Re: Quick Office Pro
Des O'Shaughnessy wrote: I have a quick Office pro app That app claims to come from OpenOffice, but this is not true. It is totally unrelated to the OpenOffice project http://openoffice.org ; please report the app to the App Store. And of course we can't help you since this mailing list is for volunteer support for OpenOffice users, sorry. Best regards, Andrea Pescetti - Apache OpenOffice PMC. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Quick Office Pro
MODERATORS: I have started rejecting incoming e-mails like this one with a message stating that QuickOffice is unrelated to Apache and AOO and they should contact their supplier. I suggest other moderators adopt the same approach. S. On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Des O'Shaughnessy wrote: I have a quick Office pro app That app claims to come from OpenOffice, but this is not true. It is totally unrelated to the OpenOffice project http://openoffice.org ; please report the app to the App Store. And of course we can't help you since this mailing list is for volunteer support for OpenOffice users, sorry. Best regards, Andrea Pescetti - Apache OpenOffice PMC. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- *Simon Phipps* http://webmink.com *Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027 *Mobile*: +44 774 776 2816
Apple Yosemite 10.10.1
I was thinking of downloading your program but do not see that it supports Apple Yosemite 10.10.1. Can this program still be installed and functional? Thanks, Jack Orcutt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Quick Office Pro
Simon Phipps wrote: MODERATORS: I have started rejecting incoming e-mails like this one with a message stating that QuickOffice is unrelated to Apache and AOO and they should contact their supplier. I suggest other moderators adopt the same approach. S. -1 We are MODERATORS, not the list police. Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Quick Office Pro
Exactly. That's why Simon is providing info that OO/ Apache is not related to Quick Office; explaining that this group can't help re QO, and directing the person making inquiry to a possible source for help since that help can't be obtained here. I can't think of a better function for a MODERATOR, and it certainly saves all of us the time to scan, and then ignore, messages about QO. On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Dave Barton d...@tasit.net wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: MODERATORS: I have started rejecting incoming e-mails like this one with a message stating that QuickOffice is unrelated to Apache and AOO and they should contact their supplier. I suggest other moderators adopt the same approach. S. -1 We are MODERATORS, not the list police. Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Apple Yosemite 10.10.1
I am on Yosemite and have been using 4.1.0 just fine. I am very lazy but I finally downloaded 4.1.1 this morning. All seems well so far. That Magic Mouse problem seems fixed which is lovely. Cheers to the Apache developers! Sent from my iPhone On Dec 2, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Jack Orcutt j.orc...@icloud.com wrote: I was thinking of downloading your program but do not see that it supports Apple Yosemite 10.10.1. Can this program still be installed and functional? Thanks, Jack Orcutt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Quick Office Pro
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Dave Barton d...@tasit.net wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: MODERATORS: I have started rejecting incoming e-mails like this one with a message stating that QuickOffice is unrelated to Apache and AOO and they should contact their supplier. I suggest other moderators adopt the same approach. S. -1 We are MODERATORS, not the list police. Please explain why you believe questions about QuickOffice are in-scope for this list and thus should not be rejected by moderators? Thanks, S.
