Discussions about The Document Foundation ()

Larry Gusaas | 30 Dec 18:27

Do not support writing to OOXML format

I will not support or use LibreOffice
  until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file format. There is 
absolutely no need to write in this proprietary format. To do so is contrary to the principle 
of using ODF and open source formats.

See the following:
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2493&p=169740#p169507
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828

Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups I participate the people 
stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to LibreOffice.

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________

      Larry I. Gusaas

*Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan   Canada
Website:   http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese *

--

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

headers

Carl Symons | 30 Dec 18:48

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

I support Larry's position.

Carl Symons

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I will not support or use LibreOffice
>  until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file
> format. There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary format. To
> do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open source formats.
>
> See the following:
> http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2493&p=169740#p169507
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828
>
> Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups I
> participate the people stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to
> LibreOffice.
>
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>     Larry I. Gusaas
>

--

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

(Continue reading)

headers

RGB ES | 30 Dec 21:20

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

"open"xml is a really bad thing for the community. It was a shame its
approval by iso, specially if we consider there was no working
implementation of it (not even msoffice support that "standard"!!) By
implementing this format on LibO we are not helping to improve the
(absurd myth of) "interoperativity": we are only helping M$ to have an
excuse (the only possible one: an independent implementation!) for the
existence of those formats.
To load those formats is OK if the file will be converted to ODF. To
load those files in order save again on that absurd "standard" is a
really wrong move.
There is one thing that it is now more important than an opensource
office suite, and that thing is a really open standard about file
formats. We must protect ODF! Giving life support to ooxml is exactly
on the opposite direction of that goal.
Just my 2¢

2010/12/30 Carl Symons <carlsymons <at> gmail.com>:
> I support Larry's position.
>
> Carl Symons
>
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> I will not support or use LibreOffice
>>  until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file
>> format. There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary format. To
>> do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open source formats.
>>
>> See the following:
>> http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2493&p=169740#p169507
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828

(Continue reading)

headers

Gordon Burgess-Parker | 30 Dec 21:19

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 30/12/10 17:27, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> I will not support or use LibreOffice
>  until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file 
> format. There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary 
> format. To do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open 
> source formats.
>
> See the following:
> http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2493&p=169740#p169507 
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828
>
> Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups I 
> participate the people stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to 
> LibreOffice.
>
>
OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format 
by default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid....

--

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

headers

RGB ES | 30 Dec 21:23

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

2010/12/30 Gordon Burgess-Parker <gbplinux <at> gmail.com>:
> OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format by
> default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid....
>

That means nothing. MSOffice will be able to read the previous formats
for a while, I think...

--

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

headers

Gordon Burgess-Parker | 31 Dec 10:55

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 30/12/10 20:23, RGB ES wrote:
> 2010/12/30 Gordon Burgess-Parker<gbplinux <at> gmail.com>:
>> OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format by
>> default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid....
>>
> That means nothing. MSOffice will be able to read the previous formats
> for a while, I think...
>
That's not the point. Many users of MS Office don't know how , or can't 
be bothered, to change the default document format from OOXML back to 
previous format, especially as Windows 7 (by default) does NOT show the 
file extension, so users don't even KNOW they are using OOXML. (I have 
personal experience of this from Users I "support"). Therefore the use 
of OOXML will spread insidiously as the take up of Office 2010 
(particularly) and Windows 7 speeds up. And I'm afraid there is nothing 
that can be done to stop this as MS Office almost completely dominates 
the Office suite world, particularly in corporate environments.
And if you are sent an OOXML document to edit and return then it's bad 
manners not to send it back in the format it was sent to you, just like 
it's bad manners to receive a plain text email and reply in HTML....

--

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

headers

Carl Symons | 31 Dec 19:31

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker
<gbplinux <at> gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> And if you are sent an OOXML document to edit and return then it's bad
> manners not to send it back in the format it was sent to you, just like it's
> bad manners to receive a plain text email and reply in HTML....
>

How about if I receive an HTML email and reply in plain text? If
that's a faux pas, I've been a very bad boy.

--

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

headers

Craig A. Eddy | 31 Dec 20:02

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

There are many times in which HTML doesn't translate correctly to a
recipient.  The lowest common denominator, then, is plain text.  That
being the case I habitually set my email reader to send in plain text.

Also, for one who uses gpg (or it's equivalent), even occasionally, the
encrypting and/or signing program automatically converts to plain text.

It isn't arrogance.  It's the need to meet the needs of the greatest
number of people.

On 12/31/2010 11:31 AM, Carl Symons wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker
> <gbplinux <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> And if you are sent an OOXML document to edit and return then it's bad
>> manners not to send it back in the format it was sent to you, just like it's
>> bad manners to receive a plain text email and reply in HTML....
>>
> 
> How about if I receive an HTML email and reply in plain text? If
> that's a faux pas, I've been a very bad boy.
> 

--

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

(Continue reading)

headers

Larry Gusaas | 30 Dec 21:41

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


On 2010/12/30 2:19 PM  Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
> OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format by default. Nothing 
> you can do about it I'm afraid.... 

Yes you can do something about it. Don't enable writing in that format. Use PDF's for 
communicating. If a MS user needs to be able to modify a document, use .doc format. There is no 
need to use .docx format. MS Office 2008 and 2011 can still read .doc files.

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________

      Larry I. Gusaas

*Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan   Canada
Website:   http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese *

--

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

headers

Olivier Hallot | 31 Dec 03:16

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

HI

Em 30-12-2010 18:41, Larry Gusaas escreveu:
>
> On 2010/12/30 2:19 PM Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
>> OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this
>> format by default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid....
>
> Yes you can do something about it. Don't enable writing in that format.
> Use PDF's for communicating. If a MS user needs to be able to modify a
> document, use .doc format. There is no need to use .docx format. MS
> Office 2008 and 2011 can still read .doc files.
>
>

The thing is, *you can* prevent LibreOffice/OOo from writing in 
proprietary format. This requires a configuration in one of the xcu/xcs 
config files.

Happy new year
-- 
Olivier Hallot
Founder, Steering Commitee Member - The Document Foundation
Voicing the enterprise
Translation Leader for Brazilian Portuguese

--

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

(Continue reading)

headers

Carl Symons | 31 Dec 06:21

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Thank you Olivier for jumping in on this as one of the TDF founders.
And thank you for helping to make LibreOffice happen.

More below...

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Olivier Hallot
<olivier.hallot <at> documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> HI
>
> Em 30-12-2010 18:41, Larry Gusaas escreveu:
>>
>> On 2010/12/30 2:19 PM Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
>>>
>>> OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this
>>> format by default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid....
>>
>> Yes you can do something about it. Don't enable writing in that format.
>> Use PDF's for communicating. If a MS user needs to be able to modify a
>> document, use .doc format. There is no need to use .docx format. MS
>> Office 2008 and 2011 can still read .doc files.
>>
>>
>
> The thing is, *you can* prevent LibreOffice/OOo from writing in proprietary
> format. This requires a configuration in one of the xcu/xcs config files.
>
> Happy new year
> --
> Olivier Hallot

(Continue reading)

headers

Mike Hall | 31 Dec 08:01

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Maybe saving in ...x formats should be disabled by default so that the 
user must make a conscious decision to allow them.

But to some extent this discussion misses two key points:

1) Application quality
The default de-facto format will inevitably follow the dominant 
application. It's probably impossible to be a frequent OOO/LibO user 
without meeting serious bugs and having ones own list of things that 
need to be fixed. I certainly have mine. My professional experience with 
MSO was quite different, ie almost no troubling bugs. Apart from any 
other consideration, for pretty well any commercial organisation, the 
resulting support/user hassle cost of adopting OOO/LibO far exceeds the 
cost of adopting MSO, even from scratch for a new organisation. To 
illustrate the problem, you just need to inspect the OOO P2 issues which 
are regularly postponed release after release. Regretfully, for this 
reason it is very difficult to claim that OOO/LibO is a professional 
level application. When it is, many more users will flock to it and the 
format battle is much more likely to resolve itself in favour of ODF.

2) Chrome OS
In 2011 people will be buying notebooks without hard disks running 
Chrome OS, certainly cheaper including much lower support costs, 
probably faster too, and these users will be able to work cooperatively 
with their data entirely in the cloud. Perhaps >90% of users will 
potentially no longer need MSO, OOO, LibO or any of the associated 
formats. It's hard to say whether this will be game changing or just 
very important, it will depend on how well it works in practice, but 
given the self-evident quality and astonishing rate of development of 
Google's applications, my money is on game changing.

(Continue reading)

headers

Gordon Burgess-Parker | 31 Dec 11:07

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 30/12/10 20:41, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>
> On 2010/12/30 2:19 PM  Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
>> OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this 
>> format by default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid.... 
>
> Yes you can do something about it. Don't enable writing in that 
> format. Use PDF's for communicating. If a MS user needs to be able to 
> modify a document, use .doc format. There is no need to use .docx 
> format. MS Office 2008 and 2011 can still read .doc files.
>
>

None of you get the point, do you.
1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that 
which was sent to you. (That's why email clients always reply in the 
same format in which the original message was received)

2. Changing the format may well lose formatting in the document that is 
not supported in the older document type.

3. .doc, .xls and .ppt  are Microsoft proprietary formats anyway - it's 
just that they are much easier to analyse...

--

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

headers

Kevin André | 31 Dec 11:37

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:07, Gordon Burgess-Parker <gbplinux <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that which
> was sent to you. (That's why email clients always reply in the same format
> in which the original message was received)

I agree. And users will wonder why they can open a document they
received, make some simple changes, but are asked for different name
when saving the file. They will say "why can't this program simply
save my changes?".

--

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

headers

Ian Lynch | 31 Dec 11:51

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 31 December 2010 10:37, Kevin André <hyperquantum <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:07, Gordon Burgess-Parker <gbplinux <at> gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that
> which
> > was sent to you. (That's why email clients always reply in the same
> format
> > in which the original message was received)
>
> I agree. And users will wonder why they can open a document they
> received, make some simple changes, but are asked for different name
> when saving the file. They will say "why can't this program simply
> save my changes?".

You can get away with being arrogant when you have 80% of the market.  Most
of the people using a WP have no idea about file formats, they will assume
if it comes in as xxxx it needs to go out as xxxx. (Actually a lot will
never even have used save as..) If there is no facility to do this there is
a reasonable chance they will reject the use of the software out of hand.
This isn't about logic to a sophisticated computer user, it is about the
average user who has no technical knowledge and has picked up a WP by trial
and error. MS by luck or judgement have been very good at exploiting
ignorance. School systems don't teach word processing, they teach MS Word.
It's why we need better education and a certification programme for users
that covers stuff like file formats and the principles of WP not just one
product.

--

(Continue reading)

headers

Kevin André | 31 Dec 15:15

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:51, Ian Lynch <ianrlynch <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 December 2010 10:37, Kevin André <hyperquantum <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:07, Gordon Burgess-Parker <gbplinux <at> gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that
>> which
>> > was sent to you. (That's why email clients always reply in the same
>> format
>> > in which the original message was received)
>>
>> I agree. And users will wonder why they can open a document they
>> received, make some simple changes, but are asked for different name
>> when saving the file. They will say "why can't this program simply
>> save my changes?".
>
>
> You can get away with being arrogant when you have 80% of the market.

Right. But LibreOffice doesn't have that kind of market share...

> Most
> of the people using a WP have no idea about file formats, they will assume
> if it comes in as xxxx it needs to go out as xxxx. (Actually a lot will
> never even have used save as..) If there is no facility to do this there is
> a reasonable chance they will reject the use of the software out of hand.

Indeed. I argued that forcing users to save an OOXML document in
another format is something that users will not understand at first,

(Continue reading)

headers

RGB ES | 31 Dec 15:31

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

A possible compromise???: move all (I mean ALL) non native formats to
the Export menu and let save/save as for the native formats only.
Also, disable the possibility to change the default format for saving
documents: in my experience on forums, many problems are fixed when
you explain users that it is not good idea to use ms formats to
_store_ files, that they need to use ODF to store and export only when
needed.

2010/12/31 Kevin André <hyperquantum <at> gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:51, Ian Lynch <ianrlynch <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31 December 2010 10:37, Kevin André <hyperquantum <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:07, Gordon Burgess-Parker <gbplinux <at> gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that
>>> which
>>> > was sent to you. (That's why email clients always reply in the same
>>> format
>>> > in which the original message was received)
>>>
>>> I agree. And users will wonder why they can open a document they
>>> received, make some simple changes, but are asked for different name
>>> when saving the file. They will say "why can't this program simply
>>> save my changes?".
>>
>>
>> You can get away with being arrogant when you have 80% of the market.
>
> Right. But LibreOffice doesn't have that kind of market share...

(Continue reading)

headers

Kevin André | 31 Dec 16:03

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 15:31, RGB ES <rgb.mldc <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> A possible compromise???: move all (I mean ALL) non native formats to
> the Export menu and let save/save as for the native formats only.
> Also, disable the possibility to change the default format for saving
> documents: in my experience on forums, many problems are fixed when
> you explain users that it is not good idea to use ms formats to
> _store_ files, that they need to use ODF to store and export only when
> needed.

There are still people who can actually use OOo instead of MSO,
because of the option to change the default format.

I would suggest the following instead. Support OOXML completely, but
when the user saves his/her document in a proprietary format display a
confirmation message which says something like: "You are saving your
file in a proprietary format. We cannot guarantee that the file will
still open correctly in another program. Please use an open file
format for saving your document if possible. Are you still sure you
wish to save in the current format?" And display a checkbox below that
can disable the message, or maybe add a note "You can disable this
message by going to Options->....." and have no checkbox at all. And
the message would appear by default even for the binary MS formats
(.doc, .xls, .ppt, ...).

MS Office does the same thing when saving in ODF format, and they seem
to lack an option to disable the message, even when the document to be
saved uses only features that are completely supported by ODF.

--

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help <at> documentfoundation.org

(Continue reading)

headers

Steven Shelton | 31 Dec 17:14

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/31/2010 10:03 AM, Kevin André wrote:
> I would suggest the following instead. Support OOXML completely,
> but when the user saves his/her document in a proprietary format
> display a confirmation message which says something like: "You are
> saving your file in a proprietary format. We cannot guarantee that
> the file will still open correctly in another program. Please use
> an open file format for saving your document if possible. Are you
> still sure you wish to save in the current format?" And display a
> checkbox below that can disable the message, or maybe add a note
> "You can disable this message by going to Options->....." and have
> no checkbox at all. And the message would appear by default even
> for the binary MS formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt, ...).

This is a much better idea. However, I should note that even ODF
files--despite the hype--are not 100% on preserving formatting when
moved from one application to another. I have my letterhead saved as
ODF done in OOo, but when I open it in AbiWord the formatting is all
over the place.

- -- 
Steven Shelton
Deputy Undersecretary for Made-up Titles
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

(Continue reading)

headers

Kevin André | 31 Dec 17:28

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 17:14, Steven Shelton <steven <at> sheltonlegal.net> wrote:

> On 12/31/2010 10:03 AM, Kevin André wrote:
>> I would suggest the following instead. Support OOXML completely,
>> but when the user saves his/her document in a proprietary format
>> display a confirmation message which says something like: "You are
>> saving your file in a proprietary format. We cannot guarantee that
>> the file will still open correctly in another program. Please use
>> an open file format for saving your document if possible. Are you
>> still sure you wish to save in the current format?" And display a
>> checkbox below that can disable the message, or maybe add a note
>> "You can disable this message by going to Options->....." and have
>> no checkbox at all. And the message would appear by default even
>> for the binary MS formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt, ...).
>
> This is a much better idea. However, I should note that even ODF
> files--despite the hype--are not 100% on preserving formatting when
> moved from one application to another. I have my letterhead saved as
> ODF done in OOo, but when I open it in AbiWord the formatting is all
> over the place.

I know. But users need to be informed, even if it's with a short
message that is not 100 percent accurate.
Maybe a longer explanation could be provided in a help file or
something, and then provide a reference to it from the short message.

--

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

(Continue reading)

headers

NoOp | 1 Jan 20:10

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 12/31/2010 08:14 AM, Steven Shelton wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>  
> On 12/31/2010 10:03 AM, Kevin André wrote:
>> I would suggest the following instead. Support OOXML completely,
>> but when the user saves his/her document in a proprietary format
>> display a confirmation message which says something like: "You are
>> saving your file in a proprietary format. We cannot guarantee that
>> the file will still open correctly in another program. Please use
>> an open file format for saving your document if possible. Are you
>> still sure you wish to save in the current format?" And display a
>> checkbox below that can disable the message, or maybe add a note
>> "You can disable this message by going to Options->....." and have
>> no checkbox at all. And the message would appear by default even
>> for the binary MS formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt, ...).
> 
> This is a much better idea. However, I should note that even ODF
> files--despite the hype--are not 100% on preserving formatting when
> moved from one application to another. I have my letterhead saved as
> ODF done in OOo, but when I open it in AbiWord the formatting is all
> over the place.
...
Mostly because:
http://www.abisource.com/wiki/OpenDocument
http://www.abisource.com/wiki/OpenDocument_support
Also see:
http://www.abisource.com/release-notes/2.8.0.phtml
[Improved OpenDocument Format (.odt) support]

(Continue reading)

headers

yahoo-pier_andreit | 31 Dec 17:22

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Il 31/12/2010 15:31, RGB ES ha scritto:
> A possible compromise???: move all (I mean ALL) non native formats to
> the Export menu and let save/save as for the native formats only.
> Also, disable the possibility to change the default format for saving
> documents: in my experience on forums, many problems are fixed when
> you explain users that it is not good idea to use ms formats to
> _store_ files, that they need to use ODF to store and export only when
> needed.

very good idea +1

--

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

headers

Robert Holtzman | 1 Jan 01:16

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:51:48AM +0000, Ian Lynch wrote:
> School systems don't teach word processing, they teach MS Word.
> It's why we need better education and a certification programme for users
> that covers stuff like file formats and the principles of WP not just one
> product.

What's really infuriating is the listing of these various classes as
"computer classes". They have little to do with computers. They only
teach where to point and click in MSO programs.  

--

-- 
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
 check the price of the beer"

headers

M. Fioretti | 31 Dec 11:32

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 10:07:30 AM +0000, Gordon Burgess-Parker
(gbplinux <at> gmail.com) wrote:

> None of you get the point, do you.
> 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that
> which was sent to you.

arrogant my foot. If somebody smokes in my face it is not arrogant to
tell him/her to stop. It is my right, period.

For the very same reason, if people send you a document in a
proprietary format you are not arrogant to complain, you would be
wrong to _not_ complain. What is arrogant is sending proprietary
formats when you could avoid it, even after others have explained how
wrong it is.

Then of course, keep tolerating and using a proprietary format may be
still practically _unavoidable_ in many cases, no question about it. I
am in several of those cases myself.

But it would be really wrong to always do this by _default_, without
even trying to inform who is doing it that they ARE OBJECTIVELY WRONG
and that they should stop, because they're creating problems to
themselves and every other user of the files they produce, by using
formats that give cocain-like addiction:

http://stop.zona-m.net/?p=367

> (That's why email clients always reply in the same format in which
> the original message was received)

(Continue reading)

headers

Gordon Burgess-Parker | 31 Dec 12:35

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 31/12/10 10:32, M. Fioretti wrote:
>
> wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example,

Then I would plonk you immediately. How do you not see that that is 
TOTALLY ARROGANT?
If I send you an email in plain text and you reply in HTML, because YOU 
want to, that is complete rudeness and intolerance.

--

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

headers

Ian Lynch | 31 Dec 13:13

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 31 December 2010 11:35, Gordon Burgess-Parker <gbplinux <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31/12/10 10:32, M. Fioretti wrote:
>
>>
>> wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example,
>>
>
> Then I would plonk you immediately. How do you not see that that is TOTALLY
> ARROGANT?
> If I send you an email in plain text and you reply in HTML, because YOU
> want to, that is complete rudeness and intolerance.

It's more likely just that the replier didn't think it was a big deal 

I don't think that most people that send me .docs are arrogant. Ignorant
perhaps. Personally I don't see why there is such a big hang up about HTML
in e-mails since web based mail is now very common and it is an open
standard.

-- 
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help <at> documentfoundation.org<discuss%2Bhelp <at> documentfoundation.org>
> Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
>
>

--

-- 
Ian

(Continue reading)

headers

Michelle Konzack | 2 Jan 20:26

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Hello Ian Lynch,

Am 2010-12-31 12:13:56, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> It's more likely just that the replier didn't think it was a big deal 

Most users in the Windows World have not to think,
because Microsoft do it already for them.
Sad but true

> I don't think that most people that send me .docs are arrogant. Ignorant
> perhaps. Personally I don't see why there is such a big hang up about HTML
> in e-mails since web based mail is now very common and it is an open
> standard.

Since HTML mails looks very crappy in  Mutt  and  if  I  do  not  get  a
properly build alternative text/plain I hit the big "D".

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
    Michelle Konzack

--

-- 
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant ######################
   Development of Intranet and Embedded Systems with Debian GNU/Linux

itsystems <at> tdnet France EURL       itsystems <at> tdnet UG (limited liability)
Owner Michelle Konzack            Owner Michelle Konzack

Apt. 917 (homeoffice)
50, rue de Soultz                 Kinzigstraße 17
67100 Strasbourg/France           77694 Kehl/Germany

(Continue reading)

headers

Robert Holtzman | 1 Jan 00:45

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:35:24AM +0000, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
> On 31/12/10 10:32, M. Fioretti wrote:
> >
> >wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example,
> 
> Then I would plonk you immediately. How do you not see that that is
> TOTALLY ARROGANT?
> If I send you an email in plain text and you reply in HTML, because
> YOU want to, that is complete rudeness and intolerance.

No......what's arrogant is insisting I use an MUA that supports HTML
just so I can reply in the same format to some ignorant jerk who sends
me a circus poster for an email.

--

-- 
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
 check the price of the beer"

headers

Robert Holtzman | 1 Jan 01:07

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:35:24AM +0000, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
> On 31/12/10 10:32, M. Fioretti wrote:
> >
> >wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example,
> 
> Then I would plonk you immediately. How do you not see that that is
> TOTALLY ARROGANT?
> If I send you an email in plain text and you reply in HTML, because
> YOU want to, that is complete rudeness and intolerance.

No........what's arrogant is someone insisting I use an MUA that
supports HTML just so I can reply in kind to some clueless jerk who sent
me a circus poster for an email.

--

-- 
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
 check the price of the beer"

headers

Robert Holtzman | 1 Jan 01:10

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:35:24AM +0000, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
> On 31/12/10 10:32, M. Fioretti wrote:
> >
> >wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example,
> 
> Then I would plonk you immediately. How do you not see that that is
> TOTALLY ARROGANT?
> If I send you an email in plain text and you reply in HTML, because
> YOU want to, that is complete rudeness and intolerance.

Please excuse the double reply to this post. It was inadvertent.

--

-- 
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
 check the price of the beer"

headers

Jaime R. Garza | 1 Jan 01:14

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Sorry to get into the discussion, but what are your goals, to be arrogant,
or not? Or to make ODF the defacto standard which saddly is still NOT? The
important thing is to fulfill the needs from potential users, specially in
the enterprise. *e.g. *E-mail composers in the enterprise usually support
text, RTF and HTML, and will automatically reply in the same format, why?
Because enterprise users need to support all market standards! The same
applies for File Formats, the enterprise users need to support the
maket-share leaders, and even though we don't like it, the market leaders
are still MS File Formats. It's not about being arrogant, or making a point,
is about winning market-share, and if we don't understand that, we already
lost the race.

Cheers!

Jaime R. Garza

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 01:10, Robert Holtzman <holtzm <at> cox.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:35:24AM +0000, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
> > On 31/12/10 10:32, M. Fioretti wrote:
> > >
> > >wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example,
> >
> > Then I would plonk you immediately. How do you not see that that is
> > TOTALLY ARROGANT?
> > If I send you an email in plain text and you reply in HTML, because
> > YOU want to, that is complete rudeness and intolerance.
>
> Please excuse the double reply to this post. It was inadvertent.
>

(Continue reading)

headers

M. Fioretti | 2 Jan 19:41

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 11:35:24 AM +0000, Gordon Burgess-Parker
(gbplinux <at> gmail.com) wrote:

> On 31/12/10 10:32, M. Fioretti wrote:
> >
> >wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example,
> 
> Then I would plonk you immediately. How do you not see that that is
> TOTALLY ARROGANT?

Uh??? In that part of your message you had made a purely technical
assertion. You had said that email CLIENTS (i.e. not the actual people
sending email, but the software programs they use) "always reply in
the same format in which the original message was received".

I only noticed that this purely technical assertion of yours IS wrong
because it is an undeniable fact (for which I personally bear NO
responsibility...) that the sending format in most email clients is
only a *default* that users can change as they please, not to mention
that some email clients only send as plain text. You made a technical
assertion, I replied at the same level. If you think a technical
default setting of most email clients (i.e. not the way people use or
configure them) is totally arrogant, yell at their developers, not at
me.

> If I send you an email in plain text and you reply in HTML, because
> YOU want to, that is complete rudeness and intolerance.

Sure. But it's still wrong, as I already pointed out, to mix
txt-vs-html email with ODF-vs-OOXML, because HTML is really open and

(Continue reading)

headers

yahoo-pier_andreit | 31 Dec 13:39

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Il 31/12/2010 11:32, M. Fioretti ha scritto:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 10:07:30 AM +0000, Gordon Burgess-Parker
> (gbplinux <at> gmail.com) wrote:
> 
>> None of you get the point, do you.
>> 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that
>> which was sent to you.
> 
> arrogant my foot. If somebody smokes in my face it is not arrogant to
> tell him/her to stop. It is my right, period.
> 

yes it is your right, but to not be smoked on your face is seen as your
right by others (even if "other" is your boss), but to send a document
in another format (mainly if the receiver is your boss or customer)
isn't seen as your right

> For the very same reason, if people send you a document in a
> proprietary format you are not arrogant to complain, you would be
> wrong to _not_ complain. What is arrogant is sending proprietary
> formats when you could avoid it, even after others have explained how
> wrong it is.
> 
> Then of course, keep tolerating and using a proprietary format may be
> still practically _unavoidable_ in many cases, no question about it. I
> am in several of those cases myself.
> 
> But it would be really wrong to always do this by _default_, without
> even trying to inform who is doing it that they ARE OBJECTIVELY WRONG
> and that they should stop, because they're creating problems to

(Continue reading)

headers

M. Fioretti | 2 Jan 19:48

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 13:39:19 PM +0100, yahoo-pier_andreit (pier_andreit <at> yahoo.it) wrote:
> Il 31/12/2010 11:32, M. Fioretti ha scritto:

> >> 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to
> >> that which was sent to you.
> > 
> > arrogant my foot. If somebody smokes in my face it is not arrogant to
> > tell him/her to stop. It is my right, period.
> > 
> 
> yes it is your right, but to not be smoked on your face is seen as
> your right by others (even if "other" is your boss), but to send a
> document in another format (mainly if the receiver is your boss or
> customer) isn't seen as your right

But still is (not to mention that it's in their OWN interest to not
lock all their documents, not just those they exchange with others, in
proprietary formats). Just as it was already my right to not be smoked
in my face 20/15 years ago, when smoking inside crowded workplaces was
commonplace.

Besides, I had already explicitly acknowledged myself the need to
compromise:

> > Then of course, keep tolerating and using a proprietary format may
> > be still practically _unavoidable_ in many cases, no question
> > about it. I am in several of those cases myself.

So I honestly fail to see what was the point of your message.

(Continue reading)

headers

Olivier Hallot | 31 Dec 15:29

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Hi Gordon

Em 31-12-2010 08:07, Gordon Burgess-Parker escreveu:
> On 30/12/10 20:41, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>
>> On 2010/12/30 2:19 PM Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
>>>

(snip)
> None of you get the point, do you.
> 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that
> which was sent to you. (That's why email clients always reply in the
> same format in which the original message was received)

Actually I am more pragmatic. I do ask myself who *signs* the check, and 
how many digits it bears. Then I choose the file format I have to work. 

-- 
Olivier Hallot
Founder, Steering Commitee Member - The Document Foundation
Voicing the enterprise
Translation Leader for Brazilian Portuguese

--

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

headers

Paul Gress | 31 Dec 18:04

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 12/31/10 05:07 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
> On 30/12/10 20:41, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>
>> On 2010/12/30 2:19 PM  Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
>>> OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format by default. Nothing you can do
about it I'm afraid.... 
>>
>> Yes you can do something about it. Don't enable writing in that format. Use PDF's for communicating. If a
MS user needs to be able to modify a document, use .doc format. There is no need to use .docx format. MS Office
2008 and 2011 can still read .doc files.
>>
>>
>
> None of you get the point, do you.
> 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that which was sent to you. (That's why email
clients always reply in the same format in which the original message was received)
>

It must be arrogant for them to send you a format you don't support.  Also, if the Win 7 users don't know what
format the documents are in, why does it matter if it's returned to them in a .doc format?

> 2. Changing the format may well lose formatting in the document that is not supported in the older document type.
>

Changing the format is inevitable.  Libreoffice and OOo converts it to ODF when it opens/imports the docx. 
When you save that document as a .doc file Libreoffice and OOo simply export it to that format.  There are two
conversion, opening and saving.  As I stated previously, saving to .docx will not be as accurate as saving
to .doc until it matures.

> 3. .doc, .xls and .ppt  are Microsoft proprietary formats anyway - it's just that they are much easier to analyse...

(Continue reading)

headers

Carl Symons | 30 Dec 21:47

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Gordon Burgess-Parker
<gbplinux <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/12/10 17:27, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>
>> I will not support or use LibreOffice
>>  until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file
>> format. There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary format. To
>> do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open source formats.
>>
>> See the following:
>>
>> http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2493&p=169740#p169507
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828
>>
>> Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups I
>> participate the people stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to
>> LibreOffice.
>>
>>
> OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format by
> default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid....
>

MS may create documents in OOXML by default. LibO can read them too.

Larry Gusaas' original point was to avoid helping MS with this
anti-open scheme. LibO should not help MS "...spread OOXML by enabling
writing in this file format..." In other words, make it so that LibO
can _read_ OOXML documents, but not _write/save as_ this format.
Enable LibO to _write_ in MS' proprietary .doc format, but not their

(Continue reading)

headers

BRM | 30 Dec 23:14

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

----- Original Message ----

> From: Carl Symons <carlsymons <at> gmail.com>
> To: discuss <at> documentfoundation.org
> Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 3:47:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format
> 
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Gordon Burgess-Parker
> <gbplinux <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > On  30/12/10 17:27, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> >>
> >> I will not support  or use LibreOffice
> >>  until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling  writing in this file
> >> format. There is absolutely no need to write in  this proprietary format. 
To
> >> do so is contrary to the principle of  using ODF and open source formats.
> >>
> >> See the  following:
> >>
> >>  
>http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2493&p=169740#p169507
>
> >> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828
> >>
> >> ; Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups  I
> >> participate the people stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to
> >>  LibreOffice.
> >>
> >>
> > OOXML will spread anyway because MS  Office 2007 and 2010 use this format by

(Continue reading)

headers

BRM | 30 Dec 23:18

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

----- Original Message ----

> From: BRM <bm_witness <at> yahoo.com>
> > 
> > Even MS Office users (prior to  2007) have had  trouble with this docx 
fraud.
> > 
> 
> Perhaps LibO and all other Open  Source projects - and perhaps anyone 
>supporting 
>
> ODF for that matter - should  treat OOXML like Microsoft treats ODF and other 
> formats - as third party as  possible.
> In other words, read support should be something that users must  enable; Save 

> support should not be possible - it must be converted to either  an older MS 
> format (e.g. doc, xls) or ODF.
> We need to force MS to support  ODF - as others have pointed out ODF is quickly 
>
> becoming the world standard  at least at the government level - which means in 
>a 
>
> few years most  organizations that support governments will need to support ODF 
>
> too, and a  few years after that organizations that support those 
>organizations, 
>
> and so  forth. MS has lost the file format battle to ODF - it's just time 
>before 
>

(Continue reading)

headers

Barbara Duprey | 31 Dec 00:17

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 12/30/2010 4:14 PM, BRM wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
<snip>
> We need to force MS to support ODF - as others have pointed out ODF is quickly
> becoming the world standard at least at the government level - which means in a
> few years most organizations that support governments will need to support ODF
> too, and a few years after that organizations that support those organizations,
> and so forth. MS has lost the file format battle to ODF - it's just time before
> OOXML (especially) and their legacy formats are gone.

Unfortunately, MS now claims that it *does* support ODF, reading and writing files with the ODF 
extensions. But users attempting interoperability will soon discover that the MS implementation is 
not really compatible with other ODF implementations (most notably in spreadsheet formulas, but not 
just that). I think the MS plan here is to say that *they've* got the true standard implementation 
and everybody else is wrong. Since that (basically proprietary) version of ODF is now distributed as 
part of MS Office, it's just about everywhere, so they have the numbers on their side. That seems to 
leave everybody else once again playing "catch-up" with MS, which can then simply do as it pleases 
with the standard, being the 600-pound gorilla in the room. Interoperability issues will than be 
charged against the non-MS implementation, making it "safer" for organizations to stay with MS. Am I 
being unduly pessimistic here?

> The idea of LibO/etc reading OOXML pushes the issue - just like MS did to so
> many other formats to get people to convert to their formats.
> After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?
>
> Of course, all functionality should be dually advertised - with explanations as
> to why.
>
> Ben
>

(Continue reading)

headers

BRM | 31 Dec 01:12

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

----- Original Message ----

> From: Barbara Duprey <Barb <at> onr.com>
> <snip>
> > We need to force MS to support ODF - as others have  pointed out ODF is 
>quickly
> > becoming the world standard at least at the  government level - which means 
>in a
> > few years most organizations that  support governments will need to support 
>ODF
> > too, and a few years after  that organizations that support those 
>organizations,
> > and so forth. MS  has lost the file format battle to ODF - it's just time 
>before
> > OOXML  (especially) and their legacy formats are gone.
> 
> Unfortunately, MS now  claims that it *does* support ODF, reading and writing 
>files with the ODF  extensions. But users attempting interoperability will soon 
>discover that the MS  implementation is not really compatible with other ODF 
>implementations (most  notably in spreadsheet formulas, but not just that). I 
>think the MS plan here is  to say that *they've* got the true standard 
>implementation and everybody else is  wrong. Since that (basically proprietary) 
>version of ODF is now distributed as  part of MS Office, it's just about 
>everywhere, so they have the numbers on their  side. That seems to leave 
>everybody else once again playing "catch-up" with MS,  which can then simply do 
>as it pleases with the standard, being the 600-pound  gorilla in the room. 
>Interoperability issues will than be charged against the  non-MS implementation, 
>making it "safer" for organizations to stay with MS. Am I  being unduly 
>pessimistic here?
>

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 31 Dec 10:30

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

FYI for those that aren't aware. Microsoft office 2010 supports ODF 
format for opening and saving documents now.

On 12/31/10 1:12 AM, BRM wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Barbara Duprey<Barb <at> onr.com>
>> <snip>
>>> We need to force MS to support ODF - as others have  pointed out ODF is
>> quickly
>>> becoming the world standard at least at the  government level - which means
>> in a
>>> few years most organizations that  support governments will need to support
>> ODF
>>> too, and a few years after  that organizations that support those
>> organizations,
>>> and so forth. MS  has lost the file format battle to ODF - it's just time
>> before
>>> OOXML  (especially) and their legacy formats are gone.
>> Unfortunately, MS now  claims that it *does* support ODF, reading and writing
>> files with the ODF  extensions. But users attempting interoperability will soon
>> discover that the MS  implementation is not really compatible with other ODF
>> implementations (most  notably in spreadsheet formulas, but not just that). I
>> think the MS plan here is  to say that *they've* got the true standard
>> implementation and everybody else is  wrong. Since that (basically proprietary)
>> version of ODF is now distributed as  part of MS Office, it's just about
>> everywhere, so they have the numbers on their  side. That seems to leave
>> everybody else once again playing "catch-up" with MS,  which can then simply do
>> as it pleases with the standard, being the 600-pound  gorilla in the room.
>> Interoperability issues will than be charged against the  non-MS implementation,

(Continue reading)

headers

Gordon Burgess-Parker | 31 Dec 13:14

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 31/12/10 09:30, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> FYI for those that aren't aware. Microsoft office 2010 supports ODF 
> format for opening and saving documents now.
>

So does 2007 SP2 as well. However in 2007 the opening of ods documents 
has deliberately broken formulae....don't know whether they've "fixed" 
this in 2010, or whether they even want to fix it...

--

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

headers

Cor Nouws | 31 Dec 18:04

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote (31-12-10 13:14)
> On 31/12/10 09:30, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
>> FYI for those that aren't aware. Microsoft office 2010 supports ODF
>> format for opening and saving documents now.
>>
>
> So does 2007 SP2 as well. However in 2007 the opening of ods documents
> has deliberately broken formulae....don't know whether they've "fixed"
> this in 2010, or whether they even want to fix it...

(No idea if someone already answered this somewhere else in this thread, 
so here I go  )

MS sticks (anyway up until now) with the ISO-certified version of ODF.
In the mean time ODF evolves.
Formulae support is close to final, and for months already, there is 
very little chance that there will be changes in the specs.
Even more: the formulae definitions in ODF have to a high level been 
based on MS-implementations of formulae.
So MS could have made a choice to to implement close to final ODF 
versions already.
For OOo and others, it is completely logic and natural to offer support 
for close-to-final ODF specifications already. ODF is the native format 
plus that the open source suites develop so much faster, that it would 
be impractical not to implement them.

Best,
Cor

--

--

(Continue reading)

headers

Ian Lynch | 31 Dec 18:19

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 31 December 2010 17:04, Cor Nouws <oolst <at> nouenoff.nl> wrote:

> Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote (31-12-10 13:14)
>
>  On 31/12/10 09:30, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
>>
>>> FYI for those that aren't aware. Microsoft office 2010 supports ODF
>>> format for opening and saving documents now.
>>>
>>>
>> So does 2007 SP2 as well. However in 2007 the opening of ods documents
>> has deliberately broken formulae....don't know whether they've "fixed"
>> this in 2010, or whether they even want to fix it...
>>
>
> (No idea if someone already answered this somewhere else in this thread, so
> here I go  )
>
> MS sticks (anyway up until now) with the ISO-certified version of ODF.
> In the mean time ODF evolves.
> Formulae support is close to final, and for months already, there is very
> little chance that there will be changes in the specs.
> Even more: the formulae definitions in ODF have to a high level been based
> on MS-implementations of formulae.
> So MS could have made a choice to to implement close to final ODF versions
> already.
> For OOo and others, it is completely logic and natural to offer support for
> close-to-final ODF specifications already. ODF is the native format plus
> that the open source suites develop so much faster, that it would be
> impractical not to implement them.

(Continue reading)

headers

Carl Symons | 31 Dec 02:09

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 2:14 PM, BRM <bm_witness <at> yahoo.com> wrote:
several thread entries truncated

>> >>
>> >> I will not support  or use LibreOffice
>> >>  until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling  writing in this file
>> >> format. There is absolutely no need to write in  this proprietary format.
> To
>> >> do so is contrary to the principle of  using ODF and open source formats.
>> >>
>> >> See the  following:
>> >>
>> >>
>>http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2493&p=169740#p169507
>>
>> >> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828
>> >>
>> >> ; Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups  I
>> >> participate the people stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to
>> >>  LibreOffice.

One minor point here...OOo also supports writing to docx format.

>
> Perhaps LibO and all other Open Source projects - and perhaps anyone supporting
> ODF for that matter - should treat OOXML like Microsoft treats ODF and other
> formats - as third party as possible.
> In other words, read support should be something that users must enable; Save
> support should not be possible - it must be converted to either an older MS
> format (e.g. doc, xls) or ODF.

(Continue reading)

headers

Paul Gress | 31 Dec 02:54

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 12/30/10 08:09 PM, Carl Symons wrote:
>
>>>
>>> http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2493&p=169740#p169507
>>>
>>>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828
>>>>>
>>>>> ; Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups  I
>>>>> participate the people stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to
>>>>>   LibreOffice.
> One minor point here...OOo also supports writing to docx format.
>

I checked my OOo, dev m95 (3.4), it doesn't support save as "docx" and 3.3 rc8 (3.3 m18) also doesn't support
"docx" in save as.  What version are you using that supports docx?

Also, for what it's worth, saving as a docx to me is a bad idea.  I've imported doc files extensively in the
past, straightened them out to view properly, saved as an odt, then saved as a doc again only to find some
different formatting doesn't come out correctly with the doc.  I suspect docx will be worse.  I have got many
people in the past to convert to OOo.  I will now promote them to Libreoffice.  I cannot move over myself as I
use Solaris 11 Express (similar to Opensolaris) which there is no port.

--

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

headers

Carl Symons | 31 Dec 19:15

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Paul Gress <pgress <at> optonline.net> wrote:
> On 12/30/10 08:09 PM, Carl Symons wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2493&p=169740#p169507
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ; Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups
>>>>>>  I
>>>>>> participate the people stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to
>>>>>>  LibreOffice.
>>
>> One minor point here...OOo also supports writing to docx format.
>>
>
> I checked my OOo, dev m95 (3.4), it doesn't support save as "docx" and 3.3
> rc8 (3.3 m18) also doesn't support "docx" in save as.  What version are you
> using that supports docx?
>
>From standard Kubuntu 10.10 repositories...

OpenOffice.org 3.2.1
OOO320m19 (Build:9505)
ooo-build 3.2.1.4, Ubuntu package 1:3.2.1-7ubuntu1

Screenshot attached.

