[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Nicolas Mailhot wrote: If you call carpet-bombing effective, it is. Retail paper flyers are the true spam ancestors. It's cost effective is what I mean. But, you don't have to believe me. From the April 2005 issue of Scientific American -- http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3A4B-BF70-1238-BF7083414B7FFE9Fsc=I100322 The proliferation of fraudulent e-mail results directly from favorable market forces: spam is exceedingly cheap to distribute. It is not altogether free, though. We estimate that a message costs about one hundredth of a cent to send. At these cut-rate prices a spammer can earn only $11 per sale and still make a profit, even if the response rate is as low as one in 100,000. Hence, although very few e-mail users ever buy anything advertised in spam, all of us suffer because of those who do. Look. Spam is *not* a technological problem and treating it as such only creates an escalating cold war. Spam is an *economic* problem, and the cause can be summed up in two words: free email. It's the tragedy of the commons updated to the 21st century. Sure, and windows has no security problems and the answer to virii is Bill Gates offering bounties for virus writers. What I mean is that spam is not *particularly* a technological problem. See above. Also, from the same article: One of the most infuriating aspects of spam is that it changes continually to adapt to new attempts to stop it. Each time software engineers attack spam in some way, spammers find a way around their methods. This spam arms race has led to a continuous coevolution of the two, which has resulted in ever increasing sophistication on both sides. This is analogous to the War on Drugs -- a medical and public health crisis that has been co-opted by politicians and turned into a law-enforcement issue. The result has been the same in both cases. Failure. The solution is a fee-bate system. Each email message should require a micro-payment of, say, $0.25 -- basically postage. This fails in the same trap as SPF : as long as you got zombie networks the spammers won't care. They're not the ones charged. (but this could be solved by getting rid of windows). In the first place, that isn't going to happen anytime soon (getting rid of windows). Zombie networks are created by viruses. Viruses are *not* transmitted via html. They walk right in the front door via mail attachments (among other vectors, but that's the primary one). It's like carrying in botulism with the groceries. If *more* people used clear-text formats to transmit complexly formatted documents and sent *fewer* attachments, there would be fewer viruses out there. My original thesis was that flat xml (odf) could be more safely used for that purpose. Also, if people *were* charged as a result of letting their boxes become spam zombies (it *can* be avoided, even on Windows boxes) then maybe more folks would take security more seriously. Plus the cost of printing paper flyers has not stopped businesses from stuffing my mailbox with them so far. But it's more tightly targeted -- either by geography or demography. You don't get flyers for grocery stores in far-flung cities, do you? When we recently moved, we got ads and flyers for products and services relevant to those who have recently moved. Same thing happened when we had a baby eighteen months ago. The solution is generalised digital signatures with mandatory passwords so one can not sent a message from a computer without typing a password at the start of its session. How *precisely* would you enforce how software is going to operate on *my* computer? Especially if it's open-source? Charging a postage fee of some sort, whether my fee-bate system or something else, has the side effect of mandating exactly the authentication mechanisms you desire while simultaneously making spam much less profitable. -- Rod - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
How about the anti spam Haiku? http://www.oblomovka.com/writing/habeas:_the_antispam_haiku.php3 /$ 2005/11/20, Randomthots [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Nicolas Mailhot wrote: If you call carpet-bombing effective, it is. Retail paper flyers are the true spam ancestors. It's cost effective is what I mean. But, you don't have to believe me. From the April 2005 issue of Scientific American -- http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3A4B-BF70-1238-BF7083414B7FFE9Fsc=I100322 The proliferation of fraudulent e-mail results directly from favorable market forces: spam is exceedingly cheap to distribute. It is not altogether free, though. We estimate that a message costs about one hundredth of a cent to send. At these cut-rate prices a spammer can earn only $11 per sale and still make a profit, even if the response rate is as low as one in 100,000. Hence, although very few e-mail users ever buy anything advertised in spam, all of us suffer because of those who do. Look. Spam is *not* a technological problem and treating it as such only creates an escalating cold war. Spam is an *economic* problem, and the cause can be summed up in two words: free email. It's the tragedy of the commons updated to the 21st century. Sure, and windows has no security problems and the answer to virii is Bill Gates offering bounties for virus writers. What I mean is that spam is not *particularly* a technological problem. See above. Also, from the same article: One of the most infuriating aspects of spam is that it changes continually to adapt to new attempts to stop it. Each time software engineers attack spam in some way, spammers find a way around their methods. This spam arms race has led to a continuous coevolution of the two, which has resulted in ever increasing sophistication on both sides. This is analogous to the War on Drugs -- a medical and public health crisis that has been co-opted by politicians and turned into a law-enforcement issue. The result has been the same in both cases. Failure. The solution is a fee-bate system. Each email message should require a micro-payment of, say, $0.25 -- basically postage. This fails in the same trap as SPF : as long as you got zombie networks the spammers won't care. They're not the ones charged. (but this could be solved by getting rid of windows). In the first place, that isn't going to happen anytime soon (getting rid of windows). Zombie networks are created by viruses. Viruses are *not* transmitted via html. They walk right in the front door via mail attachments (among other vectors, but that's the primary one). It's like carrying in botulism with the groceries. If *more* people used clear-text formats to transmit complexly formatted documents and sent *fewer* attachments, there would be fewer viruses out there. My original thesis was that flat xml (odf) could be more safely used for that purpose. Also, if people *were* charged as a result of letting their boxes become spam zombies (it *can* be avoided, even on Windows boxes) then maybe more folks would take security more seriously. Plus the cost of printing paper flyers has not stopped businesses from stuffing my mailbox with them so far. But it's more tightly targeted -- either by geography or demography. You don't get flyers for grocery stores in far-flung cities, do you? When we recently moved, we got ads and flyers for products and services relevant to those who have recently moved. Same thing happened when we had a baby eighteen months ago. The solution is generalised digital signatures with mandatory passwords so one can not sent a message from a computer without typing a password at the start of its session. How *precisely* would you enforce how software is going to operate on *my* computer? Especially if it's open-source? Charging a postage fee of some sort, whether my fee-bate system or something else, has the side effect of mandating exactly the authentication mechanisms you desire while simultaneously making spam much less profitable. -- Rod - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On 11/20/05, Randomthots [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charging a postage fee of some sort, whether my fee-bate system or something else, has the side effect of mandating exactly the authentication mechanisms you desire while simultaneously making spam much less profitable. Rod, I agree with you more often than I do with most people on this list, but I'd have to say I don't on this one. I don't like this idea, if for no other reason, I don't want to pay for email. I'm already paying $50 a month for high-speed Internet, there's no way I'm spending 25 cents an email. Spammers are, by definition, not prone to play nice with the system. Case in point, I don't like spam, I put up a filter for key words like viagra, enhancement, porn, etc. So what do the spammers do, they space out the words, or misspell them - pron, \/iagr@ EN HAN CE MENT. Spammers would get around the system, and the only people actually paying the Spam-tax would be the law abiding citizens of the net. This is an altogether bad idea. I don't know of a way to stop SPAM, but charging everyone for email is definately not it. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Le lundi 21 novembre 2005 à 00:04 +0100, Henrik Sundberg a écrit : How about the anti spam Haiku? http://www.oblomovka.com/writing/habeas:_the_antispam_haiku.php3 Like SPF it is very popular with spammers. Micropayements rely on spammers accepting to pay and not subverting someone else's account. The Haikus rely on spammers being willing to respect someone else's copyright Their only failure is to postulate spammers are law-abiding (slightly confused) businessmen, while they are uber-capitalist scum which care about little expect making some quick money (another recent example of the right to make a profit at all costs is being demonstrated by Sony these days) And yes I'm a crypto communist and I keep my mouth-knife on hand. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Chad Smith wrote: On 11/20/05, Randomthots [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charging a postage fee of some sort, whether my fee-bate system or something else, has the side effect of mandating exactly the authentication mechanisms you desire while simultaneously making spam much less profitable. snip I don't like this idea, if for no other reason, I don't want to pay for email. I'm already paying $50 a month for high-speed Internet, there's no way I'm spending 25 cents an email. Heh, heh. And the answer to this threat is simple: my ISP wants to charge me $.25/email? Fine, but then they have to take *off* charges for spam. Now, given my, um, 75? 150? spams/day, I'd be sending them the spams to prove that they were spam, and unsolicited nor wanted I can*not* see them dealing with that. g mark -- This GOP has the moral certitude of Errol Flynn at a convention of underage bargirls in Bangkok. - seen on truthout.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Chad Smith wrote: Rod, I agree with you more often than I do with most people on this list, but I'd have to say I don't on this one. I don't like this idea, if for no other reason, I don't want to pay for email. I'm already paying $50 a month for high-speed Internet, there's no way I'm spending 25 cents an email. Did you read the article? It's very interesting. In the first place, I just pulled the 25 cents figure out of my, ummm... anterior orifice. The current cost of sending spam is somewhere around $0.0001. The whole point is just to make that more expensive. Would you be willing to spend $0.01 per email? My idea behind the fee-bate was two-fold: make spam a lot more expensive to send out and reimburse recipients and ISPs for the trouble of handling it. Let's say you spent $0.25 to send a message, but received $0.24 for every email in your inbox. For most legitimate personal and business email the incoming will pretty closely balance out with the outgoing. Spammers are, by definition, not prone to play nice with the system. Case in point, I don't like spam, I put up a filter for key words like viagra, enhancement, porn, etc. So what do the spammers do, they space out the words, or misspell them - pron, \/iagr@ EN HAN CE MENT. Spammers would get around the system, and the only people actually paying the Spam-tax would be the law abiding citizens of the net. This is an altogether bad idea. They wouldn't be able to get around it. The recipient ISP would simply reject the email if the check didn't clear the bank. I don't know of a way to stop SPAM, but charging everyone for email is definately not it. The authors of the article I quoted have other suggestions, undoubtedly better than mine. In any case, bitching about html-mail sure isn't going to solve it. -- Rod - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Randomthots wrote: Would you be willing to spend $0.01 per email? My idea behind the fee-bate was two-fold: make spam a lot more expensive to send out and reimburse recipients and ISPs for the A simpler way to achieve the same result without actually spending money (in any way you'd recognize as such) is Hashcash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash The idea is beautifully simple. Require the sender to solve a simple math problem, that takes about 1 second of CPU time. For a regular emailer this is a very minor inconvenience, but for a spammer it is magnitudes more expensive. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ No trees were harmed in the creation of this email. \/_/ However, a significant number of electrons were / were severely inconvenienced. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: RE:[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
The only problem I see that makes this a bad move are the Thousands of legitimate clubs and e-mail groups. This would hurt tham as much or more than the spammaers. With little or no real gain. We would lose a wondeful aspect of the Net by the thousands ( like this present list ), to get rid of a nuisance. Bad move all around Mel - Original Message - From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: discuss@openoffice.org Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 6:17 PM Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite Randomthots wrote: Would you be willing to spend $0.01 per email? My idea behind the fee-bate was two-fold: make spam a lot more expensive to send out and reimburse recipients and ISPs for the A simpler way to achieve the same result without actually spending money (in any way you'd recognize as such) is Hashcash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash The idea is beautifully simple. Require the sender to solve a simple math problem, that takes about 1 second of CPU time. For a regular emailer this is a very minor inconvenience, but for a spammer it is magnitudes more expensive. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ No trees were harmed in the creation of this email. \/_/ However, a significant number of electrons were / were severely inconvenienced. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: RE:[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Mel Haun Sr wrote: The only problem I see that makes this a bad move are the Thousands of legitimate clubs and e-mail groups. This would hurt tham as much or more than the spammaers. With little or no real gain. We would lose a wondeful aspect of the Net by the thousands ( like this present list ), to get rid of a nuisance. Bad move all around I disagree. Legitimate mailing lists could find other ways to not get filtered out. For example, users could just set their filters to not require hashes from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Using Hashcash doesn't mean that you'd stop using other anti-spam tools like whitelists, blacklists, SpamAssassin, etc. Hashcash would be a great move. It'd be a powerful new tool for stopping spam. And when properly combined with the other tools we have today, it would have minimal drawbacks. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ No trees were harmed in the creation of this email. \/_/ However, a significant number of electrons were / were severely inconvenienced. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
HUGE SNIP This discussion thread has digressed to the point where it no longer has anything to do with the original subject! Let's either end it or rename it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Daniel Carrera wrote: Randomthots wrote: Would you be willing to spend $0.01 per email? My idea behind the fee-bate was two-fold: make spam a lot more expensive to send out and reimburse recipients and ISPs for the A simpler way to achieve the same result without actually spending money (in any way you'd recognize as such) is Hashcash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash The idea is beautifully simple. Require the sender to solve a simple math problem, that takes about 1 second of CPU time. For a regular emailer this is a very minor inconvenience, but for a spammer it is magnitudes more expensive. Cheers, Daniel. That idea was in the article! I like that, too, but it would need to be a standardized IETF thing so that email clients could automatically do it. -- Rod - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: Viruses in e-mail are a problem specific to Windows. In fact, I don't know why they aren't simply called Windows viruses, as that is the only operating system left for which viruses are seen in the wild on a regular basis. Perhaps because people have figured out that it goes without saying that it is a MS problem. Or, MS having killed off most of the computing industry and thus most of the advertising, has become such an essential advertising account that editors fear to annoy them. A virus is only harmless data, unless your system and mail client is designed to run it on sight. Same goes for other applications. If OOo could run MS macros, then it would be a problem for OOo too. Depending on how the macros are implemented in OOo it may become a problem anyway. -Lars Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Software patents endanger the legal certainty of software. Keep them out of the EU by writing your MEP, keep the market open. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:51:25 -0600 Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 22:31 -0500, mark wrote: Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail (aka virus-spreader email), and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE to open a goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We won't even *begin* to talk about idiots who send out .pdf email) Viruses in e-mail are a problem specific to Windows. In fact, I don't know why they aren't simply called Windows viruses, as that is the only operating system left for which viruses are seen in the wild on a regular basis. Viruses and span could be slowed down or done away with if everyone learn what Digital Signing is all about such as gnu-pg or pgp is and sign all there email. If banks and other Company's started Digital Signing there email's we could tell who emails are coming from and could filter and delete them. Email and Digital Signing into as part of an Office Suite would make a more complete office suite which is good for all. But you're right, usually HTML mail is just plain unnecessary.
