Re: redifining GNOME office.
Completely forgot the link; silly me. Thanks. Andre Klapper wrote: > > Am Freitag, den 17.04.2009, 16:37 -0700 schrieb klyttle: >> I came across a presentation app for Gnome called Agnubis (strange name, >> I >> know). >> >> Not sure if it's still active, though; I really hope is it...it's >> definitely >> the "missing link". > > Links are helpful: http://projects.gnome.org/agnubis/ > It's dead. I can't find a place to check out the source and I've never > heard about it. > But I think there's other folks around currently working on such a piece > of software. > > andre > -- > mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed > http://www.iomc.de/ | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper > > -- > marketing-list mailing list > marketing-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/redifining-GNOME-office.-tp9839222p23113224.html Sent from the Gnome - Marketing mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: redifining GNOME office.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Andre Klapper wrote: > Am Freitag, den 17.04.2009, 16:37 -0700 schrieb klyttle: >> I came across a presentation app for Gnome called Agnubis (strange name, I >> know). >> >> Not sure if it's still active, though; I really hope is it...it's definitely >> the "missing link". > > Links are helpful: http://projects.gnome.org/agnubis/ > It's dead. I can't find a place to check out the source and I've never > heard about it. > But I think there's other folks around currently working on such a piece > of software. How about Criawips? I feel like it's a newer attempt, although also inactive. But its source is still available in git.gnome.org. http://www.nongnu.org/criawips/ http://live.gnome.org/Criawips Regards, -- Theppitak Karoonboonyanan http://linux.thai.net/~thep/ -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: redifining GNOME office.
Am Freitag, den 17.04.2009, 16:37 -0700 schrieb klyttle: > I came across a presentation app for Gnome called Agnubis (strange name, I > know). > > Not sure if it's still active, though; I really hope is it...it's definitely > the "missing link". Links are helpful: http://projects.gnome.org/agnubis/ It's dead. I can't find a place to check out the source and I've never heard about it. But I think there's other folks around currently working on such a piece of software. andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://www.iomc.de/ | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: redifining GNOME office.
I came across a presentation app for Gnome called Agnubis (strange name, I know). Not sure if it's still active, though; I really hope is it...it's definitely the "missing link". Ken VanDine wrote: > > That would be fine with me, I just want to get all the areas covered. > The major week point is the lack of a presentation app. > > --Ken > > On 4/4/07, Quim Gil wrote: >> Why don't we do the opposite: close officially GNOME Office and keep >> working on the interoperability and integration between GNOME >> applications. >> >> Do we need a concept of "Office" for GNOME nowadays? There is a lot of >> people working in offices with computers in the XXIth century, and >> they use all kinds of applications. >> >> For instance, who could strongly disagree if someone would propose a >> GNOMEish Office suite made with >> >> Epiphany - Evolution - Gaim - Abiword - Gnumeric >> >> The sensible combinations are multiple, who are we to decide what is >> Office and what is not? Also important: without MS Office and its free >> clone OpenOffice, would we be discussing now about GNOME Office? >> >> I agree the tools should be integrated, but this principle is >> applicable to (at least) all the products of the official GNOME >> release. No need to remark a weak "Office" concept to work on actual >> functionality. >> >> -- >> Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org >> -- >> marketing-list mailing list >> marketing-list@gnome.org >> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list >> > -- > marketing-list mailing list > marketing-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/redifining-GNOME-office.-tp9839222p23107807.html Sent from the Gnome - Marketing mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: redifining GNOME office.
A word limit would be good. -- Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: redifining GNOME office.
