2008/5/16 jonathon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 2008/5/16 Keith N. McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Keith Bates wrote: > >> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:04:36 +0300 (EAT) >> "Sammy Njuguna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 2008/5/16 jonathon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Drew Jensen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What is being called for is the ability to say - there is one >>>>>> ( or >>>>>> >>>>> more ) >>>>> email clients that works closely with the other modules in the >>>>> package. >>>>> >>>>> Other than the ability to use OOo to create webpages that >>>>> masquerade as email, what functionality does OOo need, to better >>>>> integrate with email clients? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My take. >>>> >>>> I have invented a *notional* program called "The Mail Program" >>>> which I will >>>> refer to as TMP. This *might* be an existing program that gets >>>> modified, Thunderbird for example, or a new program that gets >>>> written for the purpose. >>>> I don't much care except that Thunderbird comes close to fitting >>>> the bill already. But if there is a better candidate ... >>>> >>>> I also expect that whichever of OOo and TMP is installed *second* >>>> on a user's system will notice that the other is already there and >>>> configure itself accordingly, or at least to offer the user a >>>> choice (or series of choices) as to whether s/he wants this. >>>> >>>> I also expect that if TMP and OOo are both installed and if the >>>> user then uninstalls one of them, then the one that remains does >>>> *not* lose functionality. For example, with MS Office, if the user >>>> uninstalls Word, Outlook Express can no longer check spelling. As >>>> far as I am concerned this >>>> is just shoddy. >>>> >>>> The numbering below is for convenience only. I do *not* intend it >>>> to imply a >>>> priority ordering. >>>> -- >>>> Harold Fuchs >>>> London, England >>>> Please reply *only* to [email protected] >>>> >>>> Could'nt have put it better myself Harold,That is the way to go! >>> >>> >>> >> Sorry, I have to disagree. >> >> Firstly the assumption that an office suite should do everything one >> does in an office is an absolute fallacy. People might assume that's >> the way it is, but it doesn't make it right. >> >> I see nothing in the proposal that would assume that a suite should do > everything. > > But the assumption is itself contradictory. Why do we not hear any >> requests for integration of financial software into OO? After all >> financial controls such as accounting, invoices, payroll, etc. >> etc. are core to any business. The only reason why we don't get >> hundreds of emails asking "where is the accounting module" is that >> Microsoft doesn't do it that way. >> >> One could make the point that the reason that we don't here the complaint > were is the accounting module is because the accounting piece is used > primarily by a small subset of people in an office where as the e-mail and > calendering piece would possibly be more wide spread. > > People have been conditioned to make certain assumptions about what >> belongs and does not belong in an office suite. >> >> Or conversely people have come to there own conclusions of what they > believe would best serve there needs in an office suite. Not everything that > happens in the world is the result of some dark conspiracy. Regular people > are quite capable of thinking and deciding things all on there own without > being influenced by others. > > Does OO have to meet that assumption? I don't think so. We can suggest >> alternatives ways of doing things and that's fine. >> >> If it plans to compete in the area of office suites it had better listen > to the assumptions of the people who are going to be using the software or > it will fail no matter how good it is. > > Next, question is this: If we believe that email should come in pretty >> forms rather than just straight text, who determines what format all >> those pretty features are going to be in? It used to be html until MS >> in its infinite wisdom decided that email composition was a word >> processing feature not an email feature and changed the default >> into .doc format rather than html. So do we let people compose .doc >> or .odf in your TMP? Should proprietary document formats even be >> considered when sending documents by email (much less composed in an >> email program)? >> >> Since test and html are de facto standard in most all mail programs it > would not be amiss to presume that they should be there in TMP as well. As > far as I remember even when using Word as the mail editor in Outlook the > final product is not a .doc formatted file. > > What about those silly schmucks like me that think email is best >> composed as a plain text format for most situations? What if we choose >> to use a non-Thunderbird, non-TMP program that is actually far better >> than Thunderbird (obviously I don't know what features TMP has!) at >> dealing with email. >> > Then by all means continue to do what you do today. Nowhere in the proposal > is there anything that says that one has to use them or even install them. > > How would you see this working in all the different operating systems >> that OOo is produced on? It would be particularly galling to linux >> users such as myself who believe in the philosophy that an application >> should just do one thing really well and communicate well with other >> applications rather than trying to do everything in one monolithic >> world-dominating program that takes a super-computer to run and is prone >> to break by the nature of its architecture. >> >> Read the proposal. Nowhere does it say that it is a monolithic program > that is all or nothing. As a matter of fact it is on suggested that a > download including TMP be made available. Otherwise it would be a separate > download that does exactly what you ask for. To communicate well with > others. > > Why should OOo, which is trying to break the stranglehold of one >> software manufacturer, be beholden to the same philosophy and then tied >> to another organisation in this way? >> >> You seem to make the assumption that use of TMP would be forced on you in > some way. There is nothing in the proposal that even remotely does that. > > Yes let's work on better communication between, for example, >> dictionaries and email composition. But let's not fall for the bigger >> is better, tying everything together is better belief that has really >> done little more than change one set of problems for another. >> >> Again there is nothing in the proposal that I see that is doing that. It > does state that if there is an e-mail program that can fit than by all means > use that. There is nothing there that says it has to developed by OO.o All > it is doing is setting forth possibilities of what it could look like. > > OOo is a brilliant office application. It can do better. The way ahead >> is actually the way that Firefox has moved forward- plug-ins and >> extensions. OOo is just starting to move down that track and i think as >> extensions develop, many of these problems will be sorted out by third >> party developers working out add-ons that will meet specific needs. >> >> There is nothing in the proposal that would preclude TMP being done as an > extension. > > That's my take on it all. >> >> And why doesn't Ooo have a podcatcher built in? After all I use my >> office computer to download and play music- that make it an office >> function for me :-) >> >> Then by all means feel free to write the extension to do that. ;-) > > Regards > Keith N. McKenna > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