Re: Apple Yosemite 10.10.1
Forwarding Chuck's answer below; and Jack, can you tell us where you expected to read this information? Did you consult some outdated web page that we should update? Andrea chuck ef wrote: I am on Yosemite and have been using 4.1.0 just fine. I am very lazy but I finally downloaded 4.1.1 this morning. All seems well so far. That Magic Mouse problem seems fixed which is lovely. Cheers to the Apache developers! Sent from my iPhone On Dec 2, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Jack Orcutt j.orc...@icloud.com wrote: I was thinking of downloading your program but do not see that it supports Apple Yosemite 10.10.1. Can this program still be installed and functional? Thanks, Jack Orcutt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Quick Office Pro
Simon Phipps wrote: On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Dave Barton d...@tasit.net wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: MODERATORS: I have started rejecting incoming e-mails like this one with a message stating that QuickOffice is unrelated to Apache and AOO and they should contact their supplier. I suggest other moderators adopt the same approach. S. -1 We are MODERATORS, not the list police. Please explain why you believe questions about QuickOffice are in-scope for this list and thus should not be rejected by moderators? Thanks, S. I do not claim that questions about Quick Office Pro are in-scope for the list. My objection is based on the principle, not the Quick Office Pro issue itself. As per my reply to Jim, I maintain that, in accordance with ASF guidelines, it is not our responsibility to answer posts on behalf of the list (albeit by way of rejection notices), or make arbitrary decisions about what the list should or shouldn't see or have to deal with. As inconvenient (probably irritating) as it is for list subscribers to see this kind of post, we stand at the top of a very slippery slope if we, as individuals, start making this kind of unilateral arbitrary decision. Many times I see posts held for moderation where my gut reaction might be What the has this to do with AOO or Oh this is just another meaningless rant. Do I arbitrarily go with my gut reaction and reject it (with a sweet little note), or do I follow the ASF guidelines and allow the list subscribers deal with posts to THEIR list as THEY see fit? I propose that, if the ASF/AOO PMC and more importantly the list subscribers, want us to act as (in my opinion) list police, we put this proposal forward and if accepted/approved we set up some kind of arrangement (eg. a wiki page) to coordinate, agree or compromise on these matters Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Quick Office Pro
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Dave Barton d...@tasit.net wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Dave Barton d...@tasit.net wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: MODERATORS: I have started rejecting incoming e-mails like this one with a message stating that QuickOffice is unrelated to Apache and AOO and they should contact their supplier. I suggest other moderators adopt the same approach. S. -1 We are MODERATORS, not the list police. Please explain why you believe questions about QuickOffice are in-scope for this list and thus should not be rejected by moderators? Thanks, S. I do not claim that questions about Quick Office Pro are in-scope for the list. My objection is based on the principle, not the Quick Office Pro issue itself. As per my reply to Jim, I maintain that, in accordance with ASF guidelines, it is not our responsibility to answer posts on behalf of the list (albeit by way of rejection notices), or make arbitrary decisions about what the list should or shouldn't see or have to deal with. I'd welcome other views as I think this outlook is pedantic. Rejecting irrelevant spam is not answering posts. As inconvenient (probably irritating) as it is for list subscribers to see this kind of post, we stand at the top of a very slippery slope if we, as individuals, start making this kind of unilateral arbitrary decision. Many times I see posts held for moderation where my gut reaction might be What the has this to do with AOO or Oh this is just another meaningless rant. Do I arbitrarily go with my gut reaction and reject it (with a sweet little note), or do I follow the ASF guidelines and allow the list subscribers deal with posts to THEIR list as THEY see fit? I'm not suggesting filtering or answering relevant forum traffic in any way, especially not the sort of posts you refer to. QuickOffice posts are effectively spam and I am suggesting the moderators treat them as they do the other spam arriving in the queue, except with a polite response to the confused originator instead of just ignoring them. I propose that, if the ASF/AOO PMC and more importantly the list subscribers, want us to act as (in my opinion) list police, we put this proposal forward and if accepted/approved we set up some kind of arrangement (eg. a wiki page) to coordinate, agree or compromise on these matters That's overkill for this specific case. -1 S.
docx files cause crashes.
greets! I get with increasing frequency docx files which cause OO to crash. I end up having to open them via google-docs and then save as odt. I'm on Apache OO 4.0.0 using Debian Wheezy with a variant of KDE3 (Trinity Desktop). I always open by using the 'File' menu tab. I don't recall if I can attach a file to this list but not sure I want to broadcast the contents all over the list even though I have permission and it's not confidential material. I can put one of them on google-drive and give a password to anyone who's curious and eager to help. or is there some general advice? I first noticed this phenomenon sometime in Spring from one correspondent, now I have two where this phenomenon occurs. I know that at least one, and probably all, use Pages in the Mac and the one I know says she uses the 'export' function of Pages. F. -- Felmon Davis It is your concern when your neighbor's wall is on fire. -- Horace - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: docx files cause crashes.
