23 Nov
2011
23 Nov
'11
11:26 p.m.
On Wednesday 23 November 2011 11:19:05 am Darrell Anderson wrote:
I agree we are unlikely to massage KO to compete with LO. I'm fine with the idea of
keeping KO as a light weight office suite --- and we advertise the apps as such. If we do
that we should regularly fix usability bugs (ignore all but easy enhancement requests). If
we go that route, then I think we should split the monster-sized package into individual
packages in the source tree. That way people can pick and choose.
I don't think we will find a consensus opinion about how to handle KO. Maintaining
"as is" with reasonable bug fixes and letting people pick which apps they want
to install is probably the best compromise. :)
I doubt we would ever compete with LO unless we separate KOffice from TDE completely.
I think the only "feature" we should add is a plugins system for users to be
able to develop their own features. Other than that, I agree with doing only bug fixes.
--
Kristopher Gamrat
Ark Linux webmaster
http://www.arklinux.org/
I say we leave KOffice how it is, for people who need
it, then focus on
Loffice (i think this is already the plan?)
I'm ok with that, trying to bring koffice to par with
office suites depeloped
by huge teams is pointless.
but _please_ leave it just as-is in TDE as long as there is
not a viable,
lightweight alternative.
I remember a discussion awhile ago on trinity-users (?)
where koffice2 was
mentioned, which would eventually be based on qt4 only
(_not_ kde4).
maybe there's a chance to have something like that in
awhile ?
werner
p.s.:
the existence of koffice 1.6.3 was one important argument
for me to use TDE :)
I know support for M$ formats in koffice (1.6) is bad, but
recent versions can
read the odf files that koffice produces, as does OO/LO,
and google docs.
that is enough 'compatibility' for me.