Re: [discuss] Article: OpenDocument vs MS XML
I've just been reading PlexNex and was wondering, since Microsoft has floated enough vapourware to make flight above 3 foot extremely dangerous - rock-filled clouds are such a hazard to aerial navigation ;) - perhaps Sun could help them along? I'm referring to a response Brian Jones made to a comment of mine on his blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2005/11/22/495876.aspx#comments Wesley, did you know that OpenOffice 2.0 can read and write the Office 2003 XML format (WordprocessingML)? There are tons of implementations out there that work with those formats. The new formats for '12' aren't done yet, so it's not really a suprise that there aren't many implementations out there yet. and someone else's response to him: Hey, Brian, the OpenOffice.org support of Office 2003 XML is covered here not because the license of Office XML Schema is liberal, but because Sun and MS have reached an anti-trust settlement over a year ago: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/02/sun_settles_with_ms/ On Patents and Intellectual Property: I've mentioned on that blog what I think are extremely reasonable steps that Microsoft should take to get taken seriously - not that I believe they've got the nerve for that: plenty of nerve to harrass customers, no nerve to do what makes sense, would you believe it! ;) - perhaps Sun should seriously twist their arm to let Sun do an MS Office 12 XML filter for OO.org? Then let people see and compare the horrendous mess MSO12 XML makes versus the clarity of OO.org's ODF? Microsoft are amongst the world's most prolific business producers of hot air - let them be hoist by their own petard, if they will! Wesley Parish On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 16:05, Sam Hiser wrote: I've amplified this terrific article by Daniel, David, Bruce Alex on www.PlexNex.com -Sam Daniel Carrera wrote: Hi all, Excellent article at Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051125144611543 It's a technical comparison between OpenDocument and Microsoft's XML format. It's intended to be suitable for a semi-technical audience (ie. people who know a bit of HTML) and the focus is on interoperability. OpenDocument beats MS XML in interoperability hands down. And this article explains some of the technical reasons why. I highly recommend it. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish - Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Article: OpenDocument vs MS XML
Randomthots wrote: 1. Does Microsoft's XML standard now encompass all document types? Last I knew they only had an XML format for Word. Microsoft's FAQ says: Currently, only Microsoft Office Word, Microsoft Office Excel, and Microsoft Office PowerPoint will use Office XML Formats In particular, it doesn't cover InfoPath, Visio, Publisher, etc. 2. If the answer to 1 is yes, then how does their format for spreadsheets compare to OD for verbosity? I haven't yet seen any examples of the new Excel format. But verbosity isn't really an issue. I probably don't understand this all well enough, but the sheer size of OD spreadsheet files (before compression) bothers me. It seems like there is an incredible number of characters required to describe each cell, which can't help the processing speed any. The number of characters has no effect on speed. There is no reason why w:r is faster to parse than text:span text:style-name=T1. To someone who actually works in XML, the verbosity of OpenDocument is welcome because it makes the file format a lot more transparent. I notice that in the examples cited in the article that MS tends to use very short tags like w:r, whereas the OD tags are full words like text:p text:style-name=Standard. I realize this aids in human readability but most of the time... who cares? I'm not going to be reading the raw file anyway. Please read the top of the article. It explains why you should care about which format is understandable. Because the developer who is writing the application you want to use needs to understand it and know how to use it. And the more understandable the format is, the better the support, and the better the compatibility. Understandability/simplicity/etc has a DIRECT effect on things you do care about like how many applictions support it, and whether you can reasonably expect a file produced by one to be read by another (ie. interoperability). And interoperability is the whole point of using XML. If you don't care about a developer understanding the format, you might as well be using Microsofot's .doc. Using obscure tags like w:rPr is gratuitous obscurity. It makes it harder for competitors to understand the format and support it for no benefit. Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ No trees were harmed in the creation of this email. \/_/ However, a significant number of electrons were / were severely inconvenienced. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] open office
Inexperianced person; the first four uses to view a document using Firefox Browser resulted in a sceen saying it crashed and requires going through a recovery process. To simply read a document this seems quite un-instinctive. (bad experience) They are likely my last four.
