FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-11-2012, 10:27 PM
Jon Dowland
 
Default OT Apache Open Office

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 01:09:10PM -0800, Greg Madden wrote:
> I have been using dev builds, now rc's, of AOO for a while now. For my work,
> archived documents & templates this is working out better, for my use scenario,
> than LO ver 3.4.x and later.

That's interesting. Do you mean there are things you can open with AOO that
won't open with LO? That surprises me, because I was under the impression
that LO had moved on *a lot* from OO, and AOO had not. So either I'm wrong,
or LO has regressed in some cases.

> There are differences between AOO & LO, significant enough to warrant having a
> choice in Debian of which one to use.

Someone will have to step up and put the work in to package AOO, for the
choice to exist "in Debian".


--
Jon Dowland


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120311232751.GB6759@debian">http://lists.debian.org/20120311232751.GB6759@debian
 
Old 03-12-2012, 01:36 AM
Greg Madden
 
Default OT Apache Open Office

On Sunday 11 March 2012 3:27:51 pm Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 01:09:10PM -0800, Greg Madden wrote:
> > I have been using dev builds, now rc's, of AOO for a while now. For my
> > work, archived documents & templates this is working out better, for my
> > use scenario, than LO ver 3.4.x and later.
>
> That's interesting. Do you mean there are things you can open with AOO that
> won't open with LO? That surprises me, because I was under the impression
> that LO had moved on *a lot* from OO, and AOO had not. So either I'm
> wrong, or LO has regressed in some cases.

'Moved on a lot' does not have meaning to me. New features bring new bugs and
sometimes regressions. That said, I agree that the LO devs and document
foundation have done a lot of good work, I try not to disparage, it just does not
work in my case.

1. About 'file open' : Someone mentioned LO has a stricter compliance with ?
document format standards, anecdotal experience shows some MS docs do not open in
LO that do open in AOO. Not really an area of concern here, I rarely get a MS
document sent to me.

I am more concerned with document fidelity with archives & templates from
previous versions. This concept also includes all future documents.

2. New feature in LO 3.4.x and later, partial fix in Lo 3.5.1 RC-1, the
Table>table properties>borders feature was 'improved'. This broke backwards
compatibility with all Tables that used the 'double line' style. I use tables
exclusively and the double line border style is on every page of my docs. I have
enclosed a couple of bugs for the curious.

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38542
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42750
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47194

This is significant to me, it is how I present project results to my clients, so I
have been testing AOO for a alternate plan if needed.


>
> > There are differences between AOO & LO, significant enough to warrant
> > having a choice in Debian of which one to use.
>
> Someone will have to step up and put the work in to package AOO, for the
> choice to exist "in Debian".

The Apache OO folks do provide .deb files with desktop integration. In my tests
these work well enough on a Debian stable system, though it would be nice to get
the benefits that the Debian LO devs have provided in that packages.

--
Peace,

Greg


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201203111836.52270.gomadtroll@gci.net">http://lists.debian.org/201203111836.52270.gomadtroll@gci.net
 
Old 03-12-2012, 09:00 AM
Chris Davies
 
Default OT Apache Open Office

Greg Madden <gomadtroll@gci.net> wrote:
> 1. About 'file open' : Someone mentioned LO has a stricter compliance
> with ? document format standards, anecdotal experience shows some
> MS docs do not open in LO that do open in AOO. Not really an area of
> concern here, I rarely get a MS document sent to me.

I've found the converse to be true, particularly with templated
documents. At one point I found that I could open templated documents
with LO but in order to print them I had to save then in native OOo
format and reload them in AOO. Fortunately that state of affairs lasted
only a few weeks.

Chris


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: q2u039x6q8.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk">http://lists.debian.org/q2u039x6q8.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk
 
Old 03-12-2012, 02:22 PM
Camaleón
 
Default OT Apache Open Office

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:09:10 -0800, Greg Madden wrote:

> I have been using dev builds, now rc's, of AOO for a while now. For my
> work, archived documents & templates this is working out better, for my
> use scenario, than LO ver 3.4.x and later.

What are those improvements you're seeing?

> There are differences between AOO & LO, significant enough to warrant
> having a choice in Debian of which one to use.

(...)

I can't tell... there were slightly differences in the times it was
OpenOffice but I have lost its track. I prefer to keep close the
LibreOffice suite just because I think it will be a more stable, long
term solution.

I wonder why both projects don't share their (re)sources now that Oracle
is out.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: jjl4bf$28k$7@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/jjl4bf$28k$7@dough.gmane.org
 
Old 03-12-2012, 06:30 PM
Dotan Cohen
 
Default OT Apache Open Office

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 23:09, Greg Madden <gomadtroll@gci.net> wrote:
> There are differences between AOO & LO, significant enough to warrant having a
> choice in Debian of which one to use.
>

What are the significant differences that you have perceived? I might
have to maintain a page outlining the differences if they really do
affect workflow, features, and document compatibility.

--
Dotan Cohen

http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAKDXFkNgZVBad7Vtogg-GOJB-+4Vq0GKK-QHfL5iiB+xYoGLQA@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAKDXFkNgZVBad7Vtogg-GOJB-+4Vq0GKK-QHfL5iiB+xYoGLQA@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 03-12-2012, 08:48 PM
Rene Engelhard
 
Default OT Apache Open Office

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:00:26AM +0000, Chris Davies wrote:
> documents. At one point I found that I could open templated documents
> with LO but in order to print them I had to save then in native OOo
> format and reload them in AOO. Fortunately that state of affairs lasted

This is nonsense. This is both ODF. Not some "native format" of AOO.

