Re: [tdf-discuss] Help vendor-lock-in awareness

2013-02-13 Thread e-letter
On 07/02/2013, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
 I generally advise people to send me PDFs rather than editable documents
 unless there's a real need for me to edit them. That way there's no risk
 anyone will get locked-in to anything :-)

 If I *do* need to be able to edit I request Hybrid PDF files, which are
 PDFs with the original ODF source embedded. They are easy to make with
 LibreOffice and I've created a tutorial here:
 http://webmink.com/2012/05/07/making-hybrid-pdfs/


No such import filters by default in LO35413.

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

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


Re: [tdf-discuss] Status of .docX etc.

2011-12-14 Thread e-letter
On 13/12/2011, Harold Fuchs hwfa.gmanen...@gmail.com wrote:
 Would someone please either explain or point me at a detailed explanation of
 the current status of  LO vis à vis the new MS office document formats
 docx, xlsx etc.


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

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

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

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


Re: [tdf-discuss] ODF and HTML 5

2011-10-04 Thread e-letter
Having become a fan of the flat xml format, this option in LO seems
most interesting and viable.

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

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

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

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


[tdf-discuss] feature request help, styles management

2011-09-20 Thread e-letter
Readers,

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

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

Thanks.

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


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

2011-09-04 Thread e-letter
On 02/09/2011, M Robinson mr.m.robin...@gmail.com wrote:
 LibreOffice 3.4.0
 OOO340m1 (Build:12)

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


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

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


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

2011-09-04 Thread e-letter
On 04/09/2011, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
 Hi e-letter,

 e-letter wrote (04-09-11 10:31)

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

 Sorry, but I am not so happy with your post.
 Not only does it not help the poster with his question, it also breathes
 a negative attitude towards Microsoft. Which may be your or any ones
 personal choice, but is not the tone I would like to see promoted here.


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

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


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

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

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

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


[tdf-discuss] feature expansion or bug minimisation?

2011-08-11 Thread e-letter
Readers,

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

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

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


Re: [tdf-discuss] [Calc] Feature Request - charts : error bars + broken axes

2011-08-10 Thread e-letter
You can achieve these tasks using gnuplot

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


Re: [tdf-discuss] More statistics

2011-08-06 Thread e-letter
On 05/08/2011, Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com wrote:
 Sorry for top posting, writing from the smartphone. We will be improving the
 statistics, but do not expect anything before the conference in Paris (where
 we will make a specific presentation).


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

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


Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

2011-07-30 Thread e-letter
On 23/07/2011, Mark Preston m...@mpreston.demon.co.uk wrote:
 Look, lets be honest about this - Microsoft has by far the largest
 proportion of legacy documents out there and there is no way that
 people can manage without access to those documents. Apart from
 anything else, the law will require them to be kept and available if
 needed for any future investigations.

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

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


Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

2011-07-30 Thread e-letter
On 27/07/2011, Fernand Vanrie s...@pmgroup.be wrote:
   Andrew , Others

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


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

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


Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

2011-07-30 Thread e-letter
This topic has revealed the following personal observations.

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

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

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


Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

2011-07-24 Thread e-letter
On 22/07/2011, Christophe Strobbe christophe.stro...@esat.kuleuven.be wrote:

 At 02:33 21-7-2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
On 07/20/2011 05:02 PM, e-letter wrote:
  On the users mailing list, a significant proportion of a random view
  of questions seems to be with relation to using LO is some way with m$
  document formats.
  (...)

I might also conclude that there is NO reason to support any other
file format either. I mean, really, why should I support a non-ODF
format? PDF generation? Remove it! (...)

 Please don't remove PDF generation. That would be the end of the only
 free and open-source PDF generator that produces tagged PDF, which
 is a requirement for accessibility.


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

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


Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

2011-07-24 Thread e-letter
On 22/07/2011, Gordon Burgess-Parker gbpli...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 22/07/2011 15:24, e-letter wrote:

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

 True to a certain point. But you can't ignore the fact that 90-95% of
 Office suite users USE MS! They aren't going to be persuaded to migrate
 to LO or even OO if when they are sent documents created by MSO, they
 don't render properly in LO.

