Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Ernst W. Winter]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2010, Peter Rodwell wrote:

> I answered a posting from Ernst W. Winter:
> 
> > Yes sounds good. How did the city of Munich change 14,000 PC to
> > OOo?
> 
> with a somewhat cursory "I don't know" but the question piqued my
> interest.  A few minutes' Googling came up with the answer: It
> didn't.
> 
> Reports (e.g., at
> http://blog.worldlabel.com/2009/limux-where-the-munich-linux-revolution-is-today.html)
> show that only 80% of the city's 14,000 PCs will have been changed
> to open source by 2012 - that's EIGHT YEARS after the project was
> given the green light.
> 
Yes I know of it from the original German at Heise Online. It
mentions also that many others have changed and are in the process of
changing including the Federal Government.

> To be fair, Oo was only a small part of the changeover, which

correct, the  reason was also:

Schießl explains that free software certainly "Does not mean free as
in free beer." Instead, open source offers programmers the advantage
of improving the software and expanding additional applications
without having to get permission from a specific company. This
advantage also carries weight with other municipal governments. That
is why the cities of Mannheim, Schwäbisch Hall and Treuchtlingen in
Bavaria are moving at least partially to free software.

> involved an upfront cost of ?13 million for LiMux, a special
> version of Linux. The council says that's ?2 million MORE than it
> would have cost to upgrade from Windows NT4 to XP, but their point
> wasn't short-term financial saving -- they were more concerned
> about being tied to a single supplier.
> 
I do know many that have changed the "OS" including Security
companies and if you look closer here in Eurpe Governments even pay
for Open Source developement.

I have been involved in the 90'ies with many changes of OS away from
M$ and there are companies that state openly that they have already
gone away from M$ and still have a small portion of that software.
They are only waiting that they can replace that too. What are
Corporations going to do if even Governments moving away from M$? Or
even IBM are supporting Linux.

> While a city council can apparently afford to spend this time and
> taxpayer's money changing to open source, no corporate CFO would
> even consider it.
> 
Yes this sounds maybe silly, but then they don't have a noose around
their neck with being tied to a company and can develope what they
need for their own ends. OOo might have been a help and a step in
making that move.

Maybe I haven't explained myself as I got too exited to hear that the
OOo is having a new start after Oracle took over Sun, you can see
what happen when such companies take over. I believe in OpenSource
and can see what happen, even if Corporations don't or can't see
that. For me and others OpenSource has done more and achieved more
then any Corporation. I still see it as THE future.

Using Freebsd with some 20,00 apps and I can run Linux Binaries as
well have a Virtualbox to run WIN as well having zfs filesytem, what
could a Corporation want more to be independent?

Sorr again, I just got carried away I will restrain myself. But I
cross my fingers, wish good luck and all success to the developers of
the new Offic Suite. I have pointed many friends in that direction
adn business to what I know of. Keep up the good work you guys ...


--
"FreeBSD pioneers - every day a new installation"
Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
BSD:   Are you guys coming, or what?
FreeBSD provides a "Gates-free PC"

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] How can I add a unique identifier (UUID) of each paragraph

[Miroslav Nachev]

Hi,

We have a scenario in which one document must be translated into many
languages (23) and at the same time will be edited by many people
simultaneously. To realize these requirements, each paragraph must have a
unique identifier (UUID), which to be used in translating and merging of the
document parts.
Could this be implemented?


Regards,
Miro.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency

[jonathon]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 11/03/2010 12:08 AM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:

>>  + Base HSQLDB backend

> That would mean: ship a different database with by default, 

SQLite could easily be added.

> would still need that backend otherwise you'd introduce a major 
> incompatibility with previous versions.

Doesn't Base have its own independent database engine.  Something that
is not part of OOo/LibO?  If so, then a connector for it would be all
that is required to retain the ability to use databases created for it.

> I don't really see a chance for base unless you want to duplicate base.

Base as the front end could be rewritten.

> (Yes, I personally do like java, and I'd not create a code-heavy extension in 
> any other language without a good reason)

Keep the ability for extensions to be written in Java.

jonathon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkzQ4toACgkQaC1raifmCuGH8ACeJIUHtBv5gUswkAkv/Z8Lmvam
TpUAnijSa79TisTGN1if8p8aLoVza3AS
=obwl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Accessibility (was Java dependency)

[Robert Derman]

T. J. Brumfield wrote:

I'm moving this into another thread. Jonathon suggested that LibO fails at
accesibility requirements. Doing a few quick Google searches, it seems that
OOo and thusly LibO uses the Java Accessibility API to enable the use of
screen readers and braille devices. This is primarily used for Windows.

On Mac OSX, the built-in screen reader in the OS is used. On Linux, the
Gnome Accessiblity tools are used.

Yet the OOo wiki suggests the reason you must use the Java Accessiblity API
is that it is multi-platform, yet OOo doesn't appear to be using it on two
of their platforms.
When OOo was a Sun project I think the use of Java was a case of what is 
called dog-fooding.  With LO there is no longer any compelling reason to 
use Java. 


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Java dependency

[jonathon]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 11/02/2010 08:25 PM, RGB ES wrote:
> Agree. Java affect key components, not only extensions:

> base needs java, and as consequence the bibliographic database too.

Is that Base as in the database engine, or Base as in the front end?
If the former, then SQLite can easily replace it.

If the latter, then some tinkering might be required.

One issue to consider is what functionality is lost when the java-*
connectors are omitted.  (One of these days I'm not going to install
them, and see what I lose, when working with databases.)

jonathon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkzQxFYACgkQaC1raifmCuGORwCeK7+MH7H/Y6HetW16lBshON/t
t6gAoI1rzKA16wIy4q3fusj8IxnVjWm+
=xma7
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Accessibility (was Java dependency)

[jonathon]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 11/02/2010 07:56 PM, T. J. Brumfield wrote:

> LibO uses the Java Accessibility API to enable the use of screen readers and 
> braille devices. 

Screen reading is not the only thing that that API can be used for.

> Is there a better alternative for Windows users?

Roughly five years ago, IBM promised to deliver a better A11Y solution
for Windows to OOo.  AFAIK, that hasn't yet happened.

> And how can LibO be made more accessible in general for all users?

Basically, you have to throw away _all_ of the existing code, and
rewrite it from scratch, with i18n, l10n, and a11y as the core
requirements. [Retrofitting a11y, i18n, or l10n always requires more
time and effort that starting from the beginning, with no code at all.]

Full accessibility has several mutually conflicting requirements.
However, if the following criteria are met, most of the conflicting
requirements are negated:

* All input can be done by voice;
* All input can be done by a joystick;
* All input can be done by a Perkins Keyboard;
* All input can be done by a mouse;
* All input can be done using an 78 key keyboard;
* All input can be done on a touchpad;
* All input can be done using a virtual keyboard;

The program must be able to accept simultaneous input from each device;

* All output can be read on a Braille display monitor;
* All output is in an audio format;
* All output can be read on either a CRT or LCD monitor;
* All output can be felt on a touchpad;

The program must be able to simultaneously output to those devices;

The user must be able to change:
* The display size of the data that is presented to them:
** This includes screen magnification on CRT or LCD monitors;
** This includes screen magnification on touchpads;
** This includes all tactile devices;

* The audio volume of the data that is presented to them:
** This includes screen readers;
** This includes self-voicing functionality;
** This includes all audio output devices;

* The colours that are used:
** Icons must be changeable both individually, and as a group;
** Colours used anywhere in the program must be user changeable;

The program must be able to print to:
* A Moon Printer;
* An audio file;
* A Braille printer;
* A "normal" printer:
** Ink jet printer;
** Dot matrix printer;
** Laser printer;
** Thermal ink printer;

In an ideal world, the user could select any of those, and the program
would automatically print out the data on the requested printer, without
any more user intervention.

There is an extension that tries to do output to Braille.  The major
issue with it, is that it only works for one or two languages.

I've read about an extension that outputs a text document to mp3 format.
 I do not know how far it progressed.

Arguably, A11Y also requires the program to be able to print out the
following file formats:
* Plain text:
** ANSI/ASCII;
** UTF-8;
** UTF-16;
** UTF-32;
** Other common plain text character encodings;
* eBook file formats:
** PDF;
** Postscript;
** Mobi;
** ePub;
** HTML 5.0;
** DAISY;
** DjVu;
** AZW (Kindle);
** PDB (eReader);
** Other common eBook file formats;
* Graphical file formats;
** PNG;
** SVG;
** JPG;
** Other common graphical file formats;

I think that most of these could be done as extensions that the user
installs, if they want/need/require the specific output capability.
Some of these, involve file formats that are patented, trademarked,
under copyright, or otherwise blemished.

#

For full accessibility, the best option, from the user's point of view,
is for each component of an office suite to be a single program, written
for a set of specific accessibility requirements. This option is also
the most expensive for developers to implement.

Some aspects of a11y can be provided as extensions to LibO.

#

- From my POV, the major point of failure, of the ODF specifications, in
terms of A11Y requirements, is that the style does not define the
writing system that is used.

This is one "custom extension" of the specification that LibO could
make, that should not break in other software that can utilize the ODF
file formats. (My understanding of the XML criteria, is that unknown XML
markup is ignored.)

The importance of including the writing system, is so that text in
Braille, Moon, ASL, and other a11y orientated writing systems can be
directly created and edited within LibO.

I am acutely aware of the issues involved in making LibO capable of
editing documents in Moon.  I'm even more aware of the issues involved
in printing documents in Moon. It is hard task.  It is very non-trivial
to implement.   But full

#

Something I hadn't thought of earlier, was what the Libre Colour palette
looked like to a person that was colour blind.  My colour blind palette
only covers the "websafe color palette". None of the colours are in that
palette.

jonathon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.moz

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[jonathon]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 11/02/2010 03:48 PM, Peter Rodwell wrote:

> 1. Complete file compatibility. I frequently handle documents with very
 complex formatting.

Funny thing here.

I get better compatibility using OOo and LibO, than I did when I was
using MSO.  I still receive documents in both .doc and .docx formats
that can not be opened with MSO, but can be easily opened and displayed
with both OOo and LibO.

> They *must* retain 100% of the original formatting. So far this has
not been the case with Oo.

If that is the case, then you have to be using the same computer as the
document was created on, using the same settings, and the same edition
and the same version of MSO. Otherwise compatibility is going to be less
than 100%. Even with that configuration, you aren't guaranteed 100%
compatibility.

jonathon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkzQqmQACgkQaC1raifmCuF1JgCdHAcVFR7aZQyJdwOuzNBCUeUd
FmEAn1PyGuSunMKsDRZZ755QuinvOtxt
=2UJi
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency

[Christian Lohmaier]

Hi Cedric, *

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Cedric Bosdonnat
 wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 15:32 -0500, T. J. Brumfield wrote:
>> Can we get a list of all the components that require Java that would need to
>> be reimplemented?
>
> To start a list we could add:
> [...]
>  + Base HSQLDB backend

That would mean: ship a different database with by default, but you
would still need that backend otherwise you'd introduce a major
incompatibility with previous versions.

That list is missing
 + (free) search in Help (uses lucene)

And I fully agree - just dropping java just for the sake of it is a
very, very bad idea.

> The JVM isn't started unless some Java code needs to be run...

Exactly (and that reminds me of a annoyance in OOo builds, that if you
don't have a JRE configured, but access features that would require
java, you don't only get one dialog stating you need java for that
functionality, but it can cause tens of those (e.g. with macro-related
stuff)

> I would
> go for removing as much as possible (mostly the XSLT and Base things)

I don't really see a chance for base unless you want to duplicate base.

But honestly: Nowadays java isn't that ressource-hog it once was, it
loads much faster (and of course once it is loaded you don't really
notice a difference).

(Yes, I personally do like java, and I'd not create a code-heavy
extension in any other language without a good reason)

ciao
Christian

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] interesting article: Inside the OpenOffice.org coup

[Sigrid Carrera]

Hi, 

this email/open letter might be interesting to you as well: 

http://native-lang.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?listName=dev&msgNo=9360

It is the message sent by the German team to the Native lang list,
stating that we're leaving OOo.

Honestly, I had quite some difficulties understanding what the articles
in those other links were talking about. I'm still not clear. 


Sigrid


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency

[T. J. Brumfield]

I think there is a difference between removing Java as a dependency needed
for out-of-the-box features, and blocking people from extending the
application with Java extensions. I think keeping the Java UNO bridge does
make sense, but users shouldn't need to fire up a JVM for basic/common
functionality out-of-the-box.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Cedric Bosdonnat <
cedric.bosdonnat@free.fr> wrote:

> 
> Removing Java completely is a No-go for me as this would prevent
> developers to write extensions and automation in Java. There are
> currently no other quick and simple way to extend OOo / LO for people
> who don't really care about the internals. Removing all Java
> dependencies from LO (and then removing the Java UNO bridge) would mean
> that we will exclude:
>  * Java extensions developers & users
>  * Java external apps using LO
> 
> --
> Cédric Bosdonnat
> LibreOffice hacker
> http://documentfoundation.org
> OOo Eclipse Integration developer
> http://cedric.bosdonnat.free.fr
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency

[Cedric Bosdonnat]

On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 15:32 -0500, T. J. Brumfield wrote:
> Can we get a list of all the components that require Java that would need to
> be reimplemented?

