[tdf-discuss] Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

Keep using your ad hominem arguments and ignore the issues that user are reporting. You are absolutely right. Version 3.4.2 is perfect. My mistake. Bye! -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Viability-of-the-3-4-2-Release-tp3215651p3232189.html Sent from the Dis

[tdf-discuss] Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

Tor Lillqvist-2 wrote: > > You are barking up the wrong tree here. I have not seen any actual > developers > use language like "evil MS" or "M$" and argumentation like that. Agreed. It was a small provocation :) But it confuses me that bugs (and especially regressions) such as the one I mentio

[tdf-discuss] Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

Cor Nouws wrote: > > So now you skip the stupid wrong initial reasoning you made in your > previous post and start with another idea that to me just looks as the > next poisonous attempt to do as if developers are incompetent > uninterested people? > I just rewrote what I meant since the pre

[tdf-discuss] Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

Cor Nouws wrote: > > Glad to read that, because indeed, your reasoning above is completely > illogical :-D > Since regressions that occurred between 3.3.x and 3.4.x were not "simply reverted" and that only regressions between 3.4.x releases are fixed at this stage, what are the chances that pr

[tdf-discuss] Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

Thorsten Behrens wrote: > > * frequent bugfix release on the code line happens (3.4.1, 3.4.2 >etc). Code only enters that code line after review, no new >features are allowed. If something regresses, usually the fix is >simply reverted. > That is an interesting point. It simply mea

[tdf-discuss] Re: LibO 3.4.2 RC1 under Windows

Andras Timar wrote: > > 1. VC++ 2008 x86 9.0.30729.6161 does not exist as a redistributable > package, so we need to distribute what is available, VC++ 2008 x86 > 9.0.30729.4148 that is. > Could someone please update the VC included with version 3.3.4 rc1 to build 9.0.30729.4148 then? It is sti

[tdf-discuss] Re: LibO 3.4.2 RC1 under Windows

Andras Timar wrote: > > 1. VC++ 2008 x86 9.0.30729.6161 does not exist as a redistributable > package, so we need to distribute what is available, VC++ 2008 x86 > 9.0.30729.4148 that is. > Could someone please update the VC included with version 3.4.2 rc1 to build 9.0.30729.4148 then? It is sti

[tdf-discuss] Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

I have reported on Bugzilla that docx files which have an equation don't show any text after the equation. This was a regression from version 3.3.x and is present in version 3.4.2 which is an enterprise release :D I guess enterprise users don't care about equations or don't use docx (which makes

[tdf-discuss] Re: Windows MSI installers WAS LibO 3.4.2 RC1 under Windows

Jonathan The most interesting part is that if you stop the Windows installation after the files are unpacked and then execute the msi file on a batch of PCs you will not be bothered by the MS VC++ outdated libraries because they are not contained in the msi :) In fact this is explained in the rea

[tdf-discuss] Re: LibO 3.4.2 RC1 under Windows

Hi Andras Andras Timar wrote: > > Because it is not possible to query a newer version reliably. > Especially, detecting yet to be released newer versions seems to be > difficult to me. The MsiQueryProductState call can be used only if the > product code of the package is known. I'm not a progra

[tdf-discuss] Re: LibO 3.4.2 RC1 under Windows

Hi Andras Andras Timar wrote: > > You fail to understand what people try to explain to you. > I can argue the exact same thing. Andras Timar wrote: > > Currently we install start the VC++ 2008 redistributable 9.0.30729.4148 > installer, if it is not installed and skip the installation, if i

[tdf-discuss] Re: disclaimer for extension website

Florian Effenberger wrote: > > Marc-André Laverdière wrote on 2011-07-22 12:35: >> While that is certainly advisable, I think we need some good CYA. Some >> people in this sad sad world just like to sue. > > what's a CYA? > See definition number 2 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?ter

[tdf-discuss] Re: LibO 3.4.2 RC1 under Windows

Jesús Corrius wrote: > > We can detect if there a new version installed, and then do nothing, > but the trade-off will be to make LibreOffice less reliable. > LibreOffice will be less reliable because you won't force to install an older (unsecure) version which in your own words won't even be u

