[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: koffice-devel
Subject: Re: koffice mission statement etc.
From: Sven Langkamp <sven.langkamp () gmail ! com>
Date: 2009-09-01 16:58:37
Message-ID: 478b087a0909010958y3328ac8er56a46b4ef051a0a1 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Jaroslaw S <kexipl@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/9/1 Andrew Dorrell <andrew.dorrell@gmail.com>:
> > And to develop some of your specific comments... (day time now)
> >
> > On Monday 31 August 2009 5:22:22 pm Jos van den Oever wrote:
> >> > 1. To produce a comprehensive and integrated suit of tools for open
> >> > document production that fix rather than emulate the presentation and
> >> > usability mistakes of popular commercial software.
> >>
> >> 'comprehensive': this means it should include everything required. But
> what
> >> is that? This is stating the obvious.
> >
> > It is not really obvious IMHO. koffice includes in its scope drawing,
> image
> > creation, database, project management. This makes it far more
> comprehensive
> > than openoffice or MS office (outside of windows context) which aim
> mainly at
> > the big 3: word processor, spreadsheet and presentation.
>
> I can see no difference between scope of the two offices.
> The difference in users volume is natural to particular type of app,
> i.e. the big three on top, then diagramming, database and project
> management, etc.
>
> All these components are present in both suites (vector drawing app is
> just embedded in Word), but of course we have far fewer features so
> far than MSO. At least I am comparing features I know and have been
> using a lot.
> Also cross-application integration is pretty good in both suites; the
> difference is that we have less of the lock-in factor.
>
> We have more components than oo.org but starting constructing the
> mission statement by blaming other FOSS projects is not the best way
> IMHO. I'd welcom anything that sounds more positive and shows our
> inclusive attitude.
>
> So that's why I "comprehensive" was never my favourite description of
> the differentiator. Not yet...
>
KOffice isn't "comprehensive" if you compare it with MS Office which has a
dozen apps and much more features.
In some ways KOffice is different than the "classic" office suites e.g.
unlike MS Outlook Kontact isn't part of the suite. We also have more
dedicated creative apps than other office suites.
There is also a thin line between comprehensive and bloat. I know many users
that were happy with MS Office 97 or 2000 and didn't saw any advantages in
the later versions. The whole thinking that you can be better than some
software just by adding x + 1 features is wrong. One of the reasons why
Firefox is so sucessfull is that it was less comprehensive than the Mozilla
browser.
Think about the reasons why people use KOffice at the moment. From users
comments I think users use KOffice because it's fast, well integrated into
KDE and has a streamlined UI. The main reasons why they don't use KOffice
are missing reliability (I think the most important for an office suite) and
to a lesser extent missing usablity.
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Jaroslaw S <span dir="ltr"><<a \
href="mailto:kexipl@gmail.com">kexipl@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt \
0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> 2009/9/1 Andrew Dorrell <<a \
href="mailto:andrew.dorrell@gmail.com">andrew.dorrell@gmail.com</a>>:<br> <div \
class="im">> And to develop some of your specific comments... (day time now)<br> ><br>
> On Monday 31 August 2009 5:22:22 pm Jos van den Oever wrote:<br>
>> > 1. To produce a comprehensive and integrated suit of tools for open<br>
>> > document production that fix rather than emulate the presentation and<br>
>> > usability mistakes of popular commercial software.<br>
>><br>
>> 'comprehensive': this means it should include everything required. But \
what<br> >> is that? This is stating the obvious.<br>
><br>
> It is not really obvious IMHO. koffice includes in its scope drawing, image<br>
> creation, database, project management. This makes it far more comprehensive<br>
> than openoffice or MS office (outside of windows context) which aim mainly at<br>
> the big 3: word processor, spreadsheet and presentation.<br>
<br>
</div>I can see no difference between scope of the two offices.<br>
The difference in users volume is natural to particular type of app,<br>
i.e. the big three on top, then diagramming, database and project<br>
management, etc.<br>
<br>
All these components are present in both suites (vector drawing app is<br>
just embedded in Word), but of course we have far fewer features so<br>
far than MSO. At least I am comparing features I know and have been<br>
using a lot.<br>
Also cross-application integration is pretty good in both suites; the<br>
difference is that we have less of the lock-in factor.<br>
<br>
We have more components than <a href="http://oo.org" target="_blank">oo.org</a> but starting \
constructing the<br> mission statement by blaming other FOSS projects is not the best way<br>
IMHO. I'd welcom anything that sounds more positive and shows our<br>
inclusive attitude.<br>
<br>
So that's why I "comprehensive" was never my favourite description of<br>
the differentiator. Not yet...<br></blockquote><div><br>KOffice isn't \
"comprehensive" if you compare it with MS Office which has a dozen apps and much more \
features.<br></div></div>In some ways KOffice is different than the "classic" office \
suites e.g. unlike MS Outlook Kontact isn't part of the suite. We also have more dedicated \
creative apps than other office suites.<br> <br>There is also a thin line between comprehensive \
and bloat. I know many users that were happy with MS Office 97 or 2000 and didn't saw any \
advantages in the later versions. The whole thinking that you can be better than some software \
just by adding x + 1 features is wrong. One of the reasons why Firefox is so sucessfull is that \
it was less comprehensive than the Mozilla browser.<br> <br>Think about the reasons why people \
use KOffice at the moment. From users comments I think users use KOffice because it's fast, \
well integrated into KDE and has a streamlined UI. The main reasons why they don't use \
KOffice are missing reliability (I think the most important for an office suite) and to a \
lesser extent missing usablity.<br> <br>
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic