openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grzegorz Rajda <>
Subject Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Date Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:38:35 GMT
I remember year 2007, MS Office 2007 and Red Office (last based on OOo). 
Super UI requested by this external community starting new time for OOo 
-> death. OOo haven't enath peaople in developers community to release 
this new ideas. We haven't right DOC support (for example big files with 
a lot of images). We need to select new goals and release it as soon as 
possible. New organization should have modern ideas and mechanism to that.

On 22.06.2011 00:30, Christian Lippka wrote:
> As a developer I think we can learn a lot from the LO people in terms 
> of creating
> a user feeling. I think a mistake from OOo was to actually spend more 
> time coding
> and less time community building.
> Am 22.06.2011 00:20, schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
>> Hi Mathias,
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Mathias 
>> Bauer<>  wrote:
>>> On 21.06.2011 23:01, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Mathias Bauer<>
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Not really. It's mainly about the shrinking of the LO Windows 
>>>>> download
>>>>> size
>>>>> (that BTW still is bigger than the download size of OOo).
>>>> But includes *all* languages, as opposed to one single language.
>>>> (it doesn't include help though, that is in an extra package, if not
>>>> installed you'll get the help online in your browser).
>>>> So don't start comparing apples and oranges.
>>> <sigh>  I was not the one who started that nonsense discussion.</sigh>
>> But you were the one who made that nonsense statement. Live with it.
>>> And I still fail to see how that related to performance.
>> It is not. Only thing that is related to size is the amount of data
>> needed to read from disk and how much memory that useless data uses.
>> But no, I don't know whether that accounts to performance at all, and
>> as I'm not using windows myself, I don't care either. Or otherwise
>> put: No idea whether the windows9x compatibility stuff that was
>> removed for example was ifdef 0 ed already, or whether it ended up in
>> the compiled result..
>> But just because the one thing doesn't have anything to do with the
>> other, doesn't make that other part irrelevant.
>> All I asked for is to not compare apples with oranges. Not more, not 
>> less.
>> So many b*t is written and picked up by others, so don't start it here.
>>> Can we now go back to real work again?
>> Well, consider me as observer only/ignore me, I surely won't hinder
>> you from doing your work. But I surely won't just accept any nonsense
>> written here without commenting.
>> (as for performance: I myself didn't bother to compare for myself, but
>> users report that LO feels faster for them, so they are happy, and
>> that's what counts in the end)
>> ciao
>> Christian

View raw message