On Wednesday 23 November 2011 11:45:12 am Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 23 November 2011 11:42, Kristopher John Gamrat <chaotickjg@...>wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 23 November 2011 11:36:55 am Calvin Morrison wrote:
> > > On 23 November 2011 11:26, Kristopher John Gamrat <chaotickjg@...
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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/
> > > >
> > >
> > > There is an old saying that is used quite frequently in the archlinux
> > > development list.
> > >
> > > "Patches Welcome"
> > >
> > > So if anyone wants to update koffice, patch koffice, implement a plugin
> > > system for koffice. Go ahead! I am sure we will accept patches. But
> > > "deciding" what to do on the mailing list, then leaving the work to
> > Timothy
> > > doesn't seem fair to me.
> >
> > Nobody said we wouldn't help. I'd have already been submitting patches if
> > I knew how to code.
> >
>
> Then now is the time to learn :)
>
> We need developers and the more the better.
>
> Calvin
If you can provide me with an instant college education and a career that won't take up too much of my time, then sure. Otherwise, it will take me a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong time to get started and eventually get to the point of contributing any code.
--
Kristopher Gamrat
Ark Linux webmaster
http://www.arklinux.org/
Attachments: