Re: [tdf-discuss] Security Advisories

2012-03-23 Thread Robert Derman

NoOp wrote:

Why is it that security advisories such as this:

https://www.libreoffice.org/advisories/CVE-2012-0037/

are not posted on the user or announce lists?

The only way I found out about this was via a Redhat bug report:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=791296
[Bug 791296 - (CVE-2012-0037) CVE-2012-0037 raptor: XML External Entity
(XXE) attack via RDF files ]
And then later on the ApacheOOO user list:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.ooo.user/866

It would be nice if someone 'official' (ala TDF) could post the
CVE-2012-0037 notice on both the user and announce lists.
  

+1

--
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: Security Advisories

2012-03-23 Thread Robert Derman

NoOp wrote:

On 03/22/2012 06:31 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
  

NoOp wrote:



It would be nice if someone 'official' (ala TDF) could post the
CVE-2012-0037 notice on both the user and announce lists.
  

It is now reported on the blog post.




Well just how many users are subscribed to a blog post? Nor do I think
that they (at least I don't) check www.libreoffice.org daily:

https://www.libreoffice.org/
Are these the posts that you are referring to?
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2012/03/22/tdf-announces-libreoffice-3-4-6/
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2012/03/15/libreoffice-3-5-1-provides-additional-security-and-stability/

Neither of those blog posts contain information regarding CVE-2012-0037.
Neither do the release logs or release notes. Nor is there any mention
of which bug reports are related to this issue - is there one?

LO 3.5.1 is showing:
LibreOffice 3.5.1 Final (2012-03-15)
The Redhat Bug report (Bug 791296) was dated 2012-03-16 - so LO was
aware of, and patched this in 3.5.1 prior to 15 March?

Lacking an LO Security Announce list, I just think that it would be nice
if such announcements were posted on the user  announce lists as well
and the blog.
  

Also the Discuss 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] MS Outlook?

2012-02-15 Thread Robert Derman

Olav Dahlum wrote:

2012/2/15 Shawn Sumin shawn.su...@gmail.com

  

Will LibreOffice ever have a similar program like MS Outlook?

i.e. Calendar, Tasks, Contacts and Mail




The components was thrown out of StarOffice in its time, so putting them
back won't be feasible. But as other people points out, it's actually
possible to integrate third party applications without much difficulty. The
focus here should mainly be on office suites, but I also understand the
importance of a fully working front office solution, so improving
integration are important.

– Olav
  
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. 



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. 



Now the world of corporate produced software is not all perfect either.  
A glaring example of this is Apple, their QuickTime video player has a 
truly horrible user interface.   Each time they come out with a new 
version I keep thinking that they will improve the user interface, and 
they never do.  Likewise, they keep nagging me to upgrade my copy of 
iTunes but they keep releasing incremental upgrades, that offer no 
improvements that are noticeable to us ordinary users, and they won't 
even tell us users why we should upgrade.  And so I don't and won't 
until they go to the next major upgrade, from version 10x to 11x. 



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. 


--
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 Floppy icon and meritocracy

2012-02-09 Thread Robert Derman

yahoo-pier_andreit wrote:

On 08/02/12 10:54, Pedro wrote:

Hi all

I just read the UX thread/sequence of emails where it was decided 
that the
universal Save icon (in any program, any OS) represented by a floppy 
disk

would be replaced by another icon.

I'm shocked that a Discuss topic where 54 messages from many people 
(several

of them opposing and presenting valid arguments against) was totally
dismissed because someone decided that it was time to change and the 
main

argument was that it was outdated.

This is not about the floppy icon itself or a criticism to who 
decided to
change it. It is about the process. If this is meritocracy then it 
sucks! A
little democracy would go a long way to build a community. 
Communities don't

behave like this.

(Disappointed) Regards,
Pedro


I totally agree with you :-))
about the outdating, should airplanes change all they reference to 
navy language?? why you go on board of plane? is there any board in 
airplane??

Pier
I suspect that a lot of that is because airplanes have largely replaced 
ships functionally.  If you are crossing the Atlantic today, you will do 
in on an airplane, not an ocean liner.  Although airplanes bank left, 
not hard to port.  Also remember you board a train as well, as an 
airplane. 


--
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: IBM is alive ;)

2012-02-07 Thread Robert Derman

donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com wrote:

Pedro,

My mistake then. I didn't read deeply enough into the thread.

I still submit that none of these open source projects and their products 
compete in the sense of meaningful market share. With MS-Office dominating 
so thoroughly the only thing that makes sense is to build a shared sense 
of opportunity, rather than bickering incessantly. 

IBM Docs will be a component of the IBM Connections offering later this 
year. I don't know how that looks like a competitor to LibreOffice.  Lotus 
Symphony was primarily offered to Lotus Notes customers in large 
enterprise as a no charge entitlement. Integrated in this fashion, it 
offers customers an alternative to MS-Office if they choose.  We have no 
evidence that these customers consider LibreOffice, so I don't think it's 
fair to say we are in a sort of competition.


What matters most is to help end users understand the benefits of ODF as 
their file format, and improve interoperability with the dominance of 
MS-Office formats. 


I hope you can at least agree on this last point, if not the others.
  
My take is that LibreOffice like OpenOffice is an office suite chosen 
primarily by home users, novelists and other self employed writers, 
academics, very small businesses, and general fans of open source. 



Big corporations never even consider using such products because of a 
lack of certain kinds of refinements.  The lack of integration with MS 
email products is an absolute deal breaker in many cases, as is the lack 
on an adequate spell check dictionary, a good presentation program, and 
a few other items.  To most large businesses the price of MS-Office 
products is insignificant compared to the inconvenience to them of doing 
without some of its features. 



I used OpenOffice, and now use LibreOffice (Writer only, I have no need 
whatsoever for a spreadsheet etc.) because I just don't like Word.  
There are a few things I would really like to see improved and/or 
changed about Writer, but it still is the best word processor around, at 
least for the needs of someone like me.


--
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] LibOCon proposals

2012-01-24 Thread Robert Derman

Florian Effenberger wrote:

Hi,

Olivier Hallot wrote on 2012-01-24 15:48:

Voting is a measure of traceable membership participation/activity.
Otherwise we can get spammed on untraceable votes to send us where we
don't want LibCon to happen.


by that, we would exclude a large amount of developers, and I am sure 
want to have them on the list. While it might be indeed something to 
attract more people applying for membership, I think excluding them 
from all votings (rather than only elections, which is what membership 
is about), does not feel right - but I am happy to hear some more 
thoughts, since we seem to have mixed feelings here. ;)


Florian
Perhaps we should have 2 tiered membership, full members, developers who 
contribute on a regular and ongoing basis and such, and associate 
members, those who have been on the mail lists since the founding of 
TDF, and who contribute in less provable ways, like promoting the 
program, giving others the program on disk etc.  I have been on the 
discuss list with OOo since about the turn of the century, and actually 
would like to contribute to the program in limited ways, like sending 
word lists for the spelling dictionary, and enhancing the autocorrect 
function if any developer is willing to help me to do it.  I haven't 
done any programming since working with BASIC back in the 1980s, so I 
can't contribute much to the code, but I would like to do whatever I can.


--
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] LibOCon proposals

2012-01-23 Thread Robert Derman

Florian Effenberger wrote:

Hello,

we have received two proposals for this years' LibreOffice Conference 
- thank you very much for your applications!


My proposal for the voting process is as follows:

- I would like to make the proposals public immediately, by uploading 
them to the wiki, and sending out a short notice to announce@tdf


- For the timeline of a week or so, the community can ask direct 
questions to the proponents, should something be unclear in their 
proposals


- After that, we will initiate the voting

- For voting, I propose to use a simple majority vote, i.e. the 
proposal having more votes will host the conference


- The candidate not succeeding this year can propose for 2013, but it 
will not automatically be preferred there (since we already called for 
2013 proposals as well)


- Where I'm a bit undetermined is the voting scheme itself

- One option is to allow every subscriber to the announce@ lists to 
vote (after e-mail confirmation in the voting system itself),


- another one is to allow only TDF members to vote. The latter one 
would exclude joke votings like we have seen them in the past, but 
exclude many eligible people.


- A third option would be to send out a voting invitation to everyone 
subscribe to a set of mailing lists (e.g. discuss@, announce@ and so 
on), but send them a private token. That way, only active people in 
the project could vote, but TDF membership would not be necessary.


What do you think?

Thanks,
Florian
I like the third option, there are many of us, like myself who have been 
active on the Discuss list, the Users list and others, since long before 
the LO fork, but are not programmer/developers.  All I have been able to 
do is to distribute the program on disk, and install it on every machine 
I built for my customers, (hundreds of them) over the years. 


--
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] Suggestion: Open to last edited page

2012-01-07 Thread Robert Derman

ScCrow wrote:
I did not find this in my searches or anything in the LibreOffice options. 
So, sorry if its there and I just did not find it.


I would like for a document (any document) to open to the last page that I
was on when I closed it.  I have a large document.  When I go back, I always
have to locate where I left off work.  I started just never closing the
document, which I dont like to do.

So, to me it would be a nice feature, and I would think, easy to add.  I
realize it may go to the last page I edited, not the last page I was
viewing.  Thats ok with me, still, either or both would be a good added
feature.
  
Actually it will go to the last page that your mouse cursor was on.  if 
you want it to go to a particular place when you open it again, all you 
have to do is place your cursor there.  (I am not sure if it will do 
this if you completely close the file, but if you minimize it, it 
certainly will, and that is what you should do with any document that 
you expect to soon return to).


--
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: [libo-marketing-priv] Can we replace Floppy Disk

2012-01-06 Thread Robert Derman

1920...@googlemail.com wrote:

On 4 January 2012 13:46, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote:
  

   Trivial to do; and the UX people I've talked to ask to do it. All we
need is for someone to submit a patch we can merge that has the updated
tango icons overwriting the save / saveas icons.

   An Easy Hack suitable for someone of the smallest talents ;-)



There are several icon themes in the source tree, one of which is
called tango, and appears to be the default theme.
This seems to differ from the tango set on Wikimedia commons[1] in
several of its icons. So, do we update the whole set or just the two
save icons?

I do wonder whether new users who have never seen inside a computer
would be any more likely to recognise a hard disk than they would a
floppy.
  
I am a former system builder myself so I know the difference, but I know 
many users actually refer to the console (case) as a hard drive, which 
is like referring to an automobile as an engine.  I myself have an 
incredibly low opinion of tablet computers, are they even worthy of 
being considered a real computer?  They cost as much as a competent 
laptop with a half terrabyte  drive, removable storage and a real 
keyboard, and yet they have none of that.  Whatever, anyway I like the 
floppy icon in LO, to anyone who has actually seen real floppies, it 
looks very much like one.  And for almost 20 years they were a viable 
storage system that all of us old timers were used to.  DOS 6.2, or 
was it 6.3, and Windows 3x as well as Windows 95 all came on 3.5 
floppies.  That was back in the days when most of us had never even 
heard of Linux. 


--
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: Can we replace Floppy Disk

2011-12-30 Thread Robert Derman

M Robinson wrote:

SNIP

I haven't heard of Delete/Eraser that works as well on SSDs as
traditional hard drives. That said USB will be the most common storage
media soon enough. Who saves to CDs at work?

I don't think the icon is a big deal, the whole interface is dated, I
pitched a Firefox addon-like interface a while back, but I'm still ahead
of my time on that.

Rather than reinventing the wheel, update the saveicon with a stock USB
icon: a vertical USB icon, it looks like a human carrying stuff and you
have the integrated download arrow, and it is a recognized symbol on
cameras, phones, TVs, etc.
  
I am retired now, but I used to be a system builder, and I still build 
one once in a while.  The point is, new motherboard designs no longer 
even include floppy interface connectors.  If you use a floppy drive, it 
is most likely to be to input important (old) files into your computer 
that only existed on floppy, and you will do it using a floppy drive 
connected to a USB interface. 



That said, I think that because you might use your systems hard drive, 
an optical disk, or a USB memory thumb drive, or even the cloud to store 
a document, it might be best to just represent the save with a little 
square with the letters [SV] inside to represent save.  I myself use 
hard drive for most saves, USB for back-up saves, and optical disk for 
archival saves because optical disks are dirt cheap.  I just figured out 
that a DVD+-R with over 4 Gig of storage actually costs less than one of 
the old 3.5 floppies that only held 1.4 Mb, which is over 3000 times as 
much capacity, which is why the floppy is dead. 

I still have one or two old floppy drives laying around my old parts, 
but I tossed the last of my floppy disks in the trash a year or two 
ago.  A bit of trivia here, Windows 95 came on a set of 13 floppy disks, 
and at the time of Windows 98 you had to use a floppy disk to input the 
drivers to interface with an optical drive before you could install the 
OS which came on a CD-ROM.  As recently as 2 years ago you still had to 
use a floppy drive to input the drivers to enable RAID.  Another bit of 
trivia, a DVD recording drive now actually costs less than a 3.5 floppy 
drive used to cost, plus you couldn't play movies on a floppy drive.  
(technically you can record motion pictures on a floppy, but they have 
to be of rather short duration)


--
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] Standalone PDF

2011-12-02 Thread Robert Derman

Paul wrote:
Does Libre office have a stand alone PDF application?  ie - does Libre provide the PDF editor by itself without all the other features in the 200 MB download - is it possible to install only the PDF tool without all the other features ?  
All responses appreciated. Thanks, Paula
  
Yes, LibreOffice does have full PDF creation capability, and no it does 
not provide a separate PDF editor, you must download and install the 
entire package. 


--
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: Is Microsoft getting worried about free Office suites?

2011-11-28 Thread Robert Derman

Olav Dahlum wrote:

On 28/11/11 13:13, Pedro wrote:
  

Ian Lynch wrote


Google should do a version of Office based on the
OOo/LibO code base and embed ads and search links, make it available
freely
and brand it Google Office.  Given their brand strength and marketing,
that
would probably do more to frighten MS than anything we can do. Slightly
surprised they haven't already done it.

  

Interesting concept. But I think they are investing a lot on the Cloud
with the Chrome Book laptops that investing time on an offline suite doesn't
make much sense...

In the same line of thought: Google Docs is fine in the Developed
countries where working in the Cloud is a reality. This is not so for more
than 2/3 of the world's population
(http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm)

I do believe that currently LibreOffice is the leading alternative to MS
Office (but would love to see some numbers :) )

Just a couple of observations here.  First, most businesses do not and 
probably will not in the near future,  go to cloud computing.  there are 
several reasons for this, foremost, security.  Companies do not want 
important documents with proprietary information flying back and forth 
on the internet where they could be intercepted.  Second, reliability.  
Remote servers and the infrastructure between local computers and them 
have been known to go down.  Most companies don't want to have to rely 
on vulnerable remote connections.



Another thing, most companies would like to own the resources that they 
depend on for day to day operation. 



I hear a lot of people talking about how tablets are taking over, but 
somehow I just don't see a corporate steno pool using tablets or 
smartphones to produce their important documents.  Desktop (tower case) 
computers will continue to dominate all serious corporate computing 
applications.  That means MS Office or suitable substitutes will 
continue to be the most important applications in the business world. 



The biggest reason, as far as I can see it that MS Office will continue 
to dominate is not because of file format tie up, at least not from 2014 
on, but because of quality shortcomings in all competing products.  Face 
it, LibreOffice Writer doesn't have anywhere  near as good a spell check 
function as Word does.  Writer's spell check dictionary is woefully 
short of compound words.  Writer doesn't have a good grammar checker 
function built in.  Also Writer is very much lacking in templates and 
clip art compared to Word.  Now home users and students might well 
overlook these shortcomings because of the rather large difference in 
the cost to obtain the software, but businesses, never.  Now these 
things can be fixed, and many of them won't even require a lot of effort 
from our developers.  Many of us users who may have added thousands of 
words to our spell check dictionaries could contribute them to the 
project if some developers showed us how.  Also, the auto correct 
function as it currently exists can be turned into a fairly good grammar 
correcter  by simply adding a lot of functions to it using its current 
customization capabilities.  I have made mine able to automatically 
capitalize all the days of the week, all months except March and May, 
since these two also exist as other words.  The program can be trained 
to capitalize most proper nouns, to correct most common typos, etc.  
With a little more effort in such areas we can bring Writer much closer 
to the basic quality of Word.



I never use spreadsheets, so I really can't comment on any shortcomings 
of Calc.  But I do know that a word processor is the core of any office 
suite.  If some of the developers will help me and a few other users who 
might volunteer to help with some of these things, that don't actually 
require the specific skills of a programmer/developer, I think that we 
could do a lot to make LibreOffice a much better office suite, in 
particular much better than OOo was at the point of the fork. 



I know that the developers have done much to improve the code base, but 
I am sure that some of us non developers could also help to improve the 
useability of the suite. 


--
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] official forums

2011-11-12 Thread Robert Derman

Florian Effenberger wrote:

Hello,

thanks a lot to everyone for their great and creative contribution to 
the discussion, which I consider really fruitful. Even if I didn't 
reply to every message, I read them all.


