Re: Gnome Office updates

[Jody Goldberg <jody gnome org>]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 12:35:12PM -0500, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> >> >> Unless Gnome Office is going to be ruthless on a 'advocate one app
> >> >> only  for each task', which is not something I would have thought we
> >> >> would  want to be doing.
> >
> >It would be aq taad hypocritical of us to advocate along those lines
> >given that we're complaining about our apps being removed in favour
> >of OOo using the same logic.
> 
> I'd have to disagree here. I don't complain about our apps being "removed" 
> in favor of OOo because we're just "duplicate functionality." I complain 
> about it because OOo has absolutely nothing to do with Gnome technologies 
> in its current form. It doesn't use GTK. It doesn't use the icon theme 
> spec. It doesn't use GnomePrint. It doesn't use VFS (ok, maybe Michael's 
> branch does). It doesn't use much of anything Gnome-related. At least 
> something Mozilla uses some GTK/GDK bits under the hood and makes a 
> passable attempt at following my GTK theme...
> 
> OpenOffice is OpenOffice. Look, they've got the word Office right there 
> embedded in their name. And what precedes that is not "Gnome." OpenOffice 
> is not GnomeOffice, though it is plausible that some could call it "Gnome's 
> Office Suite". The space in the name is quite significant to me.

We're all agreeing here.  My comment refered only to my preference
for not exclude gnome applications that duplicate functionality
because 'there can be only one'.  Hence sodipodi and inkscape should
both be listed (if either wants).  On the other hand I do not see
why we need to list OOo.  They've got lots of awareness already
without our helping them along.  They're not advocting GNOME Office
why would we advocate for them.