Re: [tdf-discuss] IBM donates code for Lotus Symphony to Apache

On 21 January 2013 18:20, Immanuel Giulea wrote: > I know talking about Apache is not one of our main priorities. > But I still wanted to share the news about Lotus Symphony and OpenOffice > merging back after their fork. > > https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/merging_lotus_symphony_allegro_modera

Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

On 2 January 2013 16:00, Tanstaafl wrote: > I think the most important distinction to an end user, aside from knowing > that both allow them to *use* the software in any way they see fit - > personal, commercial, etc, is that the LO project is able to benefit from > AOO code, but AOO is not allow

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Re: IBM is alive ;)

On 11 February 2012 12:09, Pedro wrote: > > Ian Lynch wrote > > > > Without it AOO/LO has no long term future. Most of us in my company use > > Google Docs and our own web pages in Drupal far more than we use Writer > > and > > Calc. Ok, we are a bit ahead o

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Re: IBM is alive ;)

On 9 February 2012 05:29, Michelle Konzack wrote: > Hello Jonathan Aquilina, > > Am 2012-02-04 15:37:19, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: > > >The migration to the Cloud seems quite interesting and fit for a general > > >discussion list ;) > > Its actually quite funny I was thinking of offering som

Re: [tdf-discuss] Is Microsoft getting worried about free Office suites?

On 1 December 2011 14:27, toki wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 28/11/11 11:14, Pedro wrote: > > I'm wondering if the recent offer for download of the "add supported" > limited > edition of Microsoft Office Starter is a reaction to the improving quality > > Microso

Re: [tdf-discuss] Is Microsoft getting worried about free Office suites?

time it is done, it might well be too late. > Lj. > On Tuesday, 29 November 2011, Ian Lynch wrote: > > On 28 November 2011 20:16, Robert Derman >wrote: > > > >> Olav Dahlum wrote: > >> > >>> On 28/11/11 13:13, Pedro wrote: > >>>

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Is Microsoft getting worried about free Office suites?

On 28 November 2011 20:16, Robert Derman wrote: > Olav Dahlum wrote: > >> On 28/11/11 13:13, Pedro wrote: >> >> >>> Ian Lynch wrote >>> >>> >>>> Google should do a version of Office based on the >>>> OOo/LibO code base a

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Is Microsoft getting worried about free Office suites?

On 28 November 2011 12:13, Pedro wrote: > > Ian Lynch wrote > > > > Google should do a version of Office based on the > > OOo/LibO code base and embed ads and search links, make it available > > freely > > and brand it Google Office. Given their brand streng

Re: [tdf-discuss] Is Microsoft getting worried about free Office suites?

On 28 November 2011 11:14, Pedro wrote: > I'm wondering if the recent offer for download of the "add supported" > limited > edition of Microsoft Office Starter is a reaction to the improving quality > and dynamics of several free Office suites (with LibreOffice leading the > pack) Possibly Goog

Re: [tdf-discuss] Associations around TDF

On 2 November 2011 21:25, Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote: > Le 02/11/2011 09:50, Andre Schnabel a écrit : >> Hi, >> >>> Datum: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:36:01 -0200 >>> Von: Olivier Hallot >>> An: discuss@documentfoundation.org >>> Betreff: Re: [tdf-discuss] Associations around TDF >> >>> Hello André >>> >>

Re: [tdf-discuss] ODF and HTML 5

> But if you want to see how you can view a file in the open document format > (please! not libreoffice or openoffice format) then you can check out > http://www.webodf.org/. WebODF is a package of JavaScript routines that > unpacks the zip store and transforms the odf styles to css and then shows

Re: [tdf-discuss] ODF and HTML 5

On 3 October 2011 18:02, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > My apologies for the heavy-duty cross-posting.  It might be good to pick a > single public list and a subject header and converge there. > > Q: WHERE IS THE PROPOSAL? > > This started as a simple e-mail list question by Jaime R. Garza on the >

[tdf-discuss] ODF and HTML 5

There has been a proposal to try and get ODF recognised as an official extension of HTML5. On the face of it it sounds a good idea but I don't know enough about the details or whether this is already in progress. I guess it would require discussion with W3C, OASIS, and probably TDF and ASF as a min

