Re: [tdf-discuss] The Microsoft Word 2007 XML(*.docx) format does not correctly save numbering edits.

[e-letter]

On 02/09/2011, M Robinson  wrote:
> LibreOffice 3.4.0
> OOO340m1 (Build:12)
>
>   I've tried this repeatedly, when I generate lines of text, number them
> (F12), delete every other line number, save in Microsoft Word 2007 XML
> (*.docx) format the results are always the same when viewed in MS Word
> 2007: the numbered lines with deleted numbers are no longer indented.
> However, the Open Office XML Text (*.docx) format does correctly save
> the file and appears as expected when viewed in MS Word 2007.
>

These typical m$ queries are irrelevant to LO. If you want to create
m$ documents, get money out of your pocket and pay for m$o. If the
expected and desired behaviour occurs with the native odt format, then
LO is good.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] The Microsoft Word 2007 XML(*.docx) format does not correctly save numbering edits.

[e-letter]

On 04/09/2011, Cor Nouws  wrote:
> Hi e-letter,
>
> e-letter wrote (04-09-11 10:31)
>
>> These typical m$ queries are irrelevant to LO. If you want to create
>> m$ documents, get money out of your pocket and pay for m$o. If the
>> expected and desired behaviour occurs with the native odt format, then
>> LO is good.
>
> Sorry, but I am not so happy with your post.
> Not only does it not help the poster with his question, it also breathes
> a negative attitude towards Microsoft. Which may be your or any ones
> personal choice, but is not the tone I would like to see promoted here.
>

Long-term it does help, in terms of making very clear to the original
poster that the priority is superior performance of LO. There is no
negative attitude towards m$ except your own perception. The position
is clear, help LO odt, not m$.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] The Microsoft Word 2007 XML(*.docx) format does not correctly save numbering edits.

[e-letter]

On 04/09/2011, Mike Hall  wrote:
...
> Unfortunately they aren't irrelevant. If only life were that simple.
> Whether or not you have a copy of MSO, to communicate with other people
> and companies it is frequently necessary to write .doc or .docx files.

Then you should buy m$o if receipt of m$ formats is mandatory.
Otherwise, what's wrong with despatch of both pdf (to view) and odt
(to promote LO)?

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] feature request help, styles management

[e-letter]

Readers,

This question concerns how to improve management of styles between
writer and impress modules. Please read the following previous thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/users@global.libreoffice.org/msg10780.html

Would appreciate some guidance to make progress, in terms of how to
make a suitable feature request.

Thanks.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] ODF and HTML 5

[e-letter]

Having become a fan of the flat xml format, this option in LO seems
most interesting and viable.

An often ignored feature of OO was the ability to create xforms (still
evident in LO? No idea). The initial question to understand is when
flat xml LO documents are most appropriate instead of the current
default behaviour to create archive xml files.

Without understanding the details, it seems intuitive that LO fodt
documents could be embedded within html5, similarly to (x)html and
xforms.

Don't know what the next step would be; now for another person to comment!

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] Status of .docX etc.

[e-letter]

On 13/12/2011, Harold Fuchs  wrote:
> Would someone please either explain or point me at a detailed explanation of
> the current status of  LO vis à vis the "new" MS office document formats
> docx, xlsx etc.
>

Here we go again: please explain why you can't afford to buy m$???

Have you written to m$ to ask for an explanation why: (1) m$ cannot
write to odf standards;

(2) m$ cannot write to m$ooxml itself

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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: A marketing lesson!

[e-letter]

On 21/12/2011, Pedro  wrote:
>
> But how can you help it? If the next time they choose to offer a free copy
> of LibreOffice instead of OpenOffice, is there anything TDF can do about it?
>

Perhaps this should be considered an unfortunate cost of allowing
freedom. Assuming this organisation does not alter the source code,
the (L)GPL allows for sale of software. TDF should not be considered
liable for the naivity/simplicity of some people buying software that
is available freely elsewhere.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] MS Outlook?

[e-letter]

On 15/02/2012, Robert Derman  wrote:
>>
> You have to excuse me for saying this, I have used OpenOffice since it
> was first released to the public (I loved OO Writer, and I like LO
> Writer even more) and I am a big fan of open source software, BUT there
> is an attitude in the general open source community that users should
> work around the fact that open source software solutions are not, and
> perhaps should not be totally integrated.  As long as this attitude
> persists the corporate world will NEVER go to open source for their day
> to day software needs.  MS, Oracle, Adobe and other corporate software
> providers do and always will pander to this desire for fully integrated
> solutions.
>
A more accurate statement would be that the open source community
adopts the approach traditional to UNIX, that software programs should
do single, individual tasks to very high standard. In addition, the
user is given _choice_ about what functions are to be integrated, for
example, user wants a hyperlink in a mail message to open in a web
browser. The user is free to specify in the mail client configuration
options_which_ web browser should be chosen.

Due to an increased appreciation of the risks of integration as
determined by the vendor (security), it could be argued that corporate
world recognises the benefit of the open source model.

>
> Many of us, myself included have no need for this degree of software
> integration.  However for anyone who does, all I can say is scrape
> together the exorbitant price for M$ Office and buy it.  You will get
> the full integration that you desire.  Forget about open source
> software, at least for the foreseeable future it will not provide what
> you seem to be looking for.
>
>
Whilst it is appropriate to tell m$ fans to continue paying for the m$
business model (instead of asking free software to adopt the m$
mentality, for free!!!), it should be stated that "integration" can
still be achieved via open source software, although not be a single
vendor but a range of vendors using open standards to achieve the
ability to perform multiple actions analogous to "integration".

To answer the question, an example each to consider: for calendar, use
sunbird; tasks, mr project (or maybe a simple text editor with outline
functionality?); contacts, zimbra.
>
> I am not a big fan of M$ software, but there is one thing they do that I
> like, they send out patches that are small and only change the part of a
> large program that needs to be changed.  They don't insist that you
> download and install a whole new copy of it.  That is also why I won't
> upgrade my copy of LO until version 4.0 comes along.  Or until they
> announce that the next version incorporates some feature that I REALLY
> want.
>
Patches seems to make software more inherently susceptible to bugs? I
don't upgrade because of no interest in the constant upgrade culture
that open source programmers seek to promote (i.e. users as free
testers!). Changing software every three/four years has been adequate
for most personal needs.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] an example of ignorance

[e-letter]

Readers,

An amusing, surprising mention of LO in the general press:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/advice/9089881/How-can-I-fix-OpenOffice.html.
Don't forget to add comments at the bottom of the web page!

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] Help vendor-lock-in awareness

[e-letter]

On 07/02/2013, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> I generally advise people to send me PDFs rather than editable documents
> unless there's a real need for me to edit them. That way there's no risk
> anyone will get locked-in to anything :-)
>
> If I *do* need to be able to edit I request Hybrid PDF files, which are
> PDFs with the original ODF source embedded. They are easy to make with
> LibreOffice and I've created a tutorial here:
> http://webmink.com/2012/05/07/making-hybrid-pdfs/
>

No such import filters by default in LO35413.

