Subject: 1.0 features [was Re: Call for writers]
From: Tomas Frydrych (tomas@frydrych.uklinux.net)
Date: Mon Apr 30 2001 - 10:49:15 CDT
I share the view expressed by rms in an earlier message that Abi
still lacks some essential features, and that releasing 1.0 without
them could do us more harm than good. For my purposes until AW
supports footnotes it is not a usable wordprocessor, and for many
people the same goes for tables. If we handle the 1.0 release
correctly, many people who never tried AW before will try it, many
of them may not do so again if they find it inadequate, no other
release of AW, be it 2.0, 5.0, or 2010 is likely to receive that much
attention as 1.0 (think of the release of Windows 98, which was
really a re-release of Win 95; in spite of MS efforts it attracted only
a fraction of the attention that Win 95 did). Thus, I would be much
happier if we held back until tables and footnotes are in place.
I am not demanding that we do so, but do feel that we need to
discuss this some more. From the recent postings it appears that
even Jasper who feels that we need to release 1.0 fairly soon
thinks that there are feature which should be in 1.0 and will not be,
because of the time scale. Until just a short while ago I was happy
to approach this in the same manner. However, there is a logical
contradiction in this reasoning. If we release AW with the features
we have at the moment as 1.0, are we not in fact just attaching a
1.0 label to a software that is not really 1.0. That is, do we really
have genuine controll over how we define 1.0? Is it not, in fact, that
since we are not releasing AW into a vacuum but into a market
driven by demand, that the features that 1.0 should contain are
pretty much dictated to us by the expectations of potential users?
If many of the developers feel that tables is a feature that _should_
be in 1.0, is it not in fact an indication that it is a feature that
_must_ be in 1.0, if it is to deserve the 1.0 label? If we release
without tables, will it not come across to many users as if we do
not appreciate what modern wordprocessor is used for?
Just a food for thought.
Tomas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 10:51:14 CDT