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 2014/02/18 18:34:03 UTC
More annoying FUD
http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if
you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
"support" more languages. But what kind of support is this?
A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated)
I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases
15% complete UI translations ?!
Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
greater results.
Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete. We
have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%.
Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
translation. LO has only 13.
Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: More annoying FUD
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 19 February 2014 23:54, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 2014, at 1:04 PM, jan i wrote:
>
> > On 19 February 2014 21:55, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> On 19 February 2014 20:22, Louis Suárez-Potts <lsuarezpotts@gmail.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
> >>>>>> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if
> >>>>>> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
> >>>>>> "support" more languages. But what kind of support is this?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing
> a
> >>>>>> translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases
> >>>>>> 15% complete UI translations ?!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
> >>>>>> business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
> >>>>>> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought
> to
> >>>>>> note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
> >>>>>> greater results.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete.
> >> We
> >>>>>> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it
> yet.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
> >>>>>> complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
> >>>>>> translation. LO has only 13.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> More recently posted on the blog by the author:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
> >>>>> am<
> >>>>
> >>
> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office,
> >> I
> >>>>> have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by
> >> that
> >>>>> project."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an
> >> impressive
> >>>>> list of languages LO is claiming.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> :-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
> >>>> When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
> >>>> insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
> >>>> meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
> >>>> does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
> >>>> we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
> >>>> left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
> >>>> acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
> >>>> today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
> >>>> tomorrows to come.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's be as ruthlessly real uras possible. Money decisions, not
> >>>> marketing lard, are at stake.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> before we we get too far out on theoretical claims. It is true we and
> LO
> >>> have different release policies and so be it.
> >>>
> >>> But has anyone looked at their po files, I just spent a couple of hours
> >>> doing so, and reality is that they have many languages that are far
> more
> >>> complete that ours (see https://translations.documentfoundation.org/)
> >>>
> >>
> >> How closely did you look? We only put languages in Pootle where a
> >> volunteer has requested them. LO has 20 translations that have never
> >> been edited. Some are at 0% complete. Many more that have not been
> >> touched in over a year.
> >>
> > @rob, I think I am one of those that really knows how we handle
> languages,
> > no need to give me the sales talk.
> >
> > You are correct for our production versions, but It seems you have not
> > been on pootle for a while. With genLang ALL our sdf files are converted
> > and available on the test project I have made. So when I compare po files
> > LO/AOO-genLang I compare all we have with all they have.
> >
> >
> >
> >> If you want apples-to-apples comparisons then you should look at the
> >> ones we have in SVN:
> >>
> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/
> >>
> >> Both projects have their share of incomplete, neglected translations.
> >> Nothing wrong with that. But comparing the one project's list of
> >> active translations with another project's list of inactive ones is
> >> not very fair.
> >>
> >>> They also have the web site templates in pootle, very elegant,
> something
> >> I
> >>> would like us to have.
> >>>
> >>
> >> We've been doing this in SVN, via a website template. If we had
> >> MDText support for Pootle we could do more.
> >>
> >
> > Well as I wrote earlier in another thread we do have mdtext support,
> there
> > are no magic in that. The english mdtext is the po key, and the text is
> the
> > translation.
> >
> > A simple script convert mdtext/po file.
> >
> > but the interest in having it, was at least at that time below zero.
>
> I would like to explore this before Apachecon and add it to my website
> talk. If you would start another thread and/or point me to any wiki/cwiki
> documentation.
>
I am not aware of any wiki/cwiki documentation.
But .mdtext files are text files (I can find the definition if you like)
and .po files are used to translate text (I can the definition if you like)
So the script is roughly:
1) Copy .mdtext into .po with the format
msgid = "<text from mdtext file>"
msgstr = ""
2) upload to pootle and let translators do their magic
3) Generate language.mdtext file from translated .po
msgid = "<text from mdtext file>"
msgstr = "<translated text>"
Generate .mdtext file with <translated text> in language directory.
Generate and publish.
> It would be very cool to show how we can expand the topnav and branding
> into the languages. It was the vision beyond where we are now.
