This actually misses some, namely the "your order is out for delivery" email which precedes the "your order is delivered one". And some places might split up the delivery into parts so you get even more despite being delivered together (in some cases in the same box!).
Worse is if they require a phone number then text you each and every step as well as email you. Some places you can "opt out" of texting but then the next order will just repeat the process.
All I want is an order confirmed email, and an order shipped email with the tracking number. I get maybe some people want a "delivered" email but I don't even want that, I'll see it, it can sit there an hour it's ok; if it's something really important I'll be looking at the tracking anyhow.
And while I'm complaining, it sure would be great to get rid of the syrupy language some use: "Get excited!!! Your order is being packed!!!!" Yes, I am glad I will receive a bunch of paper towels, but it is, I can assure you, not exciting.
P.S. edit: I just got two emails a few minutes ago (both for the same single order) stating that my order was on the way and would arrive... in twenty minutes. Which I think is a new one, I don't think I've gotten an "your order is less than half hour away" email before.
Most don't spam texts, but those that do I've switched out. And yeah, I should probably use a fake number so whoever has Jenny's number in my area code doesn't get messages about how a toilet tank gasket is being delivered from Home Depot to my house...
I disagree, it wasn't about consumers, but rather other businesses. The walled garden approach Nintendo took in America was needed to convince retailers to stock video games on store shelves again. And of course the Famicom didn't have that same approach, and while Nintendo hated the fact third parties could easily make Famicom carts, the open nature of the system certainly didn't hurt it in Japan.
I wish this was more clearly written. Maybe I missed something, and I guess this is supposing the reader already has a lot of background, but there are several points that confused me.
"At the time, nobody could imagine that the companies that had supported OpenOffice.org until then would create a project to kill LibreOffice."
Did they mean... to kill OpenOffice? Or had supported LibreOffice would want to create a project to kill it later? Because that fact that companies who had previously supported OpenOffice then switched to LibreOffice doesn't strike me as odd, given the situation with Oracle back then. Also, what is the "project" that is trying to kill LibreOffice?
I am not clear on how the Board of Directors differs from The Document Foundation (are they just the Board of Directors of The Document Foundation then?).
What is "TDC"? It is not even clear what that stands for, nor what this "parallel organization" was supposed to do and how it differed from The Document Foundation. And if "the plan to transfer many of TDF’s tasks and assets" to "TDC" didn't happen back in 2020, why is it being brought up here? But then the next paragraph talks about the transfer so it did happen the year before? But then was terminated? Again though, I don't get why it matters now except maybe that some people were upset by that move over five years ago.
"This attempt resulted in permanent damage to relations between the project’s components, and especially between certain BoD members and the team."
Who is "the team"? The Document Foundation?
"After years of discussions marked by accusations and finger-pointing, during which no real progress was made in resolving the legal issues, the authorities requested an audit..."
Who are "the authorities" requesting the audit?
A "third audit" was mentioned, but it is unclear if the one audit mentioned above in the post was that third one or one of the previous ones (describing these and when they happened would have helped).
I still have no clue as to what Collabora's relationship was and is to The Document Foundation.
They apologize for the need for this post, but I don't really understand why. I get the idea that, given their non-profit nature, there were issues, but making those more clear seems laudable (even if I don't think the post especially helped in doing so).
IBM has created Apache OpenOffice to kill LibreOffice. The Document Foundation has a Board of Directors. The TDC project damaged the relations between companies and community. The Document Foundation has a team. The authorities are the German authorities overseeing not for profit foundations. The third audit in 2025 was after the first audit in 2023 and the second audit in 2024. Collabora is a LibreOffice ecosystem company. All of the above has been explained at lengths in the project's blog, chats and mailing lists.
Thank for the clarification, but it all should really be in that post if your goal is to try to persuade people of your argument (and "put an end to the speculation" about what happened), since people who don't know the background will have no clue where to find that info. At the very least links to those earlier posts are needed. And I say this as someone who uses LibreOffice daily both for work and my personal uses, someone who really hopes LibreOffice will succeed. Hopefully all this works out.
"explained at lengths" ... do we need to care to read all of that when someone "summarised" it for us in poorely written post?
Also - correct me pls if I'm wrong – but I recall it was Oracle that gave OpenOffice to Apache foundation after its acquisition of Sun.
If these people kill LibreOffice, someone at MS Office365 will cork a champagne ... What a cluster!
At the time, Oracle wanted to completely drop OpenOffice.org, but there was a contract with IBM which could use the source code to produce their proprietary Symphony office suite. Because of this contact, Oracle was not able to drop OOo and had to follow IBM's request to give the source code to ASF to create Apache OpenOffice. IBM openly declared the intention to kill LibreOffice during a call with The Document Foundation Steering Committee on April 30, 2011. I was in the call, and I regret I did not record the call.
The situation is incredibly complex, and explaining it in full would need a book. The blog post is clear enough for the prople who have followed LibreOffice as a project, while other people have to do some research to understand all the details.
Yeah, Fastmail's aliases are great. I used to do things described by some other commenters, like myemail+nameofservice@ and whatnot, but this way the email is automatically generated and you don't have to put any thought into it.
As an outsider it's pretty opaque to me. I think the Document Foundation (handling LibreOffice) wanted to (re)release an online office suite that seems to compete with Collabora, which sells one. But the biggest contributors to LibreOffice are Collabora employees. I thought maybe they feared Collabora taking over the org, but it looks like there are formal legal disputes between the two, I think (see the post from the LibreOffice side https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2026/04/01/comment-...).
And of course when legal issues are involved everyone is being very vague. I just hope it doesn't hurt LibreOffice's development too badly.
I have a feeling that the Open Document Foundation is going to end up being the loser here. Collabora is the entity that can fund development with a commercial offering. It sounds like they employ the core contributors to the project as well.
Regardless of who "wins," I'm just here to say that I like OnlyOffice a lot better and switched away from LibreOffice. I like that it just looks more like a modern program and overall feels less clunky.
OnlyOffice is not really open source. They say they are but they also add impossible conditions to their license. (you are forced to use their logo, but you are also not allowed to use their logo.)
Make sure to backup regularly. I don't know how good OnlyOffice is these days, but it definitely has (had?) a terrible history of quality control. We migrated off it a couple of years ago after losing several days of work due to severe (and, as it turned out, widely known) bugs in how it handled changes/document version tracking.
I only work with local files and I’m really not doing anything mission critical. Employer has the Microsoft office license. I just need a free thing to open the occasional thing.
I never get the fear behind extensions, at least not to the level where you wouldn't use an open-source extension that's extremely well vetted. And even if that isn't good enough for you, choosing to browse the web without using a content blocker is a far, far greater security risk.
> If you choose to root, then I believe its not considered to be "GrapheneOS" any longer and assistance will not be provided for issues you face
Getting no support would suck. Obviously it's a FOSS OS, so it would be community support for the most part, but it's still invaluable when you run into issues.
"And most importantly, it reinforces a simple but urgent truth: In the world of OT, security is no longer optional. It is foundational."
reply