[tdf-discuss] Re: LibreOffice deployment on Windows

[Marc Paré]

Le 2011-07-05 11:48, Alexandre Chevrier a écrit :

Hi,
   I just deployed LibreOffice on about 2000 computers to replace
OpenOffice.org.  I found a problem for some crappy netbook Windows XP
with small hardrive...  Even if I clean them up, I don't have enough
space to install libreoffice (openoffice.org is already uninstalled).

   I would like to know how to create an new mst to add my existing
settings and to remove base from the installation... maybe with a
lighter installation will pass...  I don't need to know how to create
an mst, I just want to know what to edit to remove base from the
installation.  I can't find where are the settings to do what I want
to do in the property table.

Thanks,
Alexandre.



Hi Alexandre,

Would you be able to write your experience on the installation on these 
2000 computers?


I think many of us would like to know how you did it; what OS platform 
did you install on;  how long it took; what problems did you have; what 
kind of tools would you have liked to have for the installation to make 
it easier for you to install; how do you manage 2000 LibreOffice 
installations ... do you have a minimum setting for each computers; do 
you have some days set aside to instruct people on any differences 
between OOo and LibreOffice (if any); do you worry about "accessibility" 
issues for the hearing impaired and blind; would you like to have any 
remote tools to manage LibreOffice from an Admin session ... if yes, 
what kind of tools would you like to have; how did people respond to the 
change; do you use ODF for file compatibility in the office; etc.


It would be great if you could let us know all of these and more. We 
need more feedback from Admins involved in large installations.


Cheers

Marc
Marketing team member


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice deployment on Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

That might make the difference.

The Windows install files expand to 200 MB on disk, then the LO install itself 
has a 450MB footprint in C:\Program Files\.

Getting the 200 MB onto an external drive (USB stick) should be no problem.

In case you forgot, Also remember to empty the recycle bin of all accounts on 
the machine and you might want to check the Temp folders wherever they are on 
the Netbook.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Jean-Baptiste Faure [mailto:jbf.fa...@orange.fr] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 21:19
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice deployment on Windows

Hi Alexandre,

Le 05/07/2011 17:48, Alexandre Chevrier a écrit :
> Hi,
>   I just deployed LibreOffice on about 2000 computers to replace
> OpenOffice.org.  I found a problem for some crappy netbook Windows XP
> with small hardrive...  Even if I clean them up, I don't have enough
> space to install libreoffice (openoffice.org is already uninstalled).

Maybe these netbook lack space to storeat the same time temporary files
from uncompressing the LibO installer and installation files.

Have you tried to connect the netbook to an usb drive before the
installation and indicate this external DD as destination to decompress
the installer ? I did that for my vm XP which has only a 4 Go virtual
hardrive and it worked well.

Best regards
JBF

-- 
Seuls des formats ouverts peuvent assurer la pérennité de vos documents.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice deployment on Windows

[Jean-Baptiste Faure]

Hi Alexandre,

Le 05/07/2011 17:48, Alexandre Chevrier a écrit :
> Hi,
>   I just deployed LibreOffice on about 2000 computers to replace
> OpenOffice.org.  I found a problem for some crappy netbook Windows XP
> with small hardrive...  Even if I clean them up, I don't have enough
> space to install libreoffice (openoffice.org is already uninstalled).

Maybe these netbook lack space to storeat the same time temporary files
from uncompressing the LibO installer and installation files.

Have you tried to connect the netbook to an usb drive before the
installation and indicate this external DD as destination to decompress
the installer ? I did that for my vm XP which has only a 4 Go virtual
hardrive and it worked well.

Best regards
JBF

-- 
Seuls des formats ouverts peuvent assurer la pérennité de vos documents.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: LibreOffice deployment on Windows

[plino]

You can remove base (or any other program from the suite).  All LibreOffice
(and OpenOffice) programs are contained in soffice.exe and soffice.bin

The exe files are just small launchers (300Kb) that load different
"appearances" of the same program.

I think your best bet is to remove openoffice from those netbooks before
installing libreoffice.