>
yeah.
rgds
jan I.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> >
> >>> If we claim they compare oranges and apples we should not start doing
> the
> >>> same, at least not without having looked at the facts.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Maybe we're not looking at the same facts?
> >>
> >>> So, yes maybe LO takes the statement to the limit, but that is called
> >>> marketing, and in general accepted.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Again, if you are not looking at the same facts and do not know that
> >> you are not looking at the same facts then you have been deceived ,
> >> not just subjected to marketing.
> >>
> >
> > Regarding po files, I honestly think I really know what both project do.
> >
> > rgds
> > jan I.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >>> And yes I am still very frustrated about the fact that translators have
> >> to
> >>> translate the same text twice. THAT would be a good answer to the blog.
> >>>
> >>> rgds
> >>> Jan Iversen.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Don
> >>>>
> >>>> best
> >>>> 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
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: More annoying FUD
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Feb 19, 2014, at 1:04 PM, jan i wrote:
> On 19 February 2014 21:55, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On 19 February 2014 20:22, Louis Suárez-Potts <lsuarezpotts@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
>>>>>> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if
>>>>>> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
>>>>>> "support" more languages. But what kind of support is this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
>>>>>> translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases
>>>>>> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
>>>>>> business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
>>>>>> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
>>>>>> note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
>>>>>> greater results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete.
>> We
>>>>>> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
>>>>>> complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
>>>>>> translation. LO has only 13.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More recently posted on the blog by the author:
>>>>>
>>>>> "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
>>>>> am<
>>>>
>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950
>>>>>
>>>>> Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office,
>> I
>>>>> have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by
>> that
>>>>> project."
>>>>>
>>>>> In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an
>> impressive
>>>>> list of languages LO is claiming.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> :-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
>>>> When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
>>>> insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
>>>> meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
>>>> does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
>>>> we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
>>>> left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
>>>> acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
>>>> today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
>>>> tomorrows to come.
>>>>
>>>> Let's be as ruthlessly real uras possible. Money decisions, not
>>>> marketing lard, are at stake.
>>>>
>>>
>>> before we we get too far out on theoretical claims. It is true we and LO
>>> have different release policies and so be it.
>>>
>>> But has anyone looked at their po files, I just spent a couple of hours
>>> doing so, and reality is that they have many languages that are far more
>>> complete that ours (see https://translations.documentfoundation.org/)
>>>
>>
>> How closely did you look? We only put languages in Pootle where a
>> volunteer has requested them. LO has 20 translations that have never
>> been edited. Some are at 0% complete. Many more that have not been
>> touched in over a year.
>>
> @rob, I think I am one of those that really knows how we handle languages,
> no need to give me the sales talk.
>
> You are correct for our production versions, but It seems you have not
> been on pootle for a while. With genLang ALL our sdf files are converted
> and available on the test project I have made. So when I compare po files
> LO/AOO-genLang I compare all we have with all they have.
>
>
>
>> If you want apples-to-apples comparisons then you should look at the
>> ones we have in SVN:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/
>>
>> Both projects have their share of incomplete, neglected translations.
>> Nothing wrong with that. But comparing the one project's list of
>> active translations with another project's list of inactive ones is
>> not very fair.
>>
>>> They also have the web site templates in pootle, very elegant, something
>> I
>>> would like us to have.
>>>
>>
>> We've been doing this in SVN, via a website template. If we had
>> MDText support for Pootle we could do more.
>>
>
> Well as I wrote earlier in another thread we do have mdtext support, there
> are no magic in that. The english mdtext is the po key, and the text is the
> translation.
>
> A simple script convert mdtext/po file.
>
> but the interest in having it, was at least at that time below zero.
I would like to explore this before Apachecon and add it to my website talk. If you would start another thread and/or point me to any wiki/cwiki documentation.
It would be very cool to show how we can expand the topnav and branding into the languages. It was the vision beyond where we are now.
Regards,
Dave
>
>
>>> If we claim they compare oranges and apples we should not start doing the
>>> same, at least not without having looked at the facts.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe we're not looking at the same facts?
