In second case, the users (both new and existing) are free to choose, and only supporters (mostly already experienced) have some extra load. I prefer second.
Another case.
A: Let’s get OOXML approved as an additional open standard.
B: One open document format standardised is preferrable.
C: Let the user decide.
Lupp: Those with the biggest market share in advance will steal the stake, even if they do not keep their promises concerning mutual support, persistence and whatever. In addition they will change something substantial as soon as competitors succeed with compatibility.
No chance to catch up. Must be better.
Arbitrary analogy isn’t a good argument. (Even aside from fact that it’s not universally accepted that two open document standards is a wrong thing.)
A good wish to be better isn’t supported by an adequate driving force, and without it, avoiding the catch-up doesn’t make any good for LO.
Very Interesting. Especially the last line. … It was that ribbon that I paid much money for in an Access update (2007 I think) and then came to hate so much that I abandoned the update in favor of the previous version, Access 2003, which I still use today. I remain sure that the ribbon was invented by amateurs, kids let loose with power and trying to masquerade as pros, but they had no idea what production looks like. Windows 10 is the same bs, writ large, and so I am here w/ Linux/LO.
In my opinion, some of the new options for the new GUI, there are 4 options if I remenber correctly are quite good looking and shinny. But you guys have a point, that trying to modify the interface to make it look prettier and shinier can be a waste of time, since the competitor (full of cash from the proprietary world) will make new changes and will ultimately make unfruitful all the LO efforts to look ‘prettier’. It’s like a loop that has no end, a cat and mouse kind of thing…
The solution is a more pragmatic approach: focousing on improving LO itself and make it functional. Perhaps, instead of spending so many resources on attempting to create a shinny Ribbon interface, the LO team shoud focous more on deciding which of the bugs that are sitting in bugzilla for years actually need fixing. The LO team should be focousing more on ‘simple and mundane tasks should be made simple’ and not on increasing the complexity of the code (which is already the size of the solar
This work cannot be unfruitful. Before the work started, we had no extensible framework. Now we have it. So extending it in arbitrary direction is easier than before the effort. And for us, it’s easy to keep all UI options, while for competitor, a change was “one and the only option available” which means a new learning curve and much disappointment from users.
system) and adding stuff to it, like table styles (in LO 5.3) for example. There are more important things to do.
And what is “so many resources”? A couple of developers? Who are interested in the work, and (you should remember - we are volunteer-based project!) possibly, if they were not allowed to work on this, they would leave the project. You seem to misunderstand how the things are done here.
you have a good point. But isn’t the Document Foundation a guiding light for LO? If they are, they should guide towards simplicity and functionality of use. This, in my opinion, should be their main priority.
You may like to get familiar with the goal of TDF, and its role. It is not there to restrict what may be done with the project.
“So many resources” could be the 250,000 euros they spent in 2015 on staff and freelancers, you can find that in their report.That is more (hopefully) than a couple of developers.
So do you think that these money were spent to develop Muffin? wow…
The most resources to develop Muffin was from Google… as they payed the GSoC student to do the work over summer. Other resources were from volunteers to mentor the student and design the thing.
We are experimenting with new UI concepts (1) (2) to make it easier for user to work with the LO as they feel comfortable, but adding new UI options doesn’t mean the old one will be removed. Toolbar / Sidebar will still be available and we don’t plan to remove it.
BTW. you can choose other options already in LibreOffice 5.3, if you enable experimental features.
I know of a few topics out there that cause similar religious fear.
Do all LO users use Base? And if they don’t, do they fear of its presence that much so they would describe it “I hear rumors that the dreadful Base is going to be installed with LibreOffice! Is that true? I’m afraid many people would look for something else because of that, myself included”?
What I expect from a sensible user is a question like “I heard LO is going to have Ribbon. I don’t want to use ribbon, so will it be optional?” This doesn’t make the question, and answer, something polarized.
And the answer to “Will it be optional?” is yes.
To impute “religious fear” to critics and sceptics who well substantiate their point of view should be regarded bad style.
That myself and other critics also talk about some suspicions or a personal attitude you may regard as honest insofar as everyone of us knows he has to expect such accusations.
I personally don’t feel offended but I am stunned by the idea of imputing unobjective and short-sighted thinking to oweng.
-
I’m really disappointed that these words are treated as targeted to just anyone you choose, not to the person who asked the question. This answer was the first in the thread, before any other reply was posted, and I never “accused” anyone in comments to (irrelevant!) other answers. Especially it’s unfair to assume that this relates to Owen.
-
I do think that the discussion about Muffin being wrong place to put effort reveals fundamental misunderstanding of TDF and LO development.
Personally I don’t like using Ribbon, while reasonably well can use it (e.g. in recent versions of AutoCAD etc.), but I do believe that declaring something as “invented by amateurs”, “riding on a wave”, “spent so many resources” etc (I skip most offensive) when there’s a strong demand of this feature from fellow users, and it is developed by interested developers (there’s no regulation in what to develop in TDF at all!) - is no less “accusation”.
So, I’ll try to describe what makes me think the question is asked incorrectly. First, it states that user was informed about arrival of “Ribbon” to LO (of course, it’s about Muffin). OK, but the second statement is “This is the sad day”, declaring this as a Bad Thing™ right away. This accuses those who developed this feature, as well as demeans those who asked for it. Then, it continues in the same tone, until it asks the real question: is it optional?