RE: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[Felmon Davis]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, toki wrote:


[...]

However, in as much as you use American English, the odds are that you
think you can file the lawsuit in the United States. Ignoring
jurisdictional issues,



the OP's email is based in Holland for what it's worth.

useful post nonetheless.

f.

--
Felmon Davis

TANSTAAFL


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[toki]

 B.S. Wrote:

>for acts they have committed, or didn't commit, such as false advertising, 
>which this product is doing,

That really depends upon the legal jurisdiction one is in.

I'm not about to do a round-up of which legal jurisdictions would rule
which way, but the legal situation is not nearly as clear cut as you
seem to think it is.

However, in as much as you use American English, the odds are that you
think you can file the lawsuit in the United States. Ignoring
jurisdictional issues,
the odds are that the statements you object to, fall squarely under the
"advertising puffery" exception. Furthermore, with a few clearly defined
exceptions,
courts in the Untied States tend to treat "No Warranty" as meaning
"everything you were told was a bunch of bullshit,
and you are an idiot to think any of it was even remotely plausibly
accurate."

I've seen US courts throw noise complaints out, because there was a
single paragraph in the sheaf of papers signed at the time of purchase,
that stated: "This property
is in Noise Zone 3." That county ordinances required a specific sheet of
paper, with specific details to be signed off on, was deemed irrelevant,
because the paragraph
carried the clear, legal message, as defined by state law. That the
purchaser didn't know what "Noise Zone 3" meant, was simply a lack of
due diligence on the part
of the purchaser. ("Noise Zone 3" means that you are in the direct
flight path of extremely noisy, slow moving warplanes flying very close
to the ground, at all
hours of the day and night.)

> until others who "do have the skills" see fit to spend their valuable
time on issues that they confirm at their sole discretion,

Part of "active involvement" is either writing the code, or persuading
somebody to write the code, to fix the specific issues that one is having.

>A Bishop in the united states, once attended his own Christmas sermon dressed 
>up as a beggar.

FYI, that never happened.  It was an illustration told by a cleric, as
part of a sermon on showing love to all.

>This person says "feel free to report a bug" after saying that no one is going 
>to listen to it anyway.

I sympathize with the non-response that filing a bug that gets ignored,
or closed as "Wont Fix" generates. Nonetheless, there are individuals and
organizations that go through those bug reports, looking for things that
can be "easily fixed/implemented". Occasionally, they even tackle the
"hard to implement"
RFEs.

>The question of whether something /should/ work in a certain way, is 
>apparently not important.

Something people have a lot of trouble understanding, is that features
that work according to the specifications provided when implemented,
are features that work correctly. That what they do doesn't correlate
with how the rest of the world views things, is irrelevant.

That is when users can ask for a feature enhancement. Depending upon how
great a divergence from reality the original specification was,
the feature enhancement might be worked upon, or it might be ignored.

Anyway, if you think the way LibreOffice handles "Undo/Redo" is wrong,
you've a lot to learn about the deliberate errors LibreOffice spits out,
as if the answer is correct, when it is mathematically wrong.
(LibO won't fix those bugs, because users that don't know the difference
between naught and aught think that the provided answer is correct,
despite umpteen mathematical proofs from around the world proving
otherwise.(This is called accepting the delusions of users, by letting
them do as Adam Savage does: "I reject your reality, and substitute my
own." ))

#

I am not a lawyer.
This is not legal advice.

jonathon

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[Tanstaafl]

On 6/1/2016 3:16 PM, B.S.  wrote:
> Bo Siltberg schreef op 01-06-2016 19:46:
>> If you lose work because of limited undo then there is something wrong 
>> with your method of working.
>> Anyhow, go into *Options -> LibreOffice -> Memory* and raise the *Undo
>> number of steps*.

> I think people have a right to their own way of working, and you don't 
> have a say in that.

You would be correct - but in the same vein, people who choose to work
in such a way that cause them pain have no one else but themselves to blame.

