There are enough offices around. There is no point in starting from the scratch without any plan or vision.
Imho looking for Companies & Investors is the route Libre is moving. I don't think doing the same is smart. I would rather prefer the opposite direction and focus on community building. And that is something we can do without any programmer skills. We can claim that we are not bound today to anyone. The structure of Apache makes sure of that, I think this is something we differ a lot from TDF and we should utilize. Also I think we should try to do a bit of old school Open Source. No market focus for devs, rather go for the tech thingy. I think we have to much competition on our minds. We have something that is a challenge to master. Especially our bugs. I think there are developers out there that are fed up with the way open source works today. Had a colleague talked on Friday, who told me exactly that. I stay with him in touch now. Who knows maybe he joins someday. (No promises) I think if you take a look at today's capability of c++ it is an awesome language. Our problem is not the language but we use different ones. I am personally impressed by other languages too. But the more different languages I use the more I am convinced that the language used does not matter. The concept, architecture and tooling does. We need more helpers that simplify work, development wise. I also suggest to not trying to fix one bug, but by solving a bug and uplift our code. All the best Peter Am 21. Mai 2017 05:48:00 MESZ schrieb Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>: >On 5/20/2017 2:11 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >... >> We have way too many users to abandon the 4.x branch completely. We >> do need to handle security issues. >> >> If we want start a rewrite for a 5.x then we will need to map the >> functionality particularly in Calc. We will also need to pick a more >> modern language compared to C++. We now have an XML schema which can >> help us generate code. We did this for Java in Apache POI. The ODF >> Toolkit is also still in the Incubator and it could be of use. >> >> I think we should all think about it a little and then have a series >> of video conferences reporting back to the community with a synopsis >> step by step. > >I can see a case for creating a new project to build a modern office >suite from scratch, if there are enough interested people to make it >viable. > >I strongly disagree with calling it "OpenOffice" or assigning it an >OpenOffice version number, for the following reasons: > >1. Doing so would create an expectation of compatibility that would >limit the options for the new suite. > >2. Depending on how quickly the new suite is developed, and, after >release, its download rate relative to OpenOffice, we may want to >produce an actual OpenOffice 5.x. Using "OpenOffice 5.x" for the new >suite would limit the actual OpenOffice to 4.y, no matter how large y >gets, or how long demand for OpenOffice continues. > >3. If you look at what I wrote above, using "OpenOffice" for the new >suite makes it very difficult to write clearly about the differences >between it and the current OpenOffice line. > >I suggest that the people interested in writing new office suite should >pick a project name and either create an incubator podling or, if there >are enough members involved, create a new top level project. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
