Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...
Do you think [OOXML] stands a chance with its incompatible changes between [each version], or [standardisation / xsd:boolean] fiasco? Or the lack of documentation and a heap of undocumented extensions [MSO] uses? There, fixed that for you. On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:31:06 +0700 Urmas davian...@gmail.com wrote: Tom Davies: Do you think ODF stands a chance with its incompatible changes between 1.0 and 1.1, or formulas fiasco? Or the lack of documentation and a heap of undocumented extensions AOO/LO uses? -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:31:06 +0700 Urmas davian...@gmail.com wrote: Tom Davies: Do you think ODF stands a chance with its incompatible changes between 1.0 and 1.1, or formulas fiasco? Or the lack of documentation and a heap of undocumented extensions AOO/LO uses? Do you think .doc[x] stands a chance with newer versions of proprietary software having the propensity to re-write existing documents into formats incompatible with older versions [1]; gratuitously wildly divergent user interfaces, from version-to-version, that violate all the tenets of POLA [2], and the per-seat expense of said proprietary software [3]? Do you think a Certain Large Software Company's stated goal of subverting or destroying commodity protocols [4] has been successful? [1] In a transparent attempt to persuade customers to continue the vicious, and expensive, upgrade cycle. [2] Principle Of Least Astonishment [3] See: [1] [4] If you've never seen them: The Halloween Documents: http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/ Regards, Jim -- Note: My mail server employs *very* aggressive anti-spam filtering. If you reply to this email and your email is rejected, please accept my apologies and let me know via my web form at http://jimsun.LinxNet.com/contact/scform.php. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...
Hi :) Quite. It was only older versions of MS Office that had problems reading formulae. Everyone else was easily able to correctly implement the 800 page specification as set as an ISO standard. The 11,000 page OOXML ISO standard doesn't appear to have been correctly implemented by anyone, least of all MS Office. The undocumented changes with the various transitional versions and incompatibilities between them seem to create problems, as seen many times on this mailing-list. ODF is drawn up by a committee of hundreds of organisations (including MS) and therefore much less subject to the whimsical nature of a single profit-making organisation and less able to be made deliberately incompatible in order to sell more product as appears to be the case with OOXML implementations. The Extensions and such are nothing to do with the format at all. They are to do with the programs that implement the format. Personally i never use any. Some people use lots. [shrugs] Not a big deal either way. Regards from Tom :) On 5 March 2014 07:37, pete nikolic pg.nikol...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:31:06 +0700 Urmas davian...@gmail.com wrote: Tom Davies: Do you think ODF stands a chance with its incompatible changes between 1.0 and 1.1, or formulas fiasco? Or the lack of documentation and a heap of undocumented extensions AOO/LO uses? Still being paid by M$ Corp i see .. Tut Tut Tut Pete . -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...
Jim, I just have to ask. Are you the same Jim Seymour who used to do battle with John Dvorak in the PC magazines? Virgil On 3/5/2014 7:50 AM, Jim Seymour wrote: On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:31:06 +0700 Urmas davian...@gmail.com wrote: Tom Davies: Do you think ODF stands a chance with its incompatible changes between 1.0 and 1.1, or formulas fiasco? Or the lack of documentation and a heap of undocumented extensions AOO/LO uses? Do you think .doc[x] stands a chance with newer versions of proprietary software having the propensity to re-write existing documents into formats incompatible with older versions [1]; gratuitously wildly divergent user interfaces, from version-to-version, that violate all the tenets of POLA [2], and the per-seat expense of said proprietary software [3]? Do you think a Certain Large Software Company's stated goal of subverting or destroying commodity protocols [4] has been successful? [1] In a transparent attempt to persuade customers to continue the vicious, and expensive, upgrade cycle. [2] Principle Of Least Astonishment [3] See: [1] [4] If you've never seen them: The Halloween Documents: http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/ Regards, Jim -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
This isn't the droid you're looking for (was: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...)
