Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #13309

Re: An annoying state of affairs

From "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Newsgroups alt.comp.software.firefox
Subject Re: An annoying state of affairs
Date 2025-05-04 15:02 +0200
Message-ID <745kelxf3c.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> (permalink)
References (7 earlier) <vv4goo$30838$1@dont-email.me> <vv4h7d$32fp9$1@dont-email.me> <vv4j58$30837$1@dont-email.me> <vv65f1$hbpd$1@dont-email.me> <1u8atsbfit2nr$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>

Show all headers | View raw


On 2025-05-04 02:18, VanguardLH wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Now do you see why embedded-code-based word processors like WordPerfect
>> and WordStar have been consigned to the museum?
> 
> No software lasts forever.  Yeah, Wordstar got abandoned.  So did
> OpenOffice which got dumped at ASF (Apache Software Foundation) to have
> a fork of it take off, but LibreOffice will also die one day.  Every OS
> will eventually die, too.  Eventually your choices of OS and programs
> will end up consigned to a museum, too.
> 
> Your example of Wordstar is a product introduced 47 years ago, and
> lasted 14 years to then get abandoned.  OpenOffice started 23 years ago,
> and got dumped into ASF 14 years ago. LibreOffice is 14 years old, so
> it's lifespan is longer than was OpenOffice, but not even close to MS
> Word at 41 years.  MS-DOS lasted 19 years.

LibreOffice is just a fork, a name change. It was previously named 
OpenOffice, and before that, StarOffice.

So arguably LO goes back to 1985.


> 
> In the realm of computer technology, permanence is an illusion.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

Back to alt.comp.software.firefox | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

An annoying state of affairs Dnews <dnews@triffid.co.uk> - 2025-04-30 20:33 +0100
  Re: An annoying state of affairs "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-04-30 15:39 -0400
  Re: An annoying state of affairs jjb <jjb@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-30 22:09 +0200
    Re: An annoying state of affairs candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-05-01 16:00 +0000
  Re: An annoying state of affairs Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-30 17:22 -0400
    Re: An annoying state of affairs "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-04-30 17:23 -0700
      Re: An annoying state of affairs NFN Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com> - 2025-05-01 12:56 -0700
    Re: An annoying state of affairs "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 15:00 +0200
  Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-30 19:57 -0500
    Re: An annoying state of affairs The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-05-04 09:50 -0700
  Re: An annoying state of affairs NFN Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com> - 2025-05-01 12:48 -0700
    Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-01 22:33 +0000
      Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-01 18:47 -0500
        Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 08:00 +0000
          Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-02 05:02 -0500
            Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 00:39 +0000
              Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-03 01:51 -0500
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 07:43 +0000
                Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-03 10:44 -0500
              Re: An annoying state of affairs Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-03 08:31 +0100
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 07:39 +0000
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-03 09:12 +0100
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 22:30 +0000
                Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-03 19:18 -0500
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 02:07 +0000
                Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-03 22:48 -0500
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 06:40 +0000
                Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-04 05:28 -0500
                Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-04 05:32 -0500
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 23:56 +0000
                Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-04 21:43 -0500
                Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-04 21:58 -0500
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-06 22:42 +0000
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-05 07:26 +0000
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-05 07:28 +0000
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 21:41 +0000
                Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-04 17:33 -0500
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 23:20 +0000
                Re: An annoying state of affairs "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 15:02 +0200
                Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-04 12:44 -0500
                Re: An annoying state of affairs "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 20:11 +0200
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 21:36 +0000
                Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-04 17:34 -0500
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 23:20 +0000
                Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-04 21:48 -0500
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-05 07:29 +0000
                Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-05 05:11 -0500
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-06 22:44 +0000
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2025-05-07 08:58 -0700
                Re: An annoying state of affairs VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-03 10:53 -0500
                Re: An annoying state of affairs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 22:33 +0000
    Re: An annoying state of affairs Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-02 17:36 +0000
      Re: An annoying state of affairs sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-05-02 14:32 -0500
        Re: An annoying state of affairs "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-05-02 17:08 -0400
  Re: An annoying state of affairs Dnews <dnews@triffid.co.uk> - 2025-05-04 07:17 +0100
    Re: An annoying state of affairs Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2025-05-04 07:59 +0100
    Re: An annoying state of affairs Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-05-04 08:20 -0400

csiph-web