Linked by Kroc Camen on Wed 1st Jun 2011 19:22 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Thread beginning with comment 475551
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Isn't libreoffice being somewhat silly here ...
by ebasconp on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 02:11
in reply to "RE: Isn't libreoffice being somewhat silly here ..."
RE[3]: Isn't libreoffice being somewhat silly here ...
by umccullough on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 04:14
in reply to "RE[2]: Isn't libreoffice being somewhat silly here ..."
Two communities developing two almost exactly identical pieces of software instead of just one; makes both communities weaker and makes progress slower.
[Citation Needed]
But seriously.. I don't think that's necessarily true. I think that's a notion that people come up with because it makes them angry that there are two "competing" projects.
With proper source control, sharing patches between the projects could be a no-brainer.
Time and again, it's been proven that competition is healthy.
Edited 2011-06-02 04:15 UTC
RE[3]: Isn't libreoffice being somewhat silly here ...
by twitterfire on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 09:19
in reply to "RE[2]: Isn't libreoffice being somewhat silly here ..."
Two communities developing two almost exactly identical pieces of software instead of just one; makes both communities weaker and makes progress slower.
That's usual in GNU/Linux/FOSS world.
How many widget toolkits are there? How many desktop environments? How many distros? How many pieces of software that do the same thing? People like for sure reinventing the wheel.





Member since:
2006-01-26
Why would they need to merge back?
There's nothing inherently wrong with a fork.