Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Hi Juergen, I really did not want to step into this thread, but: On Thursday 07 February 2008 23:22, Juergen Schmidt wrote: All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave the project and should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the situation doesn't change. Sorry, but this is a really dangerous attitude. Please don't feel offended, but it very much reminds me what we used to have in our country in the communist era. You don't like it here? Emigrate. And don't be surprised if you get shot during that. I guess we all are here because we love OpenOffice.org. And each of us has his/her reasons for that. So what's wrong with having his/her (different) opinion about how it should be handled as a project? Regards, Jan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Sorry, but this is a really dangerous attitude. Please don't feel offended, but it very much reminds me what we used to have in our country in the communist era. You don't like it here? Emigrate. And don't be surprised if you get shot during that. Please emigrate to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] or ..., not outside of our country ^H^H^Hproject. Got it? -- Pavel Janík - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Where our products install to
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 14:05 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: I think that the best solution would be to get rid of share/dict/ooo and look for the dictionaries into a common place, for example /usr/share/myspell. It would be nice get rid of share/dict/ooo/dictionary.lst. The dictionaries have well defined names. It is possible to create symlinks for compatible languages, ... Well, there might be problems with symlinks on Windows but it would be very useful on Linux. Specifically wrt dictionaries, as you probably know that's precisely what we do on fedora where we've done away with dictionary.lst (well it still works if you want to use it) and just auto-detect them and the language/locale they service based on their names and add looking in a system /usr/share/myspell location as well the shared OOo one and then the per-user one. If there's any interest in it, then I could try and perhaps upstream this work and co-opt the existing --without-myspell-dicts or whatever its called into a sort of --with-system-dicts=LOCATION and bind the code off that, or something of that nature. C. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Removing external header guards
Hi fellow devs, kendy and me now intend to execute the once-postponed plan to remove external header guards (that #ifndef STUFF #include STUFF #endif ugliness). A bit more background: http://blog.thebehrens.net/2008/02/05/obsolete-external-header-guards/ Ideally, we'd want to land this in HEAD before 3.0 beta. This is entirely possible, as most of the work is done by this script: http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/ooo-build/trunk/bin/strip-guards?revision=8464view= +markup Work is currently underway in CWS incguards01, which touches almost every module (I lean towards skipping binfilter, similar to WaE; and Frank already requested to leave dbaccess out as well (because of major include-overhaul)). Feedback greatly appreciated, -- Thorsten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Allen Pulsifer wrote: All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave the project and should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the situation doesn't change. This attitude is very telling. Some people might think that the whole reason Sun set up OpenOffice.org is to get free development and code contributions to its StarOffice product. By posting things like this, you make it very clear that it is your goal and Sun's goal that all people who will not assign copyright in their work to Sun should leave the project, because you and Sun have no use for them. If this was not obvious before, it certainly is now. sorry but that is completely nonsense but it shows that you have understand nothing. But who wonders you are not really deep involved in the project and you don't know the reality. The project simply don't need people like you who has probably never contributed one line of code but are very good in this kind of useless discussion. Good bye Allen Juergen PS: that was my last comment on this thread - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Hi all, I answer here but this is not an answer to Michael's mail and this is why I top post. Please all, there is no need for more provocations. The world is not perfect, but it can be worse and it has been in the past. May I remember you that we didn't have the JCA at the beginning of the project, we didn't have the PDL, we didn't have a lot of tools that make our world much better now. We are now thinking about SCA, an adapted one to our community, so no need to quarrel about what is already behind. If you really have this energy to argue, please come and discuss how we can reenforce our workflow, our communication flow, our visibility and add more power to our community. This discussion about JCA has years, may be we should discuss why we don't have a beamer any more, or why we call ourself OOo, just to move