To start a list we could add:
  + XSL transformations (an easy hack to replace by libxsl)
  + Base HSQLDB backend
  + Base report builder (using Pentaho IIRC)
  + Impress HTML export wizards
  + Possibly other wizards in Writer and Impress
  + Misc UNO extensions

> With a list it would be easier to determine if it is feasible to replace
> those components.

Removing Java completely is a No-go for me as this would prevent
developers to write extensions and automation in Java. There are
currently no other quick and simple way to extend OOo / LO for people
who don't really care about the internals. Removing all Java
dependencies from LO (and then removing the Java UNO bridge) would mean
that we will exclude:
  * Java extensions developers & users
  * Java external apps using LO

The JVM isn't started unless some Java code needs to be run... I would
go for removing as much as possible (mostly the XSLT and Base things)
but keep it around for the UNO bridge: this would help us gain on
performance.

-- 
Cédric Bosdonnat
LibreOffice hacker
http://documentfoundation.org
OOo Eclipse Integration developer
http://cedric.bosdonnat.free.fr




-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented

[Christoph Noack]

Hi T.J.!

Am Dienstag, den 02.11.2010, 16:27 -0500 schrieb T. J. Brumfield:
> Restructuring the menus isn't the massive drastic change many people have
> talked about. I'm fine with restructuring the menus, and encourage it.
> However, all the Renaissance mock-ups/prototypes I've seen seem to mimic the
> Ribbon UI.

What kind of specification used for implementation you talk about? All
of the mock-ups (by the core team) I know about, did include the
application menu. So this seems to be different to what you describe.

I would like to avoid the term ribbon in such discussions - if possible.
I know that many people do have mixed feelings (sometimes very strong
opinions) and sometimes require some more substantial knowledge what the
"Microsoft Fluent" concept is about. For example, most people don't know
that the often requested "live previews" part of "the ribbon". And to be
honest - it is very likely that any good interaction concept that will
be proposed will include these "live previews", too. Is this bad?

The previous paragraph was just my attempt to ask for having a look at
the core problem. Many people proposed to "clean up / reorganize the
menus" - this always sounds good, but assumes that it really works
("really" includes that it is validated with users). We tried, and we
found that there are quite inevitable limitations. So I'd like to ask
all to also consider something which might imply changes - without the
need to clone Microsoft Fluent.

That's it for now ... first, let's get a working project to continue
such thrilling discussions ;-)

Cheers,
Christoph


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Graham Lauder]

On Wednesday 03 Nov 2010 06:11:02 Peter Rodwell wrote:
> Hi Cor:
> >> 2. Search and replace. I work with large documents, often 400+ pages.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > OK, that is easy to handle with a trick as user, but possibly also an
> > relative easy fix (1)?
> 
> As I said, when you have to do this constantly, dozens of times a day, it
> does become a real issue.
> 
> I would have thought it quite simple to save the current position, do the
> search and replace then return to the previously-saved position. After
> all, if MS can do it then it can't be very difficult. :)
> 
> P.

There is an extension which is pretty much a compulsory install  on any OOo 
instance l use and it does what you ask here.

http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/search/node/altsearch

cheers 
GL 

-- 
Graham Lauder,
OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ
http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html

OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant.

INGOTs Assessor Trainer
(International Grades in Open Technologies)
www.theingots.org

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented

[Peter Rodwell]

Quoting T. J. Brumfield:


As someone who uses both MS Office and OOo on a daily basis, I find the OOo
FAR MORE USABLE for an advanced user. Every day there are tasks I want to
accomplish in MS Office, but I can't find the appropriate option in the
Ribbon interface. It drives me nuts.


It drives me nuts, too. I've been adding stuff to the Quick Access Toolbar
but that's getting rather crowded.

Also, I moved from a Spanish language version of 2003 to an English
version of 2010 and I still keep on hitting CTRL-G for "Guardar" instead of
CTRL-S for "Save".

I have a language mix here -- Spanish and English versions of Win 7, with
both types of machines running Spanish and English language software. I'm
therefore particularly sensitive to programmers relying on operating system
texts: an English language program will ask me to click on "OK" while the
button on the screen says "Aceptar". Sloppy work, IMHO. I'm now downloading
the LO beta and I'll be looking out for this! :)

P.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [steering-discuss] Version numbering of LibO

[Christoph Noack]

Am Dienstag, den 02.11.2010, 14:57 +0100 schrieb Andre Schnabel:
> I'd rather continue OOo version number schema for the moment.
[...]
> We might work on this for future versions - and maybe we even must
> work on this, in case LibreOffice and OOo diverge a lot. 

+1 for both, so to say :-)

Cheers,
Christoph


-- 
E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how 
to unsubscribe
List archives are available at 
http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be 
deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented

[T. J. Brumfield]

Restructuring the menus isn't the massive drastic change many people have
talked about. I'm fine with restructuring the menus, and encourage it.
However, all the Renaissance mock-ups/prototypes I've seen seem to mimic the
Ribbon UI.

As someone who uses both MS Office and OOo on a daily basis, I find the OOo
FAR MORE USABLE for an advanced user. Every day there are tasks I want to
accomplish in MS Office, but I can't find the appropriate option in the
Ribbon interface. It drives me nuts.

The menus may be poorly organized now, but my point is that we shouldn't
abandon the model of toolbars and menus to chase something new like Ribbon.
It isn't simply a matter of a brief learning curve. 3 years after the Ribbon
first came out, I still loathe it. I know I'm not the only one.

And while I haven't seen a clear indication that the Renaissance has
committed completely to a specific direction, every presentation I've seen
suggests you are moving to a Ribbon clone. I want absolutely nothing to do
with that, nor do I feel it is in any way better for usability to hide 95%
of your functionality. While I understand the claims of signal to noise,
eventually you need something other than the basic icons on the Ribbon and
you simply can't find those options. The trade-off is terrible.

-- T. J.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Christoph Noack <
christoph.no...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi T.J.!
>
> Am Dienstag, den 02.11.2010, 13:05 -0500 schrieb T. J. Brumfield:
> >
> > I truly believe the current approach works and should be maintained,
> > but
> > improved. There might be some slight tweaks in how the menus are
> > organized.
> > Toolbar defaults might be optimized. And the overall UI could be
> > shined up
> > with some gloss, new icons, gradients, spot color, etc.
>
> Many people asked itself whether some tweaks might make the current UI
> more usable in the long-run. To make a long story short: no.
>
> To address some of your points:
>  * Visual Design: New icons / gradients / gloss doesn't improve the
>interaction quality, people rely on. We might only get a short
>positive effect, but no improvement. People will notice that :-)
>
>  * Cleaning: When designing functionality for the UI, one will
>notice that the menus itself are the problem. We have far too
>many small "atomic" features combined with "workflow related"
>topics. Here, our UI doesn't scale (The "where to put" problem
>comes up quite regularly). Thus, in the meantime (e.g. the
>Renaissance Team) improves selected workflows that will finally
>lead to a better menu structure (because you won't need some of
>the options any more). But after all, too many features and the
>(for this kind of application) "wrong" interaction concept.
>
>  * Defaults: There is work done on that - the Renaissance team
>works on "Better Defaults" already and RGB ES did also propose
>to work on better defaults (as he also mentioned). This is a
>very good start - defaults and templates are two dark
>chapters ;-)
>
>  * Step-by-step improvements: I hope that we'll be able to improve
>many things - besides the menus. For example, Mirek put in some
>nice ideas ...
>
>
> Cheers,
> Christoph
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Paolo Pozzan]

In data martedì 02 novembre 2010 16:48:46, Peter Rodwell ha scritto:
> I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this
> has already been discussed or not.
> 
> There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office
> 2010 instead of switching to OO/LO:
> 
> 1. Complete file compatibility. I frequently handle documents with
> very complex formatting. These come from my clients, all of whom use
> MS Office. I translate and edit the documents and return them. They
> *must* retain 100% of the original formatting. So far this has not
> been the case with Oo.
[cut]

If it's just for translating the text of the documents, then you must 
give a try to OmegaT [1] or a similar tool.
Of course you will need MSO to verify the final document, but the 
translation will become much more easier with a CAT tool.

Paolo

[1] http://www.omegat.org/

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented

[Christoph Noack]

Hi T.J.!

Am Dienstag, den 02.11.2010, 13:05 -0500 schrieb T. J. Brumfield:
> 
> I truly believe the current approach works and should be maintained,
> but
> improved. There might be some slight tweaks in how the menus are
> organized.
> Toolbar defaults might be optimized. And the overall UI could be
> shined up
> with some gloss, new icons, gradients, spot color, etc. 

Many people asked itself whether some tweaks might make the current UI
more usable in the long-run. To make a long story short: no.

To address some of your points:
  * Visual Design: New icons / gradients / gloss doesn't improve the
interaction quality, people rely on. We might only get a short
positive effect, but no improvement. People will notice that :-)

  * Cleaning: When designing functionality for the UI, one will
notice that the menus itself are the problem. We have far too
many small "atomic" features combined with "workflow related"
topics. Here, our UI doesn't scale (The "where to put" problem
comes up quite regularly). Thus, in the meantime (e.g. the
Renaissance Team) improves selected workflows that will finally
lead to a better menu structure (because you won't need some of
the options any more). But after all, too many features and the
(for this kind of application) "wrong" interaction concept.

  * Defaults: There is work done on that - the Renaissance team
works on "Better Defaults" already and RGB ES did also propose
to work on better defaults (as he also mentioned). This is a
very good start - defaults and templates are two dark
chapters ;-)

  * Step-by-step improvements: I hope that we'll be able to improve
many things - besides the menus. For example, Mirek put in some
nice ideas ...


Cheers,
Christoph


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Ian]

On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 22:09 +0100, Peter Rodwell wrote:
> I answered a posting from Ernst W. Winter:
> 
> > Yes sounds good. How did the city of Munich change 14,000 PC to OOo?
> 
> with a somewhat cursory "I don't know" but the question piqued my interest.
> A few minutes' Googling came up with the answer: It didn't.
> 
> Reports (e.g., at 
> http://blog.worldlabel.com/2009/limux-where-the-munich-linux-revolution-is-today.html)
> show that only 80% of the city's 14,000 PCs will have been changed to open 
> source by
> 2012 - that's EIGHT YEARS after the project was given the green light.
> 
> To be fair, Oo was only a small part of the changeover, which involved an 
> upfront
> cost of €13 million for LiMux, a special version of Linux. The council says 
> that's
> €2 million MORE than it would have cost to upgrade from Windows NT4 to XP,
> but their point wasn't short-term financial saving -- they were more 
> concerned about
> being tied to a single supplier.
> 
> While a city council can apparently afford to spend this time and taxpayer's 
> money
> changing to open source, no corporate CFO would even consider it.

Some have done. Ernie Ball Guitar strings is one famous case. We are
small but we did it :-)

So I'd say few rather than no CFOs. But we know all that anyway.

Personally, I'm quite happy for Windows to act as a giant magnet pulling
all the malware away from my company :-). I just checked an e-mail
attachment supposedly sent from DHL. .exe file so some Windows malware
or other. Do we really want that stuff targeting Linux any sooner than
necessary? :-)

-- 
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
A new approach to assessment for learning
www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. 


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Peter Rodwell]

I answered a posting from Ernst W. Winter:


Yes sounds good. How did the city of Munich change 14,000 PC to OOo?


with a somewhat cursory "I don't know" but the question piqued my interest.
A few minutes' Googling came up with the answer: It didn't.

Reports (e.g., at 
http://blog.worldlabel.com/2009/limux-where-the-munich-linux-revolution-is-today.html)
show that only 80% of the city's 14,000 PCs will have been changed to open 
source by
2012 - that's EIGHT YEARS after the project was given the green light.

To be fair, Oo was only a small part of the changeover, which involved an 
upfront
cost of €13 million for LiMux, a special version of Linux. The council says 
that's
€2 million MORE than it would have cost to upgrade from Windows NT4 to XP,
but their point wasn't short-term financial saving -- they were more concerned 
about
being tied to a single supplier.

While a city council can apparently afford to spend this time and taxpayer's 
money
changing to open source, no corporate CFO would even consider it.

P.



--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency

[T. J. Brumfield]

Can we get a list of all the components that require Java that would need to
be reimplemented?