[tdf-discuss] Re: LibO 3.4.2 RC1 under Windows

Jesús Corrius wrote: > > 1. LibreOffice and all the other applications (ok, unless they are > using private assemblies[1]) will always use the lastest updated > versions of the libraries installed in the system. Any user has many > old libraries installed in the WinSxS directory and it's not a >

[tdf-discuss] Re: LibO 3.4.2 RC1 under Windows

NoOp wrote: > > I'd recommend a followup to the dev list. plino, when you do that you > might also add links to the security notices for the earlier version of > VC++ 2008. > The Dev list is for devs only. I have unsubscribed from it. Here is the link http://support.micr

[tdf-discuss] Re: LibO 3.4.2 RC1 under Windows

Robert Boehm wrote: > > Obviously, if the version "preferred" by the installer is the only > version that the installed files will work with > is the only choice, then well, OK. But if it's compatible with the > latest version, maybe there is a way to make > sure that the latest version availa

[tdf-discuss] Re: LibO 3.4.2 RC1 under Windows

Jesús Corrius wrote: > > This is working fine. > > If you don't have the matching version already installed, then the > installer should install the version referenced in the manifests. > > If the version is already installed, the VC runtime installer does > nothing. But in this case, it's poli

[tdf-discuss] LibO 3.4.2 RC1 under Windows

Hi all First of all I find it odd that this release is named RC1. Shouldn't there be a Beta first? I found the following bugs in the Windows installer: 1) Forces installation of MS VC++ 2008 x86 9.0.30729.4148 although MS VC++ 2008 x86 9.0.30729.6161 was already installed 2) New dictionaries ar

[tdf-discuss] News about the world outside LO :)

Surprise, surprise! IBM will be announcing tomorrow that it’s donating essentially all its IBM Lotus Symphony source code and resources to Apache’s OpenOffice project http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/ibm-throws-its-source-code-and-support-behind-openoffice/9240 -- View this message in conte

[tdf-discuss] Re: OT: Swiss to Ban PowerPoint?

Following that reasoning someone should start a party against rollerball and ballpoint pens and go back to fountain pens , dip pens or even quills (sharpened feathers)... Using a neologism: LOL -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/OT-Swiss-to-Ban-PowerPoint-tp31

[tdf-discuss] RE: LibreOffice deployment on Windows

Alexandre Chevrier wrote: > >>> Obviously I meant "You CAN'T remove Base" > > I tried to launch manually the msi installer and followed the menus, I can > remove Base and Draw and other optional components. > What I would like to do is put those changes into an mst file so I can > deploy a light

[tdf-discuss] Re: LibreOffice deployment on Windows

plino wrote: > > You can remove base (or any other program from the suite). > Stupid typo. Sorry :( Obviously I meant "You CAN'T remove Base" -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-deployment-on-Windows-tp3141291p3143979.ht

[tdf-discuss] Re: LibreOffice deployment on Windows

You can remove base (or any other program from the suite). All LibreOffice (and OpenOffice) programs are contained in soffice.exe and soffice.bin The exe files are just small launchers (300Kb) that load different "appearances" of the same program. I think your best bet is to remove openoffice fr

[tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF

@Mark Let me quote, since you obviously missed this part "Until and unless the deficiencies are fixed, ODF is not suitable as the native format for Gnumeric or any other spreadsheet." IMO without font embedding the same applies to files whose contents rely on the fonts (namely presentations and v

[tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF

Today I found the most interesting article on ODF, which explains why it doesn't support font embedding: http://blogs.gnome.org/mortenw/2010/02/10/odf-plus-five-years/ ODF was created in a hurry to support text files. Later some people started to worry about spreadsheets (apparently not that much

[tdf-discuss] Re: Poll Daily-Builds usage - we need your experience

1 My OS is: WIN 2 Update Info: Useful (would be) 3 I test:frequently 4 I test for: consistency, compatibility with MS formats 5 My suggestion: obviously daily builds need to be from the latest branch, not from rc1... (for improvement) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.

[tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF

Hi Bernard bedipp wrote: > > 1) Charles doesn't insist in keeping embedded fonts out of ODF > I NEVER said this. Please quote the right person. I'm not a developer and I certainly don't intend to waste my time let alone pay for a feature that is so unimportant to everyone. Thank you for your

[tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)

Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote: > > But we are not talking about document archiving here, are we? We are > talking about round-tripping documents. > > > > But this *is* for fidelity reasons - just not meant for archiving. If > I send my team (e.g. in India) a document created in Impress or > Write

[tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)

Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > But let me ask it > again: why should it not be the right file format for LibreOffice? > Fonts embedding cannot be the only one feature that will help us break > the dominant vendor's monopoly, can it? > Because any document that allows the use of different fonts an

Re: RE : [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)

Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > Now, as for humility, claiming in an assured and definitive way that ODF > will lose if it > does not embed fonts is not exactly humble either. I didn't say that. I said that IF OASIS insists on refusing to embed fonts in ODF (which is what you also peremptorily affi

[tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)

Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > We do all have lots of responsibility, all of us. I can assure > you that people usually, most of the time DON'T include fonts in their > MSO documents. But then, who am I to argue? You seem to be a MSO power > user. Go and contribute to the ODF TC at the OASIS. I me

[tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)

Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > So are you saying your word documents embed fonts on a daily basis? > I've never seen any similar documents. You get the impression of that > -maybe- because on a windows to windows environment everybody uses > fonts that are already available on the system. Of course

[tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)

Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > No it doesn't. > Of course it does. Maybe you don't use it or don't know how to do it. But don't say it doesn't. Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > But I think we're also missing the point if -let's say > we were to design a brand new office file format that embeds o

[tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > 4. It is incorrect to presume that Font Embedding will not be in ODF 1.3 > or any other. While font embedding did not make the feature cut in the > prioritization for ODF 1.2, that does not mean it can't be resurrected. > It is early days for ODF 1.3, which is sch

[tdf-discuss] Re: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review, prerequisite for balloting as OASIS Standard

Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > We're not talking about the same use cases. Embedding fonts create a > whole lot of different problems in terms of interoperability. > > But you're welcome to join the ODF TC, even as an individual. > I believe that there are many interoperability problems. But i

[tdf-discuss] Re: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review, prerequisite for balloting as OASIS Standard

Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > So, let me state and restate this : ODF will not embed fonts in the > 1.2, 1.3, nor in the future, because the format is not meant to focus on > faithful layout rendering. Instead, PDF is meant that. ODF focuses on > office document exchanges. > If that is the OASIS

[tdf-discuss] Re: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review, prerequisite for balloting as OASIS Standard

I really hope that revision 1.2 allows for font embedding in ODF documents. IMO that is a (the?) major obstacle for sharing documents with other users. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/ANN-ODF-1-2-Candidate-OASIS-Standard-Enters-60-Day-Public-Review-prerequis

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

Here is another free one (for Windows only) http://www.officeviewers.com -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/New-LibreOffice-Reader-Eliminates-Need-for-PDF-Reader-tp3101887p3102326.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe i

Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)

@BRM sorry to burst your fantasy world... We are not discussing some theoretical situation with A, B, C, D, etc This topic and this forum is about a PUBLIC free office suite (yes, I noticed you deliberately ignored my argument) In this case the GPL clearly says that the written license MUST be d

Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)

BRM wrote: > > Directly from the FSF, authors of the GPL. You must have a copy of the > written > offer in order to be entitled to receipt of the source. > It's amazing how you distort arguments to keep your own perspective. What the GPL says is that whoever gives you a copy of the program is

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

Greg Stein wrote: > > As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right. > Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You. > > This is why I think the statement "removes rights from people's > contributions" is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware > of. > GP

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

BRM wrote: > > Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a company wanted it could > take a > GPL product, make whatever changes it wanted, and distribute it internally > to > itself without ever contributing back to the community as a whole. > Likewise, it could also distribute that same pr

