For your consideration
Dr. Deb
For those of you interested in an alternative to OpenOffice, you might take
a look at IBM's latest offering.
http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.nsf/products
Deb
Davorin Vlahovic
symphony _IS_ openoffice.
--
Reality is why I can never have nice things.
Dan C
> [Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:27:16 -0600] Dr. Deb je napisao/la:
>>
>> For those of you interested in an alternative to OpenOffice, you might
>> take a look at IBM's latest offering.
>>
>> http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.nsf/products
>
> symphony _IS_ openoffice.
Ummmmmmm..... No.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he garotted another passing Liberal.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Davorin Vlahovic
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:23:26 +0000, Davorin Vlahovic wrote:
>
>> [Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:27:16 -0600] Dr. Deb je napisao/la:
>>>
>>> For those of you interested in an alternative to OpenOffice, you might
>>> take a look at IBM's latest offering.
>>>
>>> http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.nsf/products
>>
>> symphony _IS_ openoffice.
>
> Ummmmmmm..... No.
Ummmmmmm..... Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Lotus_Symphony
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/22326.wss
http://www.prweb.com/releases/openoffice.org/IBM/prweb552157.htm
Dan C
Ummmmmm.... No, again.
Did you even bother to read the links you posted?
You clearly are confusing "Open Document Format" with OpenOffice.org.
Also, IBM joined the OO.org organization, and "uses the OO.org technology
in their products". There are other members of the OO.org organization
too. The OO.org office suite is owned by Sun Microsystems, which is not
part of IBM, or vice versa.
Bottom line is that Symphony and OpenOffice are *NOT* the same product.
It's really that simple.
<SPANK>
Davorin Vlahovic
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Lotus_Symphony
>> http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/22326.wss
>>
>> http://www.prweb.com/releases/openoffice.org/IBM/prweb552157.htm
>
> Ummmmmm.... No, again.
>
> Did you even bother to read the links you posted?
>
> You clearly are confusing "Open Document Format" with OpenOffice.org.
No.
> Also, IBM joined the OO.org organization, and "uses the OO.org technology
> in their products". There are other members of the OO.org organization
> too. The OO.org office suite is owned by Sun Microsystems, which is not
> part of IBM, or vice versa.
>
> Bottom line is that Symphony and OpenOffice are *NOT* the same product.
> It's really that simple.
>
><SPANK>
No, they are not the same product; Symphony is forked Openoffice with IBMs
interface and rebranded.
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/entdev/article.php/3703501
"The strengths of IBM Lotus Symphony are also its weaknesses. Based on the
OpenOffice.org source code, on the one hand, the beta of this newly released
office application offers a much needed revision of the interface. On the
other hand, too much of this revision takes the form of leaving out features,
and the changes are accompanied by high hardware demands. This trade off
means that what you think of Symphony will very likely depend on your own
level of expertise with office applications -- and probably your computer's
specs as well."
"IBM's recently announced embrace of the OpenOffice.org productivity suite
project has already borne fruit, with the beta release of IBM's free Lotus
Symphony. Does the new word processor, spreadsheet and presentation trio have
what it takes to put the Lot"
Dan C
I said:
>> Bottom line is that Symphony and OpenOffice are *NOT* the same product.
>> It's really that simple.
In a previous post in this thread, you said:
> symphony _IS_ openoffice.
Now, in your most recent post, you say:
> No, they are not the same product; Symphony is forked Openoffice with
> IBMs interface and rebranded.
Looks like I win this debate, eh?
Thanks for playing, though.
Davorin Vlahovic
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:42:55 +0000, Davorin Vlahovic wrote:
>
> I said:
>
>>> Bottom line is that Symphony and OpenOffice are *NOT* the same product.
>>> It's really that simple.
>
> In a previous post in this thread, you said:
>
>> symphony _IS_ openoffice.
>
> Now, in your most recent post, you say:
>
>> No, they are not the same product; Symphony is forked Openoffice with
>> IBMs interface and rebranded.
>
> Looks like I win this debate, eh?
What's so difficult to understand? Is Iceweasel not rebranded Firefox with
different icons and a different name? Openoffice vs. Symphony is the same
thing.
Dan C
Well, the game's already over, and you lost. But since you insist on
making yourself look foolish *again*, I'll oblige you.
Right there above you claim Symphony is a *FORK* of OpenOffice. Now you
are claiming that it is the same thing, only "rebranded". Those two
things (fork, rebrand) are *NOT* the same. Which story do you want to go
with? Do you just choose whichever one helps you make your (incorrect)
point?
You lose, again. I suggest you just give it up.
Davorin Vlahovic
>> What's so difficult to understand? Is Iceweasel not rebranded Firefox
>> with different icons and a different name? Openoffice vs. Symphony is
>> the same thing.
>
> Well, the game's already over, and you lost.
What game? Are you some kind of sociopath?
> But since you insist on
> making yourself look foolish *again*, I'll oblige you.
>
> Right there above you claim Symphony is a *FORK* of OpenOffice.
Yes, it's OpenOffice with IBM's user interface.
> Now you
> are claiming that it is the same thing, only "rebranded". Those two
> things (fork, rebrand) are *NOT* the same.
Why would it be incompatible? It's a fork (IBM makes it's changes to
OpenOffice code) and gives the changes back to OpenOffice (if needed, wanted,
etc. They're obliged to by the licence). Therefore, it's the same codebase,
but with different default options compiled (interface) and under a different
name.
> Which story do you want to go
> with? Do you just choose whichever one helps you make your (incorrect)
> point?
>
> You lose, again. I suggest you just give it up.
I suggest you get a clue.
Jim
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:06:37 +0000, Davorin Vlahovic wrote:
>
>> [13 Nov 2009 02:08:54 GMT] Dan C je napisao/la:
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:42:55 +0000, Davorin Vlahovic wrote:
>>>
>>> I said:
>>>
>>>>> Bottom line is that Symphony and OpenOffice are *NOT* the same
>>>>> product. It's really that simple.
>>> In a previous post in this thread, you said:
>>>
>>>> symphony _IS_ openoffice.
>>> Now, in your most recent post, you say:
>>>
>>>> No, they are not the same product; Symphony is forked Openoffice with
>>>> IBMs interface and rebranded.
>>> Looks like I win this debate, eh?
>> What's so difficult to understand? Is Iceweasel not rebranded Firefox
>> with different icons and a different name? Openoffice vs. Symphony is
>> the same thing.
>
> Well, the game's already over, and you lost. But since you insist on
> making yourself look foolish *again*, I'll oblige you.
>
> Right there above you claim Symphony is a *FORK* of OpenOffice. Now you
> are claiming that it is the same thing, only "rebranded". Those two
> things (fork, rebrand) are *NOT* the same. Which story do you want to go
> with? Do you just choose whichever one helps you make your (incorrect)
> point?
>
> You lose, again. I suggest you just give it up.
>
>
Symphony is built from the OpenOffice codebase. The orginaly offering of
Symphony was built on one of the Version 1.x of OpenOffice. if I recall
correctly the latest version is built on version 2.x both having anIBM
built frontend for them.