--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-deployment-on-Windows-tp3141291p3143118.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice deployment on Windows

[MiguelAngel]

Why not trying to set some folders to compressed (right clik -
properties - advanced options), specially folders like
OpenOffice/basis/help or OpenOffice/basis/share, works transparent
for the users. And sometimes is quicker than read from disk,
uncompress.Miguelngel.El 05/07/11 17:48, Alexandre Chevrier escribi:Hi,
  I just deployed LibreOffice on about 2000 computers to replace
OpenOffice.org.  I found a problem for some crappy netbook Windows XP
with small hardrive...  Even if I clean them up, I don't have enough
space to install libreoffice (openoffice.org is already uninstalled).


  I would like to know how to create an new mst to add my existing
settings and to remove base from the installation... maybe with a
lighter installation will pass...  I don't need to know how to create
an mst, I just want to know what to edit to remove base from the
installation.  I can't find where are the settings to do what I want
to do in the property table.


Thanks,
Alexandre.
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Fourth of July Libreoffice promo video

[drew]

Hi,

The idea of putting together a quick promotional video about LibreOffice
and the TDF community activity in my area came during a discussion about
Canada Day, Friday last, on the US marketing mailing list.

So - I'm happy to refer you to the fruit of that idea - wrapped up a
little, less then 2 minute promotional style video just a few minutes
past midnight on July 4th, my time, which includes some nice fireworks
footage, IMO.

Currently the video is featured on the LibreOffice Vols youtube site:
http://youtube.com/user/libreofficevols

for anyone wanting a copy of the master file, that has been archived
under CC3 license at:
http://www.archive.org/details/LinuxfestNorthwest2011-Libreoffice

Also, as a BTW,I include some links to resources used on my Blog:
http://drewjensen.typepad.com (July 3 post)

That's it..thanks,

//drew


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"

[Ian Lynch]

On 5 July 2011 21:58, Robert Derman  wrote:

> e-letter wrote:
>
>> As far as the request for the ability to download individual
>> components of LO, this should not be enabled. The whole concept of the
>> predecessor staroffice product was to provide various functionalities
>> in terms of word-processing, spreadsheets, drawing, etc. and this
>> should be continued.
>
>


> Perhaps this was a bad idea way back when Staroffice was first designed.
>
>
StarO was designed at a time when MSO had set the model for megalithic
design.  You can see why a proprietary software company would do this. It
focuses lock-in to the core productivity that could then extend further and
further. Cooperation between applications through interoperability based on
open standards was part of the original unix design concept but got lost
until the rise of the web. So at the time it was probably not seen to be
such a bad idea but in hindsight it clearly looks that way.

Saying that because a design decision was made 15 or more years ago it
should not be changed is a recipe for disaster. Things change and without
change you will at best get stagnation ad at worst rapid death.

 Those seeking smaller individual components should consider other
>> programs such as abiword or gnumeric.
>
>
More likely Google Docs or similar web based productivity tools where groups
can share and edit data in real time.


> Since the ODF is now
>> established, as long as such programs are odf-compliant, users can
>> choose more confidently where to use the "whole office" paradigm or
>> the "unix way"  (i.e. select specific programs to do only specific
>> tasks).
>>
>
ODF is not yet that well established. I wish it was.

-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"

[Robert Derman]

e-letter wrote:

As far as the request for the ability to download individual
components of LO, this should not be enabled. The whole concept of the
predecessor staroffice product was to provide various functionalities
in terms of word-processing, spreadsheets, drawing, etc. and this
should be continued.

  
Perhaps this was a bad idea way back when Staroffice was first designed. 

Those seeking smaller individual components should consider other
programs such as abiword or gnumeric. Since the ODF is now
established, as long as such programs are odf-compliant, users can
choose more confidently where to use the "whole office" paradigm or
the "unix way"  (i.e. select specific programs to do only specific
tasks).