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:42:20 -0500 Virgil Arrington cuyfa...@hotmail.com wrote: Jim, I just have to ask. Are you the same Jim Seymour who used to do battle with John Dvorak in the PC magazines? [snip] Been quite a few years since I got this question. That could be only if I was emailing from the beyond: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,613757,00.asp No, thankfully, I'm a different Jim Seymour entirely. Beside our current positions relative to the Earth's surface, there are several other differences... That Jim Seymour was a big guy. So am I, but mostly vertically, rather than, well... sideways. That Jim Seymour had hair. Me? Not so much... anymore. (But mine was curly, like his, when I had it.) That Jim Seymour liked MS-Win PCs. Me? *cough* Not so much, and we'd best leave it at that ;) Regards, Jim -- Note: My mail server employs *very* aggressive anti-spam filtering. If you reply to this email and your email is rejected, please accept my apologies and let me know via my web form at http://jimsun.LinxNet.com/contact/scform.php. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...
Jim Seymour: proprietary software Irrelevant. having the propensity to re-write existing documents into formats incompatible with older versions [1]; Impossible. gratuitously wildly divergent user interfaces Document formats cannot have UI. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government consultation on document formats
Hi :) Wow, just found this link if the BoD are only just starting to get involved with this http://standards.data.gov.uk/how-you-can-get-involved-each-phase Personally i suspect that they were the ones that originally made several of us aware of this whole proposal so i suspect they ARE on the case. In my previous post i let my own personal fears get the better of me. Sorry for that! Also this link settled me down a bit http://standards.data.gov.uk/phases-selection-approach So normal users, like me, CAN be involved in some of the next stages. It's not necessarily all going to be over-ruled by MS 'experts' who are probably already carefully placed or by unwittingly dedicated or committed MS people. Ok, so it seems to have moved on quite a bit. The next phase seems to be closed already! There seems to have been a next round of comments or maybe summary points posted already; http://standards.data.gov.uk/challenge/sharing-or-collaborating-government-documents click on the Responses tab about half-way down the page. The only 3 that worry me so far are 1. p1 Focus on get the job done, not how it's done. 2. p3 Standardisation mandate 3. p3 ODF 1. as per the title. I'm not sure exactly what is being said here. Hopefully it's just saying that things in the future should not depend on how things have been done in the past. 2. is about macros, specifically demanding a standard be set for them too (as well as for the document formats). I think this needs to be as a separate proposal because if they attempt to bolt-it-on to this one then it could cause huge delays or even scuper the whole proposal. Also it looks like LO, AOO, etc can choose between different languages for macros while certain other programs cannot. At the moment the viability of this whole proposal seems to depend on the fact that MS Office has finally managed to implement ODF 1.2, just like everyone else has managed for years. 3. Without greater public awareness though, it will be seen as something that is inaccessible to many due the ubiquity of specific proprietary products and devices. I'm not sure about the devices aspect. It might be aimed at the CSV component of the proposal but i worry that it might be turned into an excuse for needing to accept xls or even xlsX from systems such as financial reports/forecasting and/or weather prediction. Anyway that is 3 dubious statements out of around 20 or so and even then they seem mostly pro-ODF. Another similar proposal seems to be going through at around the same time http://standards.data.gov.uk/challenge/viewing-government-documents This seems to focus more on online formats such as html 4.01 and 5 and on 'the' uneditable format (Pdf) but comments have so far seemed to focus on suggesting using OpenSource tools and 1 mentioned ODF for off-line. Regards from Tom :) On 4 March 2014 12:11, Tom Davies tomc...@gmail.com wrote: Hi :) What worries me now is that the next stage of the process appears to be that after seeking thoughts from the general populace they then put it through a panel of 'experts'. Who chooses these experts and on what basis? (that was a rhetorical question) So, now i can see why MS made so little effort to post comments in this stage of the process. From the Uk Gov's website http://standards.data.gov.uk/how-we-select-standards How we select standards Through the Standards Hub anyone can get involved in the process of prioritising and helping us to select open standards for government IT. There are five groups of people involved in selecting and implementing open standards: Users Government technology officials Challenge owners Standards panels Open Standards Board There are also five phases in our approach: Suggest Challenge Propose Assess Implement How likely is it that any of the Government technology officials are committed to MS? Are any from Redhat, Canonical, FSF, TDF, openSuSE or anywhere else not completed committed to MS? There doesn't seem to be a list of them anywhere nor a list of the criteria that got them selected in the first place. Similarly with the Challenge Owners, Standards Panels (are these selected from among people working on ISO standards?) and the Open Standard Board. For this last group we finally get a list of names and some minimal disclosure. Open Standards Board - members and biographies The Board members are: Liam Maxwell, Government Digital Service (Chair) John Atherton, Surevine Alex Brown, Griffin Brown Digital Publishing Ltd Adam Cooper, Bolton University Matthew Dovey, Jisc Paul Downey, Government Digital Service Lee Edwards, London Borough of Redbridge Tim Kelsey, NHS England John Sheridan, The National Archives Jeni Tennison, Open Data Institute Chris Ulliott, CESG Without even looking up any of these i can see some that raise alarm. NHS England is allegedly deeply committed to Microsoft, according to the comments, having just signed a huge
