Re: [steering-discuss] sponsoring for the Hackfest
On 7/4/11 2:14 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote: We have the offer from a service provider that they sponsor one round of food and beverages for all attendees, roughly about 250 €. In return, they would like to be mentioned somewhere. I have volunteered for cooking (actually, hacking) pasta at noon, but if someone else covers it on Saturday I am more than happy, and I will concentrate on hacking pasta on Sunday (if no one objects, of course). -- Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com mobile +39.348.5653829 VoIP +39.02.320621813 skype italovignoli -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
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-processing, spreadsheets, drawing, etc. and this should be continued. Those seeking smaller individual components should consider other programs such as abiword or gnumeric. Since the ODF is now established, as long as such programs are odf-compliant, users can choose more confidently where to use the whole office paradigm or the unix way (i.e. select specific programs to do only specific tasks). -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF
Plino, You seem a little confused, which is quite remarkable given the blog you linked to is quite clear. First of all, font-embedding is not supported because embedded fonts are one of the very many things ODF and indeed XML in general is intended to get rid of. It was always a bad idea, is a bad idea now and will be a bad idea in the future. The style of an XML document is intended to be provided by CSS and to be quite separate from the data content. What the blog said, but you missed, is that the spreadsheet part of the ODF did not include formulae and syntax content for cells. Which it actually does do, thanks very much. The blog in fact stresses two things - the ODF does not always work with Gnumeric (which is a known problem with Gnumeric and not restricted to ODF anyway) and it is different to Excel - which is a *good* thing frankly, since there are some real issues with the way Excel worked. In fact, that blog (you need to track it back and check the sources etc.) was actually missing the point that the formulae and syntax included in ODF did not include the same *binary* notation as used in Excel. Again, this is just as well since the old Excel binary was actually faulty and is one of the things (hopefully) fixed by the XLSX format in newer versions. While I am sure your comments are appreciated, they do seem somewhat confused. Perhaps you could clarify them a little? On 05/07/2011 11:25, plino wrote: 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). Maybe in the future it will support the features that presentations and vector drawings require. Only then it will make sense to use ODF as the file format for all OOo/LO applications. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RE-tdf-discuss-Re-Font-Embedding-in-ODF-was-RE-ANN-ODF-1-2-Candidate-OASIS-Standard-Enters-60-Day-Pu-tp3110117p3140307.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[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 vector graphics). I'm not really concerned about vector graphics because I doubt Draw has any significant user base (there are several dedicated open source vector graphic programs) but Impress is the only Open Source alternative to PowerPoint under Windows. It would be a shame if it is limited by the file specifications. I can understand the limitations of cross-platform font support but removing it altogether means that even people using the same OS will not be able to use font embedding. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RE-tdf-discuss-Re-Font-Embedding-in-ODF-was-RE-ANN-ODF-1-2-Candidate-OASIS-Standard-Enters-60-Day-Pu-tp3110117p3140702.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi Christian, All, At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote: Hi Allen, *, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote: [...] I don't know what vision IBM has for the project. I don't know what code contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they will make some, but I don't know what they will be. I don't know what contributions members of the LibreOffice community will or will not want to make. Given that they had 35 people working on it according to their press releases, that was ended up in OOo was basically nonexistent. As you've been with the OOo project for a couple of years you can probably understand that people that were part of OOo project before switching over to TDF/LibreOffice don't have much trust in IBM's lip service. The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/ needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!)) http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support I am surprised nobody has responded to this (since there is/was at least one IBM employee on this list...). The accessibility contribution that Rob Weir referred to was probably not the code dump for OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 but a contribution to OpenOffice.org 3.1 (if I remember correctly). See my comment at http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-20026. (Note: OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 was released in September 2005; IAccessible2 was released in December 2006 http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/20773.wss.) At this moment I know no one at Oracle who can or wants to say how much of the IAccessible2 implementation will end up in OpenOffice.org 3.4. Best regards, Christophe Strobbe I do know this however. There is currently an open invitation for us to get involved. If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the project. Not really, as you first have to surrender to the Apache's licence terms. And that alone is reason for me not to join the effort. We can ensure that direction of the project provides the maximum benefit for LibreOffice, which includes any contributions from IBM. Basically, we can get IBM working for us. I really doubt it. What would change for them now, with the permissive licence, that did prevent them in the last 5 years from contributing? They (according to their press release) had massive manpower working on it (35 people), but what ended up in OOo is two code dumps to ancient codeline, one of which being lotuswordprofilter, the other the abovementioned accessibility dump. (...) ciao Christian -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442 B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ Twitter: @RabelaisA11y --- Open source for accessibility: results from the AEGIS project www.aegis-project.eu --- Please don't invite me to Facebook, Quechup or other social networks. You may have agreed to their privacy policy, but I haven't. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi Christoph, *, On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe christophe.stro...@esat.kuleuven.be wrote: At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote: The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/ needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!)) http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support I am surprised nobody has responded to this (since there is/was at least one IBM employee on this list...). The accessibility contribution that Rob Weir referred to was probably not the code dump for OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 but a contribution to OpenOffice.org 3.1 Well, as seen on this list (by Malte's post), apparently there has been work on a *private* cws that nobody in the community (and yes, people who are working on private cws are not part of the community in this regard - they are of course for that part of their work that happens in public) All promises IBM is making/has made so far is only lip service for me. I only believe it after I see the actual contributions from them. (And as written I don't consider code dumps that need a man-year of work to get integrated as contribution) (if I remember correctly). See my comment at http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-20026. (Note: OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 was released in September 2005; IAccessible2 was released in December 2006 http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/20773.wss.) Yes, and that makes it even more pointless to dump the code against the OOo 1.1.5 codeline. Not against the version that is in current development, but to a codeline that is basically done for since two years. (again the commitment statment is from 2007) It is all about the preception of IBM's past contributions to OOo - and those are, despite the massive amount of developers assigned to the project (35 developers, in the announcement from 2007, the same figure stated in the incubation list) is nonexistant basically. Know we know that there has been a behind-the-doors code contribution of the IA2 stuff (or who knows, maybe Sun/Oracle engineers did all the work themselves porting the dump to current codeline, doesn't matter really). But what else did IBM do in the last 4/5 years? At this moment I know no one at Oracle who can or wants to say how much of the IAccessible2 implementation will end up in OpenOffice.org 3.4. Well, then you missed Malte Timmermann's post. (about the status of iaccessible2), As Rob is strongly against releasing OOo 3.4 with the blessing of the apache-OOo project (take that discussion to the old OOo-lists basically (paraphrased)), I doubt there will be a OOo 3.4.0 at all. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4df3a2e8.8010...@gmx.com%3E http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4df3a100.2060...@gmx.com%3E (he posted the very same mail twice) Actually the status with IA2 in OOo is quite good - but not in public CWSes yet - I am quite sure it will find it's way to Apache OOo. And until there is a release of Apache-OOo that is comparable in features/functionality to the current OOo codebase: This will take quite a bit of time. Oracle's staff didn't even manage to report the size of current bugzilla's database as has been requested by the Apache-infrastructure team yet. An open question since June 17. Three weeks and still no answer to the simple question: We are looking for more detail about the size of the OOo bugzilla database. How large is the backup, and what database is being used? This is the information that Infrastructure needs to know if they have a preference about our choice. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201106.mbox/%3c097e5bc1-6218-422b-8989-8c082eb0f...@comcast.net%3E So you can imagine that when it comes on deciding whether to release OOo 3.4.0 on the old infrastructure will take ages as well. It's also somewhat ridiculous how long it takes for them to mirror the hg-repos for merging. But I didn't see any real progress wrt. licencing issues either. So while they then might have a repo will all open/interesting cws merged in, still the problems of what files are exactly covered by the grant remains. Only progress in this regard is to use apache-batik for svg-import (OK), and go back to myspell for spellchecking (and thus crippling spellchecking, nullifying the progress hunspell brought for langauges with complex compound and flexation rules) - but that are at least suggestions to move on. There are many people on the incubator-ooo-dev list, but only few who have a real clue. And even fewer who are actively driving
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi Christian, All, At 16:14 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote: Hi Christoph, *, On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe christophe.stro...@esat.kuleuven.be wrote: At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote: The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/ needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!)) http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support I am surprised nobody has responded to this (since there is/was at least one IBM employee on this list...). The accessibility contribution that Rob Weir referred to was probably not the code dump for OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 but a contribution to OpenOffice.org 3.1 Well, as seen on this list (by Malte's post), apparently there has been work on a *private* cws that nobody in the community (and yes, people who are working on private cws are not part of the community in this regard - they are of course for that part of their work that happens in public) All promises IBM is making/has made so far is only lip service for me. I only believe it after I see the actual contributions from them. (And as written I don't consider code dumps that need a man-year of work to get integrated as contribution) If Oracle asks IBM to implement IAccessible2 on version 3.1 and releases OpenOffice.org 3.2 before IBM has submitted the IAccessible2 implementation, how is IBM to blame? Between 3.1 and 3.2 the code had changed and had been moved to another type of repository. That is the reason for the complex and time-consuming integration work that Oracle needed to do for IAccessible2. The integration and testing were still in progress when Oracle decided to stop investing in OpenOffice.org. As far as I know, that is why the IAccessible2 code did not end up in public repositories. (if I remember correctly). See my comment at http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-20026. (Note: OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 was released in September 2005; IAccessible2 was released in December 2006 http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/20773.wss.) Yes, and that makes it even more pointless to dump the code against the OOo 1.1.5 codeline. The contribution to the 1.1.5 codeline is irrelevant because completely outdated. I added that note merely as backgound information. Not against the version that is in current development, but to a codeline that is basically done for since two years. (again the commitment statment is from 2007) It is all about the preception of IBM's past contributions to OOo - and those are, despite the massive amount of developers assigned to the project (35 developers, in the announcement from 2007, the same figure stated in the incubation list) is nonexistant basically. Know we know that there has been a behind-the-doors code contribution of the IA2 stuff (or who knows, maybe Sun/Oracle engineers did all the work themselves porting the dump to current codeline, doesn't matter really). If Sun/Oracle engineers state that IBM donated the IAccessible2 implementation, it is unlikely that this piece of work was done by Sun/Oracle. But what else did IBM do in the last 4/5 years? At this moment I know no one at Oracle who can or wants to say how much of the IAccessible2 implementation will end up in OpenOffice.org 3.4. Well, then you missed Malte Timmermann's post. Yes, I missed that. (Curiously, he sent that message from a private address, not an Oracle address.) (about the status of iaccessible2), As Rob is strongly against releasing OOo 3.4 with the blessing of the apache-OOo project (take that discussion to the old OOo-lists basically (paraphrased)), I doubt there will be a OOo 3.4.0 at all. If that is true, that will be a loss for the accessibility of OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice on Windows. Best regards, Christophe http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4df3a2e8.8010...@gmx.com%3E http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4df3a100.2060...@gmx.com%3E (he posted the very same mail twice) Actually the status with IA2 in OOo is quite good - but not in public CWSes yet - I am quite sure it will find it's way to Apache OOo. And until there is a release of Apache-OOo that is comparable in features/functionality to the current OOo codebase: This will take quite a bit of time. Oracle's staff didn't even manage to report the size of current bugzilla's database as has been requested by the Apache-infrastructure team yet. An open question since June 17. Three weeks and still no answer to the simple question: We are looking for more detail about the size of
[tdf-discuss] LibreOffice deployment on Windows
Hi, I just deployed LibreOffice on about 2000 computers to replace OpenOffice.org. I found a problem for some crappy netbook Windows XP with small hardrive... Even if I clean them up, I don't have enough space to install libreoffice (openoffice.org is already uninstalled). I would like to know how to create an new mst to add my existing settings and to remove base from the installation... maybe with a lighter installation will pass... I don't need to know how to create an mst, I just want to know what to edit to remove base from the installation. I can't find where are the settings to do what I want to do in the property table. Thanks, Alexandre. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi Christophe, *, On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Christophe Strobbe christophe.stro...@esat.kuleuven.be wrote: At 16:14 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe christophe.stro...@esat.kuleuven.be wrote: At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote: [...] Well, as seen on this list (by Malte's post), apparently there has been work on a *private* cws that nobody in the community (and yes, people who are working on private cws are not part of the community in this regard - they are of course for that part of their work that happens in public) All promises IBM is making/has made so far is only lip service for me. I only believe it after I see the actual contributions from them. (And as written I don't consider code dumps that need a man-year of work to get integrated as contribution) If Oracle asks IBM to implement IAccessible2 on version 3.1 and releases OpenOffice.org 3.2 before IBM has submitted the IAccessible2 implementation, how is IBM to blame? Reality check please. 1st of all: What is stuff you know, and what is stuff you guess? Do you know that the 3.1 based ia2 dump/work is because Oracle asked for it? If Oracle asked for it, do you know when Oracle asked for it? Do you think Oracle really is so stupid to explicitly ask for code based on an old branch? If Oracle did ask for it, and IBM did contribute - why wasn't the cws integrated? 2nd) Obviously you cannot integrate something that is not ready. Why was it not ready? Because nobody worked on it. Who could do the work on it? Of course best the developers who know the code, i.e IBM developers. And you cannot delay a release for years. (the cws Caolan mentioned in the blog-comment was created in 2010-05 - while the branch-off for 3.2 already happened 2009-09 more than half a year earlier) Between 3.1 and 3.2 the code had changed and had been moved to another type of repository. Again reality check. Oracle surely did ask for the code to be contributed against the current, actively being-worked-on codeline. A codeline that is not in feature-freeze. What IBM then delivers is a completely different question. Also whether Oracle/Sun asks for it in 2008, but IBM delivers in 2010, it's obvious that code makes progress. That is the reason for the complex and time-consuming integration work that Oracle needed to do for IAccessible2. NO! Why does it have to be Oracle to do the integration work. Again one of the points about collaboration. Just uploading a million-line-codepatch somewhere is not contributing. It is complying with whatever deals that were signed or to comply with license matters at best. The integration and testing were still in progress when Oracle decided to stop investing in OpenOffice.org. As far as I know, that is why the IAccessible2 code did not end up in public repositories. Again this is stupid argumentation. We're talking about a OpenSource software here after all. And we're not talking about weeks, but years. We're talking about big announcements to dedicate more than 30 developers to work on the officesuite and collaborate with upstream, but no results after 4/5 years. And this further proves my point about questioning IBM's commitment. Lip service, but no actual work that ends up upstream. They did not contribute to OOo, but they did drop some code at Oracle. Again this is not my idea of contributing to the project. The contribution to the 1.1.5 codeline is irrelevant because completely outdated. I added that note merely as backgound information. No, it is not irrelevant, because it is the very same situation. Big announcement we will conribute, we have lots of manpower but no results. That's the whole point. IBM doesn't have a record of being a good contributor, the opposite is the case. And to change this, we don't need another lip-service announcement, but actual code contribution. That you can only point at Ia2, but not at other work is further prove of this topic. And don't get me wrong, I'm sure that you'll see IBM contributing to apache-OOo, at least until you can actually build something from Apache-OOo sources you can ship to the users, but after that I'm pretty sure that IBM will focus again on its very own Symphony and only do the necessary stuff to keep their own stuff compatible. And don't get me wrong²: I'd be happy if IBM proves me wrong. If Sun/Oracle engineers state that IBM donated the IAccessible2 implementation, it is unlikely that this piece of work was done by Sun/Oracle. Again it is not about the Ia2 work itself, but the porting from the old 1.1.5 codedrop to current codeline. You apparently don't know any hard facts about this, neither do I. So while you claim that Oracle did ask IBM for the code ported to the 3.1 codeline, and that IBM then followed this request, I question this scenario. Or even if IBM did contribute it against the 3.1 codeline: Why is it still not integrated? This can only mean that a huge amount of
[tdf-discuss] Re: New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
On 07/04/2011 04:07 PM, Robert Derman wrote: NoOp wrote: On 06/25/2011 03:37 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com 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. 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. I disagree. Once a document no longer needs editing (and this is a frequent need in daily life - think purchase receipt, invoice, insurance schedule and so on) it needs to be provided in an electronic format that cannot be easily altered. PDF plays this role, ODF doesn't. No, but HTML does. More to the point, chm files also are build for read-only. Surely they are more microsoft based, but even Read (activity from the OLPC/Sugar), had to add a webkit renderer for another popular format -- epub. Which of course is done for read-only porpouses. So a bigger discussion than demanding PDF reader, might be to upgrade the very old HTML renderer in LibreOffice to something like webkit. Actually, NoOp didn't write any of that. Please mind your attributions. Might updating LO's HTML capability also improve its ability to create and edit HTML? Back when I was maintaining a web page, I seem to remember using OOo Writer for this, so if I remember correctly OOo, and therefore LO can create and edit HTML, but it would certainly improve its usefulness to small businesses if it could do it even better. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
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-processing, spreadsheets, drawing, etc. and this should be continued. Perhaps this was a bad idea way back when Staroffice was first designed. Those seeking smaller individual components should consider other programs such as abiword or gnumeric. Since the ODF is now established, as long as such programs are odf-compliant, users can choose more confidently where to use the whole office paradigm or the unix way (i.e. select specific programs to do only specific tasks). -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
On 5 July 2011 21:58, Robert Derman robert.der...@pressenter.com 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-processing, spreadsheets, drawing, etc. and this should be continued. Perhaps this was a bad idea way back when Staroffice was first designed. StarO was designed at a time when MSO had set the model for megalithic design. You can see why a proprietary software company would do this. It focuses lock-in to the core productivity that could then extend further and further. Cooperation between applications through interoperability based on open standards was part of the original unix design concept but got lost until the rise of the web. So at the time it was probably not seen to be such a bad idea but in hindsight it clearly looks that way. Saying that because a design decision was made 15 or more years ago it should not be changed is a recipe for disaster. Things change and without change you will at best get stagnation ad at worst rapid death. Those seeking smaller individual components should consider other programs such as abiword or gnumeric. More likely Google Docs or similar web based productivity tools where groups can share and edit data in real time. Since the ODF is now established, as long as such programs are odf-compliant, users can choose more confidently where to use the whole office paradigm or the unix way (i.e. select specific programs to do only specific tasks). ODF is not yet that well established. I wish it was. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice deployment on Windows
Why not trying to set some folders to compressed (right clik - properties - advanced options), specially folders like OpenOffice/basis/help or OpenOffice/basis/share, works transparent for the users. And sometimes is quicker than read from disk, uncompress.Miguelngel.El 05/07/11 17:48, Alexandre Chevrier escribi:Hi, I just deployed LibreOffice on about 2000 computers to replace OpenOffice.org. I found a problem for some crappy netbook Windows XP with small hardrive... Even if I clean them up, I don't have enough space to install libreoffice (openoffice.org is already uninstalled). I would like to know how to create an new mst to add my existing settings and to remove base from the installation... maybe with a lighter installation will pass... I don't need to know how to create an mst, I just want to know what to edit to remove base from the installation. I can't find where are the settings to do what I want to do in the property table. Thanks, Alexandre. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[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 from those netbooks before installing libreoffice. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-deployment-on-Windows-tp3141291p3143118.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice deployment on Windows
Hi Alexandre, Le 05/07/2011 17:48, Alexandre Chevrier a écrit : Hi, I just deployed LibreOffice on about 2000 computers to replace OpenOffice.org. I found a problem for some crappy netbook Windows XP with small hardrive... Even if I clean them up, I don't have enough space to install libreoffice (openoffice.org is already uninstalled). Maybe these netbook lack space to storeat the same time temporary files from uncompressing the LibO installer and installation files. Have you tried to connect the netbook to an usb drive before the installation and indicate this external DD as destination to decompress the installer ? I did that for my vm XP which has only a 4 Go virtual hardrive and it worked well. Best regards JBF -- Seuls des formats ouverts peuvent assurer la pérennité de vos documents. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice deployment on Windows
That might make the difference. The Windows install files expand to 200 MB on disk, then the LO install itself has a 450MB footprint in C:\Program Files\. Getting the 200 MB onto an external drive (USB stick) should be no problem. In case you forgot, Also remember to empty the recycle bin of all accounts on the machine and you might want to check the Temp folders wherever they are on the Netbook. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Jean-Baptiste Faure [mailto:jbf.fa...@orange.fr] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 21:19 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice deployment on Windows Hi Alexandre, Le 05/07/2011 17:48, Alexandre Chevrier a écrit : Hi, I just deployed LibreOffice on about 2000 computers to replace OpenOffice.org. I found a problem for some crappy netbook Windows XP with small hardrive... Even if I clean them up, I don't have enough space to install libreoffice (openoffice.org is already uninstalled). Maybe these netbook lack space to storeat the same time temporary files from uncompressing the LibO installer and installation files. Have you tried to connect the netbook to an usb drive before the installation and indicate this external DD as destination to decompress the installer ? I did that for my vm XP which has only a 4 Go virtual hardrive and it worked well. Best regards JBF -- Seuls des formats ouverts peuvent assurer la pérennité de vos documents. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