[discuss] Re: OO.org 2.0 circular installation problem
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:41:49 +0100, Pavel Janík wrote: From: Rich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:55:29 +0200 hmm i didn't see anything about circular dependancies. actually i didn't see any information about dependancies at all. Of course. There is a documentation about *installing* such RPMs which were not followed when installing it. oh, btw theres an error at the end of page 11 - commandline for removal lacks a dash in front of nodeps :) Do you care enough to file proper issue in IZ for documentation project? Fixed awhile ago. Please update your copy. -- Documentation Co-lead Dinna meddle wi' things ye ken nuthin' aboot! J.H. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Article: OpenDocument vs MS XML
Wesley Parish wrote: I've just been reading PlexNex and was wondering, since Microsoft has floated enough vapourware to make flight above 3 foot extremely dangerous - rock-filled clouds are such a hazard to aerial navigation ;) - perhaps Sun could help them along? I'm referring to a response Brian Jones made to a comment of mine on his blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2005/11/22/495876.aspx#comments Wesley, did you know that OpenOffice 2.0 can read and write the Office 2003 XML format (WordprocessingML)? There are tons of implementations out there that work with those formats. The new formats for '12' aren't done yet, so it's not really a suprise that there aren't many implementations out there yet. and someone else's response to him: Hey, Brian, the OpenOffice.org support of Office 2003 XML is covered here not because the license of Office XML Schema is liberal, but because Sun and MS have reached an anti-trust settlement over a year ago: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/02/sun_settles_with_ms/ On Patents and Intellectual Property: I've mentioned on that blog what I think are extremely reasonable steps that Microsoft should take to get taken seriously - not that I believe they've got the nerve for that: plenty of nerve to harrass customers, no nerve to do what makes sense, would you believe it! ;) - perhaps Sun should seriously twist their arm to let Sun do an MS Office 12 XML filter for OO.org? Then let people see and compare the horrendous mess MSO12 XML makes versus the clarity of OO.org's ODF? Microsoft are amongst the world's most prolific business producers of hot air - let them be hoist by their own petard, if they will! Wesley Parish On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 16:05, Sam Hiser wrote: I've amplified this terrific article by Daniel, David, Bruce Alex on www.PlexNex.com -Sam Daniel Carrera wrote: Hi all, Excellent article at Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051125144611543 It's a technical comparison between OpenDocument and Microsoft's XML format. It's intended to be suitable for a semi-technical audience (ie. people who know a bit of HTML) and the focus is on interoperability. OpenDocument beats MS XML in interoperability hands down. And this article explains some of the technical reasons why. I highly recommend it. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wesley's comment on Jones' blog was excellent: I was going to blog it, with his permission? -Sam - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] A novice story.
Hi there! The file is saved to a temp Directory by the browser, the browser starts OOo and the browser removes the file. There is no way for OpenOffice.org to know that the browser or email client is going to remove the file afterwards nor that OOo has been started from a browser or email client. The fact that the file is in some temp directory does not indicate that it will be removed afterwards there may be other situations where files are opened from a temp directory and not removed by some application/browser/email-client or cron-job. OOo would not know that somebody is going to remove something or not after OOo has done it´s work so OOo could not warn that they could lose the information because it´s not the instance that removes stuff. Thus if there is some enhancement possibility here besides not showing files that do no longer exist in the recently used list it is in the browser or email client not inside OOo. For the recently used list one would have to consider that especially if files reside on slow Network Volumnes it does have a performance cost to check wether all files still exists when opening the Recently Used list. Kind regards, Bernd Paul wrote: It is always good to hear stories, both good and bad... 1) I feel that items in the Recent Documents list should only be there / selectable if they exist. Both from OOo's perspective and PC's, the file is still there. It is saved to a directory. It is up to the user to then determine when the /tmp directory is cleaned. In fact I've just tried to replicate your actions, and a .sxw file opened from the web, doesn't appear in my 'recent documents'. 2) When a file is opened from the browser or even email client, and the user chooses to close the window, they should be warned that they could lose the information if they don't save as first Another good suggestion, but again, since the browser/email client has saved it to the file system (admitedly into a temp area) it could be understood that it is unnecessary to reask the user. If however you feel strongly about these issues, you can file an enhancement request and then people can vote. If popular enough the enhancements may make it into a later release of OOo. /paul On 11/22/05, Andi McLean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I am the IT department for a small company, I wanted to share a story about one of the directors and his use of Linux and Open Office. I have designed and wrote the system for our business, using Linux. One of the directories who was running Windows 98, was fed up with the constant barage of pop-ups and virus alerts every time he went on the internet, so he asked me to set him up with a linux installation. Which I have done. We use Open Office as the de facto Office suite. For obvious reasons. :) The directory in question has an account with AOL, (Yes i was fun setting up Linux with it, but we got it working) He views his email on line, using a browser (Firefox). I sent him a presentation I had been working on. When he selected the presentaion Firefox asked what he wanted to do with it. Open with OOo or Save, as he wanted to view it, he choose Open with OOo, When he had finished with it, he closed down the programs and computers. A couple of days later, he wanted to look at the presentaion again, as he had downloaded the file, and viewed it in OOo, he choose OOo to view it again, He looked in the Recent Documents and there it was, When he tried to open it, he got File Not Found, He tried multiple times and got very annoyed. I finally got him to write down the error message, of course the file had been saved from the Web Browser into /tmp (Which gets cleaned on a reboot). I have since told him to save it first and then view it from his file manager. So a couple of points. 1) I feel that items in the Recent Documents list should only be there / selectable if they exist. 2) When a file is opened from the browser or even email client, and the user chooses to close the window, they should be warned that they could lose the information if they don't save as first. I do know the programming praticabilites this involves, but I want to concentrate on how the directory felt the program should work, not how a programmer thought it should. BTW I do not subscribe to this mail list, so please cc me on any posts [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Think free gets ahead of Sun and Google with OOo!
Wow, I have just checked this out. Holy disruptive innovation, Batman, this thing is going to rock Microsoft's world. A company called ThinkFree has gotten ahead of Google and Sun in terms of getting OOo online!!! It really is kinda freaky. You can test it by going to this link http://www.thinkfree.com and clicking on the online test. You must have a Java Runtime Environment, which my SuSE 9.2 didn't have by default install (my fault, I guess) but SuSE 10.0 does have it. The way this thing works is remarkable. It basically produces an OOo page that you can work on just as if it was running from your own computer. It is a bit slower, though. And I can imagine that if their server gets hit hard, you might lose docs, etc. But at least it is real! And the service will doubtless get better once Sun and Google get behind it and bury ThinkFree forever. Heh. I have a question to this list: Do we like ThinkFree? or are they schmucks like Luxrsty (I deliberately misspelled their name to make them not searchable)
Re: [discuss] increasing OOo's install base over the holidays
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:21:01 -, Christian Einfeldtextra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi, Just an idea for increasing our install base: burn a free liveCD with Linux on it, or the Open CD. I'm sure that this is not a revolutionary idea and also not new, but it bears repeating at this time of year. Also, on another discuss list that I have been on, they were discussing the great difficulties that newbies are still having in getting into Linux, because of complications of Linux (real or FUD), and so I recommended that people having that problem just do the easy thing and go out and buy Linux preinstalled on a computer, such as a Mandriva computer or a Linspire computer. Also, Linspire is having a sale on their dirt simple applications downloader service, called CNR for Click N Run. It is worth passing that link around, because Linspire is one of our best mainstream retail distributors in North America, at least. They have gotten into retail stores like MicroCenter, etc. http://www.linspire.com/blackfriday.php?return=http://www.linspire.com/blackfriday.php Christian Einfeldt I like their store-within-a-store concept and I definetly think a Linspire mini will make a great X-mas pressent. Is almost the same cost as an Ipod and you get a top of the line slick computer for $300 USD. -- Alexandro Colorado CoLeader of OpenOffice.org ES http://es.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] OOo
