On 19/05/2008 18:09, mike scott wrote:
<snip>
>From what's been said, MSO users expect their office suite to provide
a bunch of applications related more by needing common databases than
by having any code in common. To what extent does this mean the
"office app" becomes a mini-operating system?
Not really at all, as evidenced by the fact that MS Office runs on Macs
and, from what I've heard, is better on a Mac than on a Windows PC.
And should it be
allowed to?
No.
Is it not the function of the nominal OS (be it windows
or linux) to coordinate disparate applications?
No. Not in this context. The OS has no control over applications' UIs -
things like the allocation of function keys to functions is no concern
of the OS. It has no control over the use of shared files, like
dictionaries or address books. And so on. The reason it has no control
of these things is that it is not and *should not be* aware of them.
And is it not a waste
of programming effort to duplicate any of that functionality?
Who's talking about duplicating functionality? If anything I'm talking
about making the code more modular so that the modules can be used in
more places. For example, the spell checking "module" in OOo could get
used by the mail-creation program. Of course this would be simplified by
having a common document model which in turn would lead to a common
document editing module which is again in the right direction.
--
Harold Fuchs
London, England
Please reply *only* to [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
