[tdf-discuss] Realtime collaboration without a browser, CMU Link Grammar checker
Hi all, I have two ideas to consider. 1. Have you thought about creating a plugin for realtime collaboration without running in a browser? I'd love to be able to hand out LibreOffice invites to other people to work on shared documents, or even connecting to a Google server, but continuing to do all my work inside my beloved LibreOffice. I see LibreOffice allows you to connect to Google docs, but I don't think it enables real-time collaboration or the chatbox. If you don't store documents and instead just help people connect to each other, it becomes a cheap service to enable. I don't even want to store my docs on a server, I just want to be able to work with people on it without emailing files or diffs back and forth. You need a way to connect through firewalls, etc. which is a bit of a pain, but there are libraries for that ;-) It seems like there are some elements of LibreOffice online that could be used, but I'm not sure what. 2. Have you heard of the CMU Link Grammar checker? It is codebase I discovered recently that AbiWord is also using that seems to be a sophisticated parser and checker: https://github.com/opencog/link-grammar The algorithms run in O(n^3) for each sentence, so you might want to cut it off in tables, etc. but it could be useful. It's not a big library, and it has Python bindings so it can be prototyped quickly. Maybe it could be an easy hack to tweak the LightProof grammar checker to use this alternate engine. Should I file a bug about that? I might go for it some evening if no one else is interested ;-) Regards, -Keith -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Fwd: AI in Microsoft Office
I recently discovered that the Turing Institute is supposed to become the UK's national research laboratory for AI. I've also seen they are supporters of FOSS. Perhaps people in that Institute (or others) could be convinced to do some practical research projects in LibreOffice. They have interest in natural language and other topics that apply: https://www.turing.ac.uk/category/research/research-interests/ Someone told me there was hype around AI and that might be true, but neural networks are giving better results in the most difficult tasks: https://karpathy.github.io/2015/05/21/rnn-effectiveness/ Here's a history of ImageNet: https://qz.com/1034972/the-data-that-changed-the-direction-of-ai-research-and-possibly-the-world/ It makes the point that good data is at the center of AI. A deep lightproof could remain a small amount of code, but it needs curated datasets to train on. It seems overkill for a grammar checker to use a neural network. However, it could be worth thinking of a grammar checker as a set of language rules compiled from a standard corpus. Perhaps one decides to start by building something conventional using http://www.nltk.org/ would be a great place to start. Python is becoming the language of data science so LibreOffice is well positioned. Free software like LibreOffice is a great way for researchers to test out ideas and help millions of people. Let's make sure LibreOffice and the free desktop stay relevant and competitive! Regards, -Keith -- Sent from: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Discuss-f1621725.html -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Fwd: AI in Microsoft Office
Hi all, I came across a Microsoft AI video that I thought was interesting and food for thought here. The link shows the demo of AI features in Office: https://youtu.be/H_X1ZuM6ZJU?t=1h12m27s It shows an auto-designer, a better grammar checker, Intranet search and easy copy/paste, nice pen gestures, and analysis of spreadsheets (trends and outliers). He also references some other AI-powered features (quickstarter, researcher, my analytics, ink to math, ink to shape, math assistant) There's been a lot of progress in deep learning in the last few years. It is arguably overkill in many situations, but there are a lot of people working on it, and they are making continuous breakthroughs. There are some powerful Python libraries to consider integrating better into LibreOffice (perhaps via extensions) such as scikit-learn, nltk, PyTorch and Keras. There are C/C++ machine learning libraries that could be worth putting into LibreOffice also, and perhaps it has some already with the Calc solver. It would be interesting to see a Deep Lightproof or other interesting machine learning features one day. I tried to get the Java-based Language Tool working on my machine and didn't manage, and it made LibreOffice stutter, and the UI was tiny / unreadable, etc. I don't know if anyone has talked to them about the benefits of Python ;-) Regards, -Keith -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] HiDPI with LibreOffice
