[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Need I remind you of all the java parts in OO.o that were and probably still are deactivated on lots of Linux systems ?
Do I *care* that the Java stuff is turned off? No. Would I even *notice* if they were? No. The Java stuff is so small, and so limited to such specific functions that I don't even use, that I would never notice if they were completely removed. I don't use the accessablity stuff. I have been blessed to not need them. Other than those functions, I don't even know of stuff that needs Java. I install Java on every system I own, and even the ones I use at work. Just like I install GTK, Flash players, Adobe readers, and a half-dozen or so other "dependencies" depending on the OS. If a program is out there, and I can use it, open source or not, "Free" or just free, as long as it doesn't have spyware, viruses, or ads - I would use it (assuming I have need of it). I don't limit myself by politically derived definitions of "free". If it is legally accessable to me, and I want to do something with it, I take it. That includes iTunes, Windows Media Player, Netscape, and Linux. Yes, I just used "Netscape" the great whore of AOL is the same sentence as Linux. It's all the same to me. Free is free - even if it ain't *Free*. If Microsoft offered a free version of MS Office for Linux - I'd take it. I'd run it side-by-side with OOo, Koffice, and Abiword. I have on my current WIndows box over 15 office suites - most of which were free downloads. Some of them were open source - like OOo. Some of them are shareware. Some of them are crippleware. SOme of them are nagware. SOme of them are just free trials. SOme are full-blown propriatary. I have them because they are free, and I want to try them out to see what's out there. I don't want to limit myself to *only* open source. I couldn't if I wanted to. Open Source doesn't offer everything I need. Java is free. And, Java is now (or soon will be) open source as well. Helix player is and has been open source. Including it into OOo will in no way limit its "openness". Frankly, if it works, I'm all for it. If you don't want to use it - you don't have to. If the "freedom" freaks you speak for don't want to use it - they don't have to. But it's there. Take it or leave it.
You can get whatever you want in OpenOffice.org sources. At the end of the day it's the distribution people that choose whether the added functionnality is worth maintaining the external parts they depend on
Right, and I don't think you or I are one of those people.
(and right now the Helix
framework is used by so few people outside Real I can see it being axed in
a few years)
You know, I don't really care where *you* see Helix in a few years. I doubt the people who make the decisions around here do either. I doubt they care what I think. But, it really doesn't matter if the Helix group exists next year or not. If the plaayer is functional now (and it is) it will be functional 20 years after Helix the group is dead and buried. The great thing about open source is, you can change it yourself. And the people who maintain and improve OOo could - if they needed to - take over and maintain the would-be abandoned Helix Player, and make it a part of OOo's project, and maintain it themselves. Having control of it "in-house" would be a tad more secure and stable than hoping this or that other FLOSS project holds together, don't you think? I mean, Mplayer has the same risk, doesn't it? or OGG? I mean, any group - even non-FLOSS groups and companies, they can all go belly up. It's pointless to argue about it.
If it gets "axed" in a few years - we'll be up to OOo 4.0 or higher by then, and OOo may have its own native media player, built from the ground up. Or Impress might just take on that role as presentations become more and more animated and more and more intergrated with sound and video. "A few years" is a long freaking time in computers. A few years ago, 1.0 GHz was insanely fast, and a DVD burner was unheard of. A few years ago, OOo was little more than a dream. A few years ago, Helix player didn't exist. A few years ago, Linux was only usable by geeks. A few years ago, an iPod sounded like a place iPeas grew. A few years ago, cell phones didn't have color, much less cameras, PDAs, games, and text-messaging. I'm not worried about "a few years from now". I'm worried about today.
The fact is, *TODAY* Microsoft is offering this level of funcationality. In fact, they are doing so *for free*. MS Producer is a free download. You do have to have a working copy of Powerpoint for it to work - but we're completing against Powerpoint already. The fact is *TODAY* someone, a fellow FLOSS supporter, has offered this functionality to us as a project, and to OOo users around the world *FOR FREE*, and has signed all the approipriate documents for it to be included open source-style. The fact is, *TODAY* if someone wants to use it - they already can. It's there to download and install. It may not be ready for primetime, but it's closer than the patch for mplayer. You know, the one that *doesn't exist*.
I don't see any reason not to include it. If it, for whatever reason, doesn't get picked up for inclusion in the actual release, it would be foolish not to offer it as a add-on download (much like MS Producer, or WriterPerfect) once it is ready for the public.
If you don't get it after all of that, I'm sorry. I'm done trying to explain how simple it is. It's there. It's open source. It's cross-platform. Nobody from Mplayer offered to do this, much less submitted the patches for it. Nobody from Vorbis did either. I can't believe people are telling us why we shouldn't use the patch that was already submitted to us! We always complain that everybody talks about what we need, but never "shows us the code" - well Helix F"ing *SHOWED US THE CODE!!!* and we're sitting around bad mouthing it, saying how "Linux users won't accept it". If they don't want it - F THEM - they don't have to have it - and they don't have to use it. *I* want it, and there are about half a billion other *WINDOWS* users who could use it, and since WIndows users out number Linux users about, oh, 99 to 1, I'd say there might just be a market for this add-on.
It's an add=on. It's optional. Even if it gets included in the official code, you still don't have to use it. OOo has a Math program (for some odd reason) and I've never touched it. It doesn't offend me that it's there. It doesn't make OOo less appealing to me that that function exists. I don't see how in God's Green Earth it *COULD* offend me that functions I don't need are there.
Now if you don't care about your stuff being actually used in the field
there's no problem. If you do want to see people using it caring a bit
about the distributor problems would help. They don't owe you anymore than
you owe then - the system only works as long as everyone makes it a good
deal for his partners.
You know, I *do* care about OOo being used *in the field*. That's why I promote it. THat's why I hand out copies of it. That's why I offer to install it on every computer I work on. That's why it *is* installed on every computer I own. That's why I vote on IZ, fill out issue reports, work on stuff that I can actually help out with, and contribute where and when I can. *THAT* is *WHY* I want this feature added. It's useful. It's free. It's *DONE*. It's an answer to a problem. People can benefit from it. Not just hypothetical "people" - but real live people - people on *this list*. People in *THIS THREAD*. Like the one who started it. Like Rod. I mean, it's a real need, not just some bloatware to keep up with MS. It adds functionality to OOo. OOo is far from a Linux only program. I don't think it should be marketed or programmed as such.
*done with this thread*
-Chad Smith
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