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

Greg Stein wrote: > > how can you say that Apache > "removes rights from people's contributions"? As a developer, you > still own your code. You can do whatever you like with it. Apache > doesn't take anything from You. > Easy. Even a non-developer like myself can see that :) Compared to GPL

[tdf-discuss] Re: [Ping Florian] nntp gmane posts to user list still not getting to the list

Nabble posts are working. Thanks ;) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Ping-Florian-nntp-gmane-posts-to-user-list-still-not-getting-to-the-list-tp3061361p3067421.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mai

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

Allen Pulsifer wrote: > > creating a new version of the source code and making changes that > they did not contribute back to the official distribution. I think this is the most serious accusation and yet nobody bothered to comment... I'm confused on how a modification can be contributed back i

[tdf-discuss] Re: Release dates/versions

I am referring to my first post (probably Nabble doesn't work as announced...) plino wrote: > > Can someone explain why the latest daily build is named > > libreoffice-3-4~2011-06-07_11.47.03_LibO_3.4.0rc1_Win_x86_install_multi.exe > ? > > This was compiled yeste

[tdf-discuss] Re: Release dates/versions

Can someone tell me if the daily named rc1 will be installed as a Dev or overwrite my Stable 3.3.3RC1? -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Release-dates-versions-tp3040743p3046545.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe ins

[tdf-discuss] Re: QA manual test Litmus session on 3.3.3Rc

Sophie Gautier wrote: > > Sorry, I should have put a smiley, I didn't want to sound hard > You were not, don't worry ;) Sophie Gautier wrote: > > There is a lot to do in our project that doesn't need to be developer or > too technical. Why do you feel that and what should we change to enhan

[tdf-discuss] Re: Simple solution to avoid #VALUE required

Sorry, I assumed you meant attached here, not on the report :) You have two options: dump 3.4 and go for 3.3.3RC1 :) Or use conditional formatting to set the font colour to white if value = 0 -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Simple-solution-to-avoid-VALUE-re

[tdf-discuss] Re: Simple solution to avoid #VALUE required

Do you mean using a formula or by changing the source code? Where is the attached file ? :) (This mailing list doesn't support attached files. You need to upload it somewhere) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Simple-solution-to-avoid-VALUE-required-tp3030643

[tdf-discuss] Re: QA manual test Litmus session on 3.3.3Rc

Sophie Gautier wrote: > > My mail was a bit long, I know, but if you read until the end it says > I did read it to the end. It would be silly to make comments without reading all ;) It still isn't clear what "you don't need technical skills" means... Apparently in this "community" only develo

[tdf-discuss] Re: QA manual test Litmus session on 3.3.3Rc

Hi Sophie Who is this directed to? Apparently it's for Developers only so why post on the Discuss list? I find it odd that Users are not needed in QA but this an odd "community" anyway ;) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/QA-manual-test-Litmus-session-on-3-3

[tdf-discuss] Re: Include country in the list of members

Hi Eduardo I suggested a similar idea at the Users list but was told that the Website list is the correct place http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/TDF-Novos-membros-em-31-05-2011-tp3021079p3021079.html Maybe you can do that ;) Abraço do outro lado do Atlântico ;) -- View this message in cont

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

It seems that the logic here is: code for OpenOffice and you are contributing to both projects, code for LibreOffice and you only contribute to one :) http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice-how-to-get-involved.html -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.

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

As a user I wouldn't be happy IF the devs split up between two projects. The way I see it is IBM and maybe some Oracle devs will work on OOo and everybody else will work on LO... The good part (besides the Apache license which allows LO to use what little code will be openly contributed to OOo)

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

Another interesting article (especially the comments on the post and the answers by Rob Weir) http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Oracle-contributes-OOo-Code-to-Apache-Software-Foundation-s-Incubator-tp3

[tdf-discuss] Re: RC2 - no 3.4.0.x tag in help -> about libreoffice

> Think harder. The point is that if a Release Candidate build is determined > to be > good *enough* to be released, the *exact* *same* *bits* will become the > release > then instead. Just the names of the download directories, downloadable > file, etc > are changed as necessary. So if the Help:Ab