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 22:31 -0500, mark wrote: Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail (aka virus-spreader email), and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE to open a goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We won't even *begin* to talk about idiots who send out .pdf email) Viruses in e-mail are a problem specific to Windows. In fact, I don't know why they aren't simply called Windows viruses, as that is the only operating system left for which viruses are seen in the wild on a regular basis. But you're right, usually HTML mail is just plain unnecessary. -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 22:31 -0500, mark wrote: Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail (aka virus-spreader email), and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE to open a goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We won't even *begin* to talk about idiots who send out .pdf email) Viruses in e-mail are a problem specific to Windows. In fact, I don't know why they aren't simply called Windows viruses, as that is the only operating system left for which viruses are seen in the wild on a regular basis. But you're right, usually HTML mail is just plain unnecessary. I thought this thread was played out (and OT) so I was going to just ignore it, but there is one thing to consider: Q: Why is spam usually in html format? A: Because spam is advertising, a sales pitch. It has a hideously low response rate, even for the small fraction that isn't filtered. The people who design these advertisements know that they have maybe a second or less to grab your attention, so they need to use the *most* *effective* means of communication available. The fact is that html-mail isn't going to disappear because you don't like it, and even if it *was* somehow banished, that wouldn't make spam go away. If anything, they would just have to crank out more of it to make up for the lower hit ratio. If you want to rid the world of spam, then I would suggest you get behind proposals that would change the economics of the situation. In any case, this is all totally irrelevant to the question (which *is* on topic at least) of using Writer to edit emails or the question of including an email/calendar/pim client in a future incarnation of OOo. The spammers are doing just fine without it AFAICT, and I strongly suspect they have their own specialized tools for what they do. This isn't about what's necessary. Apart from food, clothing, and shelter, there is very little in our modern world that is absolutely necessary. This is about satisfying desires, and a whole lot of people (not you, of course) see richly formatted email as a Good Thing(tm). -- Rod - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Robin Laing wrote: Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 22:31 -0500, mark wrote: Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail (aka virus-spreader email), and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE to open a goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We won't even *begin* to talk about idiots who send out .pdf email) Viruses in e-mail are a problem specific to Windows. In fact, I don't No, they're not. It's only that 90% or higher of all viruses are targeted towards Windows, for 2 reasons: first, that Windows is what 86% or so of all computers are running, and second, because M$ products have *SO* many bugs (aka virus hooks) and are installed by default insecurely. snip But you're right, usually HTML mail is just plain unnecessary. Actually, if you have a mail browser that isn't capable or configure to view html, you will see the message repeated. Once in plain text and once in html. *sigh* That's as bad as the insulting email get an HTML-capable email viewer on a spam. Unless you're running pine or mutt, etc, from a command line, I don't know of a single email tool that *doesn't* support HTML email. Rather, we set the option to DENY HTML email. Further, most of the damn spam does *not* show the same. In plain text, for example, you see a bunch of garbage - random words or paragraphs, etc, while in HTML you see the actual ad. mark -- The sixties grant amnesty to no one. - Tullio Proni - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Le jeudi 17 novembre 2005 à 11:51 -0600, Randomthots a écrit : Q: Why is spam usually in html format? A1. Because advertisers like flashy colours. With flashy effects you don't have to bother about meaningful messages and correct grammar. A2. Because if spammers understood tech or ethics they wouldn't be spamming in the first place. A3. Because one can use 1×1 pixel images embedded in the html to detect which message is actually read, and thus validate address lists A4. Because in HTML you can cloak links and display adresses different from the ones you're actually linking to A5. Because the HTML format is so convoluted you have many ways to hide your spam content from spam filters, which can not integrate a full HTML engine to detect what the user will actually see displayed. So it's a filtering pass-through A6. because spammers don't care about standards or conventions, and abuse them routinely -- Nicolas Mailhot
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Le jeudi 17 novembre 2005 à 14:11 -0500, Chad Smith a écrit : That's why websites aren't just plain text. Because pictures, links, formated text, alignment... All these things aid communication. Remind me to make you discover Google someday. It's a little-known site crippled by lack of communication aids. Should take a lesson from altavista. Or you could spend some of your time reading professional typography guides (even going inside a real library !). 99,99% of HTML capabilities are filed under amateurish schoolboy effects which hinder communication there. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
In one of GK Chesterton's books - I think it was his biography - he recounts a politician addressing a crowd that had got noisy and boisterous and jeered him: Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen! I have not yet finished casting my pearls! [before swine, of course. The crowd burst out laughing.] Could you cool off, please! Take it off-list, please, if you must argue. Thanks Wesley Parish On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:23, Randomthots wrote: Daniel Kasak wrote: We are talking about the possibility. The problem is that you don't like the answer that you're getting. I haven't liked your answer, not so much because of the substance, but because of your condescending attitude. No. Look at the post I responded to. The main part of that post: I also work for an organization that is unwilling to move away from Microsoft Office because they feel that they need the calendaring and meeting arrangement facilities of Outlook, on Windows. Many of them frequently work offline, so web-based solutions are not applicable. I'm pinning my hopes on Evolution for Windows, but the project seems to be moving very slowly (understandably, as it is a complex project with many libraries to port). I think that people that argue that there is no reason to develop a mail client as part of OpenOffice because there are other mail client applications available are misguided for two reasons: So where do you get: ... otherwise they won't switch, and not only that, they don't know anyone else who will switch either. from that? My take on it is that a lot of organizations could and would be persuaded to switch but they have certain organizational needs that can't be simply wished away. Whatever. I'm just pointing out why it's not going to happen. I wasn't aware that you were a Sun executive in charge of this whole project. *or* *else* will get you no-where fast. Point to any post on this forum like that. Selective blindness. Read over the thread again. I have. You're implying a tone to the posts in this thread that just doesn't exist. If I'm wrong, please provide quotes. Why can't people get over themselves and use an existing application. Without an email/pim component many will do just that. It's called MSO. Is that what you really want? Um. I think you're just re-using the arguement that you were claiming hasn't been used. Maybe forget about reading the thread. Read your own post. A. I get it now. You have a problem with people pointing out the reality of things as opposed to the way you only wished they were. You want people [to] get over themselves and use an existing application. I thought the idea was to convince/persuade/entice people to use a different application -- OOo vs. MSO. Well, the *reality* is that the lack of a suitable drop-in replacement for Outlook *is* a significant stumbling block. As much as I love the folks at the Mozilla foundation, T-bird+Sunbird isn't there yet. And I compared a completely up-to-date version of Evolution on the other side of this dual-boot box with a five-year old copy of Outlook. Closer, but there's a lot of functionality missing there as well. This isn't just theorizing; I am friends with a woman who runs a business designing and maintaining small e-commerce websites from her home. Most of her client interaction is via the Internet. She uses Outlook practically like an operating system. In one place she can organize everything about a client -- e-mails, documents, outstanding tasks, etc. She doesn't even have to open a browser to view their sites because she can do that in the same message pane she uses to look at their emails. The only other programs she uses regularly are Photoshop and a WYSIWYG web page editor. Don't like Evolution? Fine. Test it. Submit bug reports. Hassle the developers to hurry up with their Windows port. Do you really think that you're going to get a better product in less time by insisting that OOo include every function under the sun? Reductio ad absurdum. I have yet to hear a call for a Tetris component, music composition, or audio editing, for instance. Last I checked those *are functions and they *are* under the sun. Oh wow. The garbage some people post when they've had their buttons pushed :) And I note your response was the height of elocution. The fact is that nobody is insisting that OOo include every function under the sun. We're talking about one specific thing here -- an answer to Outlook. By characterizing that as every function under the sun, you're avoiding the real debate by arguing against something that hasn't ever been proposed, at least not in this thread, and not by me. Sourceforge.net lists 105,746 active projects. A good case could be made that open-source development is the most unfocused, undisciplined, and wasteful phenomenon in the history of software. Starting yet another project is practically a revered tradition,
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
I think it is high time to close this thread. There is significantly more childish taunting than real content at this point. SJK - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:46, Lars D. Noodén wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Jonathon Blake wrote: Just what functionality does MSO + Outlook offer, that can not be replicated by using OOo + FireFox + ThunderBird + SunBird + the appropriate templates? Having downloaded the 260+ MB source code OO.org 2.0 package at a cost to self in time, and having come across Tom Adelstein's email client, http://sourceforge.net/projects/tradeclient/ I'm going to try to find the time to put the two together, somehow. http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/47511/index.html Microsoft embedded itself in the enterprise with something other than Internet Explorer and Office. The loss leader in their product line comes with Microsoft Office and requires a back office component to work. Until someone replaces Outlook, the opportunity to expunge Microsoft from the enterprise will remain illusive. 'Once you have control of the lines of communication in an organization, you own it. If you empower an executive vice president to come between the CEO and the rank and file worker and mid-management, the CEO becomes ineffective. The same with Information Technology. Whoever owns the communication lines controls the organization. So, with all the projections in the media, I wanted to know which strategy Microsoft would use to beat UNIX and Novell. I decided to take DEC's offer to put me in direct contact with some of their marketing executives. I met with two key members of sales management who convinced me that Exchange Server would make the difference in the NOS war. They asserted that by capturing the lines of communication in the enterprise, they could control the enterprise. [...] +1 Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Software patents kill innovation and harm all Net-based business. Keep them out of the EU by writing your MEP, keep the market open. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish - Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Wesley Parish wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:46, Lars D. Noodén wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Jonathon Blake wrote: Just what functionality does MSO + Outlook offer, that can not be replicated by using OOo + FireFox + ThunderBird + SunBird + the appropriate templates? Having downloaded the 260+ MB source code OO.org 2.0 package at a cost to self in time, and having come across Tom Adelstein's email client, http://sourceforge.net/projects/tradeclient/ I'm going to try to find the time to put the two together, somehow. I hope you noticed that client in *ancient*, last updated in March 2001 and the interface toolkit is the old GTK1, which will not have desktop integration nor internationalization support. It look like Binary lost interest in this software, discontinued and then opensourced it. -- nicu my OpenOffice.org pages: http://ooo.nicubunu.ro Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