> You allusion that the feature is unnecessary

Eh? What feature? I haven't seen any reference to a specific feature.

> clearly also states that the ones who have implemented it in the
> first place, or those who have come before and have created such
> features for as long as computers exist, must clearly be in the wrong
> and now you know the real truth, because it doesn't exist in
> LibreOffice, so that must be right.

WHAT feature? What are you rambling about??

> Common sense is clearly defunct here again.

Yes, but you are aware that talking to yourself on a public email list
just might make people question your sanity.

> Your argument has the form of "It doesn't exist now, so you don't
> really need it" as if the past choices of developers are always
> right, and current complaints, never are.
> 
> And your statement really comes down to what they call bigotry,

Bigotry? What in bogs name are you yammering about? This is a support
list for users of Libreoffice, not a platform for you to engage in PC
(politically correct, not personal computer - lol) rants.

> Now you say "It is not in the product, so you don't need it".

Ummm... please do not deliberately mis-quote people. He did not say that
or anything like it anywhere in his very short and on point response.
His entire response is at the top of this email, see for yourself.

On 6/1/2016 4:55 PM, B.S.  wrote:
> By the way, no one has still not really tackled the question of
> whether there should be better undo. People are trying to avoid that
> subject.

Well, since you are the one who started this thread, and since you
failed to define even one single actual problem, with specificity, how
exactly do you suggest anyone 'tackle the question'?

I suggest they tackled it the only way they could - by pointing out the
total lack of content beyond whining and ranting in your post.

Maybe you should start over, and post again, outlining your specific
problem, and providing a suggestion for how you think it should work.

Oh - and doing so with a reasonably respectful tone would go a long way
to getting helpful answers. As it is now, you are getting exactly what
you asked for.

> People are not giving any reasons for why it shouldn't be there.

Why WHAT shouldn't be there?

> People are questioning and criticising the motives for wanting it.

No, they are questioning your apparent claim that you said anything of
substance.

> Or questioning whether I really need it (which is that thing Linux
> people often do).

Since you have not stated what 'it' is, it is unsurprising that no one,
in fact has questioned whether or not you need it, they have questioned
your ability to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

> Or, as the last resort, being in disagreement with the path I have
> chosen to voice my concerns,

Not the path - the method.

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[Joel Madero]

On 6/1/2016 1:55 PM, B.S. wrote:

B.S. schreef op 01-06-2016 22:41:


Regards.


By the way, no one has still not really tackled the question of 
whether there should be better undo. People are trying to avoid that 
subject.
That is simply untrue. How about you read what I said. Report the issue 
as an enhancement request where feedback from the UX team (the ones 
actually doing the work) will be direct. This is not the place for this 
hypothetical in the air "what if". this is the place for user 
support (which you got, you slammed, you gave pages of unnecessary waste 
of time words, etc).


Bug reports aren't private, they are entirely public - so, to use your 
name, that is entire BS.


Or in the alternative, go buy another product and then see how far your 
whining gets with them.



Best,
Joel



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[B.S.]

B.S. schreef op 01-06-2016 22:41:


Regards.


By the way, no one has still not really tackled the question of whether 
there should be better undo. People are trying to avoid that subject.


People are not giving any reasons for why it shouldn't be there.

People are questioning and criticising the motives for wanting it.

Or questioning whether I really need it (which is that thing Linux 
people often do).


Or, as the last resort, being in disagreement with the path I have 
chosen to voice my concerns, which is a public list where everyone can 
hear it, instead of a bug report that is by its nature, still rather 
private.


Basically, that's just a way to shut someone up and ensure that the 
exposure for these words (or those words) would be rather very limited.


Ill intent? Yes it is ill intent and people do it constantly.

A user support list is also a public "face" you might say.

Anyway enough of this. People just don't want the dirty laundry to come 
out, and so they redirect most or all attempts that indicate that the 
product might not be perfect.


The website only shines of perfection. Then don't want people to hear a 
different story, do you?


It's just bureaucracy and I cannot really blame you for it, but it is 
still what happens.


