Re: [discuss] Re: Review of OOo in Washington Post
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:51:43 -, Randomthots [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand that. But the OOo homepage trumpets ODF like the second coming of Christ. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think the web presence is mostly targeted at the home and smb markets. The big-biz and goverments markets are the baily-wick of the professional sales staff. You mean it ISN'T the second comming of Christ? oh maan... -- Alexandro Colorado CoLeader of OpenOffice.org ES http://es.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Review of OOo in Washington Post
On 11/13/05, Randomthots [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with all that. I just think that promoting OOo and promoting ODF are interlocking but still separate propositions. *At this point* promoting OOo on the basis of ODF is non-starter. But the more OOo is adopted, the easier it will be to promote ODF. OOo is the reference application for ODF in the same way the MSO is the reference app for MSO file types. Ok, everyone knows how I feel about the importance of ODF. But I think that Rod here has brought up an excellent point for those of you, (and I stress you as in, not me) who feel it is important to evangelize ODF, the way to do it is by evangelizing OOo. You should promote OOo, not ODF, but OOo, and do everything you can to get people to use OOo. The more people that use OOo 2.0 and higher the greater install base for ODF. As more and more people have access to ODF (even if they don't use it, but still save everything in MSO formats, as most will), the greater appeal the format will have. Make OOo smaller, so more people can/will download it. Give it the features people want, like a DTP. PIM, Email client, and improved, or revamped HTML handling, so more people will want to download it. And, again, promote, promote, promote, promote. Not ODF, OOo. The better OOo is, the more people that use it, the more people will have access to, and some will even use, ODF. That's not all. The more people that use ODF because of OOo, the more likely other office suites will support the format. Which will increase the usablity and importance of ODF. MSO didn't become the defacto standard by promoting the format, they did it by promoting the suite. If you want to promote ODF, you should do the same thing. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Re: Review of OOo in Washington Post
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 13:51 -0600, Randomthots wrote: I understand that. But the OOo homepage trumpets ODF like the second coming of Christ. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think the web presence is mostly targeted at the home and smb markets. Not sure about that really. I should think the web site is a mixture. I have given a lot of CDs out to peopel who would never thing to visit the web site. To be honest I only visit it to download the latest version or to check issues or something. I doubt many home users could navigate the website. I could well be wrong but I would think most of the people that visit the website are more experienced people who are likely to disseminate OOo to less experienced. Probably the best option is to have a MS like option and an optimised ergonomics option. Click a button and it looks like MS Office, click again and it is the optimised version. That way people can choose. I like this, but I seem to remember threads expressing serious criticism of that idea in the past. Given how customizable the menues and toolbars are, how hard would it be to have pre-defined UI schemas (no idea if that's the right term, but you should get the idea)? Not that hard. We have already discussed the possiblity of modifying the interface for the elementary school market here. Its certainly doable but as with everything else we need some more resources to do it because we are swamped with opther work at present. Back to priorities again. Which do you want first? I want it all, right now. :) Seriously, about 5 times as many developers hammering code would be nice. Specifically WRT to email/pim, it would be interesting to see what the Google folks could do given a full head of steam. Seems right up their alley. (Google's market cap is ~$110 billion, so they could certainly afford to invest some resources if they deemed it advantageous.) Well yes, so could IBM and probably many others. I'm working on raising the resources myself because relying on others to do it is just too uncertain. If they do, great but we need other lines of attack too. -- Ian Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZMSL - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Review of OOo in Washington Post
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 13:54 -0600, Randomthots wrote: I agree with all that. I just think that promoting OOo and promoting ODF are interlocking but still separate propositions. That is why OpenDocument Fellowship exists as a separate entity. *At this point* promoting OOo on the basis of ODF is non-starter. I think its best to promote ODF in its own right and then link to OOo. Although someone who was completely naive might think that the success of MSO was entirely down to features in the product, the lock into .doc and the transfer of attachments via the internet certainly have been a factor. Internet integration is an even bigger issue now so its not just about OOo as an office suite, but OOo and its ability to integrate with the Internet. Google can open up a whole vista of search options for ODF independently of OOo. ODF has the potential to be the next step in the HTML, XHTML, XML progression in which case OOo is actually a lot less important than ODF. Most of the big players realise this which is why there is all of the fuss over MA. It goes well beyond office software. But the more OOo is adopted, the easier it will be to promote ODF. And the more ODF is developed for Internet applications beyond office apps the more likely OOo is to get taken up. OOo is the reference application for ODF in the same way the MSO is the reference app for MSO file types. But the world has changed a lot since MSO and .doc. .doc is a binary format specific to Word. ODF is not specific to OOo, its not even specific to office productivity tools. And of course, the particular market segment you're targeting makes a difference, too. It certainly does. Think of document archives, searches, storage, web site development and internet applications that have yet to be thought about. -- Ian Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZMSL - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