With a list it would be easier to determine if it is feasible to replace
those components.

-- T. J.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Mirek M.  wrote:

> 2010/11/2 Marc Paré 
>
> > Le 2010-11-02 15:14, Frank Esposito a écrit :
> >
> >  +1 for getting rid of java.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> +2 for getting rid of java.
> >>
> >>  Me too.
>
>
> Me three.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> > discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> 
> >
> > Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> > Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 
> Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
> A: http://five.sentenc.es
>
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency

[Mirek M.]

2010/11/2 Marc Paré 

> Le 2010-11-02 15:14, Frank Esposito a écrit :
>
>  +1 for getting rid of java.
>>>
>>>
>> +2 for getting rid of java.
>>
>>  Me too.


Me three.

>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>


-- 

Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
A: http://five.sentenc.es

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented

[Mirek M.]

2010/11/2 Scott Furry 

>  On 02/11/10 12:05 PM, T. J. Brumfield wrote:
>
>> The OOo team has been working two years on Project Renaissance. And there
>> is
>> a long running thread here in the discuss archives of a UI prototype.
>> While
>> that particular prototype looks clean/sharp, I think all this dicussion on
>> radically altering the UI is unnecessary.
>>
> 
>
>  I truly believe the current approach works and should be maintained, but
>> improved. There might be some slight tweaks in how the menus are
>> organized.
>> Toolbar defaults might be optimized. And the overall UI could be shined up
>> with some gloss, new icons, gradients, spot color, etc.
>>
>> If anything, I think we should be going the opposite direction. Instead of
>> chasing the Ribbon of 2007/2010, I think we should embrace the abandoned
>> Office 2003 UI even more. Perhaps provide an option to all but completely
>> mimic it. People forget, but Microsoft used this tactic themselves,
>> allowing
>> an option for Word users to use Wordperfect key-mappings, and provided
>> specific help for Wordperfect Users trying to migrate to Word. Since we
>> know
>> most users coming to Lo/OOo are coming from Microsoft Office, shouldn't we
>> do our best to ease that transition?
>>
>> It would also be considerably less work than completely redesigning the UI
>> from scratch. That is more time that could be dedicated to improving the
>> project in other ways.
>>
>> -- T. J. Brumfield
>>
> +1
> Thanks T. J. for putting into words what I was thinking about the UI
> redesign.
>
> I concur with this thinking. Why re-invent an unpopular feature. This kind
> of idea was brought up when OOo unveiled a ribbon-like interface. Just
> because we can redo the UI doesn't mean we should. Can we avoid the
> "bikeshedding" and "chasing after the cool kids", please?
>
> I vote for the application of the K.I.S.S. principle.
>

I'd like some progress on the UI front in LibO. To be honest, I'd say most
LibO competitors (MS Office, AbiWord, iWork, Google Docs, ...) have better
UIs than LibO. That's because LibO has tons of features that are just put
under some menu without much consideration about how an average user would
look through these features. Where LibO absolutely fails is its Options
window -- it's absolutely unusable.

I'd say LibO's UI should change incrementally. It shouldn't copy MS (I don't
need or want the Ribbon on LibO) and it should be well thought-out and
shouldn't force a long-time user to relearn.

I'd begin by implementing command search:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User_Experience/Command_search and
by making customized interfaces saveable (so that companies could have the
same setup on all their computers): that would make it much easier to find
commands and it would make it possible to keep using an old custom UI even
if LibO's default UI changes.

And only then, when there's no worry about having to learn something new,
should the UI change.

>
> Scott Furry
>
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Java dependency

[RGB ES]

Agree. Java affect key components, not only extensions: base needs
java, and as consequence the bibliographic database too.

2010/11/2 T. J. Brumfield :
> I'm an user, and not a developer. So perhaps this is a silly question.
>
> >From a user's perspective, it always seemed like the Java portions of OOo
> were shoehorned in. Starting a JVM eats up unneccessary memory and takes
> time. One of the most common complaints of OOo is that it is a bloated app
> that is slow and takes up too many resources.
>
> I assumed that Sun kept the Java portions of OOo in since they liked to push
> Java. In the age of netbooks, tablets and mobile computing, trimming the fat
> becomes more important.
>
> Would it be possible to remove the Java portions of LibreOffice and
> reimplement them without the need to fire up a JVM?
>
> Is there a technical advantage of running the wizards and such in Java that
> I'm not aware of?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -- T. J. Brumfield
> "I'm questioning my education
> Rewind and what does it show?
> Could be, the truth it becomes you
> I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
> -- Pearl Jam, Education
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented

[T. J. Brumfield]

Can we compile a list of suggestions on how to improve the defaults?

Is there a wiki where we could compile the list?

-- T. J.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:21 PM, RGB ES  wrote:

> A big +1
> That's why I started the thread about better defaults: this will help
> a lot more than a new, shiny but unknown interface.
> OOo/LibO interface IS modern and flexible (contextual toolbars,
> dockers... everything customizable), but it have horrible defaults
> values.
> A couple of fixes here and there (some toolbars do not work well when
> vertical) at it will be just perfect.
>
> 2010/11/2 T. J. Brumfield :
>  > The OOo team has been working two years on Project Renaissance. And
> there is
> > a long running thread here in the discuss archives of a UI prototype.
> While
> > that particular prototype looks clean/sharp, I think all this dicussion
> on
> > radically altering the UI is unnecessary.
> >
> > One of the advantages of LibreOffice/OOo over MS Office is that the
> > interface is familiar and easy to grasp. And while the Ribbon interface
> has
> > improved from 2007 to 2010, it is still unpopular for a reason. The core
> > ideal of a dynamic interface that shows the most common features sounds
> good
> > on paper, but occassionally you need the lesser used features and you
> can't
> > find them. Menus still provide a familiar and easy to use method of
> > organizing a large number of features.
> >
> > Given the large number of features and complexity of office suites, one
> > needs to consider both use cases. Most of the time we only need a small
> > number of features and we want these conveniently located. Thankfully
> Lo/OOo
> > handles this nicely today with keyboard shortcuts and toolbar icons. And
> the
> > laundry list of other features can be found in the drop-down menus.
> >
> > Most radical refactorings I've seen try to "clean" up the interface, but
> > then hide most of the features. We're asking users to relearn a familiar
> > interface, but why?
> >
> > The Office 2007/2010 interface looks nice largely due to nice use of
> color,
> > gradients, etc. The Lo/OOo interface looks antiquated largedly due to a
> flat
> > pallete. But the "ribbon" itself is an odd mish-mash of different sized
> > icons that look like they were assembled at random.
> >
> > Honestly, if we kept the existing system of toolbars and drop-down menus,
> > wouldn't most of our users be happy? If they had to re-learn a new
> system,
> > might it just drive users to Microsoft's office suite (if you have to
> > re-learn, you might as well learn the system used by the masses)?
> >
> > I truly believe the current approach works and should be maintained, but
> > improved. There might be some slight tweaks in how the menus are
> organized.
> > Toolbar defaults might be optimized. And the overall UI could be shined
> up
> > with some gloss, new icons, gradients, spot color, etc.
> >
> > If anything, I think we should be going the opposite direction. Instead
> of
> > chasing the Ribbon of 2007/2010, I think we should embrace the abandoned
> > Office 2003 UI even more. Perhaps provide an option to all but completely
> > mimic it. People forget, but Microsoft used this tactic themselves,
> allowing
> > an option for Word users to use Wordperfect key-mappings, and provided
> > specific help for Wordperfect Users trying to migrate to Word. Since we
> know
> > most users coming to Lo/OOo are coming from Microsoft Office, shouldn't
> we
> > do our best to ease that transition?
> >
> > It would also be considerably less work than completely redesigning the
> UI
> > from scratch. That is more time that could be dedicated to improving the
> > project in other ways.
> >
> > -- T. J. Brumfield
> > "I'm questioning my education
> > Rewind and what does it show?
> > Could be, the truth it becomes you
> > I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
> > -- Pearl Jam, Education
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> > discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> > Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> > Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
> >
> >
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented

[RGB ES]

A big +1
That's why I started the thread about better defaults: this will help
a lot more than a new, shiny but unknown interface.
OOo/LibO interface IS modern and flexible (contextual toolbars,
dockers... everything customizable), but it have horrible defaults
values.
A couple of fixes here and there (some toolbars do not work well when
vertical) at it will be just perfect.

2010/11/2 T. J. Brumfield :
> The OOo team has been working two years on Project Renaissance. And there is
> a long running thread here in the discuss archives of a UI prototype. While
> that particular prototype looks clean/sharp, I think all this dicussion on
> radically altering the UI is unnecessary.
>
> One of the advantages of LibreOffice/OOo over MS Office is that the
> interface is familiar and easy to grasp. And while the Ribbon interface has
> improved from 2007 to 2010, it is still unpopular for a reason. The core
> ideal of a dynamic interface that shows the most common features sounds good
> on paper, but occassionally you need the lesser used features and you can't
> find them. Menus still provide a familiar and easy to use method of
> organizing a large number of features.
>
> Given the large number of features and complexity of office suites, one
> needs to consider both use cases. Most of the time we only need a small
> number of features and we want these conveniently located. Thankfully Lo/OOo
> handles this nicely today with keyboard shortcuts and toolbar icons. And the
> laundry list of other features can be found in the drop-down menus.
>
> Most radical refactorings I've seen try to "clean" up the interface, but
> then hide most of the features. We're asking users to relearn a familiar
> interface, but why?
>
> The Office 2007/2010 interface looks nice largely due to nice use of color,
> gradients, etc. The Lo/OOo interface looks antiquated largedly due to a flat
> pallete. But the "ribbon" itself is an odd mish-mash of different sized
> icons that look like they were assembled at random.
>
> Honestly, if we kept the existing system of toolbars and drop-down menus,
> wouldn't most of our users be happy? If they had to re-learn a new system,
> might it just drive users to Microsoft's office suite (if you have to
> re-learn, you might as well learn the system used by the masses)?
>
> I truly believe the current approach works and should be maintained, but
> improved. There might be some slight tweaks in how the menus are organized.
> Toolbar defaults might be optimized. And the overall UI could be shined up
> with some gloss, new icons, gradients, spot color, etc.
>
> If anything, I think we should be going the opposite direction. Instead of
> chasing the Ribbon of 2007/2010, I think we should embrace the abandoned
> Office 2003 UI even more. Perhaps provide an option to all but completely
> mimic it. People forget, but Microsoft used this tactic themselves, allowing
> an option for Word users to use Wordperfect key-mappings, and provided
> specific help for Wordperfect Users trying to migrate to Word. Since we know
> most users coming to Lo/OOo are coming from Microsoft Office, shouldn't we
> do our best to ease that transition?
>
> It would also be considerably less work than completely redesigning the UI
> from scratch. That is more time that could be dedicated to improving the
> project in other ways.
>
> -- T. J. Brumfield
> "I'm questioning my education
> Rewind and what does it show?
> Could be, the truth it becomes you
> I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
> -- Pearl Jam, Education
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Peter Rodwell]

Quoting Charles Marcus:


There will *never* be 100% compatibility... like I said earlier, even
Microsoft doesn't achieve that between different versions of its own
programs.


Oddly, I can't offhand remember having any backwards compatibility problems.
I have had very occasional problems loading files saved with the *same*
version.

P.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Peter Rodwell]

Quoting Marc Paré:


I understand that perfectly well. I am a teacher and school boards are 
comparable to major corporations, I sit on an IT
committee (software acquisition) and we talk often about migration. But, the 
question of IT support for OS and software
is a large issue. They are more and more interested in the financial savings 
though. I think that this will eventually
lead them to migration, the $$$ is just too attractive.


The difference is of course that public authorities don't have to make a profit while corporations do. Corporations also 
tend to think short term, so an immediate retraining cost is more important than possible long term savings. On the 
other hand, financial savings are likely to be a major impetus for public authorities as their belts are increasingly 
tightened.


P.



--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[T. J. Brumfield]

True. However, the good news is that the 2007 and 2010 formats are largely
similar and are XML based. The old formats were binary and kept changing.
Since the format isn't changing as much, and the new format is easier to
reverse-engineer, now is a good opportunity for OOo/LibO to "catch up" and
improve their compatibiltiy filters.

In some ways, OOo/LibO is better at opening old MSO documents than MSO
itself. Why not continue to improve that?
The difficult argument for many people has been to switch to a new document
format that most users can't open. But if you convince people that your
product is easily the best solution for opening the millions of
2003-and-before documents, then that is a clear advantage for your product.
It could be the killer feature that helps convince people to migrate.

Are the areas of poor compatibilty enumerated somewhere? Are these unknown?
Should users continue to report speciifc documents and features they have
trouble importing?