Negative feedback is not welcomed unless there is immediately a path for 
achieving the correct result, which would only happen if that person 
making the request, immediately set out achieving it. In that case it 
would come across as immediately constructive and speaking well of the 
product "see, another person wants to get involved!". But in the 
meantime, when some negativity needs to be uttered without an immediate 
resolution that will instantly tell a good story about the product 
again.


Those words are just not welcomed usually and have to be disqualified 
and discredited with such words as "rant" and "troll" (to your credit 
you haven't used it) and "is just here to waste everyone's time" (and 
for no other reason, obviously).


Oh yeah, of course "whine" and "complain" also qualify. To disqualify.

Assuming ill intent? Not really, it's just what happens. It is just the 
results that you see repeated over and over.


They are not assumptions in advance. They are just repeated observations 
over a much longer period. And something that gets proven again and 
again. You may disagree of course.


But the reality is that negative feedback is not welcomed in public, and 
you may make of that what you want.


Regards and signing out.

Hopefully, really.

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[B.S.]

Piet van Oostrum schreef op 01-06-2016 21:53:


There is an option under Advanced > Expert Configuration >
org.openoffice.Office.Common > Undo
The default is 100 steps which should be enough for normal use. But
you can increase it if you want.


Oh, by the way, I changed that value to 2 (thank you for your 
admission and request here) but after changing or attempting about 200 
undo's, now all my text has changed to bold in any new document while 
not being bolded, or rather, being regular text but still having bold 
display ;-).


It only happened for the font I was writing in, but apparently I have to 
reset my config.


Thank you anyway,

but 100 character steps is not enough for normal use for a lot of people 
and a lot of use cases.


That's really just 100 characters.

My browser box in this webmail has better undo.

Regards.

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[B.S.]

Joel Madero schreef op 01-06-2016 22:10:

:) Funny enough I almost did the same but out of respect for your
choice to keep things private, I chose not to. You've not given the
same consideration so:


That's funny indeed.


Heads up to this user - he has zero respect for the community, enjoys
wasting everyone time, and wants to use the list as a means to waste
everyone's time with a long novel (which I rightfully ignored). He
clearly just is using a user support thread for a free and open source
project powered by incredible volunteers as a means to complain and
whine.


Let's explain a little what those statements mean, because it is easy.

First, you are assuming dreadfully wrong intent with everything I have 
written. That is usually a way to disqualify contributions when you have 
no real arguments to do so.


Secondly, I did not send that long novel to everyone, so you are wrong 
again, and attributing something to me, that I clearly consciously 
avoided doing in the first place. Great for that.


Secondly again, you are doing that thing: embellish your own position in 
a way to discredit my own. Not only do you have to state, you feel, to 
treat my attempts here as lacking any merit, but also that my intent is 
for them to not have any merit.


So that thing I just asked you to do: to assume good intent, well, let's 
just say that you are a bit of a hard learner in that sense. Not a 
problem. But still what happens.


You must discredit my entire person to keep support here from other 
people on this list.


And at the same time, you must slime with those other people, and state 
how great you think they are, because I just said that you have rather 
low regard for them.


We call this "damage control mode". I don't think you are all that good 
at it, but all the same, it is just what is.


Hence all those smiles, and those "warmest regards". They are just a 
slight bit insincere, but that doesn't matter, it's the idea or the 
thought that counts, right?




I stand by what I said - the product works for tens of millions of
users, I use it daily for professional work, and I have zero will to
read a multi-page rant from a verbose user that likes going WAY off
topic. He seems to have a lot more time to waste than I do.


Completely ignoring the topic at hand yourself.

By your logic, because something "works" for millions of people, 
apparently it works "all the time". Or, similarly or conversely, it 
never fails to work for them. After all, it is just some blanket 
statement. A car may work for millions of people too, even if it breaks 
down every 20 miles. Depends on your definition of "working" doesn't it? 
Further more, it says nothing about things that might be improved, or 
things that might be individually lacking. It is just a way of avoiding 
that subject.