I dont think ThinkFree supports OpenDocuments or OpenOffice.org there are other OpenOffice.org clones out there. But Thinkfree was bought by handcom which also has another Offce suite and they dont support OpenDocuments either. On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:32:48 -, Christian Einfeldtextra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/22/05, Michael Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, firstly I would just like to say thank you for developing a great office suite! I was wondering if the idea of developing OOo for Symbian UIQ devices has been considered as I spend a lot of time away from my computer and feel it would be beneficial to be able to use OOo on a handheld device (its easier to carry around than a laptop!). I expect there are more people who would also feel the benefit of this? Google is planning to do this. You can also pay for ThinkFree, which is an OpenOffice.org knock off that will allow you to browse to your documents: http://www.thinkfree.com I have a question to this list: Do we like ThinkFree? or are they schmucks like Luxrsty (I deliberately misspelled their name to make them not searchable) I look forward to receiving any responses you may have concerning this. Kind regards Michael -- Alexandro Colorado CoLeader of OpenOffice.org ES http://es.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] add in or plug in idea
Hi Ray, If you do discuss this with a programmer, you might want to bring up the possiblity of modifying Thunderbird, Firefox, and Sunbird (all from Mozilla.org) to work directly with OOo. Tb is an email program. Ff is a webbrowser. Sunbird is a calendar, PIM program. The Mozilla projects have a well-documented extensions and themes API. The Themes should make it easy for a programmer to get the OOo look-and-feel into the programs, and the Extenstions could provide the hooks into OOo. Some marco or something for OOo would be needed to hook into the other programs, but that shouldn't be too hard. This would be a lot easier that writing the programs from scratch. Thanks again for your input. -Chad On 11/26/05, raymond shulley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi chad thanks i am not a coder but will look for some one who is if alex thinks that a contact manager for sales people is no a productive tool he can come work with me in the field for 2 days and chase dead dogs ahahahah just kidding dont quit sincerly ray in merced calif --- Chad Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/24/05, Alexandro Colorado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 23:07:32 -, rkmsconsultants [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi all iam i user only but love your work if i might suggest a add on or plug in a good contact manager as it is i have to convert to excel or csv then try outlook hahaha or use a 3rd party program which never seams to work right or are extremley expensive (act or goldmine etc) im in sales so i belive others have the same gripe ( not with you ) thanks for all your very good work ray shulley rkms consultanting OOo is a productivity suite, not a personal information manager application. Alexandro does not speak for everyone in that regard. There are many people who have asked for a PIM app to be added, or a plugin of some sort made available for OOo. I believe most would agree that it would be good to have as an option, if we had the developers to do it. As it stands now, we do not. However if you, or anyone, would like to write the plugin or app, and would be willing to give that code to the project, it would be greatly appreciated! If you can write it, awesome, if you can convice or hire someone to write it, awesome. But until someone does decide to do that, it will likely remain undone. Thanks for the suggestion. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software! -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Google jamming open and office ?
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 09:09 -0500, Chad Smith wrote: If you're selling burned CDs for $5 a pop, you don't have a lot of profit to advertise with, and if you selling pressed CDs in a box for $25 or higher, for a number of reasons, you're probably going to change the name. If not only for fear of the wrath of the community, also to keep your customers for yourself, and not let them know they can download it for free. Wrath of the community? RMS himself says there's nothing wrong with selling copies of free (as in freedom) software and in fact used to sell tapes with the latest version of Emacs for $150 each back in the day. -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Google jamming open and office ?
On 11/26/05, Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 09:09 -0500, Chad Smith wrote: If you're selling burned CDs for $5 a pop, you don't have a lot of profit to advertise with, and if you selling pressed CDs in a box for $25 or higher, for a number of reasons, you're probably going to change the name. If not only for fear of the wrath of the community, also to keep your customers for yourself, and not let them know they can download it for free. Wrath of the community? RMS himself says there's nothing wrong with selling copies of free (as in freedom) software and in fact used to sell tapes with the latest version of Emacs for $150 each back in the day. Last I checked, RMS wasn't a regular contributor to the OpenOffice.orgproject. And I'm referring here specifically to the OOo community. There are many instances where people were yelled at, called thefts, and much worse for selling OOo for anything more than cost. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Google jamming open and office ?
