-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:50:33 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:23:37 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> IBM Joins OpenOffice.org Community
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| The OpenOffice.org community today announced that IBM will be joining the
>>| community to collaborate on the development of OpenOffice.org software. IBM
>>| will be making initial code contributions that it has been developing as part
>>| of its Lotus Notes product, including accessibility enhancements, and will be
>>| making ongoing contributions to the feature richness and code quality of
>>| OpenOffice.org.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.prweb.com/releases/openoffice.org/IBM/prweb552157.htm
>
> The first thing that comes to mind here is "IBM can't get ODF support to
> work correctly in it's products, so it's forced to re-engineer it's
> solutions to be based on OpenOffice"
>
> That may or may not be true, but that's the impression I get. IBM has
> several office suite code bases. Why would it add OpenOffice to it's
> already confused offerings? The only possible explanation I can think of
> is IBM deciding to co-opt OOo and use it as a basis for it's future
> products. And the only reason to do that is because they can't get their
> existing products to do what they want.
Or because they think OO is a better product that their existing apps,
and that it makes more sense to use that as a base than what they
allready have. They've done that before, and it worked well for them.
That sounds a lot more likely to me than your interpretation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFG5dtkd90bcYOAWPYRApwzAJ9Z6ksTZmp7rfRjijCumrhb25B7CgCeLdfb
+nEkuZqMi5WRQe+hiiuL8P4=
=QzTy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If you can tell the difference between good advice and bad advice,
you probably don't need advice.
|
|