Re: [tdf-discuss] OASIS Standard ODF 1.2 Approved

e in the UK is on the OASIS tech committee and I can get him involved. > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 09:44, Ian Lynch wrote: > >> On 2 October 2011 23:41, Jaime R. Garza wrote: >> > Hello All, >> > >> > Why isn't ODF added as an extension of HTML5? >

Re: [tdf-discuss] OASIS Standard ODF 1.2 Approved

On 2 October 2011 23:41, Jaime R. Garza wrote: > Hello All, > > Why isn't ODF added as an extension of HTML5? That is a very good idea. > This would define ODF as the defacto Web Standard for Files! > > An ideas who could try to pursue such an agreement? Presumably get OASIS, TDF and AOO repres

Re: [tdf-discuss] Barcamp at Oxford University UK

nt to get people together. Apache will be paying for food and the venue though so maybe there is a free lunch if not free beer ;-). As I said, the only reason Apache is in the title is because they are underwriting the cost. > > On 4 Aug 2011, at 16:19, Ian Lynch wrote: > > > Hi a

[tdf-discuss] Barcamp at Oxford University UK

Hi all, On behalf of Ross Gardler at Apache and OSSwatch, I'm inviting everyone who can make it to a BarCamp. http://barcamp.org/w/page/400249/BarCampApacheOxford What happens there is defined by the people who attend. The schedule is not defined until the day itself, so this is a great opportun

Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

2011/8/1 Marc-André Laverdière > > Why can't LO be a killer office that can handle _every document_ under > the sun? That's VLC reputation in the multimedia field, and that works > very very fine for them I think :) > > As for the spreading of ODF, I suggest to pick a different battle: the > one

Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

On 22 July 2011 02:06, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote: > On 07/21/2011 09:43 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: > >> On 21/07/2011 14:23, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote: >> >>> I am of the opinion that good inter-operability with MSO products makes >>> it easier to attract new users and that poor int

Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"

On 6 July 2011 08:45, Robert Derman wrote: Someone explained here in a more detailed and understandable way just what > the nature of the design of Staroffice actually is. That in fact it is just > one big program and the different modules are just different about 300 K > each user interfaces wh

Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"

On 5 July 2011 21:58, Robert Derman wrote: > e-letter wrote: > >> As far as the request for the ability to download individual >> components of LO, this should not be enabled. The whole concept of the >> predecessor staroffice product was to provide various functionalities >> in terms of word-pro

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"

> > Sorry to come in late on this thread, but there is an android ODF reader: >> http://www.androidzoom.com/**android_applications/** >> productivity/odf-viewer_mnhl.**html > > > It seems to have rather come to a hal

Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"

On 3 July 2011 21:38, Robert Derman wrote: > Ian Lynch wrote: > >> On 2 July 2011 23:22, Robert Derman wrote >> >> >>> Keith Curtis wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The problem with building a reader is that it would be about the same >>

Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"

On 2 July 2011 23:22, Robert Derman wrote: > Keith Curtis wrote: > >> The problem with building a reader is that it would be about the same size >> as LibreOffice. OpenDocument is very different from PDF. For those who >> can't >> install LO, they probably can't install the reader either. >> >> >

Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"

On 26 June 2011 01:15, Sean White wrote: > I dont thinks thats normal somehow, i have been using Adobe Reader for > years > and have NEVER had it come past 200MB. > ISTR a whole load of adverising crap in one large Acrobat download. Back to discussion, what's with all the PDF hate. Not hate,

Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"

On 25 June 2011 13:37, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On 25 Jun 2011, at 08:33, Ian Lynch wrote: > > > Manfred wrote: > > > > "I still believe that PDF is the best solution to distribute final > versions > > of text (and maybe other office) documents."

Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"

On 25 June 2011 10:02, timofonic timofonic wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Nuno J. Silva > wrote: > > On 2011-06-24, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > > >> Marc Paré wrote: > >>> if we were to promote a "quick and dirty" > >>> "LibreOffice Reader", very much like the "Adobe Acrobat Reader", w

Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"

Manfred wrote: "I still believe that PDF is the best solution to distribute final versions of text (and maybe other office) documents." I'd say yes if they are likely to be printed on paper, no if it is only likely to be read from a screen. Snag is desktop office software originates from a time w

