Re: [tdf-discuss] Automatic Update / Update info
On 24/01/11 13:14, Jaime R. Garza wrote: > Obviously if I have a stable version installed, I don't expect to be > notified for RCs, but if I have an RC version installed I would expect to be > notified for any new versions. Something akin to Mozilla's release, beta and nightly update channels should prove useful. LibreOffice could certainly learn a few things from Mozilla's approach to automatic updates and/or add-on discovery and installation. -- "The only demand that property recognizes, is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade." -- Emma Goldman, Anarchism & Other Essays (1910) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 03/01/11 04:10, Larry Gusaas wrote: > Yes it is a statement of fact. A perfect example of the condescension > shown towards anyone who is not a programmer. I see from this statement that I'm not going to be able reason with you, but I'll give it a go anyway. ;) On 03/01/11 04:10, Larry Gusaas wrote: > So giving user support and reporting bugs is not contributing since it > is not providing code. On the contrary, providing support and reporting bugs is a worthy contribution and I thank you for your efforts. However such support doesn't lend *qualified authority* to your voice on matters of coding, design and project policy. If you want your voice to carry weight in those arenas you are, I'm afraid, going to have to prove yourself. Otherwise you'll have to put forward your opinions in a reasoned tone, providing evidence where appropriate and politely debating with those oppose your views. You'll also have to learn when your side has lost that debate! On the other hand, your experience in providing user support and reporting bugs (assuming it is extensive) could prove useful issues of website design (with respect to support forums and bug reporting) and documentation. That is an arena in which your voice may well hold *authority* and in which you could make a *qualified* contribution if you choose to. On 03/01/11 04:10, Larry Gusaas wrote: > Including the ability to write OOXML format is a political decision > driven by the Novell and Microsoft marketing agreement. User experience? > Ask that question of any user of older versions of Word after they > receive a .docx document and are unable to open it. Indeed, I have experienced this myself when trying to send documents. However a blanket ban on OOXML would, in the long run, be a disadvantage to *LibreOffice*. Whether you appreciate it or not the older document formats (.doc .xls .ppt) are going to fade away as Microsoft pushes its considerable weight behind newer versions of Microsoft Office and with them its own interpretation of OOXML. That means that at some point these new formats (.docx .xlsx .pptx) will one day be viewed as the standard (unless TDF pulls off a coup that is) and waiting until that day to support these formats would put *LibreOffice* on the back foot. In any case, nobody is suggesting that MSOOXML become the default format for *LibreOffice*, or that the older Microsoft formats (.doc .xls .ppt) be abandoned. I don't see a downside myself, other than of course wounding *your* principles. On 03/01/11 04:10, Larry Gusaas wrote: > I will stand by principle (not principal) over politics any and every day. Well good for you (and I apologise for the typo), but such decisions would more than likely lead to *failure*. The majority of users don't care about your *principles*; they do care about *document fidelity* and *interoperability*. Kind Regards, Lee Hyde. -- "Thousands of years ago, tribes of human beings suffered great privations in the struggle to survive. In this struggle it was important not only to be able to handle a club, but also to possess the ability to think reasonably, to take care of the knowledge and experience garnered by the tribe, and to develop the links that would provide cooperation with other tribes. Today the entire human race is faced with a similar test. In infinite space many civilizations are bound to exist, among them civilizations that are also wiser and more "successful" than ours. I support the cosmological hypothesis which states that the development of the universe is repeated in its basic features an infinite number of times. In accordance with this, other civilizations, including more "successful" ones, should exist an infinite number of times on the "preceding" and the "following" pages of the Book of the Universe. Yet this should not minimize our sacred endeavors in this world of ours, where, like faint glimmers of light in the dark, we have emerged for a moment from the nothingness of dark unconsciousness of material existence. We must make good the demands of reason and create a life worthy of ourselves and of the goals we only dimly perceive." -- Andrei Sakharov, Excerpt from his 1975 Nobel Lecture (1975) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
