>>>> 
>>>> No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community.
>>>> 
>>>> louis
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 01-Dec-2013, at 10:55, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
>> Le 01/12/2013 16:38, Rob Weir a écrit :
>> 
>>> I think you are confusing the perceptions within the echo-chamber of
>>> open source insiders with the reality in the real world.
>> 
>> 
>> But can't we use this echo-chamber too?
> 
> I don't see the value.  Remember, for all the FUD, for all the
> LO-promoted press, for all the noise and negative campaigning against
> AOO, LO could not even keep the founding company and primary sponsor,
> Suse, from dropping their support of LibreOffice and reassigning their
> developers who worked on LibreOffice.  And again, look at the actual
> data, the downloads and the brand perception surveys.  The LO FUD
> might be personally offensive and disturbing to you.  But it has not
> been effective.  That's why I think a thick skin is needed to do
> marketing.  You need to look at data more than feelings.   If download
> numbers were declining then I'd feel bad.  If brand perception was
> declining then I'd feel bad.  But biased press articles inside the
> open source echo-chamber?  Who cares?  Dogs bark as well.  I try not
> to take it personally and focus instead on reality.
> 

I agree with Rob. And one really really does need a thick skin. We, Rob and I, at least, and probably many others reading this, have been personally attacked, if not (only) by LO's adherents, then by, in my case, also Microsoft's, albeit long ago. (MSFT sings a sweeter tune now.)  

The attacks puzzle me. They also puzzled, as recently as last October, in Paris, some of LO's founding members. Why the harshness, the vitriol? Why make it personal? (Why even have attacks at all?)

But so it goes. 


> Regards,
> 
> -Rob

-louis
> 
>> But ok, that's to be discussed in the proposed discussion by Louis.
>> 
>> 
>> Hagar
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
> Le 01/12/2013 16:38, Rob Weir a écrit :
>
>> I think you are confusing the perceptions within the echo-chamber of
>> open source insiders with the reality in the real world.
>
>
> But can't we use this echo-chamber too?

I don't see the value.  Remember, for all the FUD, for all the
LO-promoted press, for all the noise and negative campaigning against
AOO, LO could not even keep the founding company and primary sponsor,
Suse, from dropping their support of LibreOffice and reassigning their
developers who worked on LibreOffice.  And again, look at the actual
data, the downloads and the brand perception surveys.  The LO FUD
might be personally offensive and disturbing to you.  But it has not
been effective.  That's why I think a thick skin is needed to do
marketing.  You need to look at data more than feelings.   If download
numbers were declining then I'd feel bad.  If brand perception was
declining then I'd feel bad.  But biased press articles inside the
open source echo-chamber?  Who cares?  Dogs bark as well.  I try not
to take it personally and focus instead on reality.

Regards,

-Rob

> But ok, that's to be discussed in the proposed discussion by Louis.
>
>
> Hagar
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>.

Le 01/12/2013 16:38, Rob Weir a écrit :
> I think you are confusing the perceptions within the echo-chamber of
> open source insiders with the reality in the real world.

But can't we use this echo-chamber too?
But ok, that's to be discussed in the proposed discussion by Louis.

Hagar

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

Hi
I propose we start a real and maybe even interesting thread on marketing (and also dev, if so be it) concerning strategy for moving ahead.

I would love for us to be positive and fact-based.
I would love for us to invite discussion and then action.
I would love it if we could enunciate *why* we are contributing to this project. 

But let's do it in a new thread? 
:-)

Cheers,
Louis


On 01-Dec-2013, at 10:38, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
>> Le 01/12/2013 14:35, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Unfortunately, the ordinary computer user has no idea of the base of
>>>> underlying code or of its source. He is only aware of the title of the
>>>> package he uses, and this dominates perception.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> True.  But what are the facts?   Our download numbers show that there
>>> are relatively few Linux downloads.  We have more AOO Windows users in
>>> Poland than Linux users worldwide.
>> 
>> But I guess that the download numbers don't take into account the
>> repositories from the GNU/Linux distros.
>> So what you record is only those who want to switch from the distro
>> delivered solution to AOO.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> As far as brand perceptions go, the data I have shows that the
>>> OpenOffice brand is increasing, and is far stronger than the
>>> LibreOffice brand [1].  In fact, some LibreOffice supporters interpret
>>> these numbers as indicating that many LibreOffice users mistakenly
>>> think that they are still using OpenOffice and refer to it as
>>> "OpenOffice".  That just goes to show that we have some brand
>>> perception paranoia on both sides!
>>> 
>>> Finally, the take away from the brand perception survey is that most
>>> people have heard of neither OpenOffice nor LibreOffice.  That is
>>> where the greatest gains will gone from, increasing mainstream
>>> awareness of OpenOffice.
>> 
>> The problem is that even among the users who know about OO, LibO is gaining
>> more and more visibility. If all articles deal with LibO and the proclaimed
> 
> Again, look at the actual data cited in the link above.  OpenOffice is
> gaining visibility faster than LibreOffice is.
> 
> And please acknowledge that Windows users far outnumber Linux users in
> the world.  So you can then do apples-to-apples comparisons of Windows
> downloads of AOO and LO on third party websites and see that this is
> not even close:
> 
> AOO:  11,736 downloads in the last week (today is only Sunday,
> remember, but check back later in the week to see the trend continue)
> 
> http://download.cnet.com/Apache-OpenOffice/3000-18483_4-10263109.html?tag=mncol;1
> 
> LO: 2,245 downloads in the last week:
> 
> http://download.cnet.com/LibreOffice/3000-18483_4-75337651.html?tag=mncol;1
> 
>> death of AOO, users who are considering moving away from MSFT will not even
>> try to check about AOO.
>> FUD is becoming dangerous, especially with the kind of journalism we are
>> seeing. Even if in the community we know it's FUD, we can't accept it
>> anymore.
>> 
> 
> I think you are confusing the perceptions within the echo-chamber of
> open source insiders with the reality in the real world.   If you want
> to do marketing in this area then you need a thick skin and be able to
> do more than complain.  If you don't like the LibreOffice-promoted
> stories about OpenOffice then just wait until you see the
> Microsoft-promoted stories!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
>> Hagar
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
> Le 01/12/2013 14:35, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the ordinary computer user has no idea of the base of
>>> underlying code or of its source. He is only aware of the title of the
>>> package he uses, and this dominates perception.
>>>
>>
>> True.  But what are the facts?   Our download numbers show that there
>> are relatively few Linux downloads.  We have more AOO Windows users in
>> Poland than Linux users worldwide.
>
> But I guess that the download numbers don't take into account the
> repositories from the GNU/Linux distros.
> So what you record is only those who want to switch from the distro
> delivered solution to AOO.
>
>
>
>> As far as brand perceptions go, the data I have shows that the
>> OpenOffice brand is increasing, and is far stronger than the
>> LibreOffice brand [1].  In fact, some LibreOffice supporters interpret
>> these numbers as indicating that many LibreOffice users mistakenly
>> think that they are still using OpenOffice and refer to it as
>> "OpenOffice".  That just goes to show that we have some brand
>> perception paranoia on both sides!
>>
>> Finally, the take away from the brand perception survey is that most
>> people have heard of neither OpenOffice nor LibreOffice.  That is
>> where the greatest gains will gone from, increasing mainstream
>> awareness of OpenOffice.
>
> The problem is that even among the users who know about OO, LibO is gaining
> more and more visibility. If all articles deal with LibO and the proclaimed

Again, look at the actual data cited in the link above.  OpenOffice is
gaining visibility faster than LibreOffice is.