>

(Continue reading)

headers

Larry Gusaas | 31 Dec 19:57

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


On 2010/12/31 12:15 PM  Carl Symons wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Paul Gress<pgress <at> optonline.net>  wrote:
>> I checked my OOo, dev m95 (3.4), it doesn't support save as "docx" and 3.3
>> rc8 (3.3 m18) also doesn't support "docx" in save as.  What version are you
>> using that supports docx?
>>
> > From standard Kubuntu 10.10 repositories...
>
> OpenOffice.org 3.2.1
> OOO320m19 (Build:9505)
> ooo-build 3.2.1.4, Ubuntu package 1:3.2.1-7ubuntu1

That is the Go-OO derivative. OOo downloaded from the OpenOffice.org website do not write to 
.docx format.

Larry
-- 
_________________________________
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese

--

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

headers

Carl Symons | 31 Dec 20:07

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2010/12/31 12:15 PM  Carl Symons wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Paul Gress<pgress <at> optonline.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I checked my OOo, dev m95 (3.4), it doesn't support save as "docx" and
>>> 3.3
>>> rc8 (3.3 m18) also doesn't support "docx" in save as.  What version are
>>> you
>>> using that supports docx?
>>>
>> > From standard Kubuntu 10.10 repositories...
>>
>> OpenOffice.org 3.2.1
>> OOO320m19 (Build:9505)
>> ooo-build 3.2.1.4, Ubuntu package 1:3.2.1-7ubuntu1
>
> That is the Go-OO derivative. OOo downloaded from the OpenOffice.org website
> do not write to .docx format.
>
>
> Larry

Until this discussion thread, I was unaware of any difference. IIRC,
this version of OOo comes standard on the Kubuntu Live/Install CD, and
updated through standard repositories. (The startup splash screen has
the Oracle logo.) Much different from a Windows installation.

Whadda mess!

(Continue reading)

headers

Larry Gusaas | 31 Dec 07:26

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


On 2010/12/30 7:09 PM  Carl Symons wrote:
> One minor point here...OOo also supports writing to docx format.

Official OpenOffice.org builds do not support writing to the .docx format.

The Go-OO derivative does write to the .docx format (probably because of the agreement between 
Microsoft and Novell). Go-OO is the version used on many Linux distros. There are many reports 
on OOo forums of problems caused by the poorly tested additions included in Go-OO.

LibreOffice is based on Go-OO.

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________

      Larry I. Gusaas

*Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan   Canada
Website:   http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese *

--

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

headers

Sean White | 31 Dec 08:02

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

I have come into this thread a little late but i may just have a slightly
clearer view of things.  In the world of office suites, MS almost has a
monopoly.  They have the power to to make their formats the standard.  IF
LibreOffice pulls .docx support then people WONT congratulate us on the
strength of our morals.  They will instead see an 'office suite' that
doesn't support the formats they have and will go "Well thats USELESS" and
delete it from their system and install an office suite which DOES have
support, which in this case is MSO thus strengthening MS position in the
market.  This is the opposite of what we want to happen with LibreOffice.
 The validity of the standard and the fact that its a proprietary format
aside, if LibreOffice doesn't play ball, the we get shoved of the court.

As a side note, I find it slightly hypocritical that the original poster
advocates going back to OO.o, which is now controlled by Oracle who are in a
bigger campaign of open-source destruction than MS is at the moment, because
we happen to support a format that is used by 80+% of all 'Office Suite'
users.  Its kinda like going to the gStreamer forums and saying "I'm going
to iTunes because you support WMA".

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas <at> gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On 2010/12/30 7:09 PM  Carl Symons wrote:
>
>> One minor point here...OOo also supports writing to docx format.
>>
>
> Official OpenOffice.org builds do not support writing to the .docx format.
>
> The Go-OO derivative does write to the .docx format (probably because of

(Continue reading)

headers

Larry Gusaas | 31 Dec 08:36

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 2010/12/31 1:02 AM  Sean White wrote:
> IF
> LibreOffice pulls .docx support then people WONT congratulate us on the
> strength of our morals.

Nobody suggest not being able to read .docx files, only that LibO should no be able to write to 
that format.

> They will instead see an 'office suite' that
> doesn't support the formats they have and will go "Well thats USELESS" and
> delete it from their system and install an office suite which DOES have
> support,

MS Office still can read and write to .doc format. LibO ability to write to .doc format if 
necessary is sufficient for interchange with MS office users

> we happen to support a format that is used by 80+% of all 'Office Suite'
> users.

Older versions of MS office do not use the new formats. Many users of MS Office 2007 and newer 
still save in the older formats. Nowhere near 80+% of MS Office users the new file formats.

> Its kinda like going to the gStreamer forums and saying "I'm going
> to iTunes because you support WMA".

Totally irrelevant comment. What is gStreamer? Oh, wait a minute, it is probably a Linuts program.

Larry
--

--

(Continue reading)

headers

Sean White | 31 Dec 09:25

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

@Larry Gusaas
During the last 12 months alot of of big businesses have changed over to
Windows 7 and MSO 2007/2010.  As most people dont care about the format they
will just save it as docx.  Most will not even know the difference because
they will buy the software that their business has.  LibreOffice being able
to write to .doc isn't going to be enough when everyone around you is using
the format equivalent of Win7 and you're still using the equivalent of
Win98/2000.

The vibe i got from the original poster and a few subsequent posters was
that of stopping support entirely, both read and write, rather than just
write.

gStreamer is a de-facto media framework.  Some programs you use everyday
probably use it.  If my use of gStreamer was to hard for you then replace it
with FFMpeg.  It achieves the same objective.  And dont just think that
because i know a few computer terms that you don't that I run Linux.  Not
every smart person uses it even though it is a better system than Windows.
 The reason it fails is really the same as why OOo/LO struggle against MSO,
people dont see it as a viable alternative.  In linux's case its because
people think that it HAS to be advanced and that it isn't user friendly.  In
OOo/LO's case people see that it doesn't have the features they need (.docx
support) and, camparative to MSO, looks a-shambles, with a GUI akin to the
MSO 97-2003 era.

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas <at> gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On 2010/12/31 1:02 AM  Sean White wrote:
>

(Continue reading)

headers

Thorsten Behrens | 2 Jan 00:30

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Larry Gusaas wrote:
> >They will instead see an 'office suite' that
> >doesn't support the formats they have and will go "Well thats USELESS" and
> >delete it from their system and install an office suite which DOES have
> >support,
> 
> MS Office still can read and write to .doc format. LibO ability to
> write to .doc format if necessary is sufficient for interchange with
> MS office users
> 
Nope, it's not. And the gap is widening. Also, nobody is gonna
write, and QA, a decent export filter for ooxml in 6 months, should
MS once axe binary support ...

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

headers

Simon Brouwer | 31 Dec 10:41

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


Sean White schreef:
> Oracle who are in a bigger campaign of open-source destruction than MS
is at the moment,

I know some anti-Oracle sentiment can be expected here, but seriously...

-- 
Vriendelijke groet,
Simon Brouwer
-*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*-

--

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

headers

Steven Shelton | 31 Dec 17:23

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/30/2010 5:14 PM, BRM wrote:
> Agree. LibO should only read OOXML if anything at all.

[snip]

> ODF for that matter - should treat OOXML like Microsoft treats ODF
> and other formats - as third party as possible. In other words,
> read support should be something that users must enable; Save
> support should not be possible - it must be converted to either an
> older MS format (e.g. doc, xls) or ODF.

Ah . . .  so your solution is to make our application harder to use
than MS Office so that users will come to us instead of MS Office?

Interesting concept . . .

> We need to force MS to support ODF - as others have pointed out ODF
> is quickly becoming the world standard at least at the government
> level - which means in a few years most organizations that support
> governments will need to support ODF too, and a few years after
> that organizations that support those organizations, and so forth.
> MS has lost the file format battle to ODF - it's just time before
> OOXML (especially) and their legacy formats are gone.

In case you haven't noticed, the open source community isn't in a
position to "force" MS to do anything. And it never will be as long as

(Continue reading)

headers

Andy Brown | 31 Dec 01:08

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Thu Dec 30 2010 12:19:55 GMT-0800 (PST)  Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:

> OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format 
> by default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid....
> 

If M$ were to use the proper standard then I would have no problem with 
the OOXML usage.  The problem comes in when M$ uses their version 
instead of the standard, (see 
http://www.adjb.net/post/Microsoft-Fails-the-Standards-Test.aspx ). 
Reading the OPs links and following links from the different post leads 
to far more interesting reading.  It is funny that the Sun plugin for 
MSO had better support for ODF than the built-in support from M$.  M$ 
has no interest in any open format standard so they do everything, 
including sabotage to do away with them.

My 2cents.

Andy

--

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

headers

Wolf Halton | 31 Dec 02:28

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

I have to use office2007 at work and I watch hundreds of core users (college
students) struggle with my formatting requirements for homework assignments.
Most of these are using the company-supplied computers, with office 2007,
most of the time.  Word allows reading and writing odf format. It tends to
mess up fancy document formatting, but the most complicated document
formatting these users do is adding a page number.
The IT department set it up, so I don't know if the Plugin took manual
set-up.

If we could set up docx to save automatically to doc, that might be cool for
us but don't you think that would just annoy core users of ms office? Most
core users of any program just want to use it to perform some task. They
don't care about these format battles.

If we could make a couple of award-winning big-budget movies where format
license was the pivotal plot device, we might have hope of including the
core user in the controversy. I am not sure that deliberate exclusion coming
from the "let's get them before they get us" vibe in this thread is going to
work how we want.

Once all European governments and half of Aisia go to open formats, maybe we
just stop accepting ms formats at all.  This is how ms office got their
crushing grip on general business formatting, isn't it. Before Windows, the
average university or (US) government core user was using WordPerfect on
DOS. Over the next 5-10 years we will probably see a sea-change to *nix,
cloud and open formats, but the focus of LO may have to shift to a SaaS
delivery model to meet the challenges of that change.  If the documents are
shared primarily over the network through a browser, it will be very simple
for those service providers to specify odf if we make the reasons clear
enough, or if we are the providers of those services.

(Continue reading)

headers

Ian Lynch | 31 Dec 11:17

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 30 December 2010 20:19, Gordon Burgess-Parker <gbplinux <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On 30/12/10 17:27, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>
>> I will not support or use LibreOffice
>>  until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file
>> format. There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary format. To
>> do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open source formats.
>>
>> See the following:
>>
>> http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2493&p=169740#p169507
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828
>>
>> Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups I
>> participate the people stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to
>> LibreOffice.
>>
>>
>>  OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format
> by default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid....

And if LibO does not support export to the latest versions of MS Office many
governments and businesses will be less likely to adopt it. Overall that
would be bad for odf. Once odf is in majority use yo can start dictating de
facto standards.

--

-- 
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help <at> documentfoundation.org<discuss%2Bhelp <at> documentfoundation.org>
> Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/

(Continue reading)

headers

alan c | 2 Jan 14:01

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 30/12/10 20:19, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
> On 30/12/10 17:27, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>  I will not support or use LibreOffice
>>   until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file
>>  format. There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary
>>  format. To do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open
>>  source formats.
>>
>>  See the following:
>>  http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2493&p=169740#p169507
>>
>>  http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828
>>
>>  Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups I
>>  participate the people stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to
>>  LibreOffice.
>>
>>
> OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format
> by default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid....

However much I dislike the OOXML situation and also dislike the 
situation which exists of it being accepted by whatever means in ISO, 
it is a fact which exists. A distasteful one. This stage of the game 
was not won with our desired objectives, was it?

My objective is to do what I can to spread FLOSS and its use. There 
may be battles on the way, some battles will be lost some will be won. 
The objective is to win the war.

(Continue reading)

headers

Steven Shelton | 30 Dec 21:14

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/30/2010 12:27 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> I will not support or use LibreOffice
> until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this
> file format. There is absolutely no need to write in this
> proprietary format. To do so is contrary to the principle of using
> ODF and open source formats.

On the other hand . . . isn't that doing exactly what MS does? Do two
wrongs make a right? I thought the idea behind this particular office
suite was to make any file accessible to the extent possible. That's
why I use it. Regardless of what LibO does, MS is going to continue to
use OOXML, and if the open source suites don't support it, then they
are shooting themselves in the foot and essentially doing MS's bidding
by ensuring that people who want to exchange files in that format have
to buy MS products.

- -- 
Steven Shelton
Deputy Undersecretary for Made-up Titles
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk0c6CIACgkQO+AD2HqgRoAFmACeJfN63kpY0scYYf4nh9HI6M3d
m18AoMuiy7TqhzLg8pxuMEch0eDp2nKD
=Lj+L

(Continue reading)

headers

Larry Gusaas | 30 Dec 22:07

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


On 2010/12/30 2:14 PM  Steven Shelton wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/30/2010 12:27 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>> I will not support or use LibreOffice
>> until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this
>> file format. There is absolutely no need to write in this
>> proprietary format. To do so is contrary to the principle of using
>> ODF and open source formats.
> On the other hand . . . isn't that doing exactly what MS does? Do two
> wrongs make a right? I thought the idea behind this particular office
> suite was to make any file accessible to the extent possible. That's
> why I use it. Regardless of what LibO does, MS is going to continue to
> use OOXML, and if the open source suites don't support it, then they
> are shooting themselves in the foot and essentially doing MS's bidding
> by ensuring that people who want to exchange files in that format have
> to buy MS products.

You have it backward. If LibO writes in OOXML they are doing Microsofts bidiing. The world is 
slowly demanding open document formats. By supporting MS proprietary formats LibO is helping to 
perpetuate their hegemony.

--

-- 
---------------------

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan   Canada
Website:  http://larry-gusaas.com

(Continue reading)

headers

Rob Unsworth | 31 Dec 09:45

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 31/12/10 07:07, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> You have it backward. If LibO writes in OOXML they are doing 
> Microsofts bidiing. The world is slowly demanding open document 
> formats. By supporting MS proprietary formats LibO is helping to 
> perpetuate their hegemony.
>
If LibreOffice were to write in OOXML it would be supporting MS by 
giving them another implementation of the current OOXML format. There is 
also a distinct possibility that LbreOffice would loose credibility 
within the open source community.

Before anyone spends any more time on LibreOffice writing in the OOXML 
format I would suggest you read these two articles.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/04/iso-ooxml-convener-microsofts-format-heading-for-failure.ars

 From Alex Brown, the convener of ISO's OOXML subcommittee
http://www.adjb.net/post/Microsoft-Fails-the-Standards-Test.aspx

-- 
Rob Unsworth		

--

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

headers

Carl Symons | 30 Dec 22:07

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Steven Shelton
<steven <at> sheltonlegal.net> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/30/2010 12:27 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>> I will not support or use LibreOffice
>> until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this
>> file format. There is absolutely no need to write in this
>> proprietary format. To do so is contrary to the principle of using
>> ODF and open source formats.
>
> On the other hand . . . isn't that doing exactly what MS does? Do two
> wrongs make a right?

No that is not what MS does. MS reads & writes in proprietary formats.
They do not support open source formats. LibO should read any format
and have the ability to write in proprietary formats. It should not
write in proprietary formats masquerading as open formats. LibO should
not go along with MS' chicanery. LibO is not engaging in deceptive
practices.

I thought the idea behind this particular office
> suite was to make any file accessible to the extent possible. That's
> why I use it. Regardless of what LibO does, MS is going to continue to
> use OOXML, and if the open source suites don't support it, then they
> are shooting themselves in the foot and essentially doing MS's bidding
> by ensuring that people who want to exchange files in that format have
> to buy MS products.

(Continue reading)

headers

Gordon Burgess-Parker | 31 Dec 11:02

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 30/12/10 21:07, Carl Symons wrote:
>
> Any file format would still be accessible to read. If someone sends
> you a docx file, you will be able to open it. You can send a .doc (no
> x; no OOXML) file back to to them; they will be able to read it with
> their MS application.
Two comments on that. OOXML documents could contain more formatting 
options than the old style MS Office documents, which would be lost of 
you saved it in a prior format, and secondly, if someone sends you a 
document in a certain format, then it's arrogant of you to return it in 
a DIFFERENT format, however much you dislike the format the sender used.
That's why email clients reply to messages in the same format in which 
they were received.

--

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

headers

Gordon Burgess-Parker | 31 Dec 13:50

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 30/12/10 17:27, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> I will not support or use LibreOffice
>  until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file 
> format. There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary 
> format. To do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open 
> source formats.
>
> See the following:
> http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2493&p=169740#p169507 
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828
>
> Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups I 
> participate the people stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to 
> LibreOffice.
>
>
The answer to ALL this nonsense is surely this.
If you receive an OOXML document, politely reply to the sender and 
request that they send it in another format, explaining why.
And BTW, the latest Open Office ALSO supports writing to OOXML format...

--

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

headers

RGB ES | 31 Dec 14:17

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

2010/12/31 Gordon Burgess-Parker <gbplinux <at> gmail.com>:
> And BTW, the latest Open Office ALSO supports writing to OOXML format...
As someone already said, that's absolutely wrong: I have 3.3rc8 and
300m95 running here and none of them support writing to whateverX
formats.
Maybe you are using some go-oo derivative, but oracle's OOo do not
support writing to those formats, not even the development version for
3.4.

--

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

headers

Gordon Burgess-Parker | 31 Dec 14:21

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 31/12/10 13:17, RGB ES wrote:
>
> As someone already said, that's absolutely wrong: I have 3.3rc8 and
> 300m95 running here and none of them support writing to whateverX
> formats.
> Maybe you are using some go-oo derivative, but oracle's OOo do not
> support writing to those formats, not even the development version for
> 3.4.
>
Well, Open Office 3.2.1 running on Ubuntu 10.04 has a Save-As option of 
Office 2007 xml (docx). So i don't know what THAT is then, if it's not 
OOXML....

--

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

headers

RGB ES | 31 Dec 14:23

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Ubuntu's (and openSUSE's and sabayon's and...) "OOo" is go-oo, not oracle's OOo.

2010/12/31 Gordon Burgess-Parker <gbplinux <at> gmail.com>:
> On 31/12/10 13:17, RGB ES wrote:
>>
>> As someone already said, that's absolutely wrong: I have 3.3rc8 and
>> 300m95 running here and none of them support writing to whateverX
>> formats.
>> Maybe you are using some go-oo derivative, but oracle's OOo do not
>> support writing to those formats, not even the development version for
>> 3.4.
>>
> Well, Open Office 3.2.1 running on Ubuntu 10.04 has a Save-As option of
> Office 2007 xml (docx). So i don't know what THAT is then, if it's not
> OOXML....
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help <at> documentfoundation.org
> Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
>
>

--

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

headers

Gordon Burgess-Parker | 31 Dec 14:25

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 31/12/10 13:23, RGB ES wrote:
> Ubuntu's (and openSUSE's and sabayon's and...) "OOo" is go-oo, not oracle's OOo.
>
>

So that's why it says ORACLE on the OO splash screen then....

--

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

headers

RGB ES | 31 Dec 14:27

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

It says oracle ("based on oracle" to be precise) because most of the
code is copyrighted by oracle. Please, google a bit, it does not
hurt...

2010/12/31 Gordon Burgess-Parker <gbplinux <at> gmail.com>:
> On 31/12/10 13:23, RGB ES wrote:
>>
>> Ubuntu's (and openSUSE's and sabayon's and...) "OOo" is go-oo, not
>> oracle's OOo.
>>
>>
>
> So that's why it says ORACLE on the OO splash screen then....
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help <at> documentfoundation.org
> Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
>
>

--

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

headers

sophie | 31 Dec 14:47

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Hi,
On 31/12/2010 16:27, RGB ES wrote:
> It says oracle ("based on oracle" to be precise) because most of the
> code is copyrighted by oracle. Please, google a bit, it does not
> hurt...
Both of you are right. In fact, it's the official version plus some 
go-oo patches. So you get a mix of the two versions (that brings a lot 
of bugs unfortunately).

Kind regards
Sophie

--

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

headers

Mark Preston | 31 Dec 16:11

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

If I may inject what I hope is a little sense into this argument:-

A major strength of Open Office is and always was that it could read
and often write documents in many proprietary formats. That strength
should remain solidly a feature of Libre Office and for exactly the
same reasons.

When it comes to the Microsoft formats there is a significant issue
with writing the formats - specifically, that even Microsoft cannot
fully adhere to the standards they set. This is a major fault and it
is one which Microsoft has placed into the marketplace.

It leaves Libre Office with three choices when it comes to these
formats. It can either:-

1. Write in the format as used by Microsoft.
2. Write in the format as specified in the ISO standard.
3. Refuse to write in the new formats at all.

The problem with option 1 is that it is a strictly proprietary form
which even Microsoft admits does not actually meet the open standard.
It is therefore open to attacks using patent and other legislation if
adopted by Libre Office.

The problem with option 2 is that while it is an open standard it does
not actually fully work with Microsoft Office and is therefore a
pointless choice until (according to Microsoft) at least 2014.