To promote proliferation of odf documents, should distribute in these formats.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] comment, xforms

[e-letter]

Readers,

Two comments: interesting news about the separation of openoffice to
libreoffice. My initial comment is that the name is not attractive, in
my opinion. Perhaps there should be an opportunity for suggestions to
be made by users?

What is the status with xforms support in libreoffice.

yours,

documentfoundat...@conference.jabber.org
-- 
To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to 
discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be 
deleted.
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/

[tdf-discuss] why no digest mode for this mailing list?

[e-letter]

I request to be able to subscribe to digest mode of this mailing list.
Thank you.
-- 
To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to 
discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be 
deleted.
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/

Re: [tdf-discuss] why no digest mode for this mailing list?

[e-letter]

On 28/09/2010, Florian Effenberger  wrote:
> Hi,
> Am 28.09.2010 um 14:25 schrieb e-letter:
>
>> I request to be able to subscribe to digest mode of this mailing list.
>
> we have digest mode disabled for the moment, and will investigate on
> activating it later. In the past, there have often been problems when
> subscribers tried to reply from a digest mode -- to avoid that at least in
> the starting phase, we've decided to not offer digest for now.
>
A pity; usually a digest mode subscriber is asked to change the
subject from the default, to avoid confusion.
-- 
To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to 
discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be 
deleted.
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/

[tdf-discuss] Re: New name

[e-letter]

I like Staroffice (remember that? :))

A logo could be built around a star and a series of adjacent logos
indicative of an office document type (writer, calc, impress).

Not a serious idea; just a personal opinion.
-- 
To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to 
discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be 
deleted.
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/

[tdf-discuss] Re: New name

[e-letter]

I don't like LibO because I don't like medial capitals (!). For me LO
to mean Liberty Office (Software).
-- 
To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to 
discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be 
deleted.
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/

[tdf-discuss] mailing list digest mode functionality

[e-letter]

Below is an example of how the digest mode appears using the 'reply'
e-mail function:

On 18/10/2010, discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
 wrote:
> Topics (messages 1671 through 1700):
>
> [tdf-discuss] We're on slashdot
>   1671 - Per Eriksson 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Please embed dictionaries in Danish lang-pack and install
>   1672 - Andrea Pescetti 
>
> [tdf-discuss] We're on slashdot
>   1673 - André Schnabel 
>
> [tdf-discuss] We're on slashdot
>   1674 - Ian 
>
> [tdf-discuss] A copy of MSOffice
>   1675 - Carlos Jose Lenarts Ramis 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Please embed dictionaries in Danish lang-pack and install
>   1676 - Andras Timar 
>
> [tdf-discuss] why LibO?
>   1677 - Caio Tiago Oliveira 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Please embed dictionaries in Danish lang-pack and install
>   1678 - Andrea Pescetti 
>
> [tdf-discuss] why LibO?
>   1679 - fyva 
>
> [tdf-discuss] A copy of MSOffice
>   1680 - David Filskov 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Please embed dictionaries in Danish lang-pack and install
>   1681 - Andras Timar 
>
> [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
>   1682 - Rictec 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Don't make the mistake of the pigs
>   1683 - Paul A Norman 
>
> [tdf-discuss] A Map of Bibliographic systems? was: LibO roadmap?
>   1684 - Paul A Norman 
>
> [tdf-discuss] LibO Beta 2 miss-reporting version?
>   1685 - Paul A Norman 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: LibO Beta 2 miss-reporting version?
>   1686 - Paul A Norman 
>
> LibO Install/Update ( was [tdf-discuss] Automatic Updates)
>   1687 - Paul A Norman 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Basic question about Oracle asking OOo community members to
> leave
>   1688 - Ramon Sole 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Basic question about Oracle asking OOo community members to
> leave
>   1689 - "M. Fioretti" 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Basic question about Oracle asking OOo community members to
> leave
>   1690 - Drew Jensen 
>
> [tdf-discuss] We're on slashdot
>   1691 - Cor Nouws 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Basic question about Oracle asking OOo community members to
> leave
>   1692 - Graham Lauder 
>
> [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
>   1693 - James Wilde 
>
> [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
>   1694 - James Wilde 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Houston, we have a problem.
>   1695 - James Wilde 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: LibO Beta 2 Writer/Web (Html Document)
>   1696 - Jean Hollis Weber 
>
> [tdf-discuss] First Marketing Conference Call
>   1697 - Florian Effenberger 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Very large icons in toolbar
>   1698 - Masahisa Kamataki 
>
> [tdf-discuss] LibO roadmap?
>   1699 - Cedric Bosdonnat 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Houston, we have a problem.
>   1700 - Stefan Weigel 
>
>
>
This is not good compared to others such as postgresql (or even
openoffice documentation) mailing lists.

The start of each digest mode message should include guidance such as:
"please change the subject to something more meaningful than "Re:
Digest of..."".

Is is impossible to use a web browser search function (ctrl f and ctrl
g) to navigate quickly to a message where the subject is of interest.
For example the digest mail user should be able to navigate directly
from the content list which includes "LibO roadmap" to the section of
the digest mode message containing that message.

This mailing list style also does not appear to show the standard mail
header information of each message.

Please consider change to make digest mode more convenient to the user.

Thank you.

documentfoundat...@conference.jabber.org
libreoff...@conference.jabber.org

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

[tdf-discuss] unable to reply quickly to mailing list posts

[e-letter]

On 04/11/2010, discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
 wrote:
> Topics (messages 2591 through 2620):
>
> [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
>   2591 - Michael Meeks 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
>   2592 - Kohei Yoshida 
>   2617 - JustFillBug 
>
> [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
>   2593 - Ian 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
>   2594 - BRM 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
>   2595 - Ian 
>
> [tdf-discuss] New Beta or RC soon?
>   2596 - Robert Boehm 
>
> [tdf-discuss] New Beta or RC soon?
>   2597 - Thorsten Behrens 
>
> [tdf-discuss] New Beta or RC soon?
>   2598 - Robert Boehm 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
>   2599 - Roberto Resoli 
>
> [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
>   2600 - Benjamin Horst 
>
> [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
>   2601 - "T. J. Brumfield" 
>
> [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
>   2602 - todd rme 
>
> [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
>   2603 - Ian 
>
> [tdf-discuss] New Beta or RC soon?
>   2604 - Frank Esposito 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
>   2605 - jonathon 
>
> [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
>   2606 - Johannes Bausch 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs
>   2607 - Peter Rodwell 
>
> [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
>   2608 - Michel Gagnon 
>
> [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
>   2609 - Christoph Noack 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs
>   2610 - Marc Paré 
>   2619 - Marc Paré 
>
> Usability Issues (Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not
> reinvented)
>   2611 - Christoph Noack 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Accessibility (was Java dependency)
>   2612 - Christoph Noack 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs
>   2613 - Michel Gagnon 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs
>   2614 - TomW 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs
>   2615 - Graham Lauder 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs
>   2616 - Graham Lauder 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
>   2618 - Marc Paré 
>
> [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
>   2620 - Sebastian Spaeth 
>
>
>
The text above is the entire verbatim content of the mail message text
box when the 'reply' function is activated. Please change the mailing
list manager.

--
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: unable to reply quickly to mailing list posts

[e-letter]

Not sure what you mean by attached; in web-mail the messages when
received are inline (in the body of the message).

