Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice

[Martin Sourada]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:06:17 +0100 
Marina Latini wrote:
> Maybe a power user is able to understand the main differences between
> LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice but, what about newbie users?
If they can install their preferred suite on Windows why not on
GNU/Linux? People would be more confused coming from Windows used to
OpenOffice and finding only LibreOffice (or vice versa). Also, most of
our spins already include one or another office suite, so complete
newbies does not need to even know there are more than one and still
have it.

> 
> > I think it's beneficial to provide Fedora users with the choice of
> > installing either, or even both, provided there's enough interest
> > among the devs to make it so. From a user point of view, I think the
> > main manpower for F19 should go into getting it into repos and
> > solving *all* conflicts. They should be parallel installable and
> > should not conflict even at runtime with each other. Especially the
> > runtime conflicts would be really confusing to (some of) our users.
> 
> We adopted LibreOffice as the other GNU/Linux distributions and now we
> want reintroduce Apache OpenOffice. This corresponds to admit we made
> a wrong choice! this way of act is a lack of coherence.
> As Ambassador I can't see benefits for Fedora but only problems for
> our users. this proposal is only a point of failure.
Benefits... As mentioned above, easier transition for new users from
Win or Mac (both Appache OO and LibreOffice are installable and
available there and supposedly AOO is rather popular, though I don't
have any hard numbers, just a hearsay), providing users with more
choice. They're two different projects now with two different
development teams, different directions, different but libre licenses.
Why should we allow users to easily install only one of them?

Also, when Fedora switched to LO, as I understood it, the old OOo was
supposed to slowly die off (or get closed), so LO was considered more
or less a spiritual successor and there wasn't much profit in keeping
OOo. Now that OOo was resurrected under the Apache hood and is
"blooming" under the slightly changed name, we can profit from
providing both, while still keeping LO default. And if there are people
willing to do the work to make them both work seamlessly, why ban them?
We're not changing how we present Fedora, we're just adding new office
suite -- is that not marketable?

Just my 2 cents,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130131/0f65d954/attachment-0001.sig>