OO 4.1.1 it solved issues with docx files I have no idea if it solved your problem, but I suggest to try this first. On 3-12-2014 8:59, Felmon Davis wrote: greets! I get with increasing frequency docx files which cause OO to crash. I end up having to open them via google-docs and then save as odt. I'm on Apache OO 4.0.0 using Debian Wheezy with a variant of KDE3 (Trinity Desktop). I always open by using the 'File' menu tab. I don't recall if I can attach a file to this list but not sure I want to broadcast the contents all over the list even though I have permission and it's not confidential material. I can put one of them on google-drive and give a password to anyone who's curious and eager to help. or is there some general advice? I first noticed this phenomenon sometime in Spring from one correspondent, now I have two where this phenomenon occurs. I know that at least one, and probably all, use Pages in the Mac and the one I know says she uses the 'export' function of Pages. F.
Re: docx files cause crashes.
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014, Martin Groenescheij wrote: OO 4.1.1 it solved issues with docx files I have no idea if it solved your problem, but I suggest to try this first. makes sense though I'm a bit scared to tear too much up right now. I'll look for some instructions on installing them side-by-side. F. On 3-12-2014 8:59, Felmon Davis wrote: greets! I get with increasing frequency docx files which cause OO to crash. I end up having to open them via google-docs and then save as odt. I'm on Apache OO 4.0.0 using Debian Wheezy with a variant of KDE3 (Trinity Desktop). I always open by using the 'File' menu tab. I don't recall if I can attach a file to this list but not sure I want to broadcast the contents all over the list even though I have permission and it's not confidential material. I can put one of them on google-drive and give a password to anyone who's curious and eager to help. or is there some general advice? I first noticed this phenomenon sometime in Spring from one correspondent, now I have two where this phenomenon occurs. I know that at least one, and probably all, use Pages in the Mac and the one I know says she uses the 'export' function of Pages. F. -- Felmon Davis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Quick Office Pro
I support what Simon proposes to do for the following reasons: 1. We are talking about posts to users #oo.a.o from non-subscribers, so they have to be moderated *somehow.* 2. There has never been, in my recollection, any occasion where one of those posts that has not been met by a response that is exactly what Simon is proposing to provide and suggests that all moderators provide as an automatic courtesy to those requests for support. 3. This is most likely to be a consistent, civil response. 4. It will save an administrator or other having to forward replies from folks who don't know the OP is not subscribed and reply only to the list. 5. It will save the Op's request being immortalized on the list archive. Simon could have simply instituted this practice on his own and we'd not be the wiser. Instead, he raised the issue as a practice for all moderators, giving other moderators and list participants an opportunity to weigh in. I, for one, am willing to accept Simon's treatment of this specific case and thank him for it. Other moderators can say what they will or won't do. I don't think there is a slavish following of a blind principle of any value in this instance. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 13:51 To: users@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Quick Office Pro On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Dave Barton d...@tasit.net wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Dave Barton d...@tasit.net wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: MODERATORS: I have started rejecting incoming e-mails like this one with a message stating that QuickOffice is unrelated to Apache and AOO and they should contact their supplier. I suggest other moderators adopt the same approach. S. -1 We are MODERATORS, not the list police. Please explain why you believe questions about QuickOffice are in-scope for this list and thus should not be rejected by moderators? Thanks, S. I do not claim that questions about Quick Office Pro are in-scope for the list. My objection is based on the principle, not the Quick Office Pro issue itself. As per my reply to Jim, I maintain that, in accordance with ASF guidelines, it is not our responsibility to answer posts on behalf of the list (albeit by way of rejection notices), or make arbitrary decisions about what the list should or shouldn't see or have to deal with. I'd welcome other views as I think this outlook is pedantic. Rejecting irrelevant spam is not answering posts. As inconvenient (probably irritating) as it is for list subscribers to see this kind of post, we stand at the top of a very slippery slope if we, as individuals, start making this kind of unilateral arbitrary decision. Many times I see posts held for moderation where my gut reaction might be What the has this to do with AOO or Oh this is just another meaningless rant. Do I arbitrarily go with my gut reaction and reject it (with a sweet little note), or do I follow the ASF guidelines and allow the list subscribers deal with posts to THEIR list as THEY see fit? I'm not suggesting filtering or answering relevant forum traffic in any way, especially not the sort of posts you refer to. QuickOffice posts are effectively spam and I am suggesting the moderators treat them as they do the other spam arriving in the queue, except with a polite response to the confused originator instead of just ignoring them. I propose that, if the ASF/AOO PMC and more importantly the list subscribers, want us to act as (in my opinion) list police, we put this proposal forward and if accepted/approved we set up some kind of arrangement (eg. a wiki page) to coordinate, agree or compromise on these matters That's overkill for this specific case. -1 S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Quick Office Pro
Correcting (1-2) -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 14:42 To: users@openoffice.apache.org Subject: RE: Quick Office Pro I support what Simon proposes to do for the following reasons: 1. We are talking about posts to users @oo.a.o from non-subscribers, so they have to be moderated *somehow.* 2. There has never been, in my recollection, any occasion where one of those posts has not been met by a response that is exactly what Simon is proposing to provide. It is useful for moderators to provide a standard response as an automatic courtesy to those requests for support. 3. This is most likely to be a consistent, civil response. 4. It will save an administrator or other having to forward replies from folks who don't know the OP is not subscribed and reply only to the list. 5. It will save the Op's request being immortalized on the list archive. Simon could have simply instituted this practice on his own and we'd not be the wiser. Instead, he raised the issue as a practice for all moderators, giving other moderators and list participants an opportunity to weigh in. I, for one, am willing to accept Simon's treatment of this specific case and thank him for it. Other moderators can say what they will or won't do. I don't think there is a slavish following of a blind principle of any value in this instance. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 13:51 To: users@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Quick Office Pro On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Dave Barton d...@tasit.net wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Dave Barton d...@tasit.net wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: MODERATORS: I have started rejecting incoming e-mails like this one with a message stating that QuickOffice is unrelated to Apache and AOO and they should contact their supplier. I suggest other moderators adopt the same approach. S. -1 We are MODERATORS, not the list police. Please explain why you believe questions about QuickOffice are in-scope for this list and thus should not be rejected by moderators? Thanks, S. I do not claim that questions about Quick Office Pro are in-scope for the list. My objection is based on the principle, not the Quick Office Pro issue itself. As per my reply to Jim, I maintain that, in accordance with ASF guidelines, it is not our responsibility to answer posts on behalf of the list (albeit by way of rejection notices), or make arbitrary decisions about what the list should or shouldn't see or have to deal with. I'd welcome other views as I think this outlook is pedantic. Rejecting irrelevant spam is not answering posts. As inconvenient (probably irritating) as it is for list subscribers to see this kind of post, we stand at the top of a very slippery slope if we, as individuals, start making this kind of unilateral arbitrary decision. Many times I see posts held for moderation where my gut reaction might be What the has this to do with AOO or Oh this is just another meaningless rant. Do I arbitrarily go with my gut reaction and reject it (with a sweet little note), or do I follow the ASF guidelines and allow the list subscribers deal with posts to THEIR list as THEY see fit? I'm not suggesting filtering or answering relevant forum traffic in any way, especially not the sort of posts you refer to. QuickOffice posts are effectively spam and I am suggesting the moderators treat them as they do the other spam arriving in the queue, except with a polite response to the confused originator instead of just ignoring them. I propose that, if the ASF/AOO PMC and more importantly the list subscribers, want us to act as (in my opinion) list police, we put this proposal forward and if accepted/approved we set up some kind of arrangement (eg. a wiki page) to coordinate, agree or compromise on these matters That's overkill for this specific case. -1 S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
