[discuss] Difference between end users and developers/contributors
CPHennessy wrote: I don't think many of the developers on OOo bother to read or take part in discuss@openoffice.org anymore, rather taking to irc #openoffice.org or dev@openoffice.org and/or the individual development mailing lists and issuezilla tracker to communicate with eachother. And that is why I wish the MS bashing and other off-topic rants would stop. You don't seem to have read those off-topic rants, otherwise, probably, you wouldn't have reproposed the same stale slogan (but very relevant for the success of both OO.o and FOSS in general) whose limits have been exposed in those rants: Please list members, use your considerable energy to contribute to OOo - writing docs, contributing clipart or templates or even better, help on the http://qa.openoffice.org team or contribute code. To sum those rants: 1) a product like OO.o, or any SW geared at the desktop market (*) has by definition a user base (essential for its ultimate success) which is 99.99% made of people who will never have the combination of time and skills to ever contribute in any way. Specifically, what makes anyone think that: considerable energy to denounce objective problems on users lists = capability to create SW docs, code, clipart, templates or do QA stuff 2) Even when it is not expressed rudely, such an attitude (contribute in some way to the SAME project I like better (**), or your complaints are void, please shut up. Even if you depend from this program more than me) is very unrealistic and can hurt (*is* hurting) a more widespread adoption of OO.o and FOSS in general Ciao, Marco (*) Note that in these days we like to say that Gnu/Linux is ready for the desktop, so even the Linux kernel should fit this definition (**)Even if, for all I know, the person I'm considering a lazy loser for not contributing to OO.o may be someone who uses it 30 minutes a week to ask funding for, say, some volunteer program for children to which he or her devotes for free 20/30 hours a week - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] CosmoPOD.com
Alexandro Colorado wrote: [this] doesn't address the original question, which is if we should promote [Cosmopod]. www.openoffice.org says the productivity suite that... governments, and corporations... have been expecting for the last two years as in gee, is this a professional, business oriented thing or what? www.cosmopod.com says Work on your private stuff without worrying about whether your company is snooping. CosmoPOD... is also a neat way to bypass your company's firewall. (Yeah, those bastards deserve it, don't they?) (*) Trying it, sure. Recommending it to relatives, friends etc.. probably. Using it when on vacation, visiting grandma and so on, maybe. But placing an official endorsement of something like this on OO.org? I may agree that companies creating such feelings and needs in their workplace entirely deserve what they get but...Heh.. :-) Apart from what volunteers may decide, I wouldn't be surprised to see Sun just reply yeah, right, or just block it, should this discussion turn into a yes Ciao, Marco (*)Oh, and as far as I can see, Cosmopod doesn't even mention OO.o or any other program used, or the negligible fact that installing SW without permission on company HW is explicitly forbidden in many offices. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] CosmoPOD.com
== Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:50:27 - From: Alexandro Colorado [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: discuss@openoffice.org Subject: Re: [discuss] CosmoPOD.com == I would be delighted to address any concern of yours, but frankly I can't really make any sense of the three paragraphs above. (seriously!). May I ask you to rephrase them? have u used cosmopod? If not, use it and then comment. Alexandro, I would like to suggest you to seriously cool down, before burying yourself in a hole even deeper than you already have. I have ONLY commented about the NON technical (i.e. the most important!) side of what YOU had defined as THE original question: Alexandro Colorado wrote: [this] doesn't address the original question, which is if we should promote [Cosmopod]. I have NOT criticized anything technical in Cosmopod, so any use it then comment kind of answer is absolutely OFF TOPIC. Before even starting to decide if something should be officially recommended for technical merits, you have to figure out if it damages your public image and lobbying marketing efforts. * I have ONLY provided evidence of why I think it may be against OO.o's interest to officially promote Cosmopod, REGARDLESS of its technical merit. * and I am still waiting for understandable, on topic critics to the issue I actually raised, whose validity or lack thereof does not depend from how much and when I will try Cosmopod. Let's forget what you've written so far, shall we (everybody has bad moments): please restart from scratch, answering again to my original message. Friendly, Marco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Somebody else who should use Free Software
Greetings, Deliberately ambiguous title to not spoil the surprise: http://www.newsforge.com/articles/05/11/03/1643243.shtml?tid=152tid=31 enjoy, Marco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] On HTML mail and paying per byte, was: OOo Writer with Outlook?