[tdf-discuss] Re: RC2 - no 3.4.0.x tag in help -> about libreoffice

@Andras Yes. That is quite obvious for developers. But can't it simply say RC2 somewhere so that *USERS* KNOW which version they have? -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RC2-no-3-4-0-x-tag-in-help-about-libreoffice-tp2994857p2995756.html Sent from the Discuss

[tdf-discuss] Re: Troubles with file associations - Win XP

There were some problems with associations especially in previous versions of LO. Because LO and OOo executables have the same name, this confuses Windows :) Reinstalling and checking the file association boxed will probably fix it. But you can solve it by right-clicking on the ODS file, choose O

[tdf-discuss] Re: Any wikipedia members/contributors here?

Interesting link to the ODF validator, NoOp ;) I loaded a document I created with LO 3.3.2 (the current stable) and I got This file is NOT valid Result details: upload:///DB Espadarte.odt/META-INF/manifest.xml[2,88]:Error:element "manifest:manifest" is missing "version" attribute upload:///DB E

[tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice dead and burried?

> There are *millions* of users that are still using WinXP and older > versions of MS Office (think schools, libraries, individuals, small > companies, government offices, etc). Granted the ideal situation would > be to have all of them install LO, but we know: 1) that just isn't going > to happen,

[tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice dead and burried?

Hi Jean The free version of the Sun ODF Plugin is still available and I often > recommend it to the many people I know who are still using MSO 2000, XP, > or > 2003. > But it's a 75Mb download

[tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice dead and burried?

> ODF support is present in MS Office 2007 SP2 and MS Office 2010 (it > even can be selected as default file format) so what would be your > target? MS Office 2003 and older? It does not look reasonable to me, > because by the time we develop something useable, only a minority of > users will use

[tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice dead and burried?

Hi Tor Please no. We who have had to look at that codebase and even fix some > problems > in it are glad that it is abandoned. It is a huge unmaintainable pile of > XSLT, > and then some silly C# code around that. > (snip) > Furthermore, this allegedly Open Source project (hosted on soureforge)

[tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice dead and burried?

Hi Kurti And not IAccessible2 is the only useful application which future is > uncertain. > There are many other tools (migration wizard, document analyzer, > share-point connector, ODF modul for MSO) which were not open source > licensed but were mainly free to use and helped a lot integrating O

[tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice dead and burried?

@Italo, since you are indeed a member of the SC, can you share with the community more information about the original topic, please? -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/OpenOffice-dead-and-burried-tp2951991p2952858.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive

[tdf-discuss] OpenOffice dead and burried?

Since Oracle "discontinued commercial development of the OpenOffice suite, and is handling it back to the open-source community for future development" and the open-source community moved to LibreOffice, what future is there for OpenOffice? http://www.betanews.com/article/Oracle-hands-OpenOffice-t

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

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/227849/open_source_advocates_angry_at_german_govt_decision.html This isn't even about OpenOffice vs LibreOffice... It's about Closed Source vs Open Source TBH I think it was a bad move to change radically if you have experienced and productive users t

[tdf-discuss] Re: Two simple writer annoyances

>This could also be a way of having our >wordprocessing suite distinguishing itself from any other suites. I think you mean from OpenOffice and Symphony? MS Word and Softmaker's Textmaker already do this in 90 degree steps (clockwise and counter)-- View this message in context: http://nabble.doc

[tdf-discuss] Re: Two simple writer annoyances

@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. I suggest that you use the FLOSS (Free/Libre Open Source Software) Desktop Publisher named Scribus h

[tdf-discuss] Re: .deb for other languages missing in download site

You are right :) The same happens to the x64 rpm packs which only got to LT. And this applies to all the mirrors I checked. Fortunately this only happens for the x64 builds :) (I'm joking!) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/deb-for-other-languages-missing

[tdf-discuss] Re: ODF viewer Extension for Chromium/Firefox

Hola Javier Aqui tienes un foro en castellano/Spanish :) http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Spanish-f1817165.html Saludos ibericos :) ! -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/ODF-viewer-Extension-for-Chromium-Firefox-tp2079302p2080248.html Sent from the Discuss

[tdf-discuss] Re: deb installer - have to manually modify link

> I will fix this right now. I only unpublished the page while trying > out some pages I'd created (it is a *test* site after all)... While you're at it could you please add Portuguese (pt) to the script? Also, there is a mirror in Portugal which has not been updated since Beta1 http://mirrors.

