You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Dave Barton <bm...@apache.org> on 2012/05/27 08:57:44 UTC
Incorrect Information About AOO 3.4
FileHippo.com is a very popular download site for free software and for
many years they have been offering OOo binaries for download. They are
now offering
Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe from this
page: http://www.filehippo.com/download_openoffice/
While this is good for user awareness of our first release, some of the
information on that download page is incorrect and in one part totally
misleading:
<Q>
... And it's free
Best of all, OpenOffice.org can be downloaded and used entirely free of
any licence fees. OpenOffice.org is released under the LGPL licence.
This means you may use it for any purpose - domestic, commercial,
educational, public administration.
Note: As of April 2011, commercial development of OpenOffice.org project
has been terminated. LibreOffice, a fork of OpenOffice is now available
for download here.
</Q>
Last week I contacted FileHippo.com requesting changes to that page,
even offering to rewrite the page with the correct information, but have
not yet received any response. Unfortunately, the only means of
contacting them, that I can find, is via a web form:
http://www.filehippo.com/info/contact/ It may encourage the FileHippo
website maintainers to update the information about our software if
other project members were to also contact them requesting this change.
Dave
Re: Incorrect Information About AOO 3.4
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Sun, 2012-05-27 at 08:16 -0400, drew wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-05-27 at 13:23 +0200, Guy Waterval wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> > Hi all,
> >
> > 2012/5/27 Dave Barton <bm...@apache.org>
> >
> > > FileHippo.com is a very popular download site for free software and for
> > > many years they have been offering OOo binaries for download. They are
> > > now offering
> > > Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe from this
> > > page: http://www.filehippo.com/download_openoffice/
> > >
> > > While this is good for user awareness of our first release, some of the
> > > information on that download page is incorrect and in one part totally
> > > misleading:
> > >
> >
> > There are other problems of this type, for instance, the fr webpage of the
> > AOO project :
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/fr/
> >
> > You will see a link "Boutique OpenOffice.org", pointing to the fr OOo.org
> > former store, now in the hands of LibO : http://enventelibre.org/la-mouette.
> > You can buy there old articles about OOo.org (remaining stocks) gently
> > mixed with the new ones (LibO). They sell also articles for some other
> > linked associations :
> >
> > -
> >
> > April : TDF Supporters : http://www.documentfoundation.org/supporters/
> > -
> >
> > Framasoft, which writes great articles about OO.org :
> > http://www.framasoft.net/article472.html
> >
> > In this case, the issue is not these associations themselves, which have
> > the right to have their own opinion. The issue is, for me, the AOO project
> > itself, which not controlls seriously its external communication.
> >
> > After several (public and private) requests inviting to be careful with
> > some links present on the fr website, nothing has changed up to now. For
> > me, these things are not to be minimized. I have nothing against a certain
> > communication with the concurrent project, but if we will avoid some battle
> > in the future, the best way is perhaps to be more careful with our external
> > communication.
> >
> > Of course, this represents only my personal opinion, and has not to be
> > interpreted as a direct attack or any perverse insinuation against the
> > person who has in the hands the keys of the fr website.
>
> Ah yes, the seagull - I thought that was what this was all about.
>
> None hold keys to anything here. Your friend Eric could of edited that
> web page any time he wanted.
>
> You could do so, just by following the steps to get permission.
>
> I could - shall I - shall I just go remove the box on the right, with
> the 4 links you seem to find so objectionable?
Done - also removed graphic being delivered up from la-mouette site.
>
> //drew
>
>
Re: Incorrect Information About AOO 3.4
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Sun, 2012-05-27 at 13:23 +0200, Guy Waterval wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> Hi all,
>
> 2012/5/27 Dave Barton <bm...@apache.org>
>
> > FileHippo.com is a very popular download site for free software and for
> > many years they have been offering OOo binaries for download. They are
> > now offering
> > Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe from this
> > page: http://www.filehippo.com/download_openoffice/
> >
> > While this is good for user awareness of our first release, some of the
> > information on that download page is incorrect and in one part totally
> > misleading:
> >
>
> There are other problems of this type, for instance, the fr webpage of the
> AOO project :
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/fr/
>
> You will see a link "Boutique OpenOffice.org", pointing to the fr OOo.org
> former store, now in the hands of LibO : http://enventelibre.org/la-mouette.