On 4/4/07, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: IMveryHO trying to marketing-wise (re)build a concept of GNOME Office to compete against OOo is even more futile than putting energies into beating Firefox's success with Epiphany. We have very limited energies, we better concentrate them in the critical areas where the free software offer needs us most. If we are not convinced about GNOME who else should we convince. Why are we doing this? This sounds like we are not really trying to convince anybody that GNOME should be their desktop. We neither want to cooperate too much nor do we want to provide a full desktop solution (this would include a usable desktop). So we are going nowhere. I can't tell anybody to use Abiword and Gnumeric iof there is not really a strong support for these applications and the general idea of a GNOME based Office. I then MUST tell my customers to use KDE or OpenOffice.org instead because I don't want to see my customers having to do costly switches of platforms just because GNOME takes on a hobbyist approach without a professional ambition? I have not recommended Abiword so far to my customers because OO.org is just providing much more NOW. If we only see GNOME as a desktop für interaction with hardware etc. I think this really does not help users very much because they then have to use non-GNOMish applications who follow other philosophies to do their tasks. And also GNOME is not THAT different. Sending attachments via Nautilus to Thunderbird does not work. We CAN indeed work on those "bugs". But neither Mozilla.org nor OpenOffice.org are or will be GNOME - so we will se a lot of costly integration issues. I really think that KDEs approach to work on KDE Office makes much more sense - and if asked what viable alternative to huge OpenOffice.org they should use I should not recommend Abiword or Gnumeric if these do not get the support of the GNOME community. I really think that Office application and integration is THE core point of desktop development. We win or loose on this point. So giving up the GNOME Office idea altogether for me sounds like: forget about GNOME. To say it positive what GNOME is or should be from my view: I would expect GNOME to be my desktop - there should be concepts to help me as a user to fulfill my tasks which are things like: working with files, photos, sound, financial data, letters, graphics. This all should go smoothly and there should not be any issues with the interaction. Neither OO nor FF will focus on integrating with either of GNOME or KDE. These are cross-platform applications that Maybe it would even make much more sense for OO to write a desktop of its own to be integrated better. Same is true for Mozilla. I suppose you think that your proposition would mean more effectiveness of the GNOME organisation. But I think that giving up the idea of a GNOME Office makes GNOME less attractive to users and is indeed counterproductive. Sorry for being so blunt, but I think its better to do it this way as to think one way and talk another. I also see that with the diminishing power of GNOME we see distributions making their own steps. We even see bugs of Distribution X beeing issued into Bugzilla, reducing GNOME more and more to just some kind of common subversion base of different distributions. Also funny to see some disttributions in fact offering additional commercial applications as a bugfix inside Bugzilla :-( . I think GNOME could and should be more than the sum of its individual parts. I did not follow GNOME culture from its beginning. For me it looks like culture is decreasing and more tasks that GNOME should do are done my distributions where in fact I think really distributions should not be that important. You COULD switch distributions while keeping a GNOME desktop. But switching a desktop is nothing one really should want to do. I don't see why we should do GNOME marketing at all if what you say is the rough consensus. If GNOME really is just some SVN repository and some geeky events and projects I don't see any need to coordinate or market. Then it does not matter anyway if things really work because no one really will stick to or depend on GNOME. If I expect nothing from an application I don't use it. I have switched to FLOSS in 1998 because I was willing to accept substandard software because its free and because of its potential. The projects I most likely will not be able to use in the future because they can not take up with the development are not really what a user should choose. If we at Foresight would have thought like that we would not have chosen Epiphany as its default application. We should tell people why they should want to use GNOME or gnomish applications instead of other options. I hope we are getting more ambitious. Thilo -- Thilo Pfennig http://issues.foresightlinux.org/confluence/x/R -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: redifining GNOME office.
We could very well base marketing on that concept. ie: "Still thinking your software working suite in terms of * Office?" and show that GNOME doesn't force you into using certain apps, but allows you to build your own suite in your own terms, but yet - they all "speak" to eachother hassle-free. On 4/4/07, Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 23:30 +0300, Quim Gil wrote: > > On 4/4/07, Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > we would lose an important constituency (those making purchasing > > > decisions, etc.) > > > > Those making purchasing decisions don't look at GNOME alone, look at > > distributions. They think in Firefox, they think in > > Evolution/Thunderbird, they think in OpenOffice, they care to have > > well covered the PDF, Flash, Java issues... and they don't really care > > if application X is in fact GNOME or not as far it works properly. > > > > IMveryHO trying to marketing-wise (re)build a concept of GNOME Office > > to compete against OOo is even more futile than putting energies into > > beating Firefox's success with Epiphany. > > Sure, but I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not trying to sell the > concept of GNOME Office over OOo, because I agree, I don't think that > would work. For those who really care about productivity apps on the > free desktop, OOo is the most important app (IMveryHO also ;) > > What I'm saying is that "GNOME Office" needs to be about saying to these > people, "GNOME is the best environment for running your > OpenOffice/Tbird/whatever". It's not about promoting GNOME ahead of > those apps, but promoting the idea of GNOME being the best environment > for those apps. > > At the end of the day, people will choose GNOME for a very few reasons, > but primarily I think their reasons will be based on the apps they want > to run, not because they like the look of the desktop. We should be > making their apps work better in GNOME, and telling them that if they > want the best OOo/whatever experience, that GNOME is the desktop to run. > > Cheers, > > Alex. > > -- > marketing-list mailing list > marketing-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list > -- Panos Laganakos -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: redifining GNOME office.