Hi; I just replaced my ancient Thinkpad with a Hi-DPI Lenova Yoga 2 Pro. QHD+ screens are finally arriving in PC laptops and make text much nicer to look at. The Yoga is the cheapest, but there are a number of models on the market and more on the way. In general, LibreOffice works well but has a few issues: the most noticeable is that the toolbar, status bar, and Navigator buttons are not big enough. You need the steady hands of a sober surgeon ;-) Setting large icons helps a bit, but only with the toolbar, and they still aren't big enough. Scaling the UI doesn't help at all as it doesn't scale buttons. Perhaps it would be good if the buttons were based on the size of the system font? AOO does a better job, they don't even need to set the large icons. In fact that option makes them too big. Maybe there are some patches that could be grabbed? There are just a few big usability issues, and a number of little ones: the startup screen is too small, the start center cuts off the text, the mis-spelling underlines are a little too hard to see, etc. I am willing to setup a task on Bounty Source and chip in $100, but maybe TDF can consider to donate a new laptop to a volunteer who promises to work on the issues? Someone donated hardware to a Gnome developer and they got some fixes into 3.10 because of it. Regards, -Keith -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Scripting for LibreOffice
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Wolfgang Keller wrote: >> While working on my wiki page about a new Writer toolbar, I realized >> that independently of my proposal, I believe it makes sense for >> LibreOffice to prefer Python. I see how LO is heading in this >> direction, but you could be explicit about it, create more workitems, >> perhaps track it like you do the German comments and uncalled >> functions, etc. > > It could also be helpful to have a handbook for PyUno... ;-) > > The point is that a *lot* of users of Python (and there are bulkloads > out there) are non-developers who don't give a darn for Java or VBA > (because those don't provide what these users need) and who might have > never even learned C++. > > So without specific documentation they're essentially stalled, while > with a handbook, you could get a lot of helpers to implement additions > in Python. > > Looks like a classic "multiplier" situation to me. Is there a bug about this? Is the handbook to be built by the doc team? It seems like a lack of samples / handbook could be a big reason for the stalled pipeline of Python patches. Warm regards, -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Experimental UI for LibreOffice proposal
Hi; On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Wolfgang Keller wrote: >> I'm working on a proposal for building an experimental new LibreOffice >> toolbar / UI in Python: >> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:KeithCu > > Err, I would like to point out the fact that trying to emulate MS in any > way is always a B-A-D idea. I agree that one should never blindly copy anything MS is doing, especially around radical UI changes which can be disruptive. This proposal is a prototype, which could also be relatively quickly changed based on unhappy user feedback. > > Your idea of a "ribbon" turned into a "sidebar" by 90° rotation imho is > nothing else than the revival of the old (pre-Windows) Lotus 1-2-3 menu > system. Pulldown-menus (and dialog boxes) are a far more advanced > concept. Besides the issues with screenspace. > > A concept that could be a *lot* more useful imho would be to allow > tearing off individual (sub-)menus and placing them as floating (or > docked if the user prefers that) "toolboxes" next to the workspace. See > typical graphics software or e.g. RagTime. When I was working in > RagTime (or FrameMaker, but that was more than a decade ago), all I > had on-screen besides the document itself and the pull-down menubar > above were the listboxes with character and paragraph styles and very > few other floating palettes. Hmmm, that sounds interesting. To be honest, I liked the image I picked, but I think that when starting, it makes sense to consider other designs. If it turns out you don't want a "radically different toolbar", then my proposal is a bad idea. Otherwise, you could build a reasonable experiment in a few months. I would be excited to see what you all came up with, perhaps even two designs / modes ;-) Warm regards, -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Scripting for LibreOffice
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:23 AM, Charles Jenkins wrote: > I'm with you on the UI design, Keith. The way software looks influences how > people perceive its capability, and LO looks like something from the 90's. I > like your design because it's attractive, yet leaves the menus in place for > those users who can't get into using the ribbon. > > Now on the idea of removing VBA… I hate VBA, but I'd rather see LO become > *more* compatible, rather than ditching it. I want LO to become the product > people can switch to, but you close the door on switchers when you reduce > compatibility. I can tell you that for sure because of my own recent > difficulties fixing a macro so automated data export from SAP will work with > LO. > > Step 1: Get the world to use LO as its Office standard. > Step 2: Drop M$ Office compatibility. > I agree that improving VBA compatibility would be helpful, my point was about extensions written by volunteers. Regards, -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Scripting for LibreOffice