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

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


Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

2011-07-24 Thread e-letter
On 23/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org wrote:
 On 07/22/2011 10:24 AM, e-letter wrote:
 On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyakand...@pitonyak.org  wrote:
 On 07/21/2011 08:47 AM, e-letter wrote:
 On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyakand...@pitonyak.org   wrote
 I am more comfortable in OOo than I am in MSO, so, I have created many
 MSO deliverables in OOo and LO. The only time that I make an exception
 is when I believe that I am not able to seamlessly move between formats
 because of incompatibilities. So, if I intend to create a large
 document
 with multiple images, links, and fields, I begin and end with MSO.

 That is your prerogative, but it is preferable to see writer used to
 create such large documents in the native odt format, at least to
 demonstrate the power of LO.
 The problem is that the final deliverable to the client is an MSO
 document and the complicated structures that I frequently use do not
 properly export to the MSO document format. It is very time consuming to
 work through a 250 page document full of cross-references and text
 frames that do NOT export to the format required by the client. I lost
 many hours fixing up the document in MSO so that it would be ready for
 final delivery.

 In my opinion interoperability with the _m$ format_ weakens increased
 adoption of the odf. At the start of a 250 page document, ideally the
 decision should be made to use odt and the issue become ensuring that
 LO behaviour in native odt format occurs with minimal bugs. This
 experience alone should promote wider adoption of LO. The claim to
 offer (or attain to) perfect interoperability with the _m$ format_
 leads to time wasted trying to get LO to work with m$. If the end
 requirement is m$, pay to use m$.

 If anything, this experience means that LO is less likely to be used
 because if there is a change in requirements and I must generate and
 deliver an MSO document, then I had better not be using LO if the
 document will be sufficiently complex that it will not export well.


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

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


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

 To date, I have seen only one client that requested that an ODF document
 be the final deliverable. As they went around the table trying to figure
 out what experience the large team had with OOo, the best that was there
 was yeah, heard about it, never used it.

 LO does not have sufficient penetration to play like MS to force users
 into staying with LO.

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

 The
 point of the original post, is that priority should be for LO
 performance in native odf to be better than m$o performance in native
 m$ format (or indeed secondary odf).

 Oh! Ummm, yeah. I think that I was just hit in the head with something
 important and logical. :-)

 It does not seem right that
 people complain that writer does not save to m$ format well, when
 the statement writer creates beautiful, easily-created odf documents
 should be the main reason to use LO.
 Let me add to your statement, because much of it is VERY important.

 1. Many people find the LO interface more intuitive, easy, and obvious
 to use than learning the new MSO interface.


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

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


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

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


Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

2011-07-22 Thread e-letter
On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org wrote:
 On 07/21/2011 08:47 AM, e-letter wrote:
 On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyakand...@pitonyak.org  wrote
 I am more comfortable in OOo than I am in MSO, so, I have created many
 MSO deliverables in OOo and LO. The only time that I make an exception
 is when I believe that I am not able to seamlessly move between formats
 because of incompatibilities. So, if I intend to create a large document
 with multiple images, links, and fields, I begin and end with MSO.

 That is your prerogative, but it is preferable to see writer used to
 create such large documents in the native odt format, at least to
 demonstrate the power of LO.

 The problem is that the final deliverable to the client is an MSO
 document and the complicated structures that I frequently use do not
 properly export to the MSO document format. It is very time consuming to
 work through a 250 page document full of cross-references and text
 frames that do NOT export to the format required by the client. I lost
 many hours fixing up the document in MSO so that it would be ready for
 final delivery.


In my opinion interoperability with the _m$ format_ weakens increased
adoption of the odf. At the start of a 250 page document, ideally the
decision should be made to use odt and the issue become ensuring that
LO behaviour in native odt format occurs with minimal bugs. This
experience alone should promote wider adoption of LO. The claim to
offer (or attain to) perfect interoperability with the _m$ format_
leads to time wasted trying to get LO to work with m$. If the end
requirement is m$, pay to use m$.
 Suppose a user wrote to a m$ forum to
 complain that m$word cannot create a good document in odt format. A
 likely response would be to go and use LO (or another odf compliant
 program)!

 MSO is able to create a nice document. Certainly there are constructs
 that I use in my ODT files that are not easily supported in MSO (say
 items related to page styles), but things that are supported by both do
 not always carry over.


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

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


Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

2011-07-22 Thread e-letter
On 21/07/2011, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
 Yes, don't confuse ODF compatibility with OpenOffice.org (or LibreOffice)
 compatibility.  I was in the room on one occasion when Microsoft was asking
 for advice on their approach to ODF 1.1 Spreadsheet documents.