And please acknowledge that Windows users far outnumber Linux users in
the world.  So you can then do apples-to-apples comparisons of Windows
downloads of AOO and LO on third party websites and see that this is
not even close:

AOO:  11,736 downloads in the last week (today is only Sunday,
remember, but check back later in the week to see the trend continue)

http://download.cnet.com/Apache-OpenOffice/3000-18483_4-10263109.html?tag=mncol;1

LO: 2,245 downloads in the last week:

http://download.cnet.com/LibreOffice/3000-18483_4-75337651.html?tag=mncol;1

> death of AOO, users who are considering moving away from MSFT will not even
> try to check about AOO.
> FUD is becoming dangerous, especially with the kind of journalism we are
> seeing. Even if in the community we know it's FUD, we can't accept it
> anymore.
>

I think you are confusing the perceptions within the echo-chamber of
open source insiders with the reality in the real world.   If you want
to do marketing in this area then you need a thick skin and be able to
do more than complain.  If you don't like the LibreOffice-promoted
stories about OpenOffice then just wait until you see the
Microsoft-promoted stories!

Regards,

-Rob


> Hagar
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

Hagar,

On 01-Dec-2013, at 10:43, Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:

> Le 01/12/2013 16:17, Louis Suárez-Potts a écrit :
>> But our goal, or at any rate, my goal, and I think that of others on the PMC, is to promote the qualities of AOO the product and the great community that makes it. And also to encourage those working on anything related to join us, in this effort, in this ecosystem.
> 
> But our promotion is one step behind LibO. Why do they get all that attention in articles? Why hear about migration frmo a LiBO perspective, even if the migration idea started a long time ago? They are quite good at it.
> 
> Were they fair with AOO, I would not have any problem with that, it would be just good competition between projects. But I can't see it like that yet. So maybe we need to be more vocal to re-establish the facts.
> 
> Hagar

Welcome to the world. Journalism, even outside of IT, is not about fairness nor even much about accuracy, unless you think that those two qualities have made the Murdoch empire, for instance, what it is. (And not just a betrayal of what one would hope for in journalism.)

Journalists, everywhere, work with what they have. LO gains attention because it fits into a classic narrative: it satisfies the narrative of the community once downtrodden but now resurgent, thus demonstrating the power of the people united to fend off oppression and even succeed, despite the crushing bulk of heartless corporations.

And LO and TDF also satisfy a basic journalistic need: They present the data desired in a form that is easy to reuse.

And, finally, LO surfs on the froth, so it is in the journalists' and editors' minds.

There are solutions to this. I've suggested a few. But we need a new subject for this discussion.

louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>.

Le 01/12/2013 16:17, Louis Suárez-Potts a écrit :
> But our goal, or at any rate, my goal, and I think that of others on the PMC, is to promote the qualities of AOO the product and the great community that makes it. And also to encourage those working on anything related to join us, in this effort, in this ecosystem.

But our promotion is one step behind LibO. Why do they get all that attention in articles? Why hear about migration frmo a LiBO perspective, even if the migration idea started a long time ago? They are quite good at it.

Were they fair with AOO, I would not have any problem with that, it would be just good competition between projects. But I can't see it like that yet. So maybe we need to be more vocal to re-establish the facts.

Hagar

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 01-Dec-2013, at 10:01, Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:

> Le 01/12/2013 14:35, Rob Weir a écrit :
>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, the ordinary computer user has no idea of the base of underlying code or of its source. He is only aware of the title of the package he uses, and this dominates perception.
>>> 
>> 
>> True.  But what are the facts?   Our download numbers show that there
>> are relatively few Linux downloads.  We have more AOO Windows users in
>> Poland than Linux users worldwide.
> But I guess that the download numbers don't take into account the repositories from the GNU/Linux distros.
> So what you record is only those who want to switch from the distro delivered solution to AOO.
> 
I think those are not terribly crucial data. This is not a game about trying to impress with numbers. It is about using the data to validate the claim that AOO is a substantial application and active community and that it is not a flash in the pan, liable to disappear tomorrow or next year but is around for the long haul.

The point of this claim is that we can assuage anxieties that large organizations have about our credibility and substance, as an application getting better and being maintained and as a community that is more than one major company.

And the effect of this claim is to validate the choice that a large organization would make in favour of AOO and to further validate the business decision a small operator offering support services would risk by including AOO (or LO or both) in his or her portfolio of services.

And the outcome of these points and actions is to establish an ecosystem that contributes to an expanding community of contributors and engaged users. "Engaged user" is a term I just made up to represent users who may not actually contribute to the project substantially but who use its products mindfully and positively, and thus encourage others to use them, too.

> 
>> As far as brand perceptions go, the data I have shows that the
>> OpenOffice brand is increasing, and is far stronger than the
>> LibreOffice brand [1].  In fact, some LibreOffice supporters interpret
>> these numbers as indicating that many LibreOffice users mistakenly
>> think that they are still using OpenOffice and refer to it as
>> "OpenOffice".  That just goes to show that we have some brand
>> perception paranoia on both sides!
>> 
>> Finally, the take away from the brand perception survey is that most
>> people have heard of neither OpenOffice nor LibreOffice.  That is
>> where the greatest gains will gone from, increasing mainstream
>> awareness of OpenOffice.
> The problem is that even among the users who know about OO, LibO is gaining more and more visibility. If all articles deal with LibO and the proclaimed death of AOO, users who are considering moving away from MSFT will not even try to check about AOO.
> FUD is becoming dangerous, especially with the kind of journalism we are seeing. Even if in the community we know it's FUD, we can't accept it anymore.

We've been through FUD before, many times before. I don't like to call what LO does is FUD, and I'd rather just focus on the fact about what we offer. We can surely untangle twisted accounts and ought to: being passive is for losers. But our goal, or at any rate, my goal, and I think that of others on the PMC, is to promote the qualities of AOO the product and the great community that makes it. And also to encourage those working on anything related to join us, in this effort, in this ecosystem.

If I were to be asked I should think that the latest versions of AOO are brilliant. They don't crash, they are easy to use, they do the job and then some. But I also think we need to encourage—and substantially encourage—mobile development. I think this is quite important and would be quite exciting; and mobile could be Android, iOS or anything like; even Tizen, Mozilla's, Jolla, etc. etc. 

> 
> Hagar

-louis

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>.