It is already rather clear, that there is a real overwhelming support 
for having our own forums. I counted only one or two -1, everyone else 
was in favor of hosting forums on our own.


If I remember correctly, those who voted -1 were not against TDF hosting 
our own forums, they were against the idea of forums in general.   So it 
seems like most everybody who is in favor of forums at all, feels that 
TDF should host them.



--
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: Gmane sending issues

2011-08-01 Thread Robert Derman

Ken Springer wrote:

Hi, Larry,On 7/31/11 2:28 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:Please fix your quote 
attribution. It is almost impossible to pick
  out your comments in this mess.I would if I knew how  And *if* it was 
easy to do for just the
LO messages.  I'm not happy with the way TB 5.0 works, and getting close to 
looking for something else.  I
loved TB 3.6.16.  And it worked the way I wanted.
  
I am using TB 2.0, I absolutely HATE the newer versions, I really have 
to disagree with the feature and UI choices the developers have made 
recently.  I much preferred the way the program used to work, so I found 
an old copy that I had installed on a machine that I was about to clean 
up and sell.  That's what I am now using.  I hope that the developers 
who are contributing to LO make better choices than were made on TB, at 
least in my opinion.


--
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?

2011-07-21 Thread Robert Derman

Andy Brown wrote:

Robert Derman wrote:
  

Andrea Pescetti wrote:


e-letter wrote:
 
  

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.



I've seen plenty of small, medium and large businesses that chose to use
a free software office suite (so far I've only seen OpenOffice.org, but
the same arguments would hold for LibreOffice).

Virtually none of them did it only to save money, and those who have
this kind of motivations are more likely to go back to Microsoft Office,
so indeed in this case it would be a waste of time as you suggest.
But, in almost all cases I've seen, the reasons were different, like
getting rid of dependency on a specific vendor, or being able to run the
same office suite across different operating systems. In these cases,
switching to a free software office suite is not a waste of time, and
compatibility with Microsoft formats is vital.

Regards,
  Andrea.
  
  

If you want to know about one very good reason for not using M$ Google
Ball Guitar String Co.



Can you provide a link?  Interested in reading this.

Andy
  
Google Ball Guitar Strings  Microsoft, it will bring you to a number of 
articles about Ball and their dispute with M$.  The upshot is that Ball 
decided to strip ALL M$ software out of their company because of 
Microsoft's business practices.  They replaced Windows with Linux, M$ 
Office with OpenOffice, and IE with Firefox. 


--
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?

2011-07-20 Thread Robert Derman

Andrea Pescetti wrote:

e-letter wrote:
  

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.



I've seen plenty of small, medium and large businesses that chose to use
a free software office suite (so far I've only seen OpenOffice.org, but
the same arguments would hold for LibreOffice).

Virtually none of them did it only to save money, and those who have
this kind of motivations are more likely to go back to Microsoft Office,
so indeed in this case it would be a waste of time as you suggest. 


But, in almost all cases I've seen, the reasons were different, like
getting rid of dependency on a specific vendor, or being able to run the
same office suite across different operating systems. In these cases,
switching to a free software office suite is not a waste of time, and
compatibility with Microsoft formats is vital.

Regards,
  Andrea.
  
If you want to know about one very good reason for not using M$ Google 
Ball Guitar String Co. 


--
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] Feature Request: Mac Osx Lion

2011-07-17 Thread Robert Derman

Laurence Jeloudev wrote:

Hi,

I was wondering if Libreoffice would implement an auto save feature in
os x lion and full screen app support, or maybe an auto save feature
that is similar but it can also be Implemented in other operating
systems like ubuntu or windows where the user does not have to worry
about saving a document at all?
  
LibreOffice and OpenOffice before it have had an auto save function 
built in for years.  It is so completely integrated that many users are 
not even aware of it.  I believe that it is set to auto save every 5 
minutes by default. 


--
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

2011-07-06 Thread Robert Derman

Ian Lynch wrote:

On 5 July 2011 21:58, Robert Derman robert.der...@pressenter.com 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.
  
Someone explained here in a more detailed and understandable way just 
what the nature of the design of Staroffice actually is.  That in fact 
it is just one big program and the different modules are just different 
about 300 K each user interfaces which present different controls and 
screens to the user. 



If that is indeed the case, then it follows that the only way to get 
significantly smaller separate modules would be to toss out the entire 
program/codebase and start over from scratch writing smaller programs 
that don't include any of the functions not required for the purpose of 
that program/function/module.  In other words the new Writer would not 
be able to function as a spreadsheet, or database, or drawing program, 
or presentation program, because the code, instructions to do those 
functions would not be present.  The new Calc would not be able to 
function as a drawing program, and so on.  This must be why it was said 
that to provide a mobile version of LO would require starting over from 
scratch and writing a new program.



I would guess that some of the speed/performance issues of OOo, LO are 
because of this monolithic design.  That for instance a spreadsheet that 
is ONLY a spreadsheet would run much faster.  As I understand it, this 
is the way that Microsoft Office is designed, with separate programs 
that are not integrated with each other. 



It seems to me that with such a monolithic design that we are missing 
the opportunity to provide one very unique capability, a combined 
function where you could use the word processor to create business 
forms, and within them, embed cells with spreadsheet or database 
functions, turn parts of the document read only, have automatic invoice 
# incrementing etc.  Many times when I had a small electronics company I 
wished for such a piece of software and never found one. 


--
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

2011-07-05 Thread 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


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

2011-07-04 Thread Robert Derman

NoOp wrote:

On 06/25/2011 03:37 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
  

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com 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.

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: New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader

2011-07-04 Thread Robert Derman

Simon Cropper wrote:

On 05/07/11 09:07, 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 si...@webmink.com 
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.

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.


Hi Robert,

There are many excellent open source HTML editors available for many 
platforms. LO does not need to 'recreate the wheel'. If you need a 
good package email me directly with some details of the platform you 
are using and type of HTML pages you are editing and I will send some 
links to you.
Many people don't realize that sometimes the best tool isn't the one 
that is best designed or does the best job, but rather the one that you 
are most familiar with.  If you read my last paragraph above, very 
carefully, you will notice that it is in the past tense.  I don't have a 
web page any more.  The reason that I used OOo for this was that I only 
spent about 15 minutes a week doing HTML, so finding a program and then 
learning a program that was designed specifically for this purpose just 
didn't seem like a worthwhile investment of time.


--
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

2011-07-03 Thread Robert Derman

Ian Lynch wrote:

On 2 July 2011 23:22, Robert Derman robert.der...@pressenter.com wrote:

  

Keith Curtis wrote:



The problem with building a reader is that it would be about the same size
as LibreOffice. OpenDocument is very different from PDF. For those who
can't
install LO, they probably can't install the reader either.


  

Perhaps separating the modules of LO so that users could download and
install only the parts that they actually want, for instance I NEVER use
spreadsheets and probably never would use any part of the LO package other
than Writer.  There is a small chance that I might use the database, but the
rest of it never.




The snag as I understand it is that there is a lot of code shared between
components so separating them is not easy and would not result in as big a
saving in size as one would think. I use Writer but I tend to use Google
spreadsheets as I need to share them collaboratively. I use Inkscape rather
than Draw simply because I like it better. I doubt I would ever use Base.
Perhaps Impress on occasions. But I think Impress and Draw share a lot of
code so its probably not going to save much having one without the other.

I believe there is quite a bit of redundant code in OOo so would a better
starting point not be to get rid of as much of this as possible?
  
As I understand this is being done by the LO developers and much more 
effectively than OOo ever did.  As I understand doing a general clean-up 
of the code was never a priority with Sun management, although it 
probably should have been. 




What I am wondering is if there aren't a lot of users like me who only 
ever use Writer and are not likely to ever use any of the other 
modules.  In any case, I think that it might be a good idea to do a 
survey of LO users and find out how many only use one of the modules, 
and if so which one.  If such a survey shows that a substantial number 
say 40% of users only use Writer, then it might be a good idea to work 
to be able to offer a Writer only package.  I know that if a Writer only 
package were available from LibreOffice, that is what I would download 
and use. 




To produce such a package I expect,  would mean stripping out ALL code 
not used specifically by Writer.  As an example, back when I was using 
Microsoft, I never used office, I only purchased Word, I never had or 
wanted Excel, PowerPoint, or any of the other programs that make up the 
Office package.  What I bought and recommended to others was a package 
called Home Essentials.  As I remember it had the Encarta encyclopedia, 
MS Money, MS Works and other stuff, but the important thing was that  it 
included a full copy of Word at a lower price than you would otherwise 
pay for Word alone.  Whatever, anyway the point I am making is that I 
was only interested in Word, (this was all before OOo was available) and 
I suspect that I am not all that unusual as far as end users are 
concerned. 


--
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

2011-07-02 Thread Robert Derman

Keith Curtis wrote:

The problem with building a reader is that it would be about the same size
as LibreOffice. OpenDocument is very different from PDF. For those who can't
install LO, they probably can't install the reader either.
  
Perhaps separating the modules of LO so that users could download and 
install only the parts that they actually want, for instance I NEVER use 
spreadsheets and probably never would use any part of the LO package 
other than Writer.  There is a small chance that I might use the 
database, but the rest of it never. 


--
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

2011-06-26 Thread Robert Derman

Sean White wrote:

I dont thinks thats normal somehow, i have been using Adobe Reader for years
and have NEVER had it come past 200MB.

Back to discussion, what's with all the PDF hate. 
Actually I don't hate PDF, I use it frequently and as such I am glad 
that OOo and LO have the capability of outputting in that format.  My 
only real complaint is that Adobe has let their reader application 
become unnecessarily bloated, see below. 



I feel that it would be shortsighted to decide at this point that ODF 
should never support font embedding.  One never knows what the future 
will bring and we certainly don't know when it comes to anything to do 
with computers.  Who of us thought 25 years ago that a computer a 
thousand times more powerful than any in existence and costing less than 
a typewriter would be warming our thighs on chilly winter mornings. 



Consider this scenario, a future version of LO enhanced for 
collaboration, embeds fonts so that everyone on a committee who works on 
a business plan document uses the same font no matter what operating 
system they are using.  That way the document looks the same whether 
viewed on an iPad, an Android tablet, a tower computer with a 24 inch 
monitor, or printed out for handout. 
What I take from this is that some of us would like to see a companion 
application with a small footprint that can properly display documents 
created in LO.  Something that would be a small download for those who 
have no desire to download and install anything as large as the complete 
LibreOffice package. 

No document format should ever be so ridged that it can't change and 
grow with the needs and desires of computer users. 



Lastly, I think that no person is ever as likely to be wrong as when he 
is absolutely certain that he is right. 


 It serves a very good
purpose a standard, editable document that shows up exactly how you want it
WHEREVER you are and whatever OS you are using.  this has always been its
use and so it falls in a different document category to ODF.  ODF is an
office format created to compete with MSO's doc, xls an ppt formats.  to
essentially modify the underlying purpose to make it behave more like a PDF
would waste most of what we have put into it.

  

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:



My Windows 7 C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Reader 10.0\ folder is 181 MB.

Where do you get the 6 GB?
  

I simply right clicked on the folder that contains adobe reader 9 and
nothing else, the rest of the Adobe products are in a folder one level up
that also contains the reader folder, in any case when I click properties,
that is the size it lists, in fact to be more exact 6.2 gigabytes.  I did
the same with the folder containing LibreOffice, and it listed the size of
that as 475 megabytes.  So I am pretty much forced to believe it.  Perhaps
Adobe is going in the right direction again in the transition from reader 9
to reader 10, and dumping some unnecessary crap.

 What I meant by HUGE when I referred to Adobe Reader was the more than 6
Gigs of hard drive space it takes up!  By contrast all of the LibreOffice
suite of programs takes up 475 Megs of space.  That means that a mere reader
takes up more than a dozen times the space of an entire office suite.  If
that isn't mega-bloat I don't know what is.   It has been a long time, but I
seem to remember Adobe Reader only taking 12 Megs of space at one time.  It
used to come included on almost all driver disks, now it is just too big for
that. 



--
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: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review, prerequisite for balloting as OASIS Standard

2011-06-26 Thread Robert Derman

Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:

Hi Robert,

2011/6/25 Robert Derman robert.der...@pressenter.com:

  

This could eventually destroy ODF as a viable world standard if at some
point some software company or organization comes up with a popular program
(example Microsoft) that embeds fonts so that anyone editing the document,
viewing it, or printing it uses the same font chosen by the original author.
 No computer standard is likely to survive long term as long as adamant
decisions are (carved in stone) and not left to future users to contramand
if deemed expedient.



I think that is a bit harsh, don't you think?
  
Not really, I did say could, not would.  If there is anything that 
watching the evolution of computers and software over the last 30 years 
has taught me it is that there is no way to predict what will happen in 
the future, so it is unwise in the extreme to be too adamant about what 
must be, going forward. 

FWIW, here is a description of how Microsoft Office supports embedding
of fonts in documents and the limitations to it. If you want to take a
look at how this is achieved in OOXML, take a look at OOXML section
17.8.1 Font Embedding.

: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



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

2011-06-26 Thread Robert Derman

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

I checked the size of C:\Program Files\Adobe\Reader 9.0\ on my remaining 
Windows XP SP3 computer, and the size is 137MB, smaller than the 181MB for 
Reader 10.0 on my Windows 7 system.

So I still don't have any way to account for the reported observation of a 6GB 
folder.  I don't doubt it, I just can't attribute it to the normal installation 
footprint of Adobe Reader.

It would be interesting to know what folders within the 6GB Reader folder are 
the largest and what they appear to contain.

 - Dennis
  
It appears to be a bug in Windows 7, when you first take a properties 
reading on a folder, it displays the disk space used by the higher level 
folder that it is part of and not the size of the folder you are 
clicking on.  the Adobe folder was 6.2 gigs, the Adobe reader folder was 
in fact 181 megabytes.  apparently to get an accurate reading, you have 
to click on a sub file and then go up to the folder you want. 


-Original Message-
From: Robert Derman [mailto:robert.der...@pressenter.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:55

To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF 
Reader

Sean White wrote:
  

I dont thinks thats normal somehow, i have been using Adobe Reader for years
and have NEVER had it come past 200MB.

Back to discussion, what's with all the PDF hate. 

Actually I don't hate PDF, I use it frequently and as such I am glad 
that OOo and LO have the capability of outputting in that format.  My 
only real complaint is that Adobe has let their reader application 
become unnecessarily bloated, see below. 

[ ... ] 
  

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:


  

My Windows 7 C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Reader 10.0\ folder is 181 MB.

Where do you get the 6 GB?
  


I simply right clicked on the folder that contains adobe reader 9 and
nothing else, the rest of the Adobe products are in a folder one level up
that also contains the reader folder, in any case when I click properties,
that is the size it lists, in fact to be more exact 6.2 gigabytes.  I did
the same with the folder containing LibreOffice, and it listed the size of
that as 475 megabytes.  So I am pretty much forced to believe it.  Perhaps
Adobe is going in the right direction again in the transition from reader 9
to reader 10, and dumping some unnecessary crap.
  

[ ... ]


  



--
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 (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)

2011-06-26 Thread Robert Derman

Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

Le Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:41:07 -0700 (PDT),
plino pedl...@gmail.com a écrit :

  

Charles-H. Schulz wrote:


Now, as for humility, claiming in an assured and definitive way
that ODF will lose if it
does not embed fonts is not exactly humble either.
  

I didn't say that. I said that IF OASIS insists on refusing to embed
fonts in ODF (which is what you also peremptorily affirmed, even
though Dennis Hammilton in the ODF TC says it's not so) it is not the
right file format for LibreOffice.




Why? Note: I'm not saying it's a bad idea to embed fonts, I'm saying
(me, who's also part of that ODF TC) it's very unlikely. I think there
will be problems of many kinds, some of them being of legal nature
(esp. related to the use and distribution of fonts). But let me ask it
again: why should it not be the right file format for LibreOffice?
Fonts embedding cannot be the only one feature that will help us break
the dominant vendor's monopoly, can it?

  

ODF doesn't loose any value as an open universal file format if it
decides not to embed fonts. It just isn't right for an office suite.

In any case, it's my opinion. It doesn't lack humility.




Okay... So let's get very practical here. You mentioned the case of
Impress presentations, and I think it's fair to say that what you have
described is something many of us has faced in the past, with .odp
files or .ppt files. Now here are two cases that would advocate for not
embedding fonts. What I'm trying to show here is that font embedding is
not the magical feature that's going to solve all of our problems, not
that embedding fonts is a bad idea in every case. 


Case A: User Joe wants to use some super-duper fonts (called, font A)
for his presentation and embeds fonts within his sales pitch
presentation in .odp . Fonts A has been designed by designer Bob, who
specifically licensed them for non commercial usage. User Joe is
sending his presentation to customer Ike, his boss, Peter, and his
colleague, Ed. His presentation embeds fonts that are not eligible for
commercial use (per Designer Bob's terms). By using these fonts in his
presentation, User Joe has infringed the license 3 times. But it gets
worse. Customer Ike sends the presentation to his boss, Mary. 4 times.
Mary sends it to her head of accounting for validation. 5 times... And
so on. Do you get the point?
  