  



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"

[NoOp]

On 07/04/2011 04:07 PM, Robert Derman wrote:
> NoOp wrote:
>> On 06/25/2011 03:37 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
>>   
>>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
 On 25 Jun 2011, at 08:33, Ian Lynch wrote:

   
> Manfred wrote:
>
> "I still believe that PDF is the best solution to distribute final
> 
 versions
   
> of text (and maybe other office) documents."
>
> I'd say yes if they are likely to be printed on paper, no if it is only
> likely to be read from a screen.
> 
 I disagree. Once a document no longer needs editing (and this is a frequent
 need in daily life - think purchase receipt, invoice, insurance schedule 
 and
 so on) it needs to be provided in an electronic format that cannot be 
 easily
 altered. PDF plays this role, ODF doesn't.

   
>>> No, but HTML does. More to the point, chm files also are build for
>>> read-only. Surely they are more microsoft based, but even Read (activity
>>> from the OLPC/Sugar), had to add a webkit renderer for another popular
>>> format -- epub. Which of course is done for read-only porpouses.
>>>
>>> So a bigger discussion than demanding PDF reader, might be to upgrade the
>>> very old HTML renderer in LibreOffice to something like webkit.
>>> 

Actually, NoOp didn't write any of that. Please mind your attributions.

> Might updating LO's HTML capability also improve its ability to create 
> and edit HTML?
> 
> 
> Back when I was maintaining a web page, I seem to remember using OOo 
> Writer for this, so if I remember correctly OOo, and therefore LO can 
> create and edit HTML, but it would certainly improve its usefulness to 
> small businesses if it could do it even better. 
> 



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Christian Lohmaier]

Hi Christophe, *,

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Christophe Strobbe
 wrote:
> At 16:14 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe
>>  wrote:
>> > At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> [...]
>> Well, as seen on this list (by Malte's post), apparently there has
>> been work on a *private* cws that nobody in the community (and yes,
>> people who are working on private cws are not part of "the community"
>> in this regard - they are of course for that part of their work that
>> happens in public)
>> All promises IBM is making/has made so far is only lip service for me.
>> I only believe it after I see the actual contributions from them.
>> (And as written I don't consider code dumps that need a man-year of
>> work to get integrated as contribution)
>
> If Oracle asks IBM to implement IAccessible2 on version 3.1 and releases
> OpenOffice.org 3.2 before IBM has submitted the IAccessible2 implementation,
> how is IBM to blame?

Reality check please. 1st of all: What is stuff you know, and what is
stuff you guess?
Do you know that the 3.1 based ia2 dump/work is because Oracle asked for it?
If Oracle asked for it, do you know when Oracle asked for it?
Do you think Oracle really is so stupid to explicitly ask for code
based on an old branch?
If Oracle did ask for it, and IBM did "contribute" - why wasn't the
cws integrated?
2nd) Obviously you cannot integrate something that is not ready.
Why was it not ready? Because nobody worked on it. Who could do the
work on it? Of course best the developers who know the code, i.e IBM
developers.
And you cannot delay a release for years. (the cws Caolan mentioned in
the blog-comment was created in 2010-05 - while the branch-off for 3.2
already happened 2009-09 more than half a year earlier)

> Between 3.1 and 3.2 the code had changed and had been moved to another
> type of repository.

Again reality check. Oracle surely did ask for the code to be
contributed against the current, actively being-worked-on codeline. A
codeline that is not in feature-freeze. What IBM then delivers is a
completely different question. Also whether Oracle/Sun asks for it in
2008, but IBM delivers in 2010, it's obvious that code makes progress.

> That is the reason for the complex and time-consuming
> integration work that Oracle needed to do for IAccessible2.

NO! Why does it have to be Oracle to do the integration work. Again
one of the points about collaboration. Just uploading a
million-line-codepatch somewhere is not contributing. It is complying
with whatever deals that were signed or to comply with license matters
at best.

> The integration and testing were still in progress when Oracle decided
> to stop investing in OpenOffice.org. As far as I know, that is why
> the IAccessible2 code did not end up in public repositories.

Again this is stupid argumentation. We're talking about a OpenSource
software here after all. And we're not talking about weeks, but years.
We're talking about big announcements to dedicate more than 30
developers to work on the officesuite and collaborate with upstream,
but no results after 4/5 years.
And this further proves my point about questioning IBM's commitment.
Lip service, but no actual work that ends up "upstream".
They did not contribute to OOo, but they did drop some code at Oracle.
Again this is not my idea of contributing to the project.

> The contribution to the 1.1.5 codeline is irrelevant because completely
> outdated. I added that note merely as backgound information.

No, it is not irrelevant, because it is the very same situation. Big
announcement "we will conribute, we have lots of manpower" but no
results. That's the whole point. IBM doesn't have a record of being a
good contributor, the opposite is the case. And to change this, we
don't need another lip-service announcement, but actual code
contribution.
That you can only point at Ia2, but not at other work is further prove
of this topic.

And don't get me wrong, I'm sure that you'll see IBM contributing to
apache-OOo, at least until you can actually build something from
Apache-OOo sources you can ship to the users, but after that I'm
pretty sure that IBM will focus again on its very own Symphony and
only do the necessary stuff to keep their own stuff compatible.

And don't get me wrong²: I'd be happy if IBM proves me wrong.

> If Sun/Oracle engineers state that IBM donated the IAccessible2
> implementation, it is unlikely that this piece of work was done
> by Sun/Oracle.

Again it is not about the Ia2 work itself, but the porting from the
old 1.1.5 codedrop to "current" codeline.
You apparently don't know any hard facts about this, neither do I. So
while you claim that Oracle did ask IBM for the code ported to the 3.1
codeline, and that IBM then followed this request, I question this
scenario.
Or even if IBM did contribute it against the 3.1 codeline: Why is it
still not integrated? This can only mean that a huge amount of work
is/was still 

[tdf-discuss] LibreOffice deployment on Windows

[Alexandre Chevrier]

Hi,
  I just deployed LibreOffice on about 2000 computers to replace
OpenOffice.org.  I found a problem for some crappy netbook Windows XP
with small hardrive...  Even if I clean them up, I don't have enough
space to install libreoffice (openoffice.org is already uninstalled).

  I would like to know how to create an new mst to add my existing
settings and to remove base from the installation... maybe with a
lighter installation will pass...  I don't need to know how to create
an mst, I just want to know what to edit to remove base from the
installation.  I can't find where are the settings to do what I want
to do in the property table.

Thanks,
Alexandre.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Christophe Strobbe]

Hi Christian, All,

At 16:14 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:

Hi Christoph, *,

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe
 wrote:
> At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>>
>> The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from
>> contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that
>> Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and
>> he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/
>> needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing
>> it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete
>> branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!))
>>
>> 
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support

>
> I am surprised nobody has responded to this (since there is/was 
at least one

> IBM employee on this list...).
> The accessibility contribution that Rob Weir referred to was probably not
> the
> "code dump" for OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 but a contribution to OpenOffice.org
> 3.1

Well, as seen on this list (by Malte's post), apparently there has
been work on a *private* cws that nobody in the community (and yes,
people who are working on private cws are not part of "the community"
in this regard - they are of course for that part of their work that
happens in public)
All promises IBM is making/has made so far is only lip service for me.
I only believe it after I see the actual contributions from them.
(And as written I don't consider code dumps that need a man-year of
work to get integrated as contribution)


If Oracle asks IBM to implement IAccessible2 on version 3.1 and releases
OpenOffice.org 3.2 before IBM has submitted the IAccessible2 implementation,
how is IBM to blame?
Between 3.1 and 3.2 the code had changed and had been moved to another
type of repository. That is the reason for the complex and time-consuming
integration work that Oracle needed to do for IAccessible2.
The integration and testing were still in progress when Oracle decided
to stop investing in OpenOffice.org. As far as I know, that is why
the IAccessible2 code did not end up in public repositories.




> (if I remember correctly).
> See my comment at
> .
> (Note: OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 was released in September 2005; IAccessible2
> was released in December 2006
> .)

Yes, and that makes it even more pointless to dump the code against
the OOo 1.1.5 codeline.


The contribution to the 1.1.5 codeline is irrelevant because completely
outdated. I added that note merely as backgound information.



Not against the version that is in current development, but to a
codeline that is basically done for since two years. (again the
commitment statment is from 2007)

It is all about the preception of IBM's past contributions to OOo -
and those are, despite the massive amount of developers assigned to
the project (35 developers, in the announcement from 2007, the same
figure stated in the incubation list) is nonexistant basically.

Know we know that there has been a behind-the-doors code
"contribution" of the IA2 stuff (or who knows, maybe Sun/Oracle
engineers did all the work themselves porting the dump to current
codeline, doesn't matter really).


If Sun/Oracle engineers state that IBM donated the IAccessible2
implementation, it is unlikely that this piece of work was done
by Sun/Oracle.


But what else did IBM do in the last 4/5 years?

> At this moment I know no one at Oracle who can or wants to say how much of
> the IAccessible2 implementation will end up in OpenOffice.org 3.4.

Well, then you missed Malte Timmermann's post.


Yes, I missed that. (Curiously, he sent that message from a private
address, not an Oracle address.)



(about the status of
iaccessible2), As Rob is strongly against releasing OOo 3.4 with the
"blessing" of the apache-OOo project ("take that discussion to the old
OOo-lists" basically (paraphrased)), I doubt there will be a OOo 3.4.0
at all.


If that is true, that will be a loss for the accessibility of OpenOffice.org
and LibreOffice on Windows.

Best regards,

Christophe



http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4df3a2e8.8010...@gmx.com%3E
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4df3a100.2060...@gmx.com%3E
(he posted the very same mail twice)

"Actually the status with IA2 in OOo is quite good - but not in public
CWSes yet - I am quite sure it will find it's way to Apache OOo."

And until there is a release of Apache-OOo that is comparable in
features/functionality to the current OOo codebase: This will take
quite a bit of time.

Oracle's staff didn't even manage to report the size of current
bugzilla's database as has been requested by the Apache-infrastructure
team yet.  An open question since June 17.  Three weeks and still no
answer to the simple question:
"We are looking for more detail a

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Christian Lohmaier]

Hi Christoph, *,

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe
 wrote:
> At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>>
>> The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from
>> contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that
>> Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and
>> he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/
>> needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing
>> it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete
>> branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!))
>>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support
>
> I am surprised nobody has responded to this (since there is/was at least one
> IBM employee on this list...).
> The accessibility contribution that Rob Weir referred to was probably not
> the
> "code dump" for OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 but a contribution to OpenOffice.org
> 3.1

Well, as seen on this list (by Malte's post), apparently there has
been work on a *private* cws that nobody in the community (and yes,
people who are working on private cws are not part of "the community"
in this regard - they are of course for that part of their work that
happens in public)
All promises IBM is making/has made so far is only lip service for me.
I only believe it after I see the actual contributions from them.
(And as written I don't consider code dumps that need a man-year of
work to get integrated as contribution)

> (if I remember correctly).
> See my comment at
> .
> (Note: OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 was released in September 2005; IAccessible2
> was released in December 2006
> .)

Yes, and that makes it even more pointless to dump the code against
the OOo 1.1.5 codeline.
Not against the version that is in current development, but to a
codeline that is basically done for since two years. (again the
commitment statment is from 2007)

It is all about the preception of IBM's past contributions to OOo -
and those are, despite the massive amount of developers assigned to
the project (35 developers, in the announcement from 2007, the same
figure stated in the incubation list) is nonexistant basically.

Know we know that there has been a behind-the-doors code
"contribution" of the IA2 stuff (or who knows, maybe Sun/Oracle
engineers did all the work themselves porting the dump to current
codeline, doesn't matter really).
But what else did IBM do in the last 4/5 years?

> At this moment I know no one at Oracle who can or wants to say how much of
> the IAccessible2 implementation will end up in OpenOffice.org 3.4.

