David B Teague sr wrote: > On 7/17/2011 5:02 PM, Andy Brown wrote: >> David B Teague sr wrote: >>> I agree, but I'd like to hear your reasons why "no"... >>> --David >>>
>> Why would LibreOffice what to go backwards? The last time that OOo code >> was introduced into the LO code there were big parts that had to be >> redone. LO already has features that OOo does not have. The way it >> stands those features will not make it into OOo/AOOo unless the >> developers donate the code needed directly to AOOo. With the current >> licensing setup LO code can not be used in AOOo, though LO is free to >> use any and all code from AOOo. Seems quite simple to me. >> >> Andy >> > Thanks. Your answer helps me better understand! LO does seem to be > better than OO.o, though I only replaced OO.o 3.1 with LO 3.3.x. > > I wish they would stop (gratuitously? that may be unkind) moving things > around in the UI though. I like learning new bells and whistles, and > serious new features, but I hate to have to hunt for the old ones, and > wonder if "that" useful old feature has been removed. > > --David The above is just my opinion and has nothing to do with what I would like to see OOo become. I do not think that combining LO back into OOo is a good idea. With the move to Apache OOo has a chance to become more. I will not say that one is better then the other, just different. Andy -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] In case of problems unsubscribing, write to [email protected] Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