> You can buy there old articles about OOo.org (remaining stocks) gently
> mixed with the new ones (LibO). They sell also articles for some other
> linked associations :
>
> -
>
> April : TDF Supporters : http://www.documentfoundation.org/supporters/
> -
>
> Framasoft, which writes great articles about OO.org :
> http://www.framasoft.net/article472.html
>
> In this case, the issue is not these associations themselves, which have
> the right to have their own opinion. The issue is, for me, the AOO project
> itself, which not controlls seriously its external communication.
>
> After several (public and private) requests inviting to be careful with
> some links present on the fr website, nothing has changed up to now. For
> me, these things are not to be minimized. I have nothing against a certain
> communication with the concurrent project, but if we will avoid some battle
> in the future, the best way is perhaps to be more careful with our external
> communication.
>
> Of course, this represents only my personal opinion, and has not to be
> interpreted as a direct attack or any perverse insinuation against the
> person who has in the hands the keys of the fr website.
Ah yes, the seagull - I thought that was what this was all about.
None hold keys to anything here. Your friend Eric could of edited that
web page any time he wanted.
You could do so, just by following the steps to get permission.
I could - shall I - shall I just go remove the box on the right, with
the 4 links you seem to find so objectionable?
//drew
Re: Incorrect Information About AOO 3.4
Posted by Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com>.
In the Apache Solr project, we have put up a Wiki page where companies/persons offering support/training/consulting/addons may add themselves. Very low cost, and it works. http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Support And if someone checks all the links in that list say every year, then dead entries may be pruned...
--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.facebook.com/Cominvent
Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com
On 27. mai 2012, at 18:19, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:54 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2012-05-27 at 10:22 -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>> Bah.. Drew got ahead of me :-P.
>>>
>>> Guy, perhaps you can help us clean this old database?
>>>
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/fr/Marketing/entreprises.html#france
>>>
>>> just let me know what to drop, I feel like grinding my axe today ;).
>>
>> Cool - I love a sharp axe, brings out the Norsk in me.
>>
>> I believe it would be best then to simply remove the page.
>>
>> 1 - better then trying to pick winners and losers, friend and foe, in
>> the commercial world.
>>
>> 2 - ASF projects, from what I gather, do not do end user marketing or
>> business development, just code. It is the apache way IMO and feel
>> strongly now that this project should be no different.
>>
>
> There is a difference between the project doing business development
> and the project helping users find relevant resources to help them be
> more productive with OpenOffice.
>
> In other words, the opposite of "picking winners and losers, friend
> and foe, in the commercial world" is not necessarily to pretend the
> commercial world does not exist. The opposite is to acknowledge that
> it exists, that it can be useful, but to have proper disclaimers that
> the user is informed that these are 3rd parties, not endorsed by the
> project.
>
> That said, I look at this old consultant lists, and think of them
> similar to the old CD distribution site. They are outdated and likely
> to confuse users more than help them. Better to take them down now,
> but continue the conversation on whether and how we might have such a
> list in the future. My mind is not made up on that yet. But I'm
> tending to think that any consultant who actually has a business
> related to OpenOffice should be easy to find via Google using obvious
> keywords.
>
>> Same for the other NL sites, yes I've looked at a bunch...There is a lot
>> to remove from the education pages also, lots of links to outside
>> organizations, dead email list links and the like.
>>
>> Shall we start the culling then - and let the chips fall where they may?
>>
>
> I did this a while ago, but I can repeat. It is easy enough to scan
> the ooo-site directory for openoffice.org email addresses. Since
> these are all dead now, this would give a list of occurrences of dead
> email addresses.
>
> There are "dead link" checkers we can run on the entire website, if we
> want, that will also report on dead internal links and will spider
> across ooo-site, wiki, forums, issues, everything in openoffice.org
> domain.
>
> Also, and this is less resource intensive: I can provide a list of
> links that Google reports as dead on the website, based on their
> scanning. They don't check email addresses, however, but only
> http/https URL's.