 Unfortunately, none of us blinked about how this would work for users who
 are unaware that ODF 1.1 has no standard for calculation formulas but think
 that OpenOffice.org Calc is the standard.

 I don't believe that ODF support was broken.  The ODF support in Office
 2007 is the first time that integrated ODF support appeared in Microsoft
 Office.  I know there are bugs, some of them rather
 surprising/disappointing.


Or deliberate..?

  - Dennis

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


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

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

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

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


Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

2011-07-21 Thread e-letter
On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org wrote:

 I might also conclude that there is NO reason to support any other file
 format either. I mean, really, why should I support a non-ODF format?
 PDF generation? Remove it! Any other office file format? Remove it! Why
 single out file formats associated with MS?


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

 I am more comfortable in OOo than I am in MSO, so, I have created many
 MSO deliverables in OOo and LO. The only time that I make an exception
 is when I believe that I am not able to seamlessly move between formats
 because of incompatibilities. So, if I intend to create a large document
 with multiple images, links, and fields, I begin and end with MSO.

That is your prerogative, but it is preferable to see writer used to
create such large documents in the native odt format, at least to
demonstrate the power of LO. Suppose a user wrote to a m$ forum to
complain that m$word cannot create a good document in odt format. A
likely response would be to go and use LO (or another odf compliant
program)!

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

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

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


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

 I download numerous MSO files from numerous sources. if LO is not able
 to read these files, well, then I need to purchase MSO (and a Windows
 computer) so that I can read them.

 Do you ever have reason to open an MSO file? Ever try to send an ODF
 file to a neighborhood or club mailing list? I receive the same reaction
 as when someone sends out a MS Publisher file that is not supported
 outside of MS Publisher. Hey, what is that file that I cannot open?


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

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


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

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


[tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

2011-07-20 Thread e-letter
On the users mailing list, a significant proportion of a random view
of questions seems to be with relation to using LO is some way with m$
document formats.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

2011-07-05 Thread e-letter
As far as the request for the ability to download individual
components of LO, this should not be enabled. The whole concept of the
predecessor staroffice product was to provide various functionalities
in terms of word-processing, spreadsheets, drawing, etc. and this
should be continued.

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

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


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

2011-06-05 Thread e-letter
DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware
of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL
product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming
imminent in apache OO, they can make a proposal for a similar feature
to be copied/improved in LO. The analogy is opera introducing tabbed
web pages in a browser and firefox later introducing the same
function.

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

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

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


Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Oracle contributes OOo Code to Apache Software Foundation'sIncubator

2011-06-03 Thread e-letter
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
From: Harold Fuchs hwfa.libreoff...@gmail.com
Subject: [tdf-discuss] Re: Oracle contributes OOo Code to Apache Software
   Foundation'sIncubator
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:30:55 +0100
Lines: 44
Message-ID: isa9ko$p1i$1...@dough.gmane.org
References: 
is5oge$u73$1...@dough.gmane.orgBANLkTimkfoDkoB5X9R6xfU=08pavg51...@mail.gmail.com4de877cb.4010...@nouenoff.nlbanlktingjandp8snbesxxaewjcz3wqp...@mail.gmail.com
   1307086982610-3018856.p...@n3.nabble.com
X-Complaints-To: use...@dough.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: wolfeden.demon.co.uk
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090
Archived-At: http://go.mail-archive.com/v2Te-OvK-n2AXfcaH1TnsB07g60=
Reply-To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Errors-To: postmas...@documentfoundation.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: discuss.documentfoundation.org
List-Unsubscribe: mailto:discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List-Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
List-Post: mailto:discuss@documentfoundation.org
List-Help: mailto:discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List-Subscribe: mailto:discuss+subscr...@documentfoundation.org
List-Owner: mailto:postmas...@documentfoundation.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
   reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


plino pedl...@gmail.com wrote in message =

news:1307086982610-3018856.p...@n3.nabble.com...
 As a user I wouldn't be happy IF the devs split up between two projects.

 The way I see it is IBM and maybe some Oracle devs will work on OOo and
 everybody else will work on LO...

 The good part (besides the Apache license which allows LO to use what =

 little
 code will be openly contributed to OOo) is that IBM will continue to =

 develop
 ODF, which badly needs it.