Regards,

Rene


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120312214852.GI611@rene-engelhard.de">http://lists.debian.org/20120312214852.GI611@rene-engelhard.de
 
Old 03-12-2012, 08:55 PM
Rene Engelhard
 
Default OT Apache Open Office

Hi,

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 06:36:52PM -0800, Greg Madden wrote:
> > Someone will have to step up and put the work in to package AOO, for the
> > choice to exist "in Debian".
>
> The Apache OO folks do provide .deb files with desktop integration. In my tests
> these work well enough on a Debian stable system, though it would be nice to get
> the benefits that the Debian LO devs have provided in that packages.

I think even getting it built sanely will be an immense tasks. At the beginning
of when LO split afair shortly after in OO configure options needed for sane distro
packaging broke.
Let alone I don't think they have build updates for new library or tool versions.
LibreOffice got them.
OpenOffice.org in the most times got them because distros gave that back - and as
almost all distros major now switched to LibreOffice...

(NB: didn't follow that closely)

And you need to replay all packaging updates adapting for OpenOffice.org changes
which have been in the LibreOffice packaging but are in common (as LibreOffice 3.3
was based on OpenOffice.org 3.3 and 3.4+ is based on 3.4 beta).

And last but not least you have the technical problem that you would
need to violate Debian policy do to so (fonts-opensymbol, python-uno.
Policy mandates those names.)

I think it'd be a simple waste of time without being able to reach the goal.

Regards,

Rene


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120312215547.GJ611@rene-engelhard.de">http://lists.debian.org/20120312215547.GJ611@rene-engelhard.de
 
Old 03-13-2012, 01:09 AM
Greg Madden
 
Default OT Apache Open Office

On Monday 12 March 2012 11:30:19 am Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 23:09, Greg Madden <gomadtroll@gci.net> wrote:
> > There are differences between AOO & LO, significant enough to warrant
> > having a choice in Debian of which one to use.
>
> What are the significant differences that you have perceived? I might
> have to maintain a page outlining the differences if they really do
> affect workflow, features, and document compatibility.


Look at the referenced bug reports, there are attachments to the reports showing
what has happened to my templates & archived docs. others have noticed this also.

To LO devs credit they patched v3.5.x? so that the double lines are no longer
so large that they hide data in the cells for archived docs. Newest bug is for
the double line style not being a close representation of previous bouble line
style, e.g. new docs with tables using that style will not match archived docs
with tables with that style.

As far as maintaining a page with the differences I think it is worth watching how
the new feature in LO concerning table,border line styles plays out. Not only did
it break backwards compatibility in LO, it departs how AOO renders those line
styles also. AOO does not render the double line style created in LO 3.4.x &
later(they are blank), have not tested other table line styles

--
Peace,

Greg


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201203121809.12502.gomadtroll@gci.net">http://lists.debian.org/201203121809.12502.gomadtroll@gci.net
 
Old 03-13-2012, 07:06 AM
Alberto Fuentes
 
Default OT Apache Open Office

On 11/03/12 22:09, Greg Madden wrote:
> I have been using dev builds, now rc's, of AOO for a while now. For
my work,
> archived documents& templates this is working out better, for my use
scenario,

> than LO ver 3.4.x and later.
>
> There are differences between AOO& LO, significant enough to warrant
having a

> choice in Debian of which one to use.
>
> Users can try it out:
>
>
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots

>



Well, basically most of OO devs moved to LO. LO sanitized the code by
translating German comments and variables so everybody can collaborate.
They started to liberate new versions at a constant path. They moved to
the ODF, that from my point of view is great advantage over being fucked
over by Oracle (read this like losing traction from the community) and
being spilled over Apache Fundation to see if they could bring it back
to life...



Dont take me wrong, I love OO, thats why I like to choose LO where the
OO body (code) and spirit (community) has been moved to.


Only time will tell what project survives, I just hope its sooner than
later, and i hope its LO. These are not 2 different projects that give
us choice. Its the same but better (for the reasons I just mentioned)



greets!
aL


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4F5F0001.4090007@qindel.com">http://lists.debian.org/4F5F0001.4090007@qindel.com
 
Old 03-13-2012, 07:39 AM
Chris Davies
 
Default OT Apache Open Office

Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> wrote:
> I've found the converse to be true, particularly with templated
> documents. At one point I found that I could open templated documents
> with LO but in order to print them I had to save then in native OOo
> format and reload them in AOO. Fortunately that state of affairs lasted
> only a few weeks.

Having had a number of complaints (most via private email) that I've
written garbage, I feel obliged to rephrase my statement.

"I've found the converse to be true, particularly with MS Office Word
documents containing (templated) text fields. At one point I found that
I could open such Word documents with LO (AOO wouldn't recognise any
of the field content) but in order to print them via CUPS I either
had to save then in ODF format and reload them in AOO, or export as
PDF and print that from outside LO. Fortunately that state of affairs
lasted only a few weeks.

Whether or not people still think this is garbage is largely irrelevant,
because the fact is that it happened to me for a number of weeks. I'm
happy to accept that it might have been the configuration on my specific
system; without a reference I was unable to confirm this and felt it
inappropriate to file a speculative bug report. I also no longer have
reference to the specific versions of LO and AOO I was using at the time.

Chris


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 5md339x7c8.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk">http://lists.debian.org/5md339x7c8.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:17 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org