Cor Nouws wrote:
So now you skip the stupid wrong initial reasoning you made in your
previous post and start with another idea that to me just looks as the
next poisonous attempt to do as if developers are incompetent
uninterested people?
I just rewrote what I meant since the previous
Tor Lillqvist-2 wrote:
You are barking up the wrong tree here. I have not seen any actual
developers
use language like evil MS or M$ and argumentation like that.
Agreed. It was a small provocation :)
But it confuses me that bugs (and especially regressions) such as the one I
mentioned are
Keep using your ad hominem arguments and ignore the issues that user are
reporting.
You are absolutely right.
Version 3.4.2 is perfect. My mistake.
Bye!
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Viability-of-the-3-4-2-Release-tp3215651p3232189.html
Sent from the
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
* frequent bugfix release on the code line happens (3.4.1, 3.4.2
etc). Code only enters that code line after review, no new
features are allowed. If something regresses, usually the fix is
simply reverted.
That is an interesting point. It simply means
Cor Nouws wrote:
Glad to read that, because indeed, your reasoning above is completely
illogical :-D
Since regressions that occurred between 3.3.x and 3.4.x were not simply
reverted and that only regressions between 3.4.x releases are fixed at
this stage, what are the chances that
Andras Timar wrote:
1. VC++ 2008 x86 9.0.30729.6161 does not exist as a redistributable
package, so we need to distribute what is available, VC++ 2008 x86
9.0.30729.4148 that is.
Could someone please update the VC included with version 3.4.2 rc1 to build
9.0.30729.4148 then? It is still
Andras Timar wrote:
1. VC++ 2008 x86 9.0.30729.6161 does not exist as a redistributable
package, so we need to distribute what is available, VC++ 2008 x86
9.0.30729.4148 that is.
Could someone please update the VC included with version 3.3.4 rc1 to build
9.0.30729.4148 then? It is still
I have reported on Bugzilla that docx files which have an equation don't show
any text after the equation.
This was a regression from version 3.3.x and is present in version 3.4.2
which is an enterprise release :D
I guess enterprise users don't care about equations or don't use docx (which
makes
Jonathan
The most interesting part is that if you stop the Windows installation after
the files are unpacked and then execute the msi file on a batch of PCs you
will not be bothered by the MS VC++ outdated libraries because they are not
contained in the msi :)
In fact this is explained in the
Hi Andras
Andras Timar wrote:
Because it is not possible to query a newer version reliably.
Especially, detecting yet to be released newer versions seems to be
difficult to me. The MsiQueryProductState call can be used only if the
product code of the package is known.
I'm not a programmer
Jesús Corrius wrote:
We can detect if there a new version installed, and then do nothing,
but the trade-off will be to make LibreOffice less reliable.
LibreOffice will be less reliable because you won't force to install an
older (unsecure) version which in your own words won't even be
Florian Effenberger wrote:
Marc-André Laverdière wrote on 2011-07-22 12:35:
While that is certainly advisable, I think we need some good CYA. Some
people in this sad sad world just like to sue.
what's a CYA?
See definition number 2
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cya
Hi Andras
Andras Timar wrote:
You fail to understand what people try to explain to you.
I can argue the exact same thing.
Andras Timar wrote:
Currently we install start the VC++ 2008 redistributable 9.0.30729.4148
installer, if it is not installed and skip the installation, if it is
Jesús Corrius wrote:
1. LibreOffice and all the other applications (ok, unless they are
using private assemblies[1]) will always use the lastest updated
versions of the libraries installed in the system. Any user has many
old libraries installed in the WinSxS directory and it's not a
Hi all
First of all I find it odd that this release is named RC1. Shouldn't there
be a Beta first?
I found the following bugs in the Windows installer:
1) Forces installation of MS VC++ 2008 x86 9.0.30729.4148 although MS VC++
2008 x86 9.0.30729.6161 was already installed
2) New dictionaries
Jesús Corrius wrote:
This is working fine.
If you don't have the matching version already installed, then the
installer should install the version referenced in the manifests.
