Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts

[Rebecca Ore <rebecca ore op net>]

Jesse D. Sightler writes:
 > >-----Original Message-----
 > >From: Olof Oberg <mill@pedgr571.sn.umu.se>
 > >To: gnome-list@gnome.org <gnome-list@gnome.org>
 > >Date: Sunday, October 18, 1998 6:38 AM
 > >Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
 > >
 > 
 > >Greg Hayes <sdc@choice.net> wrote:
 > >> How is it a flame to say someone is off the mark lately?
 > >
 > >Your post was totally uncalled for. We should listen to RMS
 > >because he (probably) knows Emacs better than anyone else.
 > >Your claim that we shouldn't was based on something totally
 > >irrelevant to the issue. Something that shouldn't be on this
 > >list.
 > 
 > 
 > I completely disagree.  RMS' knowledge of Emacs has nothing to do with
 > whether or not we should implement an entirely new Word Processor based on
 > something else.  RMS is WRONG, Emacs is not a viable option as a word
 > processor for the masses.
 > 
 > And that is definatley not a personal attack on RMS.]

I'm on the XEmacs beta mailing list and we've also had a discussion
about having a word processor function with XEmacs.  Editors like
Emacs and XEmacs are different animals.  One of the XEmacs developers
warned us that the whole thing was not a trivial undertaking.

My preference would be for a simplier UI than MS Word.

WPs are rare in free software because they're written for users who
don't particularly want to work with computers and because they're
quite complex in and of themselves.  If this was a daunting project
for some pretty good developers who have gone beyond Emacs in variable 
fonts and graphics inclusions, then I would like to make sure we think 
this one through.

-- 
Rebecca Ore