Well, then you missed Malte Timmermann's post. (about the status of
iaccessible2), As Rob is strongly against releasing OOo 3.4 with the
"blessing" of the apache-OOo project ("take that discussion to the old
OOo-lists" basically (paraphrased)), I doubt there will be a OOo 3.4.0
at all.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4df3a2e8.8010...@gmx.com%3E
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4df3a100.2060...@gmx.com%3E
(he posted the very same mail twice)

"Actually the status with IA2 in OOo is quite good - but not in public
CWSes yet - I am quite sure it will find it's way to Apache OOo."

And until there is a release of Apache-OOo that is comparable in
features/functionality to the current OOo codebase: This will take
quite a bit of time.

Oracle's staff didn't even manage to report the size of current
bugzilla's database as has been requested by the Apache-infrastructure
team yet.  An open question since June 17.  Three weeks and still no
answer to the simple question:
"We are looking for more detail about the size of the OOo bugzilla
database. How large is the backup, and what database is being used?
This is the information that Infrastructure needs to know if they have
a preference about our choice."
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201106.mbox/%3c097e5bc1-6218-422b-8989-8c082eb0f...@comcast.net%3E

So you can imagine that when it comes on deciding whether to release
OOo 3.4.0 on the old infrastructure will take ages as well.

It's also somewhat ridiculous how long it takes for them to "mirror"
the hg-repos for merging. But I didn't see any real progress wrt.
licencing issues either. So while they then might have a repo will all
open/interesting cws merged in, still the problems of what files are
exactly covered by the grant remains.
Only "progress" in this regard is to use apache-batik for svg-import
(OK), and go back to myspell for spellchecking (and thus crippling
spellchecking, nullifying the progress hunspell brought for langauges
with complex compound and flexation rules) - but that are at least
suggestions to move on.
There are many people on the incubator-ooo-dev list, but only few who
have a real clue. And even fewer who 

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Christophe Strobbe]

Hi Christian, All,

At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:

Hi Allen, *,

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Allen Pulsifer 
 wrote:

> [...]
> I don't know what vision IBM has for the project.  I don't know what code
> contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they will make some, but I
> don't know what they will be.  I don't know what contributions members of
> the LibreOffice community will or will not want to make.

Given that they had 35 people working on it according to their press
releases, that was ended up in OOo was  basically nonexistent. As
you've been with the OOo project for a couple of years you can
probably understand that people that were part of OOo project before
switching over to TDF/LibreOffice don't have much trust in IBM's lip
service.

The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from
contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that
Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and
he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/
needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing
it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete
branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!))
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support


I am surprised nobody has responded to this (since there is/was at least one
IBM employee on this list...).
The accessibility contribution that Rob Weir referred to was probably not the
"code dump" for OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 but a contribution to OpenOffice.org 3.1
(if I remember correctly).
See my comment at
.
(Note: OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 was released in September 2005; IAccessible2
was released in December 2006
.)

At this moment I know no one at Oracle who can or wants to say how much of
the IAccessible2 implementation will end up in OpenOffice.org 3.4.

Best regards,

Christophe Strobbe



> I do know this however.  There is currently an open invitation 
for us to get

> involved.  If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the
> project.

Not really, as you first have to "surrender" to the Apache's licence
terms. And that alone is reason for me not to join the effort.

> We can ensure that direction of the project provides the maximum
> benefit for LibreOffice, which includes any contributions from IBM.
> Basically, we can get IBM working for us.

I really doubt it. What would change for them now, with the permissive
licence, that did prevent them in the last 5 years from contributing?
They (according to their press release) had massive manpower working
on it (35 people), but what ended up in OOo is two code dumps to
ancient codeline, one of which being lotuswordprofilter, the other the
abovementioned accessibility dump.

(...)

ciao
Christian



--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
Twitter: @RabelaisA11y
---
Open source for accessibility: results from the AEGIS project 
www.aegis-project.eu

---
Please don't invite me to Facebook, Quechup or other "social 
networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't.



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF

[plino]

@Mark

Let me quote, since you obviously missed this part "Until and unless the
deficiencies are fixed, ODF is not suitable as the native format for
Gnumeric or any other spreadsheet."

IMO without font embedding the same applies to files whose contents rely on
the fonts (namely presentations and vector graphics).

I'm not really concerned about vector graphics because I doubt Draw has any
significant user base (there are several dedicated open source vector
graphic programs) but Impress is the only Open Source alternative to
PowerPoint under Windows. It would be a shame if it is limited by the file
specifications.

I can understand the limitations of cross-platform font support but removing
it altogether means that even people using the same OS will not be able to
use font embedding.

--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RE-tdf-discuss-Re-Font-Embedding-in-ODF-was-RE-ANN-ODF-1-2-Candidate-OASIS-Standard-Enters-60-Day-Pu-tp3110117p3140702.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF

[Mark Preston]

Plino,

You seem a little confused, which is quite remarkable given the blog
you linked to is quite clear. First of all, font-embedding is not
supported because embedded fonts are one of the very many things ODF
and indeed XML in general is intended to get rid of. It was always a
bad idea, is a bad idea now and will be a bad idea in the future. The
style of an XML document is intended to be provided by CSS and to be
quite separate from the data content.

What the blog said, but you missed, is that the spreadsheet part of
the ODF did not include "formulae and syntax" content for cells. Which
it actually does do, thanks very much.

The blog in fact stresses two things - the ODF does not always work
with Gnumeric (which is a known problem with Gnumeric and not
restricted to ODF anyway) and it is different to Excel - which is a
*good* thing frankly, since there are some real issues with the way
Excel worked.

In fact, that blog (you need to track it back and check the sources
etc.) was actually missing the point that the formulae and syntax
included in ODF did not include the same *binary* notation as used in
Excel. Again, this is just as well since the old Excel binary was
actually faulty and is one of the things (hopefully) fixed by the XLSX
format in newer versions.

While I am sure your comments are appreciated, they do seem somewhat
confused. Perhaps you could clarify them a little?

On 05/07/2011 11:25, plino wrote:
> Today I found the most interesting article on ODF, which explains why it
> doesn't support font embedding:
> 
> http://blogs.gnome.org/mortenw/2010/02/10/odf-plus-five-years/
> 
> ODF was created in a hurry to support text files. Later some people started
> to worry about spreadsheets (apparently not that much). Maybe in the future
> it will support the features that presentations and vector drawings require.
> 
> Only then it will make sense to use ODF as the file format for all OOo/LO
> applications.
> 
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RE-tdf-discuss-Re-Font-Embedding-in-ODF-was-RE-ANN-ODF-1-2-Candidate-OASIS-Standard-Enters-60-Day-Pu-tp3110117p3140307.html
> Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF

[plino]

Today I found the most interesting article on ODF, which explains why it
doesn't support font embedding:

http://blogs.gnome.org/mortenw/2010/02/10/odf-plus-five-years/

ODF was created in a hurry to support text files. Later some people started
to worry about spreadsheets (apparently not that much). Maybe in the future
it will support the features that presentations and vector drawings require.

Only then it will make sense to use ODF as the file format for all OOo/LO
applications.

--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RE-tdf-discuss-Re-Font-Embedding-in-ODF-was-RE-ANN-ODF-1-2-Candidate-OASIS-Standard-Enters-60-Day-Pu-tp3110117p3140307.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"

[e-letter]

As far as the request for the ability to download individual
components of LO, this should not be enabled. The whole concept of the
predecessor staroffice product was to provide various functionalities
in terms of word-processing, spreadsheets, drawing, etc. and this
should be continued.

Those seeking smaller individual components should consider other
programs such as abiword or gnumeric. Since the ODF is now
established, as long as such programs are odf-compliant, users can
choose more confidently where to use the "whole office" paradigm or
the "unix way"  (i.e. select specific programs to do only specific
tasks).

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted