Re:So what's this I hear about AbiWord?
by
Romen
·
· Score: 3
Miguel,
Evan's article was flamebait, and didn't include all the facts available at the time. However, you really aren't the best person to speak about GNOME's relationship to AbiWord, given your statements about Abi in this LinuxPlanet article:
http://www.linuxplanet.c om/ linuxplanet/opinions/2310/1/ where you say
<quote>AbiWord, yeah. It's fairly larval.</quote>
Needless to say, this sort of thing, combined with the statements coming out of Sun at the time, didn't inspire confidence in us AbiWord developers that we were even on your radar screen (despite being on your web page). Sam TH
for a gnome? I mean... nader ain't that bad, bush will probably get it, and it doesn't really matter in the long run... BUT A GNOME?!?! Who would vote for one? They're just building decorations for pete's sake!!! er... well... I guess you have point there in comparison to the candidates... oh wait... we're talking about software aren't we?
----
So what's this I hear about AbiWord?
by
bmetz
·
· Score: 5
(I apologize if this looks like a troll article; I'm genuinely interested to hear what people have to say about this, since it did bother me)
LWN highlighted an article that I'm surprised didn't get posted to slashdot:
What's the story on that? From the sound of it, the "GNOME Good 'ol Boys" have already made up their mind about some key GNOME decisions, so why are we even bothering pretending this is gonna be a democratic process? I'm confused about how the role of the GNOME Foundation mixes with the private core developer mailing list mentioned in this article.
-- What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
Re:So what's this I hear about AbiWord?
by
miguel
·
· Score: 5
The reporter you quote there chose to "selectively" quote Dom, and "selectively" quote Havoc.
Although both wanted to convey a different story, the reporter chose to push forward his own agenda. You can mail Dom and ask him, and you can mail Havoc and ask him.
You can read the archives of the gnome-office-list where the discussion and a complete explanation can be found:
What an amazingly biased and sexist statement! Let me get this straight - you're recommending we vote for a candidate purely on the basis of their gender? That is absolutely the worst way of deciding who to appoint. You didn't mention what qualifications this woman has, or why she would be a better choice than any of the other candidates. Have the last hunderd years of the Women's Rights movement not taught you that it should be ability that matters, not gender? How very disappointing.
Miguel,
Evan's article was flamebait, and didn't include all the facts available at the time. However, you really aren't the best person to speak about GNOME's relationship to AbiWord, given your statements about Abi in this LinuxPlanet article:
http://www.linuxplanet.c om/ linuxplanet/opinions/2310/1/
where you say
<quote>AbiWord, yeah. It's fairly larval.</quote>
Needless to say, this sort of thing, combined with the statements coming out of Sun at the time, didn't inspire confidence in us AbiWord developers that we were even on your radar screen (despite being on your web page).
Sam TH
Sam TH
AbiWord Developer
Are they sure they got the list right?
These people are all a little too tall to be Gnomes.
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
----
LWN highlighted an article that I'm surprised didn't get posted to slashdot:
http://www. zdn et.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2644950,00. html
What's the story on that? From the sound of it, the "GNOME Good 'ol Boys" have already made up their mind about some key GNOME decisions, so why are we even bothering pretending this is gonna be a democratic process? I'm confused about how the role of the GNOME Foundation mixes with the private core developer mailing list mentioned in this article.
What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
What an amazingly biased and sexist statement! Let me get this straight - you're recommending we vote for a candidate purely on the basis of their gender? That is absolutely the worst way of deciding who to appoint. You didn't mention what qualifications this woman has, or why she would be a better choice than any of the other candidates. Have the last hunderd years of the Women's Rights movement not taught you that it should be ability that matters, not gender? How very disappointing.