>>
>>> So, yes maybe LO takes the statement to the limit, but that is called
>>> marketing, and in general accepted.
>>>
>>
>> Again, if you are not looking at the same facts and do not know that
>> you are not looking at the same facts then you have been deceived ,
>> not just subjected to marketing.
>>
>
> Regarding po files, I honestly think I really know what both project do.
>
> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> And yes I am still very frustrated about the fact that translators have
>> to
>>> translate the same text twice. THAT would be a good answer to the blog.
>>>
>>> rgds
>>> Jan Iversen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>> best
>>>> 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
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: More annoying FUD
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 19 February 2014 21:55, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 19 February 2014 20:22, Louis Suárez-Potts <lsuarezpotts@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
> >> >>
> >> >> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
> >> >> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if
> >> >> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
> >> >> "support" more languages. But what kind of support is this?
> >> >>
> >> >> A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated)
> >> >>
> >> >> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
> >> >> translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases
> >> >> 15% complete UI translations ?!
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
> >> >> business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
> >> >> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
> >> >> note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
> >> >> greater results.
> >> >>
> >> >> Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete.
> We
> >> >> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
> >> >>
> >> >> Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
> >> >> complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%.
> >> >>
> >> >> Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
> >> >> translation. LO has only 13.
> >> >>
> >> >> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
> >> >>
> >> >> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > More recently posted on the blog by the author:
> >> >
> >> > "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
> >> > am<
> >>
> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950
> >> >
> >> > Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office,
> I
> >> > have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by
> that
> >> > project."
> >> >
> >> > In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an
> impressive
> >> > list of languages LO is claiming.
> >> >
> >>
> >> :-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
> >> When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
> >> insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
> >> meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
> >> does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
> >> we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
> >> left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
> >> acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
> >> today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
> >> tomorrows to come.
> >>
> >> Let's be as ruthlessly real uras possible. Money decisions, not
> >> marketing lard, are at stake.
> >>
> >
> > before we we get too far out on theoretical claims. It is true we and LO
> > have different release policies and so be it.
> >
> > But has anyone looked at their po files, I just spent a couple of hours
> > doing so, and reality is that they have many languages that are far more
> > complete that ours (see https://translations.documentfoundation.org/)
> >
>
> How closely did you look? We only put languages in Pootle where a
> volunteer has requested them. LO has 20 translations that have never
> been edited. Some are at 0% complete. Many more that have not been
> touched in over a year.
>
@rob, I think I am one of those that really knows how we handle languages,
no need to give me the sales talk.
You are correct for our production versions, but It seems you have not
been on pootle for a while. With genLang ALL our sdf files are converted
and available on the test project I have made. So when I compare po files
LO/AOO-genLang I compare all we have with all they have.
> If you want apples-to-apples comparisons then you should look at the
> ones we have in SVN:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/
>
> Both projects have their share of incomplete, neglected translations.
> Nothing wrong with that. But comparing the one project's list of
> active translations with another project's list of inactive ones is
> not very fair.
>
> > They also have the web site templates in pootle, very elegant, something
> I
> > would like us to have.
> >
>
> We've been doing this in SVN, via a website template. If we had
> MDText support for Pootle we could do more.
>
Well as I wrote earlier in another thread we do have mdtext support, there
are no magic in that. The english mdtext is the po key, and the text is the
translation.
A simple script convert mdtext/po file.
but the interest in having it, was at least at that time below zero.
> > If we claim they compare oranges and apples we should not start doing the
> > same, at least not without having looked at the facts.
> >
>
> Maybe we're not looking at the same facts?
>
> > So, yes maybe LO takes the statement to the limit, but that is called
> > marketing, and in general accepted.
> >
>
> Again, if you are not looking at the same facts and do not know that
> you are not looking at the same facts then you have been deceived ,
> not just subjected to marketing.
>
Regarding po files, I honestly think I really know what both project do.
rgds
jan I.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> > And yes I am still very frustrated about the fact that translators have
> to
> > translate the same text twice. THAT would be a good answer to the blog.