 I find it a little absurd that the people behind a file format that has =

 been
 under development for years haven't implemented font embedding... Of =

 course,
 fonts are not important for serious business companies :)

 --
 View this message in context: =

 http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Oracle-contributes-OOo-Code-to-Apach=
e-Software-Foundation-s-Incubator-tp3011527p3018856.html
 Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


The LO folk left the OOo group because OOo was, in their opinion, going to =

be over-controlled (by Oracle). Now that this is no longer true, the LO fol=
k =

don't have a case and should return to the fold. So, why don't the LO folk =

do a deal with Apache, combine the best bits of OOo with LO to get back to =
a =

single product and form jointly with the Apache folk an LO Foundation. =

It seems completely crazy to have two sets of developers and two sets of =

code. All that does is sow FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) in the minds o=
f =

potential users.


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

Oh, and by the way, get rid of the asinine name LibreOffice which half th=
e =

world can't pronounce and which three quarters of the world doesn't =

understand the meaning of.


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

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


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

2011-05-28 Thread e-letter
A hyperlink to gnuplot was provided
(http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.graphics.gnuplot.user/5655) but
as originally stated, how this would help is not understood.

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


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

2011-05-27 Thread e-letter
This message sent previously failed to be accepted my the mail server;
being resent in two parts. Part one of two

On 26/05/2011, e-letter inp...@gmail.com wrote:
e-letter schrieb:

A link would not show the behaviour;

Thanks for your estimation. My intention was rather to have easy access
to information of that list and to an example where Your answer really
worked.

 See http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.graphics.gnuplot.user/5655,
 but this does not show anything.

As I spend enough time investigating Your problem
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.test
I hoped to save the time of searching myself..

would be better to subscribe to gnuplot mailing list digest mode.

A link where to do so was really great - allthough not helpful *for me*
as I don't have gmail running and I don't intend to do so.

When the 'reply' function is activated in gmail web-mail interface, the
mail message format is retained.

As told, I would like to see a succesful example of an answer sent by
You if You make possible to provide a link.

By the way:
As workaround to send proper answers is ordering the desired mail
sending a mail to:
discuss+ge...@documentfoundation.org where N is the number of that
mail provided with the digest.


 This does not seem to be an acceptable alternative method. The user
 would reply, change manually the recipient e-mail address and then
 wait for a response from the servers.

Additionally You're hereby invited to subscribe to
test+subscribe-dig...@documentfoundation.org
where we try to solve Your problem. We need your experience with digest
handling and your testing skills. ;o))

 Subscription has been enabled.

 Below is copy of the digest mode message received


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


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

2011-05-27 Thread e-letter
Still blocked;


 Below is copy of the digest mode message received


 Delivered-To: inp...@gmail.com
 Received: by 10.216.54.85 with SMTP id h63cs4144wec;
 Wed, 25 May 2011 23:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
 Received: by 10.213.4.198 with SMTP id 6mr174974ebs.124.1306389605519;
 Wed, 25 May 2011 23:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
 Return-Path:
 discuss+bounces-digest-inpost=gmail@documentfoundation.org
 Received: from bilbo.documentfoundation.org
 (bilbo.documentfoundation.org [178.63.91.70])
 by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id
 v13si792201eef.81.2011.05.25.23.00.05
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
 Wed, 25 May 2011 23:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
 Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of
 discuss+bounces-digest-inpost=gmail@documentfoundation.org
 designates 178.63.91.70 as permitted sender) client-ip=178.63.91.70;
 Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
 discuss+bounces-digest-inpost=gmail@documentfoundation.org
 designates 178.63.91.70 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=discuss+bounces-digest-inpost=gmail@documentfoundation.org
 Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 23:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
 Message-Id: 4dddec65.8d620e0a.588b.51a8smtpin_ad...@mx.google.com
 Received: from bilbo.documentfoundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
   by bilbo.documentfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1942C1BF21E4
   for inp...@gmail.com; Thu, 26 May 2011 08:00:05 +0200 (CEST)
 From: discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary=7b72ac84340cf61c
 Subject:
 =?utf-8?q?Digest_of_discuss=40documentfoundation.org_issue_289_=286272-6280=29?=
 Reply-To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
 Errors-To: postmas...@documentfoundation.org
 Precedence: list
 List-Id: discuss.documentfoundation.org
 List-Unsubscribe: mailto:discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
 List-Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
 List-Post: mailto:discuss@documentfoundation.org
 List-Help: mailto:discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
 List-Subscribe: mailto:discuss+subscr...@documentfoundation.org
 List-Owner: mailto:postmas...@documentfoundation.org
 To: inp...@gmail.com


 --7b72ac84340cf61c
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
 Content-Encoding: 8bit

 Topics (messages 6272 through 6280):

 [tdf-discuss] Mailing List FAQ
   6272 - NoOp gl...@sbcglobal.net

 [tdf-discuss] Mailing List FAQ
   6273 - Volker Merschmann merschm...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] Problematic digest mail answering - Buggy mailclient?
 (was: Paid Developers)
   6274 - e-letter inp...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] Fwd: Why TDF should be the place for one united Community
   6275 - Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org

 [tdf-discuss] Problematic digest mail answering - Buggy mailclient?
   6276 - Friedrich Strohmaier damokles4-lis...@bits-fritz.de

 [tdf-discuss] Re: Mailing List FAQ
   6277 - NoOp gl...@sbcglobal.net

 [tdf-discuss] Re: Mailing List FAQ
   6278 - Steve Edmonds steve.edmo...@ptglobal.com

 [tdf-discuss] Re: Mailing List FAQ
   6279 - Jean Hollis Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] Re: Mailing List FAQ
   6280 - Steve Edmonds steve.edmo...@ptglobal.com



 --7b72ac84340cf61c
 Content-Type: message/rfc822
 Content-Disposition: inline; filename=discuss_6272.eml

 X-Original-To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
 Delivered-To: documentfoundation.org--disc...@bilbo.documentfoundation.org
 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
   by bilbo.documentfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E824E1BF2124
   for discuss@documentfoundation.org;
   Wed, 25 May 2011 06:24:59 +0200 (CEST)
 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new-2.6.4 (20090625) at
 bilbo.documentfoundation.org
 X-Spam-Flag: NO
 X-Spam-Score: -4.212
 X-Spam-Level:
 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5
   tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,
   SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
 Received: from bilbo.documentfoundation.org ([127.0.0.1])
   by localhost (bilbo.documentfoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
   port 10024)
   with LMTP id ZSXezR7cJO2G for discuss@documentfoundation.org;
   Wed, 25 May 2011 06:24:47 +0200 (CEST)
 X-policyd-weight: using cached result; rate: -7.35
 Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12])
   by bilbo.documentfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 920AD1BF2143
   for discuss@documentfoundation.org;
   Wed, 25 May 2011 06:24:10 +0200 (CEST)
 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
   (envelope-from gcdd-disc...@m.gmane.org) id 1QP5dh-00068b-IC
   for discuss@documentfoundation.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 06:24:09 +0200
 Received: from adsl-69-228-81-206.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ([69.228.81.206])
   by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
   id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
   for discuss@documentfoundation.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 06:24:09 +0200
 Received: from glgxg

[tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice dead and burried?

2011-05-17 Thread e-letter
Keeping OO separate from LO is a good thing overall; more actors in
the open source office software sector gives healthy competition (like
Opera and Firefox for web browsers), innovation and shows m$ users the
benefits of using a non-proprietary document format.

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


[tdf-discuss] Re: Paid developers

2011-05-14 Thread e-letter
On 13 May 2011 21:50, e-letter inp...@gmail.com wrote:

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

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


How do you get to those parents? Through the schools? ..Wait, isn't it the
schools that are not ready to change?

See the problem?


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

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


[tdf-discuss] mailing list content disappearance

2011-05-13 Thread e-letter
On 13/05/2011, discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
 Topics (messages 6130 through 6131):

 [tdf-discuss] Re: Paid Developers
   6130 - Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com
   6131 - ??? m...@marcpare.com




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

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


[tdf-discuss] Re: Paid developers

2011-05-13 Thread e-letter
On 12 May 2011 17:55, Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com wrote:

 Le 2011-05-11 17:01, Samuel M a écrit :

  I believe, that The Document Foundation can employ Developers for
 LibreOffice. I believe the community is able to get the money for that on a
 monthly base.