The number before each message is irrelevant; as I stated, all
messages do not appear in the 'reply' text box.

For comparison in digest mode behaviour, see
http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/listinfo/techwr-l.

-- 
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: x86_64 Windows build

[e-letter]

In terms of priorities, making LO the default for mobile (e.g.
android) is more important than windoze.

-- 
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: unable to reply quickly to mailing list posts

[e-letter]

I suggest that you have a look at the mailiing list using a web-mail
interface and you see how poor is the functionality. A good mailing
list manager must be functional on both mail clients and web-mail.

-- 
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: x86_64 Windows build

[e-letter]

LO is never going to overcome m$ products on their own platform(s).
The biggest market potential by far is mobile devices for ODF to
become the default format.

The majority of people in the world are being introduced to technology
via mobile devices; banking, money transfer, product authentication
etc are now all being performed via mobile phones by people who have
never even seen a PC before caring if it is 32, 64, 16 bit machinery.
LO programmers should forget wasting their time pleasing windoze
people and focus on the future.

I would even go as far as qtiplot and makes windoze users pay for
versions supplied for their platforms.

-- 
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] LO mobile phone version

[e-letter]

In consideration of the previous posts ('Re: x86_64 Windows build',
http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg02649.html),
what is the mechanism that a project can be proposed to develop LO
mobile edition, get funding from Android or similar as suggested?

-- 
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: priorising feature-requests was: LO mobile phone version

[e-letter]

So what happens next? Should the suggestion for LO mobile version
remain in the mailing list archive until the proposals structure is
created? Is any member of the decision-making entity able to say now
whether this proposal is to rejected or accepted?

-- 
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] Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

[e-letter]

Related to an earlier post
(http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg02677.html),
the following news article hyperlink
(http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2010/11/12/ghanaian-sms-start-up-tackles-fake-drug-scourge/)
is an interesting application of mobile phone technology and provides
further credence to the importance of the future potential mobile
devices market.

-- 
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: LibreOffice version for Android platform

[e-letter]

Pleased to hear the development of such an application; the future is mobile :)

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[tdf-discuss] Loss of formula in open document spreadsheet via excel

[e-letter]

Readers,

Admittedly not using LO but the predecessor calc, recently realised
that if a spreadsheet is created using calc and saved in native ods
format, upon open using m$excel the formulas of a cell disappear to
leave only the total value? Yet if calc is used to create the same
spreadsheet and saved in m$excel 2007 (i.e. not xlsx but xls), formula
is retained?  For example:

calc

(sheet2.a1)
formula=sheet1.a1*sheet3.a2

Result (of sheet1a1=2 and sheet3a2=2) in xlsx:

(sheet2.a1)=4

in xls:

formula=sheet1!.a1*sheet3!.a2

Presumably m$ is at fault, but is it correct to advise people to save
odf spreadsheets in a legacy m$ format in order to keep formulas,
instead of using ods???


On 11/01/2011, discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
 wrote:
> Topics (messages 4379 through 4405):
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: Templates unavailable at templates.services.openoffice.org
>   4379 - David Nelson 
>   4380 - Marc Paré 
>
> [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
>   4381 - Karl-Heinz Gödderz 
>
> [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
>   4382 - drew 
>
> [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
>   4383 - Michael Wheatland 
>
> [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
>   4384 - Andy Brown 
>
> [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
>   4385 - drew 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
>   4386 - Marc Paré 
>   4389 - Marc Paré 
>   4391 - Marc Paré 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
>   4387 - David Nelson 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
>   4388 - sophie 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Download libreoffice button in new LibreOffice website
>   4390 - Christian Lohmaier 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Links on LibreOffice.org/templates page
>   4392 - Marc Paré 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: Links on LibreOffice.org/templates page
>   4393 - Marc Paré 
>
> [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
>   4394 - Fabián Rodríguez 
>
> [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
>   4395 - "Charles-H. Schulz" 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Download libreoffice button in new LibreOffice website
>   4396 - drew 
>
> Off-topic (was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Download libreoffice button in new
> LibreOffice website)
>   4397 - Christoph Noack 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Suggestions for your future extensions
>   4398 - AndrewT 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Queensland floods not near me
>   4399 - Michael Wheatland 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: LibreOffice version for Android platform
>   4400 - Tom Tasche 
>
> [tdf-discuss] A better idea for a download package.
>   4402 - Alan Reeve 
>
> [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
>   4403 - RGB ES 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Using free, open microblogging
>   4404 - Fabián Rodríguez 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: LibreOffice version for Android platform
>   4405 - Nguyen Vu Hung 
>
>
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[tdf-discuss] feature request, calc cell content copy behaviour

[e-letter]

Readers,

m$ excel allows content in cells a1, a3, a5 to be selected and copied
to a7, a9, a11. This is not possible in calc. A feature request
please.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Live online testing of LibreOffice ("WebLive") as: Re: [tdf-discuss] Request for Libre Office on Spoon

[e-letter]

Video in HTML5 would be 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

[tdf-discuss] Re: Question about proposing the creation of a new format

[e-letter]

>I think this is a very interesting issue. We are moving from the dominant
>technologies that were designed to put information on paper to the dominant
>need of presenting information on screens. With the revolution in digital
>readers this is only going to increase and then what relevance has document
>formats that are primarily designed to target hard copy output? If odf does
>not adapt it will become obsolete.
>

Seems to suggest that LO should become some sort of html (or any other
electronic format) editor?

>I am constantly irritated by having to download pdfs, .docs and so on when
>all I want to do is view the information without cluttering up my download

May I suggest to use the 'load url' bar to read documents directly on
the web? As for pdf documents, evince can open directly from the url
when activated via the command terminal

-- 
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: Forums... again

[e-letter]

>As I said, I'm sure Bill Gates said leave those toy phones to Nokia, RIM and
>Apple. Google seem to have been smarter. As mobile and web technologies take
>over I can see much harder times ahead for anyone dependent on local
>dependencies.
>

Those reliant of distant web servers without no knowledge of data
security employed by service providers are being naive. At least
retrieved data onto a local hard disk drive allows data to be in more
tangible control.

>On 04/18/2011 03:11 PM, RGB ES wrote:
>> Well, even if I'd said that the ancient forums vs mailing lists war
>> was not the point but *what people use*, the forums vs. mailing lists
>> useless fight came again...
>> At first I was tempted to refer how the English forums have near 200
>> new message each day and talk about the madness it would be to receive
>> near 200 mails each day. I was tempted to talk about how I'm giving
>> on-line support to users since a long time (I started using computers
>> more than 25 years ago) and justify the fact that I know quite well
>> the advantages and disadvantages of every possible communication
>> system in use for the last 20 years... Many things...
>> But I'm giving up.
>> Have a nice day!
>> And don't worry to answer me, I'm unsubscribing from the mailing list.
>>
>I do agree that, whatever their limitations, forums are the discussion =
>
>platform of the masses and LibreOffice needs to form a community that =
>
>includes the non-geek populace if it is to become the premier version of =
>

Not sure that a web forum suddenly makes the use of LO more appealing
to "non-geeks"

What's wrong with reading mailing list messages in digest mode and
going to the searchable archive as and when appropriate.

