Benjamin Huot wrote: > I think this bickering about other related open source projects is > appalling.
Sorry, I don't understand this. From my perspective there is no "bickering". The situation is clear. We have NeoOffice that is a nice thing and already can serve a lot of MAC users quite well. My personal opinion is that MAC users would be served best if either NeoOffice joined OOo (and I explained that by pointing out the risks that a fork always has by nature!) or OOo itself created its own MAC version that then should be a "real native" one. No bickering included. > 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. I can't speak about the position of Sun wrt. the MAC market but IMHO that doesn't matter. What matters is the position of the whole OOo project wrt. to that. And fact is that the OpenOffice.org project *is* working on the MAC port, but the resources are somewhat limited. The fact that this is not work paid by a company but volunteer work doesn't make it a bad thing. I hope you agree to that. IMHO the MAC and the MAC users would profit from a MAC version of OOo much more than OOo as a whole would. So it's not the OOo project that is primarily challenged to do something (and this includes Sun, Novell, RedHat and other companies working on the project), it's Apple. Obviously Apple doesn't have the balls to do it as you also stated: > 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. Apple has the best experts for the work to do and IMHO a hand full of developers would suffice. I wouldn't be surprised if the OOo project gladly supported any initiative from Apple's side. And IMHO you also misunderstood the nature of the NeoOffice project: > 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. Nobody works on software "out of the goodness of their heart". They did it to scratch their own itch. And to make it clear: there's nothing bad about that. At the end that's what Open Source software is all about. > 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. That's unfortunate indeed. One shouldn't talk bad about the NeoOffice application. In my understanding nobody did that at least in this thread. But OTOH it's only fair to tell people about the risks associated with this project and where it can't deliver the promises to be a native MAC application. That's what I and others did and you shouldn't misunderstand that as "bickering". I doubt that you can find anything wrong in what I wrote about forks and the "nativeness" of NeoOffice. I only talked about facts. "Bickering" starts where people misuse facts but I can't see where I did that. At least you should point out where that happened before you allege that there was some "bickering". Ciao, Mathias -- 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]