Le 01/12/2013 14:35, Rob Weir a écrit :
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the ordinary computer user has no idea of the base of underlying code or of its source. He is only aware of the title of the package he uses, and this dominates perception.
>>
>
> True.  But what are the facts?   Our download numbers show that there
> are relatively few Linux downloads.  We have more AOO Windows users in
> Poland than Linux users worldwide.
But I guess that the download numbers don't take into account the repositories from the GNU/Linux distros.
So what you record is only those who want to switch from the distro delivered solution to AOO.


> As far as brand perceptions go, the data I have shows that the
> OpenOffice brand is increasing, and is far stronger than the
> LibreOffice brand [1].  In fact, some LibreOffice supporters interpret
> these numbers as indicating that many LibreOffice users mistakenly
> think that they are still using OpenOffice and refer to it as
> "OpenOffice".  That just goes to show that we have some brand
> perception paranoia on both sides!
>
> Finally, the take away from the brand perception survey is that most
> people have heard of neither OpenOffice nor LibreOffice.  That is
> where the greatest gains will gone from, increasing mainstream
> awareness of OpenOffice.
The problem is that even among the users who know about OO, LibO is gaining more and more visibility. If all articles deal with LibO and the proclaimed death of AOO, users who are considering moving away from MSFT will not even try to check about AOO.
FUD is becoming dangerous, especially with the kind of journalism we are seeing. Even if in the community we know it's FUD, we can't accept it anymore.

Hagar

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 13:43:12 +0100
> Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Hagar,
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/1 Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>
>>
>> > Le 30/11/2013 23:15, Rob Weir a écrit :
>> >
>> >  In any case, the thing to keep in mind is that we are in no way
>> >> diminished if someone decides to use LibreOffice.   We should feel
>> >> good whenever anyone uses our code, whether in the original Apache
>> >> OpenOffice or whether in the winPenPack verison, the BSD port, the
>> >> OS/2 port, the Solaris port or in LibreOffice fork.  It is all good.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The problem is that they tend to diminish the work done by AOO.
>> > It's like a hold-up...
>> > The end user only see what's on the splash screen and how the icons look
>> > like in his file explorer. So less and less visibility will equal the death
>> > of AOO in users mind.
>>
>>
>>  Yes, but doing so, they also discredit themselves and show clearly their
>> incoherences.
>> Difficult to be considered as serious when you announce the dead of a
>> projetct and after some months you recognize that you reuse massively  its
>> code.
>>
>> A+
>> --
>> gw
>
> Unfortunately, the ordinary computer user has no idea of the base of underlying code or of its source. He is only aware of the title of the package he uses, and this dominates perception.
>

True.  But what are the facts?   Our download numbers show that there
are relatively few Linux downloads.  We have more AOO Windows users in
Poland than Linux users worldwide.  And industry estimates are that
Linux desktop user share is around 2%.  We even see diminished
investment in the Linux desktop.  As you know, Suse pulled out of
LibreOffice.  They are more interested in Linux on the server.  Other
companies see the opportunity more with tablet and mobile Linux.
Linux desktop is shrinking. Or, as some would say.  If we really want
to worry about getting more AOO users I think we'd achieve more with a
Hindi or a Bahasa Indonesian translation than we would with getting a
Linux version packaged with the distros.

(Note:  I think we should continue Linux support.  As a project AOO
supports diversity, of languages and well as platforms.  Just because
there are relatively few Linux desktop users does not mean we don't
support them.)

As far as brand perceptions go, the data I have shows that the
OpenOffice brand is increasing, and is far stronger than the
LibreOffice brand [1].  In fact, some LibreOffice supporters interpret
these numbers as indicating that many LibreOffice users mistakenly
think that they are still using OpenOffice and refer to it as
"OpenOffice".  That just goes to show that we have some brand
perception paranoia on both sides!

Finally, the take away from the brand perception survey is that most
people have heard of neither OpenOffice nor LibreOffice.  That is
where the greatest gains will gone from, increasing mainstream
awareness of OpenOffice.

Regards,

-Rob

[1] http://www.robweir.com/blog/2013/10/the-power-of-brand-and-the-power-of-product-part-3.html

> --
> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.

On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 13:43:12 +0100
Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Hagar,
> 
> 
> 2013/12/1 Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>
> 
> > Le 30/11/2013 23:15, Rob Weir a écrit :
> >
> >  In any case, the thing to keep in mind is that we are in no way
> >> diminished if someone decides to use LibreOffice.   We should feel
> >> good whenever anyone uses our code, whether in the original Apache
> >> OpenOffice or whether in the winPenPack verison, the BSD port, the
> >> OS/2 port, the Solaris port or in LibreOffice fork.  It is all good.
> >>
> >
> > The problem is that they tend to diminish the work done by AOO.
> > It's like a hold-up...
> > The end user only see what's on the splash screen and how the icons look
> > like in his file explorer. So less and less visibility will equal the death
> > of AOO in users mind.
> 
> 
>  Yes, but doing so, they also discredit themselves and show clearly their
> incoherences.
> Difficult to be considered as serious when you announce the dead of a
> projetct and after some months you recognize that you reuse massively  its
> code.
> 
> A+
> -- 
> gw

Unfortunately, the ordinary computer user has no idea of the base of underlying code or of its source. He is only aware of the title of the package he uses, and this dominates perception.

-- 
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>.

Hi Hagar,


2013/12/1 Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>

> Le 30/11/2013 23:15, Rob Weir a écrit :
>
>  In any case, the thing to keep in mind is that we are in no way
>> diminished if someone decides to use LibreOffice.   We should feel
>> good whenever anyone uses our code, whether in the original Apache
>> OpenOffice or whether in the winPenPack verison, the BSD port, the
>> OS/2 port, the Solaris port or in LibreOffice fork.  It is all good.
>>
>
> The problem is that they tend to diminish the work done by AOO.
> It's like a hold-up...
> The end user only see what's on the splash screen and how the icons look
> like in his file explorer. So less and less visibility will equal the death
> of AOO in users mind.


 Yes, but doing so, they also discredit themselves and show clearly their
incoherences.
Difficult to be considered as serious when you announce the dead of a
projetct and after some months you recognize that you reuse massively  its
code.

A+
-- 
gw

>
>

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>.

Le 30/11/2013 23:15, Rob Weir a écrit :
> In any case, the thing to keep in mind is that we are in no way
> diminished if someone decides to use LibreOffice.   We should feel
> good whenever anyone uses our code, whether in the original Apache
> OpenOffice or whether in the winPenPack verison, the BSD port, the
> OS/2 port, the Solaris port or in LibreOffice fork.  It is all good.

The problem is that they tend to diminish the work done by AOO.
It's like a hold-up...
The end user only see what's on the splash screen and how the icons look like in his file explorer. So less and less visibility will equal the death of AOO in users mind.