Has the been a poll on mailing list against forum?

Regardless of the result, "non-geeks" should be encouraged to
understand the benefits of a mailing list, similarly to explaining LO
compared to m$o...

-- 
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: Forums - A Different Question

[e-letter]

>Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Forums - A Different Question
>From: "Pieter E. Zanstra" 
>Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 11:35:39 +0200
>To: 
>Om the basis of the discussions going on at this list, I do share your
>analysis as expressed in:
>http://daedaleus.isaachummel.com/2011/05/01/whither-openoffice/
>
>But I wonder/doubt if the view "the LibreOffice community is mired in
>excessive open source zeal and geek elitism" also applies to the developers
>who do the real work.
>

Reading the web site, disagree with its content, having become more of
a fan of mailing lists than forum web sites. The recommendation to
refer those who prefer web forums is sensible; although why no
reference to oooforums.org? The world is big enough for more than one
open source office software, as well as methods of users seeking
support.

Long live the mailing list(s)..!

-- 
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] mailing list content disappearance

[e-letter]

On 13/05/2011, discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
 wrote:
> Topics (messages 6130 through 6131):
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: Paid Developers
>   6130 - Ian Lynch 
>   6131 - ??? 
>
>
>

When can someone improve mailing list behaviour with web mail clients
like gmail??? Even for this e-mail digest, the reply function results
in deletion of the original message content, apart from the text shown
above. This means a text editor has to be used...:(

-- 
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: Paid developers

[e-letter]

>On 12 May 2011 17:55, Marc Paré  wrote:
>
>> Le 2011-05-11 17:01, Samuel M a écrit :
>>
>>  I believe, that The Document Foundation can employ Developers for
>>> LibreOffice. I believe the community is able to get the money for that on a
>>> monthly base.
>>>
>>> We saw that the community was able to rise 50.000€ in 8(!) days. It will
>>> be possible to get that money in a year for one full-time developer.
>>> These two examples show that this works even over a longer period of time
>>> (note that these projects are much smaller than LibreOffice):
>>> - Ardour (http://ardour.org): $4500 are raised every month to pay the
>>> main developer
>>> - Linux Mint (http://linuxmint.com): $5500 were raised in April to pay
>>> the main developer
>>>
>>>
>>> Despite from having full-time developers, for volunteer developers it
>>> would be nice to get money for fixing a specific bug / implementing a
>>> feature. Ardour has such a system where you can donate for a specific issue:
>>> http://ardour.org/bugbounty
>>> I think something like this would bring great benefit to LO, since users
>>> can show what they want to be fixed most and developers get some money for
>>> coding (or at their option donate it to TDF).
>>>
>>> To be honest, if we could convince most school districts in any country to
>> adopt the use of LibreOffice as their main suite, dropping MSO and
>> contributing a small percentage of their "per seat" cost savings, then we
>> could see some distrcits paying to have accessibility issues worked on or
>> some other aspect of LibreOffice that would be of interest to them.
>>
>
>In essence this was the idea behind setting up the INGOTs. Your idea is
>simpler *if* you can get agreement with large centralised bureaucracies.
>It's not easy, I have been trying for more than 10 years ;-)
>
>Schools in the UK make individual decisions about the resources they use. We
>had to make INGOT certification wider than just OOo/LO simply because most
>are entrenched in MSO. OTOH we know some have switched as a result of
>learning more about FOSS through the certification process.  If we can
>generate volume international take up, funding developers on the project
>would be easy.
>

Whilst certification seems a good strategy, what about parental power
being exerted upon schools? One would imagine that if parents
(espcialy of low income families) were aware of free software, they
would implore schools to follow suit.

-- 
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: Paid Developers

[e-letter]

>On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:36 PM, e-letter  wrote:
>> On 13/05/2011, discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
>>  wrote:
>>> Topics (messages 6130 through 6131):
>>>
>>> [tdf-discuss] Re: Paid Developers
>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 6130 - Ian Lynch 
>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 6131 - ??? 
>>
>> When can someone improve mailing list behaviour with web mail clients
>> like gmail???
>
>Sorry, but what do you mean?
>Obviously the mailinglist has no influence whatsoever how a webmail or
>regular mailclient behaves.
>

Is this true? Surely different mailing list manager software will
function differently?

>> Even for this e-mail digest, the reply function results
>> in deletion of the original message content, apart from the text shown
>> above. This means a text editor has to be used...:(
>
>Sorry, please be more descriptive. That mail (#6131) is this one:
>http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06225.html
>http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/msg06096.html
>

A digest message is received
Opening the message shows all of the content
After activating the 'reply' function, the reply text box does not
contain the original digest message content

>As you mentioned gmail: Gmail will not show your own messages as it
>will be received by the mailinglist, but only as it leaves gmail,
>similarily gmail doesn't properly quote html-messages when replying in
>text-only mode ("quoting level" gets lost). So what is the exact
>problem?
>

The problem is that replies to messages cannot be performed directly.
This behaviour does not occur in other mailing lists, e.g. gnuplot.

-- 
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: Paid developers

[e-letter]

>On 13 May 2011 21:50, e-letter  wrote:
>
>> >On 12 May 2011 17:55, Marc Par=E9  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Le 2011-05-11 17:01, Samuel M a =E9crit :
>> >>
>> >>  I believe, that The Document Foundation can employ Developers for
>> >>> LibreOffice. I believe the community is able to get the money for that
>> on a
>> >>> monthly base.
>> >>>
>> >>> We saw that the community was able to rise 50.000=80 in 8(!) days. It
>> will
>> >>> be possible to get that money in a year for one full-time developer.
>> >>> These two examples show that this works even over a longer period of
>> time
>> >>> (note that these projects are much smaller than LibreOffice):
>> >>> - Ardour (http://ardour.org): $4500 are raised every month to pay the
>> >>> main developer
>> >>> - Linux Mint (http://linuxmint.com): $5500 were raised in April to pay
>> >>> the main developer
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Despite from having full-time developers, for volunteer developers it
>> >>> would be nice to get money for fixing a specific bug / implementing a
>> >>> feature. Ardour has such a system where you can donate for a specific
>> issue:
>> >>> http://ardour.org/bugbounty
>> >>> I think something like this would bring great benefit to LO, since
>> users
>> >>> can show what they want to be fixed most and developers get some money
>> for
>> >>> coding (or at their option donate it to TDF).
>> >>>
>> >>> To be honest, if we could convince most school districts in any count=
>ry
>> to
>> >> adopt the use of LibreOffice as their main suite, dropping MSO and
>> >> contributing a small percentage of their "per seat" cost savings, then
>> we
>> >> could see some distrcits paying to have accessibility issues worked on
>> or
>> >> some other aspect of LibreOffice that would be of interest to them.
>> >>
>> >
>> >In essence this was the idea behind setting up the INGOTs. Your idea is
>> >simpler *if* you can get agreement with large centralised bureaucracies.
>> >It's not easy, I have been trying for more than 10 years ;-)
>> >
>> >Schools in the UK make individual decisions about the resources they use.
>> We
>> >had to make INGOT certification wider than just OOo/LO simply because mo=
>st
>> >are entrenched in MSO. OTOH we know some have switched as a result of
>> >learning more about FOSS through the certification process.  If we can
>> >generate volume international take up, funding developers on the project
>> >would be easy.
>> >
>>
>> Whilst certification seems a good strategy, what about parental power
>> being exerted upon schools? One would imagine that if parents
>> (espcialy of low income families) were aware of free software, they
>> would implore schools to follow suit.
>>
>
>How do you get to those parents? Through the schools? ..Wait, isn't it the
>schools that are not ready to change?
>
>See the problem?
>

Perhaps, but one would have expected parents and/or pupils to search
via internet for 'free word processor' and hopefully an open source
product would appear prominently in the search results.