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 15:53 -0500, Chad Smith wrote: On 11/26/05, Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 09:09 -0500, Chad Smith wrote: If you're selling burned CDs for $5 a pop, you don't have a lot of profit to advertise with, and if you selling pressed CDs in a box for $25 or higher, for a number of reasons, you're probably going to change the name. If not only for fear of the wrath of the community, also to keep your customers for yourself, and not let them know they can download it for free. Wrath of the community? RMS himself says there's nothing wrong with selling copies of free (as in freedom) software and in fact used to sell tapes with the latest version of Emacs for $150 each back in the day. Last I checked, RMS wasn't a regular contributor to the OpenOffice.org project. And I'm referring here specifically to the OOo community. There are many instances where people were yelled at, called thefts, and much worse for selling OOo for anything more than cost. Have you read this: (from http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html) Since free refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program which people are not free to include on these collections is not free software. Now, trying to pass off OOo as your own work and putting a Microsoft-style EULA on it is quite wrong on more than one level. But simply selling a copy of OOo and labeling it as such, I don't see a problem with. -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Online only apps
Chad Smith wrote: I'm not saying that Linux can't run games, like there is something within Linux itself the prohibits the high-end performance that Windows can deliver. I know that's not the case. Actually, that may be the case. I recall a thread in this forum many months ago -- another one of those Linux rulez, Windows droolz things -- where a comment was made concerning the stability of Linux vs. Windows. The upshot was that Linux was more stable because Windows has some graphical processing built into the kernel, whereas Linux separates them. So an app could crash the X-window system but the kernel would keep on running. In this respect the GNU/Linux architecture is similar to Windows 3.1 running on top of DOS. This can be a big advantage; for example, I'm running a Smoothwall firewall on my network on an old P120 w/ 80 MB of ram. No GUI, but it has a web-based admin system like my wireless router. Works just fine -- total cost: about $30 for a network card (that I could have gotten cheaper on-line). But on the other side of this dual-boot, Fedora Core 4 runs the exact same versions of the same apps (Mozilla, OOo) decidedly slower than WinXP. Even the printer runs slower! Now maybe you can design a Linux game that runs without a desktop or window manager like the full-screen DOS games, but calling it from Gnome or KDE will be a big performance hit. Finally, you have to consider that the video drivers may not be as good depending on your specific card. If they play Solitaire and Free Cell, then, yeah, Linux can do that. For that matter, I think the cards in the Linux versions are butt-ugly. -- Rod - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Article: OpenDocument vs MS XML
Daniel Carrera wrote: I haven't yet seen any examples of the new Excel format. But verbosity isn't really an issue. snip The number of characters has no effect on speed. There is no reason why w:r is faster to parse than text:span text:style-name=T1. I'm sorry, Daniel, but I find that hard to believe. I have a file that is strictly text, numbers, and dates. Seven columns by 63,260 rows -- no formulas, no formatting. Importing as csv takes a few seconds. Converted to ods it takes *much* longer to load -- around 30 seconds or so. The original csv is 3.945 MB. The content.xml of this file is 44.305 MB. A ratio of over 11 to 1. I can't say that it takes eleven times as long to load -- I haven't timed it that close -- but it's in the ballpark. Keep in mind that at the end of the day, the program has to end up with exactly the same data structures and it starts out with basically the same information. I just don't understand why it takes over 80 characters to describe a 4 character text value in a cell with no formatting: table:table-cell office:value-type=stringtext:parin/text:p/table:table-cell You're not going to convince me that couldn't be usefully abbreviated in some way and that all that doesn't take cycles to process. I get it about ODF, Daniel, I really, really, do. I'm a supporter. But that doesn't mean we can just pretend that disadvantages don't exist. The worst part is that the performance hit is something that the user will experience every day, while the advantages may not be so readily apparent -- or even applicable at all, depending on how you use the suite. -- Rod - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Think free gets ahead of Sun and Google with OOo!
Christian Einfeldtextra wrote: I have a question to this list: Do we like ThinkFree? or are they schmucks like Luxrsty (I deliberately misspelled their name to make them not searchable) Negative: AFAICT, there is no mention of OpenOffice.org on their website. In fact, the only hint that it is indeed based on OOo is in the name of their components (Write Calc, I actually like the name Show better than Impress). Positive: They have apparently done some actual coding in the web-based version and the Show module for PDAs. So they have some legitimate claim to rename the package, IMO. Unknown: Do they refer users to these lists for support? If so, that is a big negative. If they do their own support, good for them. That's the hazard with producing Open Source. This sort of thing can and does happen. If it results in genuine innovation, good for them. -- Rod - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: file converters
Richard Rowe wrote: biologist write scientific papers and reports, often need to access material in older file formats. I think that providing a range of text file converters would be a big plus for Open Office Writer. MS tends to abandon Word formats on about a 5 year cycle, and loading the appropriate converter 'from disk' can be an inconvenience in a centralised situation where end users probablby don't have the CDs to hand. OO's file converters are good (and I frequently need them to open MS Word files submitted by students - files that don't open in MS Word). Upside: works transparently, users happy Downside: bloat? Richard You may want to consider purchasing Sun's StarOffice 8. It is basically OpenOffice.org but includes things that can't be included in OOo because of licensing restrictions, etc. Among them are a wide range of file filters. It will run you about $79 list (cheaper on Amazon). -- Rod - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] increasing OOo's install base over the holidays
hi, On 11/26/05, Alexandro Colorado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:21:01 -, Christian Einfeldtextra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christian Einfeldt I like their store-within-a-store concept and I definetly think a Linspire mini will make a great X-mas pressent. Is almost the same cost as an Ipod and you get a top of the line slick computer for $300 USD. I didn't see this Linspire mini that you are talking about. Could you send me a link, please? -- Alexandro Colorado CoLeader of OpenOffice.org ES http://es.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Think free gets ahead of Sun and Google with OOo!
