On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Alexandro Colorado <j...@oooes.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > On 3/26/13 3:35 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> My ordered preference would be 1, 3 > > > > > > > > > yeah, great *sarcasm*, let's add another bullet point to a microsoft > > > presentation titled 'how Microsoft Office is better than > > > OpenOfffice.org".... OO.o lacks database? check!" > > > > I don't see any sarcasm here but a valid order to address this problem. > > > > Do we really want compete with MS? Or do we want provide an open source > > and open standard based office productivity suite that can do most of > > the daily tasks of common users of such an office suite? I personally > > think we want the second and want help people who are open minded to > > solve their problems first and want to save money for other things. > > > > I am amazed how you select your own questions and then answer them as if we > have to choose one or the other. I think we want to compete with microsoft, > we have done it for years. I dont think we want to stop competing with > microsoft. That's why many users ask about us developing a mobile/cloud > offering. Because they want to see a strong open source competition to the > office suite. > > If we wanted the second, then Calligra would be by far more advanced to us, > since they have a more developed suite with many more components that what > we currently ship. Kexi is by far more developed than Base, and is somewhat > more flexible than Base using SQLite as the embeded DB and MySQL as part of > the QtDB module. Let alone other modules like Kivio (which users have also > asked for a Visio-like module). > > > > > > > If MS is better in certain areas users have to ask if they need it and > > if they depend on the feature. In case of companies it always possible > > to have a mixed deployment of 95% OpenOffice and 5% percent MS Office or > > something like that. > > > > We are a very good and high quality alternative but not always a 1:1 > > replacement. It really depends what you have to do. I personally can > > live perfectly with OpenOffice. > > > > > > > > My opinion is that maybe Sun put HSQLDB in there to fill in the need > for > > a > > > resident database engine, which in the commercial offering (StarOffice) > > was > > > filled by Adabas D. > > > > > > One can still read the positive reviews of StarOffice where the > database > > > module is praised: > > > > > > > > > http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Microsystems-0614647643195-StarOffice-7/dp/B0000DG2N4 > > > > > > //// > > > * StarOffice Adabas (database application) is included (getting MS > Access > > > requires buying MS Office Pro) and is easier to use than MS Access. > > Adabas > > > integrates with other StarOffice apps so, for instance, users can > easily > > > create mail merge documents. > > > /// > > > > > > So, if HSQLDB is not up to par, maybe the realistic solution is to > find a > > > database engine lightweight and powerful enough to take the role that > > > Adabas D had in StarOffice?. > > > > I would think SQLite is powerful enough to handle this job, however I am > not sure how license compatible is o if it gets the same treatment as > python and other components shipped with the suite. > > > > > > > > FC > > > PS: I read this whole thread as 'we don't want to maintain this code, > > since > > > we don't understand it, and we fear it's buggy'. But the solution in > any > > > case is replacing the database module for another, or improving the > > > existing code, not making excuses for saying 'people don't use > databases > > > after all so it should be gone'. > > > > Actually spreadsheets shouldnt be used as database, so there is a strong > need to easily migrate those huge spreadsheets into a database format that > makes it more reliable. It has got so bad that MS decided to create a SQL > language within Excel called DAO. > > It bares the question if Base should change to have a more spreadsheet > centric aproach, meaning that we should include formulas into Base. > > > As a quick reply to the spreadsheet comment. Already, there exist DB functions in Calc, and Base can import spreadsheets into its front-end if you will. We are living in a far, far different world than when StarOffice was first introduced. The database world, who creates them, who maintains them is quite different. I brought this up to suggest that the focus of Base be changed, not eliminated entirely. Maintaining/developing the connectivity pieces to various forms of databases is probably manageable. A full-blown embedded DB -- maybe not. What are the consequences of a full-blown embedded DB to both developers and end users? We do need to focus on preserving the quality of the product -- in total. > > > > > > nobody said we don't want, the key point that nobody worked on it, > > nobody maintains it, does improvements etc. We see of course demand for > > it but on the other hand we also see that it makes only sense with some > > degree of quality. Everything else can be more damaging for the project > > at all. > > I think it is not so hard to understand that a project driven by > > volunteers need volunteers for the certain areas or code get > > unmaintained, unstable, buggy over time or lacks for certain features > > and improvements ... > > > > Juergen > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > > > > -- > Alexandro Colorado > Apache OpenOffice Contributor > http://es.openoffice.org > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."