The problem with option 3 is that Libre Office would be left in the
situation where its own files would need to be read by the ODF open

(Continue reading)

headers

Cor Nouws | 31 Dec 17:49

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Hi Mark, all,

Mark Preston wrote (31-12-10 16:11)
> If I may inject what I hope is a little sense into this argument:-
>
> A major strength of Open Office is and always was that it could read
> and often write documents in many proprietary formats. That strength
> should remain solidly a feature of Libre Office and for exactly the
> same reasons.
>
> When it comes to the Microsoft formats there is a significant issue
> with writing the formats - specifically, that even Microsoft cannot
> fully adhere to the standards they set. This is a major fault and it
> is one which Microsoft has placed into the marketplace.
>
> It leaves Libre Office with three choices when it comes to these
> formats. It can either:-
>
> 1. Write in the format as used by Microsoft.
> 2. Write in the format as specified in the ISO standard.
> 3. Refuse to write in the new formats at all.
>
> The problem with option 1 is that it is a strictly proprietary form
> which even Microsoft admits does not actually meet the open standard.
> It is therefore open to attacks using patent and other legislation if
> adopted by Libre Office.
>
> The problem with option 2 is that while it is an open standard it does
> not actually fully work with Microsoft Office and is therefore a
> pointless choice until (according to Microsoft) at least 2014.

(Continue reading)

headers

Carl Symons | 31 Dec 19:58

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Mark Preston <mark <at> mpreston.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> If I may inject what I hope is a little sense into this argument:-
>

Thank you for injecting sense into what had become entirely emotional
and irrational B^)

> A major strength of Open Office is and always was that it could read
> and often write documents in many proprietary formats. That strength
> should remain solidly a feature of Libre Office and for exactly the
> same reasons.
>
> When it comes to the Microsoft formats there is a significant issue
> with writing the formats - specifically, that even Microsoft cannot
> fully adhere to the standards they set. This is a major fault and it
> is one which Microsoft has placed into the marketplace.
>
> It leaves Libre Office with three choices when it comes to these
> formats. It can either:-
>
> 1. Write in the format as used by Microsoft.
> 2. Write in the format as specified in the ISO standard.
> 3. Refuse to write in the new formats at all.
>
> The problem with option 1 is that it is a strictly proprietary form
> which even Microsoft admits does not actually meet the open standard.
> It is therefore open to attacks using patent and other legislation if
> adopted by Libre Office.
>
> The problem with option 2 is that while it is an open standard it does

(Continue reading)

headers

Gordon Burgess-Parker | 31 Dec 14:23

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 31/12/10 13:21, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
> On 31/12/10 13:17, RGB ES wrote:
>>
>> As someone already said, that's absolutely wrong: I have 3.3rc8 and
>> 300m95 running here and none of them support writing to whateverX
>> formats.
>> Maybe you are using some go-oo derivative, but oracle's OOo do not
>> support writing to those formats, not even the development version for
>> 3.4.
>>
> Well, Open Office 3.2.1 running on Ubuntu 10.04 has a Save-As option 
> of Office 2007 xml (docx). So i don't know what THAT is then, if it's 
> not OOXML....

And it's the ORACLE version as well.....

--

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

headers

Larry Gusaas | 31 Dec 17:36

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


On 2010/12/31 7:23 AM  Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
> On 31/12/10 13:21, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
>> On 31/12/10 13:17, RGB ES wrote:
>>>
>>> As someone already said, that's absolutely wrong: I have 3.3rc8 and
>>> 300m95 running here and none of them support writing to whateverX
>>> formats.
>>> Maybe you are using some go-oo derivative, but oracle's OOo do not
>>> support writing to those formats, not even the development version for
>>> 3.4.
>>>
>> Well, Open Office 3.2.1 running on Ubuntu 10.04 has a Save-As option of Office 2007 xml 
>> (docx). So i don't know what THAT is then, if it's not OOXML....
>
> And it's the ORACLE version as well.....
>

Ubuntu and most Linux distros use the Go-oo derivative of OOo. It is based on the Oracle 
version with many additions, including the ability to save in Office 2007 formats (probably 
because of the Novell and Microsoft marketing agreement).

OOo downloaded from the OpenOffice.org does not save in Office 2007 formats.

Larry
--

-- 
_________________________________
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com

(Continue reading)

headers

Paul Gress | 31 Dec 20:46

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 12/31/10 08:23 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
> On 31/12/10 13:21, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
>> On 31/12/10 13:17, RGB ES wrote:
>>>
>>> As someone already said, that's absolutely wrong: I have 3.3rc8 and
>>> 300m95 running here and none of them support writing to whateverX
>>> formats.
>>> Maybe you are using some go-oo derivative, but oracle's OOo do not
>>> support writing to those formats, not even the development version for
>>> 3.4.
>>>
>> Well, Open Office 3.2.1 running on Ubuntu 10.04 has a Save-As option of Office 2007 xml (docx). So i don't
know what THAT is then, if it's not OOXML....
>
> And it's the ORACLE version as well.....
>

I just installed OOo 3.2.1 in my Windows VBox and it didn't have a save as docx.  When you select "Help > About
Openoffice.org" what version does it display?

--

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

headers

Italo Vignoli | 31 Dec 14:53

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Sorry for stepping in so late in the discussion.

I have seen many messages, but they all miss the key issue: 
interoperability.

TDF is FOR interoperability, which is a user (and a market) need.

TDF is not AGAINST Microsoft, although many of its founding members - 
including myself - have been strong opponents of OOXML during the 
standardization process.

We have worked inside committeees in order to improve OOXML, or - if you 
prefer - to make is a less flawed standard.

TDF is FOR ODF, and being FOR ODF in a "strong" way means that you do 
not support OOXML (but not to the point of creating problems to users 
wanting to save in a specific document format).

Of course, TDF is also a member of OpenDoc Society (announcement in 
early January) and is represented at the highest level inside OASIS. 
Inside these bodies, TDF will fight FOR making ODF a successful document 
standard over OOXML.

I would really like to handle the negative attitude to Oracle and the 
OOo community. If you share the idea of being AGAINST Microsoft, TDF and 
users, then we are happy if you choose the OOo community.

Happy 2011 to everyone. Ciao, Italo

--

--

(Continue reading)

headers

Wolf Halton | 31 Dec 18:54

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

@rgb.mldc-  if your request for a document included a format type, you might
even include a link to LO as well. My copy of OO.o opens docx, so I can't
say docx is unreadable.  Everything I run is tweaked a little, so I am not a
standard use case.
There was a long thread on one of the Linux lists to which I subscribe of
the poor taste of hr recruiters who ask for.doc versions of an applicant's
resume on a linux-focused job board. Do you think an applicant would be
considered if they sent an odf instead?

--

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

headers

Paul Gress | 31 Dec 19:53

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 12/31/10 07:50 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
>
> The answer to ALL this nonsense is surely this.
> If you receive an OOXML document, politely reply to the sender and request that they send it in another
format, explaining why.
> And BTW, the latest Open Office ALSO supports writing to OOXML format...
>

As I've stated previously, what version?  I have installed OOo dev 3.4 (m95) and 3.3 OOo rc8 (m18) and I can't
save as a "docx".

Paul

--

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

headers

Andy Brown | 31 Dec 20:01

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri Dec 31 2010 10:53:16 GMT-0800 (PST)  Paul Gress wrote:
> On 12/31/10 07:50 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
>>
>> The answer to ALL this nonsense is surely this.
>> If you receive an OOXML document, politely reply to the sender and 
>> request that they send it in another format, explaining why.
>> And BTW, the latest Open Office ALSO supports writing to OOXML format...
>>
> 
> As I've stated previously, what version?  I have installed OOo dev 3.4 
> (m95) and 3.3 OOo rc8 (m18) and I can't save as a "docx".
> 
> 
> Paul
> 

They are using the Go-oo version so that explains it.  Plain old OOo 
does not have the docx save as docx ability.  If one reads the links in 
the original post they will find out why.  Hint: Novell is in bed with M$.

--

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

headers

Carl Symons | 31 Dec 20:17

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Andy Brown <andy <at> the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
> On Fri Dec 31 2010 10:53:16 GMT-0800 (PST)  Paul Gress wrote:
>>
>> On 12/31/10 07:50 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
>>>
>>> The answer to ALL this nonsense is surely this.
>>> If you receive an OOXML document, politely reply to the sender and
>>> request that they send it in another format, explaining why.
>>> And BTW, the latest Open Office ALSO supports writing to OOXML format...
>>>
>>
>> As I've stated previously, what version?  I have installed OOo dev 3.4
>> (m95) and 3.3 OOo rc8 (m18) and I can't save as a "docx".
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>
> They are using the Go-oo version so that explains it.  Plain old OOo does
> not have the docx save as docx ability.  If one reads the links in the
> original post they will find out why.  Hint: Novell is in bed with M$.
>
>

Does this mean that Go-oo is driven by Novell? The contact on
go-oo.org/about has a novell.com email address.

--

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help <at> documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/

(Continue reading)

headers

Andy Brown | 31 Dec 20:29

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri Dec 31 2010 11:17:28 GMT-0800 (PST)  Carl Symons wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Andy Brown <andy <at> the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
>> On Fri Dec 31 2010 10:53:16 GMT-0800 (PST)  Paul Gress wrote:
>>> On 12/31/10 07:50 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
>>>> The answer to ALL this nonsense is surely this.
>>>> If you receive an OOXML document, politely reply to the sender and
>>>> request that they send it in another format, explaining why.
>>>> And BTW, the latest Open Office ALSO supports writing to OOXML format...
>>>>
>>> As I've stated previously, what version?  I have installed OOo dev 3.4
>>> (m95) and 3.3 OOo rc8 (m18) and I can't save as a "docx".
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>> They are using the Go-oo version so that explains it.  Plain old OOo does
>> not have the docx save as docx ability.  If one reads the links in the
>> original post they will find out why.  Hint: Novell is in bed with M$.
>>
>>
> 
> Does this mean that Go-oo is driven by Novell? The contact on
> go-oo.org/about has a novell.com email address.
> 

Yep.  Go back to the first message in this thread and follow the links. 
  Very eye opening.

Andy

(Continue reading)

headers

Carl Symons | 31 Dec 20:45

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Andy Brown <andy <at> the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
> On Fri Dec 31 2010 11:17:28 GMT-0800 (PST)  Carl Symons wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Andy Brown <andy <at> the-martin-byrd.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri Dec 31 2010 10:53:16 GMT-0800 (PST)  Paul Gress wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/31/10 07:50 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer to ALL this nonsense is surely this.
>>>>> If you receive an OOXML document, politely reply to the sender and
>>>>> request that they send it in another format, explaining why.
>>>>> And BTW, the latest Open Office ALSO supports writing to OOXML
>>>>> format...
>>>>>
>>>> As I've stated previously, what version?  I have installed OOo dev 3.4
>>>> (m95) and 3.3 OOo rc8 (m18) and I can't save as a "docx".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>> They are using the Go-oo version so that explains it.  Plain old OOo does
>>> not have the docx save as docx ability.  If one reads the links in the
>>> original post they will find out why.  Hint: Novell is in bed with M$.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Does this mean that Go-oo is driven by Novell? The contact on
>> go-oo.org/about has a novell.com email address.

(Continue reading)

headers

Andy Brown | 31 Dec 21:05

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri Dec 31 2010 11:45:46 GMT-0800 (PST)  Carl Symons wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Andy Brown <andy <at> the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:

>> Yep.  Go back to the first message in this thread and follow the links.
>>  Very eye opening.
>>
>> Andy
>>
> 
> You're right, some interesting reading there and on the links.
> 
> The Go-oo homepage also says "Going forward, the Go-oo project will be
> discontinued in favor of LibreOffice." Does that mean that LibreOffice
> is driven by Novell too?
> 

What do you think?

Andy

--

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

headers

Carl Symons | 31 Dec 21:32

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Andy Brown <andy <at> the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
> On Fri Dec 31 2010 11:45:46 GMT-0800 (PST)  Carl Symons wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Andy Brown <andy <at> the-martin-byrd.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Yep.  Go back to the first message in this thread and follow the links.
>>>  Very eye opening.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>
>> You're right, some interesting reading there and on the links.
>>
>> The Go-oo homepage also says "Going forward, the Go-oo project will be
>> discontinued in favor of LibreOffice." Does that mean that LibreOffice
>> is driven by Novell too?
>>
>
> What do you think?
>
> Andy
>

Good question...especially as thinking sometimes gets me in trouble.

Not being privy to the Novell sale goings-on, I don't know how the
Novell/Microsoft arrangement unfolded, how much or what of the
agreements (reported on the Groklaw link, first post) between MS and
Novell are still in place, or who would be bound by them.

(Continue reading)

headers

Olivier Hallot | 1 Jan 12:30

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

HI

Em 31-12-2010 17:45, Carl Symons escreveu:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Andy Brown<andy <at> the-martin-byrd.net>  wrote:
>> On Fri Dec 31 2010 11:17:28 GMT-0800 (PST)  Carl Symons wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Andy Brown<andy <at> the-martin-byrd.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri Dec 31 2010 10:53:16 GMT-0800 (PST)  Paul Gress wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/31/10 07:50 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
>

(snip)

>>>>> As I've stated previously, what version?  I have installed OOo dev 3.4
>>>>> (m95) and 3.3 OOo rc8 (m18) and I can't save as a "docx".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>> They are using the Go-oo version so that explains it.  Plain old OOo does
>>>> not have the docx save as docx ability.  If one reads the links in the
>>>> original post they will find out why.  Hint: Novell is in bed with M$.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does this mean that Go-oo is driven by Novell? The contact on
>>> go-oo.org/about has a novell.com email address.

(Continue reading)

headers

Zaphod Feeblejocks | 1 Jan 13:16

Co-working with Moz, etc (was:Do not support writing to OOXML format)

> > The Go-oo homepage also says "Going forward, the Go-oo project will be
> > discontinued in favor of LibreOffice." Does that mean that LibreOffice
> > is driven by Novell too?
> >
> 
> I wouldn't put in that simple words. Actually, LibreOffice is open to 
> any developer, individual or company that whishes to contribute to our 
> code and endeavour. On the TDF announcement we invited Oracle to join 
> us and suggested them to offer the brand OpenOffice to TDF (later this 
> was politely declined by Oracle).

I think this is an important issue, and one which can be open to massive amount of FUD.  
I'm sure TDF is thankful to Novell for their input, but the wariness that exists to anyone who 
is working with Microsoft for any reason cannot be ignored.

Ways to resolve this include:
- Open (and easy to find) statistics on the numbers of current developers on LibO and their 
background.
- More clear input from Google, etc., towards easy integration with Google Docs (in the way 
that the MSO integration with the web-based version of MSO will become something users 
expect).
- Joint-branding with Thunderbird, Scribus, etc. There have been many posts on the OOo 
lists over the years asking "do you do a calendar?" or "Do you have a Publisher 
replacement".  No, we don't - but clearly promoting other open source projects and working 
with them to make life easy for people coming away from MSO helps all people.  This would 
include LibO pointing to downloads for Mozilla packages and vice-versa. If Mozilla wanted 
to point to both LibO and OOo as the projects grow apart, that's fine - we are all part of a 
larger OS fraternity.
- Working on a common look-and-feel in a number of OS apps.  Could a Mozilla 'skin' that 
can be applied to LibO, OOo, Scribus, etc., be viable?  Or a 'Traditional OO' skin that can

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 1 Jan 13:37

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc (was:Do not support writing to OOXML format)

You mention other projects why not package other projects as options for
instance during install. User is presented with a list of options for
instance thunderbird for email etc?

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Zaphod Feeblejocks <zaphodfj <at> gmail.com>wrote:

> > > The Go-oo homepage also says "Going forward, the Go-oo project will be
> > > discontinued in favor of LibreOffice." Does that mean that LibreOffice
> > > is driven by Novell too?
> > >
> >
> > I wouldn't put in that simple words. Actually, LibreOffice is open to
> > any developer, individual or company that whishes to contribute to our
> > code and endeavour. On the TDF announcement we invited Oracle to join
> > us and suggested them to offer the brand OpenOffice to TDF (later this
> > was politely declined by Oracle).
>
> I think this is an important issue, and one which can be open to massive
> amount of FUD.
> I'm sure TDF is thankful to Novell for their input, but the wariness that
> exists to anyone who
> is working with Microsoft for any reason cannot be ignored.
>
> Ways to resolve this include:
> - Open (and easy to find) statistics on the numbers of current developers
> on LibO and their
> background.
> - More clear input from Google, etc., towards easy integration with Google
> Docs (in the way
> that the MSO integration with the web-based version of MSO will become

(Continue reading)

headers

Jaime R. Garza | 1 Jan 15:01

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc (was:Do not support writing to OOXML format)

You had some very good ideas, my comments about them:

About Google, they have a proprietary File Format, as for now, they only
support  ODT and ODS. So I'm wondering why they don't support other ODF File
Formats. It would be good if someone could talk with them about that.

Also, it would be great to make an open specified container (probably with
the possibility of different themes), to achieve a seamless connection and
interaction to Thunderbird, Scribus, and any other SW that wants to.

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 13:16, Zaphod Feeblejocks <zaphodfj <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> > > The Go-oo homepage also says "Going forward, the Go-oo project will be
> > > discontinued in favor of LibreOffice." Does that mean that LibreOffice
> > > is driven by Novell too?
> > >
> >
> > I wouldn't put in that simple words. Actually, LibreOffice is open to
> > any developer, individual or company that whishes to contribute to our
> > code and endeavour. On the TDF announcement we invited Oracle to join
> > us and suggested them to offer the brand OpenOffice to TDF (later this
> > was politely declined by Oracle).
>
> I think this is an important issue, and one which can be open to massive
> amount of FUD.
> I'm sure TDF is thankful to Novell for their input, but the wariness that
> exists to anyone who
> is working with Microsoft for any reason cannot be ignored.
>
> Ways to resolve this include:

(Continue reading)

headers

Cia Watson | 1 Jan 18:07

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc (was:Do not support writing to OOXML format)

On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:16:06 -0000
Zaphod Feeblejocks <zaphodfj <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> > > The Go-oo homepage also says "Going forward, the Go-oo project
> > > will be discontinued in favor of LibreOffice." Does that mean
> > > that LibreOffice is driven by Novell too?

> Ways to resolve this include:
> - Open (and easy to find) statistics on the numbers of current
> developers on LibO and their background.
> - More clear input from Google, etc., towards easy integration with
> Google Docs (in the way that the MSO integration with the web-based
> version of MSO will become something users expect).
> - Joint-branding with Thunderbird, Scribus, etc. There have been many
> posts on the OOo lists over the years asking "do you do a calendar?"
> or "Do you have a Publisher replacement".  No, we don't - but clearly
> promoting other open source projects and working with them to make
> life easy for people coming away from MSO helps all people.  

Since this looks a little like a wish-list, I thought I'd add mine. (Or
am I engaging in wishful thinking?  )

I think it would be nice to be able to open AbiWord documents (.abw)
that render properly. LibO (and OO) Writer will open the file, but
there's a lot of coding visible, I'm guessing it's xml code.  I can
open odt files just fine in AbiWord (as well as doc and docx files)
and they render properly; but the reverse isn't true. Therefore, since I
have some documents already in abw format, I generally stick with
AbiWord for my few word-processing needs.

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 1 Jan 19:43

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc (was:Do not support writing to OOXML format)

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

There are one of three ways it can be done.

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

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

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

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Cia Watson <ciamarie <at> my180.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:16:06 -0000
> Zaphod Feeblejocks <zaphodfj <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The Go-oo homepage also says "Going forward, the Go-oo project
> > > > will be discontinued in favor of LibreOffice." Does that mean
> > > > that LibreOffice is driven by Novell too?
>
> > Ways to resolve this include:
> > - Open (and easy to find) statistics on the numbers of current
> > developers on LibO and their background.
> > - More clear input from Google, etc., towards easy integration with
> > Google Docs (in the way that the MSO integration with the web-based
> > version of MSO will become something users expect).
> > - Joint-branding with Thunderbird, Scribus, etc. There have been many
> > posts on the OOo lists over the years asking "do you do a calendar?"

(Continue reading)

headers

Sebastian G. | 1 Jan 20:04

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc


Am 01.01.2011 19:43, schrieb Jonathan Aquilina:
> Whats really held OOo and will hold LO back is the lack of an equivalent
> program such as outlook.
> 
> There are one of three ways it can be done.
> 
> 1) fork something like evolution which has all that done and integrate it
> into the LO suite
> 
> 2) or install software that already exists in the open source arena.
> 
> the problem with 2 is that it will greatly increase the download size, which
> would pose issues for people with slow bandwidth.
> 

The third-party software could be downloaded if it's required. If it's
selected during installation it gets downloaded.

This solves two issues, the download size of the installer doesn't
increase and the software is up-to-date.

BTW: A fork (or something completely new) would increase the download
size, too.

Regards,
bastik

01 Jan 2011, 20:04 (+0100)

(Continue reading)

headers

Craig A. Eddy | 1 Jan 20:20

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

I remember my days of working for an outfit that used Outlook and MS
products.  I looked into Outlook for myself.  I was not amused.

Years later I turned to Linux, and the particular distribution I chose
installed Evolution by default.  I looked into it.  I was not amused.
So I tried uninstalling it.  Come to find out it had it's hooks into so
much of the distribution that the distribution would have collapsed if I
had uninstalled it.  So I disabled it, instead.

