> I think it's not so much that Trinity doesn't like KOffice, and more-so
> that
> they have to make some tough decisions regarding what projects to spend
> their limited development resources on. I'm sure they'd be happy for
> people
> to adopt other KDE apps. :-) If you can maintain (or pay someone to
> maintain) KOffice, I'm sure they'll be happy to get help, and that they'll
> be able to "save" another KDE app. As it is, they need to focus on the
> projects they think will be the most useful to people in
> general/themselves
> in particular. Personally, I'd rather the core and konqueror, etc are
> stable, efficient, and converted to Qt4 sooner, rather than having KOffice
> support, but that's just my opinion. I mean, I'd prefer both, but such is
> life.
>
> Lukas Korsika
> Not Affiliated With Trinity Desktop Project
>

I agree with Lukas here.  Unfortunately we can't just drop koffice, as
there is at least one application within it that cannot be replaced, but
the overall goal was to save as much of the KDE3 experience as possible. 
Polluting the repository with obsolete applications that perform functions
that are no longer needed in the real world is a sure fire way to kill a
project, unless there are so many developers attached to the project that
it can absorb the loss of time.  Sadly, in the OSS world (and even in
corporations such as Microsoft), this is not the case.

I do not mean to promote one repository over another, but I would
appreciate it if the two main KDE3 / KDE3 fork repositories could coexist
without sniping at one another with comments about how much better one is,
or how disappointing it is that a decision was made, especially when such
decisions are made with the intent of increasing the value and stability
of this style of desktop environment.

Tim