On 23/03/2006, at 11:50 AM, Archbishop John Missing wrote:
Before this discussion moves on to another list, I think I should
point out who a user is: the only reason for the product to be
produced and the only one who can judge the quality of the product.
If the product is not meeting the users needs, then it is useless
to spend any time or money on it. If the only recommendation to
solve a user's problems is to get a different product, then is
there any need for the product in the beginning.
If, as many here assert, OpenOffice is superior to all these other
programs, why does it not meet all the needs that the other
programs did, even if it has to use a different means to achieve
it. Neither the demand for "reveal codes" not the insistence that
is is unnecessary addresses the issue that there is a real need for
the *user who is, after all the only reason for the product.*
Hi John,
Your mistaken assumption here is to use the term user in the singular
sense so that it becomes a binary problem - that is, the user wants
it or they don't. However, OpenOffice.org is used by a large number
of users, plural, and not all of them want the same thing, and often
want conflicting features e.g. csv import/export in Calc recently.
To suggest that OpenOffice.org does not meet the needs compared to
other programs, in most cases, and certainly this one, is wrong. To
suggest that a product is backward compatible to every comparable
tool in the past is unreasonable and unmanageable. Sometimes the old
product uses different technology that becomes obsolete, unnecessary
or too impractical to support. This is even more so when most of the
products in question are closed source, commercial implementations.
Regards
Jonathon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