On 11/26/05, Randomthots [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christian Einfeldtextra wrote: I have a question to this list: Do we like ThinkFree? or are they schmucks like Luxrsty (I deliberately misspelled their name to make them not searchable) Negative: AFAICT, there is no mention of OpenOffice.org on their website. In fact, the only hint that it is indeed based on OOo is in the name of their components (Write Calc, I actually like the name Show better than Impress). I really see no reason to believe it *is* OpenOfffice.org. Similiar names for the parts (and as you pointed out - not the exact same) do not prove it's OOo. I actually took the hour to open the program, and the menus are different (very different), the icons are different, the features are different. As Christian pointed out, it doesn't support ODF (or the old OOo formats), which means the ThinkFreeOffice people would have had to work to remove that functionality. ThinkFreeOffice has been around for a while, it has always been a Java-based app. I have the older version downloaded on my computer. Again, it's similar to OOo, but it's also similiar to MSO, and AppleWorks, and WordPerfect, etc. The big difference to this new version is that it runs on a hosted server online, the older app was a download (which they seem to still offer). I don't think it's a derivative product of OOo. Like you said, there is no mention of OOo on their website, neither is there in their About box, or any other documentation I saw. Positive: They have apparently done some actual coding in the web-based version and the Show module for PDAs. So they have some legitimate claim to rename the package, IMO. I like the iPod thing - that's awesome! Unknown: Do they refer users to these lists for support? If so, that is a big negative. If they do their own support, good for them. They offer support themselves. I saw no reference to users@openoffice.org That's the hazard with producing Open Source. This sort of thing can and does happen. If it results in genuine innovation, good for them. I agree. If this does turn out to be based on OOo, they've done a good job of hiding it - and offering stuff that OOo is unable or unwilling to offer - like the online-based version. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Re: Online only apps
On 11/26/05, Randomthots [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chad Smith wrote: I'm not saying that Linux can't run games, like there is something within Linux itself the prohibits the high-end performance that Windows can deliver. I know that's not the case. Actually, that may be the case. I recall a thread in this forum many months ago -- another one of those Linux rulez, Windows droolz things -- where a comment was made concerning the stability of Linux vs. Windows. The upshot was that Linux was more stable because Windows has some graphical processing built into the kernel, whereas Linux separates them. So an app could crash the X-window system but the kernel would keep on running. That may or may not be limiting. I'm not smart enough to know for sure. In this respect the GNU/Linux architecture is similar to Windows 3.1 running on top of DOS. I hope people read the first paragraph before jumping all over you for this statement. This can be a big advantage; for example, I'm running a Smoothwall firewall on my network on an old P120 w/ 80 MB of ram. No GUI, but it has a web-based admin system like my wireless router. Works just fine -- total cost: about $30 for a network card (that I could have gotten cheaper on-line). Yes, running stuff from the commandline does make it work a lot faster, and on much lower levels of hardware. If they play Solitaire and Free Cell, then, yeah, Linux can do that. For that matter, I think the cards in the Linux versions are butt-ugly. You and me, both, Rod! -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Re: file converters
On 11/26/05, Randomthots [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Rowe wrote: biologist write scientific papers and reports, often need to access material in older file formats. I think that providing a range of text file converters would be a big plus for Open Office Writer. MS tends to abandon Word formats on about a 5 year cycle, and loading the appropriate converter 'from disk' can be an inconvenience in a centralised situation where end users probablby don't have the CDs to hand. OO's file converters are good (and I frequently need them to open MS Word files submitted by students - files that don't open in MS Word). Upside: works transparently, users happy Downside: bloat? Richard You may want to consider purchasing Sun's StarOffice 8. It is basically OpenOffice.org but includes things that can't be included in OOo because of licensing restrictions, etc. Among them are a wide range of file filters. It will run you about $79 list (cheaper on