I, too, tried to look at tradeclient again, but don't run any of the supported platforms anymore. It may be time to dust it off and bring it up to date, many people have realized the mistake in getting caught in MS Outlook / Exchange / AD and are looking for a way back out. -Lars Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Software patents kill innovation and harm all Net-based business. Keep them out of the EU by writing your MEP, keep the market open. On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Nicu Buculei wrote: [...] I hope you noticed that client in *ancient*, last updated in March 2001 and the interface toolkit is the old GTK1, which will not have desktop integration nor internationalization support. It look like Binary lost interest in this software, discontinued and then opensourced it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Jonathon Blake wrote: Rod wrote: Without an email/pim component many will do just that. It's called MSO. Is that what you really want? Just what functionality does MSO + Outlook offer, that can not be replicated by using OOo + FireFox + ThunderBird + SunBird + the appropriate templates? I did my best to answer that in a message entitled Outlook Integration with MSO posted 11/13/05. In a nutshell, everything can be linked to everything else... Contacts, Calendar entries, Tasks, Meetings, Emails, files, etc... It's like the difference between a fully relational database and collection of unrelated dBase files. -- Rod - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Randomthots wrote: mark wrote: * There's an aspect to all this that I believe a lot of people who hate html-mail, such as yourself, are missing. I believe that the attachment to e-mail paradigm actually serves to fortify the MS file format lock-in. Consider that html is actually a fairly poor file format for complex layout; it's essentially all based on the abuse of tables. So when someone wants to transmit a complex document via e-mail the only viable choice is to attach a file -- generally a binary file. Even an ODF file is binary as it sits on your hard drive (try opening a zip file in a text editor sometime). So if you're forced to attach a binary file to an e-mail, which type of file are you going to use? Probably the type that is most likely to be usable on the other end. Now this generally means either an MSO doc, xls, or ppt, or a pdf. We would like to make that ODF but it's going to be an uphill battle. Now consider that ODF is a much richer format than HTML. And being similar to HTML, there is no technical reason (that I see, anyway) that the format couldn't be adapted to eventually replace HTML. This would include usage in e-mail. The main adaptations would be that the XML would have to remain uncompressed and then the individual files which make up the document (content.xml, manifest.xml, etc.) would comprise a sort of multi-part MIME message. The result would be that the complex document that previously had to be transmitted as an attachment could now actually BE the e-mail, the BODY of the e-mail. When browsers and e-mail clients are developed that can render such a beast then the scales will tip toward ODF being the MOST CONVENIENT means of storing, handling, and transmitting documents. Binary formats will be considered a PITA to deal with, even by the technically illiterate. And since ODF is an ASCII format, it will be that much harder to distribute viruses that way. Yeah, it's a long chain of if's, and it won't happen overnight if at all, but it's something to consider. This is the best answer to the inclusion of email features within OOo. The usage of ODF as a standard base. How do we push this forward. FWIW, I have my mail program configure to view as text and not load images, to many 1x1 address confirmation images for my liking. It is a pain with some messages but it is handy. For formatted text, I prefer pdf attachments. Robin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Randomthots wrote: Now consider that ODF is a much richer format than HTML. And being similar to HTML, there is no technical reason (that I see, anyway) that the format couldn't be adapted to eventually replace HTML. HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's why it's rejected by so many people. Didn't you read what I wrote last day ? Rich mail acceptance requires a simplified SUBSET of HTML/XHTML, not a SUPERSET like ODF. I shudder a the number of cycles needed to filter a mailing list if its default format changes to ODF. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On 11/14/05, Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's why it's rejected by so many people. Didn't you read what I wrote last day ? Rich mail acceptance requires a simplified SUBSET of HTML/XHTML, not a SUPERSET like ODF. I shudder a the number of cycles needed to filter a mailing list if its default format changes to ODF. Nobody cares if you want to filter your email to exclude HTML. That's your right, and no one is considering, suggesting, implying, or saying that we should take that right away from you. No one is suggesting that we force you to send email in any form other than the one you choose. And no one is implying that we should switch the mailing lists over to HTML, ODF, XML, or PDFs. If you would read the subject line of this thread, you would see we are talking about, not the mailing lists, or the website, of OpenOffice.org - but the software itself. We are not talking about taking anything away. We are not talking about forcing you to remove Mutt, Thunderbird, Evolution, or anything from your computer. We are saying that an OpenOffice.org compatible email client and PIM would be a good idea. If that takes the form of a separate download, either from OOo, or from Mozilla, or some other third party - or it that functionality is added to the core OOo suite, is entirely up to debate. So is the idea of adding anything at all. But what is not being discussed is violating your right to filter, receive, create, and/or send your email anyway you see fit. We are not asking whether or not you, personally, (or anyone on the list) *LIKES* HTML email - *TRUSTS* HTML email - *USES* HTML email - or *HATES* HTML email. That's pointless. It is simply a suggestion to add something to OOo that users have been begging for since it was taken out of StarOffice, many years ago. And that is an Outlook like-program that intergrates with OOo, sends, receives, and edits emails, handles contacts, schedules, and the like. Something that looks and feels like its a part of OOo, and something that can share features with OOo. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Le lundi 14 novembre 2005 à 16:58 -0500, Chad Smith a écrit : On 11/14/05, Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's why it's rejected by so many people. Didn't you read what I wrote last day ? Rich mail acceptance requires a simplified SUBSET of HTML/XHTML, not a SUPERSET like ODF. I shudder a the number of cycles needed to filter a mailing list if its default format changes to ODF. Nobody cares if you want to filter your email to exclude HTML. That's your right, and no one is considering, suggesting, implying, or saying that we should take that right away from you. No one is suggesting that we force you to send email in any form other than the one you choose. And no one is implying that we should switch the mailing lists over to HTML, ODF, XML, or PDFs. That's not what I wrote. Blacklisting a file type is easy and fast. What I wrote is if people want a rich mail format that is accepted by mailing lists, mailing list filters (the stuff that runs on SERVERS) need to be able to check message sanity in as little cycles as possible. Which is about impossible with current HTML abuses, and would be even worse with ODF. Though it would certainly be possible to specify a message format better than plain text with good filtering properties which could accomplish 99% of what normal people really use in HTML mail today. There is a reason why entreprise mail clients only run on highly protected networks you know - they don't have the feature/sanity balance it would take to connect unprotected to the internet. And getting there do mean dropping the features which cost too much to secure for too little gain. Unless you advocate big-corps-only-OO.o -- Nicolas Mailhot
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Quoting Robin Laing [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Randomthots wrote: mark wrote: * There's an aspect to all this that I believe a lot of people who hate html-mail, such as yourself, are missing. I believe that the attachment to e-mail paradigm actually serves to fortify the MS file format lock-in. Consider that html is actually a fairly poor file format for complex layout; it's essentially all based on the abuse of tables. So when someone wants to transmit a complex document via e-mail the only viable choice is to attach a file -- generally a binary file. Even an ODF file is binary as it sits on your hard drive (try opening a zip file in a text editor sometime). So if you're forced to attach a binary file to an e-mail, which type of file are you going to use? Probably the type that is most likely to be usable on the other end. Now this generally means either an MSO doc, xls, or ppt, or a pdf. We would like to make that ODF but it's going to be an uphill battle. Now consider that ODF is a much richer format than HTML. And being similar to HTML, there is no technical reason (that I see, anyway) that the format couldn't be adapted to eventually replace HTML. This would include usage in e-mail. The main adaptations would be that the XML would have to remain uncompressed and then the individual files which make up the document (content.xml, manifest.xml, etc.) would comprise a sort of multi-part MIME message. The result would be that the complex document that previously had to be transmitted as an attachment could now actually BE the e-mail, the BODY of the e-mail. When browsers and e-mail clients are developed that can render such a beast then the scales will tip toward ODF being the MOST CONVENIENT means of storing, handling, and transmitting documents. Binary formats will be considered a PITA to deal with, even by the technically illiterate. And since ODF is an ASCII format, it will be that much harder to distribute viruses that way. Yeah, it's a long chain of if's, and it won't happen overnight if at all, but it's something to consider. It's something I've started thinking about as well. ODF is a markup format as well as a file format; it should be relatively easy to write a format that mimics the traditional email format and is readable by any clued-up mail clients. One could even write a letter template that keyed directly into such an email format. Unfortunately we are dealing with a competitor that is likely to read this email list and notice that some people have already worked out how to get a rich text email client; and then patent the stolen stuff as if they were the ones who came up with it. Anyway, that's what I've been thinking. Take it with a pinch of salt, the bigger the better. Wesley Parish This is the best answer to the inclusion of email features within OOo. The usage of ODF as a standard base. How do we push this forward. FWIW, I have my mail program configure to view as text and not load images, to many 1x1 address confirmation images for my liking. It is a pain with some messages but it is handy. For formatted text, I prefer pdf attachments. Robin --- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sharpened hands are happy hands. Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands - A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge I me. Shape middled me. I would come out into hot! I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Randomthots wrote: Now consider that ODF is a much richer format than HTML. And being similar to HTML, there is no technical reason (that I see, anyway) that the format couldn't be adapted to eventually replace HTML. HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's why it's rejected by so many people. Didn't you read what I wrote last day ? Rich mail acceptance requires a simplified SUBSET of HTML/XHTML, not a SUPERSET like ODF. I shudder a the number of cycles needed to filter a mailing list if its default format changes to ODF. Why are we arguing about HTML mail in an OOo Discuss list? But while we are, I will just share what I think. An email is not meant to be a web page. The only formatting that should remain in HTML mail are font, size, text color (not background color) and images, which should by default be blocked in your client until something is clicked.
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Chad Smith wrote: On 11/14/05, Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's why it's rejected by so many people. Didn't you read what I wrote last day ? Rich mail acceptance requires a simplified SUBSET of HTML/XHTML, not a SUPERSET like ODF. I shudder a the number of cycles needed to filter a mailing list if its default format changes to ODF. Nobody cares if you want to filter your email to exclude HTML. That's your right, and no one is considering, suggesting, implying, or saying that we should take that right away from you. No one is suggesting that we force you to send email in any form other than the one you choose. And no one is implying that we should switch the mailing lists over to HTML, ODF, XML, or PDFs. If you would read the subject line of this thread, you would see we are talking about, not the mailing lists, or the website, of OpenOffice.org - but the software itself. We are not talking about taking anything away. We are not talking about forcing you to remove Mutt, Thunderbird, Evolution, or anything from your computer. We are saying that an OpenOffice.org compatible email client and PIM would be a good idea. If that takes the form of a separate download, either from OOo, or from Mozilla, or some other third party - or it that functionality is added to the core OOo suite, is entirely up to debate. So is the idea of adding anything at all. But what is not being discussed is violating your right to filter, receive, create, and/or send your email anyway you see fit. We are not asking whether or not you, personally, (or anyone on the list) *LIKES* HTML email - *TRUSTS* HTML email - *USES* HTML email - or *HATES* HTML email. That's pointless. It is simply a suggestion to add something to OOo that users have been begging for since it was taken out of StarOffice, many years ago. And that is an Outlook like-program that intergrates with OOo, sends, receives, and edits emails, handles contacts, schedules, and the like. Something that looks and feels like its a part of OOo, and something that can share features with OOo. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software! Yes, why this discussion of HTML mail? I very much agree with Chad, this thread is about adding a mail client to OOo (which, for the record, I think is a bad idea), NOT integrating ODF into email or using HTML. Please go to social@ if you want to talk about HTML mail.
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Randomthots wrote: Now consider that ODF is a much richer format than HTML. And being similar to HTML, there is no technical reason (that I see, anyway) that the format couldn't be adapted to eventually replace HTML. HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's why it's rejected by so many people. Didn't you read what I wrote last day? Sure did. You do realize that you're replying *again* to the same thing I wrote originally, don't you? I didn't repost it; I was quoted. Perhaps that would have been clearer to you with better message formatting. Rich mail acceptance requires a simplified SUBSET of HTML/XHTML, not a SUPERSET like ODF. I shudder a the number of cycles needed to filter a mailing list if its default format changes to ODF. The world doesn't revolve around the particular application of email technology to mailing lists like this. As the administrator of a private list, I would suggest that you simply make it clear that HTML mail is forbidden and reject any such submissions, with or without a return note explaining why. Furthermore, could you please quote where I even suggested that the default format for email should change to ODF? I am proprosing that sometime in the future, if ODF gains widespread usage, it may ultimately replace html as the rich format for the web, and by extension, email. I am also proposing that if and when such a transformation occurs the overall hygiene of the Internet will be enhanced due to the reduced amount of binary traffic. If I were administering a corporate network I would much rather deal with a plain-text format like html or flat xml than binary attachments. At the end of the day spam is mostly just a nuisance. Viral loads in binary attachments can bring down your whole network. Hard. Much overtime work, broken databases, compromised private information, compromised priveleged corporate information, etc. Finally, how may cycles does it take to scan a binary attachment for viruses? And what are the consequences if the scan fails to reveal a viral hitchhiker? -- Rod - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Randomthots wrote: People keep demanding that OOo developers drop everything and write an email client, I haven't heard anyone *demanding* anything... except you that is. Demanding that we not even talk about the possibility. We are talking about the possibility. The problem is that you don't like the answer that you're getting. otherwise they won't switch, and not only that, they don't know anyone else who will switch either. You're just making that part up. No. Look at the post I responded to. Jumping up and down and demanding You again. The jumping up and down and demanding. Whatever. I'm just pointing out why it's not going to happen. *or* *else* will get you no-where fast. Point to any post on this forum like that. Selective blindness. Read over the thread again. Why can't people get over themselves and use an existing application. Without an email/pim component many will do just that. It's called MSO. Is that what you really want? Um. I think you're just re-using the arguement that you were claiming hasn't been used. Maybe forget about reading the thread. Read your own post. Don't like Evolution? Fine. Test it. Submit bug reports. Hassle the developers to hurry up with their Windows port. Do you really think that you're going to get a better product in less time by insisting that OOo include every function under the sun? Reductio ad absurdum. I have yet to hear a call for a Tetris component, music composition, or audio editing, for instance. Last I checked those *are functions and they *are* under the sun. Oh wow. The garbage some people post when they've had their buttons pushed :) You're not. You're just making noise What's that buzzing from down under? See above comment. Maybe you should take a deep breath and walk around your bedroom a couple of times before posting again? and demonstrating that you don't have a grasp on how to use open source software. Use the tools that are already available. If there is a problem / lack of features / whatever, then submit bugs / features requests against that existing product. Duplication is a waste of resources, Sourceforge.net lists 105,746 active projects. A good case could be made that open-source development is the most unfocused, undisciplined, and wasteful phenomenon in the history of software. Starting yet another project is practically a revered tradition, so *suggesting* that OOo should somehow integrate an email/calendar/pim, preferably by cooperating with the Mozilla project, is actually quite conservative. You're changing your arguement in mid-flight. You start out by saying that OOo developers should write their own mail client because it's a 'revered tradition', and immediately switch to saying that an existing email client be integrated. That's my arguement ... that we should focus on existing tools. Has logic finally sunk in? and as we've already agreed, the functionality that you're after is non-trivial and will take a long time to complete. Better help out on that Windows port of Evolution. How about we get a bunch of developers from other similar projects together for that? Sourceforge lists 80 projects just under the rubric of To-Do Lists, 306 under Office Suites, 149 under Project Management, 901 under Scheduling, and 89 under Time Tracking. Granted that some projects are cross-listed and many others inhabit peripheral niches, that is still a h*** of a lot of duplication. What's that you were saying about understanding how open-source software works? Now the arguement's completely come off the rails :) I'll let you have another attempt at whatever this point was supposed to be before commenting ... -- Daniel Kasak IT Developer NUS Consulting Group Level 5, 77 Pacific Highway North Sydney, NSW, Australia 2060 T: (+61) 2 9922-7676 / F: (+61) 2 9922 7989 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: http://www.nusconsulting.com.au - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Daniel Kasak wrote: We are talking about the possibility. The problem is that you don't like the answer that you're getting. I haven't liked your answer, not so much because of the substance, but because of your condescending attitude. No. Look at the post I responded to. The main part of that post: I also work for an organization that is unwilling to move away from Microsoft Office because they feel that they need the calendaring and meeting arrangement facilities of Outlook, on Windows. Many of them frequently work offline, so web-based solutions are not applicable. I'm pinning my hopes on Evolution for Windows, but the project seems to be moving very slowly (understandably, as it is a complex project with many libraries to port). I think that people that argue that there is no reason to develop a mail client as part of OpenOffice because there are other mail client applications available are misguided for two reasons: So where do you get: ... otherwise they won't switch, and not only that, they don't know anyone else who will switch either. from that? My take on it is that a lot of organizations could and would be persuaded to switch but they have certain organizational needs that can't be simply wished away. Whatever. I'm just pointing out why it's not going to happen. I wasn't aware that you were a Sun executive in charge of this whole project. *or* *else* will get you no-where fast. Point to any post on this forum like that. Selective blindness. Read over the thread again. I have. You're implying a tone to the posts in this thread that just doesn't exist. If I'm wrong, please provide quotes. Why can't people get over themselves and use an existing application. Without an email/pim component many will do just that. It's called MSO. Is that what you really want? Um. I think you're just re-using the arguement that you were claiming hasn't been used. Maybe forget about reading the thread. Read your own post. A. I get it now. You have a problem with people pointing out the reality of things as opposed to the way you only wished they were. You want people [to] get over themselves and use an existing application. I thought the idea was to convince/persuade/entice people to use a different application -- OOo vs. MSO. Well, the *reality* is that the lack of a suitable drop-in replacement for Outlook *is* a significant stumbling block. As much as I love the folks at the Mozilla foundation, T-bird+Sunbird isn't there yet. And I compared a completely up-to-date version of Evolution on the other side of this dual-boot box with a five-year old copy of Outlook. Closer, but there's a lot of functionality missing there as well. This isn't just theorizing; I am friends with a woman who runs a business designing and maintaining small e-commerce websites from her home. Most of her client interaction is via the Internet. She uses Outlook practically like an operating system. In one place she can organize everything about a client -- e-mails, documents, outstanding tasks, etc. She doesn't even have to open a browser to view their sites because she can do that in the same message pane she uses to look at their emails. The only other programs she uses regularly are Photoshop and a WYSIWYG web page editor. Don't like Evolution? Fine. Test it. Submit bug reports. Hassle the developers to hurry up with their Windows port. Do you really think that you're going to get a better product in less time by insisting that OOo include every function under the sun? Reductio ad absurdum. I have yet to hear a call for a Tetris component, music composition, or audio editing, for instance. Last I checked those *are functions and they *are* under the sun. Oh wow. The garbage some people post when they've had their buttons pushed :) And I note your response was the height of elocution. The fact is that nobody is insisting that OOo include every function under the sun. We're talking about one specific thing here -- an answer to Outlook. By characterizing that as every function under the sun, you're avoiding the real debate by arguing against something that hasn't ever been proposed, at least not in this thread, and not by me. Sourceforge.net lists 105,746 active projects. A good case could be made that open-source development is the most unfocused, undisciplined, and wasteful phenomenon in the history of software. Starting yet another project is practically a revered tradition, so *suggesting* that OOo should somehow integrate an email/calendar/pim, preferably by cooperating with the Mozilla project, is actually quite conservative. You're changing your arguement in mid-flight. You start out by saying that OOo developers should write their own mail client because it's a 'revered tradition', and immediately switch to saying that an existing email client be integrated. That's my arguement ... that we should focus on
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Le lundi 14 novembre 2005 à 18:04 -0600, Randomthots a écrit : Finally, how may cycles does it take to scan a binary attachment for viruses? And what are the consequences if the scan fails to reveal a viral hitchhiker? Scanning for viruses (virus signature check) is way easier than parsing an ODF file to infer what's really displayed at the top of the mail (cf all the spammer HTML tricks to make spam display at the top of the file while stuffing it with nonsense that's hidden from he human reader) -- Nicolas Mailhot
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Hi Chad, Chad Smith wrote: On 11/12/05, Sam Stainsby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] this is what I think. We're all gonna argue and have opinions, and get our little feelings hurt, and call for each other to be banned from the land of Open Source because we disagree, and in a few months or a year or two, Sun and Google are going to decide that to compete with Office, Star Office needs an email client and PIM software, and they are going to write one, or use Thunderbird, or whatever, and the people who wanted the software will be happy, the ones who complained and moaned about how stupid and useless and wasteful and prone to viruses and SPAM it would be will sudden forget it was a bad idea and say it's what they wanted all along, they just thought it was too much work, and then never bring it up again. Kinda like what happened with Base. :-) Well spoken. So the question that remains (for this issue): are we at discuss@ or is it more social@ ;-) Greetings, Cor -- -- | you need it - je hebt het nodig | | | | OpenOffice.org | | | | Cor Nouws, http://www.nouenoff.nl | -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Sam Stainsby wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:24:27 -0500, William Baric wrote: I had one of them who was willing to switch to OpenOffice. They didn't have too much money and they were willing to put up with OpenOffice's Word, Excel and PowerPoint import/export filter (thanks to MS Viewers). They were also willing to buy Antidote licence (a french grammar checker that integrate with OpenOffice). But in the end, I had to forget about this project because of outlook. The director had a Palm and he wanted calendar sharing. This meant that They had to buy Outlook. I also work for an organisation that is unwilling to move away from Microsoft Office because they feel that they need the calendaring and meeting arrangement facilities of Outlook, on Windows. Many of them frequently work offline, so web-based solutions are not applicable. I'm pinning my hopes on Evolution for Windows, but the project seems to be moving very slowly (understandably, as it is a complex project with many libraries to port). I think that people that argue that there is no reason to develop a mail client as part of OpenOffice because there are other mail client applications available are misguided Stop right there. You admit that the Windows port of Evolution is progressing slowly. Why would that be? Perhaps it's a big task? Perhaps there aren't many developers on it? Perhaps it needs more testing? So. What are we going to do about it? a) Every many and his dog say F*** this. I'm going to write my own email client. I'll see you in 5 years. b) Make the most use of already scarce resources, and help out the strongest looking package(s) out there. People keep demanding that OOo developers drop everything and write an email client, otherwise they won't switch, and not only that, they don't know anyone else who will switch either. Jumping up and down and demanding that a large project such as an email / contact / calendaring project be done *right* *now* *or* *else* will get you no-where fast. The simple fact is that a lot of people are already using OpenOffice. They found a way. Why can't people get over themselves and use an existing application. Don't like Evolution? Fine. Test it. Submit bug reports. Hassle the developers to hurry up with their Windows port. Do you really think that you're going to get a better product in less time by insisting that OOo include every function under the sun? You're not. You're just making noise and demonstrating that you don't have a grasp on how to use open source software. Use the tools that are already available. If there is a problem / lack of features / whatever, then submit bugs / features requests against that existing product. Duplication is a waste of resources, and as we've already agreed, the functionality that you're after is non-trivial and will take a long time to complete. Better help out on that Windows port of Evolution. -- Daniel Kasak IT Developer NUS Consulting Group Level 5, 77 Pacific Highway North Sydney, NSW, Australia 2060 T: (+61) 2 9922-7676 / F: (+61) 2 9922 7989 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: http://www.nusconsulting.com.au - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Daniel Kasak wrote: Stop right there. You admit that the Windows port of Evolution is progressing slowly. Why would that be? Perhaps it's a big task? Perhaps there aren't many developers on it? Perhaps it needs more testing? So. What are we going to do about it? a) Every many and his dog say F*** this. I'm going to write my own email client. I'll see you in 5 years. b) Make the most use of already scarce resources, and help out the strongest looking package(s) out there. People keep demanding that OOo developers drop everything and write an email client, I haven't heard anyone *demanding* anything... except you that is. Demanding that we not even talk about the possibility. otherwise they won't switch, and not only that, they don't know anyone else who will switch either. You're just making that part up. Jumping up and down and demanding You again. The jumping up and down and demanding. that a large project such as an email / contact / calendaring project be done *right* *now* I haven't seen anyone use any words to that effect. Personally, my desires are aimed at the future. I wouldn't be disappointed if Novell announced a finished port of Evolution and work progressed toward integration with OOo for the 3.0 or 4.0 release though. Or if the Tbird crew made some progress on Lightning and that was integrated into OOo. *or* *else* will get you no-where fast. Point to any post on this forum like that. Mr. Stainsby was simply reporting the feedback he's getting from his customers. The simple fact is that a lot of people are already using OpenOffice. They found a way. Yeah, I use OOo all the time. Love it. But I don't have any great need for the kind of integrated functionality you get with Outlook+MSO. If I *did* have such a need, the license savings from using OOo likely wouldn't be worth the loss of function. Why can't people get over themselves and use an existing application. Without an email/pim component many will do just that. It's called MSO. Is that what you really want? Don't like Evolution? Fine. Test it. Submit bug reports. Hassle the developers to hurry up with their Windows port. Do you really think that you're going to get a better product in less time by insisting that OOo include every function under the sun? Reductio ad absurdum. I have yet to hear a call for a Tetris component, music composition, or audio editing, for instance. Last I checked those *are functions and they *are* under the sun. You're not. You're just making noise What's that buzzing from down under? and demonstrating that you don't have a grasp on how to use open source software. Use the tools that are already available. If there is a problem / lack of features / whatever, then submit bugs / features requests against that existing product. Duplication is a waste of resources, Sourceforge.net lists 105,746 active projects. A good case could be made that open-source development is the most unfocused, undisciplined, and wasteful phenomenon in the history of software. Starting yet another project is practically a revered tradition, so *suggesting* that OOo should somehow integrate an email/calendar/pim, preferably by cooperating with the Mozilla project, is actually quite conservative. and as we've already agreed, the functionality that you're after is non-trivial and will take a long time to complete. Better help out on that Windows port of Evolution. How about we get a bunch of developers from other similar projects together for that? Sourceforge lists 80 projects just under the rubric of To-Do Lists, 306 under Office Suites, 149 under Project Management, 901 under Scheduling, and 89 under Time Tracking. Granted that some projects are cross-listed and many others inhabit peripheral niches, that is still a h*** of a lot of duplication. What's that you were saying about understanding how open-source software works? -- Rod - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Rod wrote: Without an email/pim component many will do just that. It's called MSO. Is that what you really want? Just what functionality does MSO + Outlook offer, that can not be replicated by using OOo + FireFox + ThunderBird + SunBird + the appropriate templates? I have yet to hear a call for a Tetris component, music composition, or audio editing, for instance. I've seen requests for all three of those on various OOo lists. Somebody did write a macro to play Tetris within OOo. [Now wondering what would happen if somebody were to toss the python audio editing modules into OOo source code.] A good case could be made that open-source development is the most unfocused, Since there is no centralized location of closed source projects, you don't see all the junk that they don't produce. so *suggesting* that OOo should somehow integrate an email/calendar/pim, preferably by cooperating with the Mozilla project, is actually quite conservative. Probably the simplest in the short/medium term. xan jonathon -- Does your Office Suite conform to ISO Standards?
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Jonathon Blake wrote: Just what functionality does MSO + Outlook offer, that can not be replicated by using OOo + FireFox + ThunderBird + SunBird + the appropriate templates? [...] +1 Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Software patents kill innovation and harm all Net-based business. Keep them out of the EU by writing your MEP, keep the market open. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Le vendredi 11 novembre 2005 à 12:21 -0600, Randomthots a écrit : mark wrote: Think about it: If html-mail is associated with spam -- and I will gladly stipulate that there is a statistical correlation -- and if 1) ISPs filter much of that spam as mine does, and if 2) much of the rest is caught by individual e-mail clients, as mine is, and if 3) most people simply delete what does get through all that, as I do, then html-mail is a spectacularly ineffective vector for malware. Spam never was about effectiveness. Spam always was about blanket-bombing and massive waste of ressource. Accepted (by mail admin people) HTML mail will happen when people get together and write and RFC about the XHTML subset one can sanely use in mail clients (ie remove all the dangerous elements built-in XHTML). And then refuse anything except this subset. And it won't ever happen because : 1. the only interested people are Outlook/Notes/WordMail users 2. Outlook/Notes/WordMail output and process non-standard XHTML and writing a spec they'd have to respect is the last thing in the minds of their authors. So even if someone else wrote it they would ignore it. However since you obviously care about HTML mail I invite you to specify an XHTML subset that can not be abused, get it supported by outlook, and come back asking for thunderbird/OO.o support. -- Nicolas Mailhot
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:24:27 -0500, William Baric wrote: I had one of them who was willing to switch to OpenOffice. They didn't have too much money and they were willing to put up with OpenOffice's Word, Excel and PowerPoint import/export filter (thanks to MS Viewers). They were also willing to buy Antidote licence (a french grammar checker that integrate with OpenOffice). But in the end, I had to forget about this project because of outlook. The director had a Palm and he wanted calendar sharing. This meant that They had to buy Outlook. I also work for an organisation that is unwilling to move away from Microsoft Office because they feel that they need the calendaring and meeting arrangement facilities of Outlook, on Windows. Many of them frequently work offline, so web-based solutions are not applicable. I'm pinning my hopes on Evolution for Windows, but the project seems to be moving very slowly (understandably, as it is a complex project with many libraries to port). I think that people that argue that there is no reason to develop a mail client as part of OpenOffice because there are other mail client applications available are misguided for two reasons: 1. The other mail clients don't have the needed functionality on the commonest desktop platform in the world (please note I'm a Linux user myself - I don't endorse Microsoft Windows - far from it - but we have to face the reality that it is out there and this is unlikely to change for some time). 2. This idea that OpenOffice only concentrates on applications that are not available from other packages is completely bogus. Look at OpenOffice Draw for example and compare it to packages like Inkscape. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On 11/12/05, Sam Stainsby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also work for an organisation that is unwilling to move away from Microsoft Office because they feel that they need the calendaring and meeting arrangement facilities of Outlook, on Windows. Many of them frequently work offline, so web-based solutions are not applicable. I'm pinning my hopes on Evolution for Windows, but the project seems to be moving very slowly (understandably, as it is a complex project with many libraries to port). You can inform them that every exchange cal they purchase comes with a license for Outlook. They wouldn't have to get rid of Outlook at all if they already have those licenses. Really they can migrate to openoffice and keep their old outlook licenses. What would be the harm in that? At least this was true up to the Office XP version. -- Adam Moore Founding Member http://www.opendocumentfellowship.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:07:49 -, Sam Stainsby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:24:27 -0500, William Baric wrote: I had one of them who was willing to switch to OpenOffice. They didn't have too much money and they were willing to put up with OpenOffice's Word, Excel and PowerPoint import/export filter (thanks to MS Viewers). They were also willing to buy Antidote licence (a french grammar checker that integrate with OpenOffice). But in the end, I had to forget about this project because of outlook. The director had a Palm and he wanted calendar sharing. This meant that They had to buy Outlook. You can buy outlook for 100 instead of MSO for 300+ dls, this means you save 200 per desktop. I also work for an organisation that is unwilling to move away from Microsoft Office because they feel that they need the calendaring and meeting arrangement facilities of Outlook, on Windows. Many of them frequently work offline, so web-based solutions are not applicable. I'm pinning my hopes on Evolution for Windows, but the project seems to be moving very slowly (understandably, as it is a complex project with many libraries to port). I think that people that argue that there is no reason to develop a mail client as part of OpenOffice because there are other mail client applications available are misguided for two reasons: Make sure you are asking for an email client Outlook is not just an email client and if OOo end up having an email client you might be criying that you mean a whole PIM-app. 1. The other mail clients don't have the needed functionality on the commonest desktop platform in the world (please note I'm a Linux user myself - I don't endorse Microsoft Windows - far from it - but we have to face the reality that it is out there and this is unlikely to change for some time). 2. This idea that OpenOffice only concentrates on applications that are not available from other packages is completely bogus. Look at OpenOffice Draw for example and compare it to packages like Inkscape. That's because OOo is not a clone to MSO -- Alexandro Colorado CoLeader of OpenOffice.org ES http://es.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:07:49 -, Sam Stainsby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that people that argue that there is no reason to develop a mail client as part of OpenOffice because there are other mail client applications available are misguided for two reasons: Make sure you are asking for an email client and NOT an outlook clone which from what I read before in your email is what your company is looking for (calendaring features). Also you mention that your company don't want to move away from Microsoft office. You can buy Outlook as a separate package and use OpenOffice.org this will save you $200 dls per desktop. You also mention that your company is not on-line, to have a web-based application you only need a network. If your company is not on-line but the computers are linked between each other then you will have a deskop. If your company also is not using it as a groupware (exchange) then you might as well install the PIM application like Kde-PIM or even the Palm desktop is an outlook clone really. -- Alexandro Colorado CoLeader of OpenOffice.org ES http://es.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On 11/12/05, Sam Stainsby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. This idea that OpenOffice only concentrates on applications that are not available from other packages is completely bogus. Look at OpenOffice Draw for example and compare it to packages like Inkscape. And OOoWriter v AbiWord and OOoBase v MySQL OOoImpress is fairly unique in the cross-platform open source presentation world (I, personally, cannot name another such project). The same is true for Calc. The arguements against a mail client and PIM are the same as the ones against Base from a year ago. (1) It takes away choice (2) It duplicates other projects (3) It's not what it means to be an office suite or a productivity suite or OpenOffice.org (4) The people who want/need it are whiny n00bs who don't know anything about anything and (5) OOo can already do it if you write this macro, hack this code, download this patch, compile this completely unrelated program, build this bridge in Perl, and it only works on Linux -- plus it's not gonna work exactly like you think it should.. (NOTE: #5 is an exagration to prove a point, the Copy and Paste suggestion is not nearly this complex, but it does require a completely different piece of software, IE an email client, which is what people are asking for in the first place - but I'm thinking more of the people who say OOo *did* have an email client back in the day, so the API is there, if you want to build one again - and I'm still bitter about the Use this Macro to get Word Count, even though it doesn't count exactly right - we don't need a f'ing word count anyway! - although I'm truly grateful for Andrew's work on the Macro, which I did use until I found the buried Properties thing, and now I have my Word Count button where it should have been in 0.1alpha.) this is what I think. We're all gonna argue and have opinions, and get our little feelings hurt, and call for each other to be banned from the land of Open Source because we disagree, and in a few months or a year or two, Sun and Google are going to decide that to compete with Office, Star Office needs an email client and PIM software, and they are going to write one, or use Thunderbird, or whatever, and the people who wanted the software will be happy, the ones who complained and moaned about how stupid and useless and wasteful and prone to viruses and SPAM it would be will sudden forget it was a bad idea and say it's what they wanted all along, they just thought it was too much work, and then never bring it up again. Kinda like what happened with Base. :-) -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On 11/12/05, Alexandro Colorado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can buy outlook for 100 instead of MSO for 300+ dls, this means you save 200 per desktop. Individuals can buy a Retail copy of MSO for $150. Busineses can get it for cheaper if they buy in volume and/or buy it OEM. As both prices decrease (MSO and just OL) the differences also decrease, to the point it would be wasteful to buy Outlook and *not* by the complete suite. Make sure you are asking for an email client Outlook is not just an email client and if OOo end up having an email client you might be criying that you mean a whole PIM-app. Yes, I think most people mean an Outlook replacement, not just an email client. To them, Outlook is email, just like Excel is spreadsheet. Having never used Outlook, I can't say, personally, what they want. But I want an email client and a PIM. I'd like to reitterate that I think a partnering with Mozilla would be the best answer, but if that isn't possible, building an OOo version would be good. 2. This idea that OpenOffice only concentrates on applications that are not available from other packages is completely bogus. Look at OpenOffice Draw for example and compare it to packages like Inkscape. That's because OOo is not a clone to MSO What you said has nothing to do with what he said. So because MSO has something, OOo can't? Does that mean we're getting rid of Writer, and Calc, and Impress, and, well, heck, everything but Draw and Flash export? I understand (truly I do, I've been preached at enough about this) I *REALLY* understand that OOo is not an MSO clone. I get it. I know. I dig it. I comprehend. BUT Using that line as an excuse for why OOo doesn't have this useful feature that MSO does, (like, oh, say, WORD COUNT - yes people actually told me OOo wasn't a MSO clone when defending it's lack of, or burial of, a decent word count feature), does not explain it. It doesn't even come close. It doesn't even excuse it. If Competitor A is doing something right, or providing a service that people need, and Competitor B isn't, and Competitor B sees Competitor A doing it. It does not make Competitor B a clone of A to do it. It makes them a smart business person. Learning from others is a sign of intelligence. Being able to say, Hey, that guy did this, and people liked it. Maybe I should do that. doesn't make you a clone. I learned how to talk by listening to others, and if you can talk, that's how you learned too. People like Outlook. People buy Outlook. People use Outlook. People want to do things that Outlook lets them do. It might be nice if we were able to help them do that. Because, we don't want them to use Outlook. Outlook has a lot of problems. OOoEmail (which I use to mean the email client and PIM/calendar thing that doesn't exist yet) would solve a lot of those problems. Outlook uses ActiveX, which is bad. OOoEmail would use Java, which is good. Or it wouldn't use either, which is better. Outlook is MS, which is bad (most on this list would say).. OOoEmail would be open source, which is good. Outlook is Windows only, (the Mac thing is called Entourage now, and it's different), which is not good if you don't use Windows. OOoEmail would be cross-plarform, which rocks. Outlook costs $100, which is horrid. OOoEmail would be free, (and Free), which is excellent! OOoEmail could, potentially, provide the features and services Outlook users want, and solve the problems that Outlook has. I don't see why people who claim to support Open Source more devoutly and purely than they claim I do aren't all over this one. Those anti-HTML-email people should be all about getting people off of OutBreak, or Lookout!, or that evil-virus/spam=spouting mouth of hell that is Outlook. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Chad wrote: (5) OOo can already do it if you write this macro, hack this code, download this patch, compile this completely unrelated program, build this bridge in Perl, and it only works on Linux -- plus it's not gonna work exactly like you think it should.. (NOTE: #5 is an exaggeration to prove a point, That is _not_ an exaggeration, if you want to edit PDFs in OOo. Kinda like what happened with Base. The argument against Base was slightly different. For starters, OOo 1.x included a dBase clone, and had (some) hooks for SQL interactivity. The big issue was which SQL database implementation was going to be Incorporated into OOo. ** _If_ the hooks for an email client are included in OOo, then the questions are: i) Can a bridge to an existing email client be written? or ii) is it better to compile an existing email client into OOo? However, if what people mean by outlook is _not_ an email client, but a calendar function, or a PIM, then solution is much different: To wit: i) Find/replace/update the dBase templates, and document how to use them. ii) Document how to read/write/edit data in _thisPIM_ using OOo. [Where thisPIM is a PIM. Write one document for every known PIM.] iii) Document how to read/write/edit data in _thisCalenderFunction_ using OOo. [Where ThisCalenderFunction is a Calendar. Write one document for every known Calendar.] xan jonathon -- Does your Office Suite conform to ISO Standards?
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Le jeudi 10 novembre 2005 à 13:24 -0800, jrc a écrit : Please discontinue the refrain that 00o attachments to Thunderbird will do the trick. Try that on most mail lists! The attachment is promptly rejected as spam, or is otherwise butchered. Do you really think inline complex HTML will fare any better ? With the current spam levels mailing list admins zap just anything suspicious (as they should) -- Nicolas Mailhot
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Le vendredi 11 novembre 2005 à 01:19 -0600, Randomthots a écrit : mark wrote: The most prevalent means of spreading viruses is through binary attachments to plain-text e-mail messages. Precisely the manner of transmitting complex documents most loudly advocated for by those opposing html-mail. Any half-decent spam filter will treat attachements and core messages the same ways. ie if it's blocked as attachement, it will be blocked as message and the reverse is also true. The problem is not core vs attachements but what you choose to allow. And since ODF HTML allow macros and waste bandwidth, they're legitimate filter targets. Better block some mime types altogether than have your filters perform expensive analysis to check they've not been abused in all the ways they can be. Especially on high-traffic mailing list servers where you have to process a huge number of messages every minute. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Chad Smith wrote: On 11/10/05, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I don't like suites, anyway. They tried to shove 'em down our throats in the early nineties, and everyone said NO. Now M$ says This Is The One And Only True Way. Bugfuck. Hey, moron, this is a mailing list about OPENOFFICE.ORGhttp://OPENOFFICE.ORG- it's an office suite. Grow a clue. Dear dork, did you neglect to note I said that I, personally, didn't like them, not that I wouldn't use them, since that's what available these days? You also seemed to miss that I was arguing against expanding the office suite by adding, unreasonably IMO, a mail client. mark -- Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. - Avedon Carol - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le vendredi 11 novembre 2005 à 01:19 -0600, Randomthots a écrit : mark wrote: Someone else wrote: The most prevalent means of spreading viruses is through binary attachments to plain-text e-mail messages. Precisely the manner of transmitting complex documents most loudly advocated for by those opposing html-mail. This, in fact, ain't so. I get, oh, a hundred or hundred and fifty (or more) spams a day, and they don't usually have attachments. What *is* common is HTML mail with a link that says one thing... but if you look at in as plaintext, it actually points to somewhere else. Most folks receiving that don't look at it as plaintext - a lot probably have original HTML on, and don't see the falsity of the link. Any half-decent spam filter will treat attachements and core messages the same ways. ie if it's blocked as attachement, it will be blocked as message and the reverse is also true. Yup. snip mark -- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will. -Gandhi- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
mark wrote: The most prevalent means of spreading viruses is through binary attachments to plain-text e-mail messages. Precisely the manner of transmitting complex documents most loudly advocated for by those opposing html-mail. This, in fact, ain't so. I get, oh, a hundred or hundred and fifty (or more) spams a day, and they don't usually have attachments. First, you really need to get a better ISP. I get very few little spam, maybe 1 or 2 a day at most, because my ISP uses SpamAssassin to filter incoming and outgoing mail. What little spam I do receive is almost entirely from companies I do business with and the Bayesian filter in Mozilla hasn't quite figured out the difference between a bill notification and an offer for a lower rate mortgage when they both come from the same domain and addy. Other than that, the spam I do receive is as likely to be in plaintext as html. So htmlmail != spam. And for the record spam != virus. Two completely different problems. What *is* common is HTML mail with a link that says one thing... but if you look at in as plaintext, it actually points to somewhere else. Most folks receiving that don't look at it as plaintext - a lot probably have original HTML on, and don't see the falsity of the link. Different problem. This is usually connected to a phishing scam and involves taking you to somewhere that looks like a legitimate site -- ebay or whatever -- but is actually a fake. Then they proceed to steal your identity. You actually have to do about 3 or 4 stupid things in a row to get caught in one of those. Any half-decent spam filter will treat attachements and core messages the same ways. ie if it's blocked as attachement, it will be blocked as message and the reverse is also true. Whatever. It still doesn't have anything to do with your assertion that html-mail spreads viruses. Think about it: If html-mail is associated with spam -- and I will gladly stipulate that there is a statistical correlation -- and if 1) ISPs filter much of that spam as mine does, and if 2) much of the rest is caught by individual e-mail clients, as mine is, and if 3) most people simply delete what does get through all that, as I do, then html-mail is a spectacularly ineffective vector for malware. What's much more effective is an otherwise innocuous-appearing e-mail from someone you know that has a binary attachment -- perhaps a Word doc with a malicious macro. That's precisely how most of these really bad worms are spread. The message isn't html precisely because they know that will trigger spam-blockers, and being from someone you know it is very likely to be on your whitelist, both in terms of your e-mail client and in your own head. The result is that you are orders of magnitude more likely to perform the enabling actions that the virus needs to spread. My biggest hazard with html-mail is that I'll open a spam that will then bang a server to get an image which confirms that my addy is live. But even so, if that was a huge problem I would certainly be getting more spam than I am. And I've had this addy for the last 3 or 4 years with little problem. -- Rod - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Randomthots wrote: mark wrote: someone else wrote: The most prevalent means of spreading viruses is through binary attachments to plain-text e-mail messages. Precisely the manner of transmitting complex documents most loudly advocated for by those opposing html-mail. This, in fact, ain't so. I get, oh, a hundred or hundred and fifty (or more) spams a day, and they don't usually have attachments. I should have added that at least half or more are HTML (when I bother to view 'em that way, if they catch my sensahumor). First, you really need to get a better ISP. I get very few little spam, RoadRunner, cablemodem. Also tv Oh, and let's not forget the spam being forwarded to me from my email addy that I left half a continent away, nearly three years ago (actually, several old friends have gotten hold of my that way in the last year, so I put up with it). And, of course, *that* ISP account got to be Verio, when they swallowed the older ISP, which had just swallowed the ISP I signed up with snip from the same domain and addy. Other than that, the spam I do receive is as likely to be in plaintext as html. So htmlmail != spam. And for the Sorry, that's not an inequality. You say as likely to be, which implies, as I mention, above, that half of it *is* HTML email. Certainly, a *LOT* of the drug peddlers show one thing in plaintext, and their sales pitch in HTML. So, spam #inludes html_and_plaintext. snip What *is* common is HTML mail with a link that says one thing... but if you look at in as plaintext, it actually points to somewhere else. snip Different problem. This is usually connected to a phishing scam and Or trying to lure you to their site, either for clickthoughs or pr0n snip What's much more effective is an otherwise innocuous-appearing e-mail from someone you know that has a binary attachment -- perhaps a Word doc with a malicious macro. That's precisely how most of these really bad Oh, yup. That's one thing that can get everyone. The only protection, turning off macros, can also result in a document you need, and it turning into a mess. snip My biggest hazard with html-mail is that I'll open a spam that will then bang a server to get an image which confirms that my addy is live. But Yup. Which is yet another reason that all my correspondents know that I *only* want plaintext. even so, if that was a huge problem I would certainly be getting more spam than I am. And I've had this addy for the last 3 or 4 years with little problem. And you've missed all those wonderful slice of life stories from Africa g mark -- Morality is alright, but what about dividends? -- Kaiser Willhem II - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Please discontinue the refrain that 00o attachments to Thunderbird will do the trick. Try that on most mail lists! The attachment is promptly rejected as spam, or is otherwise butchered. Jim Carter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Cut Paste anyone? jrc wrote: Please discontinue the refrain that 00o attachments to Thunderbird will do the trick. Try that on most mail lists! The attachment is promptly rejected as spam, or is otherwise butchered. Jim Carter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile...Can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction, 'I served in the United States Navy' John F.Kennedy 01 August 1963 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Why not sending the document as the message text, instead of using attachments? This is like Copy Paste, but more convenient. And I prefer not to receive to many attachments anyway. OTOH I like plain text better anyway. /$ 2005/11/10, Bill Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Cut Paste anyone? jrc wrote: Please discontinue the refrain that 00o attachments to Thunderbird will do the trick. Try that on most mail lists! The attachment is promptly rejected as spam, or is otherwise butchered. Jim Carter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile...Can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction, 'I served in the United States Navy' John F.Kennedy 01 August 1963 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On 11/10/05, Bill Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cut Paste anyone? You will likely lose formating, or things will shift. It's also an extra step. Not just the two steps of Copy and Paste but you also have to select the stuff you want to copy, copy it, open your email program, open a new email file, address the email, subject the email, paste the body, and then send. With a built-in email, or with hooks into an existing email client like Thunderbird, one would be able to open Writer, compose their email, click a Send as email button, address the email, subject it, and press send. Thus saving you 5 steps, and, if the ODF format were understood by the email client (as it surely would be if it were an OOo email client) then formating would be exactly the same in the email as it was in the Writer document. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Chad Smith wrote: On 11/10/05, Bill Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cut Paste anyone? You will likely lose formating, or things will shift. It's also an extra step. Not just the two steps of Copy and Paste but you also have to select the stuff you want to copy, copy it, open your email program, open a new email file, address the email, subject the email, paste the body, and then send. snip Lessee, what about all the fools using Lookout Express? Or anyone else who prefers their own email tool? Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail (aka virus-spreader email), and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE to open a goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We won't even *begin* to talk about idiots who send out .pdf email) Or, for another example, about all the companies who *REQUIRE* use of the corporate-approved email? Ready to tie OO.o to Lotus Notes? Or Outlook? You're being absurd. Personally, I don't like suites, anyway. They tried to shove 'em down our throats in the early nineties, and everyone said NO. Now M$ says This Is The One And Only True Way. Bugfuck. Finally, when I see a statement saying that the next release of OO.o will be smaller and faster, *then* I'll even consider an email program inside of OO.o. mark -- A clear view of the libertarian view of the world: our lives are merely capital's way of reproducing itself. - whitroth, 2003 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On 11/10/05, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I don't like suites, anyway. They tried to shove 'em down our throats in the early nineties, and everyone said NO. Now M$ says This Is The One And Only True Way. Bugfuck. Hey, moron, this is a mailing list about OPENOFFICE.ORGhttp://OPENOFFICE.ORG- it's an office suite. Grow a clue. -Chad
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Daniel Kasak a écrit : The original poster already admitted that he's using Thunderbird. I use Thunderbird. Thunderbird can not replace outlook and right now there is no open source solution that can replace outlook. Sunbird and Chandler are at very early stage and it will probably takes at least a year before they are stable enough and can do calendar sharing and Palm sync (and I guess 2 years is more realistic). There's also the windows port of evolution, but here again it's not done yet. I'm a computer consultant and I try to push OpenOffice as hard as I can. But right now, the only thing I can do is raise awareness and install OpenOffice just in case one of my client receive an OpenOffice document. I had one of them who was willing to switch to OpenOffice. They didn't have too much money and they were willing to put up with OpenOffice's Word, Excel and PowerPoint import/export filter (thanks to MS Viewers). They were also willing to buy Antidote licence (a french grammar checker that integrate with OpenOffice). But in the end, I had to forget about this project because of outlook. The director had a Palm and he wanted calendar sharing. This meant that They had to buy Outlook. And since an Outlook licence cost about as much as an OEM licence of MS Office, this meant that they had to buy MS Office... So why the trouble of switching to OpenOffice ? How the cost of switching to OpenOffice could be justified ? (and believe me, in the real world, the cost of switching to OpenOffice is VERY high) The situation is simple : as long as there is no alternative to Outlook, OpenOffice is not interesting for even a small business. And since people don't like to use two different programs, they will use at home what they use at the office. This mean people will continue to pirate MS Office and everyone will forget about OpenOffice. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
mark wrote: Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail (aka virus-spreader email), While you're certainly free to despise html-mail, I would question the proposition that html-mail is responsible for spreading viruses. Html is a textual format like XML, so unless you're dumb enough to enable javascript or Active-X in your mail agent there's very little danger. The most prevalent means of spreading viruses is through binary attachments to plain-text e-mail messages. Precisely the manner of transmitting complex documents most loudly advocated for by those opposing html-mail. And while there probably is a statistical correlation between spam and html-mail, it's hardly a one-to-one correspondence. I receive around 5 or 6 html-mails a day -- newsletters and such that I've signed up for -- and none of it is spam. OTH, I've certainly seen my share of plain-text spam, including those stupid Nigerian ex-patriot phishing scams. and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE to open a goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We won't even *begin* to talk about idiots who send out .pdf email) While I'm sure some of that could be just as well transmitted in plain-text, there ARE legitimate reasons for sending someone a more complex document, complete with formatting -- pictures, charts, diagrams, tables... it could be a legal document that requires a signature... lots of possibilities. Or, for another example, about all the companies who *REQUIRE* use of the corporate-approved email? I would imagine that in most cases if there is a corporate policy requiring the use of Outlook there is a similar policy requiring the use of MSO, and for all the same reasons. Ready to tie OO.o to Lotus Notes? Or Outlook? Ready or not, somebody better be looking at these things if OOo is to penetrate the Enterprise market. * There's an aspect to all this that I believe a lot of people who hate html-mail, such as yourself, are missing. I believe that the attachment to e-mail paradigm actually serves to fortify the MS file format lock-in. Consider that html is actually a fairly poor file format for complex layout; it's essentially all based on the abuse of tables. So when someone wants to transmit a complex document via e-mail the only viable choice is to attach a file -- generally a binary file. Even an ODF file is binary as it sits on your hard drive (try opening a zip file in a text editor sometime). So if you're forced to attach a binary file to an e-mail, which type of file are you going to use? Probably the type that is most likely to be usable on the other end. Now this generally means either an MSO doc, xls, or ppt, or a pdf. We would like to make that ODF but it's going to be an uphill battle. Now consider that ODF is a much richer format than HTML. And being similar to HTML, there is no technical reason (that I see, anyway) that the format couldn't be adapted to eventually replace HTML. This would include usage in e-mail. The main adaptations would be that the XML would have to remain uncompressed and then the individual files which make up the document (content.xml, manifest.xml, etc.) would comprise a sort of multi-part MIME message. The result would be that the complex document that previously had to be transmitted as an attachment could now actually BE the e-mail, the BODY of the e-mail. When browsers and e-mail clients are developed that can render such a beast then the scales will tip toward ODF being the MOST CONVENIENT means of storing, handling, and transmitting documents. Binary formats will be considered a PITA to deal with, even by the technically illiterate. And since ODF is an ASCII format, it will be that much harder to distribute viruses that way. Yeah, it's a long chain of if's, and it won't happen overnight if at all, but it's something to consider. -- Rod - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite/ Robbie Graham
PLEASE turn *off* your request confirmation in your email tool! mark unless you *really* *want* 500 confirmations/day -- Q: What is the ultimate fate of the Univese? A: We are *so* screwed. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Ian Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 00:53 -0500, Chad Smith wrote: I understand that OpenOffice.org is holy, and perfect, and is not to be questioned. If something is missing, it *SHOULD* be missing. If something hogs memory, it *SHOULD* hog memory. Go away Chad, and come back when you get rid of the sarcasm, ranting and raving. I know the internet is an infantilising medium, but do we really have to behave like fourteen-year-old schoolgirls? If you find Chad unbearably uncool, killfile him already. He had a very good point, perhaps best made by raving. It really doesn't matter to me whether I send a document by email or by post -- I'd like to be able to edit them in the same program, to look up the information about the recipient in the same place, and so on and so forth. This is a perfectly reasonable thing for people to want and MS does it better than anyone else. It's probably very wise of Sun not to spend resources on doing that right now -- and no one else, as we know, does any of the heavy lifting. But if ever anyone did come up with a solution that integrated OOo with a first class open source contacts manager and scheduler properly, this would be praised as the most innovative step forward in the entire history of the software industry by almost everyone on these lists, especially those who most vocally despise Outlook. -- Andrew Brown The email in the header does not work. Contact details and possibly useful macros from http://www.darwinwars.com/lunatic/bugs/oo_macros.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On 2005-11-07, Robbie Darrell Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I also use Thunderbird. But I would like to use something that was integrated into open office like Outlook is in Microsoft Office. I've never used Outlook to any great extent. What sort of integration are you missing in OOo? Doesn't File...Send Document as email work? Or are you looking for something else, like using OOo-Writer as your email editor? -- John ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Andrew Brown wrote: Ian Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 00:53 -0500, Chad Smith wrote: I understand that OpenOffice.org is holy, and perfect, and is not to be questioned. If something is missing, it *SHOULD* be missing. If something hogs memory, it *SHOULD* hog memory. Go away Chad, and come back when you get rid of the sarcasm, ranting and raving. I know the internet is an infantilising medium, but do we really have to behave like fourteen-year-old schoolgirls? If you find Chad unbearably uncool, killfile him already. He had a very good point, perhaps best made by raving. It really doesn't matter to me whether I send a document by email or by post -- I'd like to be able to edit them in the same program, to look up the information about the recipient in the same place, and so on and so forth. This is a perfectly reasonable thing for people to want and MS does it better than anyone else. It's probably very wise of Sun not to spend resources on doing that right now -- and no one else, as we know, does any of the heavy lifting. But if ever anyone did come up with a solution that integrated OOo with a first class open source contacts manager and scheduler properly, this would be praised as the most innovative step forward in the entire history of the software industry by almost everyone on these lists, especially those who most vocally despise Outlook. Good points. I never understood this whole process of why people would want Outlook like features within OOo. My self, I would despise more applications within OOo. There are many great applications for email available. The whole idea of is choice and integrating an application within OOo would limit choices. Any application would have to work cross platform and this creates it's own set of headaches as it still would not satisfy all those that are asking for more. Didn't the earlier versions of Star Office include a email client and WWW browser and work like a desktop? You opened the application that you wanted? Oh so many years ago As for Chad. Yea he is a pain but sometimes a pain is required to find what is wrong. He does provide some valid opposition to the many. This is needed to keep OOo a great product and to help it get even better. I for one would rather see a front end that ties into Thunderbird/Mozilla instead of a separate application. Of course I like using the command line as well. Robin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Daniel Kasak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:436FCC9F.9050703 @nusconsulting.com.au: OpenOffice.org developers have better things to do than write an email client from scratch just because people are too lazy or incompetent to open an external email program and attach a file. That's the spirit! The customer isn't just wrong. He's lazy and incompetent as well. You seem to think it's a great idea, but as long as someone else does it. By insisting that OOo include an email client, you're dragging back the development of everything else, How? No one on this list has the power to insist on anything, or to retard the development of OOo in any way. Do you really imagine that sun developers look in here for ideas? -- Andrew Brown The email in the header does not work. Contact details and possibly useful macros from http://www.darwinwars.com/lunatic/bugs/oo_macros.