[discuss] Love OOo 2, but hate the need for a full download each revision
Guys, The availability of patches, as well as full new versions, would be very welcome. I use dial-up, but even on 256/64 ADSL, 75MB is not entirely trivial, plus the uninstall/re-install routine. A lot of time is required. Even better would be an automatic update system, that only updated what had been changed. I work with family doctors, and have convinced many to use OOo instead of MS Office. Their needs for office software aren't huge and OOo does everything they want and more. Greg -- Greg Twyford 9 Waratah Street Oatley 2223 Phone: 9580 4716 Mobile: 0418 275 722 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Cert report on operating system vulenablities...
John Thompson wrote: Sure. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the *nix vulnerability total includes entries for all flavors of *nix, and dozens of linux distributions. May are seen to be duplicates -- i.e. a specific vulnerability will be listed and counted separately for Solaris, AIX, *BSD, and all the various linux distributions even though it is the same vulnerability and fixed by the same source patch. And the number of critical vulnerabilities in *nix is still lower than for Win. In addition, vulnerabilities in Firefox, Apache, PHP and other cross-platform software is counted as *nix vulnerabilities but not a Windows vulnerability. So, if Firefox has one vulnerability, it counts as 10 vulnerabilities for *nix and and 0 for Windows. Kind of unfair, don't you think? Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Cert report on operating system vulenablities...
On 2006-01-07, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB2005.html#top > > This bulletin provides a year-end summary of software vulnerabilities that >> were identified between January 2005 and December 2005. The information i= > s >> presented only as a index with links to the US-CERT Cyber Security Bullet= > in >> the information was published in. There were 5198 reported vulnerabilitie= > s: >> 812 Windows operating system vulnerabilities; 2328 Unix/Linux operating >> vulnerabilities; and 2058 Multiple operating system vulnerabilities. > > Still think Windows is more buggy and unsafe than Linux? Sure. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the *nix vulnerability total includes entries for all flavors of *nix, and dozens of linux distributions. May are seen to be duplicates -- i.e. a specific vulnerability will be listed and counted separately for Solaris, AIX, *BSD, and all the various linux distributions even though it is the same vulnerability and fixed by the same source patch. And the number of critical vulnerabilities in *nix is still lower than for Win. -- -John ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Cert report on operating system vulenablities...
EULAs aren't worth much and are not even valid in some areas. Anyway, if there is a class action against MS for egregious design flaws or anything else for that matter and it gets overturned by a lame EULA, then the whole 'who ya gonna sue' argument goes out the window. Furthermore, it could establish a public awareness that no MS products are suitable for use in a networked environment. If the suit targets the businesses and organizations which allowed personal or financial data to unauthorized parties by connecting the MS products to the Net, then MS' EULA isn't going to help them any: it says clearly you get what you deserve if you mistake it for a suitable product. The part the OOo could realy benefit from would be to promote its standalone nature and highlighting the difficulties caused by the server ties in MSO 11+. -Lars Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Software patents endanger the legal certainty of software. Keep them out of the EU by writing your MEP, keep the market open. On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote: Saturday, January 7, 2006 Lars D. Noodén wrote: Some class action suits might get MS to clean up its act somewhat, but at this point it'd be foolish to expect any change in their quality or business model. Won't work. The EULA expressely exempts MS from any damage caused by bugs in their programs. If you installed them, you have accepted the EULA. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Cert report on operating system vulenablities...
Le samedi 07 janvier 2006 à 13:05 +0100, Giuseppe Bilotta a écrit : > Saturday, January 7, 2006 Lars D. Noodén wrote: > > > Some class action suits might get MS to clean up its act somewhat, but at > > this point it'd be foolish to expect any change in their quality or > > business model. > > Won't work. The EULA expressely exempts MS from any damage > caused by bugs in their programs. If you installed them, you > have accepted the EULA. But would all the provisions of the EULA stand in court ? IANAL but I seem to remember european law at least requires a basic level of service, so you can put all the exceptions you want in fine print in the contract nobody reads, they can't preempt the general provisions. I doubt an EULA which stated "you accept the installation of malware $foo on your system and I won't be liable for anything" would have any legal value. If someone wanted to make a MS-like EULA stick he would have to convince the legal system the EULA provisions are consistent with what a basic customer can expect, which would be very difficult to do. The law does not like it at all when you say something to your customer (when you buy MS you got support, when you buy FOSS who can you sue?) and write something else in legal documents. All the ebayers that sell pictures of stuff with the picture part carefully stated in fine print are in for a very nasty surprise if someone ever sues them. In other words : EULAs are a modern form of scam, I doubt the Law will like them any better than the previous forms. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Re: [discuss] QP conversion
Thursday, January 5, 2006 Robert Stapleton wrote: > Knowing that you are all good guys, you would do the general public an > immense favor if you developed a reliable conversion from Quattro Pro 9 to > your software. The software community, including Corel, has turned its back > on QP9. Myself and apparently may others are stuck with large spreadsheets > created in QP9, or as in my case, blindly converted from an earlier QP > version to QP9 without adequate evaluation. Of course the earlier files > were deleted after some initial checks, only to find out later how unstable > the QP9 is. Corel had a website with the last general bug fix for QP9 that > categorically stated that QP9 would convert > itself/export into Excel2000. > It categorically would not. Corel categorically would not respond to > questions on this topic. Have you tried the peer support groups over at news://cnews.corel.com ? There are some very helpful people over there, and I'm sure that if you describe the problem in detail (like what kind of problem are you having with the conversions, if you indeed have the latest patch to CorelOffice 2000 (i.e. SP4 which cannot be downloaded from the internet due to the architectural changes that were required to make it work with Windows NT & XP), etc): if there is a solution, they're very likely to know about it :) Secondly, you mention that you have some large spreadsheets. How large? QuattroPro can handle something like a million lines, but Excel and Calc are limited to 65 thousand, so if your sheets have more than that they simply cannot be converted and you would need to split them before you could pass them to any other program. Thirdly, OOo does not currently have import filters for the QuattroPro format, so you must find a middle ground (i.e. a format which QuattroPro can export to and which OOo can import from). Some older version of Excel or Lotus, possibly (refer to the QuattroPro newsgroups I mentioned above if you have problems exporting from QP). At worst, as a last resort you may want to give CSV (Comma Separated Values) a try. Beware that it will only transfer data, no formulas or formatting. Hope this helps, and feel free to ask for more information as needed. -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Cert report on operating system vulenablities...
Saturday, January 7, 2006 Lars D. Noodén wrote: > Some class action suits might get MS to clean up its act somewhat, but at > this point it'd be foolish to expect any change in their quality or > business model. Won't work. The EULA expressely exempts MS from any damage caused by bugs in their programs. If you installed them, you have accepted the EULA. -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Cert report on operating system vulenablities...
Some class action suits might get MS to clean up its act somewhat, but at this point it'd be foolish to expect any change in their quality or business model. A more practical use of the class action suit would be to use it to fund a bootstrapping of desktop Linux / BSD / OS X / anything non-MS on the desktop. Another method which might make headway would be to go after businesses and institution that lose money or personal data as a result of connecting their MS stuff to the Net. At this point we have over a decade of data and experience to indicate anyone relying on a networked MS machine for security is guitly of either willful negligence or gross negligence, not middle ground there. OOo could ride either one of them. (Though I do worry that we may be copying the failures of MS in regards to how macro commands and embedded scripts are handled in documents. -Lars Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Software patents endanger the legal certainty of software. Keep them out of the EU by writing your MEP, keep the market open. On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Tony Pursell wrote: Also look at http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/ This explains why Windows vulnerabilities are always more critical than Linux/Unix ones as well as discussing the problems of comparing stats on the different OSs. Tony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Cert report on operating system vulenablities...
On 7 Jan 2006 at 18:28, Tim Fairchild wrote: > On Saturday 07 Jan 2006 12:54, Chad Smith wrote: > > http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB2005.html#top > > > > This bulletin provides a year-end summary of software > > vulnerabilities that > > > > > were identified between January 2005 and December 2005. The > > > information is presented only as a index with links to the US-CERT > > > Cyber Security Bulletin the information was published in. There > > > were 5198 reported vulnerabilities: 812 Windows operating system > > > vulnerabilities; 2328 Unix/Linux operating vulnerabilities; and > > > 2058 Multiple operating system vulnerabilities. > > > > Still think Windows is more buggy and unsafe than Linux? > > http://tinyurl.com/9shch > > -- Also look at http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/ This explains why Windows vulnerabilities are always more critical than Linux/Unix ones as well as discussing the problems of comparing stats on the different OSs. Tony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Cert report on operating system vulenablities...
Le vendredi 06 janvier 2006 à 21:54 -0500, Chad Smith a écrit : > http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB2005.html#top > > This bulletin provides a year-end summary of software vulnerabilities that > > were identified between January 2005 and December 2005. The information is > > presented only as a index with links to the US-CERT Cyber Security Bulletin > > the information was published in. There were 5198 reported vulnerabilities: > > 812 Windows operating system vulnerabilities; 2328 Unix/Linux operating > > vulnerabilities; and 2058 Multiple operating system vulnerabilities. > > > > Still think Windows is more buggy and unsafe than Linux? In case you haven't noticed, on one side you have windows (two main branches 95 and NT) and on the other all the Linux/Unixes (Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, AIX, Tru64, Irix, Unixware, OpenServer, Darwin/OS X, probably cygwin on windows too, etc) So the comparison is not exactly fair Come back when you've combed the 5198 vulns, removed duplicates and separated specific OS versions so you can compare a single windows version to a single Linux version. Also 1. vulns are not graded, 2. if I remember well MS tend to aggregate a score of minor problems in a single report while Linux is more one problem = one report But anyway the proof in the pudding, ask anyone who ran two installs side-by-side for a year which one got the most problems -- Nicolas Mailhot
Re: [discuss] help me!!!!!!!!