to known sterile topics (even if they may be interesting and have to be worked out). If you disagree with what is done and how it works here, express yourself yes, but make it with confidence in this community where we are all *actors*. There is no good and no evil, but a group formed with corps, companies, individuals, all with very different interests being economic or egotist or social or moral, whatever. But we are all here for OOo, the product and the community, because we believe in them. What I know by myself is that this project and its members have done a lot of moves since its beginning. It has not been easy. We sometime have had to discuss a lot and proof our concepts, it has been exhausting and it is still so because we want all for today if not yesterday. But confidence is a key word in all these discussions to make them come to real facts. So please, really, stop this fight, and allow us to think at something that is reflecting our common love for OOo. Thanks in advance Kind regards Sophie Michael Meeks wrote: [...] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Where our products install to
On Friday 08 February 2008, Oliver Braun wrote: Hi Stephan, Stephan Bergmann wrote: The planned new (OOo 3.0) structures are as follows: On Unix (Linux, Solaris): - The URE product still by default will install to /opt/openoffice.org/ure (but only the /opt prefix is relocatable). - The OOo product by default will install its three layers into -- /opt/openoffice.org/ure -- /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 -- /opt/openoffice.org3.0 (where only the /opt prefix is relocatable). - The StarOffice product, for example, by default will install its three layers into -- /opt/openoffice.org/ure -- /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 -- /opt/staroffice9 (where only the /opt prefix is relocatable). Is there a good reason to keep the minor (3.0) in the path names and thus to continue to lose (super-)user deployed dictionaries and UNO extensions when upgrading from e.g. 3.0 to 3.1 ? I think that the best solution would be to get rid of share/dict/ooo and look for the dictionaries into a common place, for example /usr/share/myspell. It would be nice get rid of share/dict/ooo/dictionary.lst. The dictionaries have well defined names. It is possible to create symlinks for compatible languages, ... Well, there might be problems with symlinks on Windows but it would be very useful on Linux. -- Best Regards, Petr Mladek software developer - SUSE LINUX, s. r. o.e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lihovarská 1060/12 tel: +420 284 028 952 190 00 Prague 9 fax: +420 284 028 951 Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Where our products install to
Hi Stephan, Stephan Bergmann wrote: The planned new (OOo 3.0) structures are as follows: On Unix (Linux, Solaris): - The URE product still by default will install to /opt/openoffice.org/ure (but only the /opt prefix is relocatable). - The OOo product by default will install its three layers into -- /opt/openoffice.org/ure -- /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 -- /opt/openoffice.org3.0 (where only the /opt prefix is relocatable). - The StarOffice product, for example, by default will install its three layers into -- /opt/openoffice.org/ure -- /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 -- /opt/staroffice9 (where only the /opt prefix is relocatable). Is there a good reason to keep the minor (3.0) in the path names and thus to continue to lose (super-)user deployed dictionaries and UNO extensions when upgrading from e.g. 3.0 to 3.1 ? Regards, Oliver - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Jan Holesovsky wrote: Hi Juergen, I really did not want to step into this thread, but: On Thursday 07 February 2008 23:22, Juergen Schmidt wrote: All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave the project and should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the situation doesn't change. Sorry, but this is a really dangerous attitude. Please don't feel offended, but it very much reminds me what we used to have in our country in the communist era. You don't like it here? Emigrate. And don't be surprised if you get shot during that. well, think about my exaggerated comment and i am sure you know how it was meant. I guess we all are here because we love OpenOffice.org. And each of us has his/her reasons for that. So what's wrong with having his/her (different) opinion about how it should be handled as a project? i am not against an open and constructive discussion but not again and again when the base facts are still the same and haven't changed. It's simply useless and it is interesting that it always comes from the same people. Probably there is a reason for doing it again and again that i don't know or don't see. Anyway for me it's simply stupid. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Hi Mathias, On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 16:05 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote: I don't want to kill the thread - I'm not even empowered to do that. :-) Good 'oh :-) personally I think the discussion is helpful. Jurgen is right, of course, that we discussed this 3 months ago, and that there has been no progress in between. That itself is worth noticing - despite the perception of activity improvement created by Advisory Boards and so on. Anyhow, if we can discuss there are a few other bits worth clearing up as well: On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 23:54 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote: Michael Meeks wrote: Haha :-) I once tried using OpenOffice too, it's user-interface was perfection: no changes welcome. OK, I was just pulling your leg. Sorry for that. Of course, no need to apologise, it was amusing, good to inject some humour :-) Of course you can :-) I spent some time explaining that the vast majority of that code is CA free (I call that eclectic ownership). How much code is CA free doesn't make a difference - This is partially true - but re-applying this back to the interesting case: OO.o - what then is the problem with having CA free plugins included in the product ? :-) - it doesn't change the fact that only Novell is able to licence the whole stuff under proprietary conditions. With regard to our current discussion this is the identical situation as in case of OOo. Not really; lets summarise the differences: the vast majority of the Mono code is eclectic ownership, there is a small (and shrinking) core that is not. Furthermore, there are replacements for the 'core' piece as I understand it: eg. 'Portable.Net' implements their own core, and shares the run-time libraries, or you could use an IKVM type technique to run .Net apps on a JVM (I imagine), and at worst there is the non-free MS runtime. Were Novell to do something truly stupid unreasonable with the core Mono licensing tomorrow, demanding cash / concessions / whatever to ship / use it - there are lots of other options. Now consider OO.o - Sun owns everything, and insists on owning and controlling everything, even cleanly separated components [ included in the product ] (despite as you say) it not really making an immediate difference to Sun's licensing stranglehold. Obviously this leaves a very different situation if Sun decides to do something stupid tomorrow. IMHO, representation should follow contribution, the more you contribute - the more say ownership you should have: that seems only fair. Unfortunately, this is not true of OO.o - and I was hoping for some movement here - AB wise. A trivial and incremental way to achieve this, without hurting Sun's licensing business (in the 1st instance), is (as I outline) - allowing non-Sun-owned components into OO.o, under some suitable license of Sun's choosing etc. It seems fair and extremely reasonable. It is the sheer reasonable-ness of the proposal, combined with it's (apparent) unequivocal rejection by Sun that concerns me most. If a company gave me the opportunity to get some useful open source software and adjust it to my needs I would gladly accept that wonderful opportunity and contribute my code back. That would be my thank you for the huge amount of work that the company already had invested and that gives me a benefit. I know the argument, I used to try to persuade people of this view :-) clearly however gratitude has its limits. It cuts both ways: Novell, and others have contributed substantially to OO.o, yet (apparently) Sun is unwilling to accept a wonderful opportunity to contribute their changes to our code back to (not even Novell of course, but some open transparent foundation). ie. why should the thank-yous appear to only go one-way ? Insinuating a participation of Sun in the case of Butler office really is ridiculous. *That* is the stupid part of the thread I would like to see stopped. Fine :-) it would be silly anyway, now we know it's not so. The rest might still be boring, as it presents the same arguments we heard days, weeks or months ago (and probably we will also hear days, weeks and months later), but that's life. Heh :-) glad you can cope. And as you are doing your own builds anyway where you can include extensions easily - why bother? Well - ultimately, I would like to aim at working within the OpenOffice.org project, and reducing the differences between our builds to a minimum [ and of course, trying to ensure OO.o our users have the latest greatest components / features we work on in their download ]. But as you know, the main problem is that non-inclusion of components, appears to lead to duplication in the core. HTH, Michael. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
I see that Allen wants to continue in developing the project and product, so please everyone lets Allen do it... That would be great. As soon as the project is ready to accept LGPL contributions, then we can make that happen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave the project and should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the situation doesn't change. This attitude is very telling. Some people might think that the whole reason Sun set up OpenOffice.org is to get free development and code contributions to its StarOffice product. By posting things like this, you make it very clear that it is your goal and Sun's goal that all people who will not assign copyright in their work to Sun should leave the project, because you and Sun have no use for them. If this was not obvious before, it certainly is now. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
