Thank you, Rod,
well writen ! I agree with almost all your arguments, I just thought I
am the only one who wants PIM/mail in OOo and who see it as a clever
thing office suit should have
To Daniel:
still no relevant argument ? And BTW. I never found Mozilla programs
( Thunderbird and Sunbird or whatever ) work together as a PIM, I just
never get used to cooperation of those many programs for internet,
though I fully respect their NICE work, but their mail solution and PIM
solution is never meant to be a business solution or really strong
solution like Evolution etc.
Perhaps, it could be good idea to make a poll on www.openoffice.org with
question
Which function/component would you like to see in the next major release
of OOo?
and add some possibilities in it ... I am sure that mostly wanted
component is PIM/mail program. I BET MY BEST UNDERWEAR ! :D
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 01:38 -0500, Rod Engelsman wrote:
> Daniel Kasak wrote:
> >
> > I still haven't heard a convincing argument as to why anyone needs an
> > email client integrated into OpenOffice. Why is it so much easier to
> > send an email when the window title says "OpenOffice" instead of
> > "Evolution".
> >
>
> First, you're setting up a strawman by focusing on only one function of
> Outlook-style PIM apps, namely email, and then even worse, implying that
> there are no integrative interactions between a PIM and the rest of an
> office suite -- or at least that any interactions are insignificant.
>
> But your worse mistake is the use of the word "needs" in the first
> sentence. There is very, very little that 99% of computer users do that
> they actually "need" a computer, much less any particular software, to
> accomplish. Email? Write a letter, pick up a phone. And you don't need a
> word processor; a typewriter or a pen will do. I got through engineering
> school ('78 - '82) with nothing more than a calculator and graph paper.
>
> The point is that computers and software aren't primarily about need so
> much as they are about speed and convenience. So anything that makes
> life easier for the user, even a little bit, is a legitimate target of
> software development. Then the real question is how would an OOo PIM be
> better than a third-party standalone.
>
> 1. Completeness. For better or worse, and for whatever reason, it has
> become a consumer/user level expectation that an office suite will
> include a PIM. MSO has one. WordPerfect Office has one. The old Lotus
> SmartSuite had one. Hardly a day goes by that someone doesn't take the
> time to write in requesting it. OpenOffice.org just seems incomplete
> without it.
>
> 2. Integration. Whether you personally use them or not, there are valid
> integrative/interactive functions between a PIM and an office suite.
> They may or may not be an everyday thing for you depending on how you
> work, but many people utilize them. And honestly, how much interaction
> between the existing components of OOo do you use on a regular basis?
> Most of the time I use them as if they were separate apps, but on those
> occasions when I do something like embed a spreadsheet or drawing in a
> text document, I expect that I will have better results with a suite
> than with separate apps. You _should_ anyway. So if, for example, I'm
> using an OOo PIM as a datasource for a mail merge, I would expect that
> to work better, more smoothly, more reliably, and more automatically
> than using some other external database.
>
> 3. Look and Feel. This is easy to dismiss, but it shouldn't be. There is
> real value to the fact that the menu structure and UI design is
> consistent among the various components in OOo. It enhances productivity
> because common items are in predictable places. I rarely use Impress,
> but when I do, I know where to look for things in the menus because they
> are in the same places as they are in Writer or Draw and they have the
> same nomenclature.
>
> >> And who said, there can not be made a better mail/PIM application than
> >> Evolution, Kontact, Thunderbird or whatever ? ? ? They are NOT far as
> >> flawless as it is claimed to be !
> >>
> >
> > If the alternatives you listed are not perfect, then this is a very good
> > argument for NOT starting an email client from scratch - ie it is
> > obviously a large task, and one that will take a long time and a lot of
> > resources to complete. Why not make the open-source alternatives that
> > have been at the game for YEARS now just a little better?
>
> You wouldn't be starting from scratch. It would be more like the
> addition of the Base component. The address book, emails, contact items,
> to-do lists, etc. could all be stored in native HSQLDB databases. This
> would have the advantage of scalability up to enterprise level with
> relatively little work. The HTML editor, while almost useless for
> designing a website, is perfectly competent as an editor and display
> engine for text and html email. The major coding would be the calendar
> and the UI. Not insignificant, but nothing like starting completely from
> scratch either. And this is open-source, right? One big happy friggin
> family? Surely there's some code out there OOo could adopt and adapt,
> the same way HSQLDB was incorporated.
>
> >
> > It's still just a mental barrier that people have to get over.
> > OpenOffice doesn't include an mp3 encoder, or a P2P client, or a game of
> > tetris,
>
> I forget the magic incantation, but Calc has a Star Wars game in it.
>
> or an email client - and nor should it.
>
> Is that a moral judgment? The word "should" is a value-laden word.
>
> If people still insist
> > on jumping up and down and insisting on one, then they only have to
> > actually code one to make it a reality. But the *great* majority of
> > people interested in writing a good email client are already attracted
> > to other mature projects ( relatively speaking, but particularly in
> > relation to OOo's email client which currently does not exist ) such as
> > Thunderbird and Evolution.
>
> Adopt and adapt.
>
> >
> > Keep in mind that the main goal of OpenOffice is *not* to 'compete' with
> > Microsoft Office. The main goal is to offer an open-source office suite.
>
> Horsefeathers! Since when is Sun a desktop software company? If you
> really believe that the motivation for all this is some high-minded
> ethical malarkey about freedom, then you are hopelessly naive. This is
> directed squarely at loosening MS's grip on the software industry so
> that SunSPARC and Solaris might survive. It's a more-or-less coordinated
> attack by Sun, IBM, and Netscape who all have their own reasons.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