Hagar

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 30-Nov-2013, at 17:15, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:56, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Good points Louis., thanks. but we still need a "maven" or two to crack the larger corporate environment.
>> 
>> Done that, in previous instance of my role at OOo. It's not easy and does require persistence. Then, I was also salaried by Sun/Oracle, though my hot efforts on behalf of the community as such were sometimes met with cool water.
>> 
>> But I do not think the tactics of yore are the ones to pursue now.
>> 
> 
> Keep in mind that corporate successes are not necessarily
> publicly-known.  I can say from first-hand knowledge that we're
> getting a good reaction to IBM's recently-announced service offering
> for AOO.  But these corporations are unlikely to issue a press release
> announcing this fact.  This is different from public agencies where
> their choices are a matter of public record.

Yes. I know. I was many times asked to itemize which companies were using OOo. I could have cited several. But to a corporate lawyer, they insisted that to speak of their usage was to speak my last public sentence..


> 
>> I think that emphasizing, as I did, QA, innovation, and mobile options, as well as the robust community that is reality based, is more important.
>> 
> 
> 1+
> 
> We're in a very different time than say, 2002, when open source was a
> new concept to many companies.  The question is no longer, "Should we
> use open source?" but "How should we use open source?".  We already
> won that first war, making open source a legitimate option.  What
> remains is a more conventional kind of technology use decision, which
> considers price, of course, but also features, interop, migration,
> training, etc., costs.
> 
> In any case, the thing to keep in mind is that we are in no way
> diminished if someone decides to use LibreOffice.   We should feel
> good whenever anyone uses our code, whether in the original Apache
> OpenOffice or whether in the winPenPack verison, the BSD port, the
> OS/2 port, the Solaris port or in LibreOffice fork.  It is all good.

+1.


> 
> -Rob

Cheers,
Louis

> 
>> Louis
>>> 
>>> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan
>>> with The Vital Portal
>>> 
>>> Alphonso Whitfield
>>> info@thevitalportal.com
>>> Vital
>>> 912-816-2595
>>> Skype: vital.i.net
>>> 
>>> Visit us at:
>>> The Vital Portal
>>> 
>>> The Vital Portal On facebook
>>> 
>>> Visit our Google Community
>>> 
>>> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at:
>>> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center .
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com>
>>> To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org, "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com>
>>> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 4:08:52 PM
>>> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 15:47, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. .
>>> 
>>> It is claiming to be getting acceptance. It is being touted by a few supposedly prominent organizations, such as the South Tyrol org. But a few things.
>>> 
>>> 1. We have IBM as a far more powerful and important contributor than LO has Ubuntu and Canonical. We do not trumpet that affiliation as much as we could, no doubt because we do not want to be too tightly affiliated with IBM and be seen as an appendage of IBM. I don't think we are. But I understand the concerns.
>>> 
>>> 2. We need to use actual facts related to actual usage by enterprise-class users. Download numbers indicate, usually, individual users. These are important. But they do not persuade a lot of larger entities. (The Bring Your Own Device phenomenon is growing and is related to individual download numbers; but in the case of support, etc., one does, usually, need to have an enterprise buy it or enable that market; and support is often the point of decision for many.)
>>> 
>>> And more on this tangent. The main point: facts and actual evidence.
>>> 
>>> louis
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan
>>>> with The Vital Portal
>>>> 
>>>> Alphonso Whitfield
>>>> info@thevitalportal.com
>>>> Vital
>>>> 912-816-2595
>>>> Skype: vital.i.net
>>>> 
>>>> Visit us at:
>>>> The Vital Portal
>>>> 
>>>> The Vital Portal On facebook
>>>> 
>>>> Visit our Google Community
>>>> 
>>>> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at:
>>>> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center .
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> 
>>>> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com>
>>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500
>>>>> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100
>>>>>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hagar
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> louis
>>>>> 
>>>>> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO.
>>>> 
>>>> I think we are in agreement not to do that.
>>>> 
>>>> What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts.
>>>> 
>>>> And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize?
>>>> 
>>>> The ones I generally point to:
>>>> 
>>>> * QA excellence
>>>> * Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.)
>>>> * Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages?
>>>> — regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO.
>>>> — and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities.
>>>> * mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy.
>>>> 
>>>> The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.)
>>>> 
>>>> It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box.
>>>> 
>>>> No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community.
>>>> 
>>>> louis
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:56, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:
>
>> Good points Louis., thanks. but we still need a "maven" or two to crack the larger corporate environment.
>
> Done that, in previous instance of my role at OOo. It's not easy and does require persistence. Then, I was also salaried by Sun/Oracle, though my hot efforts on behalf of the community as such were sometimes met with cool water.
>
> But I do not think the tactics of yore are the ones to pursue now.
>

Keep in mind that corporate successes are not necessarily
publicly-known.  I can say from first-hand knowledge that we're
getting a good reaction to IBM's recently-announced service offering
for AOO.  But these corporations are unlikely to issue a press release
announcing this fact.  This is different from public agencies where
their choices are a matter of public record.

> I think that emphasizing, as I did, QA, innovation, and mobile options, as well as the robust community that is reality based, is more important.
>

1+

We're in a very different time than say, 2002, when open source was a
new concept to many companies.  The question is no longer, "Should we
use open source?" but "How should we use open source?".  We already
won that first war, making open source a legitimate option.  What
remains is a more conventional kind of technology use decision, which
considers price, of course, but also features, interop, migration,
training, etc., costs.

In any case, the thing to keep in mind is that we are in no way
diminished if someone decides to use LibreOffice.   We should feel
good whenever anyone uses our code, whether in the original Apache
OpenOffice or whether in the winPenPack verison, the BSD port, the
OS/2 port, the Solaris port or in LibreOffice fork.  It is all good.

-Rob

> Louis
>>
>> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan
>> with The Vital Portal
>>
>> Alphonso Whitfield
>> info@thevitalportal.com
>> Vital
>> 912-816-2595
>> Skype: vital.i.net
>>
>> Visit us at:
>> The Vital Portal
>>
>> The Vital Portal On facebook
>>
>> Visit our Google Community
>>
>> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at:
>> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com>
>> To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org, "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com>
>> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 4:08:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads
>>
>>
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 15:47, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. .
>>
>> It is claiming to be getting acceptance. It is being touted by a few supposedly prominent organizations, such as the South Tyrol org. But a few things.
>>
>> 1. We have IBM as a far more powerful and important contributor than LO has Ubuntu and Canonical. We do not trumpet that affiliation as much as we could, no doubt because we do not want to be too tightly affiliated with IBM and be seen as an appendage of IBM. I don't think we are. But I understand the concerns.
>>
>> 2. We need to use actual facts related to actual usage by enterprise-class users. Download numbers indicate, usually, individual users. These are important. But they do not persuade a lot of larger entities. (The Bring Your Own Device phenomenon is growing and is related to individual download numbers; but in the case of support, etc., one does, usually, need to have an enterprise buy it or enable that market; and support is often the point of decision for many.)
>>
>> And more on this tangent. The main point: facts and actual evidence.
>>
>> louis
>> >
>> >
>> > Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan
>> > with The Vital Portal
>> >
>> > Alphonso Whitfield
>> > info@thevitalportal.com
>> > Vital
>> > 912-816-2595
>> > Skype: vital.i.net
>> >
>> > Visit us at:
>> > The Vital Portal
>> >
>> > The Vital Portal On facebook
>> >
>> > Visit our Google Community
>> >
>> > Join our Vital Portal Webinars at:
>> > The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >
>> > From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com>
>> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> > Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org
>> > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM
>> > Subject: Re: 80 million downloads
>> >
>> >
>> > On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500
>> >> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100
>> >>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
>> >>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hagar
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence.
>> >>>
>> >>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact.
>> >>>
>> >>> louis
>> >>
>> >> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record.
>> >
>> >
>> > One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO.
>> >
>> > I think we are in agreement not to do that.
>> >
>> > What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc.
>> >
>> > I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts.
>> >
>> > And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize?
>> >
>> > The ones I generally point to:
>> >
>> > * QA excellence
>> > * Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.)
>> > * Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages?
>> > — regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO.
>> > — and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities.
>> > * mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy.
>> >
>> > The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.)
>> >
>> > It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box.
>> >
>> > No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community.
>> >
>> > louis
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:56, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:
>
>> Good points Louis., thanks. but we still need a "maven" or two to crack the larger corporate environment.
>
> Done that, in previous instance of my role at OOo. It's not easy and does require persistence. Then, I was also salaried by Sun/Oracle, though my hot efforts on behalf of the community as such were sometimes met with cool water.
>
> But I do not think the tactics of yore are the ones to pursue now.
>