 We saw that the community was able to rise 50.000€ in 8(!) days. It will
 be possible to get that money in a year for one full-time developer.
 These two examples show that this works even over a longer period of time
 (note that these projects are much smaller than LibreOffice):
 - Ardour (http://ardour.org): $4500 are raised every month to pay the
 main developer
 - Linux Mint (http://linuxmint.com): $5500 were raised in April to pay
 the main developer


 Despite from having full-time developers, for volunteer developers it
 would be nice to get money for fixing a specific bug / implementing a
 feature. Ardour has such a system where you can donate for a specific issue:
 http://ardour.org/bugbounty
 I think something like this would bring great benefit to LO, since users
 can show what they want to be fixed most and developers get some money for
 coding (or at their option donate it to TDF).

 To be honest, if we could convince most school districts in any country to
 adopt the use of LibreOffice as their main suite, dropping MSO and
 contributing a small percentage of their per seat cost savings, then we
 could see some distrcits paying to have accessibility issues worked on or
 some other aspect of LibreOffice that would be of interest to them.


In essence this was the idea behind setting up the INGOTs. Your idea is
simpler *if* you can get agreement with large centralised bureaucracies.
It's not easy, I have been trying for more than 10 years ;-)

Schools in the UK make individual decisions about the resources they use. We
had to make INGOT certification wider than just OOo/LO simply because most
are entrenched in MSO. OTOH we know some have switched as a result of
learning more about FOSS through the certification process.  If we can
generate volume international take up, funding developers on the project
would be easy.


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

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


[tdf-discuss] Re: Forums - A Different Question

2011-05-03 Thread e-letter
Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Forums - A Different Question
From: Pieter E. Zanstra pie...@zanstra.eu
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 11:35:39 +0200
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Om the basis of the discussions going on at this list, I do share your
analysis as expressed in:
http://daedaleus.isaachummel.com/2011/05/01/whither-openoffice/

But I wonder/doubt if the view the LibreOffice community is mired in
excessive open source zeal and geek elitism also applies to the developers
who do the real work.


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

Long live the mailing list(s)..!

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


[tdf-discuss] Re: Forums... again

2011-04-29 Thread e-letter
As I said, I'm sure Bill Gates said leave those toy phones to Nokia, RIM and
Apple. Google seem to have been smarter. As mobile and web technologies take
over I can see much harder times ahead for anyone dependent on local
dependencies.


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

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

I do agree that, whatever their limitations, forums are the discussion =

platform of the masses and LibreOffice needs to form a community that =

includes the non-geek populace if it is to become the premier version of =


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

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

Has the been a poll on mailing list against forum?

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

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


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

2011-04-26 Thread e-letter
I think this is a very interesting issue. We are moving from the dominant
technologies that were designed to put information on paper to the dominant
need of presenting information on screens. With the revolution in digital
readers this is only going to increase and then what relevance has document
formats that are primarily designed to target hard copy output? If odf does
not adapt it will become obsolete.


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

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

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

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


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

2011-04-21 Thread e-letter
Video in HTML5 would be even better...

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


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

2011-01-28 Thread e-letter
Readers,

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

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


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

2011-01-11 Thread e-letter
Readers,

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

calc

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

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

(sheet2.a1)=4

in xls:

formula=sheet1!.a1*sheet3!.a2

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


On 11/01/2011, discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
 Topics (messages 4379 through 4405):

 [tdf-discuss] Re: Templates unavailable at templates.services.openoffice.org
   4379 - David Nelson comme...@traduction.biz
   4380 - Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com

 [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
   4381 - Karl-Heinz Gödderz libreoff...@gukk-online.de

 [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
   4382 - drew d...@baseanswers.com

 [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
   4383 - Michael Wheatland mich...@wheatland.com.au

 [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
   4384 - Andy Brown a...@the-martin-byrd.net

 [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
   4385 - drew d...@baseanswers.com

 [tdf-discuss] Re: [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
   4386 - Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com
   4389 - Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com
   4391 - Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com

 [tdf-discuss] Re: [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
   4387 - David Nelson comme...@traduction.biz

 [tdf-discuss] Re: [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
   4388 - sophie gautier.sop...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] Download libreoffice button in new LibreOffice website
   4390 - Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+ooofut...@googlemail.com

 [tdf-discuss] Links on LibreOffice.org/templates page
   4392 - Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com

 [tdf-discuss] Re: Links on LibreOffice.org/templates page
   4393 - Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com

 [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
   4394 - Fabián Rodríguez magic...@member.fsf.org

