> > 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. 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. :) Darrell