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 these, the best way is to become a contributor proper. To do so merely demonstrates our qualifications to speak *authoritatively* on such matters. Furthermore, what you're arguing for is the intentional crippling of *LibreOffice* on political grounds! I suspect that such a view, were it expressed by God himself, would be ignored by any rational developer! On 03/01/11 03:17, Larry Gusaas wrote: > Then why is this list called "Discuss"? Isn't this the place for > discussions? Or should we quit wasting our time giving our opinions on > the project? After all, if we do not write code we are not contributers > to the community and have no say in the community. You have wholly misconstrued the meaning of my last e-mail. Yes, there is a *core community* of contributors whose opinions, backed by the verasity of their qualifications (as people who contribute code, GUI designs, etc...), are given greater weight and are perhaps more likely to reach the ears of the steering committee members. However, that should not preclude the contributions of we layman. It simply means that we have to *debate* our point in a well reasoned manor. Doing so increases the probability that our ideas will *inspire* or *chime with* those of one or more core contributors, and thus work their way up the greasy pole to one of the committee members. Also, I suspect that many if not all of the committee members frequent these mailing list, so if you can argue your case well you may well influence the project albeit in unseen ways. However, you do need to recognise that your opinions and ideas aren't necessarily going to chime with those of the developers. In such cases you'll either have to *put up* (learn to code or create some mock-ups to better illustrate your points) or *shut up*, because the reality is, no developer is going to work on an idea if (s)he doesn't agree with it and/or if there's no chance the steering committee is going to include it. This is *not* condescension in any sense, it is a recognition of the reality that not every opinion and idea can be implemented. In the context of this thread, two arguments have been made. One that favours interoperability for the sake of pragmatism and user experience, and one that favours crippling *LibreOffice* for the sake of politics and principals. In my humble opinion, the steering committee made the correct decision; *The Document Foundation* should not be bogged down by politics, else it'll run itself into the ground. Kind Regards, Lee Hyde. On 03/01/11 03:17, Larry Gusaas wrote: > I guess I will quit wasting my time here and go back to just giving > support to OpenOffice.org users. -- "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" -- Dr. Samuel Johnson (April 7th, 1775) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 03/01/11 02:00, Larry Gusaas wrote: > And the condescending comment that led to my response sure wasn't very > positive. I have no patience with people who say you have to "contribute > to the code" in order to have a say in the project. Or that you should > "contribute code yourself" if you want a product improved, modified, > fixed etc. I have seen this attitude far too often in open source projects I feel compelled to come to the defence of Italo and Berhard. I haven't read anything from Italo that could be construed as condescension. Italo was simply highlighting the absurdity of *dictating* from the sidelines. (Note: there is a difference between *contribution* and *dictation*; your attitude, so far as I can see, is symptomatic of the latter) I have little doubt that were you to put forward constructive ideas, they would be taken on-board. However, in reality, even a community-driven project such as this will place more weight behind the opinions of its chief architects (developers, designers and other contributes) than it will those of unknown elements such as you and I. All of which means that whilst the final decision lays with the various steering committees, a well reasoned argument backed up by facts and figures could well sway the steering committees decisions. Unfortunately your arguments regarding OOXML aren't motivated by reason, but rather by politics and so I suspect they're unlikely to sway anyone belonging to one of the steering committees. As I recall, someone earlier defined the term *community* in the context of *The Document Foundation* to include all *contributors* and explicitly excluded those who 'contribute' to mailing list discussions from this broad group. This is absolutely correct in my humble opinion. But that shouldn't preclude contributions (in the form of different perspectives and ideas) from mailing list discussions. It's just that if we, as an unknown quantity, have to back up such ideas with reasoned debate. Such a mixture of meritocracy and consensus democracy is the only viable means of managing this kind of project. Anything else would risk allowing unqualified individuals to drive the project (into the ground) and also risk excluding intelligent ideas from the wider community (of end-users) simply because they lack proven qualifications. Kind Regards, Lee Hyde. -- "The division of mankind threatens it with destruction. Only universal cooperation under conditions of intellectual freedom and the lofty moral ideals of socialism and labor, accompanied by the elimination of dogmatism and pressure of the concealed interests of ruling classes, will preserve civilization." -- Andrei Sakharov, The New York Times (July 22nd, 1968) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