Hi; On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi Keith, > > On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 16:16 -0800, Keith Curtis wrote: >> I see how LO is heading in this direction, but you could be >> explicit about it, create more workitems, > > There always plenty of work-items and opinions; the only shortage is > of > people to work on them. Working code speaks far louder than vague wishes > for change and E-mails :-) I know there are plenty of workitems. Fortunately your team is growing, with new people showing up looking for discrete, easy to get into, interesting and important tasks. Right now, it seems there is less than one Python person. Perhaps it is because there are just one or two Python Easy Hacks, and not much of a group focus yet like was done with uncalled functions. With effort to improve this aspect of your community, you could noticeably polish / improve the product a lot over time, with each volunteer generally more productive per hour. > >> You may have to support Java for years, but that doesn't mean you >> should invest in the language. > > Java is here to stay of course; it's a great way of writing > cross-platform extensions. Having said that - what makes you think we're > investing significantly in it ? and what does 'invest' mean in the > context of a volunteer project ? Java is a fine language for some of your enterprise, etc. customers, but it is not nearly as popular or respected in the Linux desktop hacker community, who LibreOffice are recruiting many from. As one piece of evidence, there doesn't seem to be anyone improving the Java code today. > > Ultimately if someone wants to come and improve the Java support they > are more than welcome, and we'll help them out / review their patches. > Likewise if people want to get stuck into python porting - which has a > pragmatic, end-user benefit - and/or helping python be a better quality > citizen in our ecosystem - I'm all for that too: bring on the patches ! That is great to hear you want Python patches, but requests on this alias will not be as effective a recruitment tool. > >> but you could make a point to recruit new people with Python experience >> like you do for German speakers. It is also a lot easier of a way to get >> into the LibreOffice codebase. STL makes my head hurt, > > Gratuitously irritating some significant segment of our contributors > by > importing some completely un-necessary and pointlessly dogmatic > language-war seems like a particularly self-defeating strategy for > success :-) I think some of your contributors might be too sensitive ;-) The point I was trying to get at is that C++ is a complicated language, and Python is a growing and fun language, and yet there is not too much of a Python dev team. I don't mean to irritate, so it is best to focus on anything I write that might be useful and be happy for it ;-) > by the time we've carefully driven away everyone except > those who use our preferred language: say Haskell - we may notice that > we're down to a team of one ;-) If someone wants to support Haskell for some of your users, that is great and you've got a bunch of UNO code that could be easily changed. However, I wouldn't recommend volunteers writing a bunch of wizards in it that LibreOffice would have to maintain, etc. It isn't about personal preferences, but about community. Python is not popular to many regular computer users, but their community is massive and has an incredible amount of free code with libraries like: http://nltk.org/, http://www.sagemath.org/, http://scipy.org/Topical_Software. Other languages have good free libraries as well, and I don't want to devolve into a language war here but given you already ship with a Python interpreter, etc., efforts to get people could be valuable for your next 2.5 years. > >> I can also imagine a number of new Python extensions that could be >> bundled by default. > > Please do write them; then we'll review/merge and bundle them. Real is > better than imaginary when it comes to code ;-) so get stuck in ! prove > the power of python by writing some fantastic functionality with it. > The point isn't about my patches, but about your community. That is why I wrote to the discuss alias. It shouldn't be necessary to prove the power of Python anymore, in LibreOffice alone, the Lightproof grammar checker has already done that. In any case, you are supportive already, so it would be great if more were with you. Warm regards, -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Experimental UI for LibreOffice proposal