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Alexandro Colorado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: I assume that he want to make OOo mailable as part of the content. This can be achieve on software such as IBM Workspace. But OOo still doesn't support an email transfer that will make it's native format (OpenDocument/OpenOffice.org text) an email content. In an age where HTML email is being avoided due to spyware and spam, the integration seems less and less likely to happen. But this isn't exactly the problem. OOo native format isn't HTML, and OOo documents have to be massaged if they are cut and pasted into web pages to deal with smart quotes, em dashes, accented letters and other things which are differently coded in HTML than in OOo. If you're saving and sending as plain text, you need another set of transformations. It seems to me that there are, in principle, two possible solutions to this sort of problem. There is the hard core unix one, where you use one text editor for everything and pipe the results to your mail program, your formatting program, etc, etc; and the there is the MS/Corel/Lotus one in which the address book, the scheduler and the email program are all integrated with the word processor, and all display variously fancy formats. OOo falls uneasily between these two patterns. One possible soluton would be to try to integrate OOo with gmail -- which gives cross-platform email. Complete integration would require an immense effort to beef up and improve OOo's displays of web pages, which is at present abysmal. But partial integration -- just using Gmail as the address book, and the posting mechanism -- would probably be a whole lot easier. Somone sould have put that up for Google's summer of code. -- Andrew Brown The email in the header does not work. Contact details and possibly useful macros from http://www.darwinwars.com/lunatic/bugs/oo_macros.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite (Process Management)
Robbie Darrell Graham wrote: Daniel Kasak wrote: Robbie Darrell Graham wrote: Let me first said I love what is happen in Open office.org. It about time some one took on Microsoft the right way. But there needs to be some more work done. I think for some one who works in an office you need complete office suite with out have the following. Word Processing, Spreadsheets,Drawing,Database,Sideshows,Address book,Email,Scheduling all these program and data need to be easy to go between them. All these applications already exist. I am posting this message from Thunderbird - an open-source email client. If you know about Thunderbird but choose not to use it, how about helping out write an email client for OpenOffice? There are a lot of people like yourself who keep asking for it - get all of them together and it should be child's play :) Yes, I also use Thunderbird. But I would like to use something that was integrated into open office like Outlook is in Microsoft Office. It sounds like all the base packages are there already. The unifying software between them might be called Process Management. The ability to use Send from OOWriter to Thunderbird from the Print Menu while selecting the attached file format. OO or PDF or whatever. This is already being done by some software. The heavy duty cog is the part where all outbound/inbound is controlled and tabled in history format. When did you access something last, how many times, did you print a version and mail it as well as fax it. This version of Big Brother is quite helpful as long as the user remains in control privately and already is a requirement for certain large government/corporations. H, Sarbanes-Oxeley anyone. Organizer software is usually designed for the minimum of these processes and wouldn't complain if was available. Anyway, what 'is' is a pretty amazing. Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
John Thompson wrote: On 2005-11-07, Robbie Darrell Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I also use Thunderbird. But I would like to use something that was integrated into open office like Outlook is in Microsoft Office. I've never used Outlook to any great extent. What sort of integration are you missing in OOo? Doesn't File...Send Document as email work? Or are you looking for something else, like using OOo-Writer as your email editor? Yes I would like to use OOo Writer as my email editor, Maybe there is a way to use parts of OOo in other project or bring other projects into the OOo family of projects. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On 11/8/05, Andrew Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One possible soluton would be to try to integrate OOo with gmail -- which gives cross-platform email. Complete integration would require an immense effort to beef up and improve OOo's displays of web pages, which is at present abysmal. But partial integration -- just using Gmail as the address book, and the posting mechanism -- would probably be a whole lot easier. Somone sould have put that up for Google's summer of code. Andrew, Thanks for sticking up for me, I appreciate it. I also appreciate the points you make. I am trying to cut back on my emails, since people have been so offended by my observations. I know you feel uneasy about the role of the counterbalance to all the gung-ho half-blind FLOSS Roolz/MS Drulz cheerleading and back-patting on these lists. But I am grateful for your additions to that cause. You, Rod, Robin, and others are very level-headed about this, and see the areas that need work, as well as the areas that surpass MS and anything else out there. One must see both sides in order to improve. Anyway, more directly to this thread. I like what you have to say, but I doubt people would like tying OOo into Gmail. Some people are as paranoid about Google as they are about Microsoft. I think both forms of paranoia are beyond the pale and pointless, but I at least understand, to a certain degree, where the FUD against Microsoft comes from. Google has, from the beginning, stated their goal is to Don't be evil. And to this point, they aren't. Regardless of that, even if Google was (and I think possibly is) the greatest company to ever touch a keyboard, limiting OpenOffice.org to one email provider is a step in the wrong direction. Providing links into Thunderbird would be different than, say, providing links into AOL's email. Now, I am by no means against providing links into Gmail (as I use Gmail, and would like to use OOo to email with), but I don't think that would solve the problem. It would for people, like me and you, who use Gmail - but not for people on AOL, MSN, Yahoo, Takethisjobandshoveit.comhttp://Takethisjobandshoveit.com, etc.. [I'm not sure that's a real place, but you get my point.] And for those who want to say that creating an integrated OOo email client would take away as much choice as a Gmail-only hook would, you're wrong. First, you can have more than one program that does the same thing on your computer. I have NeoOffice/J, AbiWord, TextEdit, Pages, AppleWorks, and MS Office 2004 all on this computer now. Second, even if all you have is an OOo-like Thunderbird or an OOo Email - you can still use AOL, MSN, or whatever email provider you wish. You have lost no choice by having the email client. The It takes away choice argument is pretty old with me. It was the same song and dance last year about the database feature. Now, those same people who were crying I wanna use my MySQL! are now boasting about the New OpenOffice.org Base and how great it is. You can still use MySQL, or PostSQL or whatever database you want with OOo, only now, you don't have to have anything extra to have a database (other than Java, I know - Java is evil too). Adding hooks into Thunderbird (which, to me, seems to be the easiest route) or creating an ODF based OOo email client with calendaring and address book, would only enhance OpenOffice.org, and not detract from it. -Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net - Because everyone loves free software
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Chad wrote: Google has, from the beginning, stated their goal is to Don't be evil. And to this point, they aren't. When you have a chance, start apply Forensic Lingusitic Analysis to Google's statements. Doing so will make it patently obvious that they re doing some nefarious things. Providing links into Thunderbird would be different than, say, providing links into AOL's email. You are right here. [I'm not sure that's a real place, but you get my point.] It used to be. The It takes away choice argument is pretty old with me. Depending upon how an email is incorproted into OOo, it may, or may not limit choice. With the way Base is integrated, one can still use MySQL SQLite, etc. Adding hooks into Thunderbird (which, to me, seems to be the easiest route) or creating an ODF based OOo email client with calendaring and address book, would only enhance OpenOffice.org, and not detract from it. It probably is better to configure Thunderbird/SunBird to read/write ODF than create a new OOo mail client. [Especially if the email hooks are allredy prt of the OOo base code.] xan jonathon -- Does your Office Suite conform to ISO Standards?
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Andrew Brown wrote: Daniel Kasak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:436FCC9F.9050703 @nusconsulting.com.au: OpenOffice.org developers have better things to do than write an email client from scratch just because people are too lazy or incompetent to open an external email program and attach a file. That's the spirit! The customer isn't just wrong. He's lazy and incompetent as well. I stand by that statement. What people are asking for is an email program that allows them to email from inside OpenOffice ... so they don't have to open an external client. That's lazy. If they claim they don't know how to attach a file to an email, then that's incompetent. As for the 'customer' being right or wrong, no-one here is selling anything, so the rules are slightly different to the old 'custom is always right'. The simple fact is that the customer is *not* always right. What's the best approach: a) - educating them on how to use an existing email client, or b) - writing a new email client - creating documentation - providing support for people who prefer not to use documentation - maintaining the project I choose option a) The open source way of doing things is to make small, discrete apps / libraries that perform a specific task, and do it well. The alternative throw everything possible in, otherwise the customer will use a competitor's product logic does not belong in open source. We should encourage people to use their choice of existing open source apps to build their own productivity suite. The original poster already admitted that he's using Thunderbird. I use Thunderbird. I can assure you that it's easy to create an document in OpenOffice.org, save it, switch to the desktop with Thunderbird, create a new email, choose a contact from my address book, type my email, attach my document I just created, and send the email. If there is a problem, it's not with OpenOffice.org or Thunderbird. Still don't agree? Why not hassle the Thunderbird developers to include a word processor, spreadsheet, database app and presentation program in the next version of Thunderbird ... so I don't ever have to switch out of Thunderbird. -- Daniel Kasak IT Developer NUS Consulting Group Level 5, 77 Pacific Highway North Sydney, NSW, Australia 2060 T: (+61) 2 9922-7676 / F: (+61) 2 9922 7989 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: http://www.nusconsulting.com.au - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
On Wednesday 09 Nov 2005 07:50, Daniel Kasak wrote: Andrew Brown wrote: Daniel Kasak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:436FCC9F.9050703 @nusconsulting.com.au: OpenOffice.org developers have better things to do than write an email client from scratch just because people are too lazy or incompetent to open an external email program and attach a file. That's the spirit! The customer isn't just wrong. He's lazy and incompetent as well. I stand by that statement. What people are asking for is an email program that allows them to email from inside OpenOffice ... so they don't have to open an external client. That's lazy. If they claim they don't know how to attach a file to an email, then that's incompetent. Oh come on, OOo should really have all these things integrated, with a gimp-like tool as well, and it's own integrated OS, and a dog agility course designer, and an integrated network packet sniffer would be nice, and... :) -- - Tim Fairchild Atchafalaya Border Collies. Kuttabul, Queensland, Australia. - Email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepagehttp://www.bcs4me.com Photos http://www.pbase.com/amosf Bloghttp://bcs4me.com/blog - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Oh come on, OOo should really have all these things integrated, with a gimp-like tool as well, and it's own integrated OS, and a dog agility course designer, and an integrated network packet sniffer would be nice, and... :) Well this is where extensions come in, got the Gimp installed ? download a set of gimp menus. Want to email using thunderbird ? download that extension. Part of the reason MS software has problems is that it requires integration with lots of their other products. So outlook requires exchange to work well which requires the crappy IIS and active directory and a well configured MS DNS and ISA server and if any of that is imperfectly configured then the whole lot falls in a heap. Its better to keep OOo integration modular and optional so extensions that link to the market leaders like thunderbird or evolution are the way to go. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