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 steering committees make their final decisions based upon a mixture of community opinion, technical and pragmatic considerations. An efficient community driven project has to give greater weight to the latter of these three (technical and pragmatic considerations) whilst also taking on board *valid* community discussion. It would seem, thus, that the engineering steering committee have decided that the arguments against implementing OOXML are outweighed by the technical and pragmatic benefits of full interoperability with the world leading office suite (which perhaps lamentably is Microsoft Office). The politics of this decision may be contentious to the community (or rather this mailing list) but basing decisions on a political platform such as this will only lead to LibO falling into obscurity because it doesn't *just work*. Regards, Lee Hyde. -- "The division of mankind threatens it with destruction. Only universal cooperation under conditions of intellectual freedom and the lofty moral ideals of socialism and labor, accompanied by the elimination of dogmatism and pressure of the concealed interests of ruling classes, will preserve civilization." -- Andrei Sakharov, The New York Times (July 22nd, 1968) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
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 not proper legal etiquette to request removal of the offending code *before* taking the issue to court? If that is the case, LibO could simply remove the offending code in an update and publicise this new-found lack of interoperability with Microsoft Office is a direct result Microsoft’s litigious behaviour. Such would be a public relations nightmare for Microsoft would it not, and against its own best interests. Also, are there any previous cases where a proprietary standard has been withdrawn or locked down via legal action such as this? Lee Hyde. -- "We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute, or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the attempt upon that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and that she will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other nations. Such is the logic of patriotism." -- Emma Goldman, What is Patriotism? (1908) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
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 strict OOXML gradually, with each successive release of Microsoft Office using an increasingly 'strict' form of transitional OOXML. Assuming that I am correct in this assumption, does it not make sense that Microsoft will make each successive version of their transitional OOXML backwards compatible with their last and that they will release updates or add-ons to ensure forward compatibility for older products (Office 2007 and 2010). Those are of course unfounded assumptions, but reasonable ones none the less. Thus if this is the case, we're not talking about maintaining support for 3+ different versions of OOXML but rather maintaining support for the latest version of Microsoft's transitional OOXML (and perhaps strict OOXML) which should (eventually) become strict OOXML. Now I assume nobody has an issue with strict OOXML (which is, as I understand it, an open standard) so why would you have an issue with implementing by graduations (in line with Microsoft) strict OOXML via a series of transitional specifications? Kind Regards, Lee Hyde. -- "In order to offer someone a financial reward without him working for it, the government must first ensure that somebody else works for a financial reward without getting it. There is no other way." -- Douglas Wilson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons
On 02/01/11 17:13, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: > Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know > functionality can be > extended? > > Could addons be clearly posted in the menus? I think LibO could learn a lot from Mozilla's add-ons interface. Their revamped add-ons interface (for Firefox 4.0) places add-ons at the heart of the interface and has the feeling of an app-store. Lib0 needs to implement something like this to improve add-on discovery and simplify installation. As for implementing docx writing as an add-on and the wider question of whether or not LibO should support docx at all. It was my understanding that one of the primary aims of *The Document Foundation* and *LibreOffice* projects, was to put the user first. The average end-user doesn't care about the politics behind document formats. They simply want an office suite that works and doesn't require endless tweaks to allow interoperability with their colleagues, many of whom (perhaps lamentably) will be using Microsoft Office. Dismissing Microsoft's proprietary OOXML format and/or farming it out to an add-on amounts to nothing more than petty politics; it will turn users off and hurt this project immeasurably. Also, if OOXML writing is to be farmed out to an add-on, would you have it installed as a default add-on or would you have the user seek it out. If the prior, why not implement it internally? If the latter, you'll need to improve your add-ons interface for discovery and ease of installation (see above). Kind Regards, Lee Hyde. -- "The only demand that property recognizes, is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade." -- Emma Goldman, Anarchism & Other Essays (1910) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Co-working with Moz, etc
On 01/01/11 19:42, Jaime R. Garza wrote: > But why only for Thunderbird? > > Why not make an open container (or just modularize the existing one with a > well defined interface) to will allow any application to use the resources > (e.g. dictionaries) and have full integration with all LO resources? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the main bone of contention with regards to integrating a third-party e-mail client the flow of data *from* the client, *to* the office suite. If that is the case, surely there is a *need* develop an add-on for each e-mail client. I can't imagine there being a need to share resources with an e-mail client (certainly Thunderbird) as they (as stand-alone products) strive to be feature complete. That being said don't both Thunderbird and LibO use hunspell? If so, would it not already be a simple matter to share dictionaries? For example a system-wide hunspell dictionary. For the record I'm not in favour of LibO wasting resources on developing their own PIM or e-mail client. There are plenty of alternatives out there, and LibO should work on integration with them (I assume such would represent a lot less work compared with a brand new or forked PIM). Regards, Lee Hyde. -- "We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute, or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the attempt upon that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and that she will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other nations. Such is the logic of patriotism." -- Emma Goldman, What is Patriotism? (1908) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Co-working with Moz, etc
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 Thunderbird to > connect to it, and people can make their own choice as to whether they > want all the other bells and whistles. Therefore, no increase in size > due to bundling but the advantage that those that WANT the extras can > have them without difficulty 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 better use of resources. Simply making contacts available to LibreOffice would do wonders for mail-merge luck functionality (for the life of me I can't think of any other functionalities one would require of an outlook clone). -- "The division of mankind threatens it with destruction. Only universal cooperation under conditions of intellectual freedom and the lofty moral ideals of socialism and labor, accompanied by the elimination of dogmatism and pressure of the concealed interests of ruling classes, will preserve civilization." -- Andrei Sakharov, The New York Times (July 22nd, 1968) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Dictionary Syncing
Also, as a slight aside, does anybody know whether or not Mozilla Thunderbird and/or Firefox are also using hunspell? and if so whether or not they are using the same dictionaries as OOo/LibO? I'd always assumed that collation and distribution of the various dictionaries was centrally managed by the hunspell people themselves, and thus one en-US dictionary (say OOo/LibOs) was identical to another en-US dictionary (say Thunderbirds). -- "I foresee a universal information system (UIS), which will give everyone access at any given moment to the contents of any book that has ever been published or any magazine or any fact. The UIS will have individual miniature-computer terminals, central control points for the flood of information, and communication channels incorporating thousands of artificial communications from satellites, cables, and laser lines. Even the partial realization of the UIS will profoundly affect every person, his leisure activities, and his intellectual and artistic development. But the true historic role of the UIS will be to break down the barriers to the exchange of information among countries and people." -- Andrei Sakharov, Saturday Review/World (August 24th, 1984) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Dictionary Syncing
On 01/01/11 18:46, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > My apologies for the mis understanding there Lee. I think the problem we > would run into is 2 different schools of thought on how the same goal should > be achieved. Possibly, but then that is the nature of collaboration is it not? In any case, both projects share something in common, and that is crowd-sourcing. Thus both would presumably benefit from merging those 'crowds' together. What I would suggest is pursuing my first idea as a starter (assuming the wiktionary people are amenable at all to it) >1) Define a HTML standard which would allow the scraping of wiktionary > articles for spellings, alternatives and localised spellings, > definitions, etymological information, synonyms and antonyms. It could be as simple as adding custom tags (i.e. , http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Just make the damn thing work! (was Re: Dictionary Syncing)