Re: [tdf-discuss] TDF Certification

On 24 June 2011 14:39, Uwe Altmann wrote: > Hi Ian > > Am 22.06.11 17:01, schrieb Ian Lynch: > >> On 6/22/11 1:40 PM, Ian Lynch wrote: > > > ...The OpenOffice project application was submitted through OpenSaar in > > Germany. I wrote it but we thought it

Re: [tdf-discuss] TDF Certification

On 23 June 2011 12:09, Goran Rakic wrote: > У чет, 23. 06 2011. у 10:41 +0100, Ian Lynch пише: > > All it needs to do is have a set of criteria or even a simple > > contractual statement that the partner company providing services on > > behalf of the community will uphold

Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"

On 23 June 2011 22:40, Marc Paré wrote: > OK, this is just a teaser to entice people into a discussion of the > following proposal. > > There is talk on the documentation list of the formats made available to > users of our documents (manuals, reference books, etc). These for now are in > .odt (O

Re: [tdf-discuss] TDF Certification

On 23 June 2011 03:27, Goran Rakic wrote: > Hi all, > > I believe that TDF should not do any kind of end-user certification. > Maybe you are right that TDF shouldn't do it itself but I don't think that is the same as not having an interest in it. I have spent 6 years researching and building th

Re: [tdf-discuss] TDF Certification

On 22 June 2011 21:36, Cor Nouws wrote: > drew wrote (22-06-11 21:48) > > > The first article is out and 2 comments from non-community members: >> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/**448768/ >> > > Comment worthy to consider: costs of certification must not be a barrie

Re: [tdf-discuss] TDF Certification

On 22 June 2011 15:24, Italo Vignoli wrote: > On 6/22/11 1:40 PM, Ian Lynch wrote: > > Ah, I just edited it! Sorry if that makes things more difficult. Feel free >> to delete anything you don't like! >> > > No problem, I have printed a comparison of the two v

Re: [tdf-discuss] TDF Certification

On 22 June 2011 11:11, Italo Vignoli wrote: > On 6/22/11 9:38 AM, Cor Nouws wrote: > > I have added some comments on the Discussion page. >> If you think it is better, I'll be glad to bring the items on this list. >> > > I think both ways are OK. > > I am collecting all emails on the subject, an

Re: [tdf-discuss] OpenOffice.org Product Roadmap: made by whom ? was: Re: [discuss] remove of binfilter module

On 17 June 2011 12:08, sophie wrote: > Hi Drew, > On 17/06/2011 13:34, drew wrote: > [...] > > People in other countries are capable of directing their own affairs, I >> would think. >> > Yes, and as we have seen with OOo, it works really well. > > Unless you are thinking of creating franchise

Re: [tdf-discuss] Triple licensing?

On 14 June 2011 14:37, David Nelson wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 20:49, todd rme wrote: > >> I'd like to see the desktop effort here at LibO and the developers at > Apache > >> start on a new web based OOo even if that meant starting from scratch > and > >> writing it in Javascript.

Re: [tdf-discuss] Triple licensing?

On 14 June 2011 11:38, Keith Curtis wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Christoph Jopp wrote: > > > Not automatically. Someone might want the more restrictive license > > because he wants to mix it with other code with a license incompatible > > to the least restrictive license you offer.

Re: [tdf-discuss] Triple licensing?

On 14 June 2011 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote: > Hi all; > > I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their > changes. How does that work? Surely if they licensed their work Apache it means there is no need for the other licenses because the Apache license would effectively o

Re: [tdf-discuss] Enhancement Request: Comment Ranges

On 12 June 2011 14:57, adept techlists - kazar wrote: > I'll just add the point from a philosophical standpoint that almost more > than enabling all humans to create documents (presos etc.), is enabling > humans to work together. > Even better if it was on the web so that documents could be crea

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 6 June 2011 05:16, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > > Ian Lynch wrote: > > > > On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme <toddrme2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If that means using some licenses that are > > less than ideal from a philosophy point of view then so

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 5 June 2011 17:15, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > > > So back to the constructive point: what are the best, most uniting > proposals we can come up with for ASF and LibreOffice to co-operate? > > I've outlined two here: > > http://www.mail-archive.c

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > I will be totally transparent as to what my preference however is. It > > is my fond hope that all of the participants will identify subsections > > of the code that they are willing to share the burden

