Hi,
Christoph Noack wrote on 2011-07-20 07.56:
Thanks! For me, its either family birthday party or SC call ... let's
see how the part evolves ;-)))
the family birthday party is more important, definitely. :-) Don't worry
about the call - I hope the others will be able to make it!
Florian
Hi :)
Please can you use Reply to all when replying to this or find some other way
of including
pe...@kubek.sk
as he is not subscribed to this list (yet)
Regards from
Tom :)
- Forwarded Message
From: Peter Kubek pe...@kubek.sk
To: us...@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Wed, 20 July,
Hi :)
I think other people already have permissions set so they can unlock (or
whatever) the room? That was about the only trouble last time i think but it
was a total blocker at the time. This time people have permissions?
Regards from
Tom :)
From:
Hi,
Tom Davies wrote on 2011-07-20 18:59:
I think other people already have permissions set so they can unlock (or
whatever) the room? That was about the only trouble last time i think but it
was a total blocker at the time. This time people have permissions?
good point, thanks for raising!
Hi Simon,
Simon Phipps wrote on 2011-07-11 18.30:
+1, although it's worth reading EFF's reasons for stopping accepting them:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-and-bitcoin
thanks for sharing!
What indeed concerns me a bit is the question of the legal implications.
Is anyone aware of
Hi Everyone,
in Italian Libre lists we have discussed the hypothesis to add a quick
couple of links (how to post a bug and post a bug) nearby the usual
download links in the Libre download page.
This is because normal users (the most part!) have to follow these
sequence, at the moment:
o)
Hi Everyone,
in Italian Libre lists we have also discussed the hypothesis to add a
quick release plan link
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan
also in the LibreOffice Download page
http://www.libreoffice.org/download/
into the second level horizontal menu (lighter green).
This is
On 2011-07-19 8:10 AM, Jesús Corrius wrote:
2. The versions of the C++ libraries we are distributing are the last
ones available from Microsoft as a full package. According to the
security bulletin:
That isn't the point...
NO software should EVER force the installation of older libraries when
You've got my vote.
I've found a particularly annoying problem in LibO-3.3.3 3.3.4 where after
pasting a file name into the file save dialog, LO becomes almost
unresponsive after opening. No problem if copy the file name from the main
text then paste.
I've filed bugs in OOo, Kde, and a couple
Carlo,
Thanks for your suggestions! Do you think you could post them on the website
mailing list?
Best,
Charles.
Le 20 juil. 2011 20:59, Richard richard.h...@gmail.com a écrit :
You've got my vote.
I've found a particularly annoying problem in LibO-3.3.3 3.3.4 where
after
pasting a file
On the users mailing list, a significant proportion of a random view
of questions seems to be with relation to using LO is some way with m$
document formats.
What should be the priority of LO development: bug-free and excellent
behaviour in native odt format, or minimising interoperability
issues
e-letter wrote:
It is difficult to understand why a business
would waste time trying to use LO; if a customer uses m$, the supplier
might as well do so also and consider the m$ price as a cost of
conducting business.
I've seen plenty of small, medium and large businesses that chose to use
a
On 07/20/2011 11:02 PM, e-letter wrote:
To conclude, it does not seem a good long-term idea to be constantly
seeking high (if not perfect) compatibility with the constantly moving
targets that are m$ formats. The priority for LO should be to ignore
self-inflicted problems such as I saved a
Andrea Pescetti wrote:
e-letter wrote:
It is difficult to understand why a business
would waste time trying to use LO; if a customer uses m$, the supplier
might as well do so also and consider the m$ price as a cost of
conducting business.
I've seen plenty of small, medium and large
Robert Derman wrote:
Andrea Pescetti wrote:
e-letter wrote:
It is difficult to understand why a business
would waste time trying to use LO; if a customer uses m$, the supplier
might as well do so also and consider the m$ price as a cost of
conducting business.
I've seen plenty of
On 07/20/2011 08:15 PM, Andy Brown wrote:
Robert Derman wrote:
Andrea Pescetti wrote:
e-letter wrote:
It is difficult to understand why a business
would waste time trying to use LO; if a customer uses m$, the supplier
might as well do so also and consider the m$ price as a cost of
On 07/20/2011 05:02 PM, e-letter wrote:
On the users mailing list, a significant proportion of a random view
of questions seems to be with relation to using LO is some way with m$
document formats.
What should be the priority of LO development: bug-free and excellent
behaviour in native odt
Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
On 07/20/2011 08:15 PM, Andy Brown wrote:
Robert Derman wrote:
Andrea Pescetti wrote:
e-letter wrote:
It is difficult to understand why a business
would waste time trying to use LO; if a customer uses m$, the supplier
might as well do so also and consider
18 matches
Mail list logo