Alexandro Colorado wrote: On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:15:58 -, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: Any format beyond plain text, including HTML, Word, and even ODF formats, bloats the size significantly, and is inconsiderate of people who pay by the byte (and yes, some people still do). [...] even if there are people that pay by the byte in this world, I think they already disabled HTML email. First of all, one can avoid *sending* HTML email, but almost never block messages from _others_ *before* downloading (paying) for it. Apart from that, Sorry but the thesis that this is a wonderful flat rate world, (almost) nobody is still paying per byte these days is simply a mith. It is impressive how well this advertising trick is working. On the server side, many hosting contracts promising unlimited bandwidth have up to the first X GBytes, that is written in fine print somewhere. At the end users side, I'll just paste what I wrote on the same subject on another list some weeks ago: [This] is a myth. Outside that little corner of the market which is fixed internet access in North America, that is. Worldwide, most people are still stuck on dialup. And even if they weren't, in many areas the only way to spread ADSL is to *also* offer rated services without fixed monthly fees, because many people could not be interested in a flat rate (=pay every month the same even if you only surf on some weekendss) connection. Oh, and add to the above that all the fad about mobile internet, GPRS, UMTS, 'net access from commercial flights and so on, means that those connections (*very* often charged per KB) are going to increase. So remember to not only avoid duplicates, but also trim as much as possible before even wondering whether to top or bottom post. Ciao, Marco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: On HTML mail and paying per byte, was: OOo Writer with Outlook?
Randomthots [EMAIL PROTECTED] Out of consideration for all the poor slobs living in technologically underdeveloped countries The poor slobs will be delighted of your kind attitude. In any case, I have explicitly mentioned several ADVANCED, very trendy use cases where one pays for byte. have you read my message? What if I want to send a nicely formatted message -- complete with pictures of the kids -- to my sister in Washington? We couldn't care less. Why should anybody interfere in your *private* communication? I've done the same several times. Of course it only matters on *public* fora. Unfortunately, it is often necessary to remember that it is more polite to have a different settings for these cases, besides not resending screenfuls of text just to add I agree. This is all my note was about (note it isn't even only plain text is good) Ciao, Marco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Massachussetts registered voters
Any Massachussetts registered voters could help out by contacting their governor, secretary of state and their representative in the state senate regarding this issue: http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/10/25/HNstateopendoc_1.html It would be useful to pin down the sources and specifics of the basis for Pacheco's claims. (e.g. which disability groups and what have they been made upset about). I suspect that there is more than a little confusion between software packages and the formats, plus maybe some misdirection. There has been indeed a lot of confusion made between sw applications and file formats in this case, and not all of it is in good faith. However, as far as disability groups are concerned, there is no need to worry. The reason and other relevant informations are mentioned here: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8616 That article has been conceived exactly so that it can be printed out as a flyer and distributed by hand to non IT-savy citizens, to explain without technicisms what is really at stake. HTH, Marco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] An ODF Foundation? Was: Conference inspired thoughts
Ian Laurenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Overview The Open Document Format (ODF) creates new opportunities ...Overcoming these difficulties will take resources. To gain additional resources a foundation of some form maybe a good idea. [...] A Foundation To have resources to solve the component issue, to implement the above vision, and/or other future developments possible I think that a foundation could be formed. An ODF Foundation (ODFF)[1] could be: * Independent of any single corporation which may make governments and other organisations more willing to contribute funds. * Responsible for forming contracts to implement the requests of funding organisations. * The holder of the ODF copyright. The foundation, to me, would require a person (or people) to act as lead and voice for the ODF community. Such a person (or people) would require: * The respect of large organisations that are the most likely to initially contribute funds. * The respect of the developer community. * To be technically aware. * Politically astute. [etc...] Hello, I sure like the idea of an ODF (not OO.o) foundation but, as far as I understand: 1) the current holder of the ODF copyright is OASIS. 2) They already have a Technical Committee (TC) which wrote the spec and has as its mission to promote ODF Am I wrong? If I am right, what would be the difference between that TC and an ODFF or, in other words, the need to create a separate Foundation? and how would it and the TC communicate/hand over the copyright and so on? Please don't take this as an attack to the foundation idea. I'm all for promoting ODF in any possible way and beyond any specific software product, I'm just trying to make sure I am not missing anything. Thanks for any feedback, Marco F. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Standard Spreadsheet formulas, was: Breaking News: Massachusetts mandated use of OpenDocument
Rich wrote: [OpenDocument in Massachussets] is really great, but i have seen lately some complaints about od. most of them raise false arguments, but there are some that i haven't seen a response so... i hope you could clarify this issue somewhat: [...] http://blogs.gnome.org/view/mortenw/2005/06/16/0 of course, he probably should have raised these points during creation of od specification, but still - is there a problem ? if so, what could be the solution ? Rich, - those points _were_ raised - the OD Technical committee was aware of them and - made it clear why they chose to ignore them (whether one agrees is an entirely different thing, of course) to read a summary and see examples of the problem, please read: http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/09/09/192250 which also points to an already existing (though still alpha) solution. The main problem (as it often happens with FOSS) is to make developers understand that data transparency/portability (without filters) is more important than how beautiful their code or UI are... Ciao, Marco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Performance comparison of OO.org 1.1.4 and MSO 2003
Greetings, I have just found this: http://www.matt13.com/computer/open_office_or_ms_office/index.html I have nothing to say about it, I haven't even read it all since I don't plan to use MSO anyway, but it might be interesting for others. HTH, Marco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Article: Fixing the problem with OO.o extension
As per subject, http://software.newsforge.com/software/05/05/27/060210.shtml?tid=93tid=25 Ciao, Marco F. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] OO.o Macros with Python interpreter?