And actually I have no time to waste but a good reason why I am 
doing so regardless ;-). Let's call it being destroyed by some people 
and having a lacking ability to express myself tersely as a result.


In any case, you have zero will to begin with, and that was my point.

Regards.

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[B.S.]

Bo Siltberg schreef op 01-06-2016 21:44:

Then try 5.0 if you need extensive undo, or simply try to find another 
way
of writing that does not rely in too much undo. It is clearly not meant 
for

reverting some hour of work.


Why don't you try to stop people from doing what they want in their 
private time? Oh, you are already doing so.


And maybe you should also try to determine what a feature, that has 
existed for many years now in many software solutions, in a much greater 
design and extent, I might add, why don't you try to determine what that 
feature is meant to be used for, at your sole behest, irrespective of 
what real people actually want?


Oh, I know you do. What if, if that feature actually had any sane 
implementation like most applications do have, and which should form at 
least an example of how it should work, what if that feature did allow 
or would allow someone to revert hours of work? Would that be a problem 
to you?


Would it be a problem to you if people actually used it for that? Or is 
it only a problem that either (a) it means the current system is not 
really all that great or (b) someone would need to be in agreement with 
that idea?


I mean in both cases, if there actually was some support for the 
feature, people might implement it, and you might be wrong about your 
assumptions. Which I guess, is something you don't want to be all that 
often. But regardless, it would probably make everyone a lot happier, 
even though you can perhaps not readily imagine that.


Those 100 undo steps we have today are single character undos. If 
someone makes more changes, they might amount to 50 characters of 
backdraft. 50 characters of history. It might not be more than a single 
line (or sentence).


How can you seriously consider that to be any good?

"Should be fine for most people" as the other person says, is just not 
reality.


Only if your operations are actually block-level operations, does it 
make any real sense.


Or if you only want to undo stuff within the space of a minute.

See the undo system already saves entire blocks. It just needs to be 
augmented for that to also happen, in condensation, for character-level 
operations, you see.


And most applications have that.

Most actually do.

You are really in the minority here, what that goes, and LibreOffice 
users themselves are also, in the minority, themselves. Whether you want 
that or not, and whether you like that or not, as well.


So using the claim of "large user base" or "great experience" as an 
argument here is really void. "Millions of people are using it and not 
finding fault". Really, did you ask them.


Did you hold a poll over millions of users over this issue?

Those insignificant beings, did you inquire into their opinions?

Some projects do. NetworkManager recently did, and it was great that 
they did. They took it very seriously.


I think many projects do not.

Anyway I am writing this with a foot that is about twice its regular 
size, and I think I need to quit it now.


Regards.

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[Joel Madero]

:) Funny enough I almost did the same but out of respect for your choice 
to keep things private, I chose not to. You've not given the same 
consideration so:


Heads up to this user - he has zero respect for the community, enjoys 
wasting everyone time, and wants to use the list as a means to waste 
everyone's time with a long novel (which I rightfully ignored). He 
clearly just is using a user support thread for a free and open source 
project powered by incredible volunteers as a means to complain and whine.


I stand by what I said - the product works for tens of millions of 
users, I use it daily for professional work, and I have zero will to 
read a multi-page rant from a verbose user that likes going WAY off 
topic. He seems to have a lot more time to waste than I do.



Warmest Regards,

Joel

On 6/1/2016 1:01 PM, B.S. wrote:
Well then if you are going to respond like that, I am going to respond 
in public.



Joel Madero schreef op 01-06-2016 18:13:

I use LibreOffice daily for professional work - your subjective feelings
are irrelevant in this outside of imposing a common sense "duty" (as a
member of the open source world) to report whatever issues you have in a
polite way and then wait patiently for the people with the skills that
you don't have to fix the problems that they confirm. Tens of millions
of users are using the product daily for professional quality work -
you're in the minority.



I wrote a message to Joel Madero in private because I didn't see it 
fit to write anything more philosophical about the nature of open 
source development on this list.