On 01/01/11 17:35, Charles Marcus wrote: > What I think we are or should be striving for is to simply be the best > Office/Productivity software available, whether free or commercial. > > We do and should NOT have to put Microsoft Office Down in order to raise > ourselves up. If we cannot stand on our own to feet based solely on our > own merits, then we deserve to fall flat on our faces. > I *think* that is precisely the point *Zaphod* was attempting to make. More precisely (s)he was attempting to highlight a perceived duplication in efforts that may prove a hindrance to that goal. -- "The only demand that property recognizes, is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade." -- Emma Goldman, Anarchism & Other Essays (1910) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: Just make the damn thing work! (was Re: Dictionary Syncing)
On 01/01/11 17:07, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: > Why does Thunderbird, which ships with > American English need an extension before it can use a British English > dictionary? Why > can Thunderbird not share a dictionary with LibO. What about Scribus? MSO > users are > used to a shared dictionary across apps. I *think* Mozilla Thunderbird uses hunspell now, so surely it should be possible to share dictionaries with OOo/LibO. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to launch a new project, under the auspices of The Document Foundation, concerned with language. It could co-ordinate collaboration efforts between organisations like dicollect, wiktionary and alike to produce standardised spelling and grammar dictionaries and thesauruses for use by other projects (that use hunspell). The reason why I suggest a separate project is that, outside of product integration efforts, the standardisation of language requires (I assume) very different skill-sets to those required for coding, and organisations like dicollect and wiktionary are probably best placed to take the lead in that arena. Also, I agree with everything Zaphod said. Kind Regards, Lee Hyde. -- "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" -- Dr. Samuel Johnson (April 7th, 1775) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Dictionary Syncing
On 01/01/11 10:26, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > The advantage we have of using dicollect is that sophie part of that > community already lee. We would have the backing of the lead dev as well as > their entire team of devs to help work with us in implementing dicollect. > Please understand that I wasn't suggesting you dump dicollect (and Sophie) in favour of wiktionary. But rather that you collaborate with both in an effort to: 1) Pool your collective resources, in particular wiktionary and dicollects collective submission 'crowds'. 2) Provide a more robust and feature rich dictionary resource. Allow me to illustrate. LibreOffice, dicollect and wiktionary could collaborate to achieve the following: 1) Define a HTML standard which would allow the scraping of wiktionary articles for spellings, alternatives and localised spellings, definitions, etymological information, synonyms and antonyms. 2) Use the above HTML standard to allow efficient conversion (through scraping) of wiktionary articles to hunspell formatted dictionaries and thesauruses. 3) Merge or cross-reference the wiktionary and dicollect submission processes. Such that either i) The two project merge and subsequently use the same submission processes, or ii) A submission to dicollect results in automatic scraping of the relevant wiktionary article, and if none exists automatically generates a stub (pending moderation). Whilst A submission to wiktionary (pending moderation?) automatically triggers a submission to dicollect. 4) Develop efficient in-application submission mechanisms for both dicollect (simple) and wiktionary (rich) from within LibreOffice applications. The later could be incorporated within a separate dictionary application as outlined below. 5) Develop an interface to access wiktionary's rich pool of dictionary information, perhaps a separate LibreOffice dictionary/thesaurus application. Such an application could reside on the cloud and simply use custom CSS to meld wiktionary articles into the application chrome. Of point *3*, I favour *ii* as the wikimedia interface of wiktionary may intimidate the casual user seeking only to submit a spelling or alternative spelling. I realise of course that such a collaboration, being between three organisations, would be far from easy. But it does seem that wiktionary and dicollect, at least, share a common enough goal that it would be advantageous to try. Especially given that wiktionary already has a substantial multi-lingual user-base (in particular English) where as dicollect appears to be limited to French alone (or am I incorrect in that assumption). Kind Regards, Lee Hyde. -- "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" -- Dr. Samuel Johnson (April 7th, 1775) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Dictionary Syncing
