Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: LibreOffice for Academic Work -- College/University
Marc, My apologies; I was not aware you were looking for how people managed to "up-rate" LibreOffice to work better for academic work. In my own case, I found the "writer's tools" offered by Dimitri Popov as an extension toolkit to be most useful, particularly for things like citations, bibliography and footnotes. It must be admitted that the extension is an OpenOffice item rather than LibreOffice, but I found it would work quite well with minimal extra work to put into LibreOffice. I hope this is the sort of thing you were looking for. -- 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] Re: LibreOffice for Academic Work -- College/University
Marc, So far I've avoided commenting on your request for two main reasons: I was obliged to retire last February so am no longer an "academic" as such and also it was not clear what you were meaning. Let me say that I never had problems with LibO (since the addition of free-motion paths into Impress) for academic work. True, there are differences in the way LibO and MS manage insertion of bibliography, citations, references and so on but so what? You just get used to the different way of working. I had issues - probably my fault for not working it out - getting text to flow round a graphic in any shape other than a rectangle. That can be a real bother. I also don't like the way floating text boxes drift around not just the page but the whole document when format changes are made - or even worse when sections are moved! I also never managed to put a working spreadsheet into a text document, though it is something I use only rarely. Finally, the real bugbear I have is that you can't "quick-roll" a database on the fly. Either the database has to exist before you start (even if empty) or you are tied into one highly restricted way of working. I do hope this helps in some way. On 16/05/2012 06:28, Marc Paré wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > Le 2012-05-16 01:02, Jonathan Aquilina a écrit : >> Bibliography creation as well as source citations are very very >> important. >> >> Regards >> Jonathan Aquilina >> >> On May 15, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Marc Paré wrote: >> > > Thanks, I am looking for people who are using specific extensions in > their academic work. Maybe I should post this on the users' list as > well. I was hoping that some people who work in academia could chime > in and say what extensions they were using specifically for use in > academia. > > Cheers, > > Marc > > -- 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] MS Outlook?
i most sincerely hope not! It is not an email reader or a task scheduler. For that, may I suggest you get Thunderbird from Mozilla On 15/02/2012 08:58, Shawn Sumin wrote: > Will LibreOffice ever have a similar program like MS Outlook? > > i.e. Calendar, Tasks, Contacts and Mail > -- 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] OASIS Standard ODF 1.2 Approved
Well, I worked with the W3C on doing the initial work on RDF but not done anything for a while. If I can remember the login details I can try to mention it. On 03/10/2011 09:45, Jaime R. Garza wrote: > It would be great if connected people could help to introduce this idea. I > hope it doesn't stay just as an idea! I'll be willing to help in the > discussions and organization, but I don't have the contacts. Anyone with > contacts willing to help? > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 09:44, Ian Lynch wrote: > >> On 2 October 2011 23:41, Jaime R. Garza wrote: >>> Hello All, >>> >>> Why isn't ODF added as an extension of HTML5? >> >> That is a very good idea. >> >>> This would define ODF as the defacto Web Standard for Files! >>> >>> An ideas who could try to pursue such an agreement? >> >> Presumably get OASIS, TDF and AOO representatives to talk to W3C. Get >> a strategy agreed with say Mozilla and Google for good browser support >> for rendering and editing ODF documents. (assuming MS will not play >> ball but you never know). Editing could be a subset to start with eg >> limited to editing text. >> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> Jaime >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 03:17, Dennis E. Hamilton < >> dennis.hamil...@acm.org>wrote: >>> The OASIS ODF 1.2 Committee Specification 01 has been successfully >> advanced to an OASIS Standard, < http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/201109/msg00010.html>. The final ballot results for approval of OASIS Standard ODF 1.2 is at < http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ballot.php?id=2115>. Rob Weir has a nice summary on his blog, < http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/09/odf12-approved.html>. He lists the names of the contributors of 1.2 from the specification. Some of those names will be familiar here. - Dennis -- 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 >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ian >> >> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) >> >> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 >> >> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, >> Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and >> Wales. >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > -- 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] Re: Top Posting... Can we have an LO Mailing List Guidelines Page?
How about you just read the goddamn RFC's for email protocol and stop whining about it? On 01/10/2011 23:26, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > > -Original Message- > From: Tim Schofield [mailto:t...@weberpafrica.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 14:03 > To: discuss@documentfoundation.org > Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Top Posting... Can we have an LO Mailing List > Guidelines Page? > > On 30 September 2011 02:46, NoOp wrote: > >> I must say that I *am* surprised that LO haven't the technical/political >> ability/tenacity to properly post information regarding this issue in >> the same manner as the links provided (OOo, Mozilla, Ubuntu, et al). >> > > It may be possible they have important things to do? > > > How about a monthly FAQ message that > establishes what constitutes appropriate > etiquette? This should be customized > for each list separately. > > There could be all facts applicable to > the specific list, including the > ever-popular unsubscribe instructions, > what the subject matter of the list is, > writing subject lines, finding other places > to play and additional sources, etc. > > It would be good to say what actions > arouse moderator actions and that nothing > else does. > > -- 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] ignore m$ legacy?
Frankly, I'm sure the law just says copies must be kept and doesn't care how they are kept. The point is that they *will* be kept on secured digital media, which means MSO, which means they will need a copy of MSO, which means they will not need a copy of LibO. That was rather my point. We cannot compete with what has been done in the past unless we deal with those legacy documents that will be kept anyway. On 30/07/2011 14:33, e-letter wrote: > On 23/07/2011, Mark Preston wrote: >> Look, lets be honest about this - Microsoft has by far the largest >> proportion of legacy documents out there and there is no way that >> people can manage without access to those documents. Apart from >> anything else, the law will require them to be kept and available if >> needed for any future investigations. > > Does the law require these documents to be stored in the native binary > format, or would a paper copy archive be considered acceptable. In any > case, is this relevant to LO? Why wouldn't users simply keep an old > version of m$? Is it not possible for m$ to be used for legacy > documents and use LO for future documents in the native odf? > -- 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] ignore m$ legacy?