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 5 June 2011 12:33, Cor Nouws wrote: > Marc Paré wrote (05-06-11 12:37) > > Ahem .., or we could just ignore our ASF lurkers, keep working on our >> great product >> [...] >> > > ;-) True there's a lot to do. But I appreciate the interest of the ASF > people. They are interested in our views

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 5 June 2011 10:04, e-letter wrote: > DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware > of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL > product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming > imminent in apache OO, they can make a p

Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 5 June 2011 09:19, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > "Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid?" > > I don't think he is. > > "If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off to > someone > like IBM for real dollars?" > > How do I know that it did not happen? Because such transac

Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 4 June 2011 18:54, Eduardo Alexandre wrote: > 2011/6/4 Ian Lynch > > > On 4 June 2011 17:33, Charles-H. Schulz < > > charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > Gianluca, Allen, > > > > > > My doubt comes from the articl

Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 4 June 2011 17:33, Charles-H. Schulz < charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > Gianluca, Allen, > > My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis. > Allen confirmed my suspicions. I understand, then, that contributing > anything now to openoffice means to cont

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca Turconi wrote: > In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 17:59:04, Ian Lynch > ha scritto: > > > That is why we need to see if it is possible to cooperate such that those >> with a philosphical aversion to contributing to the Apache licensed code

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 4 June 2011 16:47, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: > Is it possible to allow Oracle to donate to Apache and then for TDF to go > to > Apache and say "Please let us have that?" > It's a good question. I suspect not now - OOo is not yet even accepted into the incubator at Apache. Depends on what Orac

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Oracle contributes OOo Code to Apache Software Foundation'sIncubator

I just signed up as a committer on the Apache incubator this morning. Why? Am I against LO and TDF - no, at heart I'm a copyleft person, however, there are also practical realities to consider too sometimes. What is the worst case? OOo code and trademark go with Apache and then little is done. LO

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Paid developers

. I still think > that we should also have a "corporate" LibreOffice lab where dedicated devs > would pre-test suites. What better place to have it than official > TDF/LibreOffice head office facilities? > > Le 2011-05-15 09:28, Ian Lynch a écrit : > > > >>>

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Paid developers

On 15 May 2011 06:35, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > On 15/05/2011 03:58, Marc Paré wrote: > >> Hi Ian >> >> Le 2011-05-14 18:14, Ian Lynch a écrit : >> >> Totally agree with this. OOo had some severe problems in the early days >>> simply because

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Paid developers

On 14 May 2011 17:56, Marc Paré wrote: > Hi Ian et al > > Le 2011-05-14 07:29, Ian Lynch a écrit : > >> Whilst certification seems a good strategy, what about parental power >>> being exerted upon schools? One would imagine that if parents >>> (espcialy of low

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Paid developers

On 13 May 2011 21:50, e-letter wrote: > >On 12 May 2011 17:55, Marc Paré wrote: > > > >> Le 2011-05-11 17:01, Samuel M a écrit : > >> > >> I believe, that The Document Foundation can employ Developers for > >>> LibreOffice. I believe the community is able to get the money for that > on a > >>>

Re: [tdf-discuss] German Foreign Office is dropping only open source software policy

> > Also the guidance was poor and the apps did not get updated for years. So > the endusers in the diplomatic services > got displeased more and more, but the responsible persons in > the administration choose the wrong way out. > This is the short version, you can read a bit more at the H : > >

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Paid Developers

On 13 May 2011 13:49, Marc Paré wrote: > Hi Ian > > Le 2011-05-13 05:27, Ian Lynch a écrit : > > Thanks for the info on the INGOTs. > > Having served on committees in charge of software acquisition, both at > local and provincial level, I find the greatest reluctance

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Paid Developers

On 12 May 2011 17:55, Marc Paré wrote: > Le 2011-05-11 17:01, Samuel M a écrit : > > I believe, that The Document Foundation can employ Developers for >> LibreOffice. I believe the community is able to get the money for that on a >> monthly base. >> >> We saw that the community was able to rise

Re: [tdf-discuss] Two simple writer annoyances

On 1 May 2011 11:22, Sigrid Carrera wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > On Sun, 01 May 2011 07:16:37 +0200 > Alexander Ostuni wrote: > > > Yes, it is build to produce Dokuments and because of that I need to > > rotate a picture. I work in a bank. We have restrictions on the > > installed programms. I am