This reminds me of something I once heard, I think it was on the OOo 
Discuss list, anyway a number of users were proposing a font Blacklist 
that would list those fonts with too restrictive licensing.  End users 
would be advised not to purchase, download or use any of the fonts on 
the list.  It would be kind of a persona-non-grata of fonts.  The upshot 
of it was that it was a way of saying to font designers/publishers -- 
If that's the way you want to be with your licensing, then you can keep 
your darned font!


--
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

2011-06-25 Thread Robert Derman

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

My Windows 7 C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Reader 10.0\ folder is 181 MB.

Where do you get the 6 GB?
  
I simply right clicked on the folder that contains adobe reader 9 and 
nothing else, the rest of the Adobe products are in a folder one level 
up that also contains the reader folder, in any case when I click 
properties, that is the size it lists, in fact to be more exact 6.2 
gigabytes.  I did the same with the folder containing LibreOffice, and 
it listed the size of that as 475 megabytes.  So I am pretty much forced 
to believe it.  Perhaps Adobe is going in the right direction again in 
the transition from reader 9 to reader 10, and dumping some unnecessary 
crap. 

-Original Message-
From: Robert Derman [mailto:robert.der...@pressenter.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 21:24

To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF 
Reader

[ ... ]
 What I 
meant by HUGE when I referred to Adobe Reader was the more than 6 Gigs 
of hard drive space it takes up!  By contrast all of the LibreOffice 
suite of programs takes up 475 Megs of space.  That means that a mere 
reader takes up more than a dozen times the space of an entire office 
suite.  If that isn't mega-bloat I don't know what is.   It has been a 
long time, but I seem to remember Adobe Reader only taking 12 Megs of 
space at one time.  It used to come included on almost all driver disks, 
now it is just too big for that. 
[ ... ]



  



--
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

2011-06-25 Thread Robert Derman

Nuno J. Silva wrote:

On 2011-06-25, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:

  

On 06/25/2011 02:09 PM, Nuno J. Silva wrote:



I see font embedding as a way to make interoperation easier, and not to
achieve faithful representation. I think a major goal is to have ODF
being used on several platforms, and available fonts differ from
platform to platform. OTOH I guess LibO can (and probably already does?)
bundle some fonts with it, so that the default fonts are available on
every install of LibO (but this still excludes other ODF-compatible
applications).
  

I always wondered how embedding fonts worked from a copyright
perspective. I use my favorite special font that I purchased for my
own use, then I create a document that uses (and embeds) that font in
the document.



At least the TrueType format has an embeddable flag, which should say
whether the font can be shared, embed in a document, etc.:

,[http://enwp.org/TrueType#Embedding_protection]
| Embedding protection
| 
| The TrueType format allows for the most basic type of digital rights

| management – an embeddable flag that specifies if author allows
| embedding of the font file into things like PDF files and
| websites.[...]
`

An ideal approach would be raising a warning when embedding a
protected font in a forbidden way.

But of course this wouldn't suit the hungry US legislation -- there LibO
would probably need to completely forbid embedding protected fonts
(even if there is no way to know if the document with embed fonts is
going to be shared).
  
I think it would be best if restricted fonts were simply Grayed out in 
the font listing and LO simply refused to use them in any way.

See http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=2402 for an example
of DMCA in action.

I think that, in case LibO embeds fonts, this _just_ means LibO must
respect that bit. But I might be wrong.

  



--
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: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review, prerequisite for balloting as OASIS Standard

2011-06-25 Thread Robert Derman

Marc Paré wrote:

Le 2011-06-24 18:01, Nuno J. Silva a écrit :

On 2011-06-24, Marc Paré wrote:


Le 2011-06-24 13:13, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :

Hello,

Le Fri, 24 Jun 2011 07:48:54 -0700 (PDT),
plinopedl...@gmail.com   a écrit :


I really hope that revision 1.2 allows for font embedding in ODF
documents.

IMO that is a (the?) major obstacle for sharing documents with other
users.

So, let me state and restate this : ODF will not embed fonts in the
1.2, 1.3, nor in the future, because the format is not meant to 
focus on

faithful layout rendering. Instead, PDF is meant that. ODF focuses on
office document exchanges.

This could eventually destroy ODF as a viable world standard if at some 
point some software company or organization comes up with a popular 
program (example Microsoft) that embeds fonts so that anyone editing the 
document, viewing it, or printing it uses the same font chosen by the 
original author.  No computer standard is likely to survive long term as 
long as adamant decisions are (carved in stone) and not left to future 
users to contramand if deemed expedient.



I wonder about this last statement, does this mean that if I download
a copy of our documentation in .odt format, that if my font is missing
from my machine that I will not be able to print a high quality
version of that documentation.

You will be able to print an high-quality version. It will just use
another font.

I mean, you lose quality in the meaning the font used is not the
intended, but you don't lose quality as in definition or content.


Yes, I understand, however, the look in print will not be exactly what 
the author had first set it to be.



And worse, if I download a copy of a
writer, impress file or draw and wish to print it off in its native
file, that I would then have to hunt around and make sure that all of
the necessary fonts used in a particular document would have to be
installed on my machine so that I could get a high quality print from
it?

To be sure documents print the same way in different computers, you
should use Adobe PostScript or Adobe Portable Document Format.


I don't mean font embedding is not needed, but just that you're looking
into a part of the problem that already has a solution, as far as you
don't need the document to be editable.


Yes, we are discussing this in another thread at the moment. It would 
be nice if this were possible in our native ODF.


Cheers

marc




--
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

2011-06-24 Thread Robert Derman


On 24/06/2011 03:59, Marc Paré wrote: The initial use of the 
LibreOffice Reader would be just a plain reader, the challenge after 
this would be to try to build as much document fidelity into it as 
possible. Again, with the hopes to rival .pdf fidelity. Maybe once all 
the devs put their heads together, they may come up with some way to 
do this. Let's not forget that the Djvu people accomplished this to 
some extent. If we were to work at it we could surprise everyone. 
There is always the possibility of submitting any changes to the ODF, 
that could enhance the formats, through the possible channels at the 
ISO and OASIS of which we are members. 


As Andrea states, the point about PDF is that it 'locks in' the format 
of a document, allowing it to be displayed or printed everywhere as 
the user intended. All other formats created by word processors, 
including MS Office and LibO, will display and print differently on 
different computers, depending for example on the specific printer a 
user has installed. I doubt that this is something that could readily 
be fixed by tweaking ODF, it's fundamental to the way all word 
processors work. I also believe that any diversion of scarce DEV 
effort would inevitably move the focus further away from fixing the 
many bugs still in LibO, which would be counter-productive.

-1
Right now LibreOffice is capable of creating PDF files.  Which leads me 
to believe that creating a reader for ODF and at some point giving ODF 
some of the capabilities of PDF couldn't be all that difficult. 


--
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] When can we have a API to send Emails ?

2011-06-24 Thread Robert Derman

Fernand Vanrie wrote:

Cor ,

I know all this tricks, but its still sending as attachments , i want 
a simple way to send a email with a message in the body


Thanks

Fernand
I would like this also, the auto corrector of LO makes it much faster to 
write emails than T-Bird or any other email client, so being able to 
grab and email and write a reply in LO, or compose an email in LO and 
then send it directly from LO would be greatly appreciated.


--
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: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review, prerequisite for balloting as OASIS Standard

2011-06-24 Thread Robert Derman

plino wrote:

Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
  

So, let me state and restate this : ODF will not embed fonts in the
1.2, 1.3, nor in the future, because the format is not meant to focus on
faithful layout rendering. Instead, PDF is meant that. ODF focuses on
office document exchanges.

As long as ODF has this inherent limitation it WILL NEVER SUCCEED as a 
universal document exchange format!!!



For any document format to truly succeed, it must be UNIVERSAL.  That 
means that it must be able to do what ODF does AND what PDF does.  This 
is one area where specialization is not what is called for.  So far, we 
have been using specialized software, text editors for some purposes, 
word processors for another set, and desktop publishers for still 
another.  The future does not belong to such specialized programs, these 
represent the past!  In the future the only writing programs that will 
succeed are those that can do ANYTHING as far as writing is concerned.  
And the only document formats that will succeed long term are those that 
can also do anything. 

If that is the OASIS opinion then TDF should bail out from the ODF file
format ASAP.

That decision makes ODF useless for presentation files created in Impress
and for vectorial art created in Draw. 


Even some text documents and spreadsheets rely on the fonts used...

PDF is a non-editable format. There is no similarity in function with ODF.




--
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] Sponsored Bug Repair ?

2011-06-23 Thread Robert Derman

Cor Nouws wrote:

Hi Samuel,

Samuel M wrote (23-06-11 17:06)

Why should'nt TDF go ahead and employ one of the former OOo
developers or someone else from the community? I think there would be
much interest from users and companys to pay for fixing bugs /
implementing new features.


Employing people is not such an easy thing. For example because you 
want to offer some sort of continuity.
Looking at the LibreOffice ecosystem, it is successful because more 
and more companies give support. So the most natural to me, seems a 
situation where funding supports them in supporting :-)
On the other hand, in the possible situation that there are so many 
smaller donations, that employing (a) developer(s) might be an option, 
but then in a way that there is no direct competition between TDF and 
the sponsoring entities.
At that moment I think working with bounties could be a useful 
construction for that, which maybe also helps even further growing the 
community of non-bound developers.


Regards,
The idea of bounties sounds better to me than actually having developers 
on payroll.  For one thing it is far less complicated from a tax and 
accounting standpoint.   Also bounties would work better from the 
standpoint of fixing individual bugs and adding individual 
enhancements.  For instance what if a time arrives when for a few weeks 
at a time no one knows of a specific need?


--
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

2011-06-23 Thread Robert Derman

Simon Phipps wrote:

On 23 Jun 2011, at 23:32, Marc Paré wrote:

  

I think it was mentioned that there were at one point over 100 million LibreOffice/OOo 
users. If we were to develop our own LibreOffice Reader we would already have 
100 million potential users for our product. Not only that, the LibreOffice Reader would 
be compatible with the LibreOffice suite and possibly code. This would give the LibO 
Reader a good start.




ODF and PDF are actually complementary. One is a format for editable documents, 
the other is a format for final-form documents. I suggest that the best path 
forward would be to seek a single, lightweight, cross-platform reader for both 
formats. That would address by far the largest opportunity.

S.
  
IIRC Adobe Reader has bloated over the last couple of years from a very 
lean program for reading PDF files to something very huge.  Also the 
auto update updates versions all too frequently. 


--
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

2011-06-23 Thread Robert Derman

Varun Mittal wrote:

I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than diversifying
right now into PDF reader. Also no point inventing the wheel again when
there are several open source pdf readers available which we can integrate
instead of developing one of our own.

  
I am wondering do any of the open source pdf readers mentioned above 
work with Windows or are they all Linux, I mostly use Windows.  What I 
meant by HUGE when I referred to Adobe Reader was the more than 6 Gigs 
of hard drive space it takes up!  By contrast all of the LibreOffice 
suite of programs takes up 475 Megs of space.  That means that a mere 
reader takes up more than a dozen times the space of an entire office 
suite.  If that isn't mega-bloat I don't know what is.   It has been a 
long time, but I seem to remember Adobe Reader only taking 12 Megs of 
space at one time.  It used to come included on almost all driver disks, 
now it is just too big for that. 

Won't it be a better idea to collaborate with one of the groups supporting
the pdf readers available in Linux distros ...Such cooperation will help
everyone focus on their core competencies.

My 2 cents !

Thank You

Best Regards
Varun Mittal


  

and at the same time allow for the editing of this standard through the
regular use of ODF. We do have the user support and I am not sure, but our
dev numbers are up and I think that this would make quite an interesting and
exciting project to add to the TDF line of products.




  



--
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: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice))

2011-06-18 Thread Robert Derman

Simos Xenitellis wrote:

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
  

Ignoring the repetition on who is entitled to source code and how they are told 
about it, I would like to know the answers to some very specific, tangible 
matters closer to home.  My question is basically whether the terms of a GPL 
license attached to a software distribution are applicable to that software 
distribution, not just downstream derivatives of it.  I assume the answer is 
yes.

 - Dennis

WHY I ASK

I have a copy of LibreOffice 3.3.2 installed on my computer.  I am looking for 
any place that I am offered access to the specific (or, indeed, any) source 
code for the LibreOffice 3.3.2 distribution that I have installed (en-win-x86).




Admittedly, I never checked the UI text as to where you can get the
source code.

To build LibreOffice, I would simply follow the instructions at
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build
which cover different operating systems.

By following the instructions, you create a local repository of the
source code,
and this repository has *all* versions of LibreOffice (such as 3.3.2
and 3.4.0) and you can select which to build.
It should take you a few hours of downloading + compilation to create
your own LibreOffice.
If you have a fast Internet speed and a good computer, it should take
you about 3 hours of compilation.

Your question is actually about whether we can make the Help→License
information more informative
so that users who would like to build LibreOffice, will get directed
to the How_to_build page.
  
I had no trouble finding and downloading source code, it is posted right 
there on the download site.  Actually I downloaded it purely for 
curiosity, I am not qualified to write code in C++ , but I looked at it 
using Notepad.  In that form, it is basically just gibberish, perhaps 
you have to have a copy of the C++ programming language on your computer 
in order to see it in an intelligible form, but at least I know that I 
succeeded in getting the source of part of the Writer module.


--
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] Replacing OpenOffice.org with LibreOffice much easier than expected.

2011-06-18 Thread Robert Derman






I have a few observations to make, as to future changes/improvements.  
I for one am very reluctant to frequently upgrade any major software 
application that must be downloaded and replaced in its entirety, 
particularly if there is not a published list of the improvements in 
the new release.  This is why I do not upgrade my copy of Apple 
iTunes, particularly when it is an incremental upgrade, for example 
version 5.3.7 to 5.3.8 as opposed to major upgrades like from 5.x to 
6.x.  This is particularly true when there are components you could 
loose like the personal dictionary that goes with the spell checker.  


Yesterday I finally decided to replace OpenOffice.org on my laptop with 
LibreOffice, even if I had to rebuild my personal spelling dictionary by 
spell checking 3 huge documents.  I did as recommended and started by 
deleting OOo first, then downloaded and installed LO.  What I was 
surprised to discover was that I never lost my personal spelling 
dictionary or the huge body of enhancements I had added to the Auto 
Correct applet. 

So why am I telling everybody on the Discuss list this?  Because I think 
it might be a good idea to put a note on the Download page explaining 
that anyone thinking of upgrading is not risking all their personally 
added enhancements by replacing OOo with LO.  Apparently these things 
are stored somewhere where they are safe from deletion when you remove 
OOo, and LO then will incorporate them, for full usability.  It would 
have been nice to know that, I probably would have upgraded long ago. 



I really think that it should be made a priority at some point to get 
LO to where Incremental Upgrades are possible, that is only the 
parts of the entire office suite that are actually being changed would 
be downloaded and installed, not the entire thing, and personal 
modifications, like settings and personal dictionaries would be left 
undisturbed.
I see now, that those personal modifications are in fact left 
undisturbed, still, it would be nice to be able to download only those 
lines of code that are actually changed, or at least just a single file 
for each change, so that a change from one release to the next would be 
a download of at most a couple of megabytes, rather than over 200. 


I think that it would be a good idea at some point to do a survey of 
users to find out how many of them actually use only one of the 
modules of the suite, example Writer, Calc, Math, Base, and which one 
that is.  For example, I use only Writer, I never use any of the other 
modules.  So that if we were to find that a large percentage of users 
only use Writer, or Calc for instance, it might make sense to break 
those modules out and offer them as a separate program without any of 
the other modules.  I know that this was frequently discussed on the 
OOo Discuss list, and the OOo suite was too highly integrated for this 
to be practical,  but perhaps at some point this might become feasible 
with LO.



Finally, I would like to be able to help with semi-technical 
improvements to LO Writer, like getting a better word list into the 
Spell Checker, or adding more functionality to the Auto-correct 
function, like having it automatically capitalize all the days of the 
week, and the months of the year, as well as many other automatic 
corrections.  I know that it only takes a couple of hours of adding 
things to the Auto-correct to turn it into a fair grammar correction 
function.  It would be nice if ordinary users like me could be able to 
help with this kind of thing.
I have done this with my Auto-Correct, and would like to be able to 
share such enhancements with others. 



--
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

2011-06-16 Thread Robert Derman

Augustine Souza wrote:

On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
...
  

End users do not care about
who's right, who's wrong, who's been slighted, who is more pure, etc.  They
just care about products and technologies that are going to meet their
needs.



Painting quite a poor picture of end users? Are they really like that?
Or do we say so to support our argument?
  
As one of those end users I would have to say that that is probably 
about right.  Unless something interferes with the quality or 
availability of the software or the support available for it, we are 
probably not going to care.  Now the situation with OOo and Sun, and 
later Oracle was that comments, complaints and requests by end users 
seemed to basically be ignored, that does bother end users!  This 
situation is notably better with TDF running things. 