Look, lets be honest about this - Microsoft has by far the largest proportion of legacy documents out there and there is no way that people can manage without access to those documents. Apart from anything else, the law will require them to be kept and available if needed for any future investigations. That leaves one and only one choice if some fool decided to remove interoperability, namely to build a mass-conversion tool that can convert all those legacy documents. And if we have to build a conversion tool anyway, then why not simply have it as a part of the standard services offered by the software. In short, the choice is offer interoperability or close down LibreOffice and give up. Let's not give up. -- 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] New install issue
Just installed the 3.3.3 version from the website on a clean machine and hit a problem. I already had ODT documents copied to the PC, the install when perfectly fine. Snag was, the ODT documents were not recognised and set to default to LibreOffice - and to make matters worse, couldn't be assigned to it by the file types defaults either. No idea why this is - the earlier version was perfectly fine on a different PC. Could be differences in the system, perhaps? Hardware: Leonovo N3000 laptop OS : Windows XP Sp3 Previous Office : None used Any ideas folks? What changed? -- 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] Offer MHTML support
Well, Jesse - where to begin? Let's start with what MHTML is - it is "Mime-encoded Hypertext Mark-up Language" or alternatively "Multipart...". What this refers to is that the various parts that may be in a web page (images, Flash videos, audio tracks etc.) are all saved as a single file, usually with the extension "*.mht", (which explains the "multipart" and then the whole lot packaged as a 64-bit MIME (email message) encoded data (whiche explains the Mime-encoded bit). >From that, you should gather the blindingly obvious fact that web-browsers and web-page editors don't use it - since it is not a web page structure or organisation. In fact, Microsoft IE5 could and did and later versions have, I understand, a patch or add-on that can allow them to read or save MHTML. I seem to recall that Opera and Firefox also have add-ons that sort of let them do the same. However, to the best of my knowledge not a single browser or any other item of software on Linux has ever even tried to deal with this mess - up to and including the Safari browser on Apple systems. I can also tell you that in days gone by it was referred to as "Microsoft Huge Text Mess Language" since it was and still is something used almost exclusively by Microsoft products and particularly by Microsoft Office. It always was - and always will be in the future - a disastrous attempt by Microsoft to screw with the heads of everyone else. It was quite rightly never supported and should never be supported by anything either now or in the future! Even Microsoft has pretty much given up on this particular mess. It offers no convenience, no benefit, no organisational advantage, no readability advantages, no operational benefits - nothing good at all in fact. It is not and should *never* be supported. On 11/07/2011 13:04, Jesse wrote: > Hey guys. First, great job on maintaining this software. I love it! > But there is a feature I was wondering if you guys would mind > implementing. In MS Word, the user can save their document in MHTML > format. I have yet to find an editor for Linux which allows the user > to do this. Though it may be true that most projects don't require > this, it does offer a layer of convenience to the user in general. It > takes them from carrying around about 10 files, to just carrying > around one. Again, I love the software and what you guys have done > with it, but please consider adding support for MHTML. > -- 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
Plino, You seem a little confused, which is quite remarkable given the blog you linked to is quite clear. First of all, font-embedding is not supported because embedded fonts are one of the very many things ODF and indeed XML in general is intended to get rid of. It was always a bad idea, is a bad idea now and will be a bad idea in the future. The style of an XML document is intended to be provided by CSS and to be quite separate from the data content. What the blog said, but you missed, is that the spreadsheet part of the ODF did not include "formulae and syntax" content for cells. Which it actually does do, thanks very much. The blog in fact stresses two things - the ODF does not always work with Gnumeric (which is a known problem with Gnumeric and not restricted to ODF anyway) and it is different to Excel - which is a *good* thing frankly, since there are some real issues with the way Excel worked. In fact, that blog (you need to track it back and check the sources etc.) was actually missing the point that the formulae and syntax included in ODF did not include the same *binary* notation as used in Excel. Again, this is just as well since the old Excel binary was actually faulty and is one of the things (hopefully) fixed by the XLSX format in newer versions. While I am sure your comments are appreciated, they do seem somewhat confused. Perhaps you could clarify them a little? On 05/07/2011 11:25, plino wrote: > Today I found the most interesting article on ODF, which explains why it > doesn't support font embedding: > > http://blogs.gnome.org/mortenw/2010/02/10/odf-plus-five-years/ > > ODF was created in a hurry to support text files. Later some people started > to worry about spreadsheets (apparently not that much). Maybe in the future > it will support the features that presentations and vector drawings require. > > Only then it will make sense to use ODF as the file format for all OOo/LO > applications. > > -- > View this message in context: > http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RE-tdf-discuss-Re-Font-Embedding-in-ODF-was-RE-ANN-ODF-1-2-Candidate-OASIS-Standard-Enters-60-Day-Pu-tp3110117p3140307.html > Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.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] Enhancement Request: Comment Ranges
Well, Charles, I also write fiction and publishers can be swine, I admit - but I also write for journals and you should see editors! With care, I do manage to use LibreOffice, and earlier OpenOffice, throughout though I agree they don't all like it. My attitude is that slowly we will get them to switch especially since we can read and write Word formats. Not perfectly, but we can do it. We also have a great range of add-ons that are perfect for the writer to use (I am particularly fond of the Writer's Tools from LibreOffice and Screenwright from the Open Office extensions at the moment). You have, though, highlighted the one area where there are problems because editors and proofreaders everywhere do like to use the revisions tools - and we can't. Not so easily anyway. But how would you change what we already have? On 10/06/2011 19:03, Charles Jenkins wrote: > As a fiction writer, I currently must use Microsoft Word on the Mac to > exchange documents with editors, because Track Changes and commenting > features are a necessity. > > In Microsoft Word, an editor can mark a section of text and add a > comment like, "This is redundant. Recommend deletion." When I click on > the highlighted range, I see the comment and can make my decision > accordingly. > > In LibreOffice, it appears that comments always have zero length. If I > were to open my editor's document and encounter "This is redundant. > Recommend deletion," I would have to guess at which range of text she > meant to point out. > > [snip] -- 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] [Call for help] Native English speaker needed for proofreading a LibO tool draft proposal
Will do - no problem. Give me a day or two to go through it. On 21/05/2011 17:08, Gianluca Turconi wrote: > Hello *, > > I really need some native English speaker in order to proofread a LibO > tool draft proposal I made here: > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Website/LibreOfficeWiki/Proposed > > Any discussion about corrections or the content of the proposal itself > can > be done directly in the discussion page of the wiki. > > Thanks in advance, > > Gianluca -- 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: OpenOffice dead and burried?
