Can you connect our DNS servers to it? Then I could manage that
libreoffice.it gets redirected to it.libreoffice.org automatically.
Italo Vignoli wrote on 2011-01-02 00.51:
I will redirect libreoffice.it to libreoffice.org before the end of
January.
--
Florian Effenberger
Hi
Em 01-01-2011 18:58, Sveinn í Felli escreveu:
Þann lau 1.jan 2011 19:57, skrifaði NoOp:
On 12/31/2010 02:18 AM, Sveinn í Felli wrote:
(snip)
I'm more interested in something like the mso2ooo:
http://leapon.net/en/mso2ooo-batch-convert-microsoft-office-documents-openoffice-documents
On 30/12/10 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 so is contrary to
Supporting OOXML Strict today would make LO not compatible with MS
Office, and users do want interoperability and not just standard compliance.
Anyone remember Netscape?
It supported the W3C standards, Internet Explorer did not. But, MS, through
Frontpage etc.,
flooded the market with
Þann sun 2.jan 2011 10:03, skrifaði Olivier Hallot:
Hi
Em 01-01-2011 18:58, Sveinn í Felli escreveu:
Þann lau 1.jan 2011 19:57, skrifaði NoOp:
On 12/31/2010 02:18 AM, Sveinn í Felli wrote:
(snip)
I'm more interested in something like the mso2ooo:
On 1 January 2011 18:43, Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com 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
Is anyone else getting the impression that this thread is polarising into US v
rest of world?
We've seen several people say that they have to accept what their customers
provide and can't go back to the customer and say can you provide this in
another format?. To me that's an attitude which
On 1/2/11 4:50 PM, James Wilde wrote:
LibO comes with support to read docx (which it converts to ODT), but not to
write it. When someone tries to write it, a notice comes up saying in effect
that docx is a broken format which even MS doesn't think much of, and that
LibO, in the interests of
IMO, to put the write part on an external extension is a good idea.
There are other extensions for import export (like
OpenOffice.org2GoogleDocs that gives export capabilities to
GoogleDocs, Zoho and WebDAV)
I still think that there are too many thing on save as dialogue that
should go on export
On 1/1/2011 6:50 PM, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
Barbara,
First, ODF IS the ISO standard - honestly made so without the dirty
tricks that MS used to stuff the committee and force it to approve
something that wasn't ready to be used by anyone.
I recognize that, of course. But like it or not (and I'm
On 1/1/2011 7:53 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 01/01/2011 11:29 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:
Several of the comments here suggest a middle road, allowing the save
but with a message clarifying the limitations of the format (and perhaps
recommending use of the XP formats if interoperating with an
I agree with your premises. Having been a CAD operator who, at times,
had to send drawing files to others, I felt it was MY responsibility to
find out what the other person could read, or at least provide him/her
with a way to contact me if there were problems opening the file. This
carried over
Craig,
Please remember that both LibO and OpenO can already *read* the
formats and the issue is whether or not it is practical or pragmatic
to put effort into developing something to *write* the OOXML form.
On 02/01/2011 00:50, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
Barbara,
First, ODF IS the ISO standard -
On 2 Jan 2011 at 9:59, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
I also agree that ANY write-to docx should be an add-on, and not part of
the vanilla release.
Hi Craig,
I have a concern about the Addons. In my 10+ years of using
OpenOffice/StarOffice, the
inclusion of addons was a great idea. However, the
On 01/02/2011 09:08 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote:
--- SNIP ---
Is that what you think it would be to implement the OOXML Strict
formats? I sure don't see it that way -- we would simply be supporting
an ISO standard, however it was arrived at. The fact that we could
possibly do it before MS
Please don't top-post in an inline thread...
On 2011-01-01 2:42 PM, Jaime R. Garza wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 20:36, Lee Hyde anub...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, an integration add-on for Thunderbird (and any other e-mail
clients or contact managers with an add-on architecture) would be a far
On 02/01/11 17:07, Mark Preston wrote:
Please remember that both LibO and OpenO can already *read* the
formats and the issue is whether or not it is practical or pragmatic
to put effort into developing something to *write* the OOXML form.
My understanding is that Microsoft intends to implement
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011/01/02 11:24 AM Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 1/2/11 6:20 PM, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
Nope, writing back as doc is good enough at this point.
Definitely not. LibreOffice writes OOXML and will write OOXML, and this
On 2011-01-01 9:54 PM, todd rme wrote:
Isn't this what freedesktop.org standards are for? A standard for
spell checking libraries (I mean the library of words, not the
software library) shared across all open-source programs would be
very useful. Such a thing has already been proposed:
Please don't top-post in an in-lined thread. Thanks.
On 2011-01-02 1:18 AM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
On 1/1/11 8:36 PM, Lee Hyde wrote:
On 01/01/11 19:20, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
So, what am I saying? You don't NEED to add something useless
like Outlook or Evolution to LO. You just have to allow
Dear Larry,
First of all I want to apologize for my lack of English skills. I'm not
native English speaking so if the words are a little clumpsy, please
bear with me :-)
I disagree with you of two reasons:
1) LibreOffice is free software. If any developer wants to improve the
code - he or she has
On 2011/01/02 11:55 AM Robert Parker wrote:
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Larry Gusaaslarry.gus...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011/01/02 11:24 AM Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 1/2/11 6:20 PM, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
Nope, writing back as doc is good enough at this point.
Definitely not.
Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
besides email people want a calendar as well as a to do list as well
functionality wise, which Thunderbird seems to lack.
On 1/1/11 8:36 PM, Lee Hyde wrote:
On 01/01/11 19:20, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
So, what am I saying? You don't NEED to add something useless like
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a community decision, not a developer decision.
The developers, that is the people doing the work, will decide what LO
does and does not do. I'm sure those good hard working folk will take
into account discussions
Hi Leif,
Dear Larry,
...
I disagree with you of two reasons:
1) LibreOffice is free software. If any developer wants to improve the
code - he or she has the freedom to do so. I think this is one very
important stand. We have seen other products in the marked licensed as
open source but that are
On 2011-01-02 12:13 PM, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote:
I have a concern about the Addons. In my 10+ years of using
OpenOffice/StarOffice, the
inclusion of addons was a great idea. However, the marketing of addons was
not so good -
hidden away in a place that you can find once, but not so
On 2011-01-02 12:20 PM, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
I don't think LO could implement the writing of OOXML in ANY format that
would be compatible to MS. And to try to do so would simply imply that
LO was broken (in MS's words, anyway).
What are you talking about? As has been pointed out numerous
Ian Lynch wrote:
On 1 January 2011 18:43, Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com 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?
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 11:35:24 AM +, Gordon Burgess-Parker
(gbpli...@gmail.com) 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?
Uh??? In that part of your message
On 2 January 2011 10:50, James Wilde wilde.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Is anyone else getting the impression that this thread is polarising into US
v rest of world?
We've seen several people say that they have to accept what their customers
provide and can't go back to the customer and say can
On 1/2/11 7:49 PM, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
Does it? And to what degree of compatibility? Also, this was code that
was brought in from GO-OO which, as you may be aware, was developed by
Novell UNDER CONTRACT TO MS. No, I'm not hollering FLOSS, here. I'm
trying to get you to understand that
On 1/2/2011 12:01 PM, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
On 01/02/2011 10:46 AM, Lee Hyde wrote:
SNIP
My understanding is that Microsoft intends to implement strict OOXML
gradually, with each successive release of Microsoft Office using an
increasingly 'strict' form of transitional OOXML. Assuming
On 02/01/11 18:49, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
I'm trying to get you to understand that there are copyright and patent
issues here that could embroil LO in legal battles that it really
doesn't need.
Just out of curiosity, were Microsoft to enforce their copyright over
their version of OOXML, is it
Hi Johannes, *,
Am Sonntag, 2. Januar 2011, 19:30:31 schrieb Johannes A. Bodwing:
Hi Leif,
Dear Larry,
...
I disagree with you of two reasons:
1) LibreOffice is free software. If any developer wants to improve the
code - he or she has the freedom to do so. I think this is one very
On 2011/01/02 12:49 PM Charles Marcus wrote:
No, the discussion is long over because the decision was made long ago.
Where? When? Who made it? By Go-OO and Novell?
Obviously, some people think it should, others think it shouldn't, and
there is nothing wrong with that. Thankfully, just
On 1/2/2011 12:47 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 1/2/11 7:15 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
No, that was not the point. Italo Vignoli wrote: LibreOffice writes
OOXML and will write OOXML, and this is
not under discussion. That is the point I objected to.
I might have been too harsh, but I reiterate
On 02/01/11 19:01, Larry Gusaas wrote:
No. What is included is a community decision, not just the developers.
My interpretation is that *The Document Foundation* and *LibreOffice*
projects are driven more by informal consensus rather than democracy per
se. That is to say that the various
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 19:58:41 PM +0100, Italo Vignoli
(italo.vign...@gmail.com) wrote:
OOXML has been cleared from copyright and patent issues by Microsoft
itself before entering into the standardization process, as this is
a pre-condition of ISO standards. In addition, all Microsoft
document
Hello everyone,
2011/1/2 M. Fioretti mfiore...@nexaima.net
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 19:58:41 PM +0100, Italo Vignoli
(italo.vign...@gmail.com) wrote:
OOXML has been cleared from copyright and patent issues by Microsoft
itself before entering into the standardization process, as this is
a
Larry Gusaas wrote (02-01-11 20:09)
On 2011/01/02 12:47 PM Italo Vignoli wrote:
If you want to have a say in software development you are welcome to
contribute to the code
So only people who write code have a say in the development of
LibreOffice? What about people who do the QA? Or the
On 1/2/11 8:15 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:
Italo, one of the things that would make me (and maybe others here) feel
better about OOXML support is if writing to the XP formats causes LibO
to make compromises that do not have to be made going to OOXML. That is,
if documents developed under an ODF
Hi Andreas,
Hi Johannes, *,
Am Sonntag, 2. Januar 2011, 19:30:31 schrieb Johannes A. Bodwing:
Hi Leif,
Dear Larry,
...
I disagree with you of two reasons:
1) LibreOffice is free software. If any developer wants to improve the
code - he or she has the freedom to do so. I think this is one
Hi Johannes, *,
Am Sonntag, 2. Januar 2011, 21:36:20 schrieb Johannes A. Bodwing:
Hi Andreas,
Hi Johannes, *,
(...)
But you yourself had to decide first, what you want to contribute to
which community (OOo or LO). We need people who are doing the daily
work. We need not another mega-
On 01/02/2011 10:49 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2011-01-01 1:43 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
Whats really held OOo and will hold LO back is the lack of an equivalent
program such as outlook.
Well, I disagree, but there is no way to prove one of us is right, so...
There are one of three
Hi Andreas,
... Hi Johannes, *,
Am Sonntag, 2. Januar 2011, 21:36:20 schrieb Johannes A. Bodwing:
Hi Andreas,
Hi Johannes, *,
(...)
But you yourself had to decide first, what you want to contribute to
which community (OOo or LO). We need people who are doing the daily
work. We need not
HI
Em 02-01-2011 15:48, Larry Gusaas escreveu:
On 2011/01/02 11:24 AM Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 1/2/11 6:20 PM, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
(snip)
LibreOffice should not write OOXML. That is under discussion in this
thread.
Who gave you the right to say it is not under discussion? Isn't this a
I've been reading through this discussion (as much as possible), and there
is one thing that that I don't understand.
Why do we have so many people complaining about LO writing in the .docx
format but nobody (that I've seen) is complaining about the .doc format?
Both are Microsoft formats, but
On 1/2/11 9:36 PM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote:
What's the basis for the developers to make decisions? Where can I find
that information?
Developers will base their decisions on several information, and also on
positive contribution by the community. Emails where people say that
LibreOffice
As many already said, OOXML r/w support is already there, if you don't like
it, then develop a way to disable it. Someone already developed it, and
that's why it is there already.
Why can anyone think that they can remove any functionality that is already
there?
It is a pain in th a... to do
On 1/2/11 11:07 PM, Jason Corfman wrote:
Why do we have so many people complaining about LO writing in the .docx
format but nobody (that I've seen) is complaining about the .doc format?
Both are Microsoft formats, but the docx format is a lot closer to being an
open standard. (Notice, I said it
On 1/2/2011 2:29 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 1/2/11 8:15 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:
Italo, one of the things that would make me (and maybe others here) feel
better about OOXML support is if writing to the XP formats causes LibO
to make compromises that do not have to be made going to OOXML.
On 02/01/2011 19:09, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/02 12:47 PM Italo Vignoli wrote:
If you want to have a say in software development you are welcome to
contribute to the code
So only people who write code have a say in the development of
LibreOffice? What about people who do the QA? Or
On 2 January 2011 17:19, Barbara Duprey b...@onr.com wrote:
On 1/2/2011 2:29 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 1/2/11 8:15 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:
[snip]
It would be good to know which works better for interoperability when sent
to an MS-only shop -- ODF or the current OOXML. In other words, is
What do other devs think about including something as mentioned below
somehow in regards to a mail client alternative to MS outlook?
On 1/2/11 7:49 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2011-01-01 1:43 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
Whats really held OOo and will hold LO back is the lack of an
Zimbra is exactly what would push LO to be a serious threat to Microsoft
Office. Isn't that what the goal is of this project to slowly eat away
at Microsoft's majority market share?
On 1/2/11 10:00 PM, NoOp wrote:
On 01/02/2011 10:49 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2011-01-01 1:43 PM, Jonathan
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jason Corfman jkco...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been reading through this discussion (as much as possible), and there
is one thing that that I don't understand.
Why do we have so many people complaining about LO writing in the .docx
format but nobody (that I've
As I said before, Cloud based Office Suites are becoming more mature, I
think LO should start developing an HTML5 browser based office and ideally
integrate it with Zimbra!
It would be great to install LO locally and be able to share it through the
web to others from your computer without any
Jaime I believe on previous posts on this thread or another one that TDF
is working on getting Google to support the ODF format. why create
something that has already been done by Google?
On 1/3/11 12:54 AM, Jaime R. Garza wrote:
As I said before, Cloud based Office Suites are becoming more
On 1/2/2011 4:56 PM, Bruno Girin wrote:
On 2 January 2011 17:19, Barbara Dupreyb...@onr.com wrote:
On 1/2/2011 2:29 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 1/2/11 8:15 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:
[snip]
It would be good to know which works better for interoperability when sent
to an MS-only shop -- ODF
Hello Jonathan,
Google only converts to ODF, they use their own proprietary file format
natively, they don't use ODF natively and they don't have as much
functionality as LO. You can use Google Docs with a Google account as you
can use MS Docs with a Facebook account.
Problems:
- None of them
On 1/3/11 1:12 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote:
I was under the impression that the vanilla versions of Office since
2007 SP2 could read and write ODF formats, with no need to install any
plugins (but with their own special twist on ODF). From what you say
here, that is not true; I haven't installed
Hi Barbara, all,
Barbara Duprey schrieb:
On 1/2/2011 2:29 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 1/2/11 8:15 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:
Italo, one of the things that would make me (and maybe others here) feel
better about OOXML support is if writing to the XP formats causes LibO
to make compromises that
On 1/3/11 12:48 AM, Carl Symons wrote:
Italo's statement of a philosophy of FOR is exactly right IMHO.
Thanks, this philosophy is the guiding principle of our marketing
strategy. In Italy (I apologize for mentioning often what we have done
here) we have got to the point of issuing a press
Hi Larry, all,
Larry Gusaas schrieb:
On 2011/01/02 12:47 PM Italo Vignoli wrote:
If you want to have a say in software development you are welcome to
contribute to the code
As I know Italo (not being a programmer himself) quite well, I know that
his reply could have been easier for you to
On 2011/01/02 7:35 PM Bernhard Dippold wrote:
You can take your elitist developer attitude and stuff it.
Pleas stop such comments, they don't lead to any positive result.
And the condescending comment that led to my response sure wasn't very positive. I have no
patience with people who
On Sun Jan 02 2011 18:31:07 GMT-0800 (PST) todd rme wrote:
Koffice (I guess Calligra now) already has a set of ms office test
documents. See here:
http://158.36.191.251:8080/viewLog.html?buildId=1745buildTypeId=bt7tab=testsInfo
Rather than getting your own set of test documents, I think it
On Sun Jan 02 2011 18:43:41 GMT-0800 (PST) Andy Brown wrote:
On Sun Jan 02 2011 18:31:07 GMT-0800 (PST) todd rme wrote:
Koffice (I guess Calligra now) already has a set of ms office test
documents. See here:
http://158.36.191.251:8080/viewLog.html?buildId=1745buildTypeId=bt7tab=testsInfo
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011/01/02 8:51 PM Lee Hyde wrote:
I haven't
read anything from Italo that could be construed as condescension.
Italo wrote:
If you want to have a say in software development you are welcome to
contribute
On 03/01/11 03:17, Larry Gusaas wrote:
That is pure condescension. He is saying that because I do not write
code my opinion is worthless and nobody will listen to me.
That is hardly condescension, merely a statement of fact. The reality
is, that if you or I want a greater say on matters such as
On 2011/01/02 9:42 PM Lee Hyde wrote:
On 03/01/11 03:17, Larry Gusaas wrote:
That is pure condescension. He is saying that because I do not write
code my opinion is worthless and nobody will listen to me.
That is hardly condescension, merely a statement of fact.
Yes it is a statement of
Are you talking about in addition to having an installable version of LO?
On 1/3/11 1:26 AM, Jaime R. Garza wrote:
Hello Jonathan,
Google only converts to ODF, they use their own proprietary file format
natively, they don't use ODF natively and they don't have as much
functionality as LO. You
Le 2011-01-02 21:53, Andy Brown a écrit :
On Sun Jan 02 2011 18:43:41 GMT-0800 (PST) Andy Brown wrote:
On Sun Jan 02 2011 18:31:07 GMT-0800 (PST) todd rme wrote:
Koffice (I guess Calligra now) already has a set of ms office test
documents. See here:
72 matches
Mail list logo