-- 
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: OpenOffice dead and burried?

[e-letter]

Keeping OO separate from LO is a good thing overall; more actors in
the open source office software sector gives healthy competition (like
Opera and Firefox for web browsers), innovation and shows m$ users the
benefits of using a non-proprietary document format.

-- 
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] Problematic digest mail answering - Buggy mailclient? (was: Paid Developers)

[e-letter]

A link would not show the behaviour; would be better to subscribe to
gnuplot mailing list digest mode. When the 'reply' function is
activated in gmail web-mail interface, the mail message format is
retained.

-- 
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] Problematic digest mail answering - Buggy mailclient? (was: Paid Developers)

[e-letter]

This message sent previously failed to be accepted my the mail server;
being resent in two parts. Part one of two

On 26/05/2011, e-letter  wrote:
>>e-letter schrieb:
>>
>>>A link would not show the behaviour;
>>
>>Thanks for your estimation. My intention was rather to have easy access
>>to information of that list and to an example where Your answer really
>>worked.
>>
> See http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.graphics.gnuplot.user/5655,
> but this does not show anything.
>
>>As I spend enough time investigating Your problem
>>http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.test
>>I hoped to save the time of searching myself..
>>
>>>would be better to subscribe to gnuplot mailing list digest mode.
>>
>>A link where to do so was really great - allthough not helpful *for me*
>>as I don't have gmail running and I don't intend to do so.
>>
>>>When the 'reply' function is activated in gmail web-mail interface, the
>>>mail message format is retained.
>>
>>As told, I would like to see a succesful example of an answer sent by
>>You if You make possible to provide a link.
>>
>>By the way:
>>As workaround to send proper answers is "ordering" the desired mail
>>sending a mail to:
>>discuss+ge...@documentfoundation.org where "N" is the number of that
>>mail provided with the digest.
>>
>
> This does not seem to be an acceptable alternative method. The user
> would reply, change manually the recipient e-mail address and then
> wait for a response from the servers.
>
>>Additionally You're hereby invited to subscribe to
>>test+subscribe-dig...@documentfoundation.org
>>where we try to solve Your problem. We need your experience with digest
>>handling and your testing skills. ;o))
>>
> Subscription has been enabled.
>
> Below is copy of the digest mode message received
>

-- 
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] Problematic digest mail answering - Buggy mailclient? (was: Paid Developers)

[e-letter]

Still blocked;

>
> Below is copy of the digest mode message received
>
>
> Delivered-To: inp...@gmail.com
> Received: by 10.216.54.85 with SMTP id h63cs4144wec;
> Wed, 25 May 2011 23:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: by 10.213.4.198 with SMTP id 6mr174974ebs.124.1306389605519;
> Wed, 25 May 2011 23:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
> Return-Path:
> 
> Received: from bilbo.documentfoundation.org
> (bilbo.documentfoundation.org [178.63.91.70])
> by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id
> v13si792201eef.81.2011.05.25.23.00.05
> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
> Wed, 25 May 2011 23:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of
> discuss+bounces-digest-inpost=gmail@documentfoundation.org
> designates 178.63.91.70 as permitted sender) client-ip=178.63.91.70;
> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
> discuss+bounces-digest-inpost=gmail@documentfoundation.org
> designates 178.63.91.70 as permitted sender)
> smtp.mail=discuss+bounces-digest-inpost=gmail@documentfoundation.org
> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 23:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-Id: <4dddec65.8d620e0a.588b.51a8smtpin_ad...@mx.google.com>
> Received: from bilbo.documentfoundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
>   by bilbo.documentfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1942C1BF21E4
>   for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 08:00:05 +0200 (CEST)
> From: discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary=7b72ac84340cf61c
> Subject:
> =?utf-8?q?Digest_of_discuss=40documentfoundation.org_issue_289_=286272-6280=29?=
> Reply-To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Errors-To: postmas...@documentfoundation.org
> Precedence: list
> List-Id: 
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org>
> List-Archive: <http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/>
> List-Post: <mailto:discuss@documentfoundation.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:discuss+subscr...@documentfoundation.org>
> List-Owner: <mailto:postmas...@documentfoundation.org>
> To: inp...@gmail.com
>
>
> --7b72ac84340cf61c
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Topics (messages 6272 through 6280):
>
> [tdf-discuss] Mailing List FAQ
>   6272 - NoOp 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Mailing List FAQ
>   6273 - Volker Merschmann 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Problematic digest mail answering - Buggy mailclient?
> (was: Paid Developers)
>   6274 - e-letter 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Fwd: Why TDF should be the place for one united Community
>   6275 - Florian Effenberger 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Problematic digest mail answering - Buggy mailclient?
>   6276 - Friedrich Strohmaier 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: Mailing List FAQ
>   6277 - NoOp 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: Mailing List FAQ
>   6278 - Steve Edmonds 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: Mailing List FAQ
>   6279 - Jean Hollis Weber 
>
> [tdf-discuss] Re: Mailing List FAQ
>   6280 - Steve Edmonds 
>
>
>
> --7b72ac84340cf61c
> Content-Type: message/rfc822
> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="discuss_6272.eml"
>
> X-Original-To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Delivered-To: documentfoundation.org--disc...@bilbo.documentfoundation.org
> Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
>   by bilbo.documentfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E824E1BF2124
>   for ;
>   Wed, 25 May 2011 06:24:59 +0200 (CEST)
> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new-2.6.4 (20090625) at
> bilbo.documentfoundation.org
> X-Spam-Flag: NO
> X-Spam-Score: -4.212
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5
>   tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,
>   SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
> Received: from bilbo.documentfoundation.org ([127.0.0.1])
>   by localhost (bilbo.documentfoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
>   port 10024)
>   with LMTP id ZSXezR7cJO2G for ;
>   Wed, 25 May 2011 06:24:47 +0200 (CEST)
> X-policyd-weight: using cached result; rate: -7.35
> Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12])
>   by bilbo.documentfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 920AD1BF2143
>   for ;
>   Wed, 25 May 2011 06:24:10 +0200 (CEST)
> Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
>   (envelope-from ) id 1QP5dh-00068b-IC
>   for discuss@documentfoundation.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 06:24:09 +0200
> Received: from adsl-69-228-81-206.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ([69.228.81.206])
>   by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
>   id 1Alnu

Re: [tdf-discuss] Problematic digest mail answering - Buggy mailclient? (was: Paid Developers)

[e-letter]

A hyperlink to gnuplot was provided
(http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.graphics.gnuplot.user/5655) but
as originally stated, how this would help is not understood.