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Two simple writer annoyances

On 1 May 2011 11:30, Krabina Bernhard wrote: > > You are confusing programs: a Word Processor (such as LibreOffice > > Writer) is > > not a Desktop Publishing software. > > I don't think anybody is confusing something. Not so long ago with you > mobile phone you could make phonecalls, nothing els

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Two simple writer annoyances

On 1 May 2011 00:05, plino wrote: > @Ian > > > Over 20 years ago I used Impression Publisher and it could rotate > graphics > > You are confusing programs: a Word Processor (such as LibreOffice Writer) > is > not a Desktop Publishing software. > Impression Publisher was a document processor. It

Re: [tdf-discuss] Two simple writer annoyances

On 30 April 2011 14:03, Fernand Vanrie wrote: > Ian , > No , we can not rotate a picture in LO , but LO is not our favorite > application to handle our pictures and graphics. LO is build to produce > documents, pictures are taken by camera and for correcting and rotating this > pictures we can us

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Forums... again

On 29 April 2011 16:33, e-letter wrote: > >As I said, I'm sure Bill Gates said leave those toy phones to Nokia, RIM > and > >Apple. Google seem to have been smarter. As mobile and web technologies > take > >over I can see much harder times ahead for anyone dependent on local > >dependencies. > >

Re: [tdf-discuss] Two simple writer annoyances

On 29 April 2011 07:28, Krabina Bernhard wrote: > Hi, > > I think there are two annoyances in writer that should not be that hard to > fix. I hope someone can fix these: > > 1. Why can't writer have image descriptions ABOVE the image as well? It can > do it with tables, but with images, image cap

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Question about proposing the creation of a new format

On 27 April 2011 21:42, Mark Preston wrote: > Dear good gods alive no! :eave the HTML to proper HTML IDE tools like > Eclipse and don't try to be everything in one package. > Hm, you mean like don't bother with OOo/LO because there are plenty of text editors, separate graphics editors and spread

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Question about proposing the creation of a new format

> My take on this suggestion is that LibO does what it does well. Production > of epub documents is a marginal requirement I'm sure that is what MSFT thought about Windows in relation to cell phones and tablets ;-) , which does not need to be addressed with a built-in function. > Professionals

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Question about proposing the creation of a new format

On 26 April 2011 22:48, e-letter wrote: > >I think this is a very interesting issue. We are moving from the dominant > >technologies that were designed to put information on paper to the > dominant > >need of presenting information on screens. With the revolution in digital > >readers this is onl

Re: [tdf-discuss] Question about proposing the creation of a new format

On 25 April 2011 10:40, drew wrote: > On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 11:17 +0200, CaStarCo wrote: > > 2011/4/25 Italo Vignoli > > > > > On 04/25/2011 08:59 AM, todd rme wrote: > > > > > > Sounds like latex > > >> > > > > > > Apart from discussions on the characteristics of the file format, > ebooks > >

Re: [tdf-discuss] European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.

On 24 April 2011 21:36, Robert Derman wrote: > Jon Hamkins wrote: > >> On 04/22/2011 05:33 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote: >> >>> Hi *, >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 5:40 AM, Jon Hamkins >>> wrote: >>> On 04/06/2011 04:54 AM, toki wrote: There are roughly one billion words in the

Re: [tdf-discuss] Forums... again

On 24 April 2011 21:53, Jaime R. Garza wrote: > > > > > >> I have some doubts as to whether the two products will diverge now that > > Oracle has decided to end its involvement with OpenOffice.org . I > suspect > > that at some point rather than let OOo just whither and die it will merge > > wi

Re: [tdf-discuss] LO & OO are not the only competitors of MSOffice... LO could also make a simple office suite that runs in Android & iOS

On 8 April 2011 19:06, Jaime R. Garza wrote: > For Android and iPhone it doesn't make sense to have the whole LO, only > Clac, Writer & Impress are needed urgently! > Probably only Writer and Calc and an Impress viewer in the first instance. Snag is Uno. Replacing Uno with a web common platform

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.

On 6 April 2011 12:54, aqualung wrote: > > Ian Lynch wrote: > > > > On 6 April 2011 04:41, aqualung <xfekdcugj...@mailinator.com> > wrote: > > > >> Well, how many full-time developers, working 40-hour workweeks, does > >> Microsoft Office

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.