I could be wrong about this, but I don't think I am, OOo being primarily 
the responsibility of a large for profit corporation it was treated like 
a proprietary software package as far as development and support was 
concerned.  Comparing Microsoft Internet Explorer with Mozilla Firefox 
shows that an independent not-for-profit foundation can actually produce 
a better software Product than a huge for-profit corporation.  So I am 
confidently hoping that LO under TDF will actually fare better than OO 
under Sun and Oracle. 


--
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

2011-06-16 Thread Robert Derman

Greg Stein wrote:

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra pie...@zanstra.eu wrote:
  

As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must
say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in
the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my bug
reports. I did join in a bug report in OOo about table autoformats not being
saved properly. I did approach Sun and Oracle directly about this silly bug
that has been sitting untouched since 2008 in the OpenOffice bug repository.
I did not get any answers from Sun/Oracle either.

I resubmitted the original bug report to the new TDF bug repository. There,
within a quarter of a year, it has been evaluated and elevated to the
Easyhack status. I would not be surprised if that problem would be solved
by the end of this year. They have already done quite a pile of cleaning
code and bug fixing. My confidence as a user is with them. The indians have
to prove as yet. That is what matters at the end of the day.



Absolutely that is what matters. Whether the caretakers place *you* at
the forefront. Big faceless corporations generally don't, while
smaller communities usually do.

I believe the (recent) discussion stemmed from whether end-users care
about the *license*. They mostly want a great product and a responsive
caretaker. That's it. I can guarantee you that my mother, father,
brother, sister, and the rest of my extended family would give me a
blank stare if I told them they needed to use Free Software rather
than proprietary. Crickets would echo in the room.

There *are* end-users who want Free Software. Many of you care
strongly about it, and seek out Free Software. Granted. But when you
look at the tens of millions (hundreds?) of OOo and LO users, they
simply don't care.

Building and providing LibreOffice is a fabulous thing for people who
really care about Free Software. LO has an important place in our
software ecosystem. I just don't think projecting that philosophy onto
the typical end-user makes sense, however.

Cheers,
-g
  
This is exactly how I feel about this, and why I think that TDF forking 
the OOo code is the best thing that could have happened.  I suspect that 
in the first 1 to three months not much code development happened, 
naturally it takes time for things to get started.  So it would be my 
best guess that there has been about six months of software development 
under TDF.  That being the case, it seems like the LO software package 
has been evolving and improving at from 4 to 8 times the pace that it 
was under Sun/Oracle.




I have been on the OOo discuss list since 2001 perhaps even 2000, its 
hard to remember, anyway, from all the various comments and complaints 
over the years it seems like the real show-stoppers got fixed and the 
nuisance problems just got ignored for the most part.  Now it seems like 
with an all volunteer group rather than developers being assigned chores 
by corporate management, all the bugs are being addressed in a more 
impartial way.  Not having done any programming since college and BASIC, 
I don't know how to read C++ source code, but I have read here that 
there has been more work at cleaning up the source code, removing 
remarked out lines of code, and such during the last 6 months than 
during the previous 6 years. 



An example of M$ work, Vista was well over a year late in being 
released, and even then it was a horrible mess!  Over the years one 
theme on the OOo Discuss List was a sort of competition between OOo and 
M$ Office.  I think the only way to judge the relative merits of two 
such software suites is by relative user satisfaction.  By that metric 
it always seemed that OOo was about 2 to 3 years behind M$ Office, 
judging by the talk on the list.  Now if M$ continues at their current 
rate of progress, and if LO does likewise, then sometime during the next 
year LO would pass M$ Office in user satisfaction.  What could be better 
than that!?


--
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] First TDF Advisory Board members demonstrate wide corporate support for LibreOffice

2011-06-15 Thread Robert Derman

Florian Effenberger wrote:
First TDF Advisory Board members demonstrate wide corporate support 
for LibreOffice


Strong backing for a truly free and vendor-neutral office suite
The Document Foundation provides solid grounds to build upon

The Document Foundation today announced the first members of its 
Advisory Board: Google, SUSE, Red Hat, Freies Office Deutschland e.V., 
Software in the Public Interest, and the Free Software Foundation. The 
new appointees will serve for an initial term of one year.


The body represents The Document Foundation's sponsors, with each 
sponsor having the right to one representative. They will provide the 
future Board of Directors with advice, guidance and proposals, and 
will consult regularly on the further development of the Foundation 
and its associated projects.
I am truly gratified to see such a wide and important group of sponsors 
supporting The Document Foundation.  It gives me a lot of confidence 
that TDF will do at least as good a job with supporting and improving LO 
as the former OOo did with OpenOffice. 


We're very proud, and warmly welcome the first members of the 
Advisory Board. Its composition shows that LibreOffice is a 
vendor-neutral, truly-free office suite, and confirms that The 
Document Foundation has created a solid base to build upon, for the 
community, for corporations and enterprises, and for adopters and 
end-users, said Florian Effenberger on behalf of The Document 
Foundation's Steering Committee. With LibreOffice being downloaded 
from all over the world, with the community growing quickly, and with 
organizations and corporations showing strong support, The Document 
Foundation has succeeded in creating a safe, stable and secure base to 
ensure the future of free office suites, he added.

big snip


I myself am mostly just one of the huge number of end users.   I 
recently downloaded LO and put it on my second computer.  While I have 
not had much chance to use it yet, so far it seems to be significantly 
improved from the last release of OOo that I was using.  I think I speak 
for most small (Non corporate) end users when I say that I think that 
OOo has basically become irrelevant.  As in who cares what Apache does 
with it, LO is where its at now. 



I have a few observations to make, as to future changes/improvements.  I 
for one am very reluctant to frequently upgrade any major software 
application that must be downloaded and replaced in its entirety, 
particularly if there is not a published list of the improvements in the 
new release.  This is why I do not upgrade my copy of Apple iTunes, 
particularly when it is an incremental upgrade, for example version 
5.3.7 to 5.3.8 as opposed to major upgrades like from 5.x to 6.x.  This 
is particularly true when there are components you could loose like the 
personal dictionary that goes with the spell checker.  I really think 
that it should be made a priority at some point to get LO to where 
Incremental Upgrades are possible, that is only the parts of the 
entire office suite that are actually being changed would be downloaded 
and installed, not the entire thing, and personal modifications, like 
settings and personal dictionaries would be left undisturbed. 



I think that it would be a good idea at some point to do a survey of 
users to find out how many of them actually use only one of the modules 
of the suite, example Writer, Calc, Math, Base, and which one that is.  
For example, I use only Writer, I never use any of the other modules.  
So that if we were to find that a large percentage of users only use 
Writer, or Calc for instance, it might make sense to break those modules 
out and offer them as a separate program without any of the other 
modules.  I know that this was frequently discussed on the OOo Discuss 
list, and the OOo suite was too highly integrated for this to be 
practical,  but perhaps at some point this might become feasible with LO. 




I noticed in the following list that there is no one from North 
America.   I am just a bit concerned about this.  Should I be?


Press and Media Contacts

Florian Effenberger (based near Munich, Germany, UTC+1)
Phone: +49 8341 99660880
Mobile: +49 151 14424108
E-mail: flo...@documentfoundation.org
Skype: floeff

Olivier Hallot (based in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, UTC-3)
Mobile: +55 21 88228812
E-mail: olivier.hal...@documentfoundation.org

Charles H. Schulz (based in Paris, France, UTC+1)
Mobile: +33 6 98655424
E-mail: charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org

Italo Vignoli (based in Milan, Italy, UTC+1)
Phone: +39 02 320621813
Mobile: +39 348 5653829
E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org
Skype: italovignoli
Google Talk: italo.vign...@gmail.com
Finally, I would like to be able to help with semi-technical 
improvements to LO Writer, like getting a better word list into the 
Spell Checker, or adding more functionality to the Auto-correct 
function, like having it automatically capitalize all the days of the 
week, 

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

2011-06-09 Thread Robert Derman

Simon Brouwer wrote:

Op 9-6-2011 16:32, Simon Phipps schreef:

On 9 Jun 2011, at 12:12, Simon Brouwer wrote:


Hi Jim, all,

Jim Jagielski schreef:

On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:


On 8 Jun 2011, at 23:49, Jim Jagielski wrote:


On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote:


Op 6-6-2011 11:37, toki schreef:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 05/06/2011 15:00, Jim Jagielski wrote:


A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non-

TDF might not have 501(c)(3) status, but then consider that it is
incorporated in Germany, not the United States.

That 501(c)(3) status aside, is TDF actually a legally established
foundation (yet)?

I also think that 'independent' is also an adjective that belongs
there... being independent is quite important to a number
of FOSS ecosystem people...
While that is clearly a true statement, you seem to be implying 
that you
don't think TDF is independent.  Please can you explain what you 
mean?

People may just be curious about TDF being backed by“Freies Office
Deutschland
e.V.” as well as an associated project in Software in the Public 
Interest

(SPI).
What does being backed by them mean? How independent is it from 
these

2 entitied? Just questions like that.

Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is
critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is just a legally
established one?

But is it even just a legally established foundation? AFAIK, TDF unto
this day does not exist as a legal entity.

While that's pedantically

thank you...
correct, TDF appears to currently be an initiative of a perfectly 
adequate non-profit legal entity and as such I have no problems with 
its existence or independence.

I have no problems with its existence or independence either.

Anyway, I think it is high time that TDF be made a foundation proper. 
Suppose Oracle had considered donating the OpenOffice.org trademarks 
and copyrights to TDF. How could it be the recipient of such a 
donation if it didn't exist as a legal entity?



+1

--
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

2011-06-09 Thread Robert Derman

Volker Merschmann wrote:

Hi,

2011/6/9 Simon Brouwer simon.o...@xs4all.nl:

  

Suppose Oracle had considered donating the OpenOffice.org trademarks and
copyrights to TDF. How could it be the recipient of such a donation if it
didn't exist as a legal entity?



I'm feeling it's the hundredth time it is told: The german association
Freies Office Deutschland e.V. is the legal represantive for the TDF
until the legal act of founding has happened. And the latter one is
not so easy to do.

Volker
  
My Deutsch isn't the best, I am guessing that the literal translation of 
the above is Freedom Office Germany e.V. whatever the e. V. stands for.  
Anyway a non legaleze explanation of what is happening and what must 
happen for TDF to be a full official foundation would be appreciated.


--
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] How Close Is TDF...?

2011-06-07 Thread Robert Derman

Italo Vignoli wrote:

On 6/7/11 3:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:


I agree... My going over it was simply to indicate areas which
I *think* (again, I have no idea, nor do a *want* to know) may
have been reasons Oracle declined, since that seems a point
that people are extremely curious about.


Provided that they received the letter and they never replied I think 
it is reasonable to state that they never considered it, because of 
corporate reasons we will never know.


Between humans, before declining you usually investigate further and 
then provide a reason for declining. Otherwise, it looks like you are 
just ignoring (which is fine).


Corporations are just not as educated as humans, and therefore do not 
feel they should behave following the basics of mutual respect. This 
is the reason why I have decided to abandon a corporate career.
Corporations do not have any emotions or feelings, but the people who 
run them do.  Perhaps there were hurt feelings at Oracle because leaving 
OpenOffice.org to found The Document Foundation meant that these people 
were dissatisfied with the stewardship provided by Oracle.  Perhaps 
there were feelings of rejection involved here.  Perhaps someone at 
Oracle took it personally.  Sometimes people in business can be petty 
about such things, and from what I have heard about him, Larry Ellison 
might be that kind. 



In any case, it is now just so much water under the bridge and it is now 
time to just move on and forget about OpenOffice.  I suspect that 
OpenOffice will soon become irrelevant.  The Document Foundation is 
doing such a good job with LibreOffice that I really don't think end 
users will miss OOo. 


In addition, corporations are just too different from volunteer 
projects, and trying to understand a decision using a volunteer POV 
can only lead to severe frustrations.


TDF has sent a letter to Oracle, which has been ignored. It is a fact. 
We decided to send it because we felt we had to try every solution, 
but what has happened afterwards tells us that the letter has been 
ignored for unknown reasons (as I am sure that Oracle will never 
provide any further detail).





--
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] Questions from the sidelines.

2011-06-06 Thread Robert Derman

Andy Brown wrote:


I seem to be really missing something in all this talk about the 
transfer of OOo.


1: What would TDF do with the code?  At this point in time LibO is way 
ahead of OOo in features and code clean up, from the patches flying in 
the dev list.


2: What would TDF do with the OpenOffice.org name and trademarks?

3: Would they rename LibreOffice to OpenOffice.org? If so why, since 
LibreOffice has spread like it has?


4:  Why is TDF trying so hard to block the proposal with ASF?  I guess 
answers to the above will answer this one.


Thanks
Andy
I have been reading the discussion the last 3 days concerning Oracle 
donating the code and from what I understand the brand name.  From what 
I understand the differences in licenses between The Document Foundation 
and Apache Software Foundation are such that code in OpenOffice can be 
used in LibreOffice, but code in LibreOffice can not be used in 
OpenOffice. 

From what I have read it seems like it will be some time before 
anything much comes of whatever happens at the Apache Software 
Foundation, at least as far as any product for end users.  If this means 
that OOo will stagnate as far as improvements and new releases is 
concerned, and it seems like it will, then I suspect that most people 
will switch to LibreOffice and OpenOffice will become irrelevant. 

I might be wrong about this, but from all the good progress at TDF and 
LO it seems like OpenOffice may become irrelevant if it hasn't already, 
at least as far as end users are concerned.  I have heard a lot of 
concern about duplication of efforts, but if I had to guess as to what 
will happen, I suspect that most volunteer developers/programmers will 
donate their efforts to TDF and LO rather than OO, or to both.  I 
suspect that at some point within the next year the two software suites 
will diverge to the point where they can no longer share new code, and 
LO will need many of its own templates and extensions rather than being 
able to use those that were written for OO. 

Perhaps the single largest reason that Oracle didn't offer the code and 
brand to TDF was simple hurt feelings.  Whatever, in the long run I 
suspect that it simply doesn't and won't matter.  If anything I think 
that this will cause TDF to gain more developers and supporters and to 
prosper.


--
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

2011-06-05 Thread Robert Derman

Marc Paré wrote:
Ahem .., or we could just ignore our ASF lurkers, keep working on our 
great product, let OOo go unsupported and gather dust as it was in 
Oracle's hands.


We have a truly community oriented and supported product with great 
licenses as opposed to a restrictive ASF product. We do not need to 
join the ASF OOo project for code as we can include some of it in our 
product.


Why join a product line that was left in controversy only to join 
another group with the same product that is now built on controversy?


I am basically an end user who just happens to be a computer HARDWARE 
expert, the last time I did any coding was in college, and it was BASIC 
on a machine running CP/M with a Z-80 processor.   But I have built many 
hundreds of computers and I put a copy of OpenOffice on every one I 
built after it became available as a free of cost download.



As I understand TDF and ASF have incompatible licenses, code from OO can 
be incorporated in LO, but code from LO cannot be incorporated in OO.   
At least if OpenOffice continues under the Apache Software Foundation.  
That would lead me to expect that the two office suites will continue to 
diverge until the point where there remains no significant compatibility 
between them. 



I also have been led to the conclusion that ASF is good at producing 
software that companies will use, but not at providing anything for 
individual end users.  I notice that OOo is still available for download 
on Oracle hosted servers, but who knows how long that will continue.  
From what I have read here over this weekend, it looks to me like soon, 
probably by the end of summer LO from TDF will be the only viable choice 
remaining for consumers to download.  Not that that is necessarily a bad 
thing, so far I have seen TDF already do more as far as cleaning up the 
code in about 6 months than Sun and Oracle did in 6 years. 



Perhaps in the long run it would be best for those of us who have chosen 
to use, contribute, support LibreOffice to simply forget about 
OpenOffice and concentrate on making LibreOffice the best office 
productivity suite possible.   This is my take from what I have read 
here this weekend.  I am not about to debate the relative merits of the 
two different types of licenses, from what I gather they really don't 
make much differences to end users who can't contribute code, at least 
not in the short term. 





This is the reason the TDF group left Oracle/Sun to create a more 
equal community. There is no point in participating in a group of 
unequals again.


Let's just get back to what we are good at doing, leave the lurkers 
silent rather than giving them a platform (which is what they want). 
We are the community they wish they had.


Cheers

Marc





--
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 Hackfest in Munich

2011-05-27 Thread Robert Derman

Thorsten Behrens wrote:

Florian Effenberger wrote:
  

Thanks for announcing this. Maybe we should also know if you have to be
there in person or can you participate remotely?
  

the event is planned on-site. Maybe we can get some remote
connection involved, but primarily, it is for hacking at the place
:)



Quite - you can get hacking help on irc every day - but one key part
of a hackfest is the social component.

It would therefore be just cool to have those kind of events spread
across the globe. I believe we've hackers on every continent. :)

Cheers,

-- Thorsten
  
We certainly need something like this for North America, U.S.A. and 
Canada. 


--
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] Digestmails answers with quotes not possible?

2011-05-21 Thread Robert Derman

Friedrich Strohmaier wrote:

Hi all,

especially those of You receiving mails as digest are requested to
report.