May I just take the time to agree 100% that this old stuff is, or should be, dead and buried so we can move on. Remember, we are not alone in forking from Oracle this way - for instance the Drizzle database (by ex-MSQL developers) is now rated best non-proprietary database option and this month LibreOffice was for the first time similarly rated as the best non-proprietary office option. Frankly, there is only Java left before Oracle burns all the bridges it bought. So let's just move on and do what we are here for. On 18/05/2011 11:05, Cor Nouws wrote: > Hi Ben, > > This discussion is a bit, as we say in Dutch "ouwe koeien uit de sloot > halen" :-) (hmm, old stuff that maybe you shouldn't care about any > longer) > > I have seen moments too in the first months of TDF that did not feel > so good. However ... > > BRM wrote (18-05-11 11:53): >> While I was originally optimistic that TDF/LO would be better than >> Sun/Oracle >> OOo, as a result I have yet to see that happen. >> That's not to say it isn't happening or the community isn't taking >> over - I'm >> just waiting a bit longer to see. >> >> So for now yes, I continue to use OOo. If TDF/LO shows it is truly a >> community >> project and not ruled by a benevolent few that are forcing the hands >> of the >> community, then I will likely switch over and start participating >> more - until >> then I shall continue to watch. > > .. in this community there is no single person or party pushing > decisions. All that participate have a saying. But of course, most in > areas where your participation is relevant. And sure, still some > processes are not perfect. But that is noticed and people involved > discuss about how it works and haw to improve. > > Be welcome. > > Best, > Cor > > -- 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: Question about proposing the creation of a new format
Dear good gods alive no! :eave the HTML to proper HTML IDE tools like Eclipse and don't try to be everything in one package. On 26/04/2011 22:48, e-letter wrote: >> I think this is a very interesting issue. We are moving from the dominant >> technologies that were designed to put information on paper to the dominant >> need of presenting information on screens. With the revolution in digital >> readers this is only going to increase and then what relevance has document >> formats that are primarily designed to target hard copy output? If odf does >> not adapt it will become obsolete. >> > > Seems to suggest that LO should become some sort of html (or any other > electronic format) editor? > >> I am constantly irritated by having to download pdfs, .docs and so on when >> all I want to do is view the information without cluttering up my download > > May I suggest to use the 'load url' bar to read documents directly on > the web? As for pdf documents, evince can open directly from the url > when activated via the command terminal > -- 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: European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.
There may be some truth to what you say, but I don't think Microsoft bashing will advance LibO, which is what we want to do. On 06/04/2011 20:50, aqualung wrote: > > Okay... while waiting for my two comments from earlier today to be approved > by the mailing list, I thought I might comment on this one, too. > > [snip] -- 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] European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.
Steve, Indeed it is good to talk - that's why we're here. And I'm glad you did because now I am much clearer on what you mean (and to some extent sympathise). Like your own users, I have written format filters that use Microsoft Office Word documents and, probably like your own developers, put a lot of damned hard work into finding out what was actually in the file structure I would be filtering from. And you are quite right about it - those filters will not work with an ODF document. The snag - and reason - is that ODF documents are not the same internal structure as DOC documents are. Then again, neither are DOCX documents and your users will hit the same problems with those. What you seem to be up against is the proprietary internal structure of Microsoft files. For the most part, you should find that saving the documents in the Microsoft format appropriate to your filters will do the trick, but even then you are likely to find some differences. That really is not something we can do much about without hiring Microsoft to make sure they are fixed - and that simply will not happen, even if we wanted it to. On 05/04/2011 22:54, Steve Edmonds wrote: > Hi Mark. > Possibly the environment that one works in has a significant result on > the problems encountered, and hence why it is hard to debug all problems > because they don't always arise until the environment changes. > I encounter little problem with spread sheets or power point, but mostly > with docs. May be that is the nature of the people I need to interreact > with and the way they use MO. Their pattern of use with MO creates > formats that the filter developers have not encountered and hence my > problems. > It is good to have the discussion and bring out the issues so that they > can be assessed and addressed (one way or another). > -- 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] European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.