I used Thunderbird.  And, shortly after, learned that there was a
plug-in called Lightning that took care of the problem of a calendar.
Hence Evolution (better named devolution) was unnecessary.  Not only
that, but the calendar in Thunderbird (Lightning) could be hooked up to
the Google calendar, making it share-able (as an editor for the Ubuntu
Weekly Newsletter that was a bonus, since the events ended up being
logged on that calendar, and I could transfer them to the newsletter
without too much difficulty).

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

Craig
Tyche

On 01/01/2011 11:43 AM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> Whats really held OOo and will hold LO back is the lack of an equivalent

(Continue reading)

headers

Lee Hyde | 1 Jan 20:36

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

On 01/01/11 19:20, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
> So, what am I saying?  You don't NEED to add something useless like
> Outlook or Evolution to LO.  You just have to allow Thunderbird to
> connect to it, and people can make their own choice as to whether they
> want all the other bells and whistles.  Therefore, no increase in size
> due to bundling but the advantage that those that WANT the extras can
> have them without difficulty

I agree, an integration add-on for Thunderbird (and any other e-mail
clients or contact managers with an add-on architecture) would be a far
better use of resources. Simply making contacts available to LibreOffice
would do wonders for mail-merge luck functionality (for the life of me I
can't think of any other functionalities one would require of an outlook
clone).

-- 
"The division of mankind threatens it with destruction. Only universal
cooperation under conditions of intellectual freedom and the lofty moral
ideals of socialism and labor, accompanied by the elimination of
dogmatism and pressure of the concealed interests of ruling classes,
will preserve civilization."

   	-- Andrei Sakharov, The New York Times (July 22nd, 1968)

--

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

(Continue reading)

headers

Jaime R. Garza | 1 Jan 20:42

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

But why only for Thunderbird?

Why not make an open container (or just modularize the existing one with a
well defined interface) to will allow any application to use the resources
(e.g. dictionaries) and have full integration with all LO resources?

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 20:36, Lee Hyde <anubeon <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/01/11 19:20, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
> > So, what am I saying?  You don't NEED to add something useless like
> > Outlook or Evolution to LO.  You just have to allow Thunderbird to
> > connect to it, and people can make their own choice as to whether they
> > want all the other bells and whistles.  Therefore, no increase in size
> > due to bundling but the advantage that those that WANT the extras can
> > have them without difficulty
>
> I agree, an integration add-on for Thunderbird (and any other e-mail
> clients or contact managers with an add-on architecture) would be a far
> better use of resources. Simply making contacts available to LibreOffice
> would do wonders for mail-merge luck functionality (for the life of me I
> can't think of any other functionalities one would require of an outlook
> clone).
>
> --
> "The division of mankind threatens it with destruction. Only universal
> cooperation under conditions of intellectual freedom and the lofty moral
> ideals of socialism and labor, accompanied by the elimination of
> dogmatism and pressure of the concealed interests of ruling classes,
> will preserve civilization."
>

(Continue reading)

headers

Lee Hyde | 1 Jan 21:08

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

On 01/01/11 19:42, Jaime R. Garza wrote:
> But why only for Thunderbird?
> 
> Why not make an open container (or just modularize the existing one with a
> well defined interface) to will allow any application to use the resources
> (e.g. dictionaries) and have full integration with all LO resources?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the main bone of contention with
regards to integrating a third-party e-mail client the flow of data
*from* the client, *to* the office suite. If that is the case, surely
there is a *need* develop an add-on for each e-mail client.

I can't imagine there being a need to share resources with an e-mail
client (certainly Thunderbird) as they (as stand-alone products) strive
to be feature complete. That being said don't both Thunderbird and LibO
use hunspell? If so, would it not already be a simple matter to share
dictionaries? For example a system-wide hunspell dictionary.

For the record I'm not in favour of LibO wasting resources on developing
their own PIM or e-mail client. There are plenty of alternatives out
there, and LibO should work on integration with them (I assume such
would represent a lot less work compared with a brand new or forked PIM).

Regards,

Lee Hyde.
--

-- 
"We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we
are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the
possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon

(Continue reading)

headers

Jaime R. Garza | 1 Jan 22:50

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

My point is that if they are stand alone,they should still be able to share
seamlessly the resources, like the dictionary, spell check, even PDF export,
I'm not sure if Thunderbird uses one. But the important thing is to give the
feeling that they work integrated. Not only to the E-Mail client, but to the
Calendar and contacts. Thinking more into the Social, to be able to share
documents made from LO directly after making them from the same application,
having a button called SHARE, which will let the users select from the
contacts and then automatically send the share invitation to the E-Mail of
the selected contact. In general to give the effect that Google Docs and
GMail give, that they work together! And that brings me again to the point
of the Cloud Office Suite, if the DocumentFoundation is not thinking on
developing a HTML5 based LibreOffice, at least there should be a tied
integration with something like ULTEO (www.ulteo.com) that allows office
directly into the browser without any installation necessary.

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 21:08, Lee Hyde <anubeon <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/01/11 19:42, Jaime R. Garza wrote:
> > But why only for Thunderbird?
> >
> > Why not make an open container (or just modularize the existing one with
> a
> > well defined interface) to will allow any application to use the
> resources
> > (e.g. dictionaries) and have full integration with all LO resources?
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the main bone of contention with
> regards to integrating a third-party e-mail client the flow of data
> *from* the client, *to* the office suite. If that is the case, surely
> there is a *need* develop an add-on for each e-mail client.

(Continue reading)

headers

Italo Vignoli | 1 Jan 23:15

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

On 01/01/2011 09:08 PM, Lee Hyde wrote:

> For the record I'm not in favour of LibO wasting resources on developing
> their own PIM or e-mail client. There are plenty of alternatives out
> there, and LibO should work on integration with them (I assume such
> would represent a lot less work compared with a brand new or forked PIM).

We have a very good and active group of developers, who are taking care 
of this kind of issues.

-- 
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
E-mail: italo.vignoli <at> documentfoundation.org
Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813
Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vignoli <at> gmail.com

--

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

headers

Craig A. Eddy | 1 Jan 21:10

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

VERY GOOD!  No, I didn't really mean to restrict it to Thunderbird.
It's just what I'm most familiar with.  Certainly, if there are other
email readers that have capabilities that can be linked into LO those
links should be explored.

Craig
Tyche

On 01/01/2011 12:42 PM, Jaime R. Garza wrote:
> But why only for Thunderbird?
> 
> Why not make an open container (or just modularize the existing one with a
> well defined interface) to will allow any application to use the resources
> (e.g. dictionaries) and have full integration with all LO resources?
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 20:36, Lee Hyde <anubeon <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 01/01/11 19:20, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
>>> So, what am I saying?  You don't NEED to add something useless like
>>> Outlook or Evolution to LO.  You just have to allow Thunderbird to
>>> connect to it, and people can make their own choice as to whether they
>>> want all the other bells and whistles.  Therefore, no increase in size
>>> due to bundling but the advantage that those that WANT the extras can
>>> have them without difficulty
>>
>> I agree, an integration add-on for Thunderbird (and any other e-mail
>> clients or contact managers with an add-on architecture) would be a far
>> better use of resources. Simply making contacts available to LibreOffice
>> would do wonders for mail-merge luck functionality (for the life of me I

(Continue reading)

headers

Charles Marcus | 2 Jan 18:43

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

Please don't top-post in an inline thread...

On 2011-01-01 2:42 PM, Jaime R. Garza wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 20:36, Lee Hyde <anubeon <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree, an integration add-on for Thunderbird (and any other e-mail
>> clients or contact managers with an add-on architecture) would be a far
>> better use of resources. Simply making contacts available to LibreOffice
>> would do wonders for mail-merge luck functionality (for the life of me I
>> can't think of any other functionalities one would require of an outlook
>> clone).

> But why only for Thunderbird?
> 
> Why not make an open container (or just modularize the existing one 
> with a well defined interface) to will allow any application to use
> the resources (e.g. dictionaries) and have full integration with all
> LO resources?

I think that's what Lee meant by '(and any other e-mail clients or
contact managers with an add-on architecture)'...

I agree, choice is best, but there is also no reasonably mature
cross-platform alternative to Thunderbird+Lightning, so making it the
first fully supported mail client would be a great way to kick off a new
'Mail/Contacts Connector' plugin for LibO...

--

-- 

Best regards,

(Continue reading)

headers

todd rme | 2 Jan 03:54

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jaime R. Garza <garzaj <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> But why only for Thunderbird?
>
> Why not make an open container (or just modularize the existing one with a
> well defined interface) to will allow any application to use the resources
> (e.g. dictionaries) and have full integration with all LO resources?

Isn't this what freedesktop.org standards are for?  A standard for
spell checking libraries (I mean the library of words, not the
software library) shared across all open-source programs would be very
useful.  Such a thing has already been proposed:

http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/desktop-language-checking-spec

So rather than trying to get other groups to write wrappers to
integrate with libo's own spelling dictionary, I think it would be
much better if there was a single, standard dictionary format that all
open-source programs shared.  Any program that implements the standard
will automatically get support for the same dictionaries.  This avoids
each program needing to write compatibility layers for every other
program.

So I think putting some effort into getting this standard ironed out
would be very beneficial to a lot of projects.

--

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

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 2 Jan 07:16

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

Jaime i only said Thunderbird cuz that's the client i use. there are 
tons of others.

Todd i totally agree a standard needs to be reached. like there is the 
ODF format a standardized dictionary format would be a great idea.

On 1/2/11 3:54 AM, todd rme wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jaime R. Garza<garzaj <at> gmail.com>  wrote:
>> But why only for Thunderbird?
>>
>> Why not make an open container (or just modularize the existing one with a
>> well defined interface) to will allow any application to use the resources
>> (e.g. dictionaries) and have full integration with all LO resources?
> Isn't this what freedesktop.org standards are for?  A standard for
> spell checking libraries (I mean the library of words, not the
> software library) shared across all open-source programs would be very
> useful.  Such a thing has already been proposed:
>
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/desktop-language-checking-spec
>
> So rather than trying to get other groups to write wrappers to
> integrate with libo's own spelling dictionary, I think it would be
> much better if there was a single, standard dictionary format that all
> open-source programs shared.  Any program that implements the standard
> will automatically get support for the same dictionaries.  This avoids
> each program needing to write compatibility layers for every other
> program.
>
> So I think putting some effort into getting this standard ironed out
> would be very beneficial to a lot of projects.

(Continue reading)

headers

Charles Marcus | 2 Jan 18:55

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

On 2011-01-01 9:54 PM, todd rme wrote:
> Isn't this what freedesktop.org standards are for? A standard for 
> spell checking libraries (I mean the library of words, not the 
> software library) shared across all open-source programs would be
> very useful. Such a thing has already been proposed:
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/desktop-language-checking-spec
> 
> So rather than trying to get other groups to write wrappers to 
> integrate with libo's own spelling dictionary, I think it would be 
> much better if there was a single, standard dictionary format that
> all open-source programs shared. Any program that implements the
> standard will automatically get support for the same dictionaries.
> This avoids each program needing to write compatibility layers for
> every other program.
> 
> So I think putting some effort into getting this standard ironed out 
> would be very beneficial to a lot of projects.

+10

-- 

Best regards,

Charles

--

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

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 2 Jan 07:18

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

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

On 1/1/11 8:36 PM, Lee Hyde wrote:
> On 01/01/11 19:20, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
>> So, what am I saying?  You don't NEED to add something useless like
>> Outlook or Evolution to LO.  You just have to allow Thunderbird to
>> connect to it, and people can make their own choice as to whether they
>> want all the other bells and whistles.  Therefore, no increase in size
>> due to bundling but the advantage that those that WANT the extras can
>> have them without difficulty
> I agree, an integration add-on for Thunderbird (and any other e-mail
> clients or contact managers with an add-on architecture) would be a far
> better use of resources. Simply making contacts available to LibreOffice
> would do wonders for mail-merge luck functionality (for the life of me I
> can't think of any other functionalities one would require of an outlook
> clone).
>

--

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

headers

Charles Marcus | 2 Jan 19:01

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

Please don't top-post in an in-lined thread. Thanks.

On 2011-01-02 1:18 AM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> On 1/1/11 8:36 PM, Lee Hyde wrote:
>> On 01/01/11 19:20, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
>>> So, what am I saying? You don't NEED to add something useless
>>> like Outlook or Evolution to LO. You just have to allow
>>> Thunderbird to connect to it, and people can make their own
>>> choice as to whether they want all the other bells and whistles.
>>> Therefore, no increase in size due to bundling but the advantage
>>> that those that WANT the extras can have them without difficulty

>> I agree, an integration add-on for Thunderbird (and any other
>> e-mail clients or contact managers with an add-on architecture)
>> would be a far better use of resources. Simply making contacts
>> available to LibreOffice would do wonders for mail-merge luck
>> functionality (for the life of me I can't think of any other
>> functionalities one would require of an outlook clone).

> besides email people want a calendar as well as a to do list as well
> functionality wise, which Thunderbird seems to lack.

Only if you fail to discover the excellent
if-not-still-a-little-lacking-in-functionality Lightning extension...

Personally, I couldn't use Thunderbird (or Firefox) in its default naked
state. I currently have 35+ extensions in TBird, and 51 for Firefox. And
now there are 4 or 5 that I must have in LibO...

Extensibility is one of the hallmarks of FLOSS, and one of the main

(Continue reading)

headers

Robert Derman | 2 Jan 19:24

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> besides email people want a calendar as well as a to do list as well 
> functionality wise, which Thunderbird seems to lack.
>
> On 1/1/11 8:36 PM, Lee Hyde wrote:
>> On 01/01/11 19:20, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
>>> So, what am I saying?  You don't NEED to add something useless like
>>> Outlook or Evolution to LO.  You just have to allow Thunderbird to
>>> connect to it, and people can make their own choice as to whether they
>>> want all the other bells and whistles.  Therefore, no increase in size
>>> due to bundling but the advantage that those that WANT the extras can
>>> have them without difficulty
>> I agree, an integration add-on for Thunderbird (and any other e-mail
>> clients or contact managers with an add-on architecture) would be a far
>> better use of resources. Simply making contacts available to LibreOffice
>> would do wonders for mail-merge luck functionality (for the life of me I
>> can't think of any other functionalities one would require of an outlook
>> clone).
On a related subject, I am using an older version of Tbird because I 
hate the new versions.  each time they have "improved" it lately they 
have actually made it worse as far as basic usability.  The problem I 
have with the newer versions is that they make it far to difficult to 
enlarge the text for readability.  WHY can't developers put more of a 
priority on really basic things like that? 

--

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

(Continue reading)

headers

Ian Lynch | 2 Jan 13:57

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc (was:Do not support writing to OOXML format)

On 1 January 2011 18:43, Jonathan Aquilina <eagles051387 <at> gmail.com> wrote:

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

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

There are one of three ways it can be done.
>
> 1) fork something like evolution which has all that done and integrate it
> into the LO suite
>
> 2) or install software that already exists in the open source arena.
>
> the problem with 2 is that it will greatly increase the download size,
> which
> would pose issues for people with slow bandwidth.
>
> On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Cia Watson <ciamarie <at> my180.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:16:06 -0000
> > Zaphod Feeblejocks <zaphodfj <at> gmail.com> wrote:

(Continue reading)

headers

Robert Derman | 2 Jan 19:35

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 1 January 2011 18:43, Jonathan Aquilina <eagles051387 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Whats really held OOo and will hold LO back is the lack of an equivalent
>> program such as outlook.
>>
>>     
>
>
> Why waste time and effort on this when there are other perfectly valid
> alternatives? Evolution, Thunderbird for open source and Gmail on the web.
> Web based mail is now mature and much easier to manage for anyone that moves
> about. Gmail on an Android phone seems to me a far better solution than
> being tied to the desktop. Effort going into new apps like a mail client
> (even modifying and maintaining existing code) would be much better placed
> in getting a mobile version of LO for smarphones or a web version. If not
> the whole project could eventually become irrelevant.
>
> There are one of three ways it can be done.
>   
>> 1) fork something like evolution which has all that done and integrate it
>> into the LO suite
>>
>> 2) or install software that already exists in the open source arena.
>>
>> the problem with 2 is that it will greatly increase the download size,
>> which
>> would pose issues for people with slow bandwidth.
>>

(Continue reading)

headers

Charles Marcus | 2 Jan 19:49

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

On 2011-01-01 1:43 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> Whats really held OOo and will hold LO back is the lack of an equivalent
> program such as outlook.

Well, I disagree, but there is no way to prove one of us is right, so...

> There are one of three ways it can be done.
> 
> 1) fork something like evolution which has all that done and integrate it
> into the LO suite

Evolution is extremely buggy, *especially* on Windows, but yes, even on
*nix... Yes, there are many people who run it without problems, but
there are far more who complain of constant crashes and bugs, even on
the stablest of systems (otherwise)...

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

Thunderbird+Lightning would be the best other choice here...not perfect
by any stretch, but the only viable FLOSS alternative on Windows at the
moment, at least that I am aware of...

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

Thunderbird+Lightning is not that big...

--

-- 

Best regards,

(Continue reading)

headers

NoOp | 2 Jan 22:00

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

On 01/02/2011 10:49 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2011-01-01 1:43 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
>> Whats really held OOo and will hold LO back is the lack of an equivalent
>> program such as outlook.
> 
> Well, I disagree, but there is no way to prove one of us is right, so...
> 
>> There are one of three ways it can be done.
>> 
>> 1) fork something like evolution which has all that done and integrate it
>> into the LO suite
> 
> Evolution is extremely buggy, *especially* on Windows, but yes, even on
> *nix... Yes, there are many people who run it without problems, but
> there are far more who complain of constant crashes and bugs, even on
> the stablest of systems (otherwise)...
> 
>> 2) or install software that already exists in the open source arena.
> 
> Thunderbird+Lightning would be the best other choice here...not perfect
> by any stretch, but the only viable FLOSS alternative on Windows at the
> moment, at least that I am aware of...
> 
>> the problem with 2 is that it will greatly increase the download size, which
>> would pose issues for people with slow bandwidth.
> 
> Thunderbird+Lightning is not that big...
> 

Might be worth considering collaborating with Zimbra:

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 3 Jan 00:33

Re: Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

Zimbra is exactly what would push LO to be a serious threat to Microsoft 
Office. Isn't that what the goal is of this project to slowly eat away 
at Microsoft's majority market share?

On 1/2/11 10:00 PM, NoOp wrote:
> On 01/02/2011 10:49 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> On 2011-01-01 1:43 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
>>> Whats really held OOo and will hold LO back is the lack of an equivalent
>>> program such as outlook.
>> Well, I disagree, but there is no way to prove one of us is right, so...
>>
>>> There are one of three ways it can be done.
>>>
>>> 1) fork something like evolution which has all that done and integrate it
>>> into the LO suite
>> Evolution is extremely buggy, *especially* on Windows, but yes, even on
>> *nix... Yes, there are many people who run it without problems, but
>> there are far more who complain of constant crashes and bugs, even on
>> the stablest of systems (otherwise)...
>>
>>> 2) or install software that already exists in the open source arena.
>> Thunderbird+Lightning would be the best other choice here...not perfect
>> by any stretch, but the only viable FLOSS alternative on Windows at the
>> moment, at least that I am aware of...
>>
>>> the problem with 2 is that it will greatly increase the download size, which
>>> would pose issues for people with slow bandwidth.
>> Thunderbird+Lightning is not that big...
>>
> Might be worth considering collaborating with Zimbra:

(Continue reading)

headers

Jaime R. Garza | 3 Jan 00:54

Re: Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

As I said before, Cloud based Office Suites are becoming more mature, I
think LO should start developing an HTML5 browser based office and ideally
integrate it with Zimbra!

It would be great to install LO locally and be able to share it through the
web to others from your computer without any further installation necessary.

Enterprises could make only one installation on a huge server and anyone
could use it directly from the browser, and Cloud companies like Amazon
could just upload an image and make it available for all their customers.

Cheers!

Jaime R. Garza

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 00:33, Jonathan Aquilina <eagles051387 <at> gmail.com>wrote:

> Zimbra is exactly what would push LO to be a serious threat to Microsoft
> Office. Isn't that what the goal is of this project to slowly eat away at
> Microsoft's majority market share?
>
>
> On 1/2/11 10:00 PM, NoOp wrote:
>
>> On 01/02/2011 10:49 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-01-01 1:43 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
>>>
>>>> Whats really held OOo and will hold LO back is the lack of an equivalent
>>>> program such as outlook.

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 3 Jan 01:03

Re: Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

Jaime I believe on previous posts on this thread or another one that TDF 
is working on getting Google to support the ODF format. why create 
something that has already been done by Google?

