Hi Chad,

while I think that your posting has some good points I wanted to correct
some that you obviously misunderstood.

Chad Smith wrote:

> *PRE-2.0
> 
> "We don't need a database program!  It's useless bloat that takes away
> choice from the end user!"

I never read such comments; maybe some users that didn't understand what
they are talking about wrote it. So I can't see a contradiction to:

> *POST 2.0
> 
> "The latest addition of our new Database program is far superior to the
> *ahem* other guy.  It makes our free, open source, cross-platform office
> suite more complete!"

that was more or less written in this way from the people that finally
decided to add the database. In fact "we" (the people working on OOo)
always discussed the option to add a database application. We had to
find out whether we should spend our scarced resources on it. Finally we
decided to do so. But we (again the people working on OOO) never
declared the missing database a plus. If you maintain your point then
please show me a quote from someone who really worked on OOo (instead of
just talking about it).

The same holds for:

> *PRE-2006
> 
> "The X11 windowing environment is *far superior* to doing anything in the
> Aqua system.  It makes it more compatible with other ports in other
> operating systems."

Nobody with a sane mind ever claimed that. The non-existing Mac port was
just a consequence of missing resources and/or interest. The OOo
developers never saw the Mac/X11 version as anything else than a stopgap.

> *NOW
> 
> "We *always* looked at the X11 'solution' as a stop-gap measure.  It was
> never intended to be used forever.  We're working on a native Mac port - not
> like some hack 'neo' Java based edition!"

That exactly is and always(!) was the POV of all people who understood
what's going on. Again, if you maintain your point than please show an
"official" quote for it.

> 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.  One
> side (that apparently hasn't read the latest memo) says "We don't need the
> useless, choice-limiting bloat of a PIM!  Use Thunderbird or some other
> program.  We don't need to reinvent the wheel!"  The other side (who wrote
> the latest memo) says "We always intended to return the functionality of a
> PIM to the StarOffice/OpenOffice.org line.  It was removed at 5.2 because of
> resources and technology limitations, but we are in the process of putting
> it back in.  Check out these links...."

Sorry, now you are spreading myths. I don't see it as negative that we
have different opinions in such a big user base about the way OOo should
integrate into a PIM. That's quite normal. I doubt that you will find
any multi million people community where all members share the same
opinion about each and everything. And the meaning of the developers
always was the same and still is: don't reinvent the wheel. This is
demonstrated by the fact that some Sun engineers joined the Lightning
project some time ago.

> The pattern is:
> 
> 1)  (When functionality X is absent.) "The way it is now is PERFECT.  Its
> limitations are purposeful choices, and the best of all possible worlds.
> You should learn to live within the confines that we offer, or otherwise you
> are a trool M$-shill."
> 
> 2a) Something changes, something is added or improved...  "We *ALWAYS*
> planned on doing X.  We just didn't have the resources."
> 
> 2b) The truly devoted, those not even wishing to admit any potential
> problems with the open source way of doing things. "We *ALWAYS* planned on
> doing X.  We just wanted to make sure it could be done to our high
> standards, so it took a while." 

This pattern is constructed by you. You don't see that in a user base
counting in millions there are always different and even contradictory
opinions. You took some troll posts illustrating some of the many
existing opinions and complained that the development of OOo doesn't
follow them. Strange idea.

BTW: I also don't like statements of kind "1" but I usually just ignore
them. Perhaps you should do that also.

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]

Reply via email to