I did mention to him that people like him could be held liable in the 
end for acts they have committed, or didn't commit, such as false 
advertizing, which this product is doing, like so many others, even if 
there is not a form of direct contractual agreement in monetary terms, 
or anything like it, at the present date, the way this system is 
constructed.


"No warranty" doesn't hold much water in a court of law if it actually 
violates common principles.


And I hope you do realize, that all of you, developers or not, could 
be held liable for the work you do, and false advertizing you are a 
part of, if the false promises you make on websites such as that of 
this product, come down to costing people a lot of time and money, 
because you make promises you do not actually live up to.


And I stated these things because a form of reward is often implied in 
using as well as creating open source products, and "no monetary gain" 
is not a reality. People do this work and often get rewarded in other 
forms, often as a form of investment or finding employment later down 
the line. And I stated that everyone who is using open source material 
is investing in the future, and the contract is often that something 
may be free for now, but will yield rewards later down the line, or 
will even require payment later down the line, because anyone who has 
made a lot of money based on something free, will feel like paying 
back on that.


So I feel this "no responsibility" claim is just nonsense to begin 
with. That is not how life works, and it is not how people work.


If you put something out into the world, then accept responsibility 
for it. And this is just common sense, but open source people often 
try to reinvent common sense, and think they can do better than 
anyone, because in some way they are distancing themselves from 
corporate people, so they must be superior.


"No liability" or "no warranty" is going to not work out in the end, 
and you are going to get hurt for it. And this is a promise as well, 
because you are hurting yourself, and no one else.


Moreover, stating that in some way people (such as me) must be a good 
'sheep' and are required to speak politely (as if speaking to 
superiors) and then "patiently wait" (as if open source is not about 
active involvement) until others who "do have the skills" see fit to 
spend their valuable time on issues that they confirm at their sole 
discretion, basically without anyone else having a say, but moreover, 
without any requirement to even /listen/ to anyone else outside of 
their scope, including, basically, all users, I can only currently 
qualify as extremely arrogant, and downright oppressive. And I feel 
this user only made these statements because it was done in private, 
whereas I didn't write my message with privacy in mind.


If that is the picture you want to paint of yourself, fine, but then I 
am not a part of that, or I am not a part of you.


Moreover, this arrogance mostly results also, of his incorrect 
assumption that I am not a developer myself, and his condescending 
tone only results at this point from thinking I have no code 
development skills in the first place. "Wait until people who do have 
some skills to see fit to maybe maybe maybe design the feature you want".


"You small man" you might add, and that would then apply to me. 
Belittling users who have 

Re: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[B.S.]

Well then if you are going to respond like that, I am going to respond 
in public.



Joel Madero schreef op 01-06-2016 18:13:
I use LibreOffice daily for professional work - your subjective 
feelings

are irrelevant in this outside of imposing a common sense "duty" (as a
member of the open source world) to report whatever issues you have in 
a

polite way and then wait patiently for the people with the skills that
you don't have to fix the problems that they confirm. Tens of millions
of users are using the product daily for professional quality work -
you're in the minority.



I wrote a message to Joel Madero in private because I didn't see it fit 
to write anything more philosophical about the nature of open source 
development on this list.


I did mention to him that people like him could be held liable in the 
end for acts they have committed, or didn't commit, such as false 
advertizing, which this product is doing, like so many others, even if 
there is not a form of direct contractual agreement in monetary terms, 
or anything like it, at the present date, the way this system is 
constructed.


"No warranty" doesn't hold much water in a court of law if it actually 
violates common principles.


And I hope you do realize, that all of you, developers or not, could be 
held liable for the work you do, and false advertizing you are a part 
of, if the false promises you make on websites such as that of this 
product, come down to costing people a lot of time and money, because 
you make promises you do not actually live up to.


And I stated these things because a form of reward is often implied in 
using as well as creating open source products, and "no monetary gain" 
is not a reality. People do this work and often get rewarded in other 
forms, often as a form of investment or finding employment later down 
the line. And I stated that everyone who is using open source material 
is investing in the future, and the contract is often that something may 
be free for now, but will yield rewards later down the line, or will 
even require payment later down the line, because anyone who has made a 
lot of money based on something free, will feel like paying back on 
that.