Keep in mind that corporate successes are not necessarily
publicly-known.  I can say from first-hand knowledge that we're
getting a good reaction to IBM's recently-announced service offering
for AOO.  But these corporations are unlikely to issue a press release
announcing this fact.  This is different from public agencies where
their choices are a matter of public record.

> I think that emphasizing, as I did, QA, innovation, and mobile options, as well as the robust community that is reality based, is more important.
>

1+

We're in a very different time than say, 2002, when open source was a
new concept to many companies.  The question is no longer, "Should we
use open source?" but "How should we use open source?".  We already
won that first war, making open source a legitimate option.  What
remains is a more conventional kind of technology use decision, which
considers price, of course, but also features, interop, migration,
training, etc., costs.

In any case, the thing to keep in mind is that we are in no way
diminished if someone decides to use LibreOffice.   We should feel
good whenever anyone uses our code, whether in the original Apache
OpenOffice or whether in the winPenPack verison, the BSD port, the
OS/2 port, the Solaris port or in LibreOffice fork.  It is all good.

-Rob

> Louis
>>
>> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan
>> with The Vital Portal
>>
>> Alphonso Whitfield
>> info@thevitalportal.com
>> Vital
>> 912-816-2595
>> Skype: vital.i.net
>>
>> Visit us at:
>> The Vital Portal
>>
>> The Vital Portal On facebook
>>
>> Visit our Google Community
>>
>> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at:
>> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com>
>> To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org, "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com>
>> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 4:08:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads
>>
>>
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 15:47, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. .
>>
>> It is claiming to be getting acceptance. It is being touted by a few supposedly prominent organizations, such as the South Tyrol org. But a few things.
>>
>> 1. We have IBM as a far more powerful and important contributor than LO has Ubuntu and Canonical. We do not trumpet that affiliation as much as we could, no doubt because we do not want to be too tightly affiliated with IBM and be seen as an appendage of IBM. I don't think we are. But I understand the concerns.
>>
>> 2. We need to use actual facts related to actual usage by enterprise-class users. Download numbers indicate, usually, individual users. These are important. But they do not persuade a lot of larger entities. (The Bring Your Own Device phenomenon is growing and is related to individual download numbers; but in the case of support, etc., one does, usually, need to have an enterprise buy it or enable that market; and support is often the point of decision for many.)
>>
>> And more on this tangent. The main point: facts and actual evidence.
>>
>> louis
>> >
>> >
>> > Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan
>> > with The Vital Portal
>> >
>> > Alphonso Whitfield
>> > info@thevitalportal.com
>> > Vital
>> > 912-816-2595
>> > Skype: vital.i.net
>> >
>> > Visit us at:
>> > The Vital Portal
>> >
>> > The Vital Portal On facebook
>> >
>> > Visit our Google Community
>> >
>> > Join our Vital Portal Webinars at:
>> > The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >
>> > From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com>
>> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> > Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org
>> > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM
>> > Subject: Re: 80 million downloads
>> >
>> >
>> > On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500
>> >> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100
>> >>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
>> >>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hagar
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence.
>> >>>
>> >>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact.
>> >>>
>> >>> louis
>> >>
>> >> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record.
>> >
>> >
>> > One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO.
>> >
>> > I think we are in agreement not to do that.
>> >
>> > What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc.
>> >
>> > I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts.
>> >
>> > And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize?
>> >
>> > The ones I generally point to:
>> >
>> > * QA excellence
>> > * Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.)
>> > * Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages?
>> > — regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO.
>> > — and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities.
>> > * mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy.
>> >
>> > The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.)
>> >
>> > It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box.
>> >
>> > No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community.
>> >
>> > louis
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:56, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:

> Good points Louis., thanks. but we still need a "maven" or two to crack the larger corporate environment. 

Done that, in previous instance of my role at OOo. It's not easy and does require persistence. Then, I was also salaried by Sun/Oracle, though my hot efforts on behalf of the community as such were sometimes met with cool water.

But I do not think the tactics of yore are the ones to pursue now.

I think that emphasizing, as I did, QA, innovation, and mobile options, as well as the robust community that is reality based, is more important. 

Louis
> 
> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan
> with The Vital Portal 
> 
> Alphonso Whitfield
> info@thevitalportal.com
> Vital
> 912-816-2595
> Skype: vital.i.net
> 
> Visit us at:
> The Vital Portal 
> 
> The Vital Portal On facebook
> 
> Visit our Google Community
> 
> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at:
> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com>
> To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org, "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com>
> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 4:08:52 PM
> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads
> 
> 
> On 30-Nov-2013, at 15:47, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:
> 
> > The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. . 
> 
> It is claiming to be getting acceptance. It is being touted by a few supposedly prominent organizations, such as the South Tyrol org. But a few things.
> 
> 1. We have IBM as a far more powerful and important contributor than LO has Ubuntu and Canonical. We do not trumpet that affiliation as much as we could, no doubt because we do not want to be too tightly affiliated with IBM and be seen as an appendage of IBM. I don't think we are. But I understand the concerns.
> 
> 2. We need to use actual facts related to actual usage by enterprise-class users. Download numbers indicate, usually, individual users. These are important. But they do not persuade a lot of larger entities. (The Bring Your Own Device phenomenon is growing and is related to individual download numbers; but in the case of support, etc., one does, usually, need to have an enterprise buy it or enable that market; and support is often the point of decision for many.)
> 
> And more on this tangent. The main point: facts and actual evidence.
> 
> louis
> > 
> > 
> > Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
> > with The Vital Portal 
> > 
> > Alphonso Whitfield 
> > info@thevitalportal.com 
> > Vital 
> > 912-816-2595 
> > Skype: vital.i.net 
> > 
> > Visit us at: 
> > The Vital Portal 
> > 
> > The Vital Portal On facebook 
> > 
> > Visit our Google Community 
> > 
> > Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
> > The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > 
> > From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
> > Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
> > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM 
> > Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
> > 
> > 
> > On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
> > 
> >> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500 
> >> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100 
> >>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote: 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit : 
> >>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people? 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Hagar 
> >>>>> 
> >>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence. 
> >>> 
> >>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact. 
> >>> 
> >>> louis 
> >> 
> >> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record. 
> > 
> > 
> > One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO. 
> > 
> > I think we are in agreement not to do that. 
> > 
> > What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc. 
> > 
> > I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts. 
> > 
> > And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize? 
> > 
> > The ones I generally point to: 
> > 
> > * QA excellence 
> > * Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.) 
> > * Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages? 
> > — regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO. 
> > — and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities. 
> > * mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy. 
> > 
> > The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.) 
> > 
> > It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box. 
> > 
> > No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community. 
> > 
> > louis 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> 
> >> 
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org 
> > 
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
> > For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org 
> > 
> >