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 23:30 +0300, Quim Gil wrote: > On 4/4/07, Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > we would lose an important constituency (those making purchasing > > decisions, etc.) > > Those making purchasing decisions don't look at GNOME alone, look at > distributions. They think in Firefox, they think in > Evolution/Thunderbird, they think in OpenOffice, they care to have > well covered the PDF, Flash, Java issues... and they don't really care > if application X is in fact GNOME or not as far it works properly. > > IMveryHO trying to marketing-wise (re)build a concept of GNOME Office > to compete against OOo is even more futile than putting energies into > beating Firefox's success with Epiphany. Sure, but I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not trying to sell the concept of GNOME Office over OOo, because I agree, I don't think that would work. For those who really care about productivity apps on the free desktop, OOo is the most important app (IMveryHO also ;) What I'm saying is that "GNOME Office" needs to be about saying to these people, "GNOME is the best environment for running your OpenOffice/Tbird/whatever". It's not about promoting GNOME ahead of those apps, but promoting the idea of GNOME being the best environment for those apps. At the end of the day, people will choose GNOME for a very few reasons, but primarily I think their reasons will be based on the apps they want to run, not because they like the look of the desktop. We should be making their apps work better in GNOME, and telling them that if they want the best OOo/whatever experience, that GNOME is the desktop to run. Cheers, Alex. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: redifining GNOME office.
On 4/4/07, Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > we would lose an important constituency (those making purchasing > decisions, etc.) Those making purchasing decisions don't look at GNOME alone, look at distributions. They think in Firefox, they think in Evolution/Thunderbird, they think in OpenOffice, they care to have well covered the PDF, Flash, Java issues... and they don't really care if application X is in fact GNOME or not as far it works properly. IMveryHO trying to marketing-wise (re)build a concept of GNOME Office to compete against OOo is even more futile than putting energies into beating Firefox's success with Epiphany. We have very limited energies, we better concentrate them in the critical areas where the free software offer needs us most. -- Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: redifining GNOME office.
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 22:08 +0300, Quim Gil wrote: > Why don't we do the opposite: close officially GNOME Office and keep > working on the interoperability and integration between GNOME > applications. I think we're in rough agreement; whether or not there is an official "GNOME Office", we're saying that there ought to be a broad idea of how office-type tools can work together in GNOME rather than a narrow idea of a single suite with a single set of applications. What users probably care more about is that their applications can read their files (so, I think OpenDocument is important, though users might not realise that), and that basic stuff that Ken mentioned works: open/save dialogs are all consistent, printing is consistent, and the UI fits with GNOME. But I think we also need to keep sight of the fact that office-type apps are very important to many users, especially those using GNOME for work. They are the main day-to-day productivity tools, and I think GNOME could do a lot better job integrating them. From a marketing point of view, I think we would lose an important constituency (those making purchasing decisions, etc.) if we didn't highlight GNOME as being excellent for Office tasks: whether or not that means having a GNOME Office, I'm not sure, but I wouldn't want to lose that concept completely. Things like being able to link e-mails from Evo into tomboy are just scratching the surface, we should be able to link all our data in there if we like (e.g., having a note for a project, and links to relevant e-mails, documents, etc.). GNOME's role in that kind of desktop is one primarily of ensuring apps talk to each other and work in concert, IMHO. I think we can still communicate something meaningful at that level which primarily applies to productivity apps. Cheers, Alex. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: redifining GNOME office.