Hi; On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Joel Madero wrote: > >> > >> >> To be clear, the underlying image was created by Paulo José. Working >> on smaller screens is a good question, but you have to get something >> before you make it work with additional constraints. LibreOffice has >> two challenges, looking good on the upcoming high-res screens, and >> working okay on the smaller screens. I think as a start, the focus >> should be on >~1280 pixels wide screens. >> > > Really not trying to be pessimistic but in all truth, I don't see this > happening. I've seen the work before and personally I like it quite a bit > but you have three major issues: Many things are harder than a Python Writer toolbar built by someone with the skills of a college intern. Depending on how you implemented it would tell you how much it cost. The only new C++ code is in a way to dock this Python toolbar so it looks like it belongs. The C++ changes to LibreOffice here are a lot smaller. It could even start as a separate extension / window, and ignore all these difficult C++ changes indefinitely. I agree you shouldn't take your busy people away from their tasks. There are many things to be done that are higher priority than experimental. However, if it becomes useful to some even while unfinished, it is then adding value back like the other experimental features. It could also be a source of ideas for incremental improvements to other parts of LibreOffice. A task like this will need mentoring, every volunteer is being mentored somewhat, so you can seemingly afford one more. If any designers are comfortable with Python hacking, they could implement some of their ideas and cut devs out of the bottleneck. There are many bitmaps that could be used in the spec. The person doing the work would have to figure out what it will precisely look like and behave, with feedback from other people. I haven't seen a more official bitmap. -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Experimental UI for LibreOffice proposal
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote: > On 03/08/2013 03:44 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: >> >> Hi; >> >> I'm working on a proposal for building an experimental new LibreOffice >> toolbar / UI in Python: >> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:KeithCu >> >> I'm going to add some links to places where the C++ code would need to >> be changed and a few more tweaks, but I'm interested in feedback. Feel >> free to use email or post in the discussion page as you prefer. >> >> Regards, >> >> -Keith >> > > What is the target display width for your design? > > We may have users that are using 800 pixel width CRT monitors. > > So whatever you design to be on the side panel, the work space that the use > will be doing the typing and editing in must be wide enough for them to > "efficiently" work with the document file. > > When I was working with the display withs under 1024 pixels, I found many > packages that were not designed to be easily used with the smaller width > display/monitors. I have some that do notwork with any display that are > less than 800 pixels high, let alone a narrow width. There bottom buttons > were not accessible. > > So please think about the users we may have that need a package UI that work > well and easy with a 800 pixel wide CRT display or similar limiting with > display. > > > To be clear, the underlying image was created by Paulo José. Working on smaller screens is a good question, but you have to get something before you make it work with additional constraints. LibreOffice has two challenges, looking good on the upcoming high-res screens, and working okay on the smaller screens. I think as a start, the focus should be on >~1280 pixels wide screens. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Experimental UI for LibreOffice proposal
Hi; >> > This should probably be on the UX mailing list. Also are you developing this > also? Finding developers to implement this could be very very difficult - > just giving you a heads up in case you don't want to waste a bunch of time > for nothing. > > Best, > Joel > I'm not planning on developing this. It would be very difficult if built using VCL, etc. The point is to side-step that for now. You could get an intern to make it for Writer. Regards, -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Experimental UI for LibreOffice proposal
Hi; I'm working on a proposal for building an experimental new LibreOffice toolbar / UI in Python: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:KeithCu I'm going to add some links to places where the C++ code would need to be changed and a few more tweaks, but I'm interested in feedback. Feel free to use email or post in the discussion page as you prefer. Regards, -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Fernand Vanrie wrote: > On 4/03/2013 8:27, M. Fioretti wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 08:16:25 AM +0100, Fernand Vanrie wrote: >> >>> 99% percent , changes comes and will come from incompatiliteis in de API. >>> for now this is OK, small changes from version to version, but >>> nothing who not can been repaired or handled with the code( basic) >>> itself >> >> I knew that. The sense of my question is, is there is a list of things >> to avoid beforehand, rather than wait that they break and fix the >> code? > > thats more a question for the developers list . > libreoff...@lists.freedesktop.org and fore the aOO counterpart > ooo-...@incubator.apache.org > >> >> Thanks, >> Marco The reason why nobody responded is no one knows, and it will generally get worse over time as the codebases diverge. It is sort of like the Java: "write once, test everywhere" situation. One of the unintended consequences of the fork is the various ways it makes things more difficult for third-parties. Users will generally pick one product, but extension developers have a more complicated set of choices because they may want to support multiple brands. Here is an article I recently wrote about the power of brands that may be helpful: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=3163 The good news is that in the free software world, code flows with less friction. Any typical (non-enterprise) who really wants an extension will likely be able to install a specific version of the product if it is required. It is just a download. Good luck! Regards, -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Article about LibreOffice, brands, etc
Hi; I wrote an article in support of LibreOffice, submitted it to lxer.com, and it was their top story of the day: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=3163 Some of what I wrote might be impolitic about a sensitive issue. I'm not trying to troll this old topic, I just write about important things I care about and hope it is food for thought. You guys are doing great for just 2.5 years! Warm regards, -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"
The problem with building a reader is that it would be about the same size as LibreOffice. OpenDocument is very different from PDF. For those who can't install LO, they probably can't install the reader either. You have to think about file formats when interacting with people, just like you have to think about language. The solution here is for you to make DOC, etc. your default format so that the computer will do the right thing even when you forget. The long-term solution is for people to standardize on ODF. Regards, -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)
In order to succeed, a mass movement must develop at the earliest moment a compact corporate organization and a capacity to integrate all comers. —Eric Hoffer, American philosopher This discussion is interesting but it reminds me of people re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Or, perhaps a better analogy is where there are two battleships, one is 30x bigger and the other is undermanned. In fact, there is only a skeleton crew so if there is a problem in many areas of the ship, there is no one able to fix it. Meanwhile, some of the crew are sitting on deck chairs discussing how they'd like a better battleship, but they are at sea so it is not possible now. I believe the best way to ensure TDF's success is for you to find a crew to fix all of these as fast as possible: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Easy_Hacks Forks often take years to get going because they take years to get a large enough of a team. That is a random list, but the sooner you can fix those, the sooner you can fix other things including font features. Fixing bugs is the way to be able to write features. People can work anywhere they want, but that is the front door, and evidence you need more. People with expertise already are valuable. It is good is that you have people who are able to mentor others. Some forks didn't even have that. You need to find enough people so you have expertise over every line, which I don't think you have today. I also hope there is a crew hacking ribbon-like UIs in Python, one working on server and web features, etc. If you want to succeed in a decade, and you are mostly going to be volunteers, you need many, focused on things that improve the product today. You can keep a positive attitude by remembering there is another battleship that is 10x undermanned than you ;-) It says OpenOffice, etc. on the side, but that is not the most important consideration. Kind regards, -Keith http://keithcu.com/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Steve Edmonds wrote: > > The better solution is to include the fonts required in the odt file > just for LO use (like MS, and 2 previously mentioned word processors). > That is another solution, but not necessarily a better solution. I think a better solution is to ship the TTF once rather than embedding it into every file. PDFs only include the characters that are in use, where the ODF would need to include the whole thing. You also can have problems with versioning (what if the version on the computer is newer than the one in the ODT?) I recommend people ship fonts out of band like are done with hyphenation tables. Regards, -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:08 AM, BRM wrote: > And TDF/LO is the real fork in this case. In your opinion it would have > been a > necessary fork, but it is the fork nonetheless. Any argument otherwise is > revisionist history. > LO was a fork, but that was the for many months ago. > > Yet, Calligra and KOffice - which both have very similar codebases - have a > much > healthier relationship, etc. They don't see themselves as competing with > each > other either. > I didn't know the details of the Calligra fork but I did a bit of researching. It seems like it was created because ONE person was causing problems (http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2010/12/rose-by-any-other-name.html) so the rest moved. However, if everyone but one moves, it is not really a fork, but a mutiny / change in leadership. -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: > > > > The overlap between TDF & ASF's goals for an office product (modulo > > enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty compelling proof of competition. > > I disagree... competition implies a "winner" and a "loser"... > in FOSS, how do you measure that? Market Share? Feh. When > you start looking at it that way, then what makes FOSS FOSS > kinda gets overlooked. > > The intent of FOSS is not to take over but to instead provide > freedom and choices to end-users. If having 2 "competing" implementations > means that a larger set of end-users will enjoy those freedoms > and choices than if there was only 1 implementation, then the > "competition" is most valid. > > It's being complementary, not competitive. > I think it is a helpful exercise to have a starting position that forks are bad. They might be necessary and useful sometimes, like war, but that doesn't make them ideal. This is not like KOffice because that codebase is so different and missing lots of features. No one is arguing to get rid of KOffice here, or that a merge would be possible or makes sense.This is only about very slightly different versions of a 10M line codebase. Another way to think about it: what features does Apache want that LibreOffice does *not* want? Ubuntu forked Debian because they wanted 6-month release cycles, proprietary drivers, etc. I see no list. Even if you had a list of features LibreOffice didn't want, you could include the code in LibreOffice and turn it off by default. OpenOffice could be LibreOffice with different defaults. I don't think there is anything like that either. -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Allen Pulsifer wrote: > > Forking makes cooperation more expensive. > > Your intentions are less important than your consequences. > > Hello Keith, > > As long as you are hung up on forks, you might want to get your facts > right. > Sun created the "official" OOo distribution when they open sourced > StarOffice. Sun maintained control of the OpenOffice.org name, and made it > clear from the beginning that any contributions to the official OOo > distribution would only be accepted if they were accompanied by a copyright > assignment. That system chugged along for many years, with varying levels > of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. > > I agree with you that fork has been created. The seeds of that fork were > germinated in the Go-Oo project, which created patches and enhancements > that > were not contributed back to the official OOo distribution. That became a > full fork when the LibreOffice project was started by importing all of the > OOo source code into a new repository. It was therefore TdF that created a > fork, by creating a new version of the source code and making changes that > they did not contribute back to the official distribution. I make that > statement completely without making a value judgment whether that is a good > thing or a bad thing. But if you are going to talk about the history of > the > project and start saying "all forks are bad", you should at least get your > facts straight about who actually created the fork. Also, if you are going > to talk about a split in the community, you should mention that TdF and > LibreOffice were created in secret, without any public discussions or > community input. I say that again completely without making a value > judgment whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, but again, when you > recount the history, you should do so honestly. > > I have followed somewhat the history of this codebase for the past 5 years, but thank you for explaining it. Yes, TDF might have been done in secret initially, but everything starts out as an idea in someone's head and therefore a secret. Today, they are very open. It isn't that I am "hung up" on forks. I spent years writing code in line layout and text editing and know that is but a tiny piece of this codebase. Thousands of people could get lost in this technology. This codebase is 10M lines which means this fork is 100x times more expensive than typical. (And no one inside LibreOffice was requesting one.) It is the size that inspires me to get involved. I also make more posts because I'm amazed that some "leaders" in our movement with the pedigree of IBM are actually hindrances. I see a story worthy of the New York Times. In fact, I have a connection ;-) I also want this technology to get better and I imagine what would happen if LibreOffice got a bunch of new contributors as of yesterday. This was an alternative plan. -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > than your consequences. > > > Forking makes cooperation more expensive. Your intentions are less > important > > Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree. > > From my side I would say it isn't that you guys don't have good energies and ideas. It is that you announced the wrong plan, and then didn't fix it after getting feedback. -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > We got our answer (before the vote) because Florian explained it. Our > point is that other people visiting the site will not have Florian's > attention. This has nothing to do with Apache, except by way of > example and that Florian was engaged. Others will not be so lucky. > It isn't very frequently that people with the OpenOffice trademark come along. > > I don't think the questions that