> There are lots of checkboxes which are useful to certain audiences.
The assumption was only to show the point that LO cannot and will not satisfy everyone fully. There is no checkbox for the particular feature, and while maybe possible it seems not a priority to implement it.
> Furthermore, the problem with generalizing is that you assume that you won't get a situation where users want half of the differences from one suite, and half of the differences from the other. Each difference decreases the likelihood that anyone will be happy.
I never said that two office suites will satisfy everyone. I just said that (according to the spaghetti sauce example) they have the potential to satisfy more users than a single office suite.
> Either an idea is a good one, or it isn't.
> Your distinction between the two sorts of enterprise features is nonsense.
If that is true, then you have vastly more insight into business reality than I have.
> I'll note you didn't respond to a number of my other points. When you consider that the LO team is better and larger, and can grab any changes from AOO, but not the reverse, it really puts into question the point of these separate trees.
Sure they can. But will they follow each of AOO decisions? If there is a decision that makes AOO better for IBM's Windows customers, but makes it worse for everybody on Linux, do you really think that LO will grab this change?
> When you strip away all your hypotheticals and look at the actual facts, the situation is a lot clearer.
If you look at popular open source projects (Linux distros, desktop environments, text editors, programming languages, ...) you will see while superficially they seem to do the same - after all you can code Perl in vim running KDE on Debian as nicely as you can code Ruby in Emacs running LXDE on Slackware - there is a lot of diversity and there are very few high-profile exceptions where one project was able to fulfill the needs of everyone. There is no reason to assume that office suites are different.