On 1/3/11 12:54 AM, Jaime R. Garza wrote:
> As I said before, Cloud based Office Suites are becoming more mature, I
> think LO should start developing an HTML5 browser based office and ideally
> integrate it with Zimbra!
>
> It would be great to install LO locally and be able to share it through the
> web to others from your computer without any further installation necessary.
>
> Enterprises could make only one installation on a huge server and anyone
> could use it directly from the browser, and Cloud companies like Amazon
> could just upload an image and make it available for all their customers.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Jaime R. Garza
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 00:33, Jonathan Aquilina<eagles051387 <at> gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Zimbra is exactly what would push LO to be a serious threat to Microsoft
>> Office. Isn't that what the goal is of this project to slowly eat away at
>> Microsoft's majority market share?
>>
>>
>> On 1/2/11 10:00 PM, NoOp wrote:
>>

(Continue reading)

headers

Jaime R. Garza | 3 Jan 01:26

Re: Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

Hello Jonathan,

Google only converts to ODF, they use their own proprietary file format
natively, they don't use ODF natively and they don't have as much
functionality as LO. You can use Google Docs with a Google account as you
can use MS Docs with a Facebook account.

Problems:
- None of them use ODF natively, they just export to ODF.
- None of them you can install locally.
- None of them are Open Source.

It's like if we asked: Why do we make Libre Office if MS is already giving
MS Office for free?

Think about is, it would be much simple to develop a HTML5 Libre Office,
because it is by nature platform independent and you can install it locally.

Cheers!

Jaime R. Garza

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 01:03, Jonathan Aquilina <eagles051387 <at> gmail.com>wrote:

> Jaime I believe on previous posts on this thread or another one that TDF is
> working on getting Google to support the ODF format. why create something
> that has already been done by Google?
>
>
> On 1/3/11 12:54 AM, Jaime R. Garza wrote:

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 3 Jan 07:18

Re: Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

Are you talking about in addition to having an installable version of LO?

On 1/3/11 1:26 AM, Jaime R. Garza wrote:
> Hello Jonathan,
>
> Google only converts to ODF, they use their own proprietary file format
> natively, they don't use ODF natively and they don't have as much
> functionality as LO. You can use Google Docs with a Google account as you
> can use MS Docs with a Facebook account.
>
> Problems:
> - None of them use ODF natively, they just export to ODF.
> - None of them you can install locally.
> - None of them are Open Source.
>
> It's like if we asked: Why do we make Libre Office if MS is already giving
> MS Office for free?
>
> Think about is, it would be much simple to develop a HTML5 Libre Office,
> because it is by nature platform independent and you can install it locally.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Jaime R. Garza
>
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 01:03, Jonathan Aquilina<eagles051387 <at> gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Jaime I believe on previous posts on this thread or another one that TDF is
>> working on getting Google to support the ODF format. why create something
>> that has already been done by Google?

(Continue reading)

headers

drew | 5 Jan 18:50

Re: Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 00:33 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> Isn't that what the goal is of this project to slowly eat away 
> at Microsoft's majority market share? 

it's not my goal - or at least it is not the goal - I would prefer to
work on delivering a very good tool to the user base. I would like to
expand the idea of openness and I am most certainly hoping to act in
some small way as a counter balance to the big-corporate culture.

Eating away at MSO market share is a side-effect really. I would like to
embrace MSO, to welcome there still feeble steps into the open source
model and to most certainly hold their feet to the fire when it comes to
using recognized standards.

--

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

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 3 Jan 00:19

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

What do other devs think about including something as mentioned below 
somehow in regards to a mail client alternative to MS outlook?

On 1/2/11 7:49 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2011-01-01 1:43 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
>> Whats really held OOo and will hold LO back is the lack of an equivalent
>> program such as outlook.
> Well, I disagree, but there is no way to prove one of us is right, so...
>
>> There are one of three ways it can be done.
>>
>> 1) fork something like evolution which has all that done and integrate it
>> into the LO suite
> Evolution is extremely buggy, *especially* on Windows, but yes, even on
> *nix... Yes, there are many people who run it without problems, but
> there are far more who complain of constant crashes and bugs, even on
> the stablest of systems (otherwise)...
>
>> 2) or install software that already exists in the open source arena.
> Thunderbird+Lightning would be the best other choice here...not perfect
> by any stretch, but the only viable FLOSS alternative on Windows at the
> moment, at least that I am aware of...
>
>> the problem with 2 is that it will greatly increase the download size, which
>> would pose issues for people with slow bandwidth.
> Thunderbird+Lightning is not that big...
>

--

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help <at> documentfoundation.org

(Continue reading)

headers

Christophe Strobbe | 5 Jan 15:22

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

At 00:19 3/01/2011, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
>What do other devs think about including something as mentioned 
>below somehow in regards to a mail client alternative to MS outlook?

I've been working without an "integrated e-mail client" for years; 
it's not a priority for me. However, when I recommended 
OpenOffice.org to another user (before October last year), she asked 
if it also contained an Outlook alternative. I replied that 
alternatives exist elsewhere, e.g. Thunderbird. (I just checked that 
Corel WordPerfect Office Standard has Lightning and Thunderbird 
integrated. The toll of Microsoft Office brainwashing? As far as I 
can tell from the Wikipedia entry, iWork does not have an e-mail 
client. Nor do SoftMaker Office 2010 or Kingsoft Office 2010.)

Without a proper survey, we can probably only guess how many users 
expect an e-mail cient in an office suite.
So I can only offer my opinion: the ability to interface with e-mail 
clients would be a useful feature. Some users don't want to migrate 
to another mail client just because it is included in the LibreOffice 
download, but other users - I'm thinking of users new to office 
suites and e-mail - may appreciate some handholding. If an e-mail 
client were integrated in the LibreOffice download, I would like the 
option to exclude it from the installation and have the office suite 
interface with my installed client (assuming that it implements the 
necessary APIs).

I haven't mentioned forking an existing mail client; that's because I 
don't consider it a good way to use TDF community resources.

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 5 Jan 17:11

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

If we are looking to promote this to corporations it will need to have 
one, and we could give them the option to install one. A home user might 
opt out of installing it if they don't want an email client

On 1/5/11 3:22 PM, Christophe Strobbe wrote:
>
> At 00:19 3/01/2011, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
>> What do other devs think about including something as mentioned below 
>> somehow in regards to a mail client alternative to MS outlook?
>
> I've been working without an "integrated e-mail client" for years; 
> it's not a priority for me. However, when I recommended OpenOffice.org 
> to another user (before October last year), she asked if it also 
> contained an Outlook alternative. I replied that alternatives exist 
> elsewhere, e.g. Thunderbird. (I just checked that Corel WordPerfect 
> Office Standard has Lightning and Thunderbird integrated. The toll of 
> Microsoft Office brainwashing? As far as I can tell from the Wikipedia 
> entry, iWork does not have an e-mail client. Nor do SoftMaker Office 
> 2010 or Kingsoft Office 2010.)
>
> Without a proper survey, we can probably only guess how many users 
> expect an e-mail cient in an office suite.
> So I can only offer my opinion: the ability to interface with e-mail 
> clients would be a useful feature. Some users don't want to migrate to 
> another mail client just because it is included in the LibreOffice 
> download, but other users - I'm thinking of users new to office suites 
> and e-mail - may appreciate some handholding. If an e-mail client were 
> integrated in the LibreOffice download, I would like the option to 
> exclude it from the installation and have the office suite interface 
> with my installed client (assuming that it implements the necessary

(Continue reading)

headers

drew | 5 Jan 17:32

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 17:11 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> If we are looking to promote this to corporations it will need to have 
> one, and we could give them the option to install one. A home user might 
> opt out of installing it if they don't want an email client

Right - well, it depends to a degree on how you define "it" being part
of the suite - in the case of LibreOfficeBox, which is the distribution
DVD created by the OOoDev team, most of whom are also part of the
LibreOffice team the disc includes Thunderbird - so at one level it is
at least "bundled" together . (They also include SeaMonkey in that
package.)

Now there is no English version of that DVD, which I propose is where
members of the English speaking community could get involved - it could
be recreated in English.

For that matter, using the LibreOfficeDVD project as a reference, other
groups could form to create alternate "bundles". Following the reference
these groups need not be formal projects in TDF but could form as
auxiliary projects.

Anyway - it just seems to me that when this conversation comes up, as it
does from time to time, that this approach never is brought up.

Thanks

Drew

--

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help <at> documentfoundation.org

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 5 Jan 17:38

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

What about bundling it with the downloadable installer?

On 1/5/11 5:32 PM, drew wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 17:11 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
>> If we are looking to promote this to corporations it will need to have
>> one, and we could give them the option to install one. A home user might
>> opt out of installing it if they don't want an email client
> Right - well, it depends to a degree on how you define "it" being part
> of the suite - in the case of LibreOfficeBox, which is the distribution
> DVD created by the OOoDev team, most of whom are also part of the
> LibreOffice team the disc includes Thunderbird - so at one level it is
> at least "bundled" together . (They also include SeaMonkey in that
> package.)
>
> Now there is no English version of that DVD, which I propose is where
> members of the English speaking community could get involved - it could
> be recreated in English.
>
> For that matter, using the LibreOfficeDVD project as a reference, other
> groups could form to create alternate "bundles". Following the reference
> these groups need not be formal projects in TDF but could form as
> auxiliary projects.
>
> Anyway - it just seems to me that when this conversation comes up, as it
> does from time to time, that this approach never is brought up.
>
> Thanks
>
> Drew
>

(Continue reading)

headers

drew | 5 Jan 18:08

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 17:38 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> What about bundling it with the downloadable installer?

I think that there are legitimately two separate items here:
LibreOffice - the application suite
LibreOffice focused distribution 

Right now, IMO, there is no consensus for adding an email client into
the application suite, but there is much interest from many community
members to bundle.

This bundling takes place all the time actually - If you think about it
this is no different from what the different Linux distro's do, at least
on the surface.

More then that however individuals and small teams do it all the time -
a classic case is Cofry over at the OO.o web forums (I notice he is now
active at LibreOfficeForum.org also) - he for a number of years produced
a Christmas CD - it was his take of what packages would best introduce a
Windows user to FOSS, OO.o was one of the key packages.

So in the case of LibreOffice it makes sense to have this one singular
project responsible for producing the suite, and even to have a
reference ISO for a simple disk of LibreOffice binaries.

But distribution can also focus on particular user groups, this can be
functional or it can be regional (Language) specific. Here I think that
trying to control this from TDF is counter productive - the best return
for the project at a whole would to be to encourage packages to form
teams to address these different niche use cases.

(Continue reading)

headers

todd rme | 5 Jan 17:39

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:32 AM, drew <drew <at> baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 17:11 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
>> If we are looking to promote this to corporations it will need to have
>> one, and we could give them the option to install one. A home user might
>> opt out of installing it if they don't want an email client
>
> Right - well, it depends to a degree on how you define "it" being part
> of the suite - in the case of LibreOfficeBox, which is the distribution
> DVD created by the OOoDev team, most of whom are also part of the
> LibreOffice team the disc includes Thunderbird - so at one level it is
> at least "bundled" together . (They also include SeaMonkey in that
> package.)
>
> Now there is no English version of that DVD, which I propose is where
> members of the English speaking community could get involved - it could
> be recreated in English.
>
> For that matter, using the LibreOfficeDVD project as a reference, other
> groups could form to create alternate "bundles". Following the reference
> these groups need not be formal projects in TDF but could form as
> auxiliary projects.
>
> Anyway - it just seems to me that when this conversation comes up, as it
> does from time to time, that this approach never is brought up.
>
> Thanks
>
> Drew

Rather than having other groups providing bundles, what about an

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 5 Jan 17:43

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

Funny you mention it i just replied with a similar response about 
bundling said software as part of the downloadable installer.

On 1/5/11 5:39 PM, Todd rme wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:32 AM, drew<drew <at> baseanswers.com>  wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 17:11 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
>>> If we are looking to promote this to corporations it will need to have
>>> one, and we could give them the option to install one. A home user might
>>> opt out of installing it if they don't want an email client
>> Right - well, it depends to a degree on how you define "it" being part
>> of the suite - in the case of LibreOfficeBox, which is the distribution
>> DVD created by the OOoDev team, most of whom are also part of the
>> LibreOffice team the disc includes Thunderbird - so at one level it is
>> at least "bundled" together . (They also include SeaMonkey in that
>> package.)
>>
>> Now there is no English version of that DVD, which I propose is where
>> members of the English speaking community could get involved - it could
>> be recreated in English.
>>
>> For that matter, using the LibreOfficeDVD project as a reference, other
>> groups could form to create alternate "bundles". Following the reference
>> these groups need not be formal projects in TDF but could form as
>> auxiliary projects.
>>
>> Anyway - it just seems to me that when this conversation comes up, as it
>> does from time to time, that this approach never is brought up.
>>
>> Thanks
>>

(Continue reading)

headers

BRM | 5 Jan 18:13

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

I was about to suggest something along a similar line, and that fits perfectly 
well within it...

Instead of bundling an email client with LibreOffice, I suggest as part of the 
installer the option be provided to download and install one.
For instance, the installer could list an Email line which users could expand to 
show Thunderbird, selecting Thunderbird would then download the _latest_ 
Thunderbird release, and start its installer.
That would, of course, require an Internet connection at the time the installer 
runs; but would save on the download space for everyone. It would also enable 
the installer to select the right locale installer for Thunderbird too (if 
necessary). The same could be done for Firefox/Opera/etc.

Additionally, this approach would allow the installer to present several choices 
- e.g. Firefox vs. Opera; Thunderbird vs. Evolution.

Now, taking that line of thinking - a separate project[1] to enable users to get 
OO/LO/Calligra/Thunderbird/Evolution/Firefox/etc via a single installer would 
probably be a great thing; and further having _plug-ins_ that would enable them 
to inter-operate would also be a great thing if that was desired, and it could 
be provided as part of the installer package.

$0.02

Ben

[1] I wouldn't make such an installer part of LO officially. May be another TDF 
project, or another entity all-together (FreeDesktop.org might be the best 
organization to handle it.)

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 5 Jan 18:19

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

One problem would be Linux i think with this approach. Instead of making 
a bundle for each specific distro i think we would have the package 
management GUI pop up of that particular distro and will automatically 
in the search put in Thunderbird for instance and will allow it to 
appear in front and then just click and install that way.

Would love to hear some feed back from some of the big time devs on this 
project about doing this.

On 1/5/11 6:13 PM, BRM wrote:
> I was about to suggest something along a similar line, and that fits perfectly
> well within it...
>
> Instead of bundling an email client with LibreOffice, I suggest as part of the
> installer the option be provided to download and install one.
> For instance, the installer could list an Email line which users could expand to
> show Thunderbird, selecting Thunderbird would then download the _latest_
> Thunderbird release, and start its installer.
> That would, of course, require an Internet connection at the time the installer
> runs; but would save on the download space for everyone. It would also enable
> the installer to select the right locale installer for Thunderbird too (if
> necessary). The same could be done for Firefox/Opera/etc.
>
> Additionally, this approach would allow the installer to present several choices
> - e.g. Firefox vs. Opera; Thunderbird vs. Evolution.
>
> Now, taking that line of thinking - a separate project[1] to enable users to get
> OO/LO/Calligra/Thunderbird/Evolution/Firefox/etc via a single installer would
> probably be a great thing; and further having _plug-ins_ that would enable them
> to inter-operate would also be a great thing if that was desired, and it could

(Continue reading)

headers

BRM | 5 Jan 20:02

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

I think such a project would have to focus really on Windows and perhaps Mac.
Most Linux systems use package management software, often vary different. Some 
(e.g. gentoo) do not have a GUI interface at all.
And honestly, the only place this is really a problem is on Windows, with Mac as 
a runner up.
I'm pretty sure there isn't an issue on any other platform.

But as I said - it's really a project for another entity to take control of - 
whether another project managed by TDF, or by someone else entirely, like 
FreeDesktop.org.

Ben

----- Original Message ----
> From: Jonathan Aquilina <eagles051387 <at> gmail.com>
> To: discuss <at> documentfoundation.org
> Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 12:19:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Co-working with Moz, etc
> 
> One problem would be Linux i think with this approach. Instead of making 
> a  bundle for each specific distro i think we would have the package 
> management  GUI pop up of that particular distro and will automatically 
> in the search  put in Thunderbird for instance and will allow it to 
> appear in front and  then just click and install that way.
> 
> Would love to hear some feed back  from some of the big time devs on this 
> project about doing this.
> 
> On  1/5/11 6:13 PM, BRM wrote:
> > I was about to suggest something along a  similar line, and that fits

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 5 Jan 23:25

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

I would be interested in heading something like this up as I am a mac 
user as well as win and lin

On 1/5/11 8:02 PM, BRM wrote:
> I think such a project would have to focus really on Windows and perhaps Mac.
> Most Linux systems use package management software, often vary different. Some
> (e.g. gentoo) do not have a GUI interface at all.
> And honestly, the only place this is really a problem is on Windows, with Mac as
> a runner up.
> I'm pretty sure there isn't an issue on any other platform.
>
> But as I said - it's really a project for another entity to take control of -
> whether another project managed by TDF, or by someone else entirely, like
> FreeDesktop.org.
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Jonathan Aquilina<eagles051387 <at> gmail.com>
>> To: discuss <at> documentfoundation.org
>> Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 12:19:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Co-working with Moz, etc
>>
>> One problem would be Linux i think with this approach. Instead of making
>> a  bundle for each specific distro i think we would have the package
>> management  GUI pop up of that particular distro and will automatically
>> in the search  put in Thunderbird for instance and will allow it to
>> appear in front and  then just click and install that way.

(Continue reading)

headers

James Wilde | 6 Jan 11:47

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

On Jan 5, 2011, at 20:02 , BRM wrote:

> I think such a project would have to focus really on Windows and perhaps Mac.
> Most Linux systems use package management software, often vary different. Some 
> (e.g. gentoo) do not have a GUI interface at all.
> And honestly, the only place this is really a problem is on Windows, with Mac as 
> a runner up.
> I'm pretty sure there isn't an issue on any other platform.
> 
> But as I said - it's really a project for another entity to take control of - 
> whether another project managed by TDF, or by someone else entirely, like 
> FreeDesktop.org.

I think Ben's last comment is a good idea: put this in the hands of another project.  At first I would expect the
project to be in the nature of a feasibility study.  And I'd like to suggest a slightly wider scope.

On Linux the choice is between T-bird/Lightning and Evolution, and personally I've always sooner or later
run into problems with Evolution.  On Windows there is whatever Microsoft now call Outlook Express.  They
have an abysmal address book, but no calendar functionality included in the OS as far as I remember, and I
don't think OE and Address Book work together, so here, too, there is room for T-bird/Lightning.

For my own part, I'm a recent convert to the Mac, after years of being a Linux user and unwilling Windows
supporter for my relatives.  On the Mac I'm impressed at the way things just _work_ together, and I don't
willingly add a third party app if there is a free Apple equivalent which fills my needs.  In this respect
there is Mail, iCal and Address Book, all of which interact well, and interact with everything else on the
Mac.  So if TDF is going to get into looking at interacting with mail, calendar and contact functionality, I
for one would like it to include the Apple apps in its study.

//James

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 6 Jan 16:21

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

I 2nd your Mac comments. What i find impressive is how they work really 
well for those that like 3rd party apps like myself Thunderbird 
interfaces really nicely with the other mac apps that were mentioned below.

On 1/6/11 11:47 AM, James Wilde wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2011, at 20:02 , BRM wrote:
>
>> I think such a project would have to focus really on Windows and perhaps Mac.
>> Most Linux systems use package management software, often vary different. Some
>> (e.g. gentoo) do not have a GUI interface at all.
>> And honestly, the only place this is really a problem is on Windows, with Mac as
>> a runner up.
>> I'm pretty sure there isn't an issue on any other platform.
>>
>> But as I said - it's really a project for another entity to take control of -
>> whether another project managed by TDF, or by someone else entirely, like
>> FreeDesktop.org.
> I think Ben's last comment is a good idea: put this in the hands of another project.  At first I would expect
the project to be in the nature of a feasibility study.  And I'd like to suggest a slightly wider scope.
>
> On Linux the choice is between T-bird/Lightning and Evolution, and personally I've always sooner or
later run into problems with Evolution.  On Windows there is whatever Microsoft now call Outlook Express. 
They have an abysmal address book, but no calendar functionality included in the OS as far as I remember,
and I don't think OE and Address Book work together, so here, too, there is room for T-bird/Lightning.
>
> For my own part, I'm a recent convert to the Mac, after years of being a Linux user and unwilling Windows
supporter for my relatives.  On the Mac I'm impressed at the way things just _work_ together, and I don't
willingly add a third party app if there is a free Apple equivalent which fills my needs.  In this respect
there is Mail, iCal and Address Book, all of which interact well, and interact with everything else on the
Mac.  So if TDF is going to get into looking at interacting with mail, calendar and contact functionality, I

(Continue reading)

headers

Jaime R. Garza | 6 Jan 07:30

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

I believe integrating Thunderbird would be more a marketing move than
anything else, but marketing is very effective!!! So that's why I think it
would be great if Thunderbird could be integrated automatically with LO. As
I said before, a sort of container that can select the applications ti be
installed, probably giving the option by installation to select the
individual appliciations: Writer(Text P.), Calc(Spreadsheet),
Impress(Presentations),..., Thunderbird(E-Mail), Lightning(Calendar).

Cheers!