D. Carrera wrote: But this addon would not be embedded in an .odt paragraph (at least, not in the current and near-future OOo releases). Why not, if I may ask? May I ask... is there a reason why a .odt file is needed but an addon won't work for you? (provided that the add-on works whenever OOo is installed). Fair question, but you partly answered it yourself. OpenDocument is one thing, OO.o another. Who can assume that the latter *will* be installed wherever the former is used? Especially in 2/4 years, if OpenDocument is to become the truly universal that we keep saying etc etc... Before answering gee, that's so far in the future, why bother?, keep in mind that OpenDocument is being advertised as *the* long term solution for governments, multinationals and so on. All organizations that have a huge inertia to switch, and before buying the whole FOSS thing still need to see or be told that there *is* a coherent, long term strategy behind. Back to my training class example: a portable macro embedded into an .odt file is what you could use to distribute tutorials or any other interactive educational material where there is scarce bandwidth and/or PCs not powerful enough to run OO.o. Ditto for CDs attached to magazines or books. Teacher writes on OO.o, students learn on KOffice. Or vice-versa. That's why I said embedded into the .odt file. Of course, if (in the conditions above) there is any other solution which has the same end result for the student/user is OK, but is there? Ciao, Marco F. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] OO.o Macros with Python interpreter?
Laurent Godard wrote. IMHO, macros (developepd in StarBasic, python, beanshell, whateverlanguage) do not deal with openDocument at all It only deals with the layer the software (OOo) that render an OpenDocument gives the script through its API. It is implementation specific OpenDocment is /only/ the description of the xml files (eg content.xml), and not a specification of the api of the implementation The only answer I have to this is the same I gave to the KOffice developers when they made the very same remark a few days ago: 1) technically, you are 100% right, and I even agree, but 2) after years of advertising what is now OpenDocument as THE one, application-independent, truly open, durable solution etc... that frees your data from lock-in to any single SW provider (including free as in freedom ones)... ...end users are going to be mightily pissed when they start exchanging .odt files from/to OO.o and KOffice or whatever else and they don't always work in the same way. See the example I made of training material, possibly distributed via CD-Rom. Oh, and remember that end users include all those governments which, with great effort, are being carried to the notion of perpetually available data, regardless of the application: this is what OpenDocument gives you. This loses a *lot* of relevance if there is no defined path to standardize macros and spreadsheet formulas, and the will to follow it. 3) Therefore, the way I see it, OO.o, KOffice and whoever else will go OpenDocument publicly (which *is* a wonderful thing) have *already* committed to standardize those things too. They just haven't realized it yet, but the sooner the better. For PR, at least. Ciao, Marco F. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] OO.o Macros with Python interpreter?
Daniel Carrera wrote: Come to think of it, I don't know how OpenDocument deals with macros. OpenDocument itself shouldn't deal with macros, but this is something that _should_ be standardized, or at least well known. This is the hole I'm trying to fill. I very much doubt that this is possible. A macro always uses the OOo API, and this API has no connection with OpenDocument. Eh eh... This is the same simplification as OpenDocument = OO.o. It would be more exact to say that the *interpreter* of a macro must be written for the application that calls it (OO.o or whatever) and today the only macros found in pre-OpenDocument files (.sxw, .sxc) are written in a language that was designed only for *StarOffice*, not for its file *format*. See my other reply. Ciao, Marco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: OO.o Macros with Python interpreter?
Enrique wrote: If you go to macros you are talking about an _application_ standardising on that has been much more difficult ever. No, I'm talking of a _language_. You can write Python, Perl or many others and, with some obvious exceptions, those scripts will run on different platforms. For that several software makers MUST agree in a common API. Eh eh... this is one of the things it is necessary to expose. Even within single companies like Microsoft or Adobe, different products use different APIs, just because they were created by different people. Bingo! You are comparing closed source apps with open source ones. Different proprietary products *must* invent different APIs to lock in users. FOSS ones, we are told, need no such tricks to survive. It is rather impossible that an .odt file may contain a macro functional at OOo, KOffice or whatever. please let me know what you think of my reply to Daniel, where I talk of a set of python functions etc Thanks, Marco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] UBL: another opportunity for Openoffice?