-- 
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: Oracle contributes OOo Code to Apache Software Foundation'sIncubator

[e-letter]

>To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
>From: "Harold Fuchs" 
>Subject: [tdf-discuss] Re: Oracle contributes OOo Code to Apache Software
>   Foundation'sIncubator
>Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:30:55 +0100
>Lines: 44
>Message-ID: 
>References: 
><4de877cb.4010...@nouenoff.nl>
>   <1307086982610-3018856.p...@n3.nabble.com>
>X-Complaints-To: use...@dough.gmane.org
>X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: wolfeden.demon.co.uk
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090
>Archived-At: 
>Reply-To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
>Errors-To: postmas...@documentfoundation.org
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: 
>List-Unsubscribe: 
>List-Archive: 
>List-Post: 
>List-Help: 
>List-Subscribe: 
>List-Owner: 
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1";
>   reply-type="original"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>
>"plino"  wrote in message =
>
>news:1307086982610-3018856.p...@n3.nabble.com...
>> As a user I wouldn't be happy IF the devs split up between two projects.
>>
>> The way I see it is IBM and maybe some Oracle devs will work on OOo and
>> everybody else will work on LO...
>>
>> The good part (besides the Apache license which allows LO to use what =
>
>> little
>> code will be openly contributed to OOo) is that IBM will continue to =
>
>> develop
>> ODF, which badly needs it.
>>
>> I find it a little absurd that the people behind a file format that has =
>
>> been
>> under development for years haven't implemented font embedding... Of =
>
>> course,
>> fonts are not important for serious business companies :)
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: =
>
>> http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Oracle-contributes-OOo-Code-to-Apach=
>e-Software-Foundation-s-Incubator-tp3011527p3018856.html
>> Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>The LO folk left the OOo group because OOo was, in their opinion, going to =
>
>be over-controlled (by Oracle). Now that this is no longer true, the LO fol=
>k =
>
>don't have a case and should return to the fold. So, why don't the LO folk =
>
>do a deal with Apache, combine the best bits of OOo with LO to get back to =
>a =
>
>single "product" and form jointly with the Apache folk an "LO Foundation". =
>
>It seems completely crazy to have two sets of developers and two sets of =
>
>code. All that does is sow FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) in the minds o=
>f =
>
>potential users.
>

This is bizarre; there is strength in competition. The beauty of
gnu/linux is the variety in distributions; the world is big enough for
OO and LO and many others to adopt the DF ODF standard.

>Oh, and by the way, get rid of the asinine name "LibreOffice" which half th=
>e =
>
>world can't pronounce and which three quarters of the world doesn't =
>
>understand the meaning of.
>

This seems a ludicrous statement to make. Perhaps you should learn
another language, especially living in probably the most
linguistically diverse city in the world.

-- 
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: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[e-letter]

DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware
of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL
product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming
imminent in apache OO, they can make a proposal for a similar feature
to be copied/improved in LO. The analogy is opera introducing tabbed
web pages in a browser and firefox later introducing the same
function.

More separately developed ODF compliant products in the market is a
good result, just like there are numerous gnu/linux distributions for
users to choose. The proliferation of many ODF products gives powerful
confidence to users that if apache OO (any other ODF compliant
product( disappears, the user can switch to using LO. It should be
remembered that this cannot occur with m$o and this is the single most
dominant benefit of numerous ODF programs to the user. It is the
"killer reason" to use LO.

In summary, please do not merge apache OO (or any non-(L)GPL) code with LO.

-- 
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

[tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

[e-letter]

On the users mailing list, a significant proportion of a random view
of questions seems to be with relation to using LO is some way with m$
document formats.

What should be the priority of LO development: bug-free and excellent
behaviour in native odt format, or minimising "interoperability
issues" with m$?

No doubt it is convenient in a gnu/linux environment to be able to
receive a document attached in an e-mail message and at least be able
to view that document. However, is it really worthwhile, or fair to
LO, to be able edit such documents so perfectly that the recipient
doesn't realise LO was used instead of m$?

In a business scenario, a customer who sends a document is m$ format
(for simpliciticy assume for subsequent editing) would most likely
expect the recipient to have the money to buy m$ software and edit the
document accordingly. It is difficult to understand why a business
would waste time trying to use LO; if a customer uses m$, the supplier
might as well do so also and consider the m$ price as a cost of
conducting business. Is the cost of m$ such a massive proportion of a
business cost structure that transferring to LO is the difference
between the business remaining profitable or not?

In a non-business scenario, for example academia, one could imagine a
scenario where the teacher sends a document in m$ format, the student
uses LO because it is free. The student could explain his/her
circumstances to the teacher who may be flexible in either accepting
slight formatting differences, or even deciding to use LO also (the
ideal result).

To conclude, it does not seem a good long-term idea to be constantly
seeking high (if not perfect) compatibility with the constantly moving
targets that are m$ formats. The priority for LO should be to ignore
self-inflicted problems such as "I saved a document is m$ format x and
something has disappeared" and focus upon "when using writer to create
a new odt file, a table alignment error occurs".

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] ignore m$ legacy?

[e-letter]

On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak  wrote:
>
> I might also conclude that there is NO reason to support any other file
> format either. I mean, really, why should I support a non-ODF format?
> PDF generation? Remove it! Any other office file format? Remove it! Why
> single out file formats associated with MS?
>

M$ is "singled-out" because it should be considered that each document
distributed in m$ format is at the expense of the odt format. The
ideal (if perhaps unreal) objective is to see the secretary of the
local sports club sending a membership form in odt format.

> I am more comfortable in OOo than I am in MSO, so, I have created many
> MSO deliverables in OOo and LO. The only time that I make an exception
> is when I believe that I am not able to seamlessly move between formats
> because of incompatibilities. So, if I intend to create a large document
> with multiple images, links, and fields, I begin and end with MSO.
>
That is your prerogative, but it is preferable to see writer used to
create such large documents in the native odt format, at least to
demonstrate the power of LO. Suppose a user wrote to a m$ forum to
complain that m$word cannot create a good document in odt format. A
likely response would be to go and use LO (or another odf compliant
program)!

> While writing a book on OOo, I worked in OOo on a Linux platform and
> some of the editors worked in MSO. We moved documents back and forth
> seamlessly with no problems. They had no intention of using OOo or LO.

Or you sure? Or maybe the fact that you were able to work to m$ format
provided no incentive for them to change...

> If MSO support were removed, then I would have been stuck with using
> MSO. As a side note, the owner of the publishing company was so
> impressed with how well this worked, that internally they moved to OOo
> and then published their templates in ODF format.
>

That is excellent news. Do you think this could have been achieved if
for example they saw that creating an ott template was superior to m$
and this reason was sufficient to change? Or maybe the ability to work
with m$ was the initial point of gaining interest and curiosity about
LO...

> I download numerous MSO files from numerous sources. if LO is not able
> to read these files, well, then I need to purchase MSO (and a Windows
> computer) so that I can read them.
>
> Do you ever have reason to open an MSO file? Ever try to send an ODF
> file to a neighborhood or club mailing list? I receive the same reaction
> as when someone sends out a MS Publisher file that is not supported
> outside of MS Publisher. "Hey, what is that file that I cannot open?"
>

Seems this is an education issue. If the benefits of LO are explained
before sending that "unknown file format", recipients would be more
understanding?

