3 ms·

OpenOffice had only 8 commits by 4 authors vs LibreOffice's 4,434 commits by 106 authors in the last month See my above comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/i

OpenOffice had only 8 commits by 4 authors vs LibreOffice's 4,434 commits by 106 authors in the last month See my above comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10078640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10078640

mindcrime 11y ago
How many commits AOO had, versus how many LO had, is irrelevant vis-a-vis the statement "OpenOffice is dead". Nobody is contending that LO isn't the more active project.
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  With IBM's developers no longer working on OpenOffice, the contention by many is that AOO development is all but dead due to the fact that there aren't enough active development hours going into the project to even maintain the existing codebase (fix high-level crash bugs and critical security issues) let alone make progress on any new features or standard bug fixes. The extremely low volume of commits in AOO seems to match up with that contention. The comparison to LibreOffice is relevant as it is a comparison of a healthy open source project with multiple contributors to one which is said to be dying. LibreOffice has more commits on an average weekday than AOO has had in all of 2015.
- davidgerard 11y ago
  The trouble is that they've already ceased their developer activity. That’s the entire point of Schaller's post. Look at what they're doing. They are serving up a Windows installer that is known to have a serious vulnerability: anyone can send an exploit in a HWP document with a .doc file extension, and an AOO user opening it will be pwned. The AOO "devs" know this is the case. Everyone downloading AOO 4.1.1 between April 2015 and August 2015, they have done them actual harm and installed a vulnerability on their machine. The fix is trivial: repackage the Windows installer minus one file. Instead of doing that one simple thing, they're posting excuses for not doing it. (If the answer is something like “well, Apache procedures make it difficult to just rerelease an installer minus one file”, then this would not be evidence in their favour - it would be evidence that the AOO bureaucracy actively hampers the interests of users and is not fit for purpose, and that Schaller's blog post is entirely correct.) You can’t expect people to take seriously claims that the project is not dead when they're actively harming their users by serving them software with a serious vulnerability for the past four months, and spending their time making excuses instead of fixing it.

mindcrime 11y ago

How many commits AOO had, versus how many LO had, is irrelevant vis-a-vis the statement "OpenOffice is dead". Nobody is contending that LO isn't the more active project.

JohnTHaller 11y ago
With IBM's developers no longer working on OpenOffice, the contention by many is that AOO development is all but dead due to the fact that there aren't enough active development hours going into the project to even maintain the existing codebase (fix high-level crash bugs and critical security issues) let alone make progress on any new features or standard bug fixes. The extremely low volume of commits in AOO seems to match up with that contention. The comparison to LibreOffice is relevant as it is a comparison of a healthy open source project with multiple contributors to one which is said to be dying. LibreOffice has more commits on an average weekday than AOO has had in all of 2015.
davidgerard 11y ago
The trouble is that they've already ceased their developer activity. That’s the entire point of Schaller's post. Look at what they're doing. They are serving up a Windows installer that is known to have a serious vulnerability: anyone can send an exploit in a HWP document with a .doc file extension, and an AOO user opening it will be pwned. The AOO "devs" know this is the case. Everyone downloading AOO 4.1.1 between April 2015 and August 2015, they have done them actual harm and installed a vulnerability on their machine. The fix is trivial: repackage the Windows installer minus one file. Instead of doing that one simple thing, they're posting excuses for not doing it. (If the answer is something like “well, Apache procedures make it difficult to just rerelease an installer minus one file”, then this would not be evidence in their favour - it would be evidence that the AOO bureaucracy actively hampers the interests of users and is not fit for purpose, and that Schaller's blog post is entirely correct.) You can’t expect people to take seriously claims that the project is not dead when they're actively harming their users by serving them software with a serious vulnerability for the past four months, and spending their time making excuses instead of fixing it.