 [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
   4395 - Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org

 [tdf-discuss] Download libreoffice button in new LibreOffice website
   4396 - drew d...@baseanswers.com

 Off-topic (was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Download libreoffice button in new
 LibreOffice website)
   4397 - Christoph Noack christoph.no...@documentfoundation.org

 [tdf-discuss] Suggestions for your future extensions
   4398 - AndrewT roep...@lavabit.com

 [tdf-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Queensland floods not near me
   4399 - Michael Wheatland mich...@wheatland.com.au

 [tdf-discuss] Re: LibreOffice version for Android platform
   4400 - Tom Tasche tomtas...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] A better idea for a download package.
   4402 - Alan Reeve tec...@reeve36.plus.com

 [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
   4403 - RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] Using free, open microblogging
   4404 - Fabián Rodríguez magic...@member.fsf.org

 [tdf-discuss] Re: LibreOffice version for Android platform
   4405 - Nguyen Vu Hung vuhung16p...@gmail.com




-- 
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] Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

2010-11-16 Thread e-letter
Related to an earlier post
(http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg02677.html),
the following news article hyperlink
(http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2010/11/12/ghanaian-sms-start-up-tackles-fake-drug-scourge/)
is an interesting application of mobile phone technology and provides
further credence to the importance of the future potential mobile
devices market.

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



[tdf-discuss] Re: x86_64 Windows build

2010-11-05 Thread e-letter
LO is never going to overcome m$ products on their own platform(s).
The biggest market potential by far is mobile devices for ODF to
become the default format.

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

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

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



[tdf-discuss] LO mobile phone version

2010-11-05 Thread e-letter
In consideration of the previous posts ('Re: x86_64 Windows build',
http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg02649.html),
what is the mechanism that a project can be proposed to develop LO
mobile edition, get funding from Android or similar as suggested?

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



[tdf-discuss] Re: priorising feature-requests was: LO mobile phone version

2010-11-05 Thread e-letter
So what happens next? Should the suggestion for LO mobile version
remain in the mailing list archive until the proposals structure is
created? Is any member of the decision-making entity able to say now
whether this proposal is to rejected or accepted?

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



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

2010-11-04 Thread e-letter
On 04/11/2010, discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
 Topics (messages 2591 through 2620):

 [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
   2591 - Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com

 [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
   2592 - Kohei Yoshida kyosh...@novell.com
   2617 - JustFillBug mozbug...@yahoo.com.au

 [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
   2593 - Ian ian.ly...@theingots.org

 [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments  the Document Foundation
   2594 - BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com

 [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
   2595 - Ian ian.ly...@theingots.org

 [tdf-discuss] New Beta or RC soon?
   2596 - Robert Boehm boehm.robe...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] New Beta or RC soon?
   2597 - Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org

 [tdf-discuss] New Beta or RC soon?
   2598 - Robert Boehm boehm.robe...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments  the Document Foundation
   2599 - Roberto Resoli roberto.res...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
   2600 - Benjamin Horst bho...@mac.com

 [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
   2601 - T. J. Brumfield enderand...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
   2602 - todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
   2603 - Ian ian.ly...@theingots.org

 [tdf-discuss] New Beta or RC soon?
   2604 - Frank Esposito frankespos...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments  the Document Foundation
   2605 - jonathon toki.kant...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
   2606 - Johannes Bausch johannes.bau...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs
   2607 - Peter Rodwell pe...@intorg.org

 [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
   2608 - Michel Gagnon mic...@mgagnon.net

 [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
   2609 - Christoph Noack christ...@dogmatux.com

 [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs
   2610 - Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com
   2619 - Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com

 Usability Issues (Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not
 reinvented)
   2611 - Christoph Noack christoph.no...@documentfoundation.org

 [tdf-discuss] Accessibility (was Java dependency)
   2612 - Christoph Noack christoph.no...@documentfoundation.org

 [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs
   2613 - Michel Gagnon mic...@mgagnon.net

 [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs
   2614 - TomW tomw...@fairpoint.net

 [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs
   2615 - Graham Lauder yori...@openoffice.org

 [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs
   2616 - Graham Lauder yori...@openoffice.org

 [tdf-discuss] Re: LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
   2618 - Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com

 [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
   2620 - Sebastian Spaeth sebast...@sspaeth.de



The text above is the entire verbatim content of the mail message text
box when the 'reply' function is activated. Please change the mailing
list manager.