> I do believe that MSO now supports ODF files, so perhaps...
>

Try creating an odt file in writer, then open it via word. Repeat vice
versa (i.e. create odt file in word, open in writer); m$ performance
is shockingly (and deliberately, no doubt) poor, perhaps to give the
impression that odt is an inferior format that should not be used.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] ignore m$ legacy?

[e-letter]

On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak  wrote:
> On 07/21/2011 08:47 AM, e-letter wrote:
>> On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak  wrote
>>> I am more comfortable in OOo than I am in MSO, so, I have created many
>>> MSO deliverables in OOo and LO. The only time that I make an exception
>>> is when I believe that I am not able to seamlessly move between formats
>>> because of incompatibilities. So, if I intend to create a large document
>>> with multiple images, links, and fields, I begin and end with MSO.
>>>
>> That is your prerogative, but it is preferable to see writer used to
>> create such large documents in the native odt format, at least to
>> demonstrate the power of LO.
>
> The problem is that the final deliverable to the client is an MSO
> document and the complicated structures that I frequently use do not
> properly export to the MSO document format. It is very time consuming to
> work through a 250 page document full of cross-references and text
> frames that do NOT export to the format required by the client. I lost
> many hours fixing up the document in MSO so that it would be ready for
> final delivery.
>

In my opinion interoperability with the _m$ format_ weakens increased
adoption of the odf. At the start of a 250 page document, ideally the
decision should be made to use odt and the issue become ensuring that
LO behaviour in native odt format occurs with minimal bugs. This
experience alone should promote wider adoption of LO. The claim to
offer (or attain to) perfect interoperability with the _m$ format_
leads to time wasted trying to get LO to work with m$. If the end
requirement is m$, pay to use m$.
>> Suppose a user wrote to a m$ forum to
>> complain that m$word cannot create a good document in odt format. A
>> likely response would be to go and use LO (or another odf compliant
>> program)!
>
> MSO is able to create a nice document. Certainly there are constructs
> that I use in my ODT files that are not easily supported in MSO (say
> items related to page styles), but things that are supported by both do
> not always carry over.
>

Fine. People are/should be free to choose whichever program they
prefer. If someone likes the interface of m$o, good for them. The
point of the original post, is that priority should be for LO
performance in native odf to be better than m$o performance in native
m$ format (or indeed secondary odf). It does not seem right that
people complain that "writer does not save to m$ format well", when
the statement "writer creates beautiful, easily-created odf documents"
should be the main reason to use LO.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] ignore m$ legacy?

[e-letter]

On 21/07/2011, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> Yes, don't confuse ODF compatibility with OpenOffice.org (or LibreOffice)
> compatibility.  I was in the room on one occasion when Microsoft was asking
> for advice on their approach to ODF 1.1 Spreadsheet documents.
>
> Unfortunately, none of us blinked about how this would work for users who
> are unaware that ODF 1.1 has no standard for calculation formulas but think
> that OpenOffice.org Calc is the standard.
>
> I don't believe that ODF support was "broken."  The ODF support in Office
> 2007 is the first time that integrated ODF support appeared in Microsoft
> Office.  I know there are bugs, some of them rather
> surprising/disappointing.
>

Or deliberate..?

>  - Dennis
>
> (ODF 1.2 is a different story but I don't know the current status of
> OpenFormula in LibreOffice and I have not seen anything on Microsoft plans
> in this area.  I have seen a statement that Microsoft wants to present its
> ODF plans for the next release of Office at an April 2012 Plugfest in
> Brussels.)
>

Thanks for your mention of open formula; a quick search revealed new
knowledge as I wasn't aware such an initiative was in place.

Is it viable to develop some sort of "open macro" language also?
Personally don't use them presumably such an interoperability feature
would be beneficial.

The issue of formula loss in spreadsheets is interesting. If a
spreadsheet is started in calc then the recipient must use calc also.
If someone develops a tool in calc, then the recipient has no
alternative but to install LO (or odf compliant alternative).

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] ignore m$ legacy?

[e-letter]

On 22/07/2011, Christophe Strobbe  wrote:
>
> At 02:33 21-7-2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
>>On 07/20/2011 05:02 PM, e-letter wrote:
>> > On the users mailing list, a significant proportion of a random view
>> > of questions seems to be with relation to using LO is some way with m$
>> > document formats.
>> > (...)
>>
>>I might also conclude that there is NO reason to support any other
>>file format either. I mean, really, why should I support a non-ODF
>>format? PDF generation? Remove it! (...)
>
> Please don't remove PDF generation. That would be the end of the only
> free and open-source PDF generator that produces "tagged PDF", which
> is a requirement for accessibility.
>

To clarify, I do not suggest _in any way_ that pdf generation should
be discontinued; it is an excellent feature.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] ignore m$ legacy?

[e-letter]

On 22/07/2011, Gordon Burgess-Parker  wrote:
> On 22/07/2011 15:24, e-letter wrote:
>>
>> Fine. People are/should be free to choose whichever program they
>> prefer. If someone likes the interface of m$o, good for them. The
>> point of the original post, is that priority should be for LO
>> performance in native odf to be better than m$o performance in native
>> m$ format (or indeed secondary odf). It does not seem right that
>> people complain that "writer does not save to m$ format well", when
>> the statement "writer creates beautiful, easily-created odf documents"
>> should be the main reason to use LO.
>>
> True to a certain point. But you can't ignore the fact that 90-95% of
> Office suite users USE MS! They aren't going to be persuaded to migrate
> to LO or even OO if when they are sent documents created by MSO, they
> don't render properly in LO.

Many have experienced errors sending m$ documents created in various
m$ versions (e.g. recipient using version 1, sender using version 2).
The better persuasive argument is that people observe perfect
transmission of odf documents using LO. For the non-business
environment, LO usage can be promoted by transmission of documents in
odf; since m$ can open an odt format document, they can at least see
the content. If they want to edit, recipients should be actively told
about the existence of LO and encouraged to use LO. This is analogous
to the scenario now where documents are transmitted in m$docx (and
people complain that LO is unable to open!). I want to see increased
instances of people writing to m$ mailing lists/forums (or fora?) to
ask about "how to open an odt file I received", and less complaints
about "interoperability" with m$ within LO users mailing list.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] ignore m$ legacy?