>
> -Rob
>
>>>
>>> Pedro.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/27/12 06:23, Guy Waterval wrote:
>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> 2012/5/27 Dave Barton<bm...@apache.org>
>>>>
>>>>> FileHippo.com is a very popular download site for free software and for
>>>>> many years they have been offering OOo binaries for download. They are
>>>>> now offering
>>>>> Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe from this
>>>>> page: http://www.filehippo.com/download_openoffice/
>>>>>
>>>>> While this is good for user awareness of our first release, some of the
>>>>> information on that download page is incorrect and in one part totally
>>>>> misleading:
>>>>>
>>>> There are other problems of this type, for instance, the fr webpage of the
>>>> AOO project :
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/fr/
>>>>
>>>> You will see a link "Boutique OpenOffice.org", pointing to the fr OOo.org
>>>> former store, now in the hands of LibO : http://enventelibre.org/la-mouette.
>>>> You can buy there old articles about OOo.org (remaining stocks) gently
>>>> mixed with the new ones (LibO). They sell also articles for some other
>>>> linked associations :
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> April : TDF Supporters : http://www.documentfoundation.org/supporters/
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> Framasoft, which writes great articles about OO.org :
>>>> http://www.framasoft.net/article472.html
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the issue is not these associations themselves, which have
>>>> the right to have their own opinion. The issue is, for me, the AOO project
>>>> itself, which not controlls seriously its external communication.
>>>>
>>>> After several (public and private) requests inviting to be careful with
>>>> some links present on the fr website, nothing has changed up to now. For
>>>> me, these things are not to be minimized. I have nothing against a certain
>>>> communication with the concurrent project, but if we will avoid some battle
>>>> in the future, the best way is perhaps to be more careful with our external
>>>> communication.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, this represents only my personal opinion, and has not to be
>>>> interpreted as a direct attack or any perverse insinuation against the
>>>> person who has in the hands the keys of the fr website.
>>>>
>>>> A+
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Incorrect Information About AOO 3.4
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:54 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-05-27 at 10:22 -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> Bah.. Drew got ahead of me :-P.
>>
>> Guy, perhaps you can help us clean this old database?
>>
>> http://www.openoffice.org/fr/Marketing/entreprises.html#france
>>
>> just let me know what to drop, I feel like grinding my axe today ;).
>
> Cool - I love a sharp axe, brings out the Norsk in me.
>
> I believe it would be best then to simply remove the page.
>
> 1 - better then trying to pick winners and losers, friend and foe, in
> the commercial world.
>
> 2 - ASF projects, from what I gather, do not do end user marketing or
> business development, just code. It is the apache way IMO and feel
> strongly now that this project should be no different.
>
There is a difference between the project doing business development
and the project helping users find relevant resources to help them be
more productive with OpenOffice.
In other words, the opposite of "picking winners and losers, friend
and foe, in the commercial world" is not necessarily to pretend the
commercial world does not exist. The opposite is to acknowledge that
it exists, that it can be useful, but to have proper disclaimers that
the user is informed that these are 3rd parties, not endorsed by the
project.
That said, I look at this old consultant lists, and think of them
similar to the old CD distribution site. They are outdated and likely
to confuse users more than help them. Better to take them down now,
but continue the conversation on whether and how we might have such a
list in the future. My mind is not made up on that yet. But I'm
tending to think that any consultant who actually has a business
related to OpenOffice should be easy to find via Google using obvious
keywords.
> Same for the other NL sites, yes I've looked at a bunch...There is a lot
> to remove from the education pages also, lots of links to outside
> organizations, dead email list links and the like.
>
> Shall we start the culling then - and let the chips fall where they may?
>
I did this a while ago, but I can repeat. It is easy enough to scan
the ooo-site directory for openoffice.org email addresses. Since
these are all dead now, this would give a list of occurrences of dead
email addresses.
There are "dead link" checkers we can run on the entire website, if we
want, that will also report on dead internal links and will spider
across ooo-site, wiki, forums, issues, everything in openoffice.org
domain.
Also, and this is less resource intensive: I can provide a list of
links that Google reports as dead on the website, based on their
scanning. They don't check email addresses, however, but only
http/https URL's.
