[Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Alexander Thurgood
<alex.thurgood at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Norbert,
>
> Le 08/12/10 15:41, Norbert Thiebaud a écrit :
>
>> Seriously ? What kind of noise ? (I hate to imagine the kind of work
>> environment where the mere existence of such eggs would be cause for
>> any concern, or even - for that matter - cause for any attention at
>> all... at least nothing above the casual discussion about last night
>> sport's game)
>>
>
>
> AFAIK, the French administrations had serious qualms about Easter Eggs
> in the OOo software.

ahh... the 'French Administration'.... yes, I can see how that could
be indeed a central pre-occupation, since productivity is such highly
regarded in these circle....
on the other hand, I'd like to think that our 'deputés' and
'gendarmes' are distracted by the easter eggs... while they are doing
that they are less likely of doing the rest of us harm.... :-)

> I don't know about others. Perhaps Sophie can
> confirm / deny whether that issue was raised. It is unfortunate, because
> personally, I liked them :-)

More seriously

The 'bloat' argument to remove them doesn't seems very serious.
Considering the numbers crunched by Michael and discussion on that
subject from a couple of months ago, it seems that these 'eggs' are at
least 2 order of magnitudes below the multi-meg 'license' bloat.

And the 'security' argument doesn't far any better. There is no
rational reason to think that these pieces of code are more or less
likely that the rest of the code to be the target of a
backdoor-insertion plot.

So keep-them or remove-them... I have no particular attachment (heck I
did not even know they existed until very recently) but there is no
point making up straw-men to push the issue.

Norbert

>
>
> Alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> LibreOffice mailing list
> LibreOffice at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
>