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:56, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:

> Good points Louis., thanks. but we still need a "maven" or two to crack the larger corporate environment. 

Done that, in previous instance of my role at OOo. It's not easy and does require persistence. Then, I was also salaried by Sun/Oracle, though my hot efforts on behalf of the community as such were sometimes met with cool water.

But I do not think the tactics of yore are the ones to pursue now.

I think that emphasizing, as I did, QA, innovation, and mobile options, as well as the robust community that is reality based, is more important. 

Louis
> 
> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan
> with The Vital Portal 
> 
> Alphonso Whitfield
> info@thevitalportal.com
> Vital
> 912-816-2595
> Skype: vital.i.net
> 
> Visit us at:
> The Vital Portal 
> 
> The Vital Portal On facebook
> 
> Visit our Google Community
> 
> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at:
> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com>
> To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org, "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com>
> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 4:08:52 PM
> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads
> 
> 
> On 30-Nov-2013, at 15:47, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:
> 
> > The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. . 
> 
> It is claiming to be getting acceptance. It is being touted by a few supposedly prominent organizations, such as the South Tyrol org. But a few things.
> 
> 1. We have IBM as a far more powerful and important contributor than LO has Ubuntu and Canonical. We do not trumpet that affiliation as much as we could, no doubt because we do not want to be too tightly affiliated with IBM and be seen as an appendage of IBM. I don't think we are. But I understand the concerns.
> 
> 2. We need to use actual facts related to actual usage by enterprise-class users. Download numbers indicate, usually, individual users. These are important. But they do not persuade a lot of larger entities. (The Bring Your Own Device phenomenon is growing and is related to individual download numbers; but in the case of support, etc., one does, usually, need to have an enterprise buy it or enable that market; and support is often the point of decision for many.)
> 
> And more on this tangent. The main point: facts and actual evidence.
> 
> louis
> > 
> > 
> > Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
> > with The Vital Portal 
> > 
> > Alphonso Whitfield 
> > info@thevitalportal.com 
> > Vital 
> > 912-816-2595 
> > Skype: vital.i.net 
> > 
> > Visit us at: 
> > The Vital Portal 
> > 
> > The Vital Portal On facebook 
> > 
> > Visit our Google Community 
> > 
> > Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
> > The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > 
> > From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
> > Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
> > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM 
> > Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
> > 
> > 
> > On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
> > 
> >> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500 
> >> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100 
> >>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote: 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit : 
> >>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people? 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Hagar 
> >>>>> 
> >>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence. 
> >>> 
> >>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact. 
> >>> 
> >>> louis 
> >> 
> >> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record. 
> > 
> > 
> > One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO. 
> > 
> > I think we are in agreement not to do that. 
> > 
> > What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc. 
> > 
> > I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts. 
> > 
> > And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize? 
> > 
> > The ones I generally point to: 
> > 
> > * QA excellence 
> > * Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.) 
> > * Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages? 
> > — regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO. 
> > — and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities. 
> > * mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy. 
> > 
> > The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.) 
> > 
> > It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box. 
> > 
> > No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community. 
> > 
> > louis 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> 
> >> 
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org 
> > 
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
> > For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org 
> > 
> >


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com>.

Good points Louis., thanks. but we still need a "maven" or two to crack the larger corporate environment. 


Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
with The Vital Portal 

Alphonso Whitfield 
info@thevitalportal.com 
Vital 
912-816-2595 
Skype: vital.i.net 

Visit us at: 
The Vital Portal 

The Vital Portal On facebook 

Visit our Google Community 

Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 






----- Original Message -----

From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org, "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com> 
Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 4:08:52 PM 
Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 


On 30-Nov-2013, at 15:47, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote: 

> The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. . 

It is claiming to be getting acceptance. It is being touted by a few supposedly prominent organizations, such as the South Tyrol org. But a few things. 

1. We have IBM as a far more powerful and important contributor than LO has Ubuntu and Canonical. We do not trumpet that affiliation as much as we could, no doubt because we do not want to be too tightly affiliated with IBM and be seen as an appendage of IBM. I don't think we are. But I understand the concerns. 

2. We need to use actual facts related to actual usage by enterprise-class users. Download numbers indicate, usually, individual users. These are important. But they do not persuade a lot of larger entities. (The Bring Your Own Device phenomenon is growing and is related to individual download numbers; but in the case of support, etc., one does, usually, need to have an enterprise buy it or enable that market; and support is often the point of decision for many.) 

And more on this tangent. The main point: facts and actual evidence. 

louis 
> 
> 
> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
> with The Vital Portal 
> 
> Alphonso Whitfield 
> info@thevitalportal.com 
> Vital 
> 912-816-2595 
> Skype: vital.i.net 
> 
> Visit us at: 
> The Vital Portal 
> 
> The Vital Portal On facebook 
> 
> Visit our Google Community 
> 
> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> 
> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
> Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM 
> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
> 
> 
> On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
> 
>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500 
>> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100 
>>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit : 
>>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hagar 
>>>>> 
>>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup. 
>>>> 
>>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence. 
>>> 
>>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact. 
>>> 
>>> louis 
>> 
>> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record. 
> 
> 
> One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO. 
> 
> I think we are in agreement not to do that. 
> 
> What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc. 
> 
> I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts. 
> 
> And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize? 
> 
> The ones I generally point to: 
> 
> * QA excellence 
> * Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.) 
> * Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages? 
> — regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO. 
> — and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities. 
> * mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy. 
> 
> The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.) 
> 
> It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box. 
> 
> No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community. 
> 
> louis 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org 
> 
>

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com>.

Good points Louis., thanks. but we still need a "maven" or two to crack the larger corporate environment. 


Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
with The Vital Portal 

Alphonso Whitfield 
info@thevitalportal.com 
Vital 
912-816-2595 
Skype: vital.i.net 

Visit us at: 
The Vital Portal 

The Vital Portal On facebook 

Visit our Google Community 

Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 






----- Original Message -----

From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
To: marketing@openoffice.apache.org, "Alphonso Whitfield III" <aw...@vital-inet.com> 
Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 4:08:52 PM 
Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 


On 30-Nov-2013, at 15:47, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote: 

> The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. . 