Amazon). Actually, if Richard works for a school, or is a student, (as his email seems to indicate) he can get StarOffice 8 for free from Sun.com. http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/edu/promotions/edusoft/individual/download/cat4_qualification.html *http://tinyurl.com/8jhvq* And I would totally agree with Rod, StarOffice seems like it would meet your needs. SO has a *TON* of file filters, a level I have not seen close to matched in other office suites - by *far* the highest number of formats. Upside: works transparently, users happy Downside: bloat? The downside to OOo offering these other filters isn't bloat - it's a matter of freedom. StarOffice pays companies for the right to use their filters. OOo, being free, can't do that. Also many of the filters are of a propriatary nature that precludes their inclusion in a Free (as in Freedom) office suite. I doubt the filters are very large, so bloat wouldn't be an issue - confusion may be, since the Open and Save as dialog boxes have *HUGE* drop-down menus. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
[discuss] Openoffice.org Base
Dear Sirs. After downloading and installing OOo 2.0 for both Windows, and Linux (i86) I was gratified to find that in the Windows version I can at least import tables from an M$ Access database. I was extremely disapointed however to find that the same capability does not exist in the Linux version. On top of that disapointment, when I saved an imported database in the Windows version of OOo, the Linux version would not open it. While some work has been done on the OOo Base application, a lot of work remains to be done. If M$ Office users are going to switch from M$ Access to OOo Base, ALL versions (Windows and Linux) of the app need to be able to open an M$ Access database, and save it to an OOo database and have EVERYTHING work exactly as it did in M$ Access. Nothing less will satisfy most M$ Access users. While such a conversion might be complex, even requiring another external app, it should be possible. The other OOo apps that I have tried work very well (I have never been an M$ Word fan...Wordperfect is much much better!). I hope that work will continue on the Base app to make it capable of complete conversion of M$ Access Databases to OOo database format. Keep up the good work, and thanks for a good alternative to Micro$haft software! -- Cul8r Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]KBØHAE Want to help stop Spam? (also known as UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL) Support the Anti-Spam Amendment. Join at http://www.cauce.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Article: OpenDocument vs MS XML
Daniel Carrera wrote: Randomthots wrote: The number of characters has no effect on speed. There is no reason why w:r is faster to parse than text:span text:style-name=T1. I'm sorry, Daniel, but I find that hard to believe. I have a file that is strictly text, numbers, and dates. Seven columns by 63,260 rows -- no formulas, no formatting. Importing as csv takes a few seconds. Converted to ods it takes *much* longer to load -- around 30 seconds or so. What makes you think that the reason for the slowdown is because OpenDocument uses verbose tags instead of hard to understand tags? The size of the tag has essentially *zero* effect on speed. For one particular tag, or for a normally sized spreadsheet, I'm sure you're right. But even a little bit has to add up. In that particular file the tag sequence I posted is essentially repeated 63,260 x 7 times. That's 442,820 times. The slow down is because of the additional steps in compression, That's arguable. Comparing the time it takes to zip the archive with 7-zip vs. the time it takes OOo to save the file, I would estimate that the compression step takes up maybe 20% of the total time at most. XML parsing, and the fact that OpenDocument files contain more information than CSV files. Tell me please, Daniel, what extra information is contained in the xml snippet: table:table-cell office:value-type=stringtext:parin/text:p/table:table-cell that isn't contained in: ,arin, You can't just compare CSV vs OpenDocument and conclude that the problem is the size of the XML tags. That's plain silly. In this particular case, it's not silly at all. If I do some simple substitutions and some liberal deleting, I can fairly easily reproduce the csv from the ods. And I won't lose a scrap of information in the process. I realize this is not a normal case. It's more like a controlled experiment where you remove as many variables as you can in order to study the particular phenomenon of interest. The only conclusion I can make is that XML makes a terrible format for databases that look like spreadsheets (or spreadsheets that look like databases). Maybe this will spur people to learn how to use Base. -- Rod - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