That would be fine with me, I just want to get all the areas covered. The major week point is the lack of a presentation app. --Ken On 4/4/07, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why don't we do the opposite: close officially GNOME Office and keep > working on the interoperability and integration between GNOME > applications. > > Do we need a concept of "Office" for GNOME nowadays? There is a lot of > people working in offices with computers in the XXIth century, and > they use all kinds of applications. > > For instance, who could strongly disagree if someone would propose a > GNOMEish Office suite made with > > Epiphany - Evolution - Gaim - Abiword - Gnumeric > > The sensible combinations are multiple, who are we to decide what is > Office and what is not? Also important: without MS Office and its free > clone OpenOffice, would we be discussing now about GNOME Office? > > I agree the tools should be integrated, but this principle is > applicable to (at least) all the products of the official GNOME > release. No need to remark a weak "Office" concept to work on actual > functionality. > > -- > Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org > -- > marketing-list mailing list > marketing-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list > -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: redifining GNOME office.
Why don't we do the opposite: close officially GNOME Office and keep working on the interoperability and integration between GNOME applications. Do we need a concept of "Office" for GNOME nowadays? There is a lot of people working in offices with computers in the XXIth century, and they use all kinds of applications. For instance, who could strongly disagree if someone would propose a GNOMEish Office suite made with Epiphany - Evolution - Gaim - Abiword - Gnumeric The sensible combinations are multiple, who are we to decide what is Office and what is not? Also important: without MS Office and its free clone OpenOffice, would we be discussing now about GNOME Office? I agree the tools should be integrated, but this principle is applicable to (at least) all the products of the official GNOME release. No need to remark a weak "Office" concept to work on actual functionality. -- Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: redifining GNOME office.
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 12:55 -0400, Ken VanDine wrote: > I definately agree. Not sure I agree with wikipedia says makes up > GNOME Office. But we need something that we can say works together, > abiword, gnumeric and gnome-db for sure. We still need a presentation > app, criawips also seems dead. Lets get these revitalized. I don't think "GNOME Office" needs to be short-hand for "the GNOME Office suite"; I think it does need to be much more about integration and collaboration. So, for example, I don't see why both Abiword and OO Writer can't be part of GNOME office. They appeal to totally different types of users, and don't really compete in terms of functionality. Both should be "first class" in terms of the GNOME desktop: yes, OOo is very sucky in some areas (mostly the UI), but that does seem to be improving very rapidly (and perhaps would be quicker with GNOME pushing it). I think it's more important that programs are able to work together well (e.g., good OpenDocument support, that kind of thing) and work well in the overall desktop. Programs like Abiword et al. are definitely worthwhile IMHO, but I don't see them replacing OOo in my daily work in the next few years - they're just not "big" enough. It seems important to me that they all work well in GNOME. Cheers, Alex. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: redifining GNOME office.
I definately agree. Not sure I agree with wikipedia says makes up GNOME Office. But we need something that we can say works together, abiword, gnumeric and gnome-db for sure. We still need a presentation app, criawips also seems dead. Lets get these revitalized. I know people just say OpenOffice.org is good enough, I simply don't agree. Yes it is very full featured and pretty compatible with M$ Office. However, it isn't well integrated in GNOME. One of the things I love about GNOME is out well integrated things are. But OOo has it's own print dialog... just for a simple example. We need something to fill this void. I don't think GNOME Office should be a product by itself, but more of a collaboration of other projects to play well together. The biggest issue I see right now is the lack of a impress alternative. Anyone know the status of criawips? --Ken On 4/4/07, Thilo Pfennig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I suggest we redefine GNOME Office. See als this bug: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422337. > > The Wikipedia website says > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Office > > > > The Ubuntu 6.10 documentation also includes the following as part of the > GNOME Office product suite: > Dia, a diagram editor > Inkscape, a vector graphics editor > The GIMP, the classic image editor > Planner, a project management solution I suggest that rather than every > distribution does its own definition we agree to extend the concept and also > to work again on this field. This also means that we should encourage to > work on the weakness. Like that we still miss a presentation program. > > Would like to see some other opinions on this topic. > > > Thilo > > -- > Thilo Pfennig > http://issues.foresightlinux.org/confluence/x/R > -- > marketing-list mailing list > marketing-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list > > -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