On 6 April 2011 04:41, aqualung wrote: > Well, how many full-time developers, working 40-hour workweeks, does > Microsoft Office have... and how many OOo and LibO? > > If the answer for MO is, say, 300... and the full-time equivalent for OOo / > LibO is 50... then it's pretty much a given that MO

Re: [tdf-discuss] European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.

On 5 April 2011 15:56, Mike Hall wrote: > Laszlo, > I worked for perhaps 15 years with various versions of MSO as both a power > user and as a senior manager with responsibility, inter alia, for MSO > support. I met all the senior international people at the time, from MS and > many other supplie

Re: [tdf-discuss] European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.

"The commission is committed to getting value for money and negotiates on behalf of all the E.U. institutions, agencies and other bodies - 42 in all. Representing such a large number allows us to drive costs down and we will drive a hard bargain." How hard a bargain can they drive when the vendor

Re: [tdf-discuss] LO & OO are not the only competitors of MSOffice... LO could also make a simple office suite that runs in Android & iOS

On 31 March 2011 14:39, Jaime R. Garza wrote: > Dear all, > > I have read that some of you believe there are no other true competitors to > MSOffice, but LO & OO. > > There is a simple Office Suite (simple because it only has spreadsheet, > wordprocessor and presentations) but is becoming very po

Re: [tdf-discuss] OpenOffice.org articles in Linux Format March 2011

On 13 February 2011 18:22, adept techlists - kazar wrote: > On 2/12/11 2:04 PM, Robert Derman wrote: > >> Just so you all know, 4 GB of DDR3 RAM can now be purchased for $36. on >> the internet. In historical terms, that is indeed dirt cheap. >> > > and how much would it cost to have that RAM sh

Re: [tdf-discuss] OpenOffice.org articles in Linux Format March 2011

On 12 February 2011 19:04, Robert Derman wrote: > Kevin Hunter wrote: > >> At 4:09pm -0500 Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Charles Marcus wrote: >> >>> On 2011-02-11 3:35 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote: >>> How the quickstarter works is have use gobs of memory effectively sitting idle. That doesn't work. Many

Re: [tdf-discuss] Foundation Fundraising

On 9 February 2011 18:44, toki wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 02/08/2011 04:36 PM, BRM wrote: > > > Why resort to deception and Microsoft-esque tactics to promote LO? > > FWIW, it isn't uncommon for 501(c)3 organizations to have a for-profit > organization operati

Re: [tdf-discuss] Foundation Fundraising

In the UK there will be no tax to pay if you don't make a profit. Collect the money get an invoice from another entity to the full value of that money and then transfer it and that's it. The only possible problem is VAT. If both companies are registered for VAT in Europe, again no problem but there

Re: [tdf-discuss] Foundation Fundraising

On 8 February 2011 16:36, BRM wrote: > - Original Message > > > From: Ian Lynch > > On 8 February 2011 11:34, Florian Effenberger < > flo...@documentfoundation.org > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > thanks for you

Re: [tdf-discuss] Foundation Fundraising

On 8 February 2011 11:34, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi, > > thanks for your contributions, great to see things moving! :-) > > Well, I think opening an US bank account is problematic at least from the > time perspective, but maybe also from a legal PoV - our association might > not be eligible

Re: [tdf-discuss] Foundation Fundraising

On 8 February 2011 09:18, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > Is the TDF an NGO. If its based in the EU the organization can possibly get > a lot of funding from the EU itself. Yes but probably not by the end of March! Applying for EU grants is certainly possible and we have expertise in the field but

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store

2011/1/7 Fabián Rodríguez > On 11-01-06 11:16 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote: > > > > On 2011/01/06 9:57 PM todd rme wrote: > >> I do find it bizarre that people are so up in arms about OOXML but > >> seem to have no complaints with Apple's blatant attempts to have total > >> control over the software y

Re: [tdf-discuss] Co-working with Moz, etc

On 6 January 2011 06:30, Jaime R. Garza wrote: > I believe integrating Thunderbird would be more a marketing move than > anything else, but marketing is very effective!!! So that's why I think it > would be great if Thunderbird could be integrated automatically with LO. As > I said before, a sort

