On Wednesday 23 November 2011 11:19:05 am Darrell Anderson wrote:
> > > 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. :)
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/
Attachments: