On 10/2/05, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 10/2/05, Pete Holsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Why bother as long as there's such a nice free program like NVU? Better > > the developers should put their energies into developing an Outlookl > > workalike application. > > > > AbiWord exists, and we still have and seek to improve OOo Writer. Inkscape > exists, and we still have and seek to improve OOo Draw. Gnumeric exists, and > we still have and seek to improve OOo Calc. KOffice exists, and we still > have and seek to improve OpenOffice.org. > > Your logic is completely flawed. > > -Chad Smith > > And, to further prove my case, Firefox and Thunderbird exist. They are crossplatform and open source. Thunderbird, with the optional, but equally free, open source, and cross platform, Calendar extention do pretty much whatever Outlook can do. So why should we "bother as long as there's such a nice free program like" Thunderbird?
The difference is, OpenOffice.org does not currently claim to be able to do what Outlook can do - so adding such functionality would be extra work. OOo *DOES* currently claim the ability to create and edit HTML web pages. Improving the "less than stellar" functionality of OOo's HTML is not about adding a feature, it's fixing a broken one. Therefore, your desire for an Outlook clone / THunderbird repeat is more a waste of time than my desire for an improved HTML editor. However, that being said, I'm not against either feature request. Even if the former (the OUtlook thing) took the form of some kind of Mozilla-OpenOffice.org collaboration. -- - Chad Smith
