Hi Peter
Am .05.2017, 08:34 Uhr, schrieb Peter Kovacs <[email protected]>:
There are enough offices around.
We have enough office suites who run all into the same direction, yes. But
I think there is room for much more different office solution. Spend some
time and read the feature request on Bugzilla. You will soon realize that
many feature request bite each other. You can do one or the other, but not
both. Office suites to day are nasty compromises. If you have specific
versions for specific user groups, you could solve so many problems.
There is no point in starting from the scratch without any plan or
vision.
I think, I have arguments for this.
Imho looking for Companies & Investors is the route Libre is moving.
I don't think doing the same is smart.
I would rather prefer the opposite direction and focus on community
building.
And you want to do this only with volunteers? I say forget it. If AOO runs
well, we have about 80 mails on the dev Mailing list per day. A pure
Volunteer simply can't keep up with this load and still develop. An other
problem is that you will get volunteers. But as soon they doing great
work, they receive a Job offer from companies, and you will never see them
again. No we need the companies. This is part of community building. We
can maybe hold this version with non professional, but not improve it.
Believe me we tryed it many times in the past. The native port of Mac OS X
was the last real non company driven bigger improvement in OOo. And it
would not be there, if not SUN jumped in with two devs to finish it.
And that is something we can do without any programmer skills.
We can claim that we are not bound today to anyone. The structure of
Apache makes sure of that, I think this is something we differ a lot
from TDF and we should utilize.
Also I think we should try to do a bit of old school Open Source. No
market focus for devs, rather go for the tech thingy.
I think we have to much competition on our minds.
We have something that is a challenge to master. Especially our bugs.
I think there are developers out there that are fed up with the way open
source works today.
Had a colleague talked on Friday, who told me exactly that. I stay with
him in touch now. Who knows maybe he joins someday. (No promises)
I think if you take a look at today's capability of c++ it is an awesome
language.
Our problem is not the language but we use different ones.
I am personally impressed by other languages too.
But the more different languages I use the more I am convinced that the
language used does not matter. The concept, architecture and tooling
does.
We need more helpers that simplify work, development wise.
I also suggest to not trying to fix one bug, but by solving a bug and
uplift our code.
All the best
Peter
Am 21. Mai 2017 05:48:00 MESZ schrieb Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]>:
On 5/20/2017 2:11 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
...
We have way too many users to abandon the 4.x branch completely. We
do need to handle security issues.
If we want start a rewrite for a 5.x then we will need to map the
functionality particularly in Calc. We will also need to pick a more
modern language compared to C++. We now have an XML schema which can
help us generate code. We did this for Java in Apache POI. The ODF
Toolkit is also still in the Incubator and it could be of use.
I think we should all think about it a little and then have a series
of video conferences reporting back to the community with a synopsis
step by step.
I can see a case for creating a new project to build a modern office
suite from scratch, if there are enough interested people to make it
viable.
I strongly disagree with calling it "OpenOffice" or assigning it an
OpenOffice version number, for the following reasons:
1. Doing so would create an expectation of compatibility that would
limit the options for the new suite.
2. Depending on how quickly the new suite is developed, and, after
release, its download rate relative to OpenOffice, we may want to
produce an actual OpenOffice 5.x. Using "OpenOffice 5.x" for the new
suite would limit the actual OpenOffice to 4.y, no matter how large y
gets, or how long demand for OpenOffice continues.
3. If you look at what I wrote above, using "OpenOffice" for the new
suite makes it very difficult to write clearly about the differences
between it and the current OpenOffice line.
I suggest that the people interested in writing new office suite should
pick a project name and either create an incubator podling or, if there
are enough members involved, create a new top level project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
--
My introduction https://youtu.be/Ln4vly5sxYU
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
