Hi, > > We're even in the midst of a contradiction shift as we speak. Check out > > the PIM discussion in the "[discuss] Regarding OpenOffice Suite" thread. > > The original code for OOo included a PIM. > A PIM was available as an add on for OOo 1.0. > [Guess what, it even works with 2.0!] > > What has changed is that instead of the user havingto add the line in > the menu to access the PIM, it will be included in the codebase.
So there always was a PIM, right? Maybe you should tell that all these guys that put wrong information on various web pages, then: - http://www.sun.com/software/star/staroffice/faqs/technical.jsp#q_12 - http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Open_Letter_Re:_OOo_PIM - ... > > The pattern is: > > 1) (When functionality X is absent.) "The way it is now is PERFECT. Its > > Most of the requested functionality for Ooo either is present, or can be > done by adding a third party utility/addon. For the rest, the user > might have to write their own macro, or source code. In other words: "Dear user, see, our office suite really already does everything you need. Just just have to code it yourself."? > > 2a) Something changes, something is added or improved... "We *ALWAYS* > > planned on doing X. We just didn't have the resources." > > I am not going to wander over to Issuezillla, and the other locations > that list features that are requested for future versions. Resource > allocation is a _major_ issue for OOo. No-one ever doubted that. André.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
