[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openoffice-discuss
Subject:    Re: [discuss] Interesting interview on KOffice
From:       Marco Fioretti <mfioretti () mclink ! it>
Date:       2004-10-13 8:22:02
Message-ID: 1.3.200410131021.97055
[Download RAW message or body]

From: Nicu Buculei <nicu@apsro.com
> > Mathias Bauer wrote:
> > I don't think that this is a real problem for KOffice (or the 
> > majority of its users), because IMHO this *is* additiona
> > funtionality that is only needed under certain circumstances.
> 
> I think the point of this discussion was detoured: is not a
> competition between OOo and KDE to determine what is more
> capable or user friendly, because all of us being there are
> clearly on OOo side. The real point was if Java is a key
> component of OOo and my personal opinion is that OOo developers
> deny this with a exaggerated energy, which deserve a better
> cause (and also IMO they are wrong).

I agree word by word (really) with Nicu here. As far as I am
concerned, I have contested two very defined statements:

1) Core OO.o does not rely on Java
2) Accessibility is not a core function for a professional
   office suite

I haven't said that Koffice beats OO.o hands down on everything,
or that relying on Java is something to be ashamed of. For the
record, I also said that the accessibility of KOffice _should_
be the same as in all others Kde/Qt applications (that is, based
on Qt). As far as I can check from the archives, I have NOT said
"KOffice has accessibility today". Nor I think it. I presented, started from that \
interview, things to discuss about OO.o. And of course on the whole KOffice has less \
features than OO.o, is not so cross platform, etc.

For me, we can stop the thread here, really. No point in debating
1) and 2) to death. At least, I have nothing more to add to what
I already wrote.

Ciao,
Marco


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]