Guys... is there even a point discussing this more?
The summary is:
a) Allowing LO to handle M$ formats won't help people really break free
from the M$ stranglehold and will hurt ODF
b) Not supporting M$ formats means a serious hurt in the adoption of LO,
or anything that is not M$
Now, we can
2011/8/1 Marc-André Laverdière marc-an...@atc.tcs.com
Why can't LO be a killer office that can handle _every document_ under
the sun? That's VLC reputation in the multimedia field, and that works
very very fine for them I think :)
As for the spreading of ODF, I suggest to pick a different
On 2011-07-28 4:54 PM, Olivier Hallot
olivier.hal...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
What you say is almost that we should give up on ODF and stick with
Microsoft formats...
Not at all...
I would prefer that LO import MSO format flawlessly but not export them at
all...
My same response - that
On 30/07/2011 14:55, toki wrote:
b) The license for the old version of M$ expired;
MS licences don't expire.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more:
On 28/07/2011 21:54, Olivier Hallot wrote:
I would prefer that LO import MSO format flawlessly but not export them at
all...
IMHO that's a very shortsighted view. One of the main advantages (in my
experience) is the ability of LO to export direct to email in MSO format.
Consider the following
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
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
On 07/30/2011 01:33 PM, e-letter wrote:
Why wouldn't users simply keep an old version of m$?
a) The old version of M$ won't run on their current operating system;
b) The license for the old version of M$ expired;
jonathon
--
If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth
On 07/30/2011 01:35 PM, e-letter wrote:
Such people should be buying m$;
Your false assumption is that M$ provides a version of MSO for the
platform that is being used.
if they cannot afford m$ why are they in business???
Possibilities include:
* Startup;
* The office-suite is a
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$. They happen to have a convenient choice in another product (LO)
that perhaps is more
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 03:05:18PM +0100, e-letter wrote:
This topic has revealed the following personal observations.
..snip.
The ability to import m$ formats and produce only native odf documents
would be a good idea. Users would have a clear choice to make; either
Frankly, I'm sure the law just says copies must be kept and doesn't
care how they are kept. The point is that they *will* be kept on
secured digital media, which means MSO, which means they will need a
copy of MSO, which means they will not need a copy of LibO.
That was rather my point. We cannot
On 07/28/2011 04:54 PM, Olivier Hallot wrote:
Hi
What you say is almost that we should give up on ODF and stick with
Microsoft formats...
I would prefer that LO import MSO format flawlessly but not export them at
all...
Olivier
1. What other file formats should be dropped? All other
I'm following this thread since the last week and I believe that this
is an extremely important discussion for us all.
I support the initial idea of concentrating our work force on better
ODF support and functionality improvements in LO, but I also
understand the need that people have to use LO
On 2011-07-28 4:40 PM, Jomar Silva homem...@gmail.com wrote:
In summary: It's good to users that we support MSO files, but the real
world side effect of that is that people will keep using MSO files...
it's up to us to find a way to change the Status Quo in a smooth way
It'll never happen...
Hi
What you say is almost that we should give up on ODF and stick with
Microsoft formats...
I would prefer that LO import MSO format flawlessly but not export them at
all...
Olivier
2011/7/28 Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
On 2011-07-28 4:40 PM, Jomar Silva homem...@gmail.com wrote:
Disagree.
If we dont support ms file formats, the users will keep bying ms office. If
we support ms formats users who are willing to shift will be abole to shift.
Today one of the most important stopperts is problems with legacy documents
and exchange of documents with external parties.
First
Leif Lodahl wrote:
Disagree.
If we dont support ms file formats, the users will keep bying ms office. If
we support ms formats users who are willing to shift will be abole to shift.
Today one of the most important stopperts is problems with legacy documents
and exchange of documents with
Jomar Silva wrote:
I support the initial idea of concentrating our work force on better
ODF support and functionality improvements in LO, but I also
understand the need that people have to use LO to manipulate MSO
documents.
I think both is crucial to the success of LibO.
Since this
Thank you very much for this. I had completely fogotten.
Leif
Den 28/07/2011 23.19 skrev Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org:
Jomar Silva wrote:
I support the initial idea of concentrating our work force on better
ODF support and functionality improvements in LO, but I also
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/22/2011 7:23 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
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
Hi,
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:54:14 -0400
Steven Shelton ste...@sheltonlegal.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/22/2011 7:23 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
Even worse, given that MSO has the greatest market share it means that
most legacy documents use the
On 07/25/2011 06:40 PM, Sigrid Carrera wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:54:14 -0400
Steven Sheltonste...@sheltonlegal.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/22/2011 7:23 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
Even worse, given that MSO has the greatest market share it
On 07/24/2011 03:48 AM, e-letter wrote:
On 22/07/2011, Christophe Strobbechristophe.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
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
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$o, good for them. The
point of the original post, is that priority should be for LO
On 23/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org wrote:
On 07/22/2011 10:24 AM, e-letter wrote:
On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyakand...@pitonyak.org wrote:
On 07/21/2011 08:47 AM, e-letter wrote:
On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyakand...@pitonyak.org wrote
I am more
our shoulders
about it.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: e-letter [mailto:inp...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 01:18
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?
On 22/07/2011, Gordon Burgess-Parker gbpli...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/07/2011
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
On 22 July 2011 02:06, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org wrote:
On 07/21/2011 09:43 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
On 21/07/2011 14:23, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
I am of the opinion that good inter-operability with MSO products makes
it easier to attract new users and that
On 22/07/2011 02:06, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
On 07/21/2011 09:43 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
On 21/07/2011 14:23, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
I am of the opinion that good inter-operability with MSO products
makes it easier to attract new users and that poor inter-operability
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
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,
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
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
).
-Original Message-
From: e-letter [mailto:inp...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 07:33
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?
On 21/07/2011, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
Yes, don't confuse ODF compatibility
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
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
On 20/07/2011 22:34, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
But, in almost all cases I've seen, the reasons were different, like
getting rid of dependency on a specific vendor,
I would also guess that one of the other main reasons would be to avoid
the antics of the Business Software Alliance and it's
On 20/07/2011 23:54, Robert Derman wrote:
If you want to know about one very good reason for not using M$ Google
Ball Guitar String Co.
Excellent article. Thanks for that...
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems?
On 21/07/2011 01:33, 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.
What should be the priority of LO
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
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
On 21/07/2011 14:23, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
I am of the opinion that good inter-operability with MSO products
makes it easier to attract new users and that poor inter-operability
with MSO products makes it more difficult.
Interestingly, I've just received an MSO .doc document. I
Since there is still a lot of prejudice out there against open source
software based on FUD and plain old not wanting to leave the comfort
zone, ease of interoperability with M$ document formats will be necessary.
In fact I view it as a way of showing a superior attitude.
Interoperability is
release of Office at an April 2012 Plugfest in Brussels.)
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Burgess-Parker [mailto:gbpli...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 07:22
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?
On 21/07/2011 14:23, Andrew Douglas
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
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
On 07/20/2011 11:02 PM, e-letter wrote:
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
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
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
On 07/20/2011 08:15 PM, 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
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.
What should be the priority of LO development: bug-free and excellent
behaviour in native odt
Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
On 07/20/2011 08:15 PM, 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
55 matches
Mail list logo