Jaime R. Garza

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 15:22, Christophe Strobbe <
christophe.strobbe <at> esat.kuleuven.be> wrote:

>
> At 00:19 3/01/2011, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
>
>> What do other devs think about including something as mentioned below
>> somehow in regards to a mail client alternative to MS outlook?
>>
>
> I've been working without an "integrated e-mail client" for years; it's not
> a priority for me. However, when I recommended OpenOffice.org to another
> user (before October last year), she asked if it also contained an Outlook
> alternative. I replied that alternatives exist elsewhere, e.g. Thunderbird.
> (I just checked that Corel WordPerfect Office Standard has Lightning and
> Thunderbird integrated. The toll of Microsoft Office brainwashing? As far as
> I can tell from the Wikipedia entry, iWork does not have an e-mail client.
> Nor do SoftMaker Office 2010 or Kingsoft Office 2010.)

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 6 Jan 08:04

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

I agree with you totally here Jaime.

On 01/06/2011 07:30 AM, Jaime R. Garza wrote:
> I believe integrating Thunderbird would be more a marketing move than
> anything else, but marketing is very effective!!! So that's why I think it
> would be great if Thunderbird could be integrated automatically with LO. As
> I said before, a sort of container that can select the applications ti be
> installed, probably giving the option by installation to select the
> individual appliciations: Writer(Text P.), Calc(Spreadsheet),
> Impress(Presentations),..., Thunderbird(E-Mail), Lightning(Calendar).
>
> Cheers!
>
> Jaime R. Garza
>
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 15:22, Christophe Strobbe<
> christophe.strobbe <at> esat.kuleuven.be>  wrote:
>
>> At 00:19 3/01/2011, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
>>
>>> What do other devs think about including something as mentioned below
>>> somehow in regards to a mail client alternative to MS outlook?
>>>
>> I've been working without an "integrated e-mail client" for years; it's not
>> a priority for me. However, when I recommended OpenOffice.org to another
>> user (before October last year), she asked if it also contained an Outlook
>> alternative. I replied that alternatives exist elsewhere, e.g. Thunderbird.
>> (I just checked that Corel WordPerfect Office Standard has Lightning and
>> Thunderbird integrated. The toll of Microsoft Office brainwashing? As far as
>> I can tell from the Wikipedia entry, iWork does not have an e-mail client.

(Continue reading)

headers

BRM | 6 Jan 14:47

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

Again, why just Thunderbird? Why not work with Mozilla (Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, 
Lightening/Sunbird, Firefox), Opera, GNOME (Evolution, etc), KDE (KMail, KPIM, 
etc.) to develop interfaces that can be used to integrate any of the various 
email and calendaring tools out there? Especially the open source ones.

There is no reason to limit people to just Thunderbird.

Ben

----- Original Message ----
> From: Jonathan Aquilina <eagles051387 <at> gmail.com>
> To: discuss <at> documentfoundation.org
> Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 2:04:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Co-working with Moz, etc
> 
> I agree with you totally here Jaime.
> 
> On 01/06/2011 07:30 AM, Jaime R.  Garza wrote:
> > I believe integrating Thunderbird would be more a marketing  move than
> > anything else, but marketing is very effective!!! So that's  why I think it
> > would be great if Thunderbird could be integrated  automatically with LO. As
> > I said before, a sort of container that can  select the applications ti be
> > installed, probably giving the option by  installation to select the
> > individual appliciations: Writer(Text P.),  Calc(Spreadsheet),
> > Impress(Presentations),..., Thunderbird(E-Mail),  Lightning(Calendar).
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Jaime R.  Garza
> >

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 6 Jan 16:06

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

When i first mentioned it its the only one i could think of as its what 
im using to write my response to this email. I am in no way suggesting 
limiting thing to just thunderbird. the more options the better as it 
allows users to have choices on what to work with.

On 1/6/11 2:47 PM, BRM wrote:
> Again, why just Thunderbird? Why not work with Mozilla (Thunderbird, SeaMonkey,
> Lightening/Sunbird, Firefox), Opera, GNOME (Evolution, etc), KDE (KMail, KPIM,
> etc.) to develop interfaces that can be used to integrate any of the various
> email and calendaring tools out there? Especially the open source ones.
>
> There is no reason to limit people to just Thunderbird.
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Jonathan Aquilina<eagles051387 <at> gmail.com>
>> To: discuss <at> documentfoundation.org
>> Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 2:04:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Co-working with Moz, etc
>>
>> I agree with you totally here Jaime.
>>
>> On 01/06/2011 07:30 AM, Jaime R.  Garza wrote:
>>> I believe integrating Thunderbird would be more a marketing  move than
>>> anything else, but marketing is very effective!!! So that's  why I think it
>>> would be great if Thunderbird could be integrated  automatically with LO. As
>>> I said before, a sort of container that can  select the applications ti be

(Continue reading)

headers

Ian Lynch | 6 Jan 10:00

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

On 6 January 2011 06:30, Jaime R. Garza <garzaj <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe integrating Thunderbird would be more a marketing move than
> anything else, but marketing is very effective!!! So that's why I think it
> would be great if Thunderbird could be integrated automatically with LO. As
> I said before, a sort of container that can select the applications ti be
> installed, probably giving the option by installation to select the
> individual appliciations: Writer(Text P.), Calc(Spreadsheet),
> Impress(Presentations),..., Thunderbird(E-Mail), Lightning(Calendar).
>

What would be better if more difficult would be to have a Writer/Calc plugin
to Firefox using the extensions so you could have a WP or SS as an extension
to your web browser. Since in Europe Firefox is reported to have displaced
IE as the most popular browser that would provide an immediate route to lots
of users. Google pay Mozilla to have their search as the default because of
the number of Firefox users for a reason.

> Cheers!
>
> Jaime R. Garza
>
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 15:22, Christophe Strobbe <
> christophe.strobbe <at> esat.kuleuven.be> wrote:
>
> >
> > At 00:19 3/01/2011, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> >
> >> What do other devs think about including something as mentioned below
> >> somehow in regards to a mail client alternative to MS outlook?

(Continue reading)

headers

Jonathan Aquilina | 6 Jan 11:28

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

Shouldn't we file these wish list items somewhere and if so where?

On 1/6/11 10:00 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 6 January 2011 06:30, Jaime R. Garza<garzaj <at> gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> I believe integrating Thunderbird would be more a marketing move than
>> anything else, but marketing is very effective!!! So that's why I think it
>> would be great if Thunderbird could be integrated automatically with LO. As
>> I said before, a sort of container that can select the applications ti be
>> installed, probably giving the option by installation to select the
>> individual appliciations: Writer(Text P.), Calc(Spreadsheet),
>> Impress(Presentations),..., Thunderbird(E-Mail), Lightning(Calendar).
>>
> What would be better if more difficult would be to have a Writer/Calc plugin
> to Firefox using the extensions so you could have a WP or SS as an extension
> to your web browser. Since in Europe Firefox is reported to have displaced
> IE as the most popular browser that would provide an immediate route to lots
> of users. Google pay Mozilla to have their search as the default because of
> the number of Firefox users for a reason.
>
>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Jaime R. Garza
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 15:22, Christophe Strobbe<
>> christophe.strobbe <at> esat.kuleuven.be>  wrote:
>>
>>> At 00:19 3/01/2011, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
>>>

(Continue reading)

headers

Andy Brown | 6 Jan 17:11

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

On Thu Jan 06 2011 02:28:26 GMT-0800 (PST)  Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> Shouldn't we file these wish list items somewhere and if so where?
> 

You can always create an account on the wiki and create a list. 
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Main_Page  there is an area called 
Crazy Ideas within the Development section of the page that should work 
just fine for such ideas.

--

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

headers

Jaime R. Garza | 6 Jan 17:52

Re: Co-working with Moz, etc

i think it would be great to have a HTML5 LO, which will only need a
browser. The could be installed locallz or on a server. There would only be
need for one version that supports the 4 major browsers.

At least we should start with a ODF reader, it doesn't have to be a plugin,
it can be a HTML5 application.

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:00, Ian Lynch <ianrlynch <at> gmail.com> wrote:

>
> What would be better if more difficult would be to have a Writer/Calc
> plugin
> to Firefox using the extensions so you could have a WP or SS as an
> extension
> to your web browser. Since in Europe Firefox is reported to have displaced
> IE as the most popular browser that would provide an immediate route to
> lots
> of users. Google pay Mozilla to have their search as the default because of
> the number of Firefox users for a reason.
>
>
>

--

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

headers

Carl Symons | 1 Jan 19:52

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Olivier Hallot
<olivier.hallot <at> documentfoundation.org> wrote:

<snip>

>
>> The Go-oo homepage also says "Going forward, the Go-oo project will be
>> discontinued in favor of LibreOffice." Does that mean that LibreOffice
>> is driven by Novell too?
>>
>
> I wouldn't put in that simple words. Actually, LibreOffice is open to any
> developer, individual or company that whishes to contribute to our code and
> endeavour. On the TDF announcement we invited Oracle to join us and
> suggested them to offer the brand OpenOffice to TDF (later this was politely
> declined by Oracle).
>
> LibreOffice has many contributions of Novell engineers, as well as Oracle
> engineers too. But is is not an Novell product nor TDF is a Novell shop. The
> Next Decade Manifesto says a lot on our purpose and TDF is better described
> in this page:
> http://www.documentfoundation.org/
>
> Please help us not to make the same mistake as OpenOffice.org did.
>
> Kind regards
> --
> Olivier Hallot

Thank you, Olivier.

(Continue reading)

headers

Italo Vignoli | 1 Jan 23:19

Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 01/01/2011 07:52 PM, Carl Symons wrote:

> I clicked on the "list of events" link on
> http://www.documentfoundation.org/. There are several events listed
> for North America. Would TDF consider being at LinuxFest Northwest in
> Bellingham, 4/30&  5/1? There will be an official call for papers in
> early January, but people can register at www.linuxfestnorthwest.org.
> LFNW is a true open source expo, free admission, completely run by
> volunteers...one of the longest running Fests in the US.

I think you should discuss this on the US Marketing list, who is copied 
on this answer.

> If there are LibOers in the Pacific NW, please contact me off-list if
> you'd like to help put together a LibreOffice track. We are looking
> for presentations for people who are new to FOSS.

Please use the US Marketing list instead of private emails. We are 
trying to grow a US community and a marketing list is far better than 
any other tool.

-- 
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
E-mail: italo.vignoli <at> documentfoundation.org
Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813
Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vignoli <at> gmail.com

--

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+help <at> us.libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/us/marketing/

(Continue reading)

headers

Marc Paré | 2 Jan 14:19

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Le 2011-01-01 17:19, Italo Vignoli a écrit :
> On 01/01/2011 07:52 PM, Carl Symons wrote:
>
>> I clicked on the "list of events" link on
>> http://www.documentfoundation.org/. There are several events listed
>> for North America. Would TDF consider being at LinuxFest Northwest in
>> Bellingham, 4/30& 5/1? There will be an official call for papers in
>> early January, but people can register at www.linuxfestnorthwest.org.
>> LFNW is a true open source expo, free admission, completely run by
>> volunteers...one of the longest running Fests in the US.
>
> I think you should discuss this on the US Marketing list, who is copied
> on this answer.
>
>> If there are LibOers in the Pacific NW, please contact me off-list if
>> you'd like to help put together a LibreOffice track. We are looking
>> for presentations for people who are new to FOSS.
>
> Please use the US Marketing list instead of private emails. We are
> trying to grow a US community and a marketing list is far better than
> any other tool.
>

Thanks Italo. Yes, we are trying to grow the membership list which is 
still pretty thin. Hope to have more people joining in.

Marc

--

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help <at> documentfoundation.org

(Continue reading)

headers

Marc Paré | 2 Jan 14:19

Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format

Le 2011-01-01 17:19, Italo Vignoli a écrit :
> On 01/01/2011 07:52 PM, Carl Symons wrote:
>
>> I clicked on the "list of events" link on
>> http://www.documentfoundation.org/. There are several events listed
>> for North America. Would TDF consider being at LinuxFest Northwest in
>> Bellingham, 4/30& 5/1? There will be an official call for papers in
>> early January, but people can register at www.linuxfestnorthwest.org.
>> LFNW is a true open source expo, free admission, completely run by
>> volunteers...one of the longest running Fests in the US.
>
> I think you should discuss this on the US Marketing list, who is copied
> on this answer.
>
>> If there are LibOers in the Pacific NW, please contact me off-list if
>> you'd like to help put together a LibreOffice track. We are looking
>> for presentations for people who are new to FOSS.
>
> Please use the US Marketing list instead of private emails. We are
> trying to grow a US community and a marketing list is far better than
> any other tool.
>

Thanks Italo. Yes, we are trying to grow the membership list which is 
still pretty thin. Hope to have more people joining in.

Marc

--

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+help <at> us.libreoffice.org

(Continue reading)

headers

drew | 6 Jan 00:25

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 10:52 -0800, Carl Symons wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Olivier Hallot
> <olivier.hallot <at> documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >

> 
> I clicked on the "list of events" link on
> http://www.documentfoundation.org/. There are several events listed
> for North America. Would TDF consider being at LinuxFest Northwest in
> Bellingham, 4/30 & 5/1? There will be an official call for papers in
> early January, but people can register at www.linuxfestnorthwest.org.
> LFNW is a true open source expo, free admission, completely run by
> volunteers...one of the longest running Fests in the US.
> 
> If there are LibOers in the Pacific NW, please contact me off-list if
> you'd like to help put together a LibreOffice track. We are looking
> for presentations for people who are new to FOSS.
> 
Hi Carl

Sorry for a few days delay here - Indeed the event was added to the 
wiki and there is a potential volunteer for staffing a booth at the fest.

As Italo mentioned this has been discussed in the last couple of days
over on the US-Marketing list. Looking at what resources can be put
together for the booth.

(Continue reading)

headers

James Wilde | 2 Jan 00:01

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Dec 30, 2010, at 18:27 , Larry Gusaas wrote:

> I will not support or use LibreOffice
> until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file format. There is absolutely no need to
write in this proprietary format. To do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open source formats.
> 
I've read a lot of points of view in this thread, and received a lot of information.  For example, I didn't know
that the docx format was supposed to be MS's open document format.  I just thought it was the latest update to
MSO making everyone update to keep abreast.  So much for my knowledge of MSO.

As regards Larry's comment, I endorse it.  Read is right, write is wrong.

Regarding the different pov's of posters about the advisability or not of writing docx, sometimes you've
just got to take a stand, no matter what.  It's a case for the marketing guys, not the developers.

//James

headers

Wolf Halton | 2 Jan 00:11

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Yes. Take a stand for inclusivity. 
On Jan 1, 2011 6:02 PM, "James Wilde" <wilde.james <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 30, 2010, at 18:27 , Larry Gusaas wrote:
>
>> I will not support or use LibreOffice
>> until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file
format. There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary format. To
do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open source formats.
>>
> I've read a lot of points of view in this thread, and received a lot of
information. For example, I didn't know that the docx format was supposed to
be MS's open document format. I just thought it was the latest update to MSO
making everyone update to keep abreast. So much for my knowledge of MSO.
>
> As regards Larry's comment, I endorse it. Read is right, write is wrong.
>
> Regarding the different pov's of posters about the advisability or not of
writing docx, sometimes you've just got to take a stand, no matter what.
It's a case for the marketing guys, not the developers.
>
> //James
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help <at> documentfoundation.org<discuss%2Bhelp <at> documentfoundation.org>
> Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
>

--

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help <at> documentfoundation.org

(Continue reading)

headers

Barbara Duprey | 2 Jan 01:40

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 1/1/2011 5:01 PM, James Wilde wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2010, at 18:27 , Larry Gusaas wrote:
>
>> I will not support or use LibreOffice
>> until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file format. There is absolutely no need
to write in this proprietary format. To do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open source formats.
>>
> I've read a lot of points of view in this thread, and received a lot of information.  For example, I didn't
know that the docx format was supposed to be MS's open document format.  I just thought it was the latest
update to MSO making everyone update to keep abreast.  So much for my knowledge of MSO.

There was a huge battle over that; docx and its siblings are MS's "Office Open XML" (OOXML) formats, 
rushed through the ISO standards process with enormous still-existing problems. The standard was 
split into two parts -- the "Transitional" piece of the specification purports to document the 
implementation used since Office 2007, and the worst issues are in that part.

> As regards Larry's comment, I endorse it.  Read is right, write is wrong.
>
> Regarding the different pov's of posters about the advisability or not of writing docx, sometimes you've
just got to take a stand, no matter what.  It's a case for the marketing guys, not the developers.
>
> //James

--

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

headers

Matthew Copple | 2 Jan 03:12

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

I disagree. LibreOffice isn't being developed as a political tool. It
is supposed to be useful in the modern office. Many of us have clients
and co-workers who use proprietary office formats, and we need to be
able to communicate with those folks. If I get an RFP in Office 10
format, I have to be able to read it and respond to it. If I have to
buy Office 10 to do it, then what reason have I to use LibreOffice (or
any free suite) in the first place?

Matthew Copple
mcopple <at> kcopensource.org

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I will not support or use LibreOffice
>  until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file
> format. There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary format. To
> do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open source formats.
>
> See the following:
> http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2493&p=169740#p169507
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828
>
> Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups I
> participate the people stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to
> LibreOffice.
>
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________________
>
>

(Continue reading)

headers

leif | 2 Jan 19:04

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Dear Larry,
First of all I want to apologize for my lack of English skills. I'm not
native English speaking so if the words are a little clumpsy, please
bear with me 

I disagree with you of two reasons:
1) LibreOffice is free software. If any developer wants to improve the
code - he or she has the freedom to do so. I think this is one very
important stand. We have seen other products in the marked licensed as
open source but that are not free software. Who should decide what what
is 'good' and what is 'bad' code?

Nobody. Because LibreOffice is free software!

We are not building a cathedral are we? Not because the bazaar works
fine for us.

2) No matter what we say or do, there are two document standards
approved by ISO. I guess (!) that most of us engaged in the Document
Foundation can agree that two standards are one two many. Never the
less: OOXML is a standard.

If we decide not to support it we will see status quo in marked
situation: MS having 95+ % of the marked share. MS will claim that they
support both standards and we are not in the loop able to claim otherwise.

If we support OOXML (I don't say that we should hurry) we will be able
to take marked shares from MS and more important: We are in the loop! We
can speak up and tell ISO what is wrong with OOXML. we will be able to
find all the faults and we will be heard. We can talk to politicians

(Continue reading)

headers

Johannes A. Bodwing | 2 Jan 19:30

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Hi Leif,
> Dear Larry,
> ...
>
> I disagree with you of two reasons:
> 1) LibreOffice is free software. If any developer wants to improve the
> code - he or she has the freedom to do so. I think this is one very
> important stand. We have seen other products in the marked licensed as
> open source but that are not free software. Who should decide what what
> is 'good' and what is 'bad' code?
>
> Nobody. Because !
>
> We are not building a cathedral are we? Not because the bazaar works
> fine for us.

I agree too in one point: LibreOffice is free software as a software.
But we speak about LO as the substantial product of TDF. And TDF wants 
to evolve the community of OOo eg. With that LO is part of the community.
Why can than one group or one person decide about important things?

Greetings,
Johannes

--

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

headers

Andreas Mantke | 2 Jan 20:09

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Hi Johannes, *,

Am Sonntag, 2. Januar 2011, 19:30:31 schrieb Johannes A. Bodwing:
> Hi Leif,
> 
> > Dear Larry,
> > ...
> > 
> > I disagree with you of two reasons:
> > 1) LibreOffice is free software. If any developer wants to improve the
> > code - he or she has the freedom to do so. I think this is one very
> > important stand. We have seen other products in the marked licensed as
> > open source but that are not free software. Who should decide what what
> > is 'good' and what is 'bad' code?
> > 
> > Nobody. Because !
> > 
> > We are not building a cathedral are we? Not because the bazaar works
> > fine for us.
> 
> I agree too in one point: LibreOffice is free software as a software.
> But we speak about LO as the substantial product of TDF. And TDF wants
> to evolve the community of OOo eg. With that LO is part of the community.
> Why can than one group or one person decide about important things?

this is because LibreOffice and the TDF are build on the contribution of the members. 
The people, which are doing the work, decide about the things they are doing for LO 
and the TDF.