Steve, While I understand your points, and Mike's, I can't say I agree with them particularly. On one issue we do agree and it is perhaps something to be looked at by the development team. That is the automatic timed save of documents while worked on. It is the case that should you lose a working document LibO or OoO will try to recover it next time it is started, but it does not always work nor assure a copy is made of all documents. As you say, that is not usually acceptable to businesses. However, for the rest I disagree. I have heard the claim about files from Microsoft Office needing to be changed in Open Office before but only rarely seen it to be true with a word-processed document. It is true that not all Powerpoint comes over to LibO accurately since LibO does not have available all the features that PPT can guarantee by being a closed and proprietary system. To me, this seems absolutely inevitable and not a fault at all. Similarly, I have heard about problems with Excel and especially the way pivots and data handling operations are carried out but also with "rounding features" to make the spreadsheets balance out. And yes, there are differences - although for the "rounding features" I have seen used are because there are technical errors with storage of some numbers in Excel that have been widely discussed on the web. I have to say that while I have seen that doing "the same sort of thing" to the Calc GUI results in a different operation, it is not yet clear to me whether the difference is the way that Calc is used or the way the same operation is carried out. Perhaps you could give us details? Most common of all though, is the complaint that "my company macros" don't work. Frankly, I am sick to death of hearing this one! MS macros are written in an MS language for MS features in an MS environment on MS software. There is no way in *hell* and Open Source software can pinch it, copy it, reverse engineer it, duplicate it in new code or anything else. If the macros are any use, then rewrite the damn things! On 05/04/2011 20:08, Steve Edmonds wrote: > All. > I tend to agree with Mike on many aspects. > We use 12 instances of LO in our business and I support more privately. > I inter-react with an educational institution and others predominantly > MO, our business is mainly LO. > > For a corporation or large entity to adopt LO it must be able to > transfer MO docs well. > I find that probably 90% of MO docs I receive don't open in LO without > need of reformatting, a corporation could not tolerate this. I found > that LO does not time save (auto backup) .docs, a corporation would > not tolerate that. > > LO development is going great, but to be considered for > corporate/large organisation environments some consideration of "what > is stopping LO adoption" is required. > These are not show stoppers but a different emphasis on development > and bug fixing. May be this is not the interest of developers and may > be corporate environment is not the future of LO. > > I have seen some discussion regarding the mapping out of the future of > LO, LO design and developer focus. May be it is a good discussion to > have soon. > > steve > > On 6/04/11 5:12 AM, Mike Hall wrote: >> Charles, >> I think an appreciation of this point is absolutely crucial to a >> successful product, which is why I bang on about it. And I'm only >> faithfully recording my own experience. >> >> Unfortunately there is a difference in quality, which implicitly you >> seem to recognise. Yes, it's true that there have been several poor >> MSO releases, but in a large organisation those are not normally >> deployed on the corporate desktop until the problems are fixed. MS >> does eventually retreat on its silly ideas and there are, to all >> intents and purposes, almost bug free MSO versions so far as the >> vast majority of end users are concerned. This isn't the case with >> OOo/LibO - there has never been a release of such a quality that >> support costs could be contained at a realistic level. I wish there >> were and I can fully understand why this community would be very >> inclined to argue black is white here. Further, it's pretty >> frustrating to report bugs and find that they aren't fixed within a >> reasonable period. I don't think you would deny that that is a >> fairly common experience and complaint from OOo/LibO users. I see >> that on many bug reports. >> >> My perception and experience of the choice of application software >> in large organisation is that it is much more rational and >> hard-headed than you imply. The main cost is not the licence, for >> which in any case large organisations generally pay very little per >> desktop. It's user support that is costly, ie overall cost of >> ownership. >> >> Mike >> >> On 05/04/2011 16:52, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: >>> Hello Mike >>> (since we're all top posting in this thread)... >>> >>> To claim that MS Office is devoid of bugs is somewhat extravagant. >>> There ha
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Two questions about course of LO
On 01/04/2011 10:37, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > Hello, > > @Mark: you write that you were able to see the source code of OpenOffice > before Oracle bought Sun, but OpenOffice was Open Source anyway, so > anybody could see the code. Did I get your point right? > You did get it right Charles - and yes it was fully open-source so I had downloaded the whole lot. Sun just guided me to "relevant bits" so I could look them over. I've not done that with the new codebase because the old one put me off it so much, but am delighted to hear it is being cleaned up. Added to this, let me say my impression is that the more technically capable resources (ie. people) are working with LibreOffice rather than OpenOffice and worries others might have of Oracle "flinging resources" at Ooo to make it outstrip LibO are almost certainly unfounded. Yes, I am biased, but I have no doubt at all that the fork to LibO was right, reasonable, appropriate, timely and inevitable. It is, granted in my personal opinion only, the best thing that could possibly have happened to Ooo to ensure its future. -- 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] Two questions about course of LO
On 31/03/2011 05:48, aqualung wrote: > Got a couple of questions. > > (1) I heard that OpenOffice is restricted from re-using code from > LibreOffice because Oracle insists on broader licenses than LO developers > are willing to give, but the reverse is not true. So, from this aspect LO > can only get stronger while OOo stagnates. Is this accurate? > As I understand it, this is more or less true though it is mainly due to copyright assignments that Oracle insist on but that LibreOffice will not grant. > > (2) According to what I've read so far, most of the work to create and > maintain OpenOffice was done by a team of developers originally working for > StarOffice, later bought by Sun, in turn bought by Oracle. Outside > volunteers working without pay contributed only a small portion of the code. > This is certainly true, but let me say right now that it was definitely the right way to work! I suggested and to some extent drove a change to Impress to allow free-motion movement paths for objects. Sun - this was before the Oracle takeover - were quite happy to let me see code and to suggest changes and even where in the code they might be made. But to be honest, the code was such a tangled and complex mess that I would have needed months of work just going through code before I even tried to change a single command. I am slightly concerned that, even now, there is a damn good chance the code for LibreOffice is still much the same tangled (and uncommented) mess. -- 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: Euro symbol not inserted into write documents