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



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

2010-11-04 Thread e-letter
Not sure what you mean by attached; in web-mail the messages when
received are inline (in the body of the message).

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

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

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



[tdf-discuss] Re: x86_64 Windows build

2010-11-04 Thread e-letter
In terms of priorities, making LO the default for mobile (e.g.
android) is more important than windoze.

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



[tdf-discuss] mailing list digest mode functionality

2010-10-18 Thread e-letter
Below is an example of how the digest mode appears using the 'reply'
e-mail function:

On 18/10/2010, discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
 Topics (messages 1671 through 1700):

 [tdf-discuss] We're on slashdot
   1671 - Per Eriksson pereriks...@openoffice.org

 [tdf-discuss] Please embed dictionaries in Danish lang-pack and install
   1672 - Andrea Pescetti pesce...@openoffice.org

 [tdf-discuss] We're on slashdot
   1673 - André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net

 [tdf-discuss] We're on slashdot
   1674 - Ian ian.ly...@theingots.org

 [tdf-discuss] A copy of MSOffice
   1675 - Carlos Jose Lenarts Ramis goda...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] Please embed dictionaries in Danish lang-pack and install
   1676 - Andras Timar tima...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] why LibO?
   1677 - Caio Tiago Oliveira cai...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] Please embed dictionaries in Danish lang-pack and install
   1678 - Andrea Pescetti pesce...@openoffice.org

 [tdf-discuss] why LibO?
   1679 - fyva mene...@bk.ru

 [tdf-discuss] A copy of MSOffice
   1680 - David Filskov da...@filskov.dk

 [tdf-discuss] Please embed dictionaries in Danish lang-pack and install
   1681 - Andras Timar tima...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
   1682 - Rictec ric...@netcabo.pt

 [tdf-discuss] Don't make the mistake of the pigs
   1683 - Paul A Norman paul.a.nor...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] A Map of Bibliographic systems? was: LibO roadmap?
   1684 - Paul A Norman paul.a.nor...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] LibO Beta 2 miss-reporting version?
   1685 - Paul A Norman paul.a.nor...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] Re: LibO Beta 2 miss-reporting version?
   1686 - Paul A Norman paul.a.nor...@gmail.com

 LibO Install/Update ( was [tdf-discuss] Automatic Updates)
   1687 - Paul A Norman paul.a.nor...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] Basic question about Oracle asking OOo community members to
 leave
   1688 - Ramon Sole ramon.s...@opscons.com

 [tdf-discuss] Basic question about Oracle asking OOo community members to
 leave
   1689 - M. Fioretti mfiore...@nexaima.net

 [tdf-discuss] Basic question about Oracle asking OOo community members to
 leave
   1690 - Drew Jensen d...@baseanswers.com

 [tdf-discuss] We're on slashdot
   1691 - Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl

 [tdf-discuss] Basic question about Oracle asking OOo community members to
 leave
   1692 - Graham Lauder yori...@openoffice.org

 [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
   1693 - James Wilde james.wi...@sunde-wilde.com

 [tdf-discuss] unsubscribed posters
   1694 - James Wilde james.wi...@sunde-wilde.com

 [tdf-discuss] Houston, we have a problem.
   1695 - James Wilde james.wi...@sunde-wilde.com

 [tdf-discuss] Re: LibO Beta 2 Writer/Web (Html Document)
   1696 - Jean Hollis Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] First Marketing Conference Call
   1697 - Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org

 [tdf-discuss] Very large icons in toolbar
   1698 - Masahisa Kamataki kamat...@gmail.com

 [tdf-discuss] LibO roadmap?
   1699 - Cedric Bosdonnat cedric.bosdonnat@free.fr

 [tdf-discuss] Houston, we have a problem.
   1700 - Stefan Weigel stefan.wei...@bildungskreis.org



This is not good compared to others such as postgresql (or even
openoffice documentation) mailing lists.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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



[tdf-discuss] Re: New name

2010-10-05 Thread e-letter
I don't like LibO because I don't like medial capitals (!). For me LO
to mean Liberty Office (Software).
-- 
To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to 
discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be 
deleted.
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/



[tdf-discuss] Re: New name

2010-10-04 Thread e-letter
I like Staroffice (remember that? :))

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

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