It is claiming to be getting acceptance. It is being touted by a few supposedly prominent organizations, such as the South Tyrol org. But a few things. 

1. We have IBM as a far more powerful and important contributor than LO has Ubuntu and Canonical. We do not trumpet that affiliation as much as we could, no doubt because we do not want to be too tightly affiliated with IBM and be seen as an appendage of IBM. I don't think we are. But I understand the concerns. 

2. We need to use actual facts related to actual usage by enterprise-class users. Download numbers indicate, usually, individual users. These are important. But they do not persuade a lot of larger entities. (The Bring Your Own Device phenomenon is growing and is related to individual download numbers; but in the case of support, etc., one does, usually, need to have an enterprise buy it or enable that market; and support is often the point of decision for many.) 

And more on this tangent. The main point: facts and actual evidence. 

louis 
> 
> 
> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
> with The Vital Portal 
> 
> Alphonso Whitfield 
> info@thevitalportal.com 
> Vital 
> 912-816-2595 
> Skype: vital.i.net 
> 
> Visit us at: 
> The Vital Portal 
> 
> The Vital Portal On facebook 
> 
> Visit our Google Community 
> 
> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> 
> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
> Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM 
> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
> 
> 
> On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
> 
>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500 
>> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100 
>>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit : 
>>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hagar 
>>>>> 
>>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup. 
>>>> 
>>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence. 
>>> 
>>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact. 
>>> 
>>> louis 
>> 
>> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record. 
> 
> 
> One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO. 
> 
> I think we are in agreement not to do that. 
> 
> What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc. 
> 
> I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts. 
> 
> And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize? 
> 
> The ones I generally point to: 
> 
> * QA excellence 
> * Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.) 
> * Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages? 
> — regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO. 
> — and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities. 
> * mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy. 
> 
> The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.) 
> 
> It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box. 
> 
> No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community. 
> 
> louis 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org 
> 
>

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 30-Nov-2013, at 15:47, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:

> The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. . 

It is claiming to be getting acceptance. It is being touted by a few supposedly prominent organizations, such as the South Tyrol org. But a few things.

1. We have IBM as a far more powerful and important contributor than LO has Ubuntu and Canonical. We do not trumpet that affiliation as much as we could, no doubt because we do not want to be too tightly affiliated with IBM and be seen as an appendage of IBM. I don't think we are. But I understand the concerns.

2. We need to use actual facts related to actual usage by enterprise-class users. Download numbers indicate, usually, individual users. These are important. But they do not persuade a lot of larger entities. (The Bring Your Own Device phenomenon is growing and is related to individual download numbers; but in the case of support, etc., one does, usually, need to have an enterprise buy it or enable that market; and support is often the point of decision for many.)

And more on this tangent. The main point: facts and actual evidence.

louis
> 
> 
> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
> with The Vital Portal 
> 
> Alphonso Whitfield 
> info@thevitalportal.com 
> Vital 
> 912-816-2595 
> Skype: vital.i.net 
> 
> Visit us at: 
> The Vital Portal 
> 
> The Vital Portal On facebook 
> 
> Visit our Google Community 
> 
> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
> Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM 
> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
> 
> 
> On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
> 
>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500 
>> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100 
>>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit : 
>>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hagar 
>>>>> 
>>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup. 
>>>> 
>>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence. 
>>> 
>>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact. 
>>> 
>>> louis 
>> 
>> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record. 
> 
> 
> One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO. 
> 
> I think we are in agreement not to do that. 
> 
> What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc. 
> 
> I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts. 
> 
> And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize? 
> 
> The ones I generally point to: 
> 
> * QA excellence 
> * Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.) 
> * Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages? 
> — regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO. 
> — and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities. 
> * mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy. 
> 
> The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.) 
> 
> It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box. 
> 
> No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community. 
> 
> louis 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org 
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 30-Nov-2013, at 15:47, Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com> wrote:

> The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. . 

It is claiming to be getting acceptance. It is being touted by a few supposedly prominent organizations, such as the South Tyrol org. But a few things.

1. We have IBM as a far more powerful and important contributor than LO has Ubuntu and Canonical. We do not trumpet that affiliation as much as we could, no doubt because we do not want to be too tightly affiliated with IBM and be seen as an appendage of IBM. I don't think we are. But I understand the concerns.

2. We need to use actual facts related to actual usage by enterprise-class users. Download numbers indicate, usually, individual users. These are important. But they do not persuade a lot of larger entities. (The Bring Your Own Device phenomenon is growing and is related to individual download numbers; but in the case of support, etc., one does, usually, need to have an enterprise buy it or enable that market; and support is often the point of decision for many.)

And more on this tangent. The main point: facts and actual evidence.

louis
> 
> 
> Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
> with The Vital Portal 
> 
> Alphonso Whitfield 
> info@thevitalportal.com 
> Vital 
> 912-816-2595 
> Skype: vital.i.net 
> 
> Visit us at: 
> The Vital Portal 
> 
> The Vital Portal On facebook 
> 
> Visit our Google Community 
> 
> Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
> The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
> Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM 
> Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 
> 
> 
> On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
> 
>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500 
>> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100 
>>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit : 
>>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hagar 
>>>>> 
>>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup. 
>>>> 
>>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence. 
>>> 
>>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact. 
>>> 
>>> louis 
>> 
>> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record. 
> 
> 
> One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO. 
> 
> I think we are in agreement not to do that. 
> 
> What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc. 
> 
> I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts. 
> 
> And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize? 
> 
> The ones I generally point to: 
> 
> * QA excellence 
> * Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.) 
> * Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages? 
> — regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO. 
> — and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities. 
> * mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy. 
> 
> The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.) 
> 
> It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box. 
> 
> No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community. 
> 
> louis 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org 
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com>.

The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. . 

Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
with The Vital Portal 

Alphonso Whitfield 
info@thevitalportal.com 
Vital 
912-816-2595 
Skype: vital.i.net 

Visit us at: 
The Vital Portal 

The Vital Portal On facebook 

Visit our Google Community 

Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM 
Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 

On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 

> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500 
> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
>> 
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
>> 
>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100 
>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote: 
>>> 
>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit : 
>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads. 
>>>> 
>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said. 
>>>> 
>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes. 
>>>> 
>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people? 
>>>> 
>>>> Hagar 
>>>> 
>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup. 
>>> 
>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence. 
>> 
>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact. 
>> 
>> louis 
> 
> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record. 

One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO. 

I think we are in agreement not to do that. 

What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc. 

I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts. 

And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize? 

The ones I generally point to: 

* QA excellence 
* Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.) 
* Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages? 
— regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO. 
— and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities. 
* mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy. 

The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.) 

It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box. 

No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community. 

louis 
> 
> -- 
> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org 

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Alphonso Whitfield III <aw...@vital-inet.com>.