Yes, I'm aware you can do that. I was talking about the standard keyboard - which I thought Tinkerer was too. On 24/03/2011 23:00, Simon Cropper wrote: > On 25/03/11 09:18, Mark Preston wrote: >> How odd. Here in the UK - and most other places I've seen, + >> (numeral) 4 produces the Euro symbol. >> >> On 23/03/2011 18:55, Tinkerer wrote: >>> On my keyboard Option+2 prints €. >>> >>> Tink >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Euro-symbol-not-inserted-into-write-documents-tp2701509p2721749.html >>> >>> Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> > > Mark, > > The euro symbol (U+20AC) can be found in most common fonts. > > You can create a macro that inserts the symbol then attach this macro > to any keystroke combination you like. > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Euro symbol not inserted into write documents
How odd. Here in the UK - and most other places I've seen, + (numeral) 4 produces the Euro symbol. On 23/03/2011 18:55, Tinkerer wrote: > On my keyboard Option+2 prints €. > > Tink > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Euro-symbol-not-inserted-into-write-documents-tp2701509p2721749.html > Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Setup Advice
I can understand that Barbara and generally agree - there should be no issues running the two together. This, in fact, is what I shall be trying first. The issue, as I see it anyway, is not so much that there *will* be problems running the two together as that there is the very clear *impression* that there will. It is made all the worse by even we doing the LibreOffice work and testing are reporting that there can be problems (as NoOp did below). What we need, in my opinion, is not necessarily changes to the code or the installation method as to the clarity of information about doing it in our own documentation and on the site. On 27/02/2011 19:29, Barbara Duprey wrote: > On 2/26/2011 4:27 PM, Mark Preston wrote: >> Thanks very much for this. I have the downloaded set-up files now and >> will think hard on whether to install it or not - it has to depend on >> how heavily we need the system working over the next weeks. >> >> If this remains an issue, I can see it being a major stumbling block >> for places - such as mine - where there may be several users and a >> need for continual document operations. Unfortunately that will mean >> our primary target audience (to offices that currently use either >> Microsoft Office or Open Office on Windows systems or networks). >> >> On 26/02/2011 03:18, NoOp wrote: >>> On 02/21/2011 02:16 PM, Mark Preston wrote: >>>> I'm about ready to load up LibreOffice and start running it for work >>>> but have really one simple question before I do. Background is I will >>>> be running it on Windows Vista, currently run OpenOffice and will be >>>> using it near daily including with MS Office documents and >>>> presentations. >>>> >>>> So the question is: can I load LibO side-by-side with OpenOffice and >>>> if not what is the procedure to load LibO and - should there be >>>> probelms - to reload OpenOffice? Most importantly, this is a >>>> multi-user system so it needs to be loaded for at least three users. >>>> Any advice much appreciated. >>>> >>> It's an issue: >>> http://www.libreoffice.org/download/release-notes/ >>> >>> For Windows users that have OpenOffice.org installed, we advise >>> uninstalling that beforehand, because it registers the same file type >>> associations. >>> >>> >>> The issue is that LO uses the same executables as OOo (swriter, >>> etc) and >>> hasn't yet cleaned up the code to use something else (lowriter, etc). >>> This can cause *considerable* issues with OOo and LO coexisting on the >>> same Windows system. If you want to have both installed (on Windows - >>> it's no issue on linux) at the same time, then I'd suggest installing >>> 'in parallel', see: >>> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel >>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Run_OOo_versions_parallel#Windows> >>> >>> >>> So at this point (on Windows) you are better off with either/or: >>> OOo or >>> LO, but not both at the same time. > > I've been running with both on Win7 for several months, primarily > using LibO but occasionally OOo. I've had no problem at all with > resetting file associations, it's just a matter of browsing to the > soffice.exe that's in the desired directory. I didn't do anything > special at all for installation, and I've had no issues of any > conflicts with files created on one fork and used on the other. YMMV, > but you probably needn't be paranoid about this. > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Setup Advice
Thanks very much for this. I have the downloaded set-up files now and will think hard on whether to install it or not - it has to depend on how heavily we need the system working over the next weeks. If this remains an issue, I can see it being a major stumbling block for places - such as mine - where there may be several users and a need for continual document operations. Unfortunately that will mean our primary target audience (to offices that currently use either Microsoft Office or Open Office on Windows systems or networks). On 26/02/2011 03:18, NoOp wrote: > On 02/21/2011 02:16 PM, Mark Preston wrote: >> I'm about ready to load up LibreOffice and start running it for work >> but have really one simple question before I do. Background is I will >> be running it on Windows Vista, currently run OpenOffice and will be >> using it near daily including with MS Office documents and presentations. >> >> So the question is: can I load LibO side-by-side with OpenOffice and >> if not what is the procedure to load LibO and - should there be >> probelms - to reload OpenOffice? Most importantly, this is a >> multi-user system so it needs to be loaded for at least three users. >> Any advice much appreciated. >> > > It's an issue: > http://www.libreoffice.org/download/release-notes/ > > For Windows users that have OpenOffice.org installed, we advise > uninstalling that beforehand, because it registers the same file type > associations. > > > The issue is that LO uses the same executables as OOo (swriter, etc) and > hasn't yet cleaned up the code to use something else (lowriter, etc). > This can cause *considerable* issues with OOo and LO coexisting on the > same Windows system. If you want to have both installed (on Windows - > it's no issue on linux) at the same time, then I'd suggest installing > 'in parallel', see: > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel > <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Run_OOo_versions_parallel#Windows> > > So at this point (on Windows) you are better off with either/or: OOo or > LO, but not both at the same time. > > > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Setup Advice