But you yourself had to decide first, what you want to contribute to which community

(Continue reading)

headers

Johannes A. Bodwing | 2 Jan 21:36

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Hi Andreas,
> Hi Johannes, *,
>
> Am Sonntag, 2. Januar 2011, 19:30:31 schrieb Johannes A. Bodwing:
>> Hi Leif,
>>
>>> Dear Larry,
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I disagree with you of two reasons:
>>> 1) LibreOffice is free software. If any developer wants to improve the
>>> code - he or she has the freedom to do so. I think this is one very
>>> important stand. We have seen other products in the marked licensed as
>>> open source but that are not free software. Who should decide what what
>>> is 'good' and what is 'bad' code?
>>>
>>> Nobody. Because !
>>>
>>> We are not building a cathedral are we? Not because the bazaar works
>>> fine for us.
>> I agree too in one point: LibreOffice is free software as a software.
>> But we speak about LO as the substantial product of TDF. And TDF wants
>> to evolve the community of OOo eg. With that LO is part of the community.
>> Why can than one group or one person decide about important things?
> this is because LibreOffice and the TDF are build on the contribution of the members.
> The people, which are doing the work, decide about the things they are doing for LO
> and the TDF.
>
> But you yourself had to decide first, what you want to contribute to which community
> (OOo or LO). We need people who are doing the daily work. We need not another mega-

(Continue reading)

headers

Andreas Mantke | 2 Jan 21:46

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Hi Johannes, *,

Am Sonntag, 2. Januar 2011, 21:36:20 schrieb Johannes A. Bodwing:
> Hi Andreas,
> 
> > Hi Johannes, *,
(...)
> > But you yourself had to decide first, what you want to contribute to
> > which community (OOo or LO). We need people who are doing the daily
> > work. We need not another mega- thread on this list.
> 
> That's right. But TDF fell from heaven in September 2010, and till now I
> am looking for answers to important questions about both, OOo and LO.
> And some is confusing.
> 

not from heaven, but from the community or her long term contributors.

> In this Mail for LO: If I understand you correctly, decisions about
> programming are the task of the developers. Is this "The mission of the
> ESC is to provide technical guidance and to settle technical disputes."
> under the bylaws of TDF?
> What's the basis for the developers to make decisions? Where can I find
> that information?
> 

Read the other mails from the members of the TDF and LibreOffice. I have not the time 
to repeat anything. I'll contribute in my sparetime, not only write mails and steal 
the time of other members of the community.

(Continue reading)

headers

Johannes A. Bodwing | 2 Jan 22:10

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Hi Andreas,
> ... Hi Johannes, *,
>
> Am Sonntag, 2. Januar 2011, 21:36:20 schrieb Johannes A. Bodwing:
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>>> Hi Johannes, *,
> (...)
>>> But you yourself had to decide first, what you want to contribute to
>>> which community (OOo or LO). We need people who are doing the daily
>>> work. We need not another mega- thread on this list.
>> That's right. But TDF fell from heaven in September 2010, and till now I
>> am looking for answers to important questions about both, OOo and LO.
>> And some is confusing.
>>
> not from heaven, but from the community or her long term contributors.

For me and many others from heaven.

>> In this Mail for LO: If I understand you correctly, decisions about
>> programming are the task of the developers. Is this "The mission of the
>> ESC is to provide technical guidance and to settle technical disputes."
>> under the bylaws of TDF?
>> What's the basis for the developers to make decisions? Where can I find
>> that information?
>>
> Read the other mails from the members of the TDF and LibreOffice. I have not the time
> to repeat anything.

But I have? How many hundreds of mails are this to find the right?

(Continue reading)

headers

Jason Corfman | 2 Jan 23:07

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

I've been reading through this discussion (as much as possible), and there
is one thing that that I don't understand.

Why do we have so many people complaining about LO writing in the .docx
format but nobody (that I've seen) is complaining about the .doc format?
Both are Microsoft formats, but the docx format is a lot closer to being an
open standard. (Notice, I said it was closer, not that it was, an open
standard). At least the docx format has some released specifications (as
inaccurate as they may be), the last I checked, .doc doesn't even have that.

Personally, I'd like to see LibreOffice read and write as many file formats
as possible, but that is just me.

--

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

headers

Jaime R. Garza | 2 Jan 23:17

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

As many already said, OOXML r/w support is already there,  if you don't like
it, then develop a way to disable it. Someone already developed it, and
that's why it is there already.

Why can anyone think that they can remove any functionality that is already
there?

It is a pain in th a... to do the OOXML r/w support, but someone already did
it!!!

Why in God's name would is so bad on having it if it's already there?

I believe that any extra functionality that some one develops and actually
works, should be added to OSS, any OSS, and nothing should be banned just
because some religious extremists don't want to have it.

What you are proposing is like banning support for Fat32 or NTFS from
Linux!! Do you understand how crazy that would be????

--

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

headers

Italo Vignoli | 2 Jan 23:18

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 1/2/11 11:07 PM, Jason Corfman wrote:

> Why do we have so many people complaining about LO writing in the .docx
> format but nobody (that I've seen) is complaining about the .doc format?
> Both are Microsoft formats, but the docx format is a lot closer to being an
> open standard. (Notice, I said it was closer, not that it was, an open
> standard). At least the docx format has some released specifications (as
> inaccurate as they may be), the last I checked, .doc doesn't even have that.

Because common sense is definitely not common.

> Personally, I'd like to see LibreOffice read and write as many file formats
> as possible, but that is just me.

No, it's me as well and many others who use common sense.

-- 
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
E-mail: italo.vignoli <at> documentfoundation.org
Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813
Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vignoli <at> gmail.com

--

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

headers

Carl Symons | 3 Jan 00:48

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jason Corfman <jkcorfy <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been reading through this discussion (as much as possible), and there
> is one thing that that I don't understand.
>
> Why do we have so many people complaining about LO writing in the .docx
> format but nobody (that I've seen) is complaining about the .doc format?
> Both are Microsoft formats, but the docx format is a lot closer to being an
> open standard. (Notice, I said it was closer, not that it was, an open
> standard). At least the docx format has some released specifications (as
> inaccurate as they may be), the last I checked, .doc doesn't even have that.

The docx format is a scam in my view (read some of the links in the
original message of this thread for background on that opinion). Until
MS complies fully with the open standards, the only value of docx is
to subvert truly open software. This is a pattern in MS' behavior over
time. I don't like that in the US, computer science in high school
consists of Word and Excel training. But that's the way it is.

That said, I trust in the open community environment of LibreOffice.
The comments and clarifications from Italo Vignoli, Olivier Hallot,
Charles-H. Schulz (apologies if I missed anyone) from The Document
Foundation demonstrate a willingness to listen and guide LibO
development in a reasoned fashion. Even though I don't appreciate the
steps Microsoft took to get their file format approved by the
standards body, the fact is that it is approved (I realize that there
are nuances to that.) The Document Foundation faces a difficult task
bringing an open office suite into being. I was overjoyed to hear
about LibreOffice. It is a bold, risky adventure. It faces major
challenges.

(Continue reading)

headers

Italo Vignoli | 3 Jan 02:27

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 1/3/11 12:48 AM, Carl Symons wrote:

> Italo's statement of a philosophy of FOR is exactly right IMHO.

Thanks, this philosophy is the guiding principle of our marketing 
strategy. In Italy (I apologize for mentioning often what we have done 
here) we have got to the point of issuing a press release to 
congratulate Microsoft for the support of ODF. It has been one of the 
most successful press releases, and it has been instrumental in making 
the project more credible in the market.

Today, Italian media consider Associazione PLIO the real Microsoft 
competitor. If there is a face to face between Microsoft and OOo, we are 
invited to talk and Sun/Oracle is completely ignored. We have been 
featured on the largest Italian dailies with dedicated articles.

> The fact that this email thread exists, that it allows for all manner
> and strength of opinion, is testimony to the strength of open source
> software. It also illustrates a guiding principle of TDF.

Yes, although I would say that it has started in the wrong way, i.e. 
against Microsoft. The original idea was that we support Microsoft if we 
write OOXML, which is not only wrong but exactly the opposite of what 
happens in the reality.

Supporting OOXML makes LibreOffice stronger and TDF more credible, 
because we are not scared by interoperability (while Microsoft is and 
will always be scared by interoperability).

This is all I can say, and is already way too much for our beloved

(Continue reading)

headers

Italo Vignoli | 2 Jan 23:15

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 1/2/11 9:36 PM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote:

> What's the basis for the developers to make decisions? Where can I find
> that information?

Developers will base their decisions on several information, and also on 
positive contribution by the community. Emails where people say that 
LibreOffice should not support a document format because it is backed by 
Microsoft or because is a Go-OO heritage are not a positive contribution.

In addition, there is a group of long time community members who have a 
clear idea about the future of the office suite. We have also issued a 
press release where we have disclosed the development path that makes 
very clear LibreOffice future directions.

It should be very clear that software related requests coming from the 
community will be taken into consideration if they are positive and not 
against Microsoft or Oracle or any other corporation or entity. I think 
that this is quite a clear statement.

> The other point is:
> TDF "... is an independent self-governing meritocratic Foundation, ..."
> (TDF-Homesite)
> and on the "Next Decade Manifesto: "... the home for our activities
> should be an independent self-governing democratic foundation ..."
> How have I to understand that? Or where can I find answers about it?

Democratic and meritocratic are not opposite. TDF is a democracy based 
on merit, and merit is based on positive contributions. Shouting inside 
a mailing list is not a positive contribution, by any mean. TDF was not

(Continue reading)

headers

Johannes A. Bodwing | 3 Jan 07:38

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Hi Italo,

> On 1/2/11 9:36 PM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote:
>
>> What's the basis for the developers to make decisions? Where can I find
>> that information?
>
> Developers will base their decisions on several information, and also 
> on positive contribution by the community. Emails where people say 
> that LibreOffice should not support a document format because it is 
> backed by Microsoft or because is a Go-OO heritage are not a positive 
> contribution.
>
> In addition, there is a group of long time community members who have 
> a clear idea about the future of the office suite. We have also issued 
> a press release where we have disclosed the development path that 
> makes very clear LibreOffice future directions.

Where can I read it? Is it in the next decade manifesto?

>
> It should be very clear that software related requests coming from the 
> community will be taken into consideration if they are positive and 
> not against Microsoft or Oracle or any other corporation or entity. I 
> think that this is quite a clear statement.
>
>> The other point is:
>> TDF "... is an independent self-governing meritocratic Foundation, ..."
>> (TDF-Homesite)
>> and on the "Next Decade Manifesto: "... the home for our activities

(Continue reading)

headers

Italo Vignoli | 3 Jan 16:14

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 1/3/11 7:38 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote:

> Where can I read it? Is it in the next decade manifesto?

http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/announce/msg00016.html

> And they are not equal. That's my problem with it at the moment.
> I don't really understand how this democratic-meritocratic principle
> works. And what you explain below with Microsoft, for me it is not
> meritocratic or democratic that's an ethical aspect.

Democracy means that everyone has the potential to contribute, 
meritocracy means that contribution are judged by the community for 
their value, continuity, quality, etcetera. There are some principles 
though, and one of them is that contributions have to be constructive 
(FOR) and not destructive (AGAINST). Asking to avoid writing support for 
OOXML in order to bash Microsoft is meaningless.

Educating users about ethics related to Microsoft, OOXML and open 
standards is not a task for export filters.

-- 
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
E-mail: italo.vignoli <at> documentfoundation.org
Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813
Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vignoli <at> gmail.com

--

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help <at> documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/

(Continue reading)

headers

Johannes A. Bodwing | 3 Jan 17:53

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Hi Italo,
> On 1/3/11 7:38 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote:
>
>> Where can I read it? Is it in the next decade manifesto?
>
> http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/announce/msg00016.html
>

Thanks for the Link. - And I could ask the next questions, but I save it 
for later.
I try to get it clearer for me till the 3.3-Release, and eventually with 
a summary of the manifesto and other important things, to have lately:
a better basis to clear things in the calm after the release
eventually a shortform of the TDF-goals for people which come new to the 
project.

To check the frame for me, in what time about could the 3.3-Release start?

...

Thank You for your patience,
Johannes

--

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

headers

Cor Nouws | 3 Jan 19:38

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Hi Johannes,

Johannes A. Bodwing wrote (03-01-11 17:53)

> Thanks for the Link. - And I could ask the next questions, but I save it
> for later.
> I try to get it clearer for me till the 3.3-Release, and eventually with
> a summary of the manifesto and other important things, to have lately:
> a better basis to clear things in the calm after the release
> eventually a shortform of the TDF-goals for people which come new to the
> project.

SA sorry from my side. I had in mind - months ago - to draft a little 
roadmap for the website.
Not that things a carved in stone, far from that, but just to give some 
insight in work 'under construction', 'planned', 'should be done' and such.
Although many is common sense, I can well understand that it is hardly 
doable to get a reasonable picture from what is passing on all the mails.

> To check the frame for me, in what time about could the 3.3-Release start?

3.3 release is not fixed. In this specific case, it will be no earlier 
then the OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 release of course.

Thanks for your interest,

Cor

--

-- 
  - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -

(Continue reading)

headers

Johannes A. Bodwing | 3 Jan 19:50

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Hello Cor,
> ...
>
> Johannes A. Bodwing wrote (03-01-11 17:53)
>
>> ...
>> I try to get it clearer for me till the 3.3-Release, and eventually with
>> a summary of the manifesto and other important things, to have lately:
>> a better basis to clear things in the calm after the release
>> eventually a shortform of the TDF-goals for people which come new to the
>> project.
>
> SA sorry from my side. I had in mind - months ago - to draft a little 
> roadmap for the website.
> Not that things a carved in stone, far from that, but just to give 
> some insight in work 'under construction', 'planned', 'should be done' 
> and such.

Where is this to find? I don't know that I saw such a draft.

> ...

Thanks for Info,
Johannes

--

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

(Continue reading)

headers

Cor Nouws | 3 Jan 20:25

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Johannes A. Bodwing wrote (03-01-11 19:50)
>> Johannes A. Bodwing wrote (03-01-11 17:53)
>>> ...
>>> I try to get it clearer for me till the 3.3-Release, and eventually with
>>> a summary of the manifesto and other important things, to have lately:
>>> a better basis to clear things in the calm after the release
>>> eventually a shortform of the TDF-goals for people which come new to the
>>> project.
>>
>> A sorry from my side. I had in mind - months ago - to draft a little
>> roadmap for the website.
>> Not that things a carved in stone, far from that, but just to give
>> some insight in work 'under construction', 'planned', 'should be done'
>> and such.
>
> Where is this to find? I don't know that I saw such a draft.

That is correct. As far as I know, it is just on my mind 
I still intend though, to try to do something on a 'roadmap'

Best,
Cor

-- 
  - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -

--

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

(Continue reading)

headers

Johannes A. Bodwing | 3 Jan 20:34

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Hi Cor,
> ...
>> Where is this to find? I don't know that I saw such a draft.
>
> That is correct. As far as I know, it is just on my mind 

Where is your head to look in 

> I still intend though, to try to do something on a 'roadmap'

I'll try it,
Johannes

--

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

headers

Ian Lynch | 3 Jan 17:54

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 3 January 2011 15:14, Italo Vignoli <italo.vignoli <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/3/11 7:38 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote:
>
>  Where can I read it? Is it in the next decade manifesto?
>>
>
> http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/announce/msg00016.html
>
>
>  And they are not equal. That's my problem with it at the moment.
>> I don't really understand how this democratic-meritocratic principle
>> works. And what you explain below with Microsoft, for me it is not
>> meritocratic or democratic that's an ethical aspect.
>>
>
> Democracy means that everyone has the potential to contribute,

Democracy simply means representation of the people (community). Even
established democracies don't have referendums on every issue. Party
political systems mean that there are real limits to what any individual can
contribute. I can't go and contribute directly to new legislation other than
by saying what I think and hope it will influence someone. That is not
really much different from a FOSS project.

> meritocracy means that contribution are judged by the community for their
> value, continuity, quality, etcetera.

Which is what voters do at election time with the records and manifestos of
politicians in a democracy. Of course "meritocracy" often become a political

(Continue reading)

headers

Johannes A. Bodwing | 4 Jan 14:34

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Hi Ian,
> ...
>>
>>   And they are not equal. That's my problem with it at the moment.
>>> I don't really understand how this democratic-meritocratic principle
>>> works. And what you explain below with Microsoft, for me it is not
>>> meritocratic or democratic that's an ethical aspect.
>>>
>> Democracy means that everyone has the potential to contribute,
>
> Democracy simply means representation of the people (community). Even
> established democracies don't have referendums on every issue. Party
> political systems mean that there are real limits to what any individual can
> contribute. I can't go and contribute directly to new legislation other than
> by saying what I think and hope it will influence someone. That is not
> really much different from a FOSS project.

...

What you say about democracy, political parties eg is the today 
situation. But eventually think about this:
Democratic systems have the power and lot of money for secret 
"cyber-tasks", for a hidden worldwide web of information and spy-systems 
and so on. They find it important, they give the money to do it and they 
have the will to do it. That's possible but not a better flow of 
information between citizens and politicians to create a more real 
democracy. There is no "democratic-task", no worldwide-web of democratic 
informations. There is no will to involve more people in decisions or 
for the prefield of decisions.
What will I say with this?

(Continue reading)

headers

Charles-H. Schulz | 4 Jan 15:35

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Johannes, all,

Le Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:34:42 +0100,
"Johannes A. Bodwing" <jobod <at> arcor.de> a écrit :

> Hi Ian,
> > ...
> >>
> >>   And they are not equal. That's my problem with it at the moment.
> >>> I don't really understand how this democratic-meritocratic
> >>> principle works. And what you explain below with Microsoft, for
> >>> me it is not meritocratic or democratic that's an ethical aspect.
> >>>
> >> Democracy means that everyone has the potential to contribute,
> >
> > Democracy simply means representation of the people (community).
> > Even established democracies don't have referendums on every issue.
> > Party political systems mean that there are real limits to what any
> > individual can contribute. I can't go and contribute directly to
> > new legislation other than by saying what I think and hope it will
> > influence someone. That is not really much different from a FOSS
> > project.
> 
> ...
> 
> What you say about democracy, political parties eg is the today 
> situation. But eventually think about this:
> Democratic systems have the power and lot of money for secret 
> "cyber-tasks", for a hidden worldwide web of information and
> spy-systems and so on. They find it important, they give the money to

(Continue reading)

headers

Larry Gusaas | 3 Jan 08:03

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 2011/01/02 4:15 PM  Italo Vignoli wrote:
> Emails where people say that LibreOffice should not support a document format because it is 
> backed by Microsoft or because is a Go-OO heritage are not a positive contribution. 

So pointing out the Novell/Microsoft marketing agreement that led to the inclusion of writing 
to OOXML would not be a positive contribution?

Which version of OOXML does LibreOffice write to? The official standard approved version? Or 
one of the proprietary Microsoft versions? Which one? Or are these not positive inquiries
?

How about commenting on the articles criticizing OOXML? Oh right, that is not positive either. 
Besides it contravenes the Novell/Microsoft agreement.

Any comment on the Novell/Microsoft marketing agreement and how it affects the development of 
LibreOffice? Or would that not be positive either?

Larry
-- 
_________________________________
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese

--

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

(Continue reading)

headers

Italo Vignoli | 3 Jan 10:28

Re: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 1/3/11 8:03 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:

> So pointing out the Novell/Microsoft marketing agreement that led to the
> inclusion of writing to OOXML would not be a positive contribution?

I will repeat the concept for the last time, as it looks like you have 
real problem in understanding it. It might be because my English is far 
from perfect, but it looks like you do not understand even if there are 
English native speakers telling the same thing.

We all know the Novell/Microsoft agreement. Only a small percentage of 
TDF founders is involved with Novell and most of the others - including 
me - are active opponents of OOXML as a document format. I speak at 
conferences to explain the disadvantages of using OOXML, I write about 
it, I am featured in the press.

During the standardization process of OOXML, I have participated in 
standards committees in order to try to stop the process or to make the 
standard a better one. Charles Schulz has done the same in France. We 
all know the story.

So long for the concept.

TDF was born as a software project to serve the user. Therefore, the 
right attitute for a positive contribution would have been the opposite 
from yours: i.e. not writing OOXML would be an advantage for the user, 
because...

Unfortunately, the thread was started on the basis that writing OOXML 
was equal to supporting Microsoft, and that LibreOffice should not

(Continue reading)

headers

M.Commandeur | 5 Jan 00:02

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Reaction to Italo Vignoli on 3 Jan 10:28

A few reasons to leave writing to OOXML disabled:

1) Nowhere I read a valuable argument to enable writing OOXML, just than adding
a feature. (If an option isn't usefull leave it!)

2) Writing in another than native (so ODF) format will give losses.
This will decrease the general quality of documents.

3) For MSO users writing to .doc (etc.) is much more usefull, thus sufficient.
MSO users, who are not willing to use .doc or wanting more fidelity, are for
certain able to import ISO-ODF.

4) Writing to OOXML-transitional will decrease the use of real standards like
ISO-ODF.

None of my arguments are offending Microsoft, although I am not their fan.

So don't add chaos, go for standards, believe in it and spread ODF!

headers

Eduardo Moreno | 3 Jan 17:06

Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

El 30/12/10 11:27, Larry Gusaas escribió:
> I will not support or use LibreOffice
>  until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file 
> format. There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary 
> format. To do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open 
> source formats.
>
> See the following:
> http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2493&p=169740#p169507 
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828
>
> Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups I 
> participate the people stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to 
> LibreOffice.
>
>
Thank's to LibreOffice. I can help to migrate and continue works with 
other people. Hurry to the liberty. hurry the free.

-- 
Mi Office genera: Seguridad, Confianza y Ahorro

J. Eduardo Moreno
TOKONHU de México
044 55 2748 4840

--

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help <at> documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/

(Continue reading)