Eric,
Sorry to talk from an end-user perspective only, and sorry if I sound a
little harsh, but I can't help giving an opinion on that particular
issue.
Reading lists in Japanese, French and English, the only thing I can see
is that end users are extremely satisfied by the the work achieved by
the NeoOffice team to bring OOo to par with other native (or close) OSX
applications.
What Oscar says about "tinkering" is right for Windows users and even
more so for OSX users. Especially so for people who are used to work
with MS Office (X and especially 2004) since 2004 is even considered to
be a better product than Office 2003 for Windows.
Office suite users on OSX are _not_ going to play with X11, they are
_not_ going to fiddle with the system to get their fonts properly
displayed, they are _not_ going to install other character input
systems etc etc.... Anything that does not _work_ as well as MS Office
is not an option (and I don't even talk about compatibility issues).
_Unless_ they come from a unix background, in which case, they are used
to the X11 world and, for some, even wonder what the hell is about all
the Aqua stuff anyway.
Considering the X11 version, it also happens that OOo is stuck at level
1.1.2 on the official download site.
Why do you think OSX end users would have to accept the fact that OOo
is at 1.1.4 on Windows, Linux etc but not on their platform ?
NeoOffice is the only FOSS "flavor" of OOo that gives them access to
1.1.4.
You talk about "wrapping NO/J around OOo" and you even use "steal".
1) My (non programmer) understanding is that there is no "wrapping
around OOo". if putting OOo on Java instead of X11 is about something
it is certainly not about "wrapping". If you want to see wrapping you
can: The Gimp. The Gimp uses X11 but looks like it does not. NeoOffice
does not work like this. There is ample documentation on the NeoOffice
site to explain that (and even the non programmer that I am can read
and understand that...)
2) if porting means something, it is definitely about functionality _as
well as_ look and feel. Do the Windows guys have to deal with a totally
foreign interface where they need to fiddle with the system to have an
approximate Windows app look and feel ? The answer is : NO (well maybe
they have, but that's a Windows problem, not an OOo one). Why refuse
that to OSX users ?
3) "steal" in a FOSS context is not a relevant concept. The only grudge
there seem to be here is that the NO code is GPLed _and_ that it is
(mostly) GUI centered.
Well, if there is a problem with GPL, the people you have to complain
to are the guys at Sun who let OOo on a license that could be mixed
with GPL. But it happens that the OOo license also allows for closed
code if I am not wrong.
So what is really wrong ? Have your code _stolen_ by proprietary forks
who _are_ competing with your work ?
Or have your code completed by FOSS forks who are spreading your work ?
I remember Eric Bachard telling me one day in an angry mail (that was
the first time I mentioned NO on the French lists) that _anybody_ could
do GUI work but that the priority was on porting etc etc.
Well, the fact is that _nobody_ is working on non-X11-Aqua interface
issues right now _besides_ for the NO guys. And _their_ work is not
even close to be complete since the hardest has yet to come (see their
page).
Maybe people on OOo porting don't care about GUI issues but why should
they be pissed about people who care ? This does not make much sense.
In a volunteer group there are a whole bunch of different people and
just as many different ways to work toward a commonly perceived goal.
If the OOo/OSX porting group wants to focus on _porting_, it is only
normal that _within the rules set by the OOo license_ other people
focus on _other parts of the efforts_.
Or maybe you all feel frustrated because NO is doing all the
(literally) "good looking" stuff while you are working in the shadows
trying to fix this and that ?
Well, then, there is one simple solution: -1) get 1.1.4 to work on OSX
-2) stop the 2.0 porting effort and focus on removing the X11
dependancies -3) release a real OOo for OSX. OSX users won't mind
working with 1.1.4 for one more year or even more if what they have is
a real OSX application.
It seems to me this 2.0 porting thing is a little over the top anyway.
There seem to be about half a dozen people who, until very recently
anyway, were not exactly coordinated, who tried to fix stuff here and
there without a real clear idea of who was doing what etc. Focus seems
to be on OOobeta/Tiger when 1.1.2/Panther is the norm...
But the fact remains that 1.1.4 is not offered as a possible download
for OSX ! Talk about priorities ! If the OSX port is so hard to
accomplish, why not leave your personal desires for 2.0 "updateness"
aside and get 1-2 people to start working on X11 "independence" ?
If the only thing OOo is able to deliver on OSX is an obsolete port
working in a non user friendly environment (and requiring third party
products in some linguistic contexts) , chances are the only valid
candidate to spread the OOo word on OSX will be NeoOffice.
And ultimately, this situation only reflects the OOo OSX porting team
choices.
Conclusion: do not blame the NeoOffice guys for their contributions,
and accept the fact that if you guys prefer to work on "porting", they
prefer to work on "using". Because resources are limited and
interests/competencies vary.
Jean-Christophe Helary
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