Thanks very much Barbara. Glad to see someone has beaten me to it. On 21/02/2011 23:08, Barbara Duprey wrote: > On 2/21/2011 4:16 PM, Mark Preston wrote: >> I'm about ready to load up LibreOffice and start running it for work >> but have really one simple question before I do. Background is I will >> be running it on Windows Vista, currently run OpenOffice and will be >> using it near daily including with MS Office documents and >> presentations. >> >> So the question is: can I load LibO side-by-side with OpenOffice and >> if not what is the procedure to load LibO and - should there be >> probelms - to reload OpenOffice? Most importantly, this is a >> multi-user system so it needs to be loaded for at least three users. >> Any advice much appreciated. > > They ordinarily coexist peacefully, although you may want to modify > the file associations to make the right one the default. Also, it > might be best to run without the QuickStarter. I generally have at > least one document or the splash page active, and I don't set the > option to look for updates, so OOo and LibO both come up quite quickly > even the first time. > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Setup Advice
I'm about ready to load up LibreOffice and start running it for work but have really one simple question before I do. Background is I will be running it on Windows Vista, currently run OpenOffice and will be using it near daily including with MS Office documents and presentations. So the question is: can I load LibO side-by-side with OpenOffice and if not what is the procedure to load LibO and - should there be probelms - to reload OpenOffice? Most importantly, this is a multi-user system so it needs to be loaded for at least three users. Any advice much appreciated. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] REVIEW ARTICLE: VITAL reading for LibreOffice developers, users, supporters
Thanks for getting in touch, Joe, and I'll try to answer where I can. On 16/02/2011 16:45, Joe Rotello wrote: > Almost VITAL reading for LibreOffice developers, users, and supporters: > > [snip] > > The reasoning is that these weakness areas MUST be addressed and SOON, > ...[snip] > > These include compatibility with MS Office XML and 2010 files, > As has been mentioned here before, LibO will both read and write MS Office OOXML files. The matter of changing specifications for those files by Microsoft in the future is under their control and all we can do is catch up later since the openness of their file structure details is less than perfect. > > Presentation having limited PowerPoint features, and a few others that > the article mentions. > The only significant missing feature was the use of free-motion paths which was addressed in a previous version of OpenOffice and is now available. It is true that some of the effects and transitions are not available, as the article notes, but also as it notes wherever possible these degrade gracefully to the best available common form. > > Hope that this reading of the article brings many fruits to > LibreOffice, perhaps in 3.3.1 or the next release and Update. > The other significant points the article raises are the lack of full compatibility for macros and programming languages and the lack of a connector to Microsoft Sharepoint. While both are true, I can only point out macros are conversions from Microsoft macros, not implementations of Microsoft coding languages and programming of course also does not implement Microsoft coding languages. Similarly there are no links to Microsft Sharepoint and for the same reasons. Remember that LibO is provided as Open Source Software and operates on systems with very different OSs, not just Windows. We cannot commit to Windows-only versions or to providing proprietary code owned by Microsoft. Simply put, these issues are outside our control. > > Joe Rotello > WindowGroup / Knoxville, TN / USA > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Who Handles LO Portable?
I regularly use Oo_O Portable in classes to avoid the obvious potential file type clashes in different versions of the UK education standard MS Office but have so far not been able to find a LibO Portable version. Could you give me a link to it if you have it handy? On 12/02/2011 10:38, Harold Fuchs wrote: > I have installed LO Portable (latest version as of Feb 11, 2011) on a > USB hard disk running under Windows Vista Home Premium. > > When I run its Writer and go to Tools>Options>Language > Settings>Languages I am told that the Locale is set to "English > (USA)". I change it to "English (UK)" and shut down Writer. When I > re-open Writer the Locale is back to USA. Windows Vista itself says UK > and OpenOffice 3.2.1 also says UK. > > I'm pretty sure this is a bug in LO but do I need to report it to LO > or to the Portable Apps folk? > > Also, if I need to report it to LO, please someone explain exactly > where the LO bug reporter is. > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Hate to mention this but
Yeah, sorry about this NoOp - I should have mentioned we tried that but got complete gibberish. On 27/01/2011 23:27, NoOp wrote: > On 01/27/2011 02:50 PM, Mark Preston wrote: >> The other day we were sent a document but the sender had - presumably >> by mistake - a template rather than document and in the DOTX format. >> Searching the web, we found this is a horrible format with which an >> awful lot of people have had problems with this format and even the >> Microsoft Word Viewer will not handle it. >> >> I just want to check that, along with the DOCX formats, LibreOffice >> will also be able to open DOTX - and, of course, recognise them as a >> template rather than a document. >> > > File|Open|File type: you will find dotx at 'Microsoft Word 2007 XML > Template'. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Hate to mention this but
The other day we were sent a document but the sender had - presumably by mistake - a template rather than document and in the DOTX format. Searching the web, we found this is a horrible format with which an awful lot of people have had problems with this format and even the Microsoft Word Viewer will not handle it. I just want to check that, along with the DOCX formats, LibreOffice will also be able to open DOTX - and, of course, recognise them as a template rather than a document. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Bug in LibreOffice RC2 (Impress)