So I feel this "no responsibility" claim is just nonsense to begin with. 
That is not how life works, and it is not how people work.


If you put something out into the world, then accept responsibility for 
it. And this is just common sense, but open source people often try to 
reinvent common sense, and think they can do better than anyone, because 
in some way they are distancing themselves from corporate people, so 
they must be superior.


"No liability" or "no warranty" is going to not work out in the end, and 
you are going to get hurt for it. And this is a promise as well, because 
you are hurting yourself, and no one else.


Moreover, stating that in some way people (such as me) must be a good 
'sheep' and are required to speak politely (as if speaking to superiors) 
and then "patiently wait" (as if open source is not about active 
involvement) until others who "do have the skills" see fit to spend 
their valuable time on issues that they confirm at their sole 
discretion, basically without anyone else having a say, but moreover, 
without any requirement to even /listen/ to anyone else outside of their 
scope, including, basically, all users, I can only currently qualify as 
extremely arrogant, and downright oppressive. And I feel this user only 
made these statements because it was done in private, whereas I didn't 
write my message with privacy in mind.


If that is the picture you want to paint of yourself, fine, but then I 
am not a part of that, or I am not a part of you.


Moreover, this arrogance mostly results also, of his incorrect 
assumption that I am not a developer myself, and his condescending tone 
only results at this point from thinking I have no code development 
skills in the first place. "Wait until people who do have some skills to 
see fit to maybe maybe maybe design the feature you want".


"You small man" you might add, and that would then apply to me. 
Belittling users who have no coding skills in this fashion and 
completely wrong in the first place, as it may be. Oh, you might say, 
then why don't you say so! You might work for us! Suddenly the tone 
changes and instead of filing bug reports (however mundane) I would now 
be required to do that work myself, right?


Free work!!

Oops. Yes, as a user I might be thankful on my knees that these great 
developers have even seen fit to create the product in the first place, 
and that I, as an insignificant being, am even allowed to use it, in the 
first place.


Treated as some kind of worm, or some lowly being.

"Your subjective feelings are irrelevant". Really. What if those 
subjective feelings might in the end come down to work opportunity and 
employment opportunity being lost for you, yourself? You are taking a 
big gamble here man.


Maybe the 

Re: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[Piet van Oostrum]

Steve Edmonds wrote:

 > Correct, there are no undo settings in my 5.1.2 from openSUSE, although 
 > it is in the help.
 > steve
 > 
 > On 2016-06-02 07:16, B.S. wrote:
 > > Also there is not actually any such option in the version I use. 

There is an option under Advanced > Expert Configuration > 
org.openoffice.Office.Common > Undo
The default is 100 steps which should be enough for normal use. But you can 
increase it if you want.
-- 
Piet van Oostrum 
WWW: http://pietvanoostrum.com/
PGP key: [8DAE142BE17999C4]


-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[Bo Siltberg]

Then try 5.0 if you need extensive undo, or simply try to find another way
of writing that does not rely in too much undo. It is clearly not meant for
reverting some hour of work.


2016-06-01 21:38 GMT+02:00 Steve Edmonds :

> Correct, there are no undo settings in my 5.1.2 from openSUSE, although it
> is in the help.
> steve
>
> On 2016-06-02 07:16, B.S. wrote:
>
>> Also there is not actually any such option in the version I use.
>>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>
>

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[Steve Edmonds]

Correct, there are no undo settings in my 5.1.2 from openSUSE, although 
it is in the help.

steve

On 2016-06-02 07:16, B.S. wrote:
Also there is not actually any such option in the version I use. 



--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[B.S.]

Bo Siltberg schreef op 01-06-2016 19:46:
If you lose work because of limited undo then there is something wrong 
with

your method of working.
Anyhow, go into *Options -> LibreOffice -> Memory* and raise the *Undo
number of steps*.