> >
> > rgds
> > Jan Iversen.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Don
> >>
> >> best
> >> 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: More annoying FUD
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
On 19 February 2014 17:58, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Since Italo claims his comparison is with Microsoft then I wonder what % complete they require? I'd guess you would need an NDA to find that one out.
Maybe. One could ask :-)
louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: More annoying FUD
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Feb 19, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On 19 February 2014 20:22, Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
>>>>>> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if
>>>>>> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
>>>>>> "support" more languages. But what kind of support is this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
>>>>>> translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases
>>>>>> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
>>>>>> business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
>>>>>> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
>>>>>> note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
>>>>>> greater results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete. We
>>>>>> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
>>>>>> complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
>>>>>> translation. LO has only 13.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More recently posted on the blog by the author:
>>>>>
>>>>> "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
>>>>> am<
>>>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950
>>>>>
>>>>> Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office, I
>>>>> have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by that
>>>>> project."
>>>>>
>>>>> In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an impressive
>>>>> list of languages LO is claiming.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> :-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
>>>> When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
>>>> insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
>>>> meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
>>>> does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
>>>> we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
>>>> left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
>>>> acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
>>>> today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
>>>> tomorrows to come.
>>>>
>>>> Let's be as ruthlessly real uras possible. Money decisions, not
>>>> marketing lard, are at stake.
>>>>
>>>
>>> before we we get too far out on theoretical claims. It is true we and LO
>>> have different release policies and so be it.
>>>
>>> But has anyone looked at their po files, I just spent a couple of hours
>>> doing so, and reality is that they have many languages that are far more
>>> complete that ours (see https://translations.documentfoundation.org/)
>>>
>>
>> How closely did you look? We only put languages in Pootle where a
>> volunteer has requested them. LO has 20 translations that have never
>> been edited. Some are at 0% complete. Many more that have not been
>> touched in over a year.
>>
>> If you want apples-to-apples comparisons then you should look at the
>> ones we have in SVN:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/
>>
>> Both projects have their share of incomplete, neglected translations.
>> Nothing wrong with that. But comparing the one project's list of
>> active translations with another project's list of inactive ones is
>> not very fair.
>>
>
> Here's what I'd call a fair comparison. Use the criterion that OOo
> used for shipping a supported language -- 90% UI completion. By that
> criterion LO has 47 "complete" translations and AOO has 42. This is
> not a very large difference.
I like this it highlights how the two projects have differing priorities. If we lowered our bar and they raised theirs we are roughly equal.
Since Italo claims his comparison is with Microsoft then I wonder what % complete they require? I'd guess you would need an NDA to find that one out.
Regards,
DAve
>
> -Rob
>
>
>>> They also have the web site templates in pootle, very elegant, something I
>>> would like us to have.
>>>
>>
>> We've been doing this in SVN, via a website template. If we had
>> MDText support for Pootle we could do more.
>>
>>> If we claim they compare oranges and apples we should not start doing the
>>> same, at least not without having looked at the facts.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe we're not looking at the same facts?
>>
>>> So, yes maybe LO takes the statement to the limit, but that is called
>>> marketing, and in general accepted.
>>>
>>
>> Again, if you are not looking at the same facts and do not know that
>> you are not looking at the same facts then you have been deceived ,
>> not just subjected to marketing.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> And yes I am still very frustrated about the fact that translators have to
>>> translate the same text twice. THAT would be a good answer to the blog.
>>>
>>> rgds
>>> Jan Iversen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>> best
>>>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: More annoying FUD
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 19 February 2014 20:22, Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>>> >>
>>> >> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>>> >>
>>> >> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
>>> >> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if
>>> >> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
>>> >> "support" more languages. But what kind of support is this?
>>> >>
>>> >> A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated)
>>> >>
>>> >> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
>>> >> translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases
>>> >> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>>> >>
>>> >> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
>>> >> business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
>>> >> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
>>> >> note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
>>> >> greater results.
>>> >>
>>> >> Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete. We
>>> >> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>>> >>
>>> >> Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
>>> >> complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>>> >>
>>> >> Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
>>> >> translation. LO has only 13.
>>> >>
>>> >> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>>> >>
>>> >> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>>> >>
>>> >> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > More recently posted on the blog by the author:
>>> >
>>> > "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
>>> > am<
>>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950
>>> >
>>> > Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office, I
>>> > have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by that
>>> > project."
>>> >
>>> > In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an impressive
>>> > list of languages LO is claiming.
>>> >
>>>
>>> :-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
>>> When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
>>> insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
>>> meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
>>> does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
>>> we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
>>> left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
>>> acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
>>> today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
>>> tomorrows to come.
>>>
>>> Let's be as ruthlessly real uras possible. Money decisions, not
>>> marketing lard, are at stake.
>>>
>>
>> before we we get too far out on theoretical claims. It is true we and LO
>> have different release policies and so be it.
>>
>> But has anyone looked at their po files, I just spent a couple of hours
>> doing so, and reality is that they have many languages that are far more
>> complete that ours (see https://translations.documentfoundation.org/)
>>
>
> How closely did you look? We only put languages in Pootle where a
> volunteer has requested them. LO has 20 translations that have never
> been edited. Some are at 0% complete. Many more that have not been
> touched in over a year.
>
> If you want apples-to-apples comparisons then you should look at the
> ones we have in SVN:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/
>
> Both projects have their share of incomplete, neglected translations.
> Nothing wrong with that. But comparing the one project's list of
> active translations with another project's list of inactive ones is
> not very fair.
>
Here's what I'd call a fair comparison. Use the criterion that OOo
used for shipping a supported language -- 90% UI completion. By that
criterion LO has 47 "complete" translations and AOO has 42. This is
not a very large difference.
-Rob
>> They also have the web site templates in pootle, very elegant, something I
>> would like us to have.
>>
>
> We've been doing this in SVN, via a website template. If we had
> MDText support for Pootle we could do more.
>
>> If we claim they compare oranges and apples we should not start doing the
>> same, at least not without having looked at the facts.
>>
>
> Maybe we're not looking at the same facts?
>
>> So, yes maybe LO takes the statement to the limit, but that is called
>> marketing, and in general accepted.
>>
>
> Again, if you are not looking at the same facts and do not know that
> you are not looking at the same facts then you have been deceived ,
> not just subjected to marketing.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>> And yes I am still very frustrated about the fact that translators have to
>> translate the same text twice. THAT would be a good answer to the blog.
>>
>> rgds
>> Jan Iversen.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Don
>>>
>>> best
>>> 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: More annoying FUD
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 19 February 2014 20:22, Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>>
>> On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>> >>
>> >> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>> >>
>> >> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
>> >> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if
>> >> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
>> >> "support" more languages. But what kind of support is this?
>> >>
>> >> A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated)
>> >>
>> >> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
>> >> translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases
>> >> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>> >>
>> >> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
>> >> business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
>> >> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
>> >> note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
>> >> greater results.
>> >>
>> >> Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete. We
>> >> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>> >>
>> >> Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
>> >> complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>> >>
>> >> Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
>> >> translation. LO has only 13.
>> >>
>> >> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>> >>
>> >> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>> >>
>> >> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
>> >
>> >
>> > More recently posted on the blog by the author:
>> >
>> > "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
>> > am<
>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950
>> >
>> > Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office, I
>> > have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by that
>> > project."
>> >
>> > In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an impressive
>> > list of languages LO is claiming.
>> >
>>
>> :-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
>> When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
>> insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
>> meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
>> does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
>> we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
>> left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
>> acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
>> today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
>> tomorrows to come.
>>
>> Let's be as ruthlessly real uras possible. Money decisions, not
>> marketing lard, are at stake.
>>
>
> before we we get too far out on theoretical claims. It is true we and LO
> have different release policies and so be it.
>
> But has anyone looked at their po files, I just spent a couple of hours
> doing so, and reality is that they have many languages that are far more
> complete that ours (see https://translations.documentfoundation.org/)
>
How closely did you look? We only put languages in Pootle where a
volunteer has requested them. LO has 20 translations that have never
been edited. Some are at 0% complete. Many more that have not been
touched in over a year.
If you want apples-to-apples comparisons then you should look at the
ones we have in SVN:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/
Both projects have their share of incomplete, neglected translations.
Nothing wrong with that. But comparing the one project's list of
active translations with another project's list of inactive ones is
not very fair.
> They also have the web site templates in pootle, very elegant, something I
> would like us to have.
>
We've been doing this in SVN, via a website template. If we had
MDText support for Pootle we could do more.
> If we claim they compare oranges and apples we should not start doing the
> same, at least not without having looked at the facts.
>
Maybe we're not looking at the same facts?
> So, yes maybe LO takes the statement to the limit, but that is called
> marketing, and in general accepted.
>
Again, if you are not looking at the same facts and do not know that
you are not looking at the same facts then you have been deceived ,
not just subjected to marketing.
Regards,
-Rob
> And yes I am still very frustrated about the fact that translators have to
> translate the same text twice. THAT would be a good answer to the blog.
>
> rgds
> Jan Iversen.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> > Don
>>
>> best
>> 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: More annoying FUD
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 19 February 2014 20:22, Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>wrote:
> hi,
>
>
> On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
> >>
> >> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
> >>
> >> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
> >> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if
> >> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
> >> "support" more languages. But what kind of support is this?
> >>
> >> A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated)
> >>
> >> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
> >> translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases
> >> 15% complete UI translations ?!
> >>
> >> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
> >> business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
> >> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
> >> note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
> >> greater results.
> >>
> >> Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete. We
> >> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
> >>
> >> Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
> >> complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%.
> >>
> >> Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
> >> translation. LO has only 13.
> >>
> >> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
> >>
> >> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
> >>
> >> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
> >
> >
> > More recently posted on the blog by the author:
> >
> > "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
> > am<
> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950
> >
> > Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office, I
> > have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by that
> > project."
> >
> > In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an impressive
> > list of languages LO is claiming.
> >
>
> :-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
> When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
> insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
> meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
> does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
> we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
> left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
> acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
> today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
> tomorrows to come.
>
> Let's be as ruthlessly real uras possible. Money decisions, not
> marketing lard, are at stake.
>
before we we get too far out on theoretical claims. It is true we and LO
have different release policies and so be it.
But has anyone looked at their po files, I just spent a couple of hours
doing so, and reality is that they have many languages that are far more
complete that ours (see https://translations.documentfoundation.org/)
They also have the web site templates in pootle, very elegant, something I
would like us to have.
If we claim they compare oranges and apples we should not start doing the
same, at least not without having looked at the facts.
So, yes maybe LO takes the statement to the limit, but that is called
marketing, and in general accepted.
And yes I am still very frustrated about the fact that translators have to
translate the same text twice. THAT would be a good answer to the blog.
rgds
Jan Iversen.
>
>
> > Don
>
> best
> louis
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: More annoying FUD
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
hi,
On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>>
>> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>>
>> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
>> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if
>> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
>> "support" more languages. But what kind of support is this?
>>
>> A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated)
>>
>> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
>> translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases
>> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>>
>> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
>> business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
>> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
>> note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
>> greater results.
>>
>> Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete. We
>> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>>
>> Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
>> complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>>
>> Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
>> translation. LO has only 13.
>>
>> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>>
>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>>
>> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
>
>
> More recently posted on the blog by the author:
>
> "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
> am<http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950>
> Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office, I
> have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by that
> project."
>
> In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an impressive
> list of languages LO is claiming.
>
:-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
tomorrows to come.
Let's be as ruthlessly real as possible. Money decisions, not
marketing lard, are at stake.
> Don
best
louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: More annoying FUD
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>>
>> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>>
>> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
>> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if
>> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
>> "support" more languages. But what kind of support is this?
>>
>> A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated)
>>
>> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
>> translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases
>> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>>
>> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
>> business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
>> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
>> note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
>> greater results.
>>
>> Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete. We
>> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>>
>> Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
>> complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>>
>> Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
>> translation. LO has only 13.