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons

On 4 January 2011 07:37, Cor Nouws wrote: > Michael Wheatland wrote (04-01-11 02:59) > >> If everyone was as clear and concise as you there would be no >> confusion about any issues. >> > > No, to me this is an obvious example of someone apparently unable to > understand, > Hm, has anyone taken

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)

> > Silverstripe site is that they don't understand the CMS and are not really > interested in learning it. > It is true, once you use Drupal, you will never install another CMS. > That seems to me an important consideration long term. If there is likely to be more and longer term committed develo

Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 3 January 2011 15:14, Italo Vignoli wrote: > On 1/3/11 7:38 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote: > > Where can I read it? Is it in the next decade manifesto? >> > > http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/announce/msg00016.html > > > And they are not equal. That's my problem with it at the

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft

On 3 January 2011 15:56, Alexander Thurgood wrote: > Hi, > > Le 03/01/11 12:37, Zaphod Feeblejocks a écrit : > > > > > I guess if you want to buy an iPad in France, now is a good time to do > it! > > > > An iPad or any other mobile OS based device, ipad is hardly an OS based device. Well stretc

Re: [tdf-discuss] Co-working with Moz, etc (was:Do not support writing to OOXML format)

On 1 January 2011 18:43, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > Whats really held OOo and will hold LO back is the lack of an equivalent > program such as outlook. > Why waste time and effort on this when there are other perfectly valid alternatives? Evolution, Thunderbird for open source and Gmail on the

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

> > > Office on-the-web only saves in docx. Office 2013/4 will quite possibly > drop .doc export, > just as Word 6/95 export was dropped from Word 2003 - after a failed > attempt to drop it > from 2000. MS can do this because they are the market leader. To fail to > offer even > rudimentary docx

Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 31 December 2010 17:04, Cor Nouws wrote: > Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote (31-12-10 13:14) > > On 31/12/10 09:30, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: >> >>> FYI for those that aren't aware. Microsoft office 2010 supports ODF >>> format for opening and saving documents now. >>> >>> >> So does 2007 SP2 as we

Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 30 December 2010 20:19, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: > On 30/12/10 17:27, Larry Gusaas wrote: > >> I will not support or use LibreOffice >> until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file >> format. There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary format. To >> do

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 31 December 2010 10:37, Kevin André wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:07, Gordon Burgess-Parker > wrote: > > > 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that > which > > was sent to you. (That's why email clients always reply in the same > format > > in which the origi

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 31 December 2010 11:35, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: > On 31/12/10 10:32, M. Fioretti wrote: > >> >> wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example, >> > > Then I would plonk you immediately. How do you not see that that is TOTALLY > ARROGANT? > If I send you an email in plain text and you reply in HT

Re: [tdf-discuss] International support

On 14 December 2010 12:49, Karl Morten Ramberg wrote: > Yes I think LibO needs a way of offering intl support and responsetime > guarantee to attract larger companies. > And that that can be a way of partially fund the development > > Karl > > Den 14.12.2010 13:32, skrev sophie: > > Hi, >> On 14

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A proposal for effective, volunteer-friendly user support in LibreOffice

On 23 November 2010 18:14, T. J. Brumfield wrote: > There are open software stacks with various CMS tools where you can combine > wiki, blog, forum, and FAQ functionality together. A community site could > have articles on the front end to help demonstate features, provide > tutorials, expose new

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A proposal for effective, volunteer-friendly user support in LibreOffice

On 23 November 2010 17:28, Nathan wrote: > On 11/23/2010 11:57 AM, plino wrote: > >> >> I do agree that volunteer-friendly user support is the key for the success >> of >> any Open Source project. >> >> However, in my opinion e-mail and mailing lists are obsolete and >> ineffective >> tools. >> >

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A proposal for effective, volunteer-friendly user support in LibreOffice

On 23 November 2010 21:25, Andy Brown wrote: > On Tue Nov 23 2010 12:36:35 GMT-0800 (PST) Robert Derman wrote: > > Assuming that it is, I think the primary users manual should focus on >> Writer, with just one chapter on each of the other modules, and a pointer to >> where to download a more ex

Re: [tdf-discuss] Take over of Novell

On 22 November 2010 20:41, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi Ian, > > On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 18:10 +0000, Ian Lynch wrote: > > Is the take over of Novell going to affect the document foundation? > > It has been long anticipated, and comes as no surprise. > >

  1   2   >