I think people have a right to their own way of working, and you don't 
have a say in that.


You allusion that the feature is unnecessary for anything real not only 
decides what other people should do or not do, but clearly also states 
that the ones who have implemented it in the first place, or those who 
have come before and have created such features for as long as computers 
exist, must clearly be in the wrong and now you know the real truth, 
because it doesn't exist in LibreOffice, so that must be right.


Right?

Common sense is clearly defunct here again.

Your argument has the form of "It doesn't exist now, so you don't really 
need it" as if the past choices of developers are always right, and 
current complaints, never are.


And your statement really comes down to what they call bigotry, sorry to 
say so. You basically say that, because some developer has not sought 
fit to create it, and developers are the authority in all things, and 
more bright than you and me combined, it must follow that there is then 
also not a need for it.


This is not logic, but it is dependence on some authority that is always 
right, no matter what. It is bigotry and depending on and believing in 
the infallibility of some historical authority much like people believed 
the Bible was always right and if it wasn't in the bible, it isn't so.


Now you say "It is not in the product, so you don't need it".

Regardless of that fact that pretty much every other product, that are 
usually not even word processors, always do.


LibreOffice stands alone in this, completely. Speak to me of your common 
sense, again.



Also there is not actually any such option in the version I use.

I could screenshot it, but yeah, it's not there in 5.1.2, of the Ubuntu 
version I am using that comes with 16.04.


Regards.

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[Bo Siltberg]

If you lose work because of limited undo then there is something wrong with
your method of working.
Anyhow, go into *Options -> LibreOffice -> Memory* and raise the *Undo
number of steps*.

2016-06-01 15:40 GMT+02:00 Joel Madero :

>
> Seriously people,
>>>
>>> this is the second time I have lost a great amount of work because the
>>> undo functionality of LibreOffice is about limited to one paragraph.
>>>
>>> The alternative to make backups every time you change something is
>>> just not workable.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Are you just ranting? This isn't a question at all.
>
> Feel free to report a concise bug at bugs.libreoffice.org - explain the
> problem  and how you think it should work. I've been using LibreOffice for
> years and been a contributor for that time period and no one else has come
> up complaining about this.
>
> FWIW - this is a free open source project, so volunteers tackle issues as
> they want. There are no guarantees and it's a take it or leave it
> situation. Of course patches are always welcome (the code is out there to
> dive right into).
>
> Best,
> Joel
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>
>

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[Joel Madero]

Seriously people,

this is the second time I have lost a great amount of work because the
undo functionality of LibreOffice is about limited to one paragraph.

The alternative to make backups every time you change something is
just not workable.




Are you just ranting? This isn't a question at all.

Feel free to report a concise bug at bugs.libreoffice.org - explain the 
problem  and how you think it should work. I've been using LibreOffice 
for years and been a contributor for that time period and no one else 
has come up complaining about this.


FWIW - this is a free open source project, so volunteers tackle issues 
as they want. There are no guarantees and it's a take it or leave it 
situation. Of course patches are always welcome (the code is out there 
to dive right into).


Best,
Joel

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[B.S.]

B.S. schreef op 01-06-2016 15:24:

Seriously people,

this is the second time I have lost a great amount of work because the
undo functionality of LibreOffice is about limited to one paragraph.

The alternative to make backups every time you change something is
just not workable.


And if you then make another change after trying the undo (which doesn't 
really work) you will also have lost the redo buffer. I pressed the 
wrong button for redo. I pressed CTRL-R (Vim shortcut). Bad me, it did a 
right align, and my redo buffer was thrown out. Not that it mattered so 
much at this point, that latter point.


But this is just not functional. Not if you expect people to be people 
and still be able to use the thing.


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] undo functionality

[B.S.]

Seriously people,

this is the second time I have lost a great amount of work because the 
undo functionality of LibreOffice is about limited to one paragraph.


The alternative to make backups every time you change something is just 
not workable.


Regards,

B.S.

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted