Re: Updated intro logo [was Re: Proposals]

2020-09-12 Thread Brian Barker

At 19:17 12/09/2020 +0200, Czeslaw Wolanski wrote:

Just out of curiosity (I am not the cat...):
Wording "Since 20 years" is simply not English, unless it refers to 
a point in time code-named "20 years"

True or False?


True. But I cannot imagine any point in time being named "20 years" - 
unless what is meant is "the year 20", i.e. 20 CE.


Brian Barker 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Updated intro logo [was Re: Proposals]

2020-09-12 Thread Brian Barker

At 13:33 12/09/2020 +0200, Czeslaw Wolanski  wrote:

Due file is available at the following link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C8WAM7z5MEoW9VnLtwXBfqYGoPSTtbPN/view?usp=sharing

COMMENT
... there should be a way to gently move the 
focus from the otherwise important "Apache / 
Open Office" to Jörg's sound suggestion: "Open. For all. Since 20 years"


Sorry, but as has already been pointed out, 
"since 20 years" is simply not English. "Since" 
requires a point in time, not a period of time. 
So you can say "since 2000" or "since twenty 
years *ago*", but not "since 20 years". For a 
period of time, idiomatic English definitely requires "for": "for 20 years".


Don't be embarrassed; here's a fun fact: you are 
in good company. The lyricist of the Swedish pop 
group ABBA (Björn Ulvaeus?) is proud of the 
accuracy of the English lyrics he wrote. But he 
quotes against himself the one mistake he 
recognises. Not happening to be a pop fan, I've 
had to look this up, but in _Fernando_ appears 
the (incorrect) line "Since many years I haven't 
seen a rifle in your hand". Read "For many years...".


Brian Barker 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: macOS and AOO42X

2020-05-17 Thread Brian Barker

At 16:55 17/05/2020 -0400, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
The Apache® OpenOffice® Projekt is on the road 
to a bigger update for its leading open source office suite.


The changes look good except that its should be 
either it is or it's it would probably be better 
to use it is rather than the contraction it's.


*No!* Once again, in "for its leading open source 
office suite" the "its" is a possessive pronoun, 
spelled without an apostrophe (cf. his, not 
*hi's!), and does not stand for "it is".


Brian Barker 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: macOS and AOO42X

2020-05-17 Thread Brian Barker

At 11:19 17/05/2020 +0100, Pedro Lino wrote:

Some corrections/suggestions

The Apache® OpenOffice® Projekt is on the road 
to a bigger update for its leading open source office suite.


[...]; it's not its


Aaargh, no! The possessive pronoun is "its", not "it's". Stet.

Brian Barker 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Windows Installer translation

2020-02-23 Thread Brian Barker

At 14:01 23/02/2020 +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
We are discussing from time to time, that it might be worth to 
remove the packaging to the exe completely.


To my knowledge in the past we did create an exe because you could 
not doubleclick msi files. But Microsoft had fixed this for quite 
some time and there is no real reason to keep the exe packaging.


So any objections?


I'm no expert, but my understanding is that the .msi file is a 
database, required just as much during removal of any product as 
during installation. My impression is that products such as Microsoft 
Office quietly salt away a copy of the .msi file (or as much as is 
needed) and Windows uses this when the product is removed. Failing 
that, Windows remembers where the .msi file was during installation 
and seeks it out, asking for it if necessary. And all this applies 
when removal is effected by installing a later version, doesn't it?


Now the user may have thought (or even been told) that, once the 
product is installed, the downloaded files are no longer needed and 
may have deleted them. This used to result in a steady stream of 
requests to the Users list, asking how the new version can be 
installed when the process stalls at this point. Indeed, as recently 
as ten days ago, a user trying to install a current version reported 
to the Users list "Every time I try I get a message to insert the 
Open Office.org 3.2 disk". He must have installed the older version 
from a CD - which he may well no longer have.


Will distributing .msi files result in the same problem to occur 
again? Or is OpenOffice now prepared similarly to salt away the 
necessary parts of the installation database? If not, what was (and 
is) the cause of the problem, please?


Brian Barker  



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Fwd: kalloucha sent you a contact request on Pinterest

2019-04-21 Thread Brian Barker

At 18:40 21/04/2019 +0200, Peter Kovacs wrote:

Does anyone know what printerest is?


It's "Pinterest". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinterest . Note also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinterest#Use_by_scammers .

I trust this helps.

Brian Barker


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Possible broken link: Checksums

2018-02-03 Thread Brian Barker

At 10:48 03/02/2018 +0100, Kjell Andersson wrote:

I found this challenge, MD5 sums don't match.


Enquiries such as this are probably best sent to the Users list, not 
the Development one, in the first instance. The first step is to have 
your difficulty confirmed.



Source file
openssl dgst -md5 Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.5_MacOS_x86-64_install_sv.dmg
MD5(Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.5_MacOS_x86-64_install_sv.dmg)= 
d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e


MD5 check-sum file
6de73527d6f426f41b142a915e8afaba 
*Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.5_MacOS_x86-64_install_sv.dmg


I've just tested this, downloading both dmg and md5 files from 
www.openoffice.org/download/ . The MD5 checksum of the dmg file, 
derived using Microsoft's File Checksum Integrity Verifier (version 
2.05), matches the 6de... value you correctly quote from the md5 
file. So either your download of the dmg file has indeed been 
corrupted - perhaps cut short? - or else your extraction of its MD5 
hash was faulty.


Brian Barker  



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Participation Research at Utrecht University

2018-01-31 Thread Brian Barker

At 13:35 31/01/2018 +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
Am 30. Januar 2018 13:27:09 MEZ schrieb Zeena Spijkerman 
<zspijker...@gmail.com>:
The topic of this research is business models of open source 
software (OSS) companies, ...
I have formulated some questions which I would like to ask someone 
who has a clear idea of the business model of Xoops.


Anyone has an idea what Xoops is? I am unsure what she is referring to.


Clearly an error. For Xoops, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XOOPS 
. The enquirer is clearly approaching a number of open source 
software suppliers, including both OpenOffice and Xoops. Her message 
to the Users list correctly referred to "Open Office", but when she 
was referred to the Development list, she must have sent the wrong 
version of her message.


Brian Barker 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Windows 10 won't install Open Office

2017-07-05 Thread Brian Barker

At 12:02 05/07/2017 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
We put the binaries on the SourceForge mirrors, but the hashes 
should be served from a common location.


Is that https://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html ? But it's not 
easy to find ...


Brian Barker 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Office Writer Quote

2017-05-30 Thread Brian Barker

At 17:55 30/05/2017 +0100, Rory O'Farrell wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2017 14:46:40 +, Cecil Soman wrote:
I was speaking about Office writer which uses in SQL Server 
Reporting Services.


If you mean the word processing component of MS Office, this is more 
properly called Word; your query has been addressed to the 
OpenOffice mailing lists; in OpenOffice the word processing 
component is Writer and this downloads as an integral part of the 
entire OpenOffice suite, which is freely available without license 
or fee from www.openoffice.org/download


I suspect the enquirer is meaning SoftArtisans' OfficeWriter, which 
appears to work with Microsoft Office (and presumably has nothing to 
do with OpenOffice Writer). See
http://www.officewriter.com/officewriter-for-sql-server-reporting-services.aspx 
.


Brian Barker 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Error on your web site

2017-03-29 Thread Brian Barker

At 13:58 29/03/2017 -0500, D L Tolleson wrote:
I would point out, however, that something can be "improved" or it 
can be "new," but marketing gurus not withstanding, it cannot be 
"new" AND "improved."


I think it can, providing that you see this as a hendiadys.

If I say it's nice and warm today, I appear to be saying that it is 
both nice and warm, but that's not so. You can see this since it is 
not the same thing as saying that it is warm and nice. Instead the 
expression means that it is nicely warm - warm to a nice extent. The 
logical expression, "nicely warm", has two words in different parts 
of speech creating a single idea: the adverb "nicely" modifying the 
adjective "warm" to create the single idea of "nicely warm". But the 
figure of speech hendiadys (= one through two) allows us to parade 
the two words as if they were parallel adjectives making two ideas 
but actually to mean the single idea.


If I work for the queen (I don't), I may get a "tied cottage", living 
accommodation that comes with the post (not necessarily anything you 
would call a cottage). This is provided by favour of the queen, and 
the respectful word you have to use when referring to the queen's 
favour is not "royal" (as you might imagine) but "gracious". So you'd 
expect this to be called a "*gracious favour residence", but it 
isn't: the proper term is "grace and favour residence". Again, a 
hendiadys of two nouns representing what should strictly be an 
adjective qualifying a noun.


"New and improved" is surely a hendiadys for "newly improved" - which 
is very probably what is meant.


I would also suggest that if one improves existing documentation, 
the act of writing it is sufficiently implied to forego having to 
use the word "write."


(Er, you mean "forgo", of course; "forego" means to precede.)