Some people reported not beeing able getting text of the mail to be
quoted in the Editor area.

e-letter reported this for gmail,
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.discuss/5360/focus=5383

I could confirm with recent Thunderbird, but not with fairly aged kmail.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.test/117

Who else has noticed alike? Just try to answer this mail if You receive
mails as digest and report.

You can report via gmane if it doesn't work out with Your mail client.

I suspect base64 encoded content of those mails isn't of taste of some
mail clients.

Thanks for helping out to narrow down the problem.

Gruß/regard
  
I am using an older version of Tbird, I find that the newer versions are 
too difficult to resize the text for readability on my laptop screen.  
anyway, no problems. 


--
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: Any wikipedia members/contributors here?

2011-05-21 Thread Robert Derman

NoOp wrote:

On 05/19/2011 05:18 PM, NoOp wrote:
  

If you are a wikipedia member/contributor, perhaps you can have a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenDocument_software

No mention of LibreOffice.
Appearantly that is no longer the case.  It is promanently mentioned as 
of now 5/21/11.


--
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] The need of a central employment-office-like web structure for TDF/LibO volunteers

2011-05-15 Thread Robert Derman

sophie wrote:

Gianluca,
On 15/05/2011 11:44, Gianluca Turconi wrote:

Hi Sophie,

sophie wrote:

the system could be a bug tracker with a less technical UI than BZ, but
I think a wiki with a good template could be enough. Why do you say
dispersive?


Because you have to navigate *a lot* through the currently on line 
wiki before finding the info a contributor may need in order to 
contribute. Too many clicks, IMO.
Yes, on the current wiki, I agree, even if the template helps a lot, 
but the scope is too large to have the few click you want.


A easier wiki template may do the trick, but it should be bare to the 
bone, because it's just a matter of going directly to the point: 
contributing according to one's skills and available time.

yes,


If I have, let's say, 1 free hour to contribute, I should be able to 
find fast whatever task I can complete in such an hour. If I have 1 
free day, I should be able to find fast whatever task has a 1 day 
estimated time for its completion.


However, it's absolutely important that no potential contributor's 
time is wasted in *finding how to contribute. You know, time is 
money. ;-)


This statement is true both for the core contributor and the casual 
or potential one.
agreed too and even it will take some management time, better lose it 
here than the contributor one.


If the project would have such a central system for the management of 
the contributions, I think there would be a more efficient work flow 
too, because *everybody* would know who is in charge for a task, what 
progress has been made and what is still missing.
The only difficulty I see here is the amount of tasks that will have 
to be listed and may be that will blur a bit the vision of the overall 
workflow. The level of detail is rather high if you list contributions 
for 1 hour of work or so.


It may be useful to track contribution too, for future TDF 
applications and reviews of such applications. Everything would be 
(sufficiently) public.
yes, even if we have good ways to monitor what is already done, in 
that area, the more the better.


So now, you've find what to do for your next free hours ;-)

Kind regards
Sophie
It seems to me that a simple structure of choices is what is called for, 
first basic types of contributions, code, artwork, advertising and 
promotion, distribution of burned disks, technical contribution not 
requiring a knowledge of coding.  Then when you have entered the area 
where you could contribute, there would be a division of task sizes, 
like the 1 hour or less, 1/2 day or less, one day or less, 2 days or 
less, 1 week or less and so forth that was described here earlier.  then 
finally a listing of the specific tasks.  there might also need to be a 
division based on skill levels or particular basic skills, particularly 
under the category of coding.



I for instance would like to contribute to improving the word list for 
the spell check program in Writer.  I suspect that this would require 
the help of someone who could tell me how to find and extract a copy of 
my personal dictionary.  I suspect that there may be many such technical 
but non coding tasks where the contributer may need to team up with 
someone who can advise them on the more technical aspects of the task at 
hand. 



I have been a subscriber to the OOo Discuss list since 2001, and 
remember well the days when there was far more activity on that list.  I 
have noticed that list fading much more rapidly since the TDF/LO fork.  
So now I am here and willing to help however I can. 


--
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 Math: There is no

2011-05-04 Thread Robert Derman

Olivier Hallot wrote:



Em 04-05-2011 13:11, M Henri Day escreveu:

2011/5/4 Olivier Hallotolivier.hal...@documentfoundation.org


Thanks Mike for the tip

As I see, this character U+2204, does not exist in Opensymbol font, 
used by

Math by default. At least not in the displayed characters of Math UI.

So, if this symbol get implemented in Opensymbol, it will be trivial to
make it show in the Element window

Olivier



Olivier, in Linux operating systems such as, e g, Ubuntu, symbols 
like the ∄
symbol can easily be inserted in a LibreOffice document by holding 
the Ctrl
and Shift keys and pressing u (Ctrl+Shift+u) and then typing the 
hexdecimal
code (in this case) 2204 and pressing the space bar. But I agree, 
this type

of logic symbol should certainly be included in the list of special
characters in LibreOffice Math

Henri



Hi
Yes, in a Mandriva system as well, although I run out of fingers to 
type such key combination!!


Does not work in Windows...
Since the majority of computer users have the Windows OS, it sounds like 
we need to specifically add this character to the set of Math characters. 


--
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] Forums... again

2011-04-24 Thread Robert Derman

snip

And I found another couple of similarly completely uncategorized forums.

The forums at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/ look much 
more promising, but are not these two products expected to diverge 
more and more? In my understanding LibreOffice is a new project that 
_started_ with OOo code but will be building separately. Or will 
changes made to LibreOffice be merged back into OOo? Obviously I am 
not a developer so I do not understand how these branches or forks 
work. I'm not asking to be educated here, that would be OT. Just 
saying that if LibreOffice is indeed a new product that will become 
less and less like OOo it ought to have its own official nice forum.


Meanwhile sure, the link to 
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/ should be added 
prominently on the help page of the libreoffice site. Since I am not 
any kind of expert or web developer and have little understanding of 
how OS projects work, it would be silly for me to ask to be on the web 
team just to make one edit. I hope someone more appropriate for web 
team membership does that soon.


thanks,

kazar
I have some doubts as to whether the two products will diverge now that 
Oracle has decided to end its involvement with OpenOffice.org .  I 
suspect that at some point rather than let OOo just whither and die it 
will merge with The Document Foundation and the two will become 
essentially one.  If that happens it might be a good idea to use both 
names, OOo could end up being the Windows version and LO the Linux and 
other OS version.  Or something like that. 


--
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] European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.

2011-04-24 Thread Robert Derman

Jon Hamkins wrote:

On 04/22/2011 05:33 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:

Hi *,

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 5:40 AM, Jon 
Hamkinshamk...@alumni.caltech.edu  wrote:

On 04/06/2011 04:54 AM, toki wrote:


There are roughly one billion words in the English language. You could
have a LibO spell checker that contains each of those words.


Actually, there are only about one million English words in English, 
and

that's including the 500,000 or so scientific words.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JohnnyLing.shtml


Note that a spell checker doesn't just need to list the words, but
needs to know all forms of the words (plural form, genitive form,
different times,)


Well, the spell checker just needs a list of words -- grammar is 
something else.  OED2 contained 290,000 entries with a total of 
690,000 word forms.  OED3 has somewhat more; a solid word list in an 
office suite should have somewhat fewer.  You don't want to include 
obsolete words that have a close but different spelling from common 
words, for example.


 Jon
I have said this a number of times, and that at least the English 
version is sadly deficient in compound words, at least the one in OOo 
3.11 which I am still using because I am reluctant to give up the 
personal dictionary to which I have added perhaps thousands of compound 
words.If the current release of LO is significantly better in this 
area I haven't heard of it.  Nor do I know how to find and 
save/copy/move my personal dictionary. 

On a related matter, I believe that if a developer/programmer could put 
instructions on this list, I believe that a few users like me with 
greatly enhanced personal dictionaries could send them in as attachments 
and someone could use them to build a better word list that would make 
for a much better spell check function for 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] Forums... again

2011-04-24 Thread Robert Derman

Jaime R. Garza wrote:


 I have some doubts as to whether the two products will diverge now that
  

Oracle has decided to end its involvement with OpenOffice.org .  I suspect
that at some point rather than let OOo just whither and die it will merge
with The Document Foundation and the two will become essentially one.  If
that happens it might be a good idea to use both names, OOo could end up
being the Windows version and LO the Linux and other OS version.  Or
something like that.




Sorry, but I don't agree, LibreOffice is to stay and I couldn't care less
about OpenOffice name. But that's just my opinion.
  
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in what I was saying, I agree, LO is here to 
stay, I think what might happen is that OOo will join TDF, not the other 
way around. 


--
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] European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.

2011-04-24 Thread Robert Derman

Jon Hamkins wrote:

On 04/24/2011 01:36 PM, Robert Derman wrote:


I have said this a number of times, and that at least the English
version is sadly deficient in compound words, at least the one in OOo
3.11 which I am still using because I am reluctant to give up the
personal dictionary to which I have added perhaps thousands of compound
words. If the current release of LO is significantly better in this area
I haven't heard of it. Nor do I know how to find and save/copy/move my
personal dictionary.
On a related matter, I believe that if a developer/programmer could put
instructions on this list, I believe that a few users like me with
greatly enhanced personal dictionaries could send them in as attachments
and someone could use them to build a better word list that would make
for a much better spell check function for LO.


Not a bad idea.  It may be even better to try to identify a whole new 
word list that has a license open enough for LibO to use.


 Jon
I agree, but from what I have heard on this list, coming up with another 
word list (one enough better to bother with) may not be easy.  And if 
that is indeed the case, and someone wants to tell me how, I would 
volunteer to purge my personal dictionary of proper nouns and such and 
then send it in.  Also I am sure many other end users would be willing 
to do the same.


--
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] European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.

2011-04-05 Thread Robert Derman

Mike Hall wrote:

Charles,
I think an appreciation of this point is absolutely crucial to a 
successful product, which is why I bang on about it. And I'm only 
faithfully recording my own experience.


Unfortunately there is a difference in quality, which implicitly you 
seem to recognise. Yes, it's true that there have been several poor 
MSO releases, but in a large organisation those are not normally 
deployed on the corporate desktop until the problems are fixed. MS 
does eventually retreat on its silly ideas and there are, to all 
intents and purposes, almost bug free MSO versions so far as the vast 
majority of end users are concerned. This isn't the case with OOo/LibO 
- there has never been a release of such a quality that support costs 
could be contained at a realistic level. I wish there were and I can 
fully understand why this community would be very inclined to argue 
black is white here. Further, it's pretty frustrating to report bugs 
and find that they aren't fixed within a reasonable period. I don't 
think you would deny that that is a fairly common experience and 
complaint from OOo/LibO users. I see that on many bug reports.


My perception and experience of the choice of application software in 
large organisation is that it is much more rational and hard-headed 
than you imply. The main cost is not the licence, for which in any 
case large organisations generally pay very little per desktop. It's 
user support that is costly, ie overall cost of ownership.


Mike
I am one of the multitude of end users of Writer who hope that it can 
become something that we can all take pride in because we all helped in 
whatever way to make it what it is. 



Over the years I have used MS Word, and OOo, I simply don't ever use 
spreadsheets, presentation programs or any other part of MS Office or 
OOo except for the word processors.  That said, I find MS Word to be 
unstable for long documents.  Writer does a better job, but it has some 
severe shortcomings that would be very easy to fix if anyone would 
bother.  My prime example, the word list in the spell checker is 
PATHETIC!!!  There is almost a total lack of compound words in it, and I 
have had to add well over a thousand of them in order to get the spell 
checker to operate at an acceptable speed.  The only alternative is to 
consider the spell checker USELESS, and to just permanently turn it 
off.  No business would ever consider that to be an acceptable 
alternative, and would instead consider the price for a copy of 
Microsoft Word a bargain compared to the hassle of trying to use a word 
processor with a nearly useless spelling checker. 



Naturally we cannot purchase a word list to use, because anything sold 
would be copyrighted and therefore useless to us.  Likewise, as I 
understand there is no Open Source or other non copyright word list that 
is sufficiently better than what we are now using to be worth bothering 
with.  Therefore we must create our own.  I don't think that most of the 
work of doing this would require the skills of a programmer or software 
developer.  I think if someone could tell some of us end users where to 
find our own word lists that we have had to add hundreds or thousands of 
words to, turn them into email attachments, and send them to LO, they 
could be combined, stripped of unwanted proper nouns and such, and used 
to create a very good and complete word list to incorporate into LO 
Writer.  And of course once we have such a word list, every release from 
that time on will have a very good spell checker. 



I am a computer hardware expert, but not a software expert, at least no 
more than most end users, but perhaps this is something where someone 
like me might just be able to help.  Robert Derman


--
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] Calc usability issue (autocorrect of small letter to capital letter)

2011-03-08 Thread Robert Derman

Kevin André wrote:

Calc seems to autocorrect a small letter to a capital letter after a dot
character.
But a dot character does not always mean the end of a sentence; in this case
it was used for an abbreviation. And sadly there is no way to undo a wrong
autocorrection: pressing undo will revert the entire input of the cell.
Please provide a way to undo the autocorrection, or make calc realise that
when a user changes 'R' to 'r' in a cell it shouldn't make it an 'R' again
:) That's really frustrating.
  
It shouldn't be that hard to fix this, I have noticed that this is the 
way Writer works now.  It automatically capitalizes the first word of a 
sentence, unless the . is after a numeral, or ends what is usually an 
abbreviation, such as etc. ea. and such. 


--
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 ***


Re: [tdf-discuss] Need for more compound words for spellcheck dictionary.

2011-03-02 Thread Robert Derman

RGB ES wrote:

AFAIK, LibO dictionaries are the same dictionaries from OOo.
If you have a custom dictionary where you added the words you miss,
you can import (I mean, copy to the right location) that dictionary
into LibO user profile. See here for more details about the user
profile:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/UserProfile

2011/2/20 Robert Derman robert.der...@pressenter.com:
  

One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason I have not upgraded to LO from
OpenOffice 3.1 yet is that I dread having to go through the process of
adding over a thousand compound words to the spellcheck dictionary.  This
dictionary has almost NO compound words in it!  Does anyone know if this
problem has been addressed with LO 3.3.  I am using the U.S. English
version.
If this severe shortcoming has not yet been addressed yet, I think we should
do so before version 3.4.

My question above appears to have been answered, which leads me to pose 
the following. 

I suspect that this may be one of the reasons that businesses continue 
to stick with MS Office and more particularly MS Word.  I have not used 
Word for quite a while, but from when I did, I remember it having a much 
better spellcheck dictionary.  This is one of the many places where LO 
needs to do a better job in order to:  A. distance itself from OOo, and 
B. appear to the people who make decisions in businesses as a serious 
professional grade product, and not just a hobby for software writers 
with time on their hands. 

Having a seriously inferior spellcheck dictionary costs time with office 
workers and thus is in many cases sufficient reason for companies to 
stay with a proprietary commercial product and shun open source.  It 
leads corporate buyers to believe in the  old adage, You get what you 
pay for. 

I believe that this is a thing that non-programmers could work on with a 
little help and guidance from programmers/developers.  I don't know this 
for sure, but perhaps there is even an open source dictionary program or 
something, or a public domain word list or something that we could 
utilize that would be better than the very inadequate spelling check 
word list we borrowed from OOo.


--
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 ***



Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Strange OpenOffice Email from a new universe

2011-02-26 Thread Robert Derman

Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

You can copy and paste it here,of course :-)
  

That would be good, since I would like to see it too.

Charles.

Le 26 févr. 2011, 5:25 PM, Howard Barr how...@weceikaiwa.com a écrit :

On 27/02/2011 00:54, Italo Vignoli wrote:   Any chance of getting a copy
of such emails? I would l...
I can forward it to you?

Howard
  


--
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 ***



Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store - or else ?

2011-02-23 Thread Robert Derman

Jonathan Aquilina wrote:

On 2/23/11 12:25 AM, Valter Mura wrote:

In data giovedì 13 gennaio 2011 22:53:59, Fabián Rodríguez ha scritto:


On 11-01-12 11:35 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:

On 2011/01/12 8:49 AM  Mirek M. wrote:

2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilinaeagles051...@gmail.com


  Why not license it under an appropriate license that would allow

us to put


  it in the app store? would that mean we would need to remove the

GPL or can


  it be dual licensed to go on the app store?
I'm no expert, but as I understand it, LibreOffice is licensed 
under the
LGPL, which should allow it to be used with DRM (whereas VLC was 
GPL).

In order for LibreOffice to change its license, it would need to get
an OK
from all its contributors, including Oracle, which is not too 
likely to

happen IMHO. But I don't think that's necessary in this case.

There is no DRM used on the Mac OS X App Store. There is DRM on the
Apple iOS AppStore. They are two separate entities. The FSF objections
are to the DRM on the iOS AppStore and do not apply to the OS X App
Store. Of course, the FSF objects to Apple and any other company that
does not give away their software for free.

