In one of GK Chesterton's books - I think it was his biography - he recounts a politician addressing a crowd that had got noisy and boisterous and jeered him: "Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen! I have not yet finished casting my pearls!" [before swine, of course. The crowd burst out laughing.]
Could you cool off, please! Take it off-list, please, if you must argue. Thanks Wesley Parish On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:23, Randomthots wrote: > Daniel Kasak wrote: > > We are talking about the possibility. The problem is that you don't like > > the answer that you're getting. > > I haven't liked your answer, not so much because of the substance, but > because of your condescending attitude. > > > No. Look at the post I responded to. > > The main part of that post: > "I also work for an organization that is unwilling to move away from > Microsoft Office because they feel that they need the calendaring and > meeting arrangement facilities of Outlook, on Windows. Many of them > frequently work offline, so web-based solutions are not applicable. I'm > pinning my hopes on Evolution for Windows, but the project seems to be > moving very slowly (understandably, as it is a complex project with many > libraries to port). > > I think that people that argue that there is no reason to develop a mail > client as part of OpenOffice because there are other mail client > applications available are misguided for two reasons:" > > So where do you get: "... otherwise they won't switch, and not only > that, they don't know anyone else who will switch either." > > from that? > > My take on it is that a lot of organizations could and would be > persuaded to switch but they have certain organizational needs that > can't be simply wished away. > > > Whatever. I'm just pointing out why it's not going to happen. > > I wasn't aware that you were a Sun executive in charge of this whole > project. > > >>> *or* *else* will get you no-where fast. > >> > >> Point to any post on this forum like that. > > > > Selective blindness. Read over the thread again. > > I have. You're implying a tone to the posts in this thread that just > doesn't exist. If I'm wrong, please provide quotes. > > >>> Why can't people get over themselves and use an existing application. > >> > >> Without an email/pim component many will do just that. It's called > >> MSO. Is that what you really want? > > > > Um. I think you're just re-using the arguement that you were claiming > > hasn't been used. > > Maybe forget about reading the thread. Read your own post. > > Ahhhh. I get it now. You have a problem with people pointing out the > reality of things as opposed to the way you only wished they were. You > want "people [to] get over themselves and use an existing application." > I thought the idea was to convince/persuade/entice people to use a > different application -- OOo vs. MSO. > > Well, the *reality* is that the lack of a suitable drop-in replacement > for Outlook *is* a significant stumbling block. As much as I love the > folks at the Mozilla foundation, T-bird+Sunbird isn't there yet. And I > compared a completely up-to-date version of Evolution on the other side > of this dual-boot box with a five-year old copy of Outlook. Closer, but > there's a lot of functionality missing there as well. > > This isn't just theorizing; I am friends with a woman who runs a > business designing and maintaining small e-commerce websites from her > home. Most of her client interaction is via the Internet. She uses > Outlook practically like an operating system. In one place she can > organize everything about a client -- e-mails, documents, outstanding > tasks, etc. She doesn't even have to open a browser to view their sites > because she can do that in the same message pane she uses to look at > their emails. The only other programs she uses regularly are Photoshop > and a WYSIWYG web page editor. > > >>> Don't like Evolution? Fine. Test it. Submit bug reports. Hassle the > >>> developers to hurry up with their Windows port. Do you really think > >>> that you're going to get a better product in less time by insisting > >>> that OOo include every function under the sun? > >> > >> Reductio ad absurdum. I have yet to hear a call for a Tetris > >> component, music composition, or audio editing, for instance. Last I > >> checked those *are" functions and they *are* under the sun. > > > > Oh wow. The garbage some people post when they've had their buttons > > pushed :) > > And I note your response was the height of elocution. The fact is that > nobody is "insisting that OOo include every function under the sun". > We're talking about one specific thing here -- an answer to Outlook. By > characterizing that as "every function under the sun", you're avoiding > the real debate by arguing against something that hasn't ever been > proposed, at least not in this thread, and not by me. > > >> Sourceforge.net lists 105,746 active projects. A good case could be > >> made that open-source development is the most unfocused, > >> undisciplined, and wasteful phenomenon in the history of software. > >> Starting "yet another" project is practically a revered tradition, so > >> *suggesting* that OOo should somehow integrate an email/calendar/pim, > >> preferably by cooperating with the Mozilla project, is actually quite > >> conservative. > > > > You're changing your arguement in mid-flight. You start out by saying > > that OOo developers should write their own mail client because it's a > > 'revered tradition', and immediately switch to saying that an existing > > email client be integrated. That's my arguement ... that we should focus > > on existing tools. Has logic finally sunk in? > > So are you now suggesting that OOo could adapt or integrate existing > tools to provide the requested functionality? Then what the **** are we > arguing about??!! I'm perfectly fine with that-- always have been, and > I've repeatedly stated the same -- *provided* that the existing tools > actually provide the requested functionality. Unfortunately, they don't, > AFAICT. > > I was merely reacting to your implication that the "open-source" way of > doing things is to be very conservative with scarce resources and work > with existing projects as much as possible. Nice theory, but that's > clearly not the way open-source works in reality. If that were the case > there wouldn't be 350 different flavors of Linux, when a generous count > would yield maybe 20-30 genuinely distinct market niches. And there > certainly wouldn't be over 100K active projects on SF. > > Open-source could be right now kicking Bill's butt, if only it weren't > so much like herding cats. Unfortunately, entirely too many open-source > developers are basically selfish and narcissistic. Convinced that > they're going to be the one to write the next killer text editor or > browser, as if there weren't a hundred of them out there already. -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish ----- Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