[tdf-discuss] Re: Why is LO/OOo so slow loading a spreadsheet?

>By default openoffice(libreoffice?) is using max 20 Mb RAM, which is not >enough today. Default settings need to change, st. most computer have 1Gb+ >RAM today. If you set it 256 Mb, it quite fast. >*But why is this limited to 256 only?* Sometimes I need much more when >working with my school

[tdf-discuss] Is TDF doing the EXACT same mistakes as OOo???

I can see that RC1 was released today. Unless I'm mistaken a RC1 (Release Candidate 1) is a release that will only have small adjustments before the official release. Does this mean that the official installers for Windows users will be the huge multi-language with 343Mb and the absurdibly huge

[tdf-discuss] Re: Why is LO/OOo so slow loading a spreadsheet?

MiguelAngel, the problem only occurs when you open the ods and save as xlsx. Not the other way around ;) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Why-is-LO-OOo-so-slow-loading-a-spreadsheet-tp2006665p2023022.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.

[tdf-discuss] Re: Why is LO/OOo so slow loading a spreadsheet?

drew, I just tested it in Windows and the resulting xlsx it's not only truncated it is also corrupted in such a way that Gnumeric can't open it (although Excel 2007 and LO can still open it) No wonder it is faster (and the file smaller), it just deleted nearly 240.000 lines :lol: -- View this me

[tdf-discuss] Re: Why is LO/OOo so slow loading a spreadsheet?

You are free to use both files as you wish. Please also use the xlsx file included in this other OOo issue http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=96758 it is a complex spreadsheet with a lot of formatting -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Why-is-LO

[tdf-discuss] Re: Why is LO/OOo so slow loading a spreadsheet?

>>That is exactly my point. In a forum,anyone could answer. > wrong. anyone *which is reading* - same thing in a mailinglist. :o)) Obviously. But in a Forum you don't need to subscribe to discuss, libreoffice, dev, etc separately. Each one of these subcategories is a separate mailing list that

[tdf-discuss] Re: Why is LO/OOo so slow loading a spreadsheet?

Cor, in that page I could find a perfect example of how things did NOT work in OOo http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=96758 According to the last comment this bug is fixed. You just need to download the sample file and open it in LO to see that it's not (just for fun load it in Gnu

[tdf-discuss] Re: Why is LO/OOo so slow loading a spreadsheet?

Thank you for the reply, Andy! > The forums that I visit also have things broken down by what it applies > to. You would get better/more answers by posting to a forum that way as > well. I look at most all new post but from what I have seen not > everyone does, and see this type of reply on

[tdf-discuss] Re: Why is LO/OOo so slow loading a spreadsheet?

>Mhh, I did not see your note as anything new. But Maybe I should have >mailed that ;-) >But ignored? Far from that. Cor, thank you for the reply. In my mind it doesn't make any sense that the mailing lists are so self contained that I have to guess in which one I have to post. And if I fail

[tdf-discuss] Re: Why is LO/OOo so slow loading a spreadsheet?

> Maybe the right list would help. Try the users list, > [hidden email] or ask the developers, > [hidden email] . That is exactly my point. In a forum,anyone could answer. In a mailing list I have to subscribe to ALL and guess on which the subject fits better. I think this is a general discu

[tdf-discuss] Re: Why is LO/OOo so slow loading a spreadsheet?

Another topic ignored? Maybe a mailing list isn't the right tool... -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Why-is-LO-OOo-so-slow-loading-a-spreadsheet-tp2006665p2014877.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions:

[tdf-discuss] Why is LO/OOo so slow loading a spreadsheet?