Larry

Hi Larry,

DRM means Digital Rights Management and although it (apparently) has
been easily circumvented in the App store, there are indeed such 
control

mechanisms implemented:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1075297

A quick search shows confusing information about this (again):
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/02/poetic-justice-watch-crackulous-r 


eleased-pirated-re-sold.ars
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20027731-264.html

Free in Free software refers to Freedom, not free as in $0 cost.
It's a common mistake, but the Free Software Foundation is not 
objecting
to anyone selling Free software. Quite the opposite, in fact, except 
the

software itself is not considering the only goods you would be
monetizing. This article should help understanding such model:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Larry, knowing that you are the audience we seek, I'd like to know how
you found out about OOo (or Libreoffice, if you didn't know OOo 
before).

Perhaps that can provide other ways to better reach Mac audiences ?

Should it be possible to have a light Libò version for BlackBerry? 
This kind
of mobile phone is used by the majority of businessmen, I suppose it 
should be

useful to have it inside the phone.

What do you think?
The biggest problem with getting on mobile devices, is that they use 
java. from my impressions on the project as a whole and following the 
dev list is that they are trying to remove java all together. It would 
be interesting to get some developer feedback on this.
Maybe I don't understand this, but it seems to me that mobile devices 
are so different from regular PCs that any version of LO for mobile 
devices might just as well be written from scratch for that purpose 
borrowing little or no code from from the regular LO for PCs.  That 
being the case, one might use Java, and the other not. 


--
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] Need for more compound words for spellcheck dictionary.

2011-02-20 Thread Robert Derman
One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason I have not upgraded to LO 
from OpenOffice 3.1 yet is that I dread having to go through the process 
of adding over a thousand compound words to the spellcheck dictionary.  
This dictionary has almost NO compound words in it!  Does anyone know if 
this problem has been addressed with LO 3.3.  I am using the U.S. 
English version. 

If this severe shortcoming has not yet been addressed yet, I think we 
should do so before version 3.4. 


--
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 ***



Re: [tdf-discuss] OpenOffice.org articles in Linux Format March 2011

2011-02-13 Thread Robert Derman

adept techlists - kazar wrote:

On 2/12/11 2:04 PM, Robert Derman wrote:
Just so you all know, 4 GB of DDR3 RAM can now be purchased for $36. 
on the internet.  In historical terms, that is indeed dirt cheap. 
My point here is that any new computers being built are unlikely to have 
less than 2 gigs, and most will probably have 4.  The memory I quoted 
here is DDR3, which can't be used in older computers anyway, only brand 
new ones.
and how much would it cost to have that RAM shipped to Ethiopia? and 
how many computers around the globe are still in use that have a max 
of far less ram than 4GB, even less than 1024MB?
Since nearly all computer parts today are made in The Peoples Republic 
of China, I doubt that anyone anywhere in Africa would have them shipped 
from California.  There must be retailers in Africa who sell this stuff. 
Also a 500 GB hard drive can now be purchased for less than $40., and 
a DVD burner for less than $20. 
Your ISP is in River Falls, Wisconson, U.S.A. The per capita GDP in 
the U.S.A. according to 2010 CIA World Factbook charts was $47,400 
USD. 
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html) 

I am a retired computer system builder and my sole source of income is a 
government pension, so my income is a small fraction of that amount.  
The important thing as I see it is that 30 years ago the least expensive 
computers cost at least $1500.  Today it is less than $300.  Even while 
most everything else costs 2 to 3 times what it did 30 years ago.   

Another thing, and I am not saying that it is a good thing, but I have 
noticed that new software tends to be written for new computers.  Most 
older computers end up running older software because they can't handle 
the requirements of most newer software. 


--
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 ***


Re: [tdf-discuss] OpenOffice.org articles in Linux Format March 2011

2011-02-12 Thread Robert Derman

Kevin Hunter wrote:

At 4:09pm -0500 Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Charles Marcus wrote:

On 2011-02-11 3:35 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote:

How the quickstarter works is have use gobs of memory effectively
sitting idle. That doesn't work. Many of us in the computing,
engineering, physics, and chemical fields *use* our computational
resources.


75MB is not 'gobs' - that or we live in very different realities.


Yes, it is gobs.  If you have 4GB+, perhaps it's not, but not everyone 
has 4GB+.  Particularly in non-Western countries.  I have just 
returned from Ethiopia, for example, where owning a computer is rare; 
for those who do, 256 MB is common.  I suspect that we *do* live in 
different realities.



RAM is extremely cheap these days.


If $100 bucks is cheap to you, then so be it.  It's not to me, a 
graduate student.
Just so you all know, 4 GB of DDR3 RAM can now be purchased for $36. on 
the internet.  In historical terms, that is indeed dirt cheap.  Also a 
500 GB hard drive can now be purchased for less than $40., and a DVD 
burner for less than $20.  The fact is, a copy of MS Office can well 
cost more than the entire computer system it is used on. 


--
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 ***


Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Suppression of Blank Lines in Addresses in Labels and Envelopes from Data Base

2011-02-09 Thread Robert Derman

Alan Reeve wrote:

On 09/02/2011 12:05, Charles Marcus wrote:

On 2011-02-09 6:12 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote:

As to your bug correction request, you would be better off filing a bug
report at freedesktop.org, which is where TDF has decided that all such
reports should be filed, or even better still with Oracle.

And/or the Openoffice bug tracker (shudder)...

Thank you for your suggestion.  I requested OOo to improve this about 
18 months ago and guess what


Alan
As I have come to understand it, this is one of the most important 
reasons for the OOo/LO fork.  Corporate management is who decides which 
bugs get exterminated, and which are ignored with corporate supported 
OOo.  With LO, it becomes more of a case of if a volunteer 
developer/programmer gets annoyed by a bug, or enough users complain 
about it, it gets fixed. 



I myself only use Writer, if I get time I might use Base to make a 
database of my DVD movie collection, but I am not likely to use any of 
the other modules.  As a very heavy user of Writer, I make extensive use 
of word completion, but I have known for years that this feature could 
be much better with a few small changes like, a few choices in its 
control menu, like have a PERMANENT dictionary where gather words could 
be turned off, and the program would use a permanent dictionary, or a 
change where strings containing all caps, punctuation marks other than ' 
apostrophe (in English) or numerals would never be added to the 
completion dictionary.  I have seen several improvements to this feature 
over the years, but never really important ones. 



One really BIG improvement that needs to be made is so that upgrades 
consist of patches rather than complete replacement of the program.  
This would be a HUGE improvement for all those people who do not have 
access to high-speed internet connections.  It is because of the extreme 
inconvenience of such upgrading methods that I choose to only upgrade 
for MAJOR upgrades like when LO 4.0 comes out.  I just don't think it is 
worth all the trouble for incremental upgrades like from 3.2 to 3.3.


Note:  I know that the use of all caps is considered bad form, but I 
find that many email systems can't properly handle boldface.


--
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 ***



Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Suppression of Blank Lines in Addresses in Labels and Envelopes from Data Base

2011-02-09 Thread Robert Derman

Alan Reeve wrote:

On 09/02/2011 11:12, Alexander Thurgood wrote:

Le 09/02/11 11:49, Alan Reeve a écrit :

Hi Alan,


As there has been no response, can I ask if I have put my request into
the wrong forum or are there too many other organisational problems
being addressed presently?


I would say, Yes and Yes to both those questions, whilst qualifying
the second as too many other bugs to hunt down and sort out which are
not related to Base.

The Base module has, as far as I know, and I would gladly stand
corrected, no specifically assigned experienced developer / programmer
which knows the Base module well enough to deal with these problems. Add
to that the fact that many of the current bugs are actually present in
OOo 3.3.0, i.e. introduced by the OOo development team, then it is
likely considered a waste of resources for the LibO team to deal with
something that may, possibly, get handled by Oracle.

As to your bug correction request, you would be better off filing a bug
report at freedesktop.org, which is where TDF has decided that all such
reports should be filed, or even better still with Oracle.


Alex



Hi Alex

Thanks for your response.  So far as I can see, the problem does not 
lie in Base but within the Text Document (Writer) modules.  The 
address line suppression should form part of the Print from Base  
window in Text Document after you have inserted fields from your 
database.  The Writer program responds  with the wording Your 
document contains database address fields. do you want to print a form 
letter?  When you respond Yes, then a further box comes up with the 
database selected and just asks you to confirm whether you wish to 
send the files to Printer or File.


I have hesitated to show this as a bug, because the program is not 
wrong, it just does not do enough.  Is that a bug?


Alan
Probably a better term for this sort of thing would be a shortcoming 
rather than a bug.


--
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 ***



Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Computer Magazine cover CDs

2011-02-09 Thread Robert Derman

Alexander Thurgood wrote:

Le 09/02/11 16:31, Jonathan Aquilina a écrit :
  

Alex there is an article regarding the 20 things about OOo which could
be improved if someone has a subscription to linuxformat.co.uk they
could download the pd of the article. it would be a great one to follow
and make improvements on their suggestions.




Ooh, well I'll have to try and dig out my subscription details then :-))
I seem to recall however, that the PDF files of their articles are
strictly not for redistribution.


Alex
  
If nothing else, it would be good to paraphrase the 20 things and list 
them here on this list.


--
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 ***


Re: [tdf-discuss] Automatic Update / Update info

2011-01-24 Thread Robert Derman

Jaime R. Garza wrote:

Hello all,

for when is it planned to have Automatic Update for Windows  Mac
LibreOffice, for Linux usually makes no sense?

My opinion, the user should be able to decide if it's completely Automatic,
or they only get an info pop window, offering a one click update.

Cheers!

Jaime
  
The important thing as I see it is to have a system where it will only 
download and update what is needed and not require a complete 
replacement of the entire program every time there is a minor bug fix or 
whatever.  This is why I never update any of my non-incremental update, 
applications for anything less than a major upgrade, example, from 
version 3.0 to version 4.0


--
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 ***



Re: [tdf-discuss] [libreoffice-website] [Forum] How will the forum be organized?

2011-01-18 Thread Robert Derman

Michael Wheatland wrote:

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Charles Marcus
cmar...@media-brokers.com wrote:

  

Case in point - Michael's work on Drupal would have provided integrated
mail list  forums  nabble so that any user could use their tool of
choice, and all would be interconnected, not isolated, making these
silly chest-thumping arguments about which tool is better totally moot.



Charles,
The work on the Drupal development has halted as per the Steering
Committee statement.
There seems to be a disconnect between what the community/mailing list
groups want and what the Steering Committee is willing to support.

From my discussions with the individuals involved with the Drupal
development there seems to be a consensus that until the Steering
Committee allows the individual community groups some autonomy to make
their own decisions and avoids overruling the groups it is unlikely
that the development will continue. The vast majority of the website
team has been supporting and contributing to this development as it is
seen as the 'way forward' but the SC and some founding members have
made it clear that this development will not continue.

Personally I would like to see 'website team lead(s)' elected within
the website team, by the website team and decisions made at a
community level upheld without the SC stepping in.
If you or others wish to see this development continue, I would
suggest that you rally one or more of the SC members to overturn the
decisions made at the most recent meeting and allow autonomy within
the functional teams.

Thanks,
Michael Wheatland
  

+1

--
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 ***


Re: [tdf-discuss] Co-working with Moz, etc

2011-01-02 Thread Robert Derman

Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
besides email people want a calendar as well as a to do list as well 
functionality wise, which Thunderbird seems to lack.


On 1/1/11 8:36 PM, Lee Hyde wrote:

On 01/01/11 19:20, Craig A. Eddy wrote:

So, what am I saying?  You don't NEED to add something useless like
Outlook or Evolution to LO.  You just have to allow Thunderbird to
connect to it, and people can make their own choice as to whether they
want all the other bells and whistles.  Therefore, no increase in size
due to bundling but the advantage that those that WANT the extras can
have them without difficulty

I agree, an integration add-on for Thunderbird (and any other e-mail
clients or contact managers with an add-on architecture) would be a far
better use of resources. Simply making contacts available to LibreOffice
would do wonders for mail-merge luck functionality (for the life of me I
can't think of any other functionalities one would require of an outlook
clone).
On a related subject, I am using an older version of Tbird because I 
hate the new versions.  each time they have improved it lately they 
have actually made it worse as far as basic usability.  The problem I 
have with the newer versions is that they make it far to difficult to 
enlarge the text for readability.  WHY can't developers put more of a 
priority on really basic things like that? 


--
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 ***



Re: [tdf-discuss] Co-working with Moz, etc

2011-01-02 Thread Robert Derman

Ian Lynch wrote:

On 1 January 2011 18:43, Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com wrote:

  

Whats really held OOo and will hold LO back is the lack of an equivalent
program such as outlook.





Why waste time and effort on this when there are other perfectly valid
alternatives? Evolution, Thunderbird for open source and Gmail on the web.
Web based mail is now mature and much easier to manage for anyone that moves
about. Gmail on an Android phone seems to me a far better solution than
being tied to the desktop. Effort going into new apps like a mail client
(even modifying and maintaining existing code) would be much better placed
in getting a mobile version of LO for smarphones or a web version. If not
the whole project could eventually become irrelevant.

There are one of three ways it can be done.
  

1) fork something like evolution which has all that done and integrate it
into the LO suite

2) or install software that already exists in the open source arena.

the problem with 2 is that it will greatly increase the download size,
which
would pose issues for people with slow bandwidth.

It seems to me that the only people who are concerned with having an 
equivalent of Outlook in their office suite are businesses, and 
businesses as a rule DO NOT have slow bandwidth connections, because 
they simply could not function with them.   If you are concerned with 
download size as far as software packages aimed at businesses is 
concerned, then you are simply aiming at the WRONG audience. 


--
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 ***



Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Name Change for LibreOffice Applications

2010-12-20 Thread Robert Derman

Samuel Mehrbrodt wrote:

I think it's good to change the names of the Applications so that they
describe what each application does. LibreOffice is the brand which
will be known and names of the applications should help to find the
application you want to use. I would also suggest to translate the
names of the applications like Google Docs does.
So we could have:
Text
Table
Presentation
Drawing
Formula
  
People have complained that if the names of modules were changed then 
extensions couldn't find them and work with them, and it suddenly 
occured to me that these extensions may not look for the modules name in 
the same place that the user sees it when opening the program.  correct 
me if I am wrong in this.  but if I am not, it would be possible to 
change the name where the user sees it, while leaving it alone where  
the extensions refer to it.That way we could do rebranding without 
messing up the functionality of anything.



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


Re: [tdf-discuss] [Change executable names] Re: Digest of discuss@documentfoundation.org issue 127 (3742-3762)

2010-12-18 Thread Robert Derman

NoOp wrote:

On 12/17/2010 05:53 AM, Jaime R. Garza wrote:
  

As many others already commented, I believe it's time that LibreOffice
changes the names of some of the individual applications, my humble
proposal:

Write
Spread
Present
Draw
Formula
Base



This is critical when attempting to have OOo and LibO co-exist on Windows.

- LO takes over all OOo application defaults  icons.
- LO uses the same executable names as OOo (soffice.exe, swriter.exe,
etc). This makes it impossible to select an .odt and re-associate it
with OOo.
  
Instead of this I think that LO should have all its own extensions and 
accessories and should completely divorce itself from OOo sooner rather 
than later. 


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


Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Name Change for LibreOffice Applications

2010-12-15 Thread Robert Derman

Charles Marcus wrote:

On 2010-12-14 9:38 AM, Marc Paré wrote:
  

The thread is discussing the possibility of name changes to some of
the modules: Writer, Impress, Calc, Draw, Base, Math.

I don't think they are suggesting a name change for LibreOffice in
this case.



Oh, ok, good... sorry for how harsh it sounded too, I just didn't want
to see another long thread startup about the project name... ;)
  
Some one suggested changing Writer to Write, I like that.  I would agree 
that Impress is a very poor name for the presentation module, I would 
suggest Present.  It is far more to the point of what it actually is 
for.  I Particularly think Calc is bad because it is too easy to confuse 
with Math.  I think Spread would be better, or even Spreadsheet.  Why be 
obtuse.  I like Draw and Base, they tell precisely what these modules 
actually are, I think Math would be better called Formula, it is much 
more accurately to the point.It has been mentioned that LO is NOT 
OOo, and will be less and less so as time goes on, it would be a good 
idea to change these names by the second actual release (non beta) at 
the latest to help distinguish the two. 


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


Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

2010-12-02 Thread Robert Derman

NoOp wrote:

On 11/30/2010 02:43 AM, plino wrote:
  

The point here is that OOo has a small installer with 140Mb (no Java, and
only English, Spanish and French dictionaries).
Why is LO going in the opposite direction with 299 and 466Mb???

The current packages (including in the smallest option 56 language packs!!!)
makes no sense IMO as I mentioned in this post
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-LibreOffice-tp1954148p1973749.html

I think that an English only version of LibreOffice and then separate
Language Packs (10-40Mb) which include the translation for the interface and
dictionaries, spelling, etc is the best option.




Actually the point that I was trying to make, but apparently you've
snipped all (including attribution as to who you were replying to) is this:

  Those that think including additional bits such as documentation in
any initial download need to consider the impact of both the user and
the download method.