-Rob
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>>
>> On 05/27/12 06:23, Guy Waterval wrote:
>> > Hi Dave,
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > 2012/5/27 Dave Barton<bm...@apache.org>
>> >
>> >> FileHippo.com is a very popular download site for free software and for
>> >> many years they have been offering OOo binaries for download. They are
>> >> now offering
>> >> Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe from this
>> >> page: http://www.filehippo.com/download_openoffice/
>> >>
>> >> While this is good for user awareness of our first release, some of the
>> >> information on that download page is incorrect and in one part totally
>> >> misleading:
>> >>
>> > There are other problems of this type, for instance, the fr webpage of the
>> > AOO project :
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/fr/
>> >
>> > You will see a link "Boutique OpenOffice.org", pointing to the fr OOo.org
>> > former store, now in the hands of LibO : http://enventelibre.org/la-mouette.
>> > You can buy there old articles about OOo.org (remaining stocks) gently
>> > mixed with the new ones (LibO). They sell also articles for some other
>> > linked associations :
>> >
>> > -
>> >
>> > April : TDF Supporters : http://www.documentfoundation.org/supporters/
>> > -
>> >
>> > Framasoft, which writes great articles about OO.org :
>> > http://www.framasoft.net/article472.html
>> >
>> > In this case, the issue is not these associations themselves, which have
>> > the right to have their own opinion. The issue is, for me, the AOO project
>> > itself, which not controlls seriously its external communication.
>> >
>> > After several (public and private) requests inviting to be careful with
>> > some links present on the fr website, nothing has changed up to now. For
>> > me, these things are not to be minimized. I have nothing against a certain
>> > communication with the concurrent project, but if we will avoid some battle
>> > in the future, the best way is perhaps to be more careful with our external
>> > communication.
>> >
>> > Of course, this represents only my personal opinion, and has not to be
>> > interpreted as a direct attack or any perverse insinuation against the
>> > person who has in the hands the keys of the fr website.
>> >
>> > A+
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Incorrect Information About AOO 3.4
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Sun, 2012-05-27 at 10:22 -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Bah.. Drew got ahead of me :-P.
>
> Guy, perhaps you can help us clean this old database?
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/fr/Marketing/entreprises.html#france
>
> just let me know what to drop, I feel like grinding my axe today ;).
Cool - I love a sharp axe, brings out the Norsk in me.
I believe it would be best then to simply remove the page.
1 - better then trying to pick winners and losers, friend and foe, in
the commercial world.
2 - ASF projects, from what I gather, do not do end user marketing or
business development, just code. It is the apache way IMO and feel
strongly now that this project should be no different.
Same for the other NL sites, yes I've looked at a bunch...There is a lot
to remove from the education pages also, lots of links to outside
organizations, dead email list links and the like.
Shall we start the culling then - and let the chips fall where they may?
>
> Pedro.
>
>
> On 05/27/12 06:23, Guy Waterval wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> > Hi all,
> >
> > 2012/5/27 Dave Barton<bm...@apache.org>
> >
> >> FileHippo.com is a very popular download site for free software and for
> >> many years they have been offering OOo binaries for download. They are
> >> now offering
> >> Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe from this
> >> page: http://www.filehippo.com/download_openoffice/
> >>
> >> While this is good for user awareness of our first release, some of the
> >> information on that download page is incorrect and in one part totally
> >> misleading:
> >>
> > There are other problems of this type, for instance, the fr webpage of the
> > AOO project :
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/fr/
> >
> > You will see a link "Boutique OpenOffice.org", pointing to the fr OOo.org
> > former store, now in the hands of LibO : http://enventelibre.org/la-mouette.
> > You can buy there old articles about OOo.org (remaining stocks) gently
> > mixed with the new ones (LibO). They sell also articles for some other
> > linked associations :
> >
> > -
> >
> > April : TDF Supporters : http://www.documentfoundation.org/supporters/
> > -
> >
> > Framasoft, which writes great articles about OO.org :
> > http://www.framasoft.net/article472.html
> >
> > In this case, the issue is not these associations themselves, which have
> > the right to have their own opinion. The issue is, for me, the AOO project
> > itself, which not controlls seriously its external communication.
> >
> > After several (public and private) requests inviting to be careful with
> > some links present on the fr website, nothing has changed up to now. For
> > me, these things are not to be minimized. I have nothing against a certain
> > communication with the concurrent project, but if we will avoid some battle
> > in the future, the best way is perhaps to be more careful with our external
> > communication.
> >
> > Of course, this represents only my personal opinion, and has not to be
> > interpreted as a direct attack or any perverse insinuation against the
> > person who has in the hands the keys of the fr website.
> >
> > A+
> >
>
>
Re: Incorrect Information About AOO 3.4
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Bah.. Drew got ahead of me :-P.
Guy, perhaps you can help us clean this old database?
http://www.openoffice.org/fr/Marketing/entreprises.html#france
just let me know what to drop, I feel like grinding my axe today ;).
Pedro.
On 05/27/12 06:23, Guy Waterval wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> Hi all,
>
> 2012/5/27 Dave Barton<bm...@apache.org>
>
>> FileHippo.com is a very popular download site for free software and for
>> many years they have been offering OOo binaries for download. They are
>> now offering
>> Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe from this
>> page: http://www.filehippo.com/download_openoffice/
>>
>> While this is good for user awareness of our first release, some of the
>> information on that download page is incorrect and in one part totally
>> misleading:
>>
> There are other problems of this type, for instance, the fr webpage of the
> AOO project :
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/fr/
>
> You will see a link "Boutique OpenOffice.org", pointing to the fr OOo.org
> former store, now in the hands of LibO : http://enventelibre.org/la-mouette.
> You can buy there old articles about OOo.org (remaining stocks) gently
> mixed with the new ones (LibO). They sell also articles for some other
> linked associations :
>
> -
>
> April : TDF Supporters : http://www.documentfoundation.org/supporters/
> -
>
> Framasoft, which writes great articles about OO.org :
> http://www.framasoft.net/article472.html
>
> In this case, the issue is not these associations themselves, which have
> the right to have their own opinion. The issue is, for me, the AOO project
> itself, which not controlls seriously its external communication.
>
> After several (public and private) requests inviting to be careful with
> some links present on the fr website, nothing has changed up to now. For
> me, these things are not to be minimized. I have nothing against a certain
> communication with the concurrent project, but if we will avoid some battle
> in the future, the best way is perhaps to be more careful with our external
> communication.
>
> Of course, this represents only my personal opinion, and has not to be
> interpreted as a direct attack or any perverse insinuation against the
> person who has in the hands the keys of the fr website.
>
> A+
>
Re: Incorrect Information About AOO 3.4
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Dom 27/5/12, Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> There are other problems of this type, for instance, the fr
> webpage of the
> AOO project :
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/fr/
>
> You will see a link "Boutique OpenOffice.org", pointing to
> the fr OOo.org former store, now in the hands of LibO : http://enventelibre.org/la-mouette.
> You can buy there old articles about OOo.org (remaining
> stocks) gently mixed with the new ones (LibO). They
> sell also articles for some other
> linked associations :
>
I can't find it. Maybe someone got ahead and removed it but
if it's still there please show me exactly where and I will
remove it.
Pedro.
Re: Incorrect Information About AOO 3.4
Posted by Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dave,
Hi all,
2012/5/27 Dave Barton <bm...@apache.org>
> FileHippo.com is a very popular download site for free software and for
> many years they have been offering OOo binaries for download. They are
> now offering
> Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe from this
> page: http://www.filehippo.com/download_openoffice/
>
> While this is good for user awareness of our first release, some of the
> information on that download page is incorrect and in one part totally
> misleading:
>
There are other problems of this type, for instance, the fr webpage of the
AOO project :
http://www.openoffice.org/fr/
You will see a link "Boutique OpenOffice.org", pointing to the fr OOo.org
former store, now in the hands of LibO : http://enventelibre.org/la-mouette.
You can buy there old articles about OOo.org (remaining stocks) gently
mixed with the new ones (LibO). They sell also articles for some other
linked associations :
-
April : TDF Supporters : http://www.documentfoundation.org/supporters/
-
Framasoft, which writes great articles about OO.org :
http://www.framasoft.net/article472.html
In this case, the issue is not these associations themselves, which have
the right to have their own opinion. The issue is, for me, the AOO project
itself, which not controlls seriously its external communication.
After several (public and private) requests inviting to be careful with
some links present on the fr website, nothing has changed up to now. For
me, these things are not to be minimized. I have nothing against a certain
communication with the concurrent project, but if we will avoid some battle
in the future, the best way is perhaps to be more careful with our external
communication.
Of course, this represents only my personal opinion, and has not to be
interpreted as a direct attack or any perverse insinuation against the
person who has in the hands the keys of the fr website.
A+
--
gw
>
>