For your consideration
in [Linux Help]
|
From: Jim on 19 Nov 2009 00:02 Dan C wrote: > 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. |