>>
>> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>>
>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>>
>> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
>
>
> More recently posted on the blog by the author:
>
> "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
> am<http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950>
> Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office, I
> have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by that
> project."
>
> In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an impressive
> list of languages LO is claiming.
>
The point that we also have an impressive list of incomplete
translations as well:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/
The main difference is that we don't release incomplete translations,
while LO does.
-Rob
> Don
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: More annoying FUD
Posted by Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>
> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>
> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if
> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
> "support" more languages. But what kind of support is this?
>
> A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated)
>
> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
> translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases
> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>
> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
> business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
> note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
> greater results.
>
> Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete. We
> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>
> Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
> complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>
> Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
> translation. LO has only 13.
>
> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>
> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>
> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
More recently posted on the blog by the author:
"italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
am<http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950>
Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office, I
have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by that
project."
In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an impressive
list of languages LO is claiming.
Don
Re: More annoying FUD
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:09 AM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 18 February 2014 18:34, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
> >
> > Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
> >
> > If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
> > counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if
> > you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
> > "support" more languages. But what kind of support is this?
> >
> > A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated)
> >
> > I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
> > translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases
> > 15% complete UI translations ?!
> >
> > Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
> > business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
> > comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
> > note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
> > greater results.
> >
> > Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete. We
> > have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
> >
> > Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
> > complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%.
> >
> > Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
> > translation. LO has only 13.
> >
> > Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
> >
> > https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
> >
> > https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
> >
>
> We could also turn around at start releasing less than 100%, I got
> frustratrated with some of the releases where danish have been around 96%,
> and the missing bit was the scripting language.
>
Maybe our criteria needs another round of discussion?
>
> If should be quite simple to group the release in 100% and less than 100%
> so users are warned.
>
> It should be noted when we say 100% it is the UI, it does not include the
> help system.
>
I did not know this! I thought the translations included the help system.
>
> But apart from that, I agree the blog is unfair and compare to give an
> advantage instead of being fair (I think that is called marketing).
>
> rgds
> jan I.
>
We could definitely use a rebuttal blog -- maybe something like
"The localization strategies of Apache OpenOffice -- maximizing user
usability "
whether the FUD of this thread is referenced or not
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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: More annoying FUD
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 18 February 2014 18:34, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>
> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>
> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if
> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
> "support" more languages. But what kind of support is this?
>
> A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated)
>
> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
> translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases
> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>
> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
> business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
> note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
> greater results.
>
> Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete. We
> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>
> Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
> complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>
> Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
> translation. LO has only 13.
>
> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>
> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>
> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
>
We could also turn around at start releasing less than 100%, I got
frustratrated with some of the releases where danish have been around 96%,
and the missing bit was the scripting language.
If should be quite simple to group the release in 100% and less than 100%
so users are warned.
It should be noted when we say 100% it is the UI, it does not include the
help system.
But apart from that, I agree the blog is unfair and compare to give an
advantage instead of being fair (I think that is called marketing).
rgds
jan I.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: More annoying FUD
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
On 2014-02-18, at 13:39, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>
> The standard "Help Translate Apache OpenOffice" page
> https://openoffice.apache.org/translate.html
> is probably too fair to be sexy, but it explains well the situation in OpenOffice:
> ---
> A list of complete, released, translations available in the most recent release of Apache OpenOffice can be found at
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html
>
> A larger list of languages, including ones where translation work is still ongoing, can be found at
> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>
> while the full list of available translations, including incomplete and dormant ones, is available at
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/
> ---
> (the latter is between 110 and 120)
>
> I know people who say they can speak a bit German just because they can count to ten in German... Yes, knowing, or supporting, a language is a matter of definition in the end.
>
> Just to put something useful in this thread, I would support the idea to make incomplete translations available in some way. This is helpful to the community. It will eventually come with genLang, but building a snapshot with all the 110+ languages (which is annoying to do with the current process, I know) would help in getting volunteers involved, as validated (but it was still an easy guess) by talking to booth visitors at FOSDEM.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
I presume or hope that the above and then more from Rob and others is to find its way into our blog?
And I can point journalists to it.
It's not that I'm "tired" of the endless FUD from Italo—he apparently has little else to do or give meaning to his retirement—but that I'm depressed that the crop of tech journalists have not wised up. But then, they are getting wizened: most that rereport this crap have been doing this sort of meta-stenography now for over a decade. The new journals don't bother with this sort of thing.
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: More annoying FUD
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 02/18/2014 07:39 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>
> The standard "Help Translate Apache OpenOffice" page
> https://openoffice.apache.org/translate.html
> is probably too fair to be sexy, but it explains well the situation in
> OpenOffice:
> ---
> A list of complete, released, translations available in the most recent
> release of Apache OpenOffice can be found at
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html
>
> A larger list of languages, including ones where translation work is
> still ongoing, can be found at
> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>
> while the full list of available translations, including incomplete and
> dormant ones, is available at
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/
> ---
> (the latter is between 110 and 120)
>
> I know people who say they can speak a bit German just because they can
> count to ten in German... Yes, knowing, or supporting, a language is a
> matter of definition in the end.
>
> Just to put something useful in this thread, I would support the idea to
> make incomplete translations available in some way. This is helpful to
> the community. It will eventually come with genLang, but building a
> snapshot with all the 110+ languages (which is annoying to do with the
> current process, I know) would help in getting volunteers involved, as
> validated (but it was still an easy guess) by talking to booth visitors
> at FOSDEM.
yes, if the build system and effort could support the building of so
many more languages I would support that wish, too.
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: More annoying FUD
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
The standard "Help Translate Apache OpenOffice" page
https://openoffice.apache.org/translate.html
is probably too fair to be sexy, but it explains well the situation in
OpenOffice:
---
A list of complete, released, translations available in the most recent
release of Apache OpenOffice can be found at
http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html
A larger list of languages, including ones where translation work is
still ongoing, can be found at
https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
while the full list of available translations, including incomplete and
dormant ones, is available at
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/
---
(the latter is between 110 and 120)
I know people who say they can speak a bit German just because they can
count to ten in German... Yes, knowing, or supporting, a language is a
matter of definition in the end.
Just to put something useful in this thread, I would support the idea to
make incomplete translations available in some way. This is helpful to
the community. It will eventually come with genLang, but building a
snapshot with all the 110+ languages (which is annoying to do with the
current process, I know) would help in getting volunteers involved, as
validated (but it was still an easy guess) by talking to booth visitors
at FOSDEM.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: More annoying FUD
Posted by David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com>.
On 18 February 2014 22:30, Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand numbers on the table.
> For example, Dzongkha.
> Where does the number, 171,300, come from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzongkha says 171,000 native speakers as
of 2006, sourced from Ethnologue.
- d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: More annoying FUD
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Rob and all,
Heavy snow hit Japan. How about your places?
http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
I don't understand numbers on the table.
For example, Dzongkha.
Where does the number, 171,300, come from?
Thanks,
khirano
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>
> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>
> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if
> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
> "support" more languages. But what kind of support is this?
>
> A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated)
>
> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
> translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases
> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>
> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
> business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
> note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
> greater results.
>
> Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete. We
> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>
> Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
> complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>
> Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
> translation. LO has only 13.
>
> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>
> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>
> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
khirano@apache.org
Apache OpenOffice
http://openoffice.apache.org
Re: More annoying FUD
Posted by Fernando Cassia <fc...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
> business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
> note it.
LIARS, that's the word.
FC
--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un
Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: More annoying FUD
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Thanks a lot for your investigations. It shows that both projects have a
different view point of what an apple is and looks like.
Marcus
Am 02/18/2014 06:34 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>
> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>
> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated. So yes, if
> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
> "support" more languages. But what kind of support is this?
>
> A specific example: Tartar (15% UI translated)
>
> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
> translation. With AOO we made the requirement be 100%. LO releases
> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>
> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria. That is their
> business (and their users) not ours. But when they make false
> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
> note it. It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
> greater results.
>
> Another example: They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete. We
> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>
> Another example: Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
> complete. Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>
> Another example: We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
> translation. LO has only 13.
>
> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>
> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>
> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org