The current download (as has been explained in other threads) is large
due to the added language add-on's. No worries, as the LO is still beta.
However my post was to remind others that downloading an application
such as LO is very much an issue. Whether the download be 100Mb or
300Mb, the result is large for dial-up users.

Another post indicated that dialup users are used to large downloads 
let them run overnight. Fair enough... but it's obvious that that poster
doesn't use dialup. It's analogous to assuming that all users have DVD
readers... I test multiple OS's, multiple open-source programs, and I
just checked; out of 10 systems that I have running, only 4 have DVD
readers, 2 have DVD r/w, and all exept one have floppy drives. BTW: I
live and work in Silicon Valley.

My opinion is to *not* add documentation to the inital download. Instead
reduce the initial download as much as possible, and improve the Help
section to ensure it is correct, and to instruct and or point  a new
user additional documentation.
  
I simply MUST disagree for one simple reason, I just don't think that 
there should be one single take-it-or-leave-it download package!  there 
must be a choice of packages, one without anything extra, and ALSO 
others with certain amounts of extras added.  That way you could find a 
package that is right for your needs and your download capability. 



NoOp, it sounds like a lot of your computers are almost antiques.  I 
tossed the last of my floppy disks in the trash a couple of months ago.  
I am a retired system builder, and I now am down to just 2 computers, 
(from about a dozen at one point) my tower which I built, Athlon 64 bit 
dual core, SATA HD and DVD burner,  and my Toshiba laptop, also Athlon 
64 bit dual core, 320 gig HD and DVD burner. 



I remember that optical disks started to replace floppies in about 1995 
because Win-95 came either way.  Win-98 was CD only.  I will admit that 
DVD burners didn't become affordable until about 2005, but most of what 
I built in 2000 through 2004 had either a CD burner and a DVD read only, 
or from 2003 on combo drives, CD burn, DVD read only.  But my point here 
is that 2004 and older machines are horribly obsolete today, and the 
vast majority of them have been scrapped!  Also most of these old 
clunkers are only found in the more technologically advanced countries, 
because the 3rd world countries didn't start to get computers in any 
significant numbers until after the time of the old floppy based machines. 


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


Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

2010-11-30 Thread Robert Derman

NoOp wrote:

On 11/26/2010 12:16 PM, Robert Derman wrote:
  

Marc Paré wrote:


...
  
Of these two options, I would prefer being offered the menu AFTER 
having downloaded the LO suite. The reason for this: some users may 
find that downloading the suite took a longer than the anticipated 
time and they would not have enough time/patience to download the 
additional items.On the other hand, if the LO suite had taken less 
anticipated time to download, the user may feel it right to download 
the extra items.

Marc
  
Here I really must disagree, I think pretty much everyone knows what 
sort of internet connection they have, and therefore if the downloadable 
packages are plainly labeled as to size in megabytes, (which they 
certainly should be) then they would know what sort of download time is 
involved.  The only real variable here being if the download server is 
overloaded, and if you watch your download speeds you will know if that 
is the case. 



This is not targeted at Robert, but to all suggesting that bundled
documentation downloads be considered. Keep in mind that one of the
targets for OOo/LO et al is locations/countries/users that cannot, or do
not, wish to pay for MS Office. Many of those are still on dialup (even
in the USA).
  
Its difficult to really offer any meaningful suggestions until we get 
beyond the beta stage but once we do, we should really do a better job 
than OOo ever did of making LO available on disk for all those people 
with only dial-up or no internet connection at all.  I understand that 
right now due to a lack of server space the current download package is 
FAR too large.  That problem will of course have to be solved.  Once 
there is enough server space, we should offer a choice of download 
packages, as I have mentioned in previous emails. 



I know that virtually all computers made in the last few years have had 
DVD as opposed to CD optical drives installed.  Actually I think it is 
5-6 years now.  What I am getting at with this is that the LO disk could 
be a DVD disk rather than a CD disk.  Or at least it could be available 
on both kinds of disk.  Anyway, the cost of DVD blanks is not 
significantly more than CD blanks, and a DVD would offer more than 
enough space for everything TDF has to offer. 



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



Re: [tdf-discuss] Survey: Usage of LibreOffice components

2010-11-28 Thread Robert Derman

Robert Holtzman wrote:

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 01:30:32PM -0600, Robert Derman wrote:

...snip

  

I use Writer a minimum of 1 hour every day, weekends included,
probably an average of 3 hours a day.   I don't use any of the other
components at all.  As far as I am concerned, I would like to see a
Writer Only package offered.



Maybe you should use Abiword and dump LO and/or OOo unless there is some
feature of the suites that Abiword lacks. It would free up a lot of disk
space. 
  
I have hundreds of Gigabytes of free disk space!  And as I recall, Abi 
doesn't have word completion.  I forgot to mention I am now on page 40 
of my personal journal and on page 150 of one novel and page 50 of 
another.  I need a powerful word processor, I just don't need a 
spreadsheet, presentation program, drawing program or database.Oh, 
and I don't have LO yet, won't until it gets past beta.


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



Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

2010-11-27 Thread Robert Derman

Marc Paré wrote:

Le 2010-11-26 15:16, Robert Derman a écrit :

Marc Paré wrote:

Le 2010-11-25 14:44, Robert Derman a écrit :

With all the discussion of the size of the download package and the
difficulty of including things like manuals I suddenly realized that
perhaps we are going about this thing entirely wrong! Perhaps what we
should do is offer a CHOICE of several download packages, not just one
take it or leave it package.

A basic download package with just the core LO Office Suite, like what
we have had up to now, and as an alternative, a Complete package
including users manual(s), templates, extensions, clip art, fonts,
anything else that should be in a complete package. Perhaps we could
even offer a Writer Only package without Calc, Draw, Impress, Base, or
Math, and with just a BRIEF users manual for Writer. I suspect that
there may be many home users that just want a word processor and 
aren't

at all interested in the rest of the suite.


Different users have very different internet connections, some are 
still

dial up. Some are DSL, and some are Cable and have huge bandwidth.
Offering only a One-Size-Fits-All package may no longer be the best
idea.


Hi Robert:

Yes this would be ideal. However, this would also impact our
developers and add to their work. I, myself, would favour Barbara's
suggestion of having a link offering the user the to download extra
packages such as manuals. BTW ... I don't believe, at this point, that
the downloading the LibreOffice into different modules (Writer,
Impress, Calc etc) is possible. There has been talk of it but I
believe this would require a rewrite of the code.


Actually this would have NO significant impact on developers workload.
It is a simple matter of creating a set of folders to download rather
than a single one. I haven't used Linux for a while, (it was Lindows, or
perhaps Freespire) anyway even with that, like with Windows, it is a
simple matter of drag and drop. Each downloadable package should be very
plainly labeled as to how many megabytes it contains. (also a listing of
its contents) As far as a Writer only package, that naturally would have
to wait until after a major rewrite of the code, which I understand from
what I have read here on Discuss, is coming. Whether such an option is
ever offered would probably depend on the results of a survey.
Now I know that this would require more space on the download server,
but in this day of 1 terabyte hard drives selling on the internet for
$60.00 US dollars, that is probably not a big deal.

Actually if I had to guess, it would be that 40% to 50% of users only
ever use the Writer module and never use any of the rest of the suite. I
myself am in that group. I am thinking that even for Writer only users
there might be some that want a very minimal package, Just the core
program and perhaps a very short manual, while others might want an
extensive manual and lots of templates, extensions and clip art.


I would have not problem with this. Sounds reasonable. How about if we 
had an installation where it offered the users these choices upfront 
and the same page of offerings would be offered in the Help menu. 
This would make it a familiar page both at the install stage and once 
the user familiarized herself/himself with the programme. We would 
have to find a way to advertise extensions and plugins so that users 
would be aware of their availability.


Marc, I think we are essentially on the same page now.  I should 
probably tell everyone a little about my experience so that you will 
understand my skill levels.  I am a retired system builder.  Over the 
years I have built about a thousand computers, all had M$ operating 
systems installed on them.  I was one of those people who was slow to 
warm to Windows, I always thought that M$ didn't do nearly enough to 
improve DOS.  I only ever built 1 machine with that piece of crap, Vista 
on it. I talked everyone else into having me install XP.  I was never 
able to talk anyone into Linux.  I did however install Linux on a bunch 
of donated machines that I refurbished for donation to non-profits.  
They all got Linspire or Freespire with built in OOo.  And yes, Linspire 
and Freespire were actually easier to install than Win XP.  I probably 
should also mention that once OOo became available, it pre-installed it 
on every computer I built.  I got a lot of thank-yous for that! 



Now as to having a variety of download packages, all would have the 
exact same LO program suite.  the only difference would be in the 
Extras packaged with it.  these would probably all be in a separate 
sub folder.  The Basic package would be only the LO Office Suite 
itself.  Then there could be an intermediate package with a fairly brief 
manual, 200 pages, perhaps the top 10 of extensions and the top 20 
templates, whatever, and a good selection of clip art.  Then finally a 
Complete package with an extensive manual, all popular templates and 
extensions, and an extensive

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.

2010-11-26 Thread Robert Derman

Marc Paré wrote:

Le 2010-11-25 14:44, Robert Derman a écrit :

With all the discussion of the size of the download package and the
difficulty of including things like manuals I suddenly realized that
perhaps we are going about this thing entirely wrong! Perhaps what we
should do is offer a CHOICE of several download packages, not just one
take it or leave it package.

A basic download package with just the core LO Office Suite, like what
we have had up to now, and as an alternative, a Complete package
including users manual(s), templates, extensions, clip art, fonts,
anything else that should be in a complete package. Perhaps we could
even offer a Writer Only package without Calc, Draw, Impress, Base, or
Math, and with just a BRIEF users manual for Writer. I suspect that
there may be many home users that just want a word processor and aren't
at all interested in the rest of the suite.


Different users have very different internet connections, some are still
dial up. Some are DSL, and some are Cable and have huge bandwidth.
Offering only a One-Size-Fits-All package may no longer be the best 
idea.


Hi Robert:

Yes this would be ideal. However, this would also impact our 
developers and add to their work. I, myself, would favour Barbara's 
suggestion of having a link offering the user the to download extra 
packages such as manuals. BTW ... I don't believe, at this point, that 
the downloading the LibreOffice into different modules (Writer, 
Impress, Calc etc) is possible. There has been talk of it but I 
believe this would require a rewrite of the code.


Actually this would have NO significant impact on developers workload.  
It is a simple matter of creating a set of folders to download rather 
than a single one.  I haven't used Linux for a while, (it was Lindows, 
or perhaps Freespire) anyway even with that, like with Windows, it is a 
simple matter of drag and drop.  Each downloadable package should be 
very plainly labeled as to how many megabytes it contains.  (also a 
listing of its contents) As far as a Writer only package, that naturally 
would have to wait until after a major rewrite of the code, which I 
understand from what I have read here on Discuss, is coming.  Whether 
such an option is ever offered would probably depend on the results of a 
survey. 

Now I know that this would require more space on the download server, 
but in this day of 1 terabyte hard drives selling on the internet for 
$60.00 US dollars, that is probably not a big deal.


Actually if I had to guess, it would be that 40% to 50% of users only 
ever use the Writer module and never use any of the rest of the suite.  
I myself am in that group.  I am thinking that even for Writer only 
users there might be some that want a very minimal package, Just the 
core program and perhaps a very short manual, while others might want an 
extensive manual and lots of templates, extensions and clip art. 
There could be a downloading on-site menu PRIOR to downloading the 
suite offering extra downloadable options or a menu in the 
installation routine (AFTER downloading the suite) that would offer 
you a choice of downloading extra items such as the manual.


Of these two options, I would prefer being offered the menu AFTER 
having downloaded the LO suite. The reason for this: some users may 
find that downloading the suite took a longer than the anticipated 
time and they would not have enough time/patience to download the 
additional items.On the other hand, if the LO suite had taken less 
anticipated time to download, the user may feel it right to download 
the extra items.

Marc
Here I really must disagree, I think pretty much everyone knows what 
sort of internet connection they have, and therefore if the downloadable 
packages are plainly labeled as to size in megabytes, (which they 
certainly should be) then they would know what sort of download time is 
involved.  The only real variable here being if the download server is 
overloaded, and if you watch your download speeds you will know if that 
is the case. 



There should probably be a couple of download packages offered for those 
that downloaded a basic package and later wished that they had 
downloaded more. 






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



Re: [tdf-discuss] A better idea for a download package.

2010-11-25 Thread Robert Derman
With all the discussion of the size of the download package and the 
difficulty of including things like manuals I suddenly realized that 
perhaps we are going about this thing entirely wrong!  Perhaps what we 
should do is offer a CHOICE of several download packages, not just one 
take it or leave it package. 



 A basic download package with just the core LO Office Suite, like what 
we have had up to now, and as an alternative, a Complete package 
including users manual(s), templates, extensions, clip art, fonts, 
anything else that should be in a complete package.  Perhaps we could 
even offer a Writer Only package without Calc, Draw, Impress, Base, or 
Math, and with just a BRIEF users manual for Writer.  I suspect that 
there may be many home users that just want a word processor and aren't 
at all interested in the rest of the suite.



Different users have very different internet connections, some are still 
dial up.  Some are DSL, and some are Cable and have huge bandwidth.   
Offering only a One-Size-Fits-All package may no longer be the best idea. 


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



Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A proposal for effective, volunteer-friendly user support in LibreOffice

2010-11-23 Thread Robert Derman

Marc Paré wrote:

Le 2010-11-23 15:36, Robert Derman a écrit :


I have said this in the OOo discuss list, and I think it bears repeating
here. One of the biggest problems causing the need for users especially
new ones to need help is the lack of a good users manual. The OOo
documentation site is very confusing, there are too many manuals to
choose from and nothing says anything like If you are a new user, this
is the one you want. I could be wrong in this, but I don't think that I
am. The only module I ever use with any regularity is Writer. If I can
figure out how to use it, I might use Calc for a personal check
register, likewise I might use Base for a list of all my DVD collection,
but it's Writer that I use daily. I suspect that I am fairly typical in
this, and that perhaps 50% or more of OOo, and now LO users use Writer
far more than they use the other applications. A survey might tell us if
that is so.


Assuming that it is, I think the primary users manual should focus on
Writer, with just one chapter on each of the other modules, and a
pointer to where to download a more extensive manual on each. Where I
disagree with most who write in, is that I think that a basic manual
like I describe *should be in the download package*. In order to keep it
small for that reason, it should be in ODF format not PDF, and it should
be formatted for an 8.5x11 page rather than the usual 5x7 so that it
would be practical for the user to print out without the horrendous
paper waste of the 5x7 format. (Remember all printer paper comes in
8.5x11 or similar) Also keeping it to 100 pages or less will both keep
the download size down, and encourage users to actually print a hard
copy. (a hard copy is very useful because you can read in the manual
while using the software) I find help often less than helpful simply
because it can be difficult to both read how to do a thing and
simultaneously do it. I recognize that a much longer and more detailed
manual is required to completely cover subjects like Styles, but for all
beginners, and most other users a manual like I just described is what's
needed. Probably organized with an introduction to the most used
commands, then a tutorial, then a reference section.

This could be one thing that would set LO apart from other packages that
offer good word processors, Even expensive MS basically sucks in the
area of manuals and user support. Years ago they used to be much better
in this area. Good user support seems to be the first thing that for
profit companies give up when they think they can get away with it. Now
it is time for me to climb down off of my soapbox Robert Derman



Hi Robert. This could probably be easily done. However, adding it to 
the download may not be a good idea as some of us (there are qutie a 
few) are already worried about the size of the download. Maybe make 
advertising of the download a little more obvious would be the 
solution. Then the user would only have to download the manual at that 
point. I will leave a note to the documentation team and se what they 
think of this. I'm sure they will come back with usefull information.


Cheers

Marc
Perhaps we should make more of an effort than OOo did of making LO 
available on disk as an alternative to downloads.  An on disk version 
could include more documentation as well as many, most, or perhaps all 
templates and extensions.  a CD provides about 700 MB of space which is 
really a lot, and a DVDs 4.5 gig is almost unlimited compared to the 
size of what we have to offer.



Perhaps there could be a way for people to use credit card or Pay Pal 
to order a disk at a price that would help support TDF and yet be fairly 
reasonable.   I think expecting others to provide this was a mistake 
with OOo, because most sold the disk at an excessive price, usually 
renaming the package so that people wouldn't realize that they were 
actually being ripped off.


I am a subscriber to NetFlix and the DVD disks that they send me are 
shipped in a simple paper envelope and Tyvek sleeve so I know that fancy 
padded packages are not required, so disks could be shipped as regular 
world wide first class mail.  I believe that this is certainly something 
to think about. 