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government consultation on document formats
Hi :) What worries me now is that the next stage of the process appears to be that after seeking thoughts from the general populace they then put it through a panel of 'experts'. Who chooses these experts and on what basis? (that was a rhetorical question) So, now i can see why MS made so little effort to post comments in this stage of the process. From the Uk Gov's website http://standards.data.gov.uk/how-we-select-standards How we select standards Through the Standards Hub anyone can get involved in the process of prioritising and helping us to select open standards for government IT. There are five groups of people involved in selecting and implementing open standards: Users Government technology officials Challenge owners Standards panels Open Standards Board There are also five phases in our approach: Suggest Challenge Propose Assess Implement How likely is it that any of the Government technology officials are committed to MS? Are any from Redhat, Canonical, FSF, TDF, openSuSE or anywhere else not completed committed to MS? There doesn't seem to be a list of them anywhere nor a list of the criteria that got them selected in the first place. Similarly with the Challenge Owners, Standards Panels (are these selected from among people working on ISO standards?) and the Open Standard Board. For this last group we finally get a list of names and some minimal disclosure. Open Standards Board - members and biographies The Board members are: Liam Maxwell, Government Digital Service (Chair) John Atherton, Surevine Alex Brown, Griffin Brown Digital Publishing Ltd Adam Cooper, Bolton University Matthew Dovey, Jisc Paul Downey, Government Digital Service Lee Edwards, London Borough of Redbridge Tim Kelsey, NHS England John Sheridan, The National Archives Jeni Tennison, Open Data Institute Chris Ulliott, CESG Without even looking up any of these i can see some that raise alarm. NHS England is allegedly deeply committed to Microsoft, according to the comments, having just signed a huge contract with them (allegedly). So this person could well even be an employee of MS. The Open Data Institute sounds good but could easily be like the sort of smoke-screen used in office open XML. Also i'm concerned that the final board there wont even see the original comments and press releases from the Users. If they do there have been 3 layers of 'experts' groups able to undermine or twist anything posted in this initial stage. I'm not sure who to write to about my concerns with the process. Is the BoD on the case with any of this or does it just stop with the press release and just a vague hope that it will all magically work out well? Regards from Tom :) On 4 March 2014 11:41, Tom Davies tomc...@gmail.com wrote: Hi :) Thanks Dr Som :) I wish i had realised i could edit my own posts earlier so that when i cringed at some of my own grammar i could have fixed it on the spot. Also it might have been good to proof-read others and maybe get others to proof-read mine. My one that appeared just after the official TDF one would have been better elsewhere. As it is it's probably going to suffer from too long; didn't read and it repeats some of the things already said much better in the official post. On the other hand it does mean all the posts look quite fresh and lively rather than over-worked. Thanks and regards from Tom :) On 3 March 2014 04:28, som drsoumalya-l...@yahoo.co.in wrote: I can't believe i hadn't said that earlier!! It was a great press release :)) totally agree A few comments pointed out that Google-docs doesn't use ODF. However Google themselves posted there own statement saying that they support this proposal to use ODF. actually that is partial truth and not the whole truth. users were right, google does not support ODF totally. gmail has a very nice feature - when an email has an attachment, you could simply click on it and a preview will be open. you could go through the preview and decide if you want to download it or not. this preview feature is supported for .docx,.xlsx, .doc. .pdf but not for .odt,.ods. so from this you could come to a conclusion that google does not support ODFs. however, if you save the file into google drive and then try to convert it, it is possible to do so even with ODFs. so, google drive does support ODF. as i was saying, both were partially correct. Hopefully other governments will be able to see that the attempt was made and that through failure ensured that the Uk continues to pay far more than any other European Government on IT and has the lowest performance as a result. Meanwhile other governments that HAVE ALREADY broken free or that DO break freak free continue to find huge cost-savings, plummeting costs and rapidly as a result. amen to that! regards, som -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems?
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government consultation on document formats
Hi :) Thanks Dr Som :) I wish i had realised i could edit my own posts earlier so that when i cringed at some of my own grammar i could have fixed it on the spot. Also it might have been good to proof-read others and maybe get others to proof-read mine. My one that appeared just after the official TDF one would have been better elsewhere. As it is it's probably going to suffer from too long; didn't read and it repeats some of the things already said much better in the official post. On the other hand it does mean all the posts look quite fresh and lively rather than over-worked. Thanks and regards from Tom :) On 3 March 2014 04:28, som drsoumalya-l...@yahoo.co.in wrote: I can't believe i hadn't said that earlier!! It was a great press release :)) totally agree A few comments pointed out that Google-docs doesn't use ODF. However Google themselves posted there own statement saying that they support this proposal to use ODF. actually that is partial truth and not the whole truth. users were right, google does not support ODF totally. gmail has a very nice feature - when an email has an attachment, you could simply click on it and a preview will be open. you could go through the preview and decide if you want to download it or not. this preview feature is supported for .docx,.xlsx, .doc. .pdf but not for .odt,.ods. so from this you could come to a conclusion that google does not support ODFs. however, if you save the file into google drive and then try to convert it, it is possible to do so even with ODFs. so, google drive does support ODF. as i was saying, both were partially correct. Hopefully other governments will be able to see that the attempt was made and that through failure ensured that the Uk continues to pay far more than any other European Government on IT and has the lowest performance as a result. Meanwhile other governments that HAVE ALREADY broken free or that DO break freak free continue to find huge cost-savings, plummeting costs and rapidly as a result. amen to that! regards, som -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...
Tom Davies: Do you think ODF stands a chance with its incompatible changes between 1.0 and 1.1, or formulas fiasco? Or the lack of documentation and a heap of undocumented extensions AOO/LO uses? -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:31:06 +0700 Urmas davian...@gmail.com wrote: Tom Davies: Do you think ODF stands a chance with its incompatible changes between 1.0 and 1.1, or formulas fiasco? Or the lack of documentation and a heap of undocumented extensions AOO/LO uses? Still being paid by M$ Corp i see .. Tut Tut Tut Pete . -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government consultation on document formats
HI :) +1 I can't believe i hadn't said that earlier!! It was a great press release :)) Almost all the comments, around 80-90% were extremely pro-ODF and almost all of those were also anti-OOXML. The 10-20% pro-OOXML comments almost entirely conceded that ODF should be used but that OOXML should be included, in some cases just for a restricted period to allow a smoother migration. ALL such comments were met with replies that covered; 1. pointed out that MS Office itself and almost all other office suites and programs can easily produce or convert to ODF 2. that having 2 standards made the proposal pointless and a complete waste of time 3. that OOXML failed to achieve many of the stated aims of the proposal especially the aim of allowing everyone to open government documents without having to pay to buy/rent new versions of software to do so. or at least 2 out of 3 of those in some combination or other. Most times that was done already by someone other than me but i covered the few comments that seemed to have been missed by other people. One common bit of FUD that kept appearing was that people seem to think each different office suite or program has it's own different format. That got dealt with quite neatly each time. A few comments pointed out that Google-docs doesn't use ODF. However Google themselves posted there own statement saying that they support this proposal to use ODF. Some stats that i found interesting; Microsoft's statement had 11,000 words and didn't go against using ODF, just demanded that OOXML got added as a 2nd format. 