Here is a table of loading times (in seconds) This test was carried out under Windows XP SP3 with the 300.000 lines sample I mentioned in a previous post, converted to the 4 formats. http://www.openoffice.org/nonav/issues/showattachment.cgi/66356/30_line_sample.xlsx http://nabble.documentfou

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

NoOp, I think we agree on the minimal installer size. I apologize for the reply mess. I'm not used to this mailing list tool. If I reply via nabble, I can't quote. If I reply via Gmail, I can't quote but the reference to whom the reply was doesn't work... It is clear that the huge installer is t

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

You are right. I didn't express myself correctly. This is what I'm suggesting http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-LibreOffice-tp1954148p1973749.html "the first screen for the installer is simply a language selector (such as the pidgin

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

The point here is that OOo has a small installer with 140Mb (no Java, and only English, Spanish and French dictionaries). Why is LO going in the opposite direction with 299 and 466Mb??? The current packages (including in the smallest option 56 language packs!!!) makes no sense IMO as I mentioned

[tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

May I suggest that the first screen for the installer is simply a language selector (such as the pidgin installer, and many others) so that the installer itself runs in the user's language The installer itself should be as small as possible (it makes no sense that 27 dictionaries and 56 language

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

One of LibreOffice's supporters is Mark Shuttleworth / Canonical. They have a lot of experience in shipping Ubuntu disks worlwide for free... Just an idea ;) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-LibreO

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

> I just have to respond to this, I hate forums or anything else that > required the use of PASSWORDS!!! I already have 10 times too many > passwords to remember or keep track of and I want absolutely NO more. > Frankly I wish the entire computer and software industry would flush the > whole idea

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

> If this means anything, the Drupal LibreOffice website will be offering > all modes of communications to the users: mailists, forums and wiki. If > you can think of any other modes let us know and we will into providing > it for the members. > Marc, does it provide Live support such as a one-on

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

> My concern is that many users expect help to be present in the application > itself, and not everyone is willing to go and find answers in a community. > Could the application itself pull its "Help" functionality from online > resources? > In my experience an online forum/help/FAQ does NOT repl

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

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. A user forum (with optional mail notification) and a wiki are much more powerful tools. A forum makes it muc

[tdf-discuss] Re: Content of Beta3 Windows Install-Packages

Here is an image of the contents of the multi installer http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/file/n1953706/LO_multi.png And here is an image of the all language installer http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/file/n1953706/LO_all_lang.png As you can see there are a few more languages (Portugu

[tdf-discuss] Re: Compiling in Windows

Sorry for triple posting but I want to congratulate the LibreOffice team for doing one better than OpenOffice. Although the MSVC runtime installer is executed before the actual LO installer, it is now smarter than the OOo options: if there is no need for a runtime update the user is not nagged to

[tdf-discuss] Re: Article on Corriere della Sera

Here is the same image after a little colour correction ;) http://d.imagehost.org/0646/corsera-ooo.jpg -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Article-on-Corriere-della-Sera-tp1923445p1925544.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsub

[tdf-discuss] Why a multi language installer for Windows?

Increasing the size of the full package seems to be discouraging. I can't see any point in creating a big multi language and a huge all language installer. Why isn't the same criteria used for other OSes where the smallest possible installer is available and then a small (<20Mb) language pack? -

[tdf-discuss] Re: FreeDesktop Bugzilla

Being a former QA member for OO and for several other Open Source projects I think that the best combination would be: 1) Totally separate forms for Bugs and Feature Requests trackers 2) Filling a Bug or FR does not require a login. Only a valid email and a captcha. 3) The trackers must be easy

[tdf-discuss] Re: Compiling in Windows

Hi Really - this discussion belongs on the developer list; and the person > who needs to be contributing is the one complaining :-) so - I greatly > welcome your contribution here: there is a lot to do, but it is quite > do-able, and I (and Fridrich + Jesus) would be happy to mentor anyone >

  1   2   >