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



Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A proposal for effective, volunteer-friendly user support in LibreOffice

2010-11-23 Thread Robert Derman

Andy Brown wrote:

On Tue Nov 23 2010 12:36:35 GMT-0800 (PST)  Robert Derman wrote:

Assuming that it is, I think the primary users manual should focus on 
Writer, with just one chapter on each of the other modules, and a 
pointer to where to download a more extensive manual on each.  Where 
I disagree with most who write in, is that I think that a basic 
manual like I describe *should be in the download package*.  In order 
to keep it small for that reason, it should be in ODF format not PDF, 
and it should be formatted for an 8.5x11 page rather than the usual 
5x7 so that it would be practical for the user to print out without 
the horrendous paper waste of the 5x7 format.  (Remember all printer 
paper comes in 8.5x11 or similar) Also keeping it to 100 pages or 
less will both keep the download size down, and encourage users to 
actually print a hard copy.  (a hard copy is very useful because you 
can read in the manual while using the software) I find help often 
less than helpful simply because it can be difficult to both read how 
to do a thing and simultaneously do it.I recognize that a much 
longer and more detailed manual is required to completely cover 
subjects like Styles, but for all beginners, and most other users a 
manual like I just described is what's needed.  Probably organized 
with an introduction to the most used commands, then a tutorial, then 
a reference section.


There are two of your points I would like to comment on.

First, use ODF instead of PDF.  If a person wishes to view the 
installation part of the document before they install the software 
then they are out of luck.


Second, where do you get the idea that the documents are formated to 
5x7 paper size?  None of the documents I have seen have been formated 
for that size paper.  All the docs from the OOoAuthors site are in 
fact formated for paper size A4.  The PDFs can be printed two-up on 
8.5x11 paper.


Andy
On your first point I agree with you, the installation instructions 
should be in PDF for the reason you state.  I do know however that ODF 
if far more economical of file size than PDF, I have noticed that on 
documents that I have written with Writer and then output as PDFs. 

As far as 5x7 that is a guesstimation.  What I do know for sure is that 
when I print manuals out there are usually hugely wasteful margins at 
all 4 sides when they are printed on 8.5x11 inch paper which is the only 
size commonly available in the U.S.  I actually resent the authors 
forcing me to waste this much paper!


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



Re: [tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?

2010-11-22 Thread Robert Derman

jonathon wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 11/21/2010 09:15 PM, James Wilde wrote:

  

...and?  Is LibO going to upgrade the version number every time OOo does?  And 
only then?



Unless there is a compatibility tag for extensions, the way that there
is for firefox, LibO is stuck with the version numbering that OOo uses,
if it wants to retain compatibility with those extensions.

jonathon
  
Wouldn't it be better to rewrite the extensions and post the revised 
extensions on a LO website?


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



Re: [tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?

2010-11-19 Thread Robert Derman

Sean White wrote:

As a concerned user, if LibreOffice is meant a independent office project
derived from the OpenOffice code then why do we still use their version
numbering system.  Wouldn't it be better to start from 1 to reinforce in
peoples minds that we are a separate project.
  
I couldn't agree more.  As a new project it should have its own 
numbering scheme.


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



Re: [tdf-discuss] Suggestion to expand user base: enable screenplay formatting with LibreOffice

2010-11-14 Thread Robert Derman

Alan C. Baird wrote:

Proposal for significantly enlarging LibreOffice's user base with 
Screenwright(R)

14 November 2010 by Alan C. Baird, prizewinning writer and creator of the
Screenwright(R) screenplay formatter [winner of the Sun/OOo CIP award]

http://w.9TimeZones.com/avails.htm
http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/project/scr2
http://development.openoffice.org/awardees-2008.html

Executive Summary: enable screenplay formatting in LibreOffice to distinguish 
it from OpenOffice.

Pitch: Every aspiring screenwriter has a movie in his/her head that needs to 
get down on paper. However, some film production companies won't accept a 
script submission if the formatting is even ONE POSITION off! So ensuring that 
screenplays are formatted correctly is an obsession of screenwriters 
everywhere. But formatting a script can be an expensive proposition; 78 
commercial formatters are listed at The Writers Store. A screenwriter could 
easily spend $200 or more on software, just to get a screenplay into acceptable 
shape.

UNLESS s/he uses LibreOffice in conjunction with the Screenwright(R) screenplay 
formatting template.

We all want our scripts to be eligible for the next multimillion-dollar spec auction, so some of us even 
carry our latest screenplays in our glove compartments, on the off-chance that we might meet someone who can 
help. In the movie Monster In A Box, Spalding Gray talks about one of his trips to Los Angeles: 
«I had no idea how difficult it would be to find people not involved in the film industry until I got out 
there and saw a special on television - in which they were interviewing people in the parking lot of a Shop 
Rite supermarket. As people came out with their groceries, the interviewer would go up to them and say, 
Hi there, good morning! Tell us, how's your film script going? And everyone said, What?! 
How did you know? Right up to the cashier.»

If the Screenwright(R) screenplay formatting template can be included as an 
integral part of the upcoming LibreOffice release, it will send a clear 
signal--to filmmakers in particular and to the Entertainment sector in 
general--that LibreOffice is ready to address the industry's unique 
text-processing and -formatting needs. News travels fast among members of the 
Entertainment industry, and they tend to be the gatekeepers and style leaders 
for the culture at large.

Historical context: OOo Writer is the first (and for now, the only) 
full-featured word processor that will easily format a screenplay at no cost 
whatsoever. But it requires a template download and installation. If 
LibreOffice wants to capitalize on this unique opportunity, the template could 
be integrated in the upcoming LibreOffice release.

Alan C. Baird
Mesa, Arizona USA
acba...@yahoo.com
I remember mentioning in a recent email that I thought that with its 
corporate leaning OOo might end up tailored for lawyers and accountants 
and LO would end up being oriented to screenwriters, novelists, 
musicians/composers.  In other words LO would become the darling of the 
artistic community.  Unless I am mistaken, and in this case I don't 
think I am, most of the people in the artistic community don't have a 
lot of money to throw at obtaining tools for their craft.  I myself am 
writing two novels and a daily journal at this time using this full size 
laptop and a copy of OOo.  If LO were to become the tool of choice for 
the artistic community, this would likely greatly increase its 
visibility to the general public, (most people I mention OpenOffice to 
have never heard of it) do to frequent mention in the media which tends 
to pay a great deal of attention to the artistic community.  I could be 
wrong in this, as I am not an expert in such things, but I suspect that 
a template/and/or extension for Draw might make it able to do musical 
notation very conveniently.  If this were the case, I can imagine it 
getting a huge amount of press coverage!




I will upgrade to LO as soon as a version not designated as beta becomes 
available.  And someone can promise me that my spell check dictionary to 
which I have added well over a thousand compound words can be 
transferred to it.   



The OOo spell check dictionary has far too few compound words in it.   
For an example, it will have rain, and barrel, but not rainbarrel.   
Literally thousands of compound words need to be added to the spell 
check dictionary.



I have heard many people complain about the word completion feature, and 
ask how to turn it off, however for the writing of most prose it is a 
very useful tool, but with a couple of small changes it could be MUCH 
better.  For instance, have an option where it will not gather any 
string containing anything but the 26 lower case letters and ' the 
apostrophe.  (English)  Chapter headings are often in all upper case, 
and this becomes a nuisance when it offers words in all upper case.  Or 
the option to lock in a 

Re: [tdf-discuss] Updates overwriting User settings

2010-11-12 Thread Robert Derman

jonathon wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 11/11/2010 09:15 PM, Robert Derman wrote:

  

I have had to enter well over 1000 compound words into the dictionary,



If you did that as a user-created dictionary, it should be in
/user/3/wordbook, and as such, can be copied over when you install a new
version of the program.

jonathon
  
These words were entered into the spell check pop up menu.  If that 
creates a user created dictionary, then yes. 


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



Re: [tdf-discuss] Updates overwriting User settings

2010-11-11 Thread Robert Derman

frazelle09 wrote:

i don't know if this is the correct forum for this but -- well first of all
-- good luck to all those who are participating and developing and helping! 
This project needs to be a success!


And, we are using PCLinuxOS 2010 and they are using GOoo to install OOo.  i
understand that Goo will be changing to something else, which will then be
downloading and installing LibO which i am excited about seeing.  However,
at least under the old regime, every time OOo was updated, the update would
overwrite all of my User settings and i was hoping that this would no longer
be the case.  i hope that this is the correct forum for this  suggestion,
but if not, please redirect me.

Have a great evening and again, thanks for all your hard work so far!
  
This is why I don't update my fairly old copy of OOo.  In my case I ran 
into the problem of poor support for compound words in the spellcheck 
dictionary.  I have had to enter well over 1000 compound words into the 
dictionary, and for that reason I really don't feel like having to start 
over.  I know many commercial programs have this fault as well, a good 
example is the Apple iTunes program which does a complete download and 
replacement for every version, which is why I won't let it update until 
a major version change, (when the number in column 1 changes.)


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



Re: [tdf-discuss] Clear separation between frontend and backend?

2010-11-06 Thread Robert Derman

Lee Hyde wrote:

Greetings All,

I'm just a humble end user, and frankly I have little-to-no knowledge of
software development but I was wondering whether there is a clear
separation between frontend and backend with LibreOffice. Such that it
would make it easy to essentially 'slot-in' a replacement GUI.

As I say, I'm not familiar with software development in general much
less the specifics of OOo/LibO but it seems to the that one of the
better ways to encourage innovation is to make it easy for people to
'hack' on individual modules and in particular the GUI (which is in dire
need of modernisation and optimisation in my humble opinion). If
'hacking' a new GUI onto OOo/Lib (a'la IBM Lotus Symphony) at the moment
is non-trivial it will hinder innovation in the form of specialist forks
(which could be very useful for the mother project) and/or experimental
UI (which are clearly intended to showcase innovative ideas to see if
they could or should be merged into the mother project).
By specialist forks, does that mean like a special version for lawyers 
that does pleading forms, or a special version for screenwriters that 
has special enhancement for doing scripts, that sort of thing? 


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



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

2010-11-04 Thread Robert Derman

Sebastian Spaeth wrote:

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 20:55:19 +0100, Johannes Bausch wrote:
  

things concerning tables. We absolutely HAVE to make the user use the
stylesheet stuff, and it must be so easy that they start to use it on
one-paged documents.



Removing the font chooser, and font-size selector would save lots of
space that could be replaced with a simple style chooser :)
  
Here I have to disagree, non power users are much more likely to use the 
font chooser and size selector than they are to have anything at all to 
do with styles.


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



Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: x86_64 Windows build

2010-11-04 Thread Robert Derman

e-letter wrote:

In terms of priorities, making LO the default for mobile (e.g.
android) is more important than windoze.
  
How quickly things change in the world of electronics.  It wasn't that 
long ago, that phones were one thing, and computers quite another. 


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



Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: x86_64 Windows build

2010-11-04 Thread Robert Derman

Robert Derman wrote:

Peter Rodwell wrote:

Quoting T. J. Brumfield:

However, in developing countries Android tablets may be the most 
accessible
and affordable computing platform of the future. It shouldn't be 
ignored.


Agreed -- it certainly shouldn't be ignored, I just think that giving it
priority over Windows is ridiculous, is all.

 Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. Next should be platforms of the future.

Exactly!
Oops!  I deleted the letter I was going to reply to which was on the 
UI thread, but this thread is almost as on topic to what I intended to 
say so I will stick it onto this one.First thing, the font 
selector has been where it is for so long, that I think it would be a 
serious mistake to mess with it.  From the very first WISIWIG word 
processors it has been at about that spot, and has worked about the 
way it does now.  My first Windows WP was not MS Word, or even Word 
Perfect, it was a program that few people today even remember, 
WordStar.People just expect some of the most basic things in a WP 
program to be where they have always been, and it is unwise to change 
them without a truly compelling reason.





I suspect that the actual typical user of OOo/LO is a home user, who 
uses it because they could not afford MS Word, or at least could not 
justify the cost of it for home use.  Most of the documents created 
with Writer are probably not screenplays, legal pleadings, or 
technical manuals, but rather have file names like, Xmas Newsletr 10, 
or Letr to Aunt Joan, or Garagesalesign.  The database is probably 
used most for things like keeping track of record or DVD collections, 
or membership lists for clubs or fraternal organizations.  Little kids 
use Draw for a coloring book.  Elementary  school kids use Writer for 
their school papers, ones that have to be turned in as hard copy.  If 
I had to guess, it would be that the single most common use for the 
spreadsheet is to do check registers for personal checking accounts.





I would also guess that many of the businesses that use OOo/LO do so 
because someone in management used the program at home and liked it.  
Power user features and capabilities certainly lead to corporate and 
government use of the suite, but basic ease of use for simple things 
is what gets people to try it in the first place.  





I could be wrong about this, but what I suspect, is that nothing else 
could promote the popularity of LO more than having a good users 
manual in the download package.  Despite the truth of the old saying 
When all else fails, read the manual.  A lot of users like to read a 
good manual to find out what else they could do with a program that 
they aren't doing now.  Also I would recommend formatting the manual 
for 8.5x11 rather than the usual 5x7 so that if the users want a hard 
copy it won't result in the usual horrible amount of paper waste that 
you get with 5x7 formats.  For example being able to get the whole 
thing onto 60 pages rather than needing 100.  Or perhaps format both 
ways, 5x7 for on screen, and 8.5x11 for printing.  Help functions are 
OK as far as it goes, but many times you need a hard copy so that you 
can read how to do a thing while actually doing it.





Many times I see the question, how can we be better than Microsoft, 
this is one place where this would be easy.  In recent years MS has 
declined badly in user support, especially in the area of user 
manuals.  They may do all right with the Fortune 500, but with small 
business, to say nothing of home users, frankly they suck!  They have 
also gotten sloppy with little details about how their software works, 
one thing I have noticed, Win 7 files incorrectly, files with numeral 
titles, as an example, the following files 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5  end up 
filed in the following order 6.5, 6, 7.5, 7  We all know that this is 
idiotic and WRONG!  My point is that it shouldn't be that hard to put 
out a product that people perceive as better than such junk.  Time for 
me to get off of my soapbox now.  Robert Derman


Either my email program, or something along the way really messed up the 
formatting of this email, running all the paragraphs together.  so I 
added several more C.R. between each paragraph and I will send it again 
and see if that fixes it.



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



Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

2010-11-02 Thread Robert Derman

T. J. Brumfield wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

2010-11-02 Thread Robert Derman

Peter Rodwell wrote:

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

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

instead of switching to OO/LO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just my €0.02 worth.

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


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


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



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

2010-11-02 Thread Robert Derman

T. J. Brumfield wrote:

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

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

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


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



Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Compiling in Windows

2010-10-31 Thread Robert Derman

plino wrote:

All the developers agree that we should use open source compilers, and
this will happen. But it's not ready for production yet, so probably
the next few versions for Windows will still be using the Microsoft
compilers. It depends on how many people volunteer to work on that.



Thank you for your answer.

I'm looking forward to a new official build of LO and look forward to the
setup of a bug and a feature request tracker.

Cheers!

It would be wonderful to have a bug and feature request tracker that is 
more user friendly than that which was used with OOo.  I gave up using 
it because it was so awful.



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



Re: [tdf-discuss] UI proposal

2010-10-30 Thread Robert Derman

Carlos Martinez wrote:



Robert Derman skrev 2010-10-29 21:59:

Jussi Silvonen wrote:

2010/10/29 RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com


Writer have a good tradition of tools that helps the build of complex
documents (styles, styles and more styles!).
What I would like to see instead of more direct formatting tools, is a
redesign of the way styles are defined to easy the learning curve of
new users.
I may be odd in this but at times all the beautiful automation in 
Styles just seems to get in the way!  I would like to see Writer add 
a Typewriter Mode that turns off ALL the automation of Styles and 
lets you do a totally manual formatted document.  Is there anyone 
else that agrees with me on this? 



Hi, if you open the Help document (e.g. in Writer) and look after  
Manual or automatic formating  you could fine how to write a ducument 
as if you are using a typerwriter

 My best  regards Carlos
Well, I guess I have now run afoul of the asked for a feature that was 
already there thing.  I have seen this so often over the years that it 
tells me that we probably should have a copy of a users manual that is 
part of the download package and something very obvious just after 
install that leads users to it.  OOo/LO is certainly not alone in this, 
most commercial/proprietary software today is equally remiss in this 
area, even MS Windows 7 itself is sorely lacking in the area of a users 
manual.  After a lot of Googling I finally did manage to find and 
download one.  Thing is it should have been on the MS Win 7 upgrade 
disk, and it should have been preloaded on this laptop when I bought it. 

Actually the fact that even the mighty Microsoft sucks in this area 
should give us an incentive to do better than them, or is it they? 
Whatever, perhaps we could get one of the people who wrote good users 
manuals for OOo to contribute one to be placed in the download package.  
I seem to remember a very good one by a lady by the name of Solveg as an 
example of what I mean.


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



Re: [tdf-discuss] UI proposal

2010-10-29 Thread Robert Derman

Jussi Silvonen wrote:

2010/10/29 RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com


Writer have a good tradition of tools that helps the build of complex
documents (styles, styles and more styles!).
What I would like to see instead of more direct formatting tools, is a
redesign of the way styles are defined to easy the learning curve of
new users.
I may be odd in this but at times all the beautiful automation in Styles 
just seems to get in the way!  I would like to see Writer add a 
Typewriter Mode that turns off ALL the automation of Styles and lets 
you do a totally manual formatted document.  Is there anyone else that 
agrees with me on this? 


--
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 ***