It is possible this problem may have been introduced by the addition of free-motion paths I drove forward in the last major revision since I don't recall seeing it before. On the other hand, I also don't recall seeing them after the change either. Does anyone know when it began to happen? Have any old versions around we can check, for example. On 05/01/2011 21:45, Regina Henschel wrote: > Hi Axel, > > I have written > http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=116318 > > BTW: How to handle issues, which are not specific to LibreOffice? I > don't like writing issues twice. > > Kind regards > Regina > > > Axel Reimer schrieb: >> Hello, >> >> Am Mittwoch, den 05.01.2011, 15:39 +0100 schrieb Christophe Strobbe: >>> Hi Axel, >>> >>> At 14:58 5/01/2011, Axel Reimer wrote: Hello, I just opened an old presentation and recognized a display bug. Reproduction: 1. Create a new Impress Presentation 2. Draw a rectangle. 3. Right-Click on the rectangle and click area. 4. Choose gradients 5. For "type" select "axial" 6. For "angle" select "90 degrees". 7. Click "ok". 8. The area of the rectangle is displayed correctly. 9. Now start the presentation and the color of the rectangle will be incorrect. Tested with Ubuntu 10.04 and LibreOffice RC2. Can anyone reproduce this bug with the same or a different operating system? I remember that OpenOffice.org once had this bug, too (some time ago) but it was fixed. >>> >>> I tried to reproduce the bug in Windows XP SP 3 (UK English edition) >>> with LibreOffice 3.3.0 - OOO330m17 (Build: 3). >>> The colour is still the same but the gradient appears as linear >>> instead of axial. Is that what you meant? >>> >> >> I am sorry - that was exactly what I meant. Do you know if this bug is >> known? >> >> Best regards, >> Axel >> >> > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 02/01/2011 18:29, Charles Marcus wrote: > On 2011-01-02 12:07 PM, Mark Preston wrote: >> Please remember that both LibO and OpenO can already *read* the >> formats and the issue is whether or not it is practical or pragmatic >> to put effort into developing something to *write* the OOXML form. > > Eh? It already can write them. Why go backwards? There definitely needs > to be a warning when doing the Save-As, but going backwards (ie, > removing the ability to write them) would be counter-productive at best. > I perhaps put that badly this time. My apologies. My concern is not so much with what we do, but with what we can do *well* and effectively. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
I actually agree wholeheartedly with Italo here - please do not try to hamstring the developers with your (or our) own preferences! The idea of community discussion is to guide developers, not to instruct them to do the impractical or impossible and equally not to instruct them (for whatever reason) *not* to do what can be done. On the other hand, though I have already done so in another message, I am more than happy to discuss why some options are more or less pragmatic for developers and will do so inline with Italo's comments as quoted below:- On 02/01/2011 18:47, Italo Vignoli wrote: > On 1/2/11 7:15 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote: > >> No, that was not the point. Italo Vignoli wrote: "LibreOffice >> writes OOXML and will write OOXML, and this is not under >> discussion." That is the point I objected to. > > [snip] > > I am a member of the Steering Committee, and I totally second this > decision just because it makes sense for the users (as I have tried > to explain in another message). LibreOffice is the office suite > with the widest document format support, and this is a plus. > This is, and long has been, a *major* plus for both OpenOffice and now for LibreOffice - we do need to keep this as an objective. > > As long as OOXML is a standard recognized by ISO, it makes sense > to support it completely. This is different from the fact that we > are trying to make ODF the only winning standard, and that we are > telling people that they should not use OOXML. > Again, this is exactly the point I also made - although I did perhaps attribute a little more evil to Microsoft by suggesting the issues with OOXML may be a deliberate move to capture that standards compliant high-ground from us. > >> [snip] > > TDF is a community driven project, not a mailing list driven > project. Community is not just writing in a mailing list, is a lot > different and a lot more than that. I do not think that we ever > gave the perception that this is a mailing list driven project. > Well said, Italo! Where the wider community has something relevant to say on this, it should begin from the presumption that we somehow *will* write OOXML to the best practical ability of the developers. That, not personal preferences, is the real issue. I remain convinced that it is for all practical purposes not possible to write OOXML in the currently active Microsoft format since that is both a rapidly moving target and might leave us open to claims of patent-breaking unless we can demonstrate clear reverse-engineering of the format. Even if we could do that, we would then face the problem of the target rapidly moving away from us. Rather than play a "catch up to Microsoft" game, it remains my view that we should write OOXML in the ISO-standard format for so long as that standard lasts. That gives Microsoft the chance to either catch up and use the standard they set themselves or to change the standard so that they can meet it. In either case, LibreOffice would be ahead of the game Microsoft plays rather than behind, provided we do make sure to pop up a warning to remind users we are using the standard and Microsoft may not yet be able to deal with it. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Craig, Please remember that both LibO and OpenO can already *read* the formats and the issue is whether or not it is practical or pragmatic to put effort into developing something to *write* the OOXML form. On 02/01/2011 00:50, Craig A. Eddy wrote: > Barbara, > > First, ODF IS the ISO standard - honestly made so without the dirty > tricks that MS used to stuff the committee and force it to approve > something that wasn't ready to be used by anyone. > > Second, MS refuses to support any ODF except the one that is actually an > ISO standard. That makes their version of ODF suspect as to its actual > compatibility. > > I don't suggest using the same tactics on MS as it is using on Open > Source Software. Doing to others as they do to you is NOT a recommended > tactic for honest people or organizations (though it's too often been > used, in my arrogant opinion [There AIN'T no such thing as a humble > opinion]). > > By being able to read .doc and .docx formats LO demonstrates it's > willingness to at least reach out to MS and its customers. Therefore, > LO ends up being the good guy. > > Craig > Tyche -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format