On Wed January 4 2006 00:25, + acosta_barrientos wrote: > Hi! My name is Fabio Acosta. I´m from Costa Rica. > This year, I´m starting to use Open Office 2.0. > When I download open office, download two version, one in english, and the > other in spanish. To the version in english, I download the languagepacked > of spanish. I don´t have problems to install the english version. And next > I install the language packed. I look that all the instruction are in > spanish after to install. But the problem is here. All the documents that I > write, all are in spanish. Then, when I check the documents with the > spellcheck, the diccionary don´t check the spanish word´s. Okey, I > uninstall this version and install the spanish version. And this time, I > see that all the instruction are in spanish. But when I check the > documents, don´t check the spanish word´s. I don´t know, if it´s correct. > But if it´s wrong, And it´s posible to help me , I will thankful. Fabio As you are not subscribed you may not have seen that: On Thu January 5 2006 01:00, Rigel wrote: > Dear Fabio Acosta Barrientos. Below you will find the address to the > language component project page. > > Please use OpenOffice.org's integrated wizard (File Menu -> Wizards -> > Install new dictionaries) to install spell checking dictionaries, > hyphenation dictionaries, and thesauri, because these lists may be > out of date! > > http://lingucomponent.openoffice.org/spell_dic.html Please reply to discuss@openoffice.org only. Normally users@openoffice.org is the best list to ask questions about using OpenOffice.org -- CPH : OpenOffice.org contributor - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Office lite
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 07:48, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: > Hi, > > On 1/6/06 1:03 PM Rigel wrote: > > Daniel, has pointed out, as I understand it, that 90% of the office > > suite sits on a data processing component that allows the application > > to do its work. The other 10% is skin's for the applications buttons > > and windows, as well as some exporting functionality. It is this > > integration that allows for the transfer of images to text documents, > > to spreadhseets, to the presentation. > > > > Since SUN doesn't have direct access to the Windows OS, and since it's > > written to run on several platforms, they had to write it to be > > dependant on itself. You can find more specific information if you > > subscribe to the developers list. > > A lot of the interest, I should add, focuses on Linux. The idea for > these people is that an OOo that could run easily on lightweight systems > with restricted memory (phones, handhelds, etc.) would be a boon. As > the file format (OpenDocument) would remain the same, the argument goes, > OOo users would not be left out and those wanting the full array of > features and functionality on Windows would get it. Some interested > parties include Nokia. An "OpenDocument" viewer could also do this, and > for all I know, would be able to run lightly on any platform. There was > talk of this last year but I don't know the current status. > > But why not work immediately on something that satisfies Linux needs, if > there are resources for it? For What It's Worth: I've been thinking along these lines for a while and have put together a collection of rather ancient and still workable light-weight F/LOSS and Public Domain source to work on as a DLL/Shared Libs collection. My inspiration has been the CompleteWorks of 1993 and the MiniOffice suite of 1995, both of which are miniscule. I just haven't got around to doing anything with it yet except think about how I should structure it - I've been slack, I admit. On the bright side I've now got a couple of old laptops with 16 MB RAM apiece, so if I can get it working in them - one's going to stay MS Win98 Lite, the other's going to be crossgraded to a higher OS - Linux - it'll mean I have some idea of what to do ;) Wesley Parish > > I think it is worthwhile to be flexible :-) > > Cheers > Louis > > PS, the dev list you refer to is probably dev@openoffice.org, a fine > list. Other key developer lists are dev@api.openoffice.org and > [EMAIL PROTECTED] For a fuller listing, see > http://projects.openoffice.org/accepted.html > > > Rigel > > > > On 1/6/06, Louis Suarez-Potts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 1/6/06 1:50 AM Paul wrote: > >>> I don't believe that a 'lite' version is on the roadmap... > >> > >> No, at least not on Sun's, afaik. However, there is and has been and > >> will continue to be real interest in the idea. The problem, as I > >> understand it, is architectural. OOo is tightly integrated and it would > >> require a re-architecture of the suite to produce a "lite" version. > >> > >> But, as I said, there is real interest in this. I get contacted by > >> companies and individuals interested in it all the time. I also think > >> that a re-architecture, if feasible (read: if people can or want to do > >> this) that allows for componentization (so you can start Writer, say, > >> without needing to start the entire application) is equally desirable. > >> > >>> /paul > >> > >> Best, > >> Louis > >> > >> - > >> 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] -- 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] Cert report on operating system vulenablities...
On Saturday 07 Jan 2006 12:54, Chad Smith wrote: > http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB2005.html#top > > This bulletin provides a year-end summary of software vulnerabilities that > > > were identified between January 2005 and December 2005. The information > > is presented only as a index with links to the US-CERT Cyber Security > > Bulletin the information was published in. There were 5198 reported > > vulnerabilities: 812 Windows operating system vulnerabilities; 2328 > > Unix/Linux operating vulnerabilities; and 2058 Multiple operating system > > vulnerabilities. > > Still think Windows is more buggy and unsafe than Linux? http://tinyurl.com/9shch -- - Tim Fairchild Atchafalaya Border Collies. Kuttabul, Queensland, Australia. - Email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepagehttp://www.bcs4me.com Photos http://www.pbase.com/amosf Bloghttp://bcs4me.com/blog - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