If the version is already installed, the VC runtime installer does
nothing. But in this case, it's polite to
Robert Boehm wrote:
Obviously, if the version preferred by the installer is the only
version that the installed files will work with
is the only choice, then well, OK. But if it's compatible with the
latest version, maybe there is a way to make
sure that the latest version available is
NoOp wrote:
I'd recommend a followup to the dev list. plino, when you do that you
might also add links to the security notices for the earlier version of
VC++ 2008.
The Dev list is for devs only. I have unsubscribed from it.
Here is the link
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2538243
Following that reasoning someone should start a party against rollerball and
ballpoint pens and go back to fountain pens , dip pens or even quills
(sharpened feathers)...
Using a neologism: LOL
--
View this message in context:
Surprise, surprise!
IBM will be announcing tomorrow that it’s donating essentially all its IBM
Lotus Symphony source code and resources to Apache’s OpenOffice project
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/ibm-throws-its-source-code-and-support-behind-openoffice/9240
--
View this message in
@Mark
Let me quote, since you obviously missed this part Until and unless the
deficiencies are fixed, ODF is not suitable as the native format for
Gnumeric or any other spreadsheet.
IMO without font embedding the same applies to files whose contents rely on
the fonts (namely presentations and
You can remove base (or any other program from the suite). All LibreOffice
(and OpenOffice) programs are contained in soffice.exe and soffice.bin
The exe files are just small launchers (300Kb) that load different
appearances of the same program.
I think your best bet is to remove openoffice
Hi Bernard
bedipp wrote:
1) Charles doesn't insist in keeping embedded fonts out of ODF
I NEVER said this. Please quote the right person.
I'm not a developer and I certainly don't intend to waste my time let alone
pay for a feature that is so unimportant to everyone.
Thank you for your
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
So are you saying your word documents embed fonts on a daily basis?
I've never seen any similar documents. You get the impression of that
-maybe- because on a windows to windows environment everybody uses
fonts that are already available on the system. Of course,
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
sigh We do all have lots of responsibility, all of us. I can assure
you that people usually, most of the time DON'T include fonts in their
MSO documents. But then, who am I to argue? You seem to be a MSO power
user. Go and contribute to the ODF TC at the OASIS. I
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Now, as for humility, claiming in an assured and definitive way that ODF
will lose if it
does not embed fonts is not exactly humble either.
I didn't say that. I said that IF OASIS insists on refusing to embed fonts
in ODF (which is what you also peremptorily
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
But let me ask it
again: why should it not be the right file format for LibreOffice?
Fonts embedding cannot be the only one feature that will help us break
the dominant vendor's monopoly, can it?
Because any document that allows the use of different fonts and
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
4. It is incorrect to presume that Font Embedding will not be in ODF 1.3
or any other. While font embedding did not make the feature cut in the
prioritization for ODF 1.2, that does not mean it can't be resurrected.
It is early days for ODF 1.3, which is
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
No it doesn't.
Of course it does. Maybe you don't use it or don't know how to do it. But
don't say it doesn't.
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
But I think we're also missing the point if -let's say
we were to design a brand new office file format that embeds or
I really hope that revision 1.2 allows for font embedding in ODF documents.
IMO that is a (the?) major obstacle for sharing documents with other users.
--
View this message in context:
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
So, let me state and restate this : ODF will not embed fonts in the
1.2, 1.3, nor in the future, because the format is not meant to focus on
faithful layout rendering. Instead, PDF is meant that. ODF focuses on
office document exchanges.
If that is the OASIS
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
We're not talking about the same use cases. Embedding fonts create a
whole lot of different problems in terms of interoperability.
But you're welcome to join the ODF TC, even as an individual.
I believe that there are many interoperability problems.
But if ODF
Here is another free one (for Windows only)
http://www.officeviewers.com
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/New-LibreOffice-Reader-Eliminates-Need-for-PDF-Reader-tp3101887p3102326.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Unsubscribe
BRM wrote:
Directly from the FSF, authors of the GPL. You must have a copy of the
written
offer in order to be entitled to receipt of the source.
It's amazing how you distort arguments to keep your own perspective.
What the GPL says is that whoever gives you a copy of the program is
@BRM sorry to burst your fantasy world...