I posed had anything to do with > "merging", but simply the kinds of curiosity that TDF supporters may > have (or those who may be interested in *becoming* supporters). > They are irrelevant to you now that you aren't merging, and they would only have been relevant to you if you had merged, and they aren't relevant to typical people in the community so you can imagine why it is low priority. > > >> Our goal is not to "beat" you. This is not a competition. That is not > >> how Apache operates. > >> > > > > Your goal is not to beat LO, but by choosing a fork you make cooperation > > difficult via license incompatibilities and social engineering. So if you > > aren't cooperating or competing then what word would you recommend? > > We want to cooperate. > Forking makes cooperation more expensive. Your intentions are less important than your consequences. -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > That is great news! Reading over the archives, I was surprised > how some people who wished to contribute to both LOo and OOo > were turned away (with a "we don't want your kind here"), > and so seeing how LOo would now be open to itself accepting > patches and code under AL is a welcome step forward! > > The frustration is because of the cost of forks. Some people argue that forks are okay because they've happened before, but that is like advocating for murder because it has happened before. This fork will waste lots of community resources and it already has. That can cause people to get upset. Here is my case study on the Ubuntu / Debian fork: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558 I have decided to make another case study for a future version of my book now that the podling was accepted. These are my notes so far: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=2567 Anyway, I suspect that much of the expertise in the incubation project would be blocked, and the codebases are similar now, so anyone who is frustrated that they can't contribute unless they want to work on infrastructure could come over here while they wait. This idea is a way to decrease the inefficiency of the current situation and help improve relations so I hope Apache consider it. I believe LibreOffice is not turning down contributors currently. Regards, -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > You describe how all the committers and people on the steering > committee know these details. Well, of course. But what about all the > people at Apache who are trying to learn about the work you guys have > done here? Trying to learn the details of your Foundation, its > organization, and its (current) backing association? Trying to learn > who handles your donations, and how those proceeds are disbursed? > If you had come up with a plan of merging the foundations, all these details would have been worked through. I don't think it matters now given the fork. > > BRM, Jim, and I are trying to say that that information is opaque. It > takes direct involvement from Florian to achieve understanding. > You should have gotten your question answered before the proposal was submitted for a vote. > > Our goal is not to "beat" you. This is not a competition. That is not > how Apache operates. > Your goal is not to beat LO, but by choosing a fork you make cooperation difficult via license incompatibilities and social engineering. So if you aren't cooperating or competing then what word would you recommend? -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Christoph Jopp wrote: > Not automatically. Someone might want the more restrictive license > because he wants to mix it with other code with a license incompatible > to the least restrictive license you offer. > > Okay, good point. Anyway, I'm just thinking of a way for Apache people to contribute to now. It seems there is excitement over there, but they don't have something that builds, etc. It seems like perhaps half will be blocked for some time. You could let some people work here and create a tree with a queue of changes made by Apache contributors that Apache could adopt when they are ready. That could be a useful gift and a way for everyone to work now. -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: > On 14 June 2011 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote: > > > Hi all; > > > > I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their > > changes. > > > How does that work? Surely if they licensed their work Apache it means > there > is no need for the other licenses because the Apache license would > effectively over-ride the conditions of the other license. Maybe I'm > missing > something here? > > It is true that the only license that matters is the least restrictive one, but people usually add licenses and so I was following that method. If you decide to throw the others away as pointless if Apache is chosen for a change, that would be an optimization. -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Triple licensing?
Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump, many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them. I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community. What do you think? -Keith -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
