I still think if we simply worked with Mozilla and the GIMP to present a unified interface, all of this debate would be meaningless. And as the more sucessful of the three in the aspects of acceptance, recognition, and cross-platform continuity - I suggest that Mozilla be the leading project on it. Mozilla's port to Mac OS X, for example, is far more stable, reliable, and native-looking than anything OOo has put out. we might even want to include Abiword, since people often ask for *just* the word processor.
-Chad Smth On 5/26/05, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevin Hatch wrote: > > >They're collaboration tools, the same you'd find in any groupware > >suite. > > > Thanks for the term. > > >I agree there's a clear distinction between "passive > >communication" documents and the more active communication above, but > >with regard to what should be included with OOo, consider the role of > >the suite. Is it Open "Office" or more Open "Documents?" --I always > >assumed the former, which to me would include whatever applications are > >currently useful to office productivity, be they calendars or reference > >dictionaries. > > > I see your point, but the problem with that logic is that there are so > many things an office uses. An office has payroll and accounting, they > have web browsers and a dozen other things. But we can't include all of > those things inside OOo. Not just due to limited resources. Even if we > had infinite man power, those things really should be separate programs. > > >That said, I still wouldn't advocate the development of > >new calendar, email, etc. applications for OOo; there are plenty of > >quality open source applications available that already perform those > >functions. Partner with them formally, develop standard hooks to tie > >them together, and if including them with releases of the core OOo is an > >issue, at the very least actively direct users to them. > > > > > That's an important argument too. For example, I said earlier that > drawing bitmap images falls within my mental picture of what an > document-making tool should have. But I wouldn't advocate adding that to > OOo because there's GIMP. > > [snip: summary -- the line is fuzzy] > > Yes, the line is fuzzy. :-) > > >Well said. But if it's an office tool that's used by most people most > >of the time, then I'd include that before a less useful purely document > >creation feature. > > > > > Another advantage of using reasonably self-contained categories is code > reuse. For example, a spread sheet needs some vector graphics > functionality (to make charts). Vector graphics are an obvious > complement for a presentations program. So... if you're going to make > Calc and Impress, it makes sense to go the extra mile and make Draw. And > in so doing you end up with a better word processor, spread sheet and > presentations program than you had before. > > I suspect that this line of reasoning is what led to OOo's current > design. And I like it. I find that OOo's features are very > complementary, so the quality of the software is greater than what you'd > expect by simply counting the number of features. > > > Cheers, > Daniel. > -- -Chad Smith *G-Mail ROCKS