We are not discussing some theoretical situation with A, B, C, D, etc
This topic and this forum is about a PUBLIC free office suite (yes, I
noticed you deliberately ignored my argument)
In this case the GPL clearly says that the written license MUST be
Greg Stein wrote:
how can you say that Apache
removes rights from people's contributions? As a developer, you
still own your code. You can do whatever you like with it. Apache
doesn't take anything from You.
Easy. Even a non-developer like myself can see that :)
Compared to GPL (which
BRM wrote:
Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a company wanted it could
take a
GPL product, make whatever changes it wanted, and distribute it internally
to
itself without ever contributing back to the community as a whole.
Likewise, it could also distribute that same project
Greg Stein wrote:
As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You.
This is why I think the statement removes rights from people's
contributions is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware
of.
GPL does
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
creating a new version of the source code and making changes that
they did not contribute back to the official distribution.
I think this is the most serious accusation and yet nobody bothered to
comment...
I'm confused on how a modification can be contributed back if
Nabble posts are working.
Thanks ;)
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Ping-Florian-nntp-gmane-posts-to-user-list-still-not-getting-to-the-list-tp3061361p3067421.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Unsubscribe instructions:
I am referring to my first post (probably Nabble doesn't work as
announced...)
plino wrote:
Can someone explain why the latest daily build is named
libreoffice-3-4~2011-06-07_11.47.03_LibO_3.4.0rc1_Win_x86_install_multi.exe
?
This was compiled yesterday but it is still named 3.4.0rc1
Can someone tell me if the daily named rc1 will be installed as a Dev or
overwrite my Stable 3.3.3RC1?
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Release-dates-versions-tp3040743p3046545.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Unsubscribe
Sophie Gautier wrote:
My mail was a bit long, I know, but if you read until the end it says
I did read it to the end. It would be silly to make comments without reading
all ;)
It still isn't clear what you don't need technical skills means...
Apparently in this community only developers
Do you mean using a formula or by changing the source code?
Where is the attached file ? :)
(This mailing list doesn't support attached files. You need to upload it
somewhere)
--
View this message in context:
Sorry, I assumed you meant attached here, not on the report :)
You have two options: dump 3.4 and go for 3.3.3RC1 :)
Or use conditional formatting to set the font colour to white if value = 0
--
View this message in context:
Sophie Gautier wrote:
Sorry, I should have put a smiley, I didn't want to sound hard
You were not, don't worry ;)
Sophie Gautier wrote:
There is a lot to do in our project that doesn't need to be developer or
too technical. Why do you feel that and what should we change to enhance
Hi Sophie
Who is this directed to? Apparently it's for Developers only so why post on
the Discuss list?
I find it odd that Users are not needed in QA but this an odd community
anyway ;)
--
View this message in context:
Hi Eduardo
I suggested a similar idea at the Users list but was told that the Website
list is the correct place
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/TDF-Novos-membros-em-31-05-2011-tp3021079p3021079.html
Maybe you can do that ;)
Abraço do outro lado do Atlântico ;)
--
View this message in
As a user I wouldn't be happy IF the devs split up between two projects.
The way I see it is IBM and maybe some Oracle devs will work on OOo and
everybody else will work on LO...
The good part (besides the Apache license which allows LO to use what little
code will be openly contributed to OOo)
It seems that the logic here is: code for OpenOffice and you are contributing
to both projects, code for LibreOffice and you only contribute to one :)
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice-how-to-get-involved.html
--
View this message in context:
Another interesting article (especially the comments on the post and the
answers by Rob Weir)
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html
--
View this message in context:
Think harder. The point is that if a Release Candidate build is determined
to be
good *enough* to be released, the *exact* *same* *bits* will become the
release
then instead. Just the names of the download directories, downloadable
file, etc
are changed as necessary. So if the Help:About
@Andras
Yes. That is quite obvious for developers.
But can't it simply say RC2 somewhere so that *USERS* KNOW which version
they have?
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RC2-no-3-4-0-x-tag-in-help-about-libreoffice-tp2994857p2995756.html
Sent from the Discuss
Interesting link to the ODF validator, NoOp ;)
I loaded a document I created with LO 3.3.2 (the current stable) and I got
This file is NOT valid
Result details:
upload:///DB Espadarte.odt/META-INF/manifest.xml[2,88]:Error:element
manifest:manifest is missing version attribute
upload:///DB
Hi Tor
Please no. We who have had to look at that codebase and even fix some
problems
in it are glad that it is abandoned. It is a huge unmaintainable pile of
XSLT,
and then some silly C# code around that.
(snip)
Furthermore, this allegedly Open Source project (hosted on soureforge)
ODF support is present in MS Office 2007 SP2 and MS Office 2010 (it
even can be selected as default file format) so what would be your
target?
MS Office 2003 and older? It does not look reasonable to me,
because by the time we develop something useable, only a minority of
users will use
There are *millions* of users that are still using WinXP and older
versions of MS Office (think schools, libraries, individuals, small
companies, government offices, etc). Granted the ideal situation would
be to have all of them install LO, but we know: 1) that just isn't going
to happen, 2)
Hi Kurti
And not IAccessible2 is the only useful application which future is
uncertain.
There are many other tools (migration wizard, document analyzer,
share-point connector, ODF modul for MSO) which were not open source
licensed but were mainly free to use and helped a lot integrating OO.o
@Italo, since you are indeed a member of the SC, can you share with the
community more information about the original topic, please?
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/OpenOffice-dead-and-burried-tp2951991p2952858.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/227849/open_source_advocates_angry_at_german_govt_decision.html
This isn't even about OpenOffice vs LibreOffice... It's about Closed Source
vs Open Source
TBH I think it was a bad move to change radically if you have experienced
and productive users
@Ian
Over 20 years ago I used Impression Publisher and it could rotate graphics
You are confusing programs: a Word Processor (such as LibreOffice Writer) is
not a Desktop Publishing software.
I suggest that you use the FLOSS (Free/Libre Open Source Software) Desktop
Publisher named Scribus
This could also be a way of having our
wordprocessing suite distinguishing itself from any other suites.
I think you mean from OpenOffice and Symphony? MS Word and Softmaker's
Textmaker already do this in 90 degree steps (clockwise and counter)--
View this message in context:
You are right :)
The same happens to the x64 rpm packs which only got to LT.
And this applies to all the mirrors I checked.
Fortunately this only happens for the x64 builds :) (I'm joking!)
--
View this message in context:
Hola Javier
Aqui tienes un foro en castellano/Spanish :)
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Spanish-f1817165.html
Saludos ibericos :) !
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/ODF-viewer-Extension-for-Chromium-Firefox-tp2079302p2080248.html
Sent from the
I will fix this right now. I only unpublished the page while trying
out some pages I'd created (it is a *test* site after all)...
While you're at it could you please add Portuguese (pt) to the script?
Also, there is a mirror in Portugal which has not been updated since Beta1
By default openoffice(libreoffice?) is using max 20 Mb RAM, which is not
enough today. Default settings need to change, st. most computer have 1Gb+
RAM today. If you set it 256 Mb, it quite fast.
*But why is this limited to 256 only?* Sometimes I need much more when
working with my school
MiguelAngel, the problem only occurs when you open the ods and save as xlsx.
Not the other way around ;)
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Why-is-LO-OOo-so-slow-loading-a-spreadsheet-tp2006665p2023022.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at
I can see that RC1 was released today.
Unless I'm mistaken a RC1 (Release Candidate 1) is a release that will only
have small adjustments before the official release.
Does this mean that the official installers for Windows users will be the
huge multi-language with 343Mb and the absurdibly
Mhh, I did not see your note as anything new. But Maybe I should have
mailed that ;-)
But ignored? Far from that.
Cor, thank you for the reply.
In my mind it doesn't make any sense that the mailing lists are so self
contained that I have to guess in which one I have to post.
And if I fail
Thank you for the reply, Andy!
The forums that I visit also have things broken down by what it applies
to. You would get better/more answers by posting to a forum that way as
well. I look at most all new post but from what I have seen not
everyone does, and see this type of reply on
You are free to use both files as you wish.