-- T. J.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:

> On 2010-11-02 12:05 PM, Frank Esposito wrote:
> > File compatibility should be a priority, in the very least opening and
> > saving MSO files with full compatibility
>
> There will *never* be 100% compatibility... like I said earlier, even
> Microsoft doesn't achieve that between different versions of its own
> programs.
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
>
> Charles
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Charles Marcus]

On 2010-11-02 12:07 PM, Robert Parker wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Peter Rodwell  wrote:
>> If this stupid comment is typical of this forum, then I'm out
>> of here.
> 
> I don't think we need Microsoft shills anyway.

Robert - if you don't have anything constructive to say, then shut up.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Charles Marcus]

On 2010-11-02 12:05 PM, Frank Esposito wrote:
> File compatibility should be a priority, in the very least opening and
> saving MSO files with full compatibility

There will *never* be 100% compatibility... like I said earlier, even
Microsoft doesn't achieve that between different versions of its own
programs.

-- 

Best regards,

Charles

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Charles Marcus]

On 2010-11-02 11:48 AM, Peter Rodwell wrote:
> There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office
> 2010 instead of switching to OO/LO:
> 
> 1. Complete file compatibility. I frequently handle documents with
> very complex formatting. These come from my clients, all of whom use
> MS Office. I translate and edit the documents and return them. They
> *must* retain 100% of the original formatting. So far this has not
> been the case with Oo.

Of course there are formatting problems with OOo when opening some MSO
documents... but, in my experience, OOo has *less* formatting problems
across all different versions of MSO than MSO itself does.

In other words, Office 2010 *will* have formatting problems with
documents in older versions... and OOo often does a *better* job in many
of those cases.

What I would like to see is a web form/system dedicated solely to
improving the LibO <> MSO filters - ie, for reporting problem documents.
Just a text box for describing the problem, and a 'Browse' button to
locate the file for upload...

> 2. Search and replace. I work with large documents, often 400+ pages.
> As I'm translating, I usually come across a word or phrase that I
> know will be repeated throughout the document so I search and replace
> it to avoid having to type it continuously. I do this *dozens* of
> times a day. MS Word leaves me where I was when I did the S/R so that
> I can continue working. Oo leaves me at the point of the last replace
> so I have to manually go back to where I was. I know of many people
> for whom this is a dealbreaker -- they won't move to Oo/LO until this
> is fixed.

Sounds like a good candidate for an extension...

-- 

Best regards,

Charles

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[T. J. Brumfield]

The discussion of why companies should or can't migrate away from MS Office
or proprietary document formats is a bit off-topic. I'm also assuming most
of us have had this discussion at length before as well. I'm assuming if
you're on this list that you are in favor of open software and open
standards and have been frustrated at why others aren't as apt to adopt
them.

More on topic however, I think if we can focus efforts on improving LibO to
be the best product, then more people would be willing to switch to it.

Here is a query that will show 198 open issues/bugs/feature requests that
have at least 25 votes:

http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi?Submit+query=Submit+query&issue_type=DEFECT&issue_type=ENHANCEMENT&issue_type=FEATURE&issue_type=PATCH&issue_status=UNCONFIRMED&issue_status=NEW&issue_status=STARTED&issue_status=REOPENED&issue_status=VERIFIED&email1=&emailtype1=exact&emailassigned_to1=1&email2=&emailtype2=exact&emailreporter2=1&issueidtype=include&issue_id=&changedin=&votes=25&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=&chfieldvalue=&short_desc=&short_desc_type=allwords&long_desc=&long_desc_type=allwords&issue_file_loc=&issue_file_loc_type=fulltext&status_whiteboard=&status_whiteboard_type=fulltext&keywords=&keywords_type=anytokens&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time

I believe some of these are addressed in the go-oo patches, and thusly LibO
today. Looking at that list, which popular existing issues/bugs/feature
requests that people have voted for repeatedly do you think that LibO should
focus on?

Does LibO have its own wiki or bug tracker? I'm not a developer, but I could
compose a list in a wiki, or open matching bugs in a LibO bug tracker. I
imagine that tackling some popular but unresolved issues, and some of the
easy hacks (low hanging fruit) mentioned earlier in this thread might serve
two purposes.

It could attract new developers and also create some clear visible
advantages to the LibO codebase over the OOo codebase.

-- T. J.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Peter Rodwell  wrote:

> Quoting Ernst W. Winter:
>
> Yes sounds good. How did the city of Munich change 14,000 PC to OOo?
>>
>
> Since I'm in Spain and not in Munich, I have no idea.
>
> I do think where there is a willing there will be a way. If Govermnet
>> Authorities can change, why can't a corporation change.
>>
>
> Public authorities don't have to make a profit. Corporations do. The
> changes we are discussing here cost money.
>
> Is it what
>> people decide or the company?
>>
>
> The company, of course.
>
> besides I don't believe that all employees are stupid or lazy when it
>> comes to learningt something new.
>>
>
> Nobody is saying they are. But re-training still takes time.
>
> P.
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation

[Charles Marcus]

On 2010-11-02 8:12 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> I respect your opinion - alas, I have a different one. For your
> specific example, if someone submits code to LibO, stating in her
> mail "I license this under LGPLv3+ / MPL", and that later turns out
> to be false pretense, that gives you about as much leverage against
> the contributor as if she signs extra documents (at least for all
> practical matters.

Simple (for the submitter) is best...

Just define the process for code submissions and make the agreement a
part of that process - a checkbox, that must explicitly be checked, with
clear and unequivocal language of what the submitter is agreeing to, is
all that should be necessary.

This could be a one-time thing for those with direct commit access and
those who create an account with a web based submission system, and
something that the user must agree to each and every time for
submissions done by email - ie, they submit a patch, the system holds
it, sends an email back to the submitter, with a link they must click,
which takes them to a page where they must signify their agreement to
the copyright assignment, after which - and only after which - their
submission will be accepted.

It might sound complicated, but once it is automated, it would 'just
work'. Of course, the system that holds this information should be
backed up religiously... ;)

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Accessibility (was Java dependency)

[T. J. Brumfield]

I'm moving this into another thread. Jonathon suggested that LibO fails at
accesibility requirements. Doing a few quick Google searches, it seems that
OOo and thusly LibO uses the Java Accessibility API to enable the use of
screen readers and braille devices. This is primarily used for Windows.

On Mac OSX, the built-in screen reader in the OS is used. On Linux, the
Gnome Accessiblity tools are used.

Yet the OOo wiki suggests the reason you must use the Java Accessiblity API
is that it is multi-platform, yet OOo doesn't appear to be using it on two
of their platforms.

Is there a better alternative for Windows users?

And how can LibO be made more accessible in general for all users?

jonathon wrote:
>For those that have accessibility requirements, the Java is mandatory.
>OTOH, even with Java, LibO is not an accessible program. On the gripping
>hand, all office suites fail accessibility requirements.

-- 
"I'm questioning my education
Rewind and what does it show?
Could be, the truth it becomes you
I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
-- Pearl Jam, Education

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Peter Rodwell]

Quoting Ernst W. Winter:


Yes sounds good. How did the city of Munich change 14,000 PC to OOo?


Since I'm in Spain and not in Munich, I have no idea.


I do think where there is a willing there will be a way. If Govermnet
Authorities can change, why can't a corporation change.


Public authorities don't have to make a profit. Corporations do. The
changes we are discussing here cost money.


Is it what
people decide or the company?


The company, of course.


besides I don't believe that all employees are stupid or lazy when it
comes to learningt something new.


Nobody is saying they are. But re-training still takes time.

P.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-11-02 14:53, Peter Rodwell a écrit :

Quoting Marc Paré:


And yes, MSO format conversions are not 100% and where there are power
users like Peter, it may be difficult to
rationalize using LibO when his customers are unwilling to adopt an
ODF format which would simply work. There is always
the option for Peter to propose a change in office suite to his
clients and suggest that a free migration to LibO would
save them quite a bit in expenditures and would still provide them
with the same functionality as MSO but using the ODF
formats instead.


My clients are mostly major corporations who don't tend to welcome IT
strategy suggestions from their
suppliers! Sure, they're aware of OO and open source in general but
they're not planning to change anytime soon. This is not because they've
been brainwashed by MS; it's mostly because they can't afford
(financially and timewise) the risk of having to re-train thousands of
users with the productivity drop that this would involve.

P.



I understand that perfectly well. I am a teacher and school boards are 
comparable to major corporations, I sit on an IT committee (software 
acquisition) and we talk often about migration. But, the question of IT 
support for OS and software is a large issue. They are more and more 
interested in the financial savings though. I think that this will 
eventually lead them to migration, the $$$ is just too attractive.


Marc



--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-11-02 15:14, Frank Esposito a écrit :

+1 for getting rid of java.



+2 for getting rid of java.


Me too.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Java dependency

[Frank Esposito]

> +1 for getting rid of java.
>

+2 for getting rid of java.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Peter Rodwell]

Quoting Frank Esposito:


mostly because they can't afford (financially and timewise) the risk of
having to re-train thousands of users with the productivity drop that this
would involve




I have to say, if that was the case, then no one would have upped to
2007/2010. The last company I worked for who upgraded spent millions on
training and roll-out costs.


From talking to them, it's precisely because they were bitten when they
moved from Office 2003 to 2007 that they're reluctant to make any
further moves, for the time being at least.


I just don't think corporations, especially the bigger ones trust "free"
software yet.


This is also true, although I've found a surprising number of IT
professionals who are aware of, trust and are enthusiastic about
open source software at a personal level. It's higher up where the
problems lie, especially after the 2003 to 2007 conversion costs.

P.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Ernst W. Winter]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2010, Peter Rodwell wrote:

> Quoting Marc Paré:
> 
> > And yes, MSO format conversions are not 100% and where there are
> > power users like Peter, it may be difficult to rationalize using
> > LibO when his customers are unwilling to adopt an ODF format
> > which would simply work. There is always the option for Peter to
> > propose a change in office suite to his clients and suggest that
> > a free migration to LibO would save them quite a bit in
> > expenditures and would still provide them with the same
> > functionality as MSO but using the ODF formats instead.
> 
> My clients are mostly major corporations who don't tend to welcome
> IT strategy suggestions from their suppliers! Sure, they're aware
> of OO and open source in general but they're not planning to change
> anytime soon. This is not because they've been brainwashed by MS;
> it's mostly because they can't afford (financially and timewise)
> the risk of having to re-train thousands of users with the
> productivity drop that this would involve.
> 
Yes sounds good. How did the city of Munich change 14,000 PC to OOo?

I do think where there is a willing there will be a way. If Govermnet
Authorities can change, why can't a corporation change. Is it what
people decide or the company? After all the employees would have to
retrain or learn or loose their job, not body is irreplacable.

I have heard often enough talk about big Corporations and all that
and yet see the world change to the point where no force was used,
besides I don't believe that all employees are stupid or lazy when it
comes to learningt something new.

I am retired and so don't have to listen too all such talk. One thing
I have seen that many here in Europe changed to OOo, not only that it
was free but it also was more stable and usable then M$ Office.

What about the Open Source and all that is going on. I doubt that it
can be closed down, and remember years agao when it started and all
the big guns smiled and thought it was just some silly nerd event.

I use LaTeX and vi or vim. My usage of a Office Suite is limited, but
again on the other hand I deal with many that have taken to OOo and
use it and I find it was something wothwile for people wiht little
budgets as well havin cleaner sofrtware to boot with. M$ is not the
allmighty anynore by a long shot.

Also does anyone listen ot "enduser"? I thin that is where there is a
big black hole too.

Sorry, but this is my 2c worth as a enduser.

Ernst

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail 
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Java dependency

[Johannes Bausch]

+1 for getting rid of java.

2010/11/2 jonathon :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/02/2010 03:36 PM, T. J. Brumfield wrote:
>
>> Is there a technical advantage of running the wizards and such in Java that 
>> I'm not aware of?
>
> For those that have accessibility requirements, the Java is mandatory.
> OTOH, even with Java, LibO is not an accessible program. On the gripping
> hand, all office suites fail accessibility requirements.
>
> jonathon
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkzQWREACgkQaC1raifmCuGCqgCgmV1hzm573cv4SbhUaUUhJ/kQ
> e5EAniwzGk/oSRlGtJX5z1pe4ftOE3Q1
> =4I9C
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented

[Scott Furry]

 On 02/11/10 12:05 PM, T. J. Brumfield wrote:

The OOo team has been working two years on Project Renaissance. And there is
a long running thread here in the discuss archives of a UI prototype. While
that particular prototype looks clean/sharp, I think all this dicussion on
radically altering the UI is unnecessary.



I truly believe the current approach works and should be maintained, but
improved. There might be some slight tweaks in how the menus are organized.
Toolbar defaults might be optimized. And the overall UI could be shined up
with some gloss, new icons, gradients, spot color, etc.