Brian Barker 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Fwd: no access

2016-12-20 Thread Brian Barker

At 19:20 20/12/2016 +0100, Marcus Noname wrote:

Am 12/20/2016 04:55 AM, schrieb Martin Groenescheij:

Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 20:52:15 + (UTC)
From: corby white <mr42wh...@yahoo.com>
Hello, I was on the Template page trying to download a template. 
"Access Denied" was the message, however there is no "Login" 
required for downloads, is there something I need to do to access 
these templates?


Can someone of the developers correct this problem?

The issue is that the template gives the message "Access denied" 
instead of "Page not Found"


I've no problem to download templates. Please try again. Maybe it 
was a temporary problem that is now solved.


Sorry, but there clearly is a problem. For example, on 
http://templates.openoffice.org/ there is a template "CD Jewel Case 
Front Insert Template - ClearEyesMedia.com". The link is to 
http://templates.openoffice.org/en/template/cd-jewel-case-front-insert-template-2 
, which delivers "Access denied / You are not authorized to access this page."


Brian Barker 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Hash values of downloaded files

2016-11-26 Thread Brian Barker

At 22:44 24/11/2016 +0100, Marcus Noname wrote:

Am 11/24/2016 10:25 PM, schrieb Brian Barker:
I've been hearing from a intending user of OpenOffice who was 
repeatedly finding the hashes on his downloads did not match. He (I 
think he was a "he") had repeatedly downloaded form different 
mirrors but could not get a match. He even, he says, tried other 
versions and other operating systems. Clearly there was something 
wrong at his end. Can you guess yet?


as you don't write from where he has done the downloads, this could 
be a source of error.


Thanks for this.

That was the first thing I checked, of course - and yes, he was using 
the official site.



1. Download OpenOffice from here [1].


Er, where? No footnote! But that's not the problem ...


2. Download the hash file from the same webpage ...


Now you are teaching me how to do this, so let's be clear. You know 
what to do. I know what to do. Even the naive user now knows what to 
do. Originally he made a mistake, but he eventually realised what he 
had done. I understand the mistake and why he made it. You don't 
(yet) understand what he did or why the web site instructions are 
perhaps not clear enough to prevent this mistake by users. I'm hoping 
I can get you (or whoever) to understand this and perhaps improve the web site.



Sorry, I don't understand what he has done. Comparing the file with itself?


No, of course not. I think that the fact that you found my 
description (which I've re-read and I'm sure is clear) didn't lead 
you immediately to an appreciation of the problem only goes to show 
how the necessary wording can be confusing. That's my point. 
Incidentally, did no-one else want understand my point?


Let's look at your description instead of at the web site. At point 
3, you say to "generate the hash value from the downloaded OpenOffice 
file". At point 4, you say to "[c]ompare it with the value of the 
downloaded hash file". There are two tiny words there that differ 
between the instructions: you mean something very different by a 
value *from* a file and a value *of* a file. In the first case you 
mean a value derived from a file by processing it through a program; 
in the second you mean to refer to a value stored in a file. Can you 
see that a user might easily miss that very important distinction?


As I explained, the user quite properly derived the hash value of the 
installation file. He then - understandably but wrongly - performed 
the same process to derive the hash value *of* the hash file - 
instead of inspecting the value provided in that file. Not 
surprisingly, these values never matched, whatever version he tried 
or mirror source he used.


You and I will think that this misunderstanding is unlikely, but that 
is because we already understand how hashes are used to confirm the 
integrity of files in this way. As I mentioned, the web site - at 
http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums.html - uses expressions 
such as "If both hash values do not match" and "When both hash values 
match", and the use of the word "match" is asking the users to seek 
similarity. The values to be compared are not "hash values" in the 
same way. It is surely not surprising that this user therefore 
believed hat he was being asked to do similar things with both files? 
In any case, whatever you and I think, that is what he did. I'm 
suggesting that we should believe the evidence.



If there are any mistakes or room for improvements, then please tell us.


I thought I had.

The web page separately sets out instructions for different methods 
of deriving the hash value. In the couple of lines at the top, there 
is only one sentence explaining the purpose. There is simply no 
statement that the hash file already contains the *answer* that 
should match what is derived from the file being checked. The later 
use of expressions such as "both hash values do not match" and "both 
hash values match" gives a strong impression that we are comparing 
like with like. There are two hash values, we are being told, which 
should match. It's not surprising that a user expects to derive two 
hash values in the same way. It would be better not to call both 
values "hash values" but to distinguish between the hash value 
(derived form the file being checked) with the "comparison value" or 
"check value" or "correct result" or whatever contained in (and not 
derived from) the hash value file.


Brian Barker  



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org