Misinterpretation of a prototype?
It was really interesting to follow the media in the last days where discussion around the latest Renaissance prototype took place. And many many people commented on the blog from Frank a colleague of mine and other public sources.
The noise signals that people don't like an interface like ribbon or better where concepts similar to ribbon are used. I am not sure i have my own opinion but i agree at least that OpenOffice.org need it's own identity. It should be known as easy to use, highly productive and intuitive office suite with all the well known advantages (platform independent, standardized document format, free in terms of license costs for end users, etc.). And not only as a free alternative or clone of a well known other office application. The are many things that we will probably never achieve in the same quality. And the questions is if we need it or if it is maybe enough to make that what we have and what we can better, faster and easier to use? Means provide the tons of features in a new fresh way that people find it and can make use of it. How many office users can really work with styles, data pilots, etc.? I am sure you know what i mean.
Anyway i think the discussed prototype was not intended to demo an early development snapshot of a future office.