If anything, I think we should be going the opposite direction. Instead of
chasing the Ribbon of 2007/2010, I think we should embrace the abandoned
Office 2003 UI even more. Perhaps provide an option to all but completely
mimic it. People forget, but Microsoft used this tactic themselves, allowing
an option for Word users to use Wordperfect key-mappings, and provided
specific help for Wordperfect Users trying to migrate to Word. Since we know
most users coming to Lo/OOo are coming from Microsoft Office, shouldn't we
do our best to ease that transition?

It would also be considerably less work than completely redesigning the UI
from scratch. That is more time that could be dedicated to improving the
project in other ways.

-- T. J. Brumfield

+1
Thanks T. J. for putting into words what I was thinking about the UI 
redesign.


I concur with this thinking. Why re-invent an unpopular feature. This 
kind of idea was brought up when OOo unveiled a ribbon-like interface. 
Just because we can redo the UI doesn't mean we should. Can we avoid the 
"bikeshedding" and "chasing after the cool kids", please?


I vote for the application of the K.I.S.S. principle.

Scott Furry



--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Frank Esposito]

> mostly because they can't afford (financially and timewise) the risk of
> having to re-train thousands of users with the productivity drop that this
> would involve
>


I have to say, if that was the case, then no one would have upped to
2007/2010. The last company I worked for who upgraded spent millions on
training and roll-out costs.


I just don't think corporations, especially the bigger ones trust "free"
software yet.


-fe

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Peter Rodwell]

Quoting Marc Paré:


And yes, MSO format conversions are not 100% and where there are power users 
like Peter, it may be difficult to
rationalize using LibO when his customers are unwilling to adopt an ODF format 
which would simply work. There is always
the option for Peter to propose a change in office suite to his clients and 
suggest that a free migration to LibO would
save them quite a bit in expenditures and would still provide them with the 
same functionality as MSO but using the ODF
formats instead.


My clients are mostly major corporations who don't tend to welcome IT strategy 
suggestions from their
suppliers! Sure, they're aware of OO and open source in general but they're not planning to change anytime soon. This is 
not because they've been brainwashed by MS; it's mostly because they can't afford (financially and timewise) the risk of 
having to re-train thousands of users with the productivity drop that this would involve.


P.



--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented

[Peter Rodwell]

Quoting T. J. Brumfield:


One of the advantages of LibreOffice/OOo over MS Office is that the
interface is familiar and easy to grasp. And while the Ribbon interface has
improved from 2007 to 2010, it is still unpopular for a reason. The core
ideal of a dynamic interface that shows the most common features sounds good
on paper, but occassionally you need the lesser used features and you can't
find them. Menus still provide a familiar and easy to use method of
organizing a large number of features.


Very true. I changed from Office 2003 straight to 2010 and I sometimes
find myself on the verge of violence when looking for some features, even
fairly common ones (at least common in my work).


Given the large number of features and complexity of office suites, one
needs to consider both use cases. Most of the time we only need a small
number of features and we want these conveniently located. Thankfully Lo/OOo
handles this nicely today with keyboard shortcuts and toolbar icons. And the
laundry list of other features can be found in the drop-down menus.


It's said that most users of complex software use only 20% of its features.
Unfortunately, not everybody uses the *same* 20%. (This is one reason why
"light" versions usually fail.)

One of my clients has over 10,000 PCs, almost all of which have MS Office 
installed.
They had major problems with people adapting to Office 2007 from 2003.


The Office 2007/2010 interface looks nice largely due to nice use of color,
gradients, etc. The Lo/OOo interface looks antiquated largedly due to a flat
pallete. But the "ribbon" itself is an odd mish-mash of different sized
icons that look like they were assembled at random.


Personally I'm not interested in eye candy and in fact I've turned off
the Aero stuff on my Win 7 boxes to make them look like XP (and I did
the same with my Linux systems -- the ultimate heresy!).


Honestly, if we kept the existing system of toolbars and drop-down menus,
wouldn't most of our users be happy?


[snip]

> Since we know

most users coming to Lo/OOo are coming from Microsoft Office, shouldn't we
do our best to ease that transition?


On the other hand, more and more users are moving to 2007/2010 and
are getting used to it. People are expecting more eye candy and the
"old fashioned" interface could well put them off, now that they've
seen what wonders have come out of Redmond. [/sarcasm]

I've had similar arguments with Linux fans who argue for a return
to a command line on the grounds that it's easier and quicker.
Well, no it isn't. Put one in front of the average office worker
(to whom a computer is nothing but a tool for getting work done)
and watch him/her freeze in horror. It was bad enough back in the DOS
days...


It would also be considerably less work than completely redesigning the UI
from scratch. That is more time that could be dedicated to improving the
project in other ways.


If by "improving the project" you mean bug fixing, then of course. If you mean
adding yet more features, well, just how good does a word processor or
spreadsheet have to be? Is there a limit to the number of new features that
can be added without causing feature overload? In 30+ years in the computer 
business
I've seen any number of cases where something has been done purely because it
can be done, regardless of whether it's of any use to anyone. Just a thought.

P.



--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-11-02 14:17, Peter Rodwell a écrit :

Hi Marc:


We would need an example of an incompatible file for us to see and
examine. Could you provide us with an example?


I can't supply any of the files since they are the property of my
clients and I'm bound by some very strict non-disclosure agreements
(they have the right to tear my balls off and sell my wife into slavery,
or wording to that effect). If I can find time I'll try and duplicate
it, but I'm really busy right now. It was nothing major, something
involving graphics within tables, if I remember rightly.



Thanks for the reply and offer to send in a file when you have time. It 
would be nice just to have a look at it, even if the import is unfixable 
at this time.



Maybe someone could chime in on this one? If not, could you, Pete,
please check to see if the latest LibO Beta2 still
has this problem. If so, maybe we could have a dev look into it for a
fix or at least move it up a bit on their list of
bugs for repairs.


I'm reluctant to download the beta since the Web site says it will
overwrite my existing Oo and I don't have an available spare machine at
the moment. I'll see if I can free up one and try it.

Peter.




I am not sure if this is still the case. Maybe someone else can comment 
on this? I thought it was fixed in Beta2.


Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Ernst W. Winter]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2010, Marc Par wrote:

[snip shortened stuff]

> Good points Frank and we also have to consider that Italo, our
> marketing guru, now says that in some European countries, OOo/LigO
> commands 20% market share and that ODF adoption is on the rise and
> is quite established.
> 
Well I think it is hogher than that or een twice as much with 00o as
I can assure you here in Germany many local AUthorities are using it
already, even that they don't often put it in the open.

One example was when the city of Munich changed from M$ to Linux in
terms of OS, then Balmer rushed to save it and offfered some millions
less in licensing fees, of course with the treat that there are still
some patents that M$ has on it all that garbage. But in the end they
still changed to Linusx and that was some thousend machines.

Yes, you should look more into Europe with it as even the EU is using
as standard OOo and supportin it.

I'm only a "enduser" and use FreeBSD, hendce I'm interested when it
will appear in the ports collection there.

I don't use OOo much, mainly for cconversio of M$ *doc if I get them.

> The lack of ODF adoption in N.Amer. needs to be addressed by all
> groups employing ODF standards. We all need to promote its use
> where ever it goes, even down to the single player such as Peter.
> 
Undestandable, but I guess that Europe would be a better chance.

> And yes, MSO format conversions are not 100% and where there are
> power users like Peter, it may be difficult to rationalize using
> LibO when his customers are unwilling to adopt an ODF format which
> would simply work. 

Well I have often recieved these days more ODF formats then anything
else as even many friends use it and also at their workplace.

Ernst

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail 
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Java dependency

[jonathon]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 11/02/2010 03:36 PM, T. J. Brumfield wrote:

> Is there a technical advantage of running the wizards and such in Java that 
> I'm not aware of?

For those that have accessibility requirements, the Java is mandatory.
OTOH, even with Java, LibO is not an accessible program. On the gripping
hand, all office suites fail accessibility requirements.

jonathon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkzQWREACgkQaC1raifmCuGCqgCgmV1hzm573cv4SbhUaUUhJ/kQ
e5EAniwzGk/oSRlGtJX5z1pe4ftOE3Q1
=4I9C
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-11-02 11:40, Miguel Angel Frías Bonfil a écrit :

According to me, Libre Office is developed primary on C++ with GTK, just the
extensions are on Java.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:36 AM, T. J. Brumfieldwrote:


I'm an user, and not a developer. So perhaps this is a silly question.

> From a user's perspective, it always seemed like the Java portions of OOo
were shoehorned in. Starting a JVM eats up unneccessary memory and takes
time. One of the most common complaints of OOo is that it is a bloated app
that is slow and takes up too many resources.

I assumed that Sun kept the Java portions of OOo in since they liked to
push
Java. In the age of netbooks, tablets and mobile computing, trimming the
fat
becomes more important.

Would it be possible to remove the Java portions of LibreOffice and
reimplement them without the need to fire up a JVM?

Is there a technical advantage of running the wizards and such in Java that
I'm not aware of?

Thanks!

-- T. J. Brumfield
"I'm questioning my education
Rewind and what does it show?
Could be, the truth it becomes you
I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
-- Pearl Jam, Education

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***







Not only that, considering that Oracle is now in litigation over the use 
of Java, many are taking a closer look at the Java implementations and 
wondering they should keep Java at all in their code, this even if they 
are not in the wrong,


Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-11-02 13:57, Robert Derman a écrit :

Peter Rodwell wrote:

I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
already been discussed or not.

There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office
2010
instead of switching to OO/LO:

1. Complete file compatibility. I frequently handle documents with
very complex
formatting. These come from my clients, all of whom use MS Office. I
translate and edit the documents and return them. They *must* retain
100% of
the original formatting. So far this has not been the case with Oo.

2. Search and replace. I work with large documents, often 400+ pages.
As I'm
translating, I usually come across a word or phrase that I know will
be repeated
throughout the document so I search and replace it to avoid having to
type it
continuously. I do this *dozens* of times a day. MS Word leaves me where
I was when I did the S/R so that I can continue working. Oo leaves me
at the
point of the last replace so I have to manually go back to where I
was. I know
of many people for whom this is a dealbreaker -- they won't move to Oo/LO
until this is fixed.

Just my €0.02 worth.

Peter.

This needs to be fixed/changed also with the spell checker. it always
leaves the cursor at the beginning of the last sentence where any word
was corrected, instead the cursor should be left where it was before the
spell check was run.



Thanks for the note Robert. Are the devs aware that these two problems 
match? It seems like such a trivial problem, but I can see, even in my 
profession, as a teacher, that it would be quite annoying to lose your 
place in a larger document. Not to mention an academic losing his place 
in a thesis or research project etc.


Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Peter Rodwell]

Quoting Robert Derman:


On a separate subject, to Peter above, I can see where your profession 
certainly justifies the expenditure for MS
Office, I would hope however that you at least downloaded and installed OOo/LO 
in addition, since it costs little or
nothing and might at times prove useful, for instance opening some MS Office 
files where Office itself fails to be able
to open them. (This does happen).


I've been downloading version after version of Oo for years (current one is 3.2.1) and it has been getting progressively 
more MS file compatible. Yes, Office does sometimes fail at opening Office files, although in my experience this seems 
to happen when one of my clients does something strange at saving time or includes graphics prepared with some weirdo 
technical drawing program that nobody's ever heard of. Certainly there have been occasions when I've used Oo to open 
such a file and save it, after which Office has had no problem with it.


P.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-11-02 12:42, Cor Nouws a écrit :


2. Search and replace. I work with large documents, often 400+ pages. As
I'm translating, I usually come across a word or phrase that I
know will be repeated throughout the document so I search and replace
it to avoid having to type it continuously. I do this *dozens*
of times a day. MS Word leaves me where I was when I did the S/R so
that I can continue working. Oo leaves me at the point of the last
replace
so I have to manually go back to where I was.
I know of many people for whom this is a dealbreaker
-- they won't move to Oo/LO until this is fixed.


OK, that is easy to handle with a trick as user, but possibly also an
relative easy fix (1)?

Kind regards,
Cor

1) http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Easy_Hacks



Hi Cor.

If there is a known trick fix to this, I wonder why is there not a 
permanent fix for it in the actual code?


Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Peter Rodwell]

Hi Marc:


We would need an example of an incompatible file for us to see and examine. 
Could you provide us with an example?


I can't supply any of the files since they are the property of my clients and I'm bound by some very strict 
non-disclosure agreements (they have the right to tear my balls off and sell my wife into slavery, or wording to that 
effect). If I can find time I'll try and duplicate it, but I'm really busy right now. It was nothing major, something 
involving graphics within tables, if I remember rightly.



Maybe someone could chime in on this one? If not, could you, Pete, please check 
to see if the latest LibO Beta2 still
has this problem. If so, maybe we could have a dev look into it for a fix or at 
least move it up a bit on their list of
bugs for repairs.


I'm reluctant to download the beta since the Web site says it will overwrite my existing Oo and I don't have an 
available spare machine at the moment. I'll see if I can free up one and try it.


Peter.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-11-02 12:05, Frank Esposito a écrit :

The point of the MSO-to-ODF and ODF-to-MSO converters not working 100% and
being a deal-breaker has been raised several times already. But I am not
sure as to what is being done as far as development. I think the devs are
just trying to clean up the existing code, work in long awaited patches and
stabilize for the 3.3 release right now.

But for the future, if LO is going to battle for market share with MSO,
(which the world currently uses now), the converters will have to be fixed.
There are two sides, Side one is that Microsoft does not follow standards
and ODF does so we should just make LO work to standards. Side two is we
should play Microsoft's game until we take their game away from them.

I see two priorities for long-term growth:
File compatibility should be a priority, in the very least opening and
saving MSO files with full compatibility

ODF adoption should also be a priority, the more LO can get the world to use
ODF instead of Microsft, the more people will use Libre/Open Office and the
more likely the chance Microsoft will have to fix their non-standards
compliant, broken file format.

just my thoughts



Good points Frank and we also have to consider that Italo, our marketing 
guru, now says that in some European countries, OOo/LigO commands 20% 
market share and that ODF adoption is on the rise and is quite established.


The lack of ODF adoption in N.Amer. needs to be addressed by all groups 
employing ODF standards. We all need to promote its use where ever it 
goes, even down to the single player such as Peter.


And yes, MSO format conversions are not 100% and where there are power 
users like Peter, it may be difficult to rationalize using LibO when his 
customers are unwilling to adopt an ODF format which would simply work. 
There is always the option for Peter to propose a change in office suite 
to his clients and suggest that a free migration to LibO would save them 
quite a bit in expenditures and would still provide them with the same 
functionality as MSO but using the ODF formats instead.


In my opinion, I imagine the devs are trying as best they can to gain 
100% file compatibility but it is all of MSO's interests to not let it 
gain such compatibility. Cat and mouse game.


Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

RE: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented

[animesh meher]

Has anyone considered the UI of IBM Symphony 3, its a step in the right 
direction . 
And now that most monitors have larger breath , we can use it to our advantage.

Animesh Meher

> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 13:05:38 -0500
> Subject: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
> From: enderand...@gmail.com
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> 
> The OOo team has been working two years on Project Renaissance. And there is
> a long running thread here in the discuss archives of a UI prototype. While
> that particular prototype looks clean/sharp, I think all this dicussion on
> radically altering the UI is unnecessary.
> 
> One of the advantages of LibreOffice/OOo over MS Office is that the
> interface is familiar and easy to grasp. And while the Ribbon interface has
> improved from 2007 to 2010, it is still unpopular for a reason. The core
> ideal of a dynamic interface that shows the most common features sounds good
> on paper, but occassionally you need the lesser used features and you can't
> find them. Menus still provide a familiar and easy to use method of
> organizing a large number of features.
> 
> Given the large number of features and complexity of office suites, one
> needs to consider both use cases. Most of the time we only need a small
> number of features and we want these conveniently located. Thankfully Lo/OOo
> handles this nicely today with keyboard shortcuts and toolbar icons. And the
> laundry list of other features can be found in the drop-down menus.
> 
> Most radical refactorings I've seen try to "clean" up the interface, but
> then hide most of the features. We're asking users to relearn a familiar
> interface, but why?
> 
> The Office 2007/2010 interface looks nice largely due to nice use of color,
> gradients, etc. The Lo/OOo interface looks antiquated largedly due to a flat
> pallete. But the "ribbon" itself is an odd mish-mash of different sized
> icons that look like they were assembled at random.
> 
> Honestly, if we kept the existing system of toolbars and drop-down menus,
> wouldn't most of our users be happy? If they had to re-learn a new system,
> might it just drive users to Microsoft's office suite (if you have to
> re-learn, you might as well learn the system used by the masses)?
> 
> I truly believe the current approach works and should be maintained, but
> improved. There might be some slight tweaks in how the menus are organized.
> Toolbar defaults might be optimized. And the overall UI could be shined up
> with some gloss, new icons, gradients, spot color, etc.
> 
> If anything, I think we should be going the opposite direction. Instead of
> chasing the Ribbon of 2007/2010, I think we should embrace the abandoned
> Office 2003 UI even more. Perhaps provide an option to all but completely
> mimic it. People forget, but Microsoft used this tactic themselves, allowing
> an option for Word users to use Wordperfect key-mappings, and provided
> specific help for Wordperfect Users trying to migrate to Word. Since we know
> most users coming to Lo/OOo are coming from Microsoft Office, shouldn't we
> do our best to ease that transition?
> 
> It would also be considerably less work than completely redesigning the UI
> from scratch. That is more time that could be dedicated to improving the
> project in other ways.
> 
> -- T. J. Brumfield
> "I'm questioning my education
> Rewind and what does it show?
> Could be, the truth it becomes you
> I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
> -- Pearl Jam, Education
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
> 
  
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Peter Rodwell]

Hi Marc:


As in all public mailists, just ignore the negative comments. Robert does not 
speak for people who are interested in
fixing problems or concerns of users.


Thanks! I've been around mail lists long enough to recognise the type.


Just ignore him.


Which is exactly what I plan to do.

Peter.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented

[T. J. Brumfield]

The OOo team has been working two years on Project Renaissance. And there is
a long running thread here in the discuss archives of a UI prototype. While
that particular prototype looks clean/sharp, I think all this dicussion on
radically altering the UI is unnecessary.

One of the advantages of LibreOffice/OOo over MS Office is that the
interface is familiar and easy to grasp. And while the Ribbon interface has
improved from 2007 to 2010, it is still unpopular for a reason. The core
ideal of a dynamic interface that shows the most common features sounds good
on paper, but occassionally you need the lesser used features and you can't
find them. Menus still provide a familiar and easy to use method of
organizing a large number of features.

Given the large number of features and complexity of office suites, one
needs to consider both use cases. Most of the time we only need a small
number of features and we want these conveniently located. Thankfully Lo/OOo
handles this nicely today with keyboard shortcuts and toolbar icons. And the
laundry list of other features can be found in the drop-down menus.

Most radical refactorings I've seen try to "clean" up the interface, but
then hide most of the features. We're asking users to relearn a familiar
interface, but why?

The Office 2007/2010 interface looks nice largely due to nice use of color,
gradients, etc. The Lo/OOo interface looks antiquated largedly due to a flat
pallete. But the "ribbon" itself is an odd mish-mash of different sized
icons that look like they were assembled at random.

Honestly, if we kept the existing system of toolbars and drop-down menus,
wouldn't most of our users be happy? If they had to re-learn a new system,
might it just drive users to Microsoft's office suite (if you have to
re-learn, you might as well learn the system used by the masses)?

I truly believe the current approach works and should be maintained, but
improved. There might be some slight tweaks in how the menus are organized.
Toolbar defaults might be optimized. And the overall UI could be shined up
with some gloss, new icons, gradients, spot color, etc.

If anything, I think we should be going the opposite direction. Instead of
chasing the Ribbon of 2007/2010, I think we should embrace the abandoned
Office 2003 UI even more. Perhaps provide an option to all but completely
mimic it. People forget, but Microsoft used this tactic themselves, allowing
an option for Word users to use Wordperfect key-mappings, and provided
specific help for Wordperfect Users trying to migrate to Word. Since we know
most users coming to Lo/OOo are coming from Microsoft Office, shouldn't we
do our best to ease that transition?

It would also be considerably less work than completely redesigning the UI
from scratch. That is more time that could be dedicated to improving the
project in other ways.

-- T. J. Brumfield
"I'm questioning my education
Rewind and what does it show?
Could be, the truth it becomes you
I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
-- Pearl Jam, Education

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-11-02 11:48, Peter Rodwell a écrit :

I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
already been discussed or not.

There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office 2010
instead of switching to OO/LO:

1. Complete file compatibility. I frequently handle documents with very
complex
formatting. These come from my clients, all of whom use MS Office. I
translate and edit the documents and return them. They *must* retain
100% of
the original formatting. So far this has not been the case with Oo.

2. Search and replace. I work with large documents, often 400+ pages. As
I'm
translating, I usually come across a word or phrase that I know will be
repeated
throughout the document so I search and replace it to avoid having to
type it
continuously. I do this *dozens* of times a day. MS Word leaves me where
I was when I did the S/R so that I can continue working. Oo leaves me at
the
point of the last replace so I have to manually go back to where I was.
I know
of many people for whom this is a dealbreaker -- they won't move to Oo/LO
until this is fixed.

Just my €0.02 worth.

Peter.



Hi Peter:

Nice of you to even come back to the mailist to help out. As this is a 
community we all share in helping out with making the distro better.


We would need an example of an incompatible file for us to see and 
examine. Could you provide us with an example?


Thanks for the note on search and replace. I imagine that documentation 
team members would have run into this problem. Maybe someone could chime 
in on this one? If not, could you, Pete, please check to see if the 
latest LibO Beta2 still has this problem. If so, maybe we could have a 
dev look into it for a fix or at least move it up a bit on their list of 
bugs for repairs.


Thanks for your input. We welcome any criticism or bug contributions.

Marc



--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Robert Derman]

Peter Rodwell wrote:

I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
already been discussed or not.

There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office 
2010

instead of switching to OO/LO:

1. Complete file compatibility. I frequently handle documents with 
very complex

formatting. These come from my clients, all of whom use MS Office. I
translate and edit the documents and return them. They *must* retain 
100% of

the original formatting. So far this has not been the case with Oo.

2. Search and replace. I work with large documents, often 400+ pages. 
As I'm
translating, I usually come across a word or phrase that I know will 
be repeated
throughout the document so I search and replace it to avoid having to 
type it

continuously. I do this *dozens* of times a day. MS Word leaves me where
I was when I did the S/R so that I can continue working. Oo leaves me 
at the
point of the last replace so I have to manually go back to where I 
was. I know

of many people for whom this is a dealbreaker -- they won't move to Oo/LO
until this is fixed.

Just my €0.02 worth.

Peter.
This needs to be fixed/changed also with the spell checker.  it always 
leaves the cursor at the beginning of the last sentence where any word 
was corrected, instead the cursor should be left where it was before the 
spell check was run.


On a separate subject, to Peter above, I can see where your profession 
certainly justifies the expenditure for MS Office, I would hope however 
that you at least downloaded and installed OOo/LO in addition, since it 
costs little or nothing and might at times prove useful, for instance 
opening some MS Office files where Office itself fails to be able to 
open them.  (This does happen).


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-11-02 11:53, Robert Parker a écrit :

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Peter Rodwell  wrote:

I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
already been discussed or not.

There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office 2010
instead of switching to OO/LO:


Did Microsoft pay you to promote their agenda here?



Not appreciated. Please be helpful in your response. If not, then please 
do not post these comments. They are unnecessary.


Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[Marc Paré]

Le 2010-11-02 11:48, Peter Rodwell a écrit :

I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
already been discussed or not.

There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office 2010
instead of switching to OO/LO:

1. Complete file compatibility. I frequently handle documents with very
complex
formatting. These come from my clients, all of whom use MS Office. I
translate and edit the documents and return them. They *must* retain
100% of
the original formatting. So far this has not been the case with Oo.

2. Search and replace. I work with large documents, often 400+ pages. As
I'm
translating, I usually come across a word or phrase that I know will be
repeated
throughout the document so I search and replace it to avoid having to
type it
continuously. I do this *dozens* of times a day. MS Word leaves me where
I was when I did the S/R so that I can continue working. Oo leaves me at
the
point of the last replace so I have to manually go back to where I was.
I know
of many people for whom this is a dealbreaker -- they won't move to Oo/LO
until this is fixed.

Just my €0.02 worth.

Peter.



Hi Peter:

As in all public mailists, just ignore the negative comments. Robert 
does not speak for people who are interested in fixing problems or 
concerns of users.


Just ignore him.

Marc



--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [steering-discuss] tomorrow's call is public

[Sophie Gautier]

Hi all,

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Florian Effenberger
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is just a short reminder: Tomorrow's steering committee phone
> conference is public! For details, please refer to
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings

For information I will have no internet access tomorrow (I just learn
that I'll be traveling almost all day) and I hope I'll be on time
tomorrow evening. I case I'll be late, Christoph or Cor would you be
able to attend?

Kind regards
Sophie
-- 
Founding member of The Document Foundation

-- 
E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how 
to unsubscribe
List archives are available at 
http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be 
deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Robert Derman]

T. J. Brumfield wrote:

There were several old, often commented on, and often requested bug fixes
and features that didn't receive much attention or weren't resolved with OOo
over the years.