1st reply was quite swift and very critical. None of the replies supported MS despite their call to arms posted to their partners. There were a few fresh posts that quoted and supported them but not many. Mostly when it got quoted it was to criticise MS. TDF's statement had under 900 words Redhat's had around 500 (i think) [There were press release type comments from other organisations almost entirely in support of ODF but those were the only 2 that i really noticed and still remember.] Google's statement had around 80 words but it was more a response to other comments rather than the type of press release made by the others. Most pro-ODF press releases had replies supporting them and were quoted elsewhere, particularly the TDF statement which seemed to be very well received. (I might be a tad biased there but i was trying to be objective) As was pointed out several times the OOXML ISO format's spec ran to 7,000 pages. The ODF's ISO spec was variously quote as 1,200 or 800 pages. Either way at least 6 times smaller! Also it was quite often pointed out that OOXML's promise of interoperability never seems to have worked in reality and that even MS Office doesn't seem to use the ISO version of the spec and makes excuses such as 2007 and 2010 using different transitional versions. That by contrast the ODF formats have been in use by many for quite a few years. Some comments pointed out that the strict OOXML in 2013 was not the default and still didn't appear to be the same as the ISO version. 1 or 2 pointed out that OOXML contains proprietary blobs and that's why no-one except MS can implement it. So, i learned TONS from reading other people's comments. Most of which i kinda trust because they often explained problems that people have brought to the Users List or seen or experienced elsewhere (transitional vs strict for example) and also why it's such a problem for non-MS suites and programs to implement OOXML reliably. Of course i'd still need to confirm much of that through external reading but it gave me a LOT of good starting points to research such issues. Also a few posts gave great links to external resources. All VERY interesting! Annoyingly the final post of the whole consultation postulated that if the proposal IS accepted and IF anyone attempted to implement it that the Uk government might then find itself involved in protracted court-cases brought on by one of the most powerful companies on the planet, Microsoft. My personal opinions on that and the rest ... So, now we just wait and see if the Uk does dare to accept the proposal or if the government turns out to be weak and ineffectual. Based on past performance my guess is that it will crumble and just go along with supporting MS's apparently (but rarely recognised) extortionate prices. However, even if the Uk government does feel to weak to challenge MS at least we have seen a first attempt by them and maybe in 10 years time (which is apparently the soonest time they can reassess again) then it might finally be able to break free then (assuming MS is still around then). Hopefully other governments will be able to see that the attempt was made and that through failure ensured that the Uk continues to pay far more than any other European Government on IT and has the lowest performance as a result. Meanwhile other governments that HAVE ALREADY broken free or that DO break
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government consultation on document formats
I can't believe i hadn't said that earlier!! It was a great press release :)) totally agree A few comments pointed out that Google-docs doesn't use ODF. However Google themselves posted there own statement saying that they support this proposal to use ODF. actually that is partial truth and not the whole truth. users were right, google does not support ODF totally. gmail has a very nice feature - when an email has an attachment, you could simply click on it and a preview will be open. you could go through the preview and decide if you want to download it or not. this preview feature is supported for .docx,.xlsx, .doc. .pdf but not for .odt,.ods. so from this you could come to a conclusion that google does not support ODFs. however, if you save the file into google drive and then try to convert it, it is possible to do so even with ODFs. so, google drive does support ODF. as i was saying, both were partially correct. Hopefully other governments will be able to see that the attempt was made and that through failure ensured that the Uk continues to pay far more than any other European Government on IT and has the lowest performance as a result. Meanwhile other governments that HAVE ALREADY broken free or that DO break freak free continue to find huge cost-savings, plummeting costs and rapidly as a result. amen to that! regards, som -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