Please also use the xlsx file included in this other OOo issue
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=96758
it is a complex spreadsheet with a lot of formatting
--
View this message in context:
drew, I just tested it in Windows and the resulting xlsx it's not only
truncated it is also corrupted in such a way that Gnumeric can't open it
(although Excel 2007 and LO can still open it)
No wonder it is faster (and the file smaller), it just deleted nearly
240.000 lines :lol:
--
View this
Another topic ignored?
Maybe a mailing list isn't the right tool...
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Why-is-LO-OOo-so-slow-loading-a-spreadsheet-tp2006665p2014877.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Unsubscribe instructions:
Maybe the right list would help. Try the users list,
[hidden email] or ask the developers,
[hidden email] .
That is exactly my point. In a forum,anyone could answer. In a mailing list
I have to subscribe to ALL and guess on which the subject fits better. I
think this is a general
Here is a table of loading times (in seconds)
This test was carried out under Windows XP SP3 with the 300.000 lines sample
I mentioned in a previous post, converted to the 4 formats.
http://www.openoffice.org/nonav/issues/showattachment.cgi/66356/30_line_sample.xlsx
The point here is that OOo has a small installer with 140Mb (no Java, and
only English, Spanish and French dictionaries).
Why is LO going in the opposite direction with 299 and 466Mb???
The current packages (including in the smallest option 56 language packs!!!)
makes no sense IMO as I mentioned
You are right. I didn't express myself correctly.
This is what I'm suggesting
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-LibreOffice-tp1954148p1973749.html
the first screen for the installer is simply a language selector (such as
the pidgin
I do agree that volunteer-friendly user support is the key for the success of
any Open Source project.
However, in my opinion e-mail and mailing lists are obsolete and ineffective
tools.
A user forum (with optional mail notification) and a wiki are much more
powerful tools.
A forum makes it
My concern is that many users expect help to be present in the application
itself, and not everyone is willing to go and find answers in a community.
Could the application itself pull its Help functionality from online
resources?
In my experience an online forum/help/FAQ does NOT replace an
I just have to respond to this, I hate forums or anything else that
required the use of PASSWORDS!!! I already have 10 times too many
passwords to remember or keep track of and I want absolutely NO more.
Frankly I wish the entire computer and software industry would flush the
whole idea of
One of LibreOffice's supporters is Mark Shuttleworth / Canonical. They have
a lot of experience in shipping Ubuntu disks worlwide for free...
Just an idea ;)
--
View this message in context:
Here is the same image after a little colour correction ;)
http://d.imagehost.org/0646/corsera-ooo.jpg
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Article-on-Corriere-della-Sera-tp1923445p1925544.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Increasing the size of the full package seems to be discouraging. I can't see
any point in creating a big multi language and a huge all language
installer.
Why isn't the same criteria used for other OSes where the smallest possible
installer is available and then a small (20Mb) language pack?
Issue 107217
It is obsolete because it referred to a problem concerning the number of
lines in a spreadsheet which has been increased since then (the current
version supports 2^20 lines instead of the traditional 2^16)
It is ignored because it is not closed.
Maybe it could still be fixed to
Hi
Really - this discussion belongs on the developer list; and the person
who needs to be contributing is the one complaining :-) so - I greatly
welcome your contribution here: there is a lot to do, but it is quite
do-able, and I (and Fridrich + Jesus) would be happy to mentor anyone
In the spirit of Open Source it doesn't make any sense that a closed source
compiler is used.
This means that the script available to compile the Windows version,
requires you to either use the limited free version from Microsoft or to buy
a the full version from them...
Currently MinGW-W64 is
@Simon, so therefore I should not use Open Source programs because I'm using
a closed source OS?
Don't you see how absurd it is to need to BUY a compiler to compile a FREE
program? Then what is the point if the source is open and I can modify it
but can't compile it because I can't afford the
Actually the trackers did work. Technically. But the people managing it
didn't.
One of the bugs I reported (which is now obsolete, but still there) caused
that a user would loose data without being warned. The bug was raised from
the usual P3 level to P2 (meaning it would have to be fixed before
I'm not a programmer but something is puzzling me: why is LibreOffice
compiled with MS VC++ compiler? This forces the installer to include the
VC++ runtimes...
Wouldn't it make more sense to use the FOSS compiler MinGW?
--
View this message in context:
89 matches
Mail list logo