For those who may not be aware of the reasons for the shift/fork, or for
those who don't care about politics with software, resolving some of these
old bugs might be a reason for users to switch over to LibreOffice.

For instance, the bug/feature request with the most votes for OOo is a SVG
import filter. go-oo implemented that feature. I assume LibreOffice will
include that patch.

Here is an eight year old bug/feature request with over 300 votes.

http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3959

And while it seems like that bug involves quite a bit of work, it also reads
like necessary refactoring that has been started, but not finished.

In the end, I suppose my question is this. Is it a worthwhile goal for
LibreOffice to pursue some of these lingering issues with tons of votes?
Should they try to create the features that the community obviously wants
that OOo is not providing?
I would have to say so, it would of course be wise to take a close look 
at each.  I suppose some might concern things like compatability with 
some other software program that has itself become obsolete in the 
meantime.  But any that concern internal faults within OOo/LO should 
certainly be addressed.  There is also the matter of feature 
enhancements, performance upgrades, stability improvements, which might 
not have been given a high priority by Sun/Oracle which would now merit 
another look.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Peter Rodwell]

Hi Cor:


2. Search and replace. I work with large documents, often 400+ pages.


[snip]


OK, that is easy to handle with a trick as user, but possibly also an relative 
easy fix (1)?


As I said, when you have to do this constantly, dozens of times a day, it does
become a real issue.

I would have thought it quite simple to save the current position, do the search
and replace then return to the previously-saved position. After all, if MS can 
do
it then it can't be very difficult. :)

P.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] interesting article: Inside the OpenOffice.org coup

[Peter Rodwell]

Also this:

http://www.techeye.net/software/developers-defect-from-openoffice-in-droves

P.


On 02/11/2010 17:49, Frank Esposito wrote:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/inside-the-openofficeorg-coup/7681
http://www.entirelyopensource.com/Blog-and-Opinion/Inside-the-OpenOffice-org-coup



--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] interesting article: Inside the OpenOffice.org coup

[Frank Esposito]

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/inside-the-openofficeorg-coup/7681
http://www.entirelyopensource.com/Blog-and-Opinion/Inside-the-OpenOffice-org-coup

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Cor Nouws]

Hi Peter,

Peter Rodwell wrote (02-11-10 16:48)

I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
already been discussed or not.

There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office 2010
instead of switching to OO/LO:

1. Complete file compatibility. I frequently handle documents with very
complex  formatting. These come from my clients, all of whom use
MS Office. I  translate and edit the documents and return them.
They *must* retain 100% of  the original formatting.
So far this has not been the case with Oo.


That is true. But let me start to say that 100% correct formatting is 
also not provided when using MsO with MsO. We all know those examples.
But still, in more complex documents, features when exchanging with 
OOo/LibO will count more. So I can understand your situation.
Obviously there are ways to ease the pain, but still it will ask extra 
attention.



2. Search and replace. I work with large documents, often 400+ pages. As
I'm  translating, I usually come across a word or phrase that I
know will be  repeated throughout the document so I search and replace
it to avoid having to type it  continuously. I do this *dozens*
of times a day. MS Word leaves me where  I was when I did the S/R so
that I can continue working. Oo leaves me at the  point of the last replace
so I have to manually go back to where I was.
I know  of many people for whom this is a dealbreaker
 -- they won't move to Oo/LO until this is fixed.


OK, that is easy to handle with a trick as user, but possibly also an 
relative easy fix (1)?


Kind regards,
Cor

1) http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Easy_Hacks

--
 - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Cor Nouws]

Hi TJ,

T. J. Brumfield wrote (02-11-10 16:28)

There were several old, often commented on, and often requested bug fixes
and features that didn't receive much attention or weren't resolved with OOo
over the years.


That is true. Others were fixed though, and also features were added.


For those who may not be aware of the reasons for the shift/fork, or for
those who don't care about politics with software, resolving some of these
old bugs might be a reason for users to switch over to LibreOffice.


Indeed. But at least for a part of the long standing issues, a/the 
reason is that fixing takes considerable amount of time. So IMO we must 
be modest with expectations, at least on short term.



For instance, the bug/feature request with the most votes for OOo is a SVG
import filter. go-oo implemented that feature. I assume LibreOffice will
include that patch.


Interesting topic. In the mean time there also has been implemented an 
SVG feature for OOo. I have no real idea about merites of both, so that 
has to been investigated by developers.



Here is an eight year old bug/feature request with over 300 votes.

http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3959

And while it seems like that bug involves quite a bit of work, it also reads
like necessary refactoring that has been started, but not finished.


[ I always have difficulty to understand the need for this feature. 
Especially since in LibreOffice it is possible to (un)fold headings 
individually in the Navigator, and all kind of manipulations are 
possible - but oh, let me not discuss the individual features here. ]



In the end, I suppose my question is this. Is it a worthwhile goal for
LibreOffice to pursue some of these lingering issues with tons of votes?
Should they try to create the features that the community obviously wants
that OOo is not providing?


IMO that is very true.
Since a goal for LibreOffice is attracting more developers, more people 
that can step in easily to work on it (which already works (1, 2) ) 
there will be more people that can pick up those issues, or at least a 
part of it.


Thanks for your thoughts,
Cor

1) http://cedric.bosdonnat.free.fr/wordpress/?p=734
2) http://libreoffice.org/credits.html



-- T. J. Brumfield
"I'm questioning my education
Rewind and what does it show?
Could be, the truth it becomes you
I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
-- Pearl Jam, Education




--
 - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation

[Roberto Resoli]

2010/11/1 Michael Meeks :
> Hi Andrea,
...
>> Now, without copyright assignment/agreement (granted by the LibreOffice
>> developers to the Document Foundation), the Document Foundation will be
>> in the awkward situation I described: it manages a product (LibreOffice)
>> but cannot represent the LibreOffice developers since it doesn't own the
>> code.
>
>        Sure - it can recommend, advise, and encourage people in directions; it
> can lead the project via the brand, it can encourage collaboration and
> resolve conflicts - but sure; it is not a monolithic entity that can
> dictate ownership of the code.

Nor it could help contributors in any way, if they are sued because of
their contribution.

Copyright Assignment is nor bad nor good, it's a compromise; i am
still waiting to see
any reply also to Andrea's proposals in another thread [1] .
I agree with Andrea, and I think that all this JCA stuff need a more
pragmatic approach,
when the TDF will become a stable entity with a legal peronality the
big players can deal with.

bye,
rob

[1] http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/msg00533.html

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation

[Thorsten Behrens]

Gianluca Turconi wrote:
> However, what it works it isn't always the best *legal* solution.
> 
Hi Gianluca,

oh, I certainly agree on this. As usual, the challenge is to hit the
sweet spot, between attracting developers, and satisfying other 
requirements.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Robert Parker]

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Peter Rodwell  wrote:
> If this stupid comment is typical of this forum, then I'm out
> of here.

I don't think we need Microsoft shills anyway.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Frank Esposito]

No it is not typical, but every now and then you do get this kind of
message.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Peter Rodwell  wrote:

> If this stupid comment is typical of this forum, then I'm out
> of here.
>
> P.
>
>
>
> On 02/11/2010 16:53, Robert Parker wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Peter Rodwell  wrote:
>>
>>> I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
>>> already been discussed or not.
>>>
>>> There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office
>>> 2010
>>> instead of switching to OO/LO:
>>>
>>
>> Did Microsoft pay you to promote their agenda here?
>>
>>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Frank Esposito]

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Peter Rodwell  wrote:

> I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
> already been discussed or not.
>
> There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office 2010
> instead of switching to OO/LO:
>
> 1. Complete file compatibility. I frequently handle documents with very
> complex
> formatting. These come from my clients, all of whom use MS Office. I
> translate and edit the documents and return them. They *must* retain 100%
> of
> the original formatting. So far this has not been the case with Oo.
>
>
>
The point of the MSO-to-ODF and ODF-to-MSO converters not working 100% and
being a deal-breaker has been raised several times already. But I am not
sure as to what is being done as far as development. I think the devs are
just trying to clean up the existing code, work in long awaited patches and
stabilize for the 3.3 release right now.

But for the future, if LO is going to battle for market share with MSO,
(which the world currently uses now), the converters will have to be fixed.
There are two sides, Side one is that Microsoft does not follow standards
and ODF does so we should just make LO work to standards. Side two is we
should play Microsoft's game until we take their game away from them.

I see two priorities for long-term growth:
File compatibility should be a priority, in the very least opening and
saving MSO files with full compatibility

ODF adoption should also be a priority, the more LO can get the world to use
ODF instead of Microsft, the more people will use Libre/Open Office and the
more likely the chance Microsoft will have to fix their non-standards
compliant, broken file format.

just my thoughts

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Peter Rodwell]

If this stupid comment is typical of this forum, then I'm out
of here.

P.


On 02/11/2010 16:53, Robert Parker wrote:

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Peter Rodwell  wrote:

I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
already been discussed or not.

There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office 2010
instead of switching to OO/LO:


Did Microsoft pay you to promote their agenda here?



--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Robert Parker]

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Peter Rodwell  wrote:
> I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
> already been discussed or not.
>
> There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office 2010
> instead of switching to OO/LO:

Did Microsoft pay you to promote their agenda here?

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Peter Rodwell]

I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
already been discussed or not.

There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office 2010
instead of switching to OO/LO:

1. Complete file compatibility. I frequently handle documents with very complex
formatting. These come from my clients, all of whom use MS Office. I
translate and edit the documents and return them. They *must* retain 100% of
the original formatting. So far this has not been the case with Oo.

2. Search and replace. I work with large documents, often 400+ pages. As I'm
translating, I usually come across a word or phrase that I know will be repeated
throughout the document so I search and replace it to avoid having to type it
continuously. I do this *dozens* of times a day. MS Word leaves me where
I was when I did the S/R so that I can continue working. Oo leaves me at the
point of the last replace so I have to manually go back to where I was. I know
of many people for whom this is a dealbreaker -- they won't move to Oo/LO
until this is fixed.

Just my €0.02 worth.

Peter.




--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [steering-discuss] Support for OOXML

[Charles-H. Schulz]

Hello Leif,

Very interesting and important question. See below.


Le Tue, 2 Nov 2010 12:49:16 +0100,
Leif Lodahl  a écrit :

> Hi all,
> 
> I am about to answer to a letter from the Danish "Expert committee
> for open standards" settled by the Danish Government.
> 
> I have been talking to Thorsten Behrens regarding the technical
> details. Now I would like to discuss how I am going to express this
> in my answer. My answer must be the truth and I can't risk to say one
> thing and then something else is expressed in e.g., a press release
> later.
> 
> The question:
> Which of the standards (by name and version number and amendment) are
> supported in the application?
> 
> The technical answer I got from Thorsten:
> 1. ISO/IEC 29500:2008:OOXML Amendment 1 – LibreOffice is a conforming
> base consumer according to ISO/IEC 29500-1:2008 §2.6, and a
> conforming producer and consumer according to  ISO/IEC 29500-4:2008
> §2.2

If you remember well, pretty much anything can be declared a conforming
producer and consumer of the ISO 29500 format. It is also worth noting
that there is still no implementation of that standard, and it brings
me back to your second point below.

> 
> My question is: Do we publicly and officially support ISO/IEC
> 29500:2008:OOXML?
> 
> Of cause if we do - then we do. But from a political point of view I
> would rather write something about how we have not been able to
> support it (several reason e.g., its a moving target, faulty and
> inconsistant etc.) but we do what we can to support the file format
> implemented by MS Office 2007: .docx.
> 
> Please - what do you think?


You are not just right, you are also making an important point: LibO
and OOo (for that matter) are not supporters of ISO 29500; they
implement what they can understand from the proprietary file format of
MS Office 2007 and 2010 called OOXML.

Best,
Charles. 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Leif Lodahl
> 



-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how 
to unsubscribe
List archives are available at 
http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be 
deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Java dependency

[Miguel Angel Frías Bonfil]

According to me, Libre Office is developed primary on C++ with GTK, just the
extensions are on Java.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:36 AM, T. J. Brumfield wrote:

> I'm an user, and not a developer. So perhaps this is a silly question.
>
> >From a user's perspective, it always seemed like the Java portions of OOo
> were shoehorned in. Starting a JVM eats up unneccessary memory and takes
> time. One of the most common complaints of OOo is that it is a bloated app
> that is slow and takes up too many resources.
>
> I assumed that Sun kept the Java portions of OOo in since they liked to
> push
> Java. In the age of netbooks, tablets and mobile computing, trimming the
> fat
> becomes more important.
>
> Would it be possible to remove the Java portions of LibreOffice and
> reimplement them without the need to fire up a JVM?
>
> Is there a technical advantage of running the wizards and such in Java that
> I'm not aware of?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -- T. J. Brumfield
> "I'm questioning my education
> Rewind and what does it show?
> Could be, the truth it becomes you
> I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
> -- Pearl Jam, Education
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>


-- 

Miguel Angel Frías Bonfil
*Web Designer, Developer, OSUM Leader*
*9932350805* · isc.miguelfr...@gmail.com

"El éxito se logra haciendo las cosas bien durante mucho tiempo."

“*Lo escuché y lo olvidé, lo vi y lo entendí, lo hice y lo aprendí*”.
  [image: skype] [image: facebook]
 [image: twitter]  [image:
linkedIn]

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[Frank Esposito]

> For instance, the bug/feature request with the most votes for OOo is a SVG
> import filter. go-oo implemented that feature. I assume LibreOffice will
> include that patch.
>
>
LO included Go-oo patches, was this included?

If not, where can i vote for this, I have been waiting for this for a long
time!

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Java dependency

[T. J. Brumfield]

I'm an user, and not a developer. So perhaps this is a silly question.

>From a user's perspective, it always seemed like the Java portions of OOo
were shoehorned in. Starting a JVM eats up unneccessary memory and takes
time. One of the most common complaints of OOo is that it is a bloated app
that is slow and takes up too many resources.

I assumed that Sun kept the Java portions of OOo in since they liked to push
Java. In the age of netbooks, tablets and mobile computing, trimming the fat
becomes more important.

Would it be possible to remove the Java portions of LibreOffice and
reimplement them without the need to fire up a JVM?

Is there a technical advantage of running the wizards and such in Java that
I'm not aware of?

Thanks!

-- T. J. Brumfield
"I'm questioning my education
Rewind and what does it show?
Could be, the truth it becomes you
I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
-- Pearl Jam, Education

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[T. J. Brumfield]

There were several old, often commented on, and often requested bug fixes
and features that didn't receive much attention or weren't resolved with OOo
over the years.

For those who may not be aware of the reasons for the shift/fork, or for
those who don't care about politics with software, resolving some of these
old bugs might be a reason for users to switch over to LibreOffice.

For instance, the bug/feature request with the most votes for OOo is a SVG
import filter. go-oo implemented that feature. I assume LibreOffice will
include that patch.

Here is an eight year old bug/feature request with over 300 votes.

http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3959

And while it seems like that bug involves quite a bit of work, it also reads
like necessary refactoring that has been started, but not finished.

In the end, I suppose my question is this. Is it a worthwhile goal for
LibreOffice to pursue some of these lingering issues with tons of votes?
Should they try to create the features that the community obviously wants
that OOo is not providing?

-- T. J. Brumfield
"I'm questioning my education
Rewind and what does it show?
Could be, the truth it becomes you
I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
-- Pearl Jam, Education

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation

[Gianluca Turconi]

Il 02/11/2010 13.12, Thorsten Behrens ha scritto:

[...]


I respect your opinion - alas, I have a different one. For your
specific example, if someone submits code to LibO, stating in her
mail "I license this under LGPLv3+ / MPL", and that later turns out
to be false pretense, that gives you about as much leverage against
the contributor as if she signs extra documents (at least for all
practical matters.
Sure, you can include huge damages in that legal
document - but would have to extract it, from a potential
independent contributor, in the first place). Sueing your
contributor, in any way, is most likely the lesser of your worries
in such cases... ;)


I understand that the first need and worry of the new project is to 
attract new developers.


Firstly, survive. Then, think how do you succeeded in doing so.

It's a Law of Nature. :)


Of course, distributors *can* risk if they want.


And they do. Large portions of the typical Linux stack are developed
in this, or comparable, ways.


I know it works.

However, what it works it isn't always the best *legal* solution.

If this is the chosen approach to contributions, well, I hope it'll work 
once again. :)


Regards,

Gianluca
--
Gianluca Turconi

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation

[Gianluca Turconi]

Il 02/11/2010 15.15, BRM ha scritto:

This again goes back to what kind of community do you want?
Do you want a true F/OSS community that is based on trust?
Or do you want a bureaucratic community based on dis-trust?


Is trust in words or in papers?

Gentlemen say in words, layers in papers. ;-)

The main issue, IMO, is that TDF/LibO will not live in a aseptic F/OSS 
world where words have still their full value, but in an enlarged world 
market with huge not-so-kind corporations whose profits LibO may cut.


Is prevention better than cure?

I think so.

Nevertheless, I understand why a freer method is important in order to 
attract more developers.


Let's say I'd like a compromise between safety and pleasure. :)

Regards,
--
Gianluca Turconi

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibO document format: strict ODF or extended ODF?

[Gianluca Turconi]

Il 02/11/2010 13.32, Thorsten Behrens ha scritto:

[...]


Simply extending ODF (with good features, of course) on a vendor
basis is just fragmentation, IMO.


A healthy dose of vendor-specific extensions is one of the hallmarks
of a working ecosystem, if you ask me - at least if you want for ODF
to be the default document format. ;)


Uhm... again ;-)

Technically speaking, it may be true, because users always ask for new 
features, but when we're talking about open formats and document 
exchange, it's quite different.


If I have 20.000 documents that use a feature implemented in LibO only 
and I have to exchange/migrate such documents or I implement that 
feature in other applications by spending good money or I'm "locked in" 
(pay attention, I've used quotes here).


Just my 2c, of course.

Regards,

Gianluca
--
Gianluca Turconi

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation

[BRM]

- Original Message 

> From: Thorsten Behrens 
> Gianluca Turconi wrote:
> > I've already suggested that if the copyright  assignment is
> > considered a too heavy burden, it should be asked to the  contributor
> > at least a statement that clearly affirms his/her absolute  copyright
> > rights for the contribution (nobody else can claim nothing  about the
> > contribution) and includes a indemnity clause ("clausola di  manleva"
> > in my language) in the unlucky case what he/she stated it isn't  true
> > and somebody else has valid legal rights for the  contribution.
> > 
> > A "no signature involved, whatsoever" approach is  just too risky, IMO.
> > 
> Hi Gianluca,
> 
> I respect your opinion -  alas, I have a different one. For your
> specific example, if someone submits  code to LibO, stating in her
> mail "I license this under LGPLv3+ / MPL", and  that later turns out
> to be false pretense, that gives you about as much  leverage against
> the contributor as if she signs extra documents (at least  for all
> practical matters. Sure, you can include huge damages in that  legal
> document - but would have to extract it, from a  potential
> independent contributor, in the first place). Sueing your 
> contributor, in any way, is most likely the lesser of your worries
> in  such cases... ;)
> 
> > Of course, distributors *can* risk if they  want.
> >
> And they do. Large portions of the typical Linux stack are  developed
> in this, or comparable, ways.
> 

The majority of open source software is developed in that manner.
Only the large formalized organizations do anything different.

And while IANAL, each individual contribution would probably be governed by the 
laws not of where the distributor resides, but of where the contributor resides 
unless the license states otherwise. FSF licenses (GPL, LGPL, etc) do not 
presently state a specific jurisdiction last I was aware. If the laws where the 
distributor resides does not allow that model, then the distributor better move 
to somewhere that does, or cease distribution when that model is employed.

This again goes back to what kind of community do you want?
Do you want a true F/OSS community that is based on trust?
Or do you want a bureaucratic community based on dis-trust?
If you are contemplating the need for suing your contributors then you are 
already in the bureaucratic community landscape.
And if you were to sue a contributor (for any reason) consider what the 
community response may be - if they agree, they'll get behind you; if not, 
they'll leave in droves.

$0.02

Ben


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibO document format: strict ODF or extended ODF?

[Thorsten Behrens]

Gianluca Turconi wrote:
> Il 01/11/2010 23.51, Thorsten Behrens ha scritto:
> >So I guess moving on&  extending ODF is a feature, not a bug - of
> >course, for those who need it, you want a "strict mode" (which we
> >have).
> 
> Extending ODF *in agreement with* at least two other vendors is a
> feature, because you're reasonably sure that feature will be
> implemented in ODF specification.
> 
Hi Gianluca,

yeah, that was implied - having two other vendors on board is the
best way to get enough votes for your additions in the ODF TC.

> Simply extending ODF (with good features, of course) on a vendor
> basis is just fragmentation, IMO.
> 
A healthy dose of vendor-specific extensions is one of the hallmarks
of a working ecosystem, if you ask me - at least if you want for ODF
to be the default document format. ;)

Fragmentation is only a problem, if you end up with lock-in - maybe
an opportunity for ODF Next to re-evaluate its mechanisms for
extensibility & fallbacks.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation

[Thorsten Behrens]

Gianluca Turconi wrote:
> I've already suggested that if the copyright assignment is
> considered a too heavy burden, it should be asked to the contributor
> at least a statement that clearly affirms his/her absolute copyright
> rights for the contribution (nobody else can claim nothing about the
> contribution) and includes a indemnity clause ("clausola di manleva"
> in my language) in the unlucky case what he/she stated it isn't true
> and somebody else has valid legal rights for the contribution.
> 
> A "no signature involved, whatsoever" approach is just too risky, IMO.
> 
Hi Gianluca,

I respect your opinion - alas, I have a different one. For your
specific example, if someone submits code to LibO, stating in her
mail "I license this under LGPLv3+ / MPL", and that later turns out
to be false pretense, that gives you about as much leverage against
the contributor as if she signs extra documents (at least for all
practical matters. Sure, you can include huge damages in that legal
document - but would have to extract it, from a potential
independent contributor, in the first place). Sueing your 
contributor, in any way, is most likely the lesser of your worries
in such cases... ;)

> Of course, distributors *can* risk if they want.
>
And they do. Large portions of the typical Linux stack are developed
in this, or comparable, ways.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibO document format: strict ODF or extended ODF?

[Gianluca Turconi]

Il 01/11/2010 23.51, Thorsten Behrens ha scritto:

b) OASIS, for very good practical reasons, only wants to standardize
what has been successfully implemented (by at least three
independent products, even) - so out of necessity, you'll need
implementations of not-yet-standardized features, to actually
make those standardizable via OASIS.

So I guess moving on&  extending ODF is a feature, not a bug - of
course, for those who need it, you want a "strict mode" (which we
have).


Uhm...

Extending ODF *in agreement with* at least two other vendors is a 
feature, because you're reasonably sure that feature will be implemented 
in ODF specification.


Simply extending ODF (with good features, of course) on a vendor basis 
is just fragmentation, IMO.


Regards,
--
Gianluca Turconi

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Non-removable extensions

[Sebastian Spaeth]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:34:11 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
>   The more interesting thing to me is - why would you want to remove the
> PDF Import ? or the Presenter Console ?

Because I don't like that additional complexity in the UI? (Just an
example) There are valid reasons why I would want to remove
extensions. Not being able to disable 'shared' extensions is just some
missing functionality that should be implemented.

But not by calling developers something close to dimwits. An enhancement
issue should be filed, and developer support gathered to implement that
right. The linked OOo wiki page shows that even OOo considers the
current system of 2-layered extensions (shared and per-user) suboptimal,
so there we have an opportunity to get it right, IMHO. But that really
belongs on the developer list :).

Sebastian

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation

[Gianluca Turconi]

Il 01/11/2010 20.50, BRM ha scritto:

While IANAL, to my understanding at least the US requires explicit documentation
of copyright assignment.
So a license stating such would not work.


In many countries, software licenses are considered contracts (by law or 
jurisprudence) and *must* be accepted before having legal validity.


The scheme is:

developer <--agreement--> distributor <--agreement--> user

The modalities of agreement change from country to country: written 
acceptation for formal existence of the contract, written acceptation 
for its use as an evidence in a trial, oral acceptation for formal 
existence of the contract, and many other formalities that surely exist, 
especially in extra-UE and common law countries.


Then, there is the overly important legal issue of what national 
copyright law is applicable to the code.


Let's say that the national law of the contributor forbids any oral or 
implicit transmission of copyright rights. What happens to his/her 
contribution?


In his/her country, that transmission would be simply unlawful and 
therefore void (or something equivalent to void). Afterwards, that 
contributor signs a contract with a corporation or individual and gives 
his/her copyright up.


What happens to the poor distributor (TDF or others) who bases his 
*presumed* distribution rights on a void oral agreement and is sued from 
such corporation or individual? No good things, be sure. :'(


I've already suggested that if the copyright assignment is considered a 
too heavy burden, it should be asked to the contributor at least a 
statement that clearly affirms his/her absolute copyright rights for the 
contribution (nobody else can claim nothing about the contribution) and 
includes a indemnity clause ("clausola di manleva" in my language) in 
the unlucky case what he/she stated it isn't true and somebody else has 
valid legal rights for the contribution.


A "no signature involved, whatsoever" approach is just too risky, IMO.

Of course, distributors *can* risk if they want.
--
Gianluca Turconi

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***