The Libre Office is getting acceptance because of its affiliation with the Ubuntu desktop and server operating platform. . 

Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan 
with The Vital Portal 

Alphonso Whitfield 
info@thevitalportal.com 
Vital 
912-816-2595 
Skype: vital.i.net 

Visit us at: 
The Vital Portal 

The Vital Portal On facebook 

Visit our Google Community 

Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: 
The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> 
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
Cc: marketing@openoffice.apache.org 
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:35:54 PM 
Subject: Re: 80 million downloads 

On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 

> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500 
> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
>> 
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote: 
>> 
>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100 
>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote: 
>>> 
>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit : 
>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads. 
>>>> 
>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said. 
>>>> 
>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes. 
>>>> 
>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people? 
>>>> 
>>>> Hagar 
>>>> 
>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup. 
>>> 
>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence. 
>> 
>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact. 
>> 
>> louis 
> 
> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record. 

One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO. 

I think we are in agreement not to do that. 

What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc. 

I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts. 

And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize? 

The ones I generally point to: 

* QA excellence 
* Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.) 
* Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages? 
— regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO. 
— and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities. 
* mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy. 

The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.) 

It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box. 

No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community. 

louis 
> 
> -- 
> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org 

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org 
For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500
> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100
>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>>>> 
>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said.
>>>> 
>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
>>>> 
>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
>>>> 
>>>> Hagar
>>>> 
>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup.
>>> 
>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence.
>> 
>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact.
>> 
>> louis
> 
> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record.


One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO. 

I think we are in agreement not to do that.

What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc. 

I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts. 

And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize?

The ones I generally point to:

* QA excellence
* Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.)
* Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages?
	— regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO.
	— and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities.
* mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy.

The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.)

It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box. 

No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community.

louis
> 
> -- 
> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:15, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500
> Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100
>>> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>>>> 
>>>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said.
>>>> 
>>>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
>>>> 
>>>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
>>>> 
>>>> Hagar
>>>> 
>>> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup.
>>> 
>>> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence.
>> 
>> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact.
>> 
>> louis
> 
> It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record.


One of the things I did during Ye Olde OOo Days, that I would rather not re-do, was use a rhetoric putting MSFT in the role of Bad Guy—in this case, the analogue would be replacing MSFT with LO. 

I think we are in agreement not to do that.

What I did that was more positive was create the Major Deployments page. That was then taken to levels far above my initial frame and maintained for a long while. It showed those enterprise users we knew about, and did so per region, etc. 

I'd think something like that would be useful, again. My interest is not to critique others, exactly, but to make it easier for journalists to get the facts. 

And that leads me then to: What facts do we want to emphasize?

The ones I generally point to:

* QA excellence
* Innovations—especially those that would be of interest to enterprises. (That is: it's nifty to have other sorts of innovation but if the innovations are not actually useful or of only limited use, then the quality of the innovation is diminished. Of course, myopic journalists can still—and will still—simply point to the numbers, in the abstract.)
* Ease of use and support: How hard is it is for AOO to be adopted? To drop in as a replacement for whatever is there? To integrate with mobile ambitions? What languages?
	— regarding each of these, a key point is expected production not just by a vague claim of community but by a more identifiable body of stakeholders—that is, companies that have staked significant business on the development and distribution and also upkeep of AOO.
	— and in regards to languages, as I learned with OOo, it's one thing to have a gazillion localizations but it's quite another to maintain them. The more that can be said about the groups maintaining the localizations, the better; the more information, yes, but also the more that can be revealed about their fragilities.
* mobile integration: nearly everyone associated with enterprises wants a mobile version of AOO. Such are coming into being. The Android AOO version is, from what I can gather, more a proof of concept than a really usable thing, though the developer is working to change that. He sees what he has to do but is just one guy.

The iOS UX Write, with which I am associated, is more usable. It's to be able to read/write ODT files (note: .odt) and also MSFT .docx files; but not the full suite's formats. (At some point.)

It also can work with the "cloud" storage services, e.g. Box. 

No doubt, LO can also point to some things like this. But these that we would point to would be factually present and would be identified as clearly as possible, that is, without any misleading claims. Identifying these, too, would illustrate the persistent and very much growing strength of the real community.

louis
> 
> -- 
> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:56:19 -0500
Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100
> > Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
> >>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
> >> 
> >> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said.
> >> 
> >> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
> >> 
> >> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
> >> 
> >> Hagar
> >> 
> > We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup.
> > 
> > We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence.
> 
> That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact.
> 
> louis

It would be good to start by always refuting the claim that "OO is dead"; our (AOO) claims must always be based on facts, not on the unsupported assertions of ill-informed journalists. In the computer press one cannot (unfortunately) insist on "right of reply", which one usually can get in the newspapers of record.
 
-- 
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.

On 30-Nov-2013, at 13:01, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100
> Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:
> 
>> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>> 
>> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said.
>> 
>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
>> 
>> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
>> 
>> Hagar
>> 
> We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup.
> 
> We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence.

That said, and I agree with Rory, I also think that emphasizing AOO's use by enterprises and other large-scale entities, would only help. And calling out South Tyrol's claims wouldn't be bad, either. After all, they do not seem to be based on anything like fact.

louis
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:44:13 +0100
Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> wrote:

> Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
> > Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
> 
> Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said.
> 
> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes.
> 
> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?
> 
> Hagar
> 
We are perhaps too polite. We don't indulge in 'slanging matches' with the LibreOffice camp, unlike many of their proponents, who may not be as connected with the main LibreOffice core group, as (for example) list members here are with the Apache setup.

We should emphasise AOO's stability; unfortunately any argument for stability or almost anything is very much an 'ad hominem' argument and can be shot down by a vociferous and technically incompetent user (we hae seen many such, both on this list and on the Forum(s)) who 'knows' that a computer is a 'magic box' and expects it to accomodate his incompetence.



-- 
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>.

Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit :
> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.

Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent from corporations," Pfeifer said.

LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes.

Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people?

Hagar

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.

Hi,

On 27.11.2013 20:23, Rob Weir wrote:
> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>

cool - just four weeks ago we had 75.000.000 downloads.

Approx. 1.250.000 downloads per week is great and motivating.
Especially, when I see that on just one German IT magazine website [1] 
(Windows), [2] (MacOS) and [3] (Linux) additionally we are having more 
than 73.000 downloads per week. Assuming that there are more such sites 
around the world makes my (every)day.

[1] 
http://www.chip.de/Downloads-Download-Charts-Top-100-der-Woche_32368489.html?xbl_category=39020
[2] 
http://www.chip.de/Downloads-Download-Charts-Top-100-der-Woche_32368489.html?xbl_category=38917
[3] 
http://www.chip.de/Downloads-Download-Charts-Top-100-der-Woche_32368489.html?xbl_category=38916

Best regards, Oliver.

> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 80 million downloads

Posted by David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com>.

cool :-) Is that 4.x only, or 3.4.x as well?

On 27 November 2013 19:23, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org