This argument can well be handle the other way, why doen't apple adopt OpenOffice.org on their base OSX system. Apple has been blamed several times for ignoring open source software when is time to give back. They have contiinously hurt FLOSS communities like the KDE.
Rant away, OOo and SO is all in the same codebase, so moving between OS is difficult since that code will grow exponencially to adopt all the different APIs. It pretty much already has and adopting a tiny X running on their code base so it can startX within the OOo appliation will not be a suitable idea. I do think however that maybe having a X within the dmg at install time, the same way its done with Java Runtime Enviroment will help. On 3/22/07, Benjamin Huot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this bickering about other related open source projects is appalling. Because Sun doesn't value the Mac market, it is limiting the penetration of OpenOffice.org. Macs serve a very important role in businesses in their workflow, so not having OpenOffice.org available as a native application is slowing down open source adoption. There is a reason why Microsoft Office is availble for the Mac - not only does Microsoft make money off of it, but it allows Mac users to share documents and further entrenches Microsoft Office. It is not due to antitrust regulations because they just pay off the judges so they never get any penalties that make a difference. I know people blame Apple for not doing this themselves, but they don't want to kill the Microsoft Office for the Mac product, because they don't want to gamble and Microsoft is very vindictive even if it loses business because of it. A Mac is much more productive because it isn't designed like Windows or Linux and because Sun wouldn't put in the time, people volunteered out of the goodness of the their heart. And because it is a slightly different code base and slightly different license, many Mac users are turned away from it because of the negative things said about this very useful product. On Mar 22, 2007, at 12:12 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote: > Chad Smith wrote: > >> Why can 2 guys in their spare time do 4 years ago what >> the entire of OpenOffice.org and Sun Microsystems hasn't been able >> to do in >> as many years with full time employees? > > First: I totally agree with you in this point: if you want to have an > OOo that comes as close as possible to a native look and feel on > the Mac > *now*, go for NeoOffice! But IMHO you should wish the best to the > brave > (still volunteer!) developers that are heading for the "real thing". > > Why the "real thing"? NeoOffice is *not* a native Mac application, it > mostly looks like one and also mostly feels like one, but it isn't. > Obviously some people (like Guy) would like to get a real native > version, so it is good that people try to achieve that. > > And Guy also mentioned another reason why people would prefer a real > port inside OOo: NeoOffice is a fork and the history of forks has > proven > that they rarely succeed in the long run, let alone the risk that the > developers of the fork quit working on it and leave their project back > as an orphan. Forks always have to catch up with the main trunk > development and in case there are some major changes ongoing the whole > fork is put at risk if the changes don't fit well to the additional > code > of the fork. > > Please let me add a comment to your question I have quoted above. > Sun has never worked on a native Mac port. So your question just > doesn't > hit the point. It's not a question of "not being able to do" but a > question of "not wanting to do". Of course other developers would have > been able to do the same thing as the NeoOffice developers did (make a > fake native port by using the platform mimicry capabilities of Java > that > BTW are really great). But why should they do that? Why create another > NeoOffice? > > The real question is: why can't other developers provide a real native > version in the same time where the 2(?) developers implemented > NeoOffice? The answer is simple: because this is much more work to do > and much more complicated work that needs much more Mac expertise. Why > did the developers that created NeoOffice not do the real native port > themselves? Guess why. > > So you shouldn't talk bad about the ongoing work for the "real" native > Mac port. It is correct that there has not been a lot of progress in > that area for a long time but my impression is that this has > changed in > the last months. If more people advertized this effort and the ongoing > work of the developers the bigger the chance would be that more > developers jumped up and helped. In the meantime they can happily use > NeoOffice and hope that this fork stays alive and kicking until the > port > will be done. > > Ciao, > Mathias > (who tried out NeoOffice on the last OOoCon and really liked it) > > -- > Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer > OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS > Please don't reply to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". > I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to > it. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
