On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Inge Wallin <i...@lysator.liu.se> wrote: > On Friday, January 18, 2013 15:21:01 Ian Lynch wrote: >> On 18 January 2013 13:18, Fernando Cassia <fcas...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Ian Lynch <ianrly...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> What we really need is a cloud version of AOO like Google Docs. >> > >> > We don´t *need* ONE thing. That´s the beauty of open source, ´we´ >> > could do *several* things. >> >> Well yes, but it is more efficient to do one thing that covers many >> needs rather than try and do many things with not enough resource. >> >> > I for one don´t ´need´ an AJAX / HTML5 version of AOO... GDocs is fine... >> >> A lot of people would say yes but GDocs is not open source. >> Some people would say MS Office is fine and others would say Koffice. >> Question is whether or not we want a long term sustainable project for >> the community or one that will get more and more marginalised. > > As a side note: While I am happy that KOffice is mentioned now and then on > this list, I think it would be proper to mention the Calligra Suite instead. > KOffice is not being developed any more while Calligra is running full speed > ahead. >
Hi Inge, Thanks for the reminder. Getting people to recognize a name change takes time, and repetition. We still see on a daily basis people expressing surprise to learn that OpenOffice is now at Apache. Are you planning to be at the KDE conference in July in Bilbao? It might good to have someone from AOO attend. Aside from the obvious common interest in ODF, it would be interesting to see if there are any other opportunities for collaboration. Regards, -Rob > -Inge > > > >> > I personally think browser based apps are a pig, and doing apps in >> > JScript is insane. I had Chrome open the other day just with GMail and >> > it was using over 150 MB of RAM... >> >> Not really a big problem with modern multi-gig computers (including >> future mobile technologies). Less of a problem than stuff that only >> works on one device or needs a lot of effort to port across >> multi-devices, operating systems etc. To me open standards are worth >> paying a bit of a price for in terms of machine resources since the >> latter continue to grow and get less expensive. >> >> > A thin client virtualized version on the other hand would use the PC´s >> > CPU and horsepower and deliver great speed to even to lowest powered >> > devices. >> >> Assuming you have someone to host it for you. O a global scale that is >> not trivial to do which is probably why Google with all its resources >> does what it does. >> >> > But of course, that´s going in a different direction from the current >> > fad.... >> >> Swimming against global trends is not a sensible idea when you have >> very limited resources and very little time. >> >> > FC