If I may inject what I hope is a little sense into this argument:- A major strength of Open Office is and always was that it could read and often write documents in many proprietary formats. That strength should remain solidly a feature of Libre Office and for exactly the same reasons. When it comes to the Microsoft formats there is a significant issue with writing the formats - specifically, that even Microsoft cannot fully adhere to the standards they set. This is a major fault and it is one which Microsoft has placed into the marketplace. It leaves Libre Office with three choices when it comes to these formats. It can either:- 1. Write in the format as used by Microsoft. 2. Write in the format as specified in the ISO standard. 3. Refuse to write in the new formats at all. The problem with option 1 is that it is a strictly proprietary form which even Microsoft admits does not actually meet the open standard. It is therefore open to attacks using patent and other legislation if adopted by Libre Office. The problem with option 2 is that while it is an open standard it does not actually fully work with Microsoft Office and is therefore a pointless choice until (according to Microsoft) at least 2014. The problem with option 3 is that Libre Office would be left in the situation where its own files would need to be read by the ODF open feature in Microsoft Office, thus making Microsoft appear to be the ones making efforts to read "incompatible" formats. I would suggest that this is the very reason why Microsoft has taken this action with these formats. We are left, in short, with just two realistic choices. Either we reverse-engineer the OOXML as actually used and let Microsoft scream about it (as they certainly would) or we simply ignore the format for written documents and write them in the old "doc" format... while telling people clearly on the download website that this is because we are prevented from using the Microsoft "open" standard. Given the work involved in these choices, I would suggest the only realistic option is the latter one. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Digest of discuss@documentfoundation.org issue 140 (3843-3863)
I should have thought that, with the massive issues even Microsoft has of meeting the alleged standard they have set, it was fairly obvious why other software has not tried to meet it. ODF works, is well-supported and even works in Microsoft Office so with respect the answer is to use ODF and not bother with the Microsoft formats at all. On 31/12/2010 11:27, Jaime R. Garza wrote: > Hello, > > I just want to inform you all that docx, pptx, xlsx, etc is not the same as > the "ISO OOXML" which was saddly accepted as an "ISO standard". The > currently used OOXML format is a completely proprietary XML based format. > And the specification of the OOXML "ISO Standard" is so complex and long > that not even MS has been able to implement it, and they are promising they > will implement it for MS Office 2014, so there you you go, yet another MS > format for 2014! > > The next MS format, which is supposed to be "completely specified in the > open", still has proprietary hooks, like WordArt, and such stuff that > remains proprietary but the base is completely specified in the open. The > specification is so long and complex, that there will be a lot of time > before someone can even start to be really compatible to the files generated > from MS office 2014. > > In the other hand, MS already supports ODF, read & write, so if we can, why > the %$&%$ wouldn't we support the MS formats? Don't you understand that > there are customers for every LO user that use MS Office and they need to > exchange information. And since MS office can read and write ODF, why would > an enterprise customer choose LO or even OO? > > I work in a big German company, and I have tried to make ODF, OO/ LO > relevant, but nobody cares because a great majority of our customers use MS > Office and MS Office formats. What is wrong with you guys? To be a religious > freak doesn't help for the adoption of open standards and open source. > > Cheers! > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Google changes and Torrents
The suggestion, apparently stated at a show recently by Google staffers, is that "certain words associated with copyright breaqking on the internet" will be removed from the quick-searching terms that the updated version of Google pops up for you. It was said to be because of the new digital copyright protection regulations mainly in the USA but to a lesser extent also in Europe and the example they used was the word "torrent". It was reported in several magazines, including Linux User and Developer and PC Pro recently. Both said that Google would continue to return results if the word was typed into the search engine but that it will not be used for the search hints list or quick search features. On 24/12/2010 15:47, Michael Wheatland wrote: > On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Mark Preston > wrote: >> Is it likely that the - I suppose I should say "suggested" - changes >> to Google search terms, specifically the removal of the word "torrent" >> from the simple search terms, will affect Open Software availability? >> Specifically the Libre Office obviously. >> > > I am a bit confused by this? Has there been suggestion of Google > filtering legitimate and legal torrent files? > Can you provide a reference. > > Michael Wheatland > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Google changes and Torrents
Is it likely that the - I suppose I should say "suggested" - changes to Google search terms, specifically the removal of the word "torrent" from the simple search terms, will affect Open Software availability? Specifically the Libre Office obviously. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
I see several issues in the discussion about installers - and I only just joined the list! Let's list 'em... 1. You are assuming everyone will be running Linux. They won't. 2. You assume they all have a packaged Linux distro. They won't. 3. You presume they can all grab tar's themselves. They can't. 4. You assume they will all download the package. They won't. Installers are needed because (1) you can adapt an installer to manage installation on all the systems people *will* be using, such as Windows XP, Vista, Win7 and - for some - either 32-bit or 64-bit versions; Linux using Debian-based or other installers and (2) those who have no standard installer system included; Android users and even Apple users (3) who want something that installs like an app does; even, despite the undoubted acrimony, Solaris users. Finally (4), there will be those users who buy a preconfigured or even standard virtualised system from a supplier and want both the supplier provided system and the discs to fix any problems - and for that you want a packaged product with installer and repair system to put on disc. While an installer may not be the top priority, it is undoubtedly a very important feature that needs to be present to reach the widest number of users. Mark On 03/12/2010 04:13, Sophie Gautier wrote: > > For years I only had a connexion in cyber cafes, so I dowloaded the > tars on an external device (or sometimes several) and installed at > home on my computer. I don't see what you're talking about, your > distro has all what you need to install the downloaded archives and > manage dependencies. > > The only issue that I see still existing currently is the size of the > download. When you have a very slow and expensive connexion, it makes > LibO very difficult to get and distribute. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