Greetings, UBL stands for Universal Business Language. It is an open, XML-based format for all the usual commercial documents: invoices, purchase orders and so on. Eventually it will be possible to use it, that is read and write such documents, from within OpenOffice. More details here: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8254 Ciao, Marco Fioretti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] EU Rapporteur Publishes Software Patent report
As per subject: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/20/231203 Ciao, Marco F. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] On the acceptance of an OO.o extension installer
Daniel Carrer wrote: A lot of features can be implemented through extensions. If we made it easier for people to submit and install extensions, we might get a good sub community there. It could take some pressure off from the core project. and also: What are the chances of a near-future OOo version having an extension installer, like Thunderbird? Before getting too excited about this, and starting it, please consider also the impact on Gnu/Linux distributors. Some time ago I announced here that Fedora developers where discussing what and how include in their distro from OOextras, suggesting that some OO.o guru should go there and contribute. When reading about a template and extension installer, their reaction was: Please don't...On a package-based system any stuff not installed via the native packaging system is a cause of much annoyance and grief...[better]fix something else in openoffice.org instead of inflicting yet another auto-downloader/installer on us. The whole thread is here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2005-March/msg00559.html and it also mentions the firefox installer as another PITA. Me, I don't use so many OO.o macros to get real problems, but I can confirm personally that Perl modules and their own separate installation tools drive me mad every time I upgrade Linux: or, in other words, that non native installers can indeed create more problems than they solve. I'm not saying just don't do any installer, but please consider seriously the arguments against them made by system integrators. Ciao, Marco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Again on: Incompatibility between OO.o 2.0 and MS Word
Rich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote M. Fioretti wrote: ... Just a comment: reporting is often simply NOT possible in the right way, that is filing an issue with the document causing the problem attached to it, or put online. Because many of the things not converted perfectly (*complex* formulas or tables) are found in patent applications, internal financial reports and similar things that you just *cannot* send outside the company. if you trust developers, you can file an issue, but send document directly to the developer, instead of attaching it to the issue ;) Uh??? Sorry, I thought I had been clear enough when I wrote cannot above, and then added: incompatibilities show up exactly in those areas which would be vital to convert PHBs, but cannot be legally disclosed to fix the problem It couldn't matter less if I trust the developer, or *how* (filed, emailed, etc...) the file exits the company. It must not. I have committed in writing, as basically everybody else in any salaried job, to *NOT* send internal documents out of the office without written authorization from my manager and/or signed NDA from the receiver. So what do you think would happen in the real world? That I or anybody else go to the manager saying excuse me, could I ask for an NDA to these unknown guys with which we have no business relation and no present need to have it, so they can fix their own software which I was never officially told to use on the job in the first place? And this without even considering that, for all you know, I could be using OO.o while working for some direct competitor of SUN... That's why the problem (incompatibilities in complex documents) is self perpetuating. A more realistic solution, assuming SUN didn't think of it already, could be to grab all the .doc patent applications they have in house, open them with OO.o and see what happens. Repeating ad libitum with all the .doc academic/mathematic/financial papers freely available online. Without wasting more time to fix the simple shopping list or letter. Not that I think it would be the best thing to do, but it would be possible. Ciao, Marco F. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Netiquette contributing to OO.o, was : shortcuts quickstarter
Somebody in the very long shortcuts quickstarter thread wrote: The reasons why people don't have access to the website are not infrastructural, nor are the reasons why they don't feel they have influence. So here we are talking about a project that is not working out. A certainly minor, but not negligible part of the problem, might be the fact that almost nobody, including veterans, ever bothers to *start* a whole new thread (which is *NOT* hit reply, change the subject) when the argument changes. Not here, on any public mailing list I know. I read the message from which I quoted above by pure mistake. I have no interest and nothing to say right now about OO.o shortcuts and quickstarters. Therefore, I simply delete/don't open anything in that thread without reading it. As everybody else does on any internet forum. Personally, I have no possibilities to contribute to the website right now, so you haven't lost any help from me by hiding this issue under another name. But maybe, if it had been properly labeled and threaded when it sprung off by the original quickstarter discussion, somebody else might have given a useful contribution on it. Ciao, Marco F. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] XML/Word-processing Patent in NZ
In the New Zealand Herald, Adam Gifford has written an article blasting Microsoft for burying the New Zealand Intellectual Property Office in paperwork. One example is Patent 525484, accepted by the office and now open for objections until the end of May, which says Microsoft invented and owns the process whereby a word-processing document stored in a single XML file may be manipulated by applications that understand XML. Slashdot page: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/03/15/0118201.shtml?tid=155tid=109 Original article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=5ObjectID=10115247 Ciao, Marco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