On 31/12/10 16:00, sophie wrote: > You can reach them on the FR list, they are part of our community since > a long time. But adding the code won't be enough, there is a lot of work > behind that needs several hands. So my advice should be first to look > for a community to handle the effort. > > Kind regards > Sophie Have you considered a link-up with Wiktionary. A collaboration with an established crowd-sourcing initiative such as Wiktionary could mitigate at least some of the issues of man-power you highlight. Furthermore such a collaboration could lead to more feature rich dictionary and thesaurus, as part of LibreOffice. A dictionary that corporates definitions, pronunciation guides and etymological information as well as alternative spellings (etc...) Just my tuppence! -- "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." -- Thomas Jefferson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Request: Installation Instructions
On 22/11/10 18:18, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Annd that super-duper usable Ubuntu > doesn't have a tool equivalent to dpkg -i *.deb? Don't believe so really > (or they failed their goal more than I ever thought) > FWI To the best of my knowledge Ubuntu used to use dpkg to handle .deb files but this is now handled by the software centre. It does seem that the software centre is not set up to handle a multi-package installation but it is a young application. I may file a bug on this, it would be preferable for the software centre to search the original directory for dependencies and/or allow the end user to manually locate any dependencies that are not resolvable. On 22/11/10 18:18, Rene Engelhard wrote: > (Besides that, it is already in a Debian repository) > Is this Debian repository a dedicated LibO repository or does it contain other packages? Does it include 64-bit builds of LibO? -- "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" -- Dr. Jonas Stalk, on being asked who owned the patent for his polio vaccine -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Request: Installation Instructions
On 22/11/10 17:58, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > Beisde that, you agree that .deb is what users should know. How on earth are > they > then NOT to know how to install them? (And install all of debs one program > consists > of?) > I'm but a lowly Ubuntu user Rene, and I usually favour the use of repositories which should nominally include all dependencies. But when no repository is forth coming, as is the case with LibO (x86-64) I am forced to slum it and use .deb files. The usual behavior when double-clicking a .deb file is for the software centre to launch and offer me the oppertunity to install (almost identical to setup.exe and installer in windows) but since LibO consists of multiple dependencies software centre throws a bit of a hissy fit regarding unresolvable dependencies; it seems to me that a meta package and/or a script that installs the whole suite would be preferable to directing the user to open a terminal, navigate to the directory containing the .deb files and type 'dpkg -i *.deb'. But then again, I am but a humble Ubuntu user! On 22/11/10 17:58, Rene Engelhard wrote: > If we follow your thinking, there would be NO dependencies at all allowed and > every > app needs to include every possible piece of software it needs - be it > (security-)buggsy, > grossly oudated, unstable or whatever) just to please users. > > [ Disclaimer: The packages which get out of the installer and are in that > .tar.gz DO suck. > I don't deny that. I wholeheartly agree with you that THEY are > user-unfriendly. dpkg is not. ] > I have no problem with dpkg at all, and I will likely use it to install LibO whenever I get around to it. But most end users are not as inquisitive as I when presented with what, to the uninitiated, looks like dozens of separate installers and will either try to install each package one by one (and be thwarted by errors) or give up. Now we can either accept that reality and provide a simpler means of installing LibO (a repository, a meta-package, an install script, etc...) or we can edit the ReadMe to reflect the dpkg method for installation (and hope the average end user will look to the ReadMe) or we can do both. I favour the latter myself. -- "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" -- Dr. Samuel Johnson (April 7th, 1775) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Request: Installation Instructions
On 22/11/10 17:50, Rene Engelhard wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:52:41PM +0000, Lee Hyde wrote: > Nonsense. dpkg -i *.deb is user friendly, despite what you want to claim. > That graphical tools might make it difficult is no argument. > It is obvious that the dpkg method described is a more involved proceedure than a meta-package or installation script. Like it or not Rene the icon metaphor is the predominant UI paradigm in modern operating systems. That may one day change, but I cannot see the command line supplanting it. On 22/11/10 17:50, Rene Engelhard wrote: > If those end users don't think, yes, you're right. > I was not aware of the aforementioned dpkg method myself, and trust me I'm no fool I'm simply not familiar with all of the ins and outs of the linux command line. Nor do I have the time and/or inclination