> > 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