171–180 of 269 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like the ASF lost any claim to inherently support good governance with OOo.
Can’t good-governance your way out of a stinker project.
But we can add the current Open Office debacle to the cumulating data points indicating that after decades of both wins and failures FOSS has cumulated both battle scars and lots of dead wood. The dead wood may just be ignored or relegated to fertilizer but it might also destroy the forest in a wildfire.
Developing an open source "office suite" that is ready for the next decade of ubiquitous ML/AI is a highly non-trivial task and LibreOffice is not exactly trailblazing the way. It will take proactive, smart and effective collaboration by many actors to achieve this.
Apache is somehow very partial to Java OSS projects (56.5% seems to be the current count - probably some underlying network effects at work) so its relevance and impact follows that of the Java ecosystem. Which is not dying but it is not creating waves of excitement either. But we can add the current Open Office debacle to the cumulating data points indicating that after decades of both wins and failures FOSS has cum…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems that “younger generation” programmers underestimate the value of governance in OSS. The recent Terraform kerluffle couldn’t have happened if Terraform was in the ASF, etc.
> value of governance in OSS You are assuming that a strict and stable governance model is good for OSS. But often it is the least stable projects with lots of hostile forks and huge mailing list arguments which turn out to be the most successful projects. Strict and stable governance model is perhaps dull and turns away contributors who feel they will never get to the top of such a stable project with long timelines…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems that “younger generation” programmers underestimate the value of governance in OSS. The recent Terraform kerluffle couldn’t have happened if Terraform was in the ASF, etc.
> value of governance in OSS You are assuming that a strict and stable governance model is good for OSS. But often it is the least stable projects with lots of hostile forks and huge mailing list arguments which turn out to be the most successful projects. Strict and stable governance model is perhaps dull and turns away contributors who feel they will never get to the top of such a stable project with long timelines…
> "Ask bob on discord and he'll give you commit access to the repo"
and:
> "First you need to fill out the CLA and send 3 pull requests before you can then apply for committer access at the bi-monthly steering group committee. Present your case in an email to them at least 28 days beforehand, and make sure an existing committer seconds it"
While it is true that OpenOffice didn't get major updates for nearly a decade, it does what it's supposed to do, and is pretty stable. I still use it as it's faster than LibreOffice and I'm used to it. And why spam Apache to deprecate OO? It's not like OO is doing any harm for Apache or its users, one can install LibreOffice instead if they want it.
> It's not like OO is doing any harm for Apache or its users The problem is that it is doing harm to its users, in the form of unaddressed security vulnerabilities.
For instructions on how you can report an actual security issue: https://openoffice.apache.org/security
We do wish to know about security problems. We are an all volunteer project. AFAIK No one is paid anything to work on Apache OpenOffice
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We are seeing dozens of database companies turn their OSS into basically proprietary shared code licenses. And we seem to still pretend its "open source" "open source" here is working as intended. the thing is, "open source" is misunderstood by many (most?) individuals. "open source" was explicitly created by Eric Raymond and others in the late 90ies because the Free Software movement was seen as too extremistic by…
Well, sort of. Open source was just a different name to describe free software, with the purpose of emphasizing the collaboration benefits this gives the business rather than the freedom it gives users. But this "business source" stuff is a different thing which is not open source at all.
If that was true that would have been just some marketing campaign.
There would have been no need to divert the attention from the free software foundation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, sort of. Open source was just a different name to describe free software, with the purpose of emphasizing the collaboration benefits this gives the business rather than the freedom it gives users. But this "business source" stuff is a different thing which is not open source at all.
Not just different names but different licenses.
Apache is somehow very partial to Java OSS projects (56.5% seems to be the current count - probably some underlying network effects at work) so its relevance and impact follows that of the Java ecosystem. Which is not dying but it is not creating waves of excitement either. But we can add the current Open Office debacle to the cumulating data points indicating that after decades of both wins and failures FOSS has cum…
LibreOffice is indeed trailblazing. I am not sure why a productivity suite have to be ML/AI powered tho.
In order to continue being relevant?
Functions like search and spell checking are already basic forms of ML/AI. A productivity suite should enable users to benefit from ever more powerful algorithms that, ahem, enhance productivity :-)