to do so for such a trivial use-case as software installation. On 22/11/10 17:50, Rene Engelhard wrote: > No, my position taken to the logical conclusion would not be that (as I think > there's use cases for GUIs - I didn't say anything against them here but just > mentioned that dpkg is basics - we don't need GUIs but that we need a > "drivers license" > for computers. Mandatory for everyone who wants to use PCs. > > The same as if you would not be allowed to drive a car if you don't know where > the steering wheel or the gas pedal is, neither would you be allowed to use a > gear car > when you only know automatic. > > Learn basics, or live with people telling you that you need to look at basics > before > you do stuff. This is an absolutely horrendous view to hold! Such patronising views only serve to hold back the FOSS community. Strange as it may seem to you Rene, many are intimedated by the command line. They shouldn't be, but they are, and your above comments will do nothing to assuage such end-users. In fact there more likely to turn back to Windows or MacOSX than adapt to your way of thinking/doing. Some of us like our icon metaphors and prefer our double-click > install to your open terminal > navigate to directory > dpkg -i *.deb. Also, The reason that people are required to qualify for a driving license before driving a car is that behind the wheel of a car a bad driver can easily kill a fellow road-user/cyclist/pedestrian. Now unless the 1980s film 'War Games' was an accurate representation of computing the same cannot be said of a technophobic office worker, in fact if anything they be better off staying well clear of the command line. I'm afraid that your patronizing 'get orf my land you idiot' mentality will serve only to exclude the vast majority of end-users, as it has in the past, and without a significant user base LibreOffice will degenerate into little more than a hobby project and rightly so (if it chooses to alienate the majority of computer users instead of embrace them). -- "Cruel leaders are replaced only to have new leaders turn cruel." -- Ernesto 'Che' Guevara -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Request: Installation Instructions
On 22/11/10 15:07, Rene Engelhard wrote: > I do. > > Because dpkg -i *.deb is esssentialy setup.exe. Don't tell me anyone using > Windows must not know setup.exe to install software? 'dpkg -i *.deb' is most assuredly NOT the equivalent of setup.exe. However .deb files are equivalent, this is precisely the point the original poster is making. Windows users are presented with a single setup.exe while debian/ubuntu users are presented with a multitude of individual .deb files. This is not user friendly! On 22/11/10 15:07, Rene Engelhard wrote: > There is no goddamn need for it. (That Ubuntu people in 90% of cases have > no clue how they do basic system tasks doesn't make it more needed) This is a rather hostile attitude to show towards end users and an attitude, might I add, which has served to hinder wider uptake of linux based operating systems in the past. If your position were to be taken to its logical conclusion we should scrap LibreOffice, which afterall is pandering to the masses with its use of GUI and WYSIWYG, in favour of TeX. Kind Regards, Lee Hyde. -- "Crime is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, and moral, conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing the things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statutes can only increase, but never do away with, crime." -- Emma Goldman, Anarchism: What it Really Stands For (1910) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Clear separation between frontend and backend?
Greetings All, I'm just a humble end user, and frankly I have little-to-no knowledge of software development but I was wondering whether there is a clear separation between frontend and backend with LibreOffice. Such that it would make it easy to essentially 'slot-in' a replacement GUI. As I say, I'm not familiar with software development in general much less the specifics of OOo/LibO but it seems to the that one of the better ways to encourage innovation is to make it easy for people to 'hack' on individual modules and in particular the GUI (which is in dire need of modernisation and optimisation in my humble opinion). If 'hacking' a new GUI onto OOo/Lib (a'la IBM Lotus Symphony) at the moment is non-trivial it will hinder innovation in the form of specialist forks (which could be very useful for the mother project) and/or experimental UI (which are clearly intended to showcase innovative ideas to see if they could or should be merged into the mother project). I just thought I'd bring this up in light of all the discussion regarding UI reform. Of course I could be way off base here, and if I am please do set me straight; if I need some edumacating regarding the state of OOo/LibO do edumacatify me! Regards, Lee Hyde. P.S. The quote in my signature was chosen at random, rather appropriate though don't you think? -- "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" -- Dr. Jonas Stalk, on being asked who owned the patent for his polio vaccine -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