[e-letter]

On 23/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak  wrote:
> On 07/22/2011 10:24 AM, e-letter wrote:
>> On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak  wrote:
>>> On 07/21/2011 08:47 AM, e-letter wrote:
>>>> On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak   wrote
>>>>> I am more comfortable in OOo than I am in MSO, so, I have created many
>>>>> MSO deliverables in OOo and LO. The only time that I make an exception
>>>>> is when I believe that I am not able to seamlessly move between formats
>>>>> because of incompatibilities. So, if I intend to create a large
>>>>> document
>>>>> with multiple images, links, and fields, I begin and end with MSO.
>>>>>
>>>> That is your prerogative, but it is preferable to see writer used to
>>>> create such large documents in the native odt format, at least to
>>>> demonstrate the power of LO.
>>> The problem is that the final deliverable to the client is an MSO
>>> document and the complicated structures that I frequently use do not
>>> properly export to the MSO document format. It is very time consuming to
>>> work through a 250 page document full of cross-references and text
>>> frames that do NOT export to the format required by the client. I lost
>>> many hours fixing up the document in MSO so that it would be ready for
>>> final delivery.
>>>
>> In my opinion interoperability with the _m$ format_ weakens increased
>> adoption of the odf. At the start of a 250 page document, ideally the
>> decision should be made to use odt and the issue become ensuring that
>> LO behaviour in native odt format occurs with minimal bugs. This
>> experience alone should promote wider adoption of LO. The claim to
>> offer (or attain to) perfect interoperability with the _m$ format_
>> leads to time wasted trying to get LO to work with m$. If the end
>> requirement is m$, pay to use m$.
>
> If anything, this experience means that LO is less likely to be used
> because if there is a change in requirements and I must generate and
> deliver an MSO document, then I had better not be using LO if the
> document will be sufficiently complex that it will not export well.
>

In my opinion, nothing wrong with that; if the output required is m$,
go and buy it, don't ask programmers devoting their _free_ time to LO,
just to save people from buying m$ software.

> Even worse, given that MSO has the greatest market share it means that
> most legacy documents use the MSO formats. I knew many people that
> refused to switch from Word Perfect when I told them that OOo would NOT
> read their document archives that they spent years creating.
>

What is wrong with people using two software, corel for word perfect
legacy documents and LO for new documents? Can't see the difficulty...

> To date, I have seen only one client that requested that an ODF document
> be the final deliverable. As they went around the table trying to figure
> out what experience the large team had with OOo, the best that was there
> was "yeah, heard about it, never used it".
>
> LO does not have sufficient penetration to play like MS to force users
> into staying with LO.

I do not believe this to be true; there is nothing wrong with actively
encouraging the use of the native odf instead of trying to be the
perfect m$ format.

>> The
>> point of the original post, is that priority should be for LO
>> performance in native odf to be better than m$o performance in native
>> m$ format (or indeed secondary odf).
>
> Oh! Ummm, yeah. I think that I was just hit in the head with something
> important and logical. :-)
>
>> It does not seem right that
>> people complain that "writer does not save to m$ format well", when
>> the statement "writer creates beautiful, easily-created odf documents"
>> should be the main reason to use LO.
> Let me add to your statement, because much of it is VERY important.
>
> 1. Many people find the LO interface more intuitive, easy, and obvious
> to use than learning the new MSO interface.
>

That is good. As usage increases, so should the prevalence of odf
documents, _not_ the prevalence of m$ documents created by LO.

> 2. Most people do NOT write complex documents (think home user that
> writes letters and such) so complex support is not required.
>

In this case, LO users should be able to send simple documents (e.g.
the sports club newsletter) which can be viewed in the latest m$
software. Those still using old m$ software should be told to either
obtain LO or buy newer m$ that can view odf documents. This is
analogous to receiving m$docx documents.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] ignore m$ legacy?

[e-letter]

On 23/07/2011, Mark Preston  wrote:
> Look, lets be honest about this - Microsoft has by far the largest
> proportion of legacy documents out there and there is no way that
> people can manage without access to those documents. Apart from
> anything else, the law will require them to be kept and available if
> needed for any future investigations.

Does the law require these documents to be stored in the native binary
format, or would a paper copy archive be considered acceptable. In any
case, is this relevant to LO? Why wouldn't users simply keep an old
version of m$? Is it not possible for m$ to be used for legacy
documents and use LO for future documents in the native odf?

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] ignore m$ legacy?

[e-letter]

On 27/07/2011, Fernand Vanrie  wrote:
>   Andrew , Others
>
> I agree with the point of view of Andrew.
>   Please make LO OPEN as maximum as possible different formats. I say
> open not SAVE as...
> We are a Editing House where our 30 fulltime journalists using OO
> (forced by us),  the more than 100 freelancers recieved on regular base
> CD's for installing OO and also LO. They like the product because the
> use it for opening all sort of documents and ist FREE :-).
> But finaly only 20 % are sending there copy in OO-LO format and 80%
> still in MS format (all sort off versions).
>   Thats the reality, because our Freelancers continuing using MS for
> their daily work simply  because 99% off there clients are using MS.
>

Such people should be buying m$; if they cannot afford m$ why are they
in business???

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] ignore m$ legacy?

[e-letter]

This topic has revealed the following personal observations.

People seem to want LO to be an exact clone of m$ where they can
perform the same m$ tasks, produce the same m$ output, without paying
m$. They happen to have a convenient choice in another product (LO)
that perhaps is more attractive/intuitive to use, ideally producing m$
output so perfect that the recipient would be aware that LO was used.
For such people, there is no interest in promoting or improving odf;
their priority is to continue producing m$ format output to the
detriment of odf. Having read the comments of those who wish LO to be
a m$ clone (including the LO statement about m$ooxml), there is little
evidence that the ability to create m$ format documents will _in any
way_ lead to the increased quantity of odf documents; instead, there
will be an increase in m$ format documents that have been created by
LO. The result? Continued dominance of m$. Make no mistake, every LO
user who saves a document in an m$ format instead of odf, is not
promoting the odf at all, but killing it insiduously; new (probably
entirely m$ OS) users are being enticed with this concept of "m$
output without the m$ price" when the bigger picture is odf to become
the future default format.

The ability to import m$ formats and produce only native odf documents
would be a good idea. Users would have a clear choice to make; either
promote odf, or decide it is more important to produce m$ documents
and therefore such people should simply buy m$. Of course, opponents
of odf don't want to pay and therefore promote the "m$ is essential to
me" viewpoint. Either pay m$, or donate the equivalent to LO to
produce superior odf documents.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] More statistics

[e-letter]

On 05/08/2011, Italo Vignoli  wrote:
> Sorry for top posting, writing from the smartphone. We will be improving the
> statistics, but do not expect anything before the conference in Paris (where
> we will make a specific presentation).
>

Off-topic but I think you could try k9 mail client?

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] [Calc] Feature Request - charts : error bars + broken axes

[e-letter]

You can achieve these tasks using gnuplot

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] [Calc] Feature Request - charts : error bars + broken axes

[e-letter]

On 10/08/2011, v...@ukr.net  wrote:
>   Hello!
>
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:30:47 +0100
> e-letter  wrote:
>
>> You can achieve these tasks using gnuplot
>>
>   There are actually many ways to achieve this. For example, I use
> QtiPlot for this purpose and sometimes Sage (via Matplotlib) when I
> work with it.

OK, gnuplot was suggested for LO users to think: "instead of asking LO
for more and more features, is there something that already exists",
probably because time is preceived to be saved to learn a new tool.
"Feature expansion" inevitably ruins good software product because it
is more "interesting" than curing old bugs many years old.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] feature expansion or bug minimisation?

[e-letter]

Readers,

A recent feature request prompted the strategic question: what is more
important, minimising bugs or adding new features?

Of course, the ideal answer is to do both (;